(09-18-2017 04:05 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  Frankly, if we wager that football's days as a legal sport are numbered due to CTE, we could position ourselves as national leaders on that score *and* grab a ten (?) year head start on building preeminent programs in all the sports that will later be called upon to fill that vacuum.

I made this exact point on these forums over a year ago. It is painfully self-evident as the way forward at this point.

Quoting myself:

(05-22-2016 09:58 AM)Wiessman Wrote:  I'm going to back dropping football, assuming we can get the NCAA to permit us to do it. Money pit, under increasing scrutiny, takes up a host of scholarships, etc.

I don't care that we just built the EZF. We haven't done anything else to keep up with the pack, and now we are further behind than ever in terms of team quality and conference affiliation. As I see it, the only realistic way for us to turn football into a positive and simultaneously remain viable in D1 is to drop the sport. If we're first out the door and college football unravels over the next 20 years (as it well might), our exit would be looked back on as a masterstroke.

The whole world plays men's soccer, yet we don't? That's very shortsighted. It's obvious what football should be replaced with. As for not having football, UC-Irvine, UCSB, Cal St. Fullerton, and the other Big West, MVC, and Big East members like them (i.e., no football) seem to be doing just fine. UC-Davis went D1 and still has a football team playing in D1AA, and they are struggling mightily in athletics.

If we can't do it right, we shouldn't do it at all. If we can put pride aside, the way forward is clear IMO.

There is no logical reason to believe that dropping football is the way forward to success in other sports.

No logical reason to assume we will be better at at soccer than at football.

No reason to assume that the reasons for Rice's failure to field successful teams will go away if Rice drops football.

Bad football is an argument for dropping football. Things will magically get better for other sports is not.

(09-18-2017 05:46 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  No reason to assume that the reasons for Rice's failure to field successful teams will go away if Rice drops football.

Bad football is an argument for dropping football. Things will magically get better for other sports is not.

You are right Friz. Bad football is not a reason for dropping football. But execrable football is. Football that stinks up the neighborhood and an administration that has no will to improve the situation is. How could we benefit from dropping football.

1. Not having people think about Rice and the three stooges in the same moment.
2. More money to devote to other sports, including keeping coaches like Langley around.
3. Higher overall SAT scores, which could help us regain the top 10.

There are probably many others.

The problem is, the current situation is untenable. We either need to fix it or punt.

Bravo for Illinois' insightful post.

(09-18-2017 05:46 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  No reason to assume that the reasons for Rice's failure to field successful teams will go away if Rice drops football.

Bad football is an argument for dropping football. Things will magically get better for other sports is not.

Dropping football doesn't make the other problems go away. I don't mean to imply that it does.

But football seems to be the biggest challenge for us. And dropping it would mean that we could pour more resources into other programs and start new ones that we would have a better chance of succeeding in. We have shown that, yes, we can be more than respectable in baseball. We looked to be on our way to respectability in basketball, but we suffered a major setback, so the jury is still out on that one.

The point is, I see the potential for a bigger plan. Dropping football doesn't magically fix everything, but it would give us a better opportunity to focus on things that we can and should do better.

Now what the overall plan would be is up for debate. I don't have time for that right now. But I seriously believe that since we don't seem to care any longer about football being consistently respectable, we have to live in the present and pack it in.

Owl 69/70/75 keeps saying that fixing and stabilizing basketball is an almost certain road to a better future for us. I think that has to be a big part of any real reform, no question.

We're never going to be a P5 school again under the current definition (we ostensibly were one during the SWC years). However, we can certainly be a much better D1 representative than we currently are. Gonzaga, Wichita State, Davidson, etc. have demonstrated the viability of the sans-football model.

Dropping football is completely anathema to me. I come from a tiny town in the middle of nowhere. Football is my lifeblood. I wouldn't seriously entertain that unless there's a massive national push over safety that finally tips it into a downward spiral. I'm as embarrassed as anybody else by the decent to terrible performances of the football team over the past decade (most often on the worse end of that spectrum), but I'm still young and optimistic, and I'd rather work to improve football than dump the sport I care most for. I'm also young and broke, though, so I don't have the resources to make any meaningful impact, and I'll be sitting over here as frustrated with the status quo as everybody else sounds for the foreseeable future.

(09-18-2017 03:59 PM)Ranger Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 03:09 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 02:29 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 11:57 AM)Ourland Wrote:  The AAC wouldn't work for Rice either. We need our own regional conference like we had in the SWC. Rice should be playing other Texas schools. Make it about rivalries again.

(09-18-2017 12:03 PM)Ourland Wrote:  [quote='OptimisticOwl' pid='14595897' dateline='1505752425']
We used to be in a very geographically compact conference - the SWC. One of the reasons it died is that the TV footprint was too small

Chasing TV contracts works for P5 schools. They have the product that everyone wants to see. It's big money. We're going to have to decrease travel expenses and depend on ticket sales. Our conference model is all wrong. CUSA West needs to break away and start something of it's own.

