Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Chronicle article re: Bailiff
Author Message
westsidewolf1989 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,220
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation: 74
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #41
RE: Chronicle article re: Bailiff
(11-14-2017 02:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We need both a stronger university commitment and improvement in the coaching area. One won’t get it done without the other. My own belief is that it is going to have to be incremental. BOT funds something, athletics shows a positive ROI, BOT springs for more. BOT just sprung for a large hunk of cost of EZF. The ROI on that investment so far does not make a compelling case for additional funding.

100% agree with this.
11-14-2017 03:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Neely's Ghost Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 230
Joined: Sep 2017
Reputation: 0
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #42
RE: Chronicle article re: Bailiff
Chicken and the egg... or is it Chicken or the egg? Anyway... Find a winner... A coach that is uniquely capable and motivated to win against the odds and in seemingly difficult circumstances.... When you win, the investment comes. Rice has won before. DB has even enjoyed a run where the Owls were prominent if not relevant. And on that run, the money and investment came. (hence the Patterson Building exist as well as a scoreboard, a practice field, etc.) ...mostly cosmetic investments, but investments nevertheless)... But a winner changes the culture of the whole discussion.... Money up front or not.

and before the bashing comes about winning in our "existing state".. Winning, when you are at the bottom is relative. Momentum breeds momentum and good habits turn losses into wins. Good habits and momentum turn into confidence which makes average players good and good players great.

The answer is a winner... It solves all issues. Someone that is hell bent on the result... Demands great performance and never excuses lackluster effort or mental unpreparedness. Graham won, Morris has gone into a tough spot and won, Bailiff won (regardless of credit or blame) and program investment came.

You're either winning or losing... Get a winner...Some winners may have once been losers and some losers can turn into winners.... Find someone that will stop at nothing to win.... We need to "Row the Boat" if you'll pardon the expression....

w i n n e r
(This post was last modified: 11-14-2017 03:22 PM by Neely's Ghost.)
11-14-2017 03:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gravy Owl Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,394
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 104
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #43
RE: Chronicle article re: Bailiff
(11-14-2017 02:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We need both a stronger university commitment and improvement in the coaching area. One won’t get it done without the other. My own belief is that it is going to have to be incremental. BOT funds something, athletics shows a positive ROI, BOT springs for more. BOT just sprung for a large hunk of cost of EZF. The ROI on that investment so far does not make a compelling case for additional funding.

It was rumored, must have been after 2014, that Tulsa wanted to hire Thurmond, and that our football program requested and received additional funds to give him a raise and retain him. Two years later, he was the scapegoat.

If that’s true, then I have to think the endowment folks are going to be skeptical of further increases for either facilities or coaches.
11-14-2017 03:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #44
RE: Chronicle article re: Bailiff
(11-14-2017 03:28 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  
(11-14-2017 02:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We need both a stronger university commitment and improvement in the coaching area. One won’t get it done without the other. My own belief is that it is going to have to be incremental. BOT funds something, athletics shows a positive ROI, BOT springs for more. BOT just sprung for a large hunk of cost of EZF. The ROI on that investment so far does not make a compelling case for additional funding.
It was rumored, must have been after 2014, that Tulsa wanted to hire Thurmond, and that our football program requested and received additional funds to give him a raise and retain him. Two years later, he was the scapegoat.
If that’s true, then I have to think the endowment folks are going to be skeptical of further increases for either facilities or coaches.

I think there has been too much scapegoating of assistants. The one constant has been the guy at the top, and the same problems have persisted through various coordinators and position coaches. That speaks volumes to me.
11-14-2017 04:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,279
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1284
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #45
RE: Chronicle article re: Bailiff
(11-14-2017 12:38 PM)McHargue Wrote:  "Sustaining success is much harder than a flash in the pan and requires an institutional commitment beyond hiring a coach."

This a very important point. Young guns that come in and produce will not stay longer than 3 years if they know that support doesn't exist, and that repeated turnover is damaging.

I know the last three years have been damaging as well, but both can be true.

Both ARE true....

But the reality is that you're going to have turnover in coaches... either because they aren't good and need to be replaced or because they are good and need to rise.

When people aren't succeeding, that usually means you don't want to promote from within unless you're (as an example) doing very well on offense but can't stop anyone... you fire the head guy for not solving the defense and perhaps promote the OC as HC? That's rare I admit.

In the other direction, you promote what is working... i.e. if your chief gets hired away, you ABSOLUTELY promote the OC as HC.

Perhaps we should have promoted Applewhite when Todd left?

Note that in Basketball, we replaced a departing coach with one of his assistants thus keeping SOME degree of continuity after what has been seen as success.

The REALITY for Rice is that there are roughly 50 HC jobs in college alone that pay more than we ever will... and perhaps 150 coordinator jobs that pay more than we'd pay our coordinators... and of course, perhaps another 100 that pay more than we pay our assistants.

If you're keeping coaches at Rice, 90+% of the time it will be because nobody else really values them much more than you do.

