(09-21-2016 10:04 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(09-20-2016 09:48 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-20-2016 04:19 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-20-2016 10:41 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(09-18-2016 04:35 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Counting only four year universities (which really is apples to apples), Rice is still #7 in per capita endowment, between Cal Tech and Dartmouth. That's good company.

The key there is "per capita." Rice is a tiny school.

Tulsa produces more NFL players per capita than any other AAC school. They still get their asses handed to them on the field because "per capita" doesn't count for much in sports.

Meanwhile, Texas A&M has an 11 billion endowment, more than double Rice. And that's despite the fact that public schools don't need as big of endowments because they rely on the state for a big portion of their revenue.

You make it sound like per capita is a bad thing, when in fact it's almost always a good thing. E.g., if country A has a gross GNP of $1 trillion and a per capita GNP of $7,000, its people are on average a lot poorer than a country B with a gross GNP of $300m but a per capita GNP of $50,000. You know, in the same way that it's much better to be one of three people splitting a $10 million lottery ticket than one of 100 people splitting a $50 million lottery ticket.

And in this case, "per capita" is a positive thing, because it means the school has more resources to spend per student, and it doesn't have as much sprawling infrastructure to support. It's a lot better for a campus of 6,000 to have a $5B endowment rather than a campus of 40,000. Yes, there is also value in sheer gross size: A school with a $5B gross endowment might be able to spend $400m on a project that a school with a $1B endowment could not afford, even if the latter has a higher per capita endowment. But that doesn't really apply here, it is only a disadvantage Rice would have compared to a handful of schools, like the richest Ivy's, not anyone in the SEC.

And FWIW, the TAMU we typically refer to, the SEC member at College Station, has an endowment of about $4.7B, not $11B. The $11B figure is for the TAMU system as a whole, which includes 10 other campuses.

And $4.7B for a school with 60,000 students isn't nearly the same as $5.7B (Rice) for 6,000 students.

I don't want to be called on my bad math again, so I won't say for sure, but I would bet that Rice's per-capita endowment IS greater than the combined per-capita endowments of ALL the SEC schools, including TAMU.

And state universities don't get nearly as much from the state as they used to.

Link? I could argue they get more due to federal subsidies.

Here is the % of the Texas budget in 1985 vs. 2013:

Comparison 1984-5 2012-3
503,000,000 2,350,000,000
State general revenue 47% 13%
Available University Fund 12% 8%
Gifts and endowments 3% 9%
Tuition and fees 5% 25%
Research grants and other 33% 45%

The AUF is the income from the Permanent University Fund (founded with "worthless" land in West Texas that was later discovered to have oil).

(09-17-2016 08:39 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(09-16-2016 10:41 PM)stever20 Wrote:  wow....
http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...ylor-bears

The Rice marching band formed a IX Friday night at the halftime of a 38-10 loss to visiting Baylor in an apparent reference to the sexual-assault scandal that has rocked the Waco, Texas, school this year.

Yeah, that's not going to help Rice trying to get into the Big 12 at all....

Plus the crowd size borders pitiful. We have more fans at HS games here. They need to be FCS.

Or D-III playing with NYU and crew.

The thing is, if Rice got in the B12, they could spend $150-200 million to renovate their stadium and facilities at a blink of an eye. Baseball facilities get it all now. Problem is, nobody goes to the football games. I remember when we were in CUSA and played there. It depleted the energy in the teams.

(09-21-2016 08:58 PM)Goldenbuc Wrote:  The thing is, if Rice got in the B12, they could spend $150-200 million to renovate their stadium and facilities at a blink of an eye. Baseball facilities get it all now. Problem is, nobody goes to the football games. I remember when we were in CUSA and played there. It depleted the energy in the teams.

If we win consistently we can put around 30,000 in the stadium. Problem has been that we can't sustain multiple winning seasons in a row. Another problem is that our stadium is built for 72,000. Now it will only seat around 50,000 but that still looks fairly empty with 20,000 people there. We had 27,000 last week and it was loud and fun, but looked relatively eempty. I have no doubt that if we had a run like Houston has had the last 2 years we would be putting 30,000 people in the stands. 50 years of apathy is hard to overcome.

(09-21-2016 10:13 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 10:04 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(09-20-2016 09:48 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-20-2016 04:19 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-20-2016 10:41 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  The key there is "per capita." Rice is a tiny school.

Tulsa produces more NFL players per capita than any other AAC school. They still get their asses handed to them on the field because "per capita" doesn't count for much in sports.

Meanwhile, Texas A&M has an 11 billion endowment, more than double Rice. And that's despite the fact that public schools don't need as big of endowments because they rely on the state for a big portion of their revenue.

You make it sound like per capita is a bad thing, when in fact it's almost always a good thing. E.g., if country A has a gross GNP of $1 trillion and a per capita GNP of $7,000, its people are on average a lot poorer than a country B with a gross GNP of $300m but a per capita GNP of $50,000. You know, in the same way that it's much better to be one of three people splitting a $10 million lottery ticket than one of 100 people splitting a $50 million lottery ticket.

And in this case, "per capita" is a positive thing, because it means the school has more resources to spend per student, and it doesn't have as much sprawling infrastructure to support. It's a lot better for a campus of 6,000 to have a $5B endowment rather than a campus of 40,000. Yes, there is also value in sheer gross size: A school with a $5B gross endowment might be able to spend $400m on a project that a school with a $1B endowment could not afford, even if the latter has a higher per capita endowment. But that doesn't really apply here, it is only a disadvantage Rice would have compared to a handful of schools, like the richest Ivy's, not anyone in the SEC.

And FWIW, the TAMU we typically refer to, the SEC member at College Station, has an endowment of about $4.7B, not $11B. The $11B figure is for the TAMU system as a whole, which includes 10 other campuses.

And $4.7B for a school with 60,000 students isn't nearly the same as $5.7B (Rice) for 6,000 students.

I don't want to be called on my bad math again, so I won't say for sure, but I would bet that Rice's per-capita endowment IS greater than the combined per-capita endowments of ALL the SEC schools, including TAMU.

And state universities don't get nearly as much from the state as they used to.

Link? I could argue they get more due to federal subsidies.

Here is the % of the Texas budget in 1985 vs. 2013:

Comparison 1984-5 2012-3
503,000,000 2,350,000,000
State general revenue 47% 13%
Available University Fund 12% 8%
Gifts and endowments 3% 9%
Tuition and fees 5% 25%
Research grants and other 33% 45%

The AUF is the income from the Permanent University Fund (founded with "worthless" land in West Texas that was later discovered to have oil).

Federally subsidized loans. Tuition is out of control.