Just one problem with your certainly well-intentioned idea. Rice students/alums/fans would not give any greater number of f's about playing UNT, UTSA, La. Tech, UTEP, maybe Tx. St./Ark. St./ULM/ULL, than they currently do about playing Marshall, WKU, MTSU, UAB, FIU, FAU, etc., which anyone can plainly see is zero. The only Rice person who could possibly develop a thrill out of seeing a schedule of local open-admission/commuter schools versus far-flung open-admission/commuter schools is our accountant, who presumably would welcome marginally decreased travel costs and marginally increased ticket sales to *visiting* fans, who will be the only ones in the stadium. Rice still does not have enough in common with your proposed conference-mates to move the needle for Rice folks.

I think it's clear by now that Rice people will not support G5 football. End of story. It's second-class citizenship that renders all our games essentially meaningless exhibitions. No other sport on campus starts its season literally locked out from winning a national championship. Apparently unlike our BOT and AD, Rice people aren't resigned to passively accepting/blindly supporting this state of affairs, and have voted with their feet. Would we accept, say, a downgrade in our accreditation such that our students were no longer eligible for Rhodes Scholarships?

G5 football doesn't compute for Rice. Maybe it does at other places. But not here.

So what do you do, knowing that P5 schools want nothing to do with Rice and never will?

Never is a very strong word.

You're right. What's the next best thing we can do right now until the invitation comes? What we're doing right now isn't working. We have few rivalries and we're flying athletes all over the country. We have an opponent on Saturday that no one around town cares about.

The assumption in the "drop football and reallocate resources to other sports" argument is that the resources would be reallocated to athletics. I'm not sure that is a good assumption.

I will never donate a cent to Rice University if we drop football.

And I am going to be very rich

(09-18-2017 05:35 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  There is no logical reason to believe that dropping football is the way forward to success in other sports.

Really? There's no reason to believe relieving the athletic budget of its largest sinkhole would free up $$ to invest in and improve other programs?

The McKinsey Report had some examples of other schools that dropped football and experienced exactly that, while listing football's removal as one the viable options moving forward.

(09-18-2017 10:26 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 05:35 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  There is no logical reason to believe that dropping football is the way forward to success in other sports.

Really? There's no reason to believe relieving the athletic budget of its largest sinkhole would free up $$ to invest in and improve other programs?

The McKinsey Report had some examples of other schools that dropped football and experienced exactly that, while listing football's removal as one the viable options moving forward.

I don't think football is the largest sinkhole, and Rice's problems aren't primarily revenue-related. Do you really believe the lack of success in, say, volleyball or men's basketball is simply a lack of funds? Or, if those funds were freed up, the university would use them right? By G5 and certainly C-USA standards Rice is paying top dollar for a football coach - how's that working? Yet somehow that same money would translate to good hires for other programs?

(09-18-2017 10:33 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 10:26 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 05:35 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  There is no logical reason to believe that dropping football is the way forward to success in other sports.

Really? There's no reason to believe relieving the athletic budget of its largest sinkhole would free up $$ to invest in and improve other programs?

The McKinsey Report had some examples of other schools that dropped football and experienced exactly that, while listing football's removal as one the viable options moving forward.

I don't think football is the largest sinkhole, and Rice's problems aren't primarily revenue-related. Do you really believe the lack of success in, say, volleyball or men's basketball is simply a lack of funds? Or, if those funds were freed up, the university would use them right? By G5 and certainly C-USA standards Rice is paying top dollar for a football coach - how's that working? Yet somehow that same money would translate to good hires for other programs?

Huh? Yes, football is by far the largest sinkhole, albiet (at least IMO) a necessary one, and Rice's primary problem is revenue-related. To say otherwise is simply ignoring reality.

(09-18-2017 10:03 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  I will never donate a cent to Rice University if we drop football.

And I am going to be very rich

Excited, the joke is on you. We have already dropped football. We should sue the last four or five ADs for athletic malpractice.

I like football, but if given a choice between the disaster we have now and no football, I vote for the latter. And since at present there are no reasonable grounds for thinking things will get better, cut our losses.

(09-18-2017 11:00 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 10:33 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 10:26 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 05:35 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  There is no logical reason to believe that dropping football is the way forward to success in other sports.

Really? There's no reason to believe relieving the athletic budget of its largest sinkhole would free up $$ to invest in and improve other programs?

The McKinsey Report had some examples of other schools that dropped football and experienced exactly that, while listing football's removal as one the viable options moving forward.

I don't think football is the largest sinkhole, and Rice's problems aren't primarily revenue-related. Do you really believe the lack of success in, say, volleyball or men's basketball is simply a lack of funds? Or, if those funds were freed up, the university would use them right? By G5 and certainly C-USA standards Rice is paying top dollar for a football coach - how's that working? Yet somehow that same money would translate to good hires for other programs?

Huh? Yes, football is by far the largest sinkhole, albiet (at least IMO) a necessary one, and Rice's primary problem is revenue-related. To say otherwise is simply ignoring reality.

The football program generates most of the athletic department's revenue outside of the athletic subsidy from the university. Revenue from other sports decreases if Rice drops into an even more obscure conference. Football is at times revenue-positive. Rice came out slightly ahead on the Australia trip, IIRC. No other sport can do that unless they make the postseason, something that will not magically start happening if football is dropped.

Football is a sinkhole only if you include the athletic scholarships as costs. I seriously doubt the university would convert opportunity cost of scholarships into additional subsidy if the football scholarships are eliminated, so there's no real savings for the department there.

Rice athletics did not get to where it is for lack of revenue. Years of mismanagement and institutional neglect explain that. Eliminating football changes nothing there either.

(09-19-2017 07:05 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 11:00 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 10:33 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 10:26 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 05:35 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  There is no logical reason to believe that dropping football is the way forward to success in other sports.

Really? There's no reason to believe relieving the athletic budget of its largest sinkhole would free up $$ to invest in and improve other programs?

The McKinsey Report had some examples of other schools that dropped football and experienced exactly that, while listing football's removal as one the viable options moving forward.

I don't think football is the largest sinkhole, and Rice's problems aren't primarily revenue-related. Do you really believe the lack of success in, say, volleyball or men's basketball is simply a lack of funds? Or, if those funds were freed up, the university would use them right? By G5 and certainly C-USA standards Rice is paying top dollar for a football coach - how's that working? Yet somehow that same money would translate to good hires for other programs?

Huh? Yes, football is by far the largest sinkhole, albiet (at least IMO) a necessary one, and Rice's primary problem is revenue-related. To say otherwise is simply ignoring reality.

The football program generates most of the athletic department's revenue outside of the athletic subsidy from the university. Revenue from other sports decreases if Rice drops into an even more obscure conference. Football is at times revenue-positive. Rice came out slightly ahead on the Australia trip, IIRC. No other sport can do that unless they make the postseason, something that will not magically start happening if football is dropped.

Football is a sinkhole only if you include the athletic scholarships as costs. I seriously doubt the university would convert opportunity cost of scholarships into additional subsidy if the football scholarships are eliminated, so there's no real savings for the department there.

Rice athletics did not get to where it is for lack of revenue. Years of mismanagement and institutional neglect explain that. Eliminating football changes nothing there either.

You can't exclude scholarship costs as that is THE major expense of an athletic department. Football hasn't been revenue positive in 40 years, and the net loss has been growing annually. I also think you are grossly underestimating the cost of football staffing and maintenance, which is VERY significant. Do you have a clue how much it costs to maintain and support the Patterson Center?

Look, as I've said before, I do not support eliminating football, and I'd be VERY disappointed if we did so, but to pretend that our football program is a sinkhole and is adversely affecting the funding of our other athletic programs is just turning a blind eye to the situation.

Scholarship costs are illiquid. The athletic department cannot increase its cash flow by eliminating football scholarships.

You suppose the university would increase financial commitment to other sports as part of dropping football. Why would the administration do that, and why should I take it as a given that other sports would get better if they did?

Cash flow is necessary to function, and it drops if football is eliminated. Budgets for other sports would not spontameously improve. The university would have to increase its financial commitment to them, and do so competently. Why should I believe either would happen?

If the university is being bled white by football, why wouldn't the athletic department subsidy be cut if football is dropped? If costs are not a concern, why drop football?

Let me boil it down:

Some of you argue dropping football leads to basketball success. You have no specifics on how that happens; it seems mostly speculation.

Knowing what I know of my alma mater, I see dropping football leading to a mediocre basketball in an obscure conference.

(09-19-2017 08:08 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Scholarship costs are illiquid. The athletic department cannot increase its cash flow by eliminating football scholarships.

You suppose the university would increase financial commitment to other sports as part of dropping football. Why would the administration do that, and why should I take it as a given that other sports would get better if they did?

Cash flow is necessary to function, and it drops if football is eliminated. Budgets for other sports would not spontameously improve. The university would have to increase its financial commitment to them, and do so competently. Why should I believe either would happen?

If the university is being bled white by football, why wouldn't the athletic department subsidy be cut if football is dropped? If costs are not a concern, why drop football?

Again, I'm fiercely opposed to dropping football. However, you're argument on cash flow makes no sense, IMO. No question, if football was to be dropped, the subsidy to the AD would be reduced substantially, but so long as there remains some size of a subsidy it would most likely benefit the other programs (since today the totality of the BOT subsidy goes into funding the football program).

(09-19-2017 08:31 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Let me boil it down:

Some of you argue dropping football leads to basketball success. You have no specifics on how that happens; it seems mostly speculation.

Knowing what I know of my alma mater, I see dropping football leading to a mediocre basketball in an obscure conference.

While supporting the trajectory of the basketball program, I don't really know that the program can be categorized as 'good' currently.

And CUSA isn't a dumpster fire of a conference already? I will grant you that CUSA has 'name recognition', but so does Kmart, The Dollar Store, and JC Penney, and probably for the same reasons.

Seems we are already at your worst expectations, albeit we had a good trajectory basketball-wise. Using the past tense 'had' because, while I support and hope for the best under Pena, we still have to see if the he can re-steer the program that way after the Rhoades implosion.