Unless something they do works at Rice, but won't work many other places.

PERHAPS the problem is that David's success, while measurable, did not put measurably more dollars in the cupboards with which to pay the raise he got for succeeding... which only widened the gap between him and his coaches and perhaps even shrinking the budget for their replacements as opposed to having more money for assistants. We want the University to pay more for 10-3 than 3-10, but the reality is that they don't see much of a financial difference between the two... MOSTLY because of whom most of those 10 wins were against and half of them were 'away' or against a school that nobody here cared about.

We need to tie coaching pay to revenue, not wins... especially revenue generated by things like ticket sales, marketing and branding so as to de-emphasize simply selling the kids out for losses. THAT way, if they do well, we have more money to pay them without gutting the assistants (or just leaving them behind).

One of the biggest reasons I've promoted RU is that while he certainly would like to be rewarded for wins... his overall philosophy (which isn't a 'scheme' per se) is a cerebral one. It would work at Rice and few other places and absolutely appeals to the Med Center and 'campus'. The only other places he could really take his philosophy and have it make a difference would be Duke, Stanford, Vandy and Northwestern.

Everyone else (literally any coach you can name other than guys running the bone) appeals to the same people that UH appeals to.

You then hire assistants and coordinators and EXPECT them to leave, whether they are good or not... because the FOOTBALL is essentially the same.

It's everything else that is different with RU, and RICE
(This post was last modified: 11-14-2017 04:38 PM by Hambone10.)
11-14-2017 04:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
westsidewolf1989 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,220
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation: 74
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #46
RE: Chronicle article re: Bailiff
(11-14-2017 04:34 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  We need to tie coaching pay to revenue, not wins... especially revenue generated by things like ticket sales, marketing and branding so as to de-emphasize simply selling the kids out for losses. THAT way, if they do well, we have more money to pay them without gutting the assistants (or just leaving them behind).

Just my opinion, but I'm not really sure how you could ever use this philosophy as a selling point for 99% of coaches. A coach's job is not branding or marketing (other than the marketing organically generated via wins, newspaper press, SportsCenter exposure, etc.). Maybe I'm misunderstanding your comment, but I can't imagine a potential head coach wanting to tie his compensation to the abilities of an athletic department's marketing/ticketing staff, which are people he does not get to handpick, unlike his coaching assistants.
11-14-2017 04:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
75src Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,591
Joined: Mar 2009
Reputation: 25
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #47
RE: Chronicle article re: Bailiff
And the administration must have hated the seniors by not bringing in better coaches before the start of the season. One problem is that there are not enough seniors so we are going with a freshman at QB etc.

quote='BufflOwl' pid='14770463' dateline='1510442839']
(11-11-2017 05:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(11-11-2017 05:37 PM)BufflOwl Wrote:  
(11-11-2017 02:17 PM)Antarius Wrote:  1-8... two years in a row. Fun times.

Are we still supposed to be hating the coaches and hailing the seniors? Or can we put some blame on the seniors now?

Only if you think they're doing it on purpose/capable of more and yet choosing not to do so/haven't earned their scholarships.

I say that different from the coaches in that coaches are paid professionals and they chose the players. If the players simply aren't good enough, then the coaches did a poor job of teaching or evaluation. If the players aren't earning their scholarships in terms of their effort, then being a 'good guy' who 'gets rice' has worked against us.

“This group of seniors aren’t trying hard enough and are way more capable than they are performing on the field on Saturday / Sunday if they are in Australia. They should feel bad they got their coaches fired. All of them.”

That’s ok? There should be some of that if that’s allowed. If it’s not allowed then never mind. Let me know what’s ok and I’ll blame that person.
[/quote]
11-14-2017 04:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
75src Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,591
Joined: Mar 2009
Reputation: 25
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #48
RE: Chronicle article re: Bailiff
A new coach will probably demand improvements.

(11-14-2017 03:16 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  
(11-14-2017 02:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We need both a stronger university commitment and improvement in the coaching area. One won’t get it done without the other. My own belief is that it is going to have to be incremental. BOT funds something, athletics shows a positive ROI, BOT springs for more. BOT just sprung for a large hunk of cost of EZF. The ROI on that investment so far does not make a compelling case for additional funding.

100% agree with this.
11-14-2017 04:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #49
RE: Chronicle article re: Bailiff
(11-14-2017 04:34 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(11-14-2017 12:38 PM)McHargue Wrote:  "Sustaining success is much harder than a flash in the pan and requires an institutional commitment beyond hiring a coach."
This a very important point. Young guns that come in and produce will not stay longer than 3 years if they know that support doesn't exist, and that repeated turnover is damaging.
I know the last three years have been damaging as well, but both can be true.
Both ARE true....
But the reality is that you're going to have turnover in coaches... either because they aren't good and need to be replaced or because they are good and need to rise.
When people aren't succeeding, that usually means you don't want to promote from within unless you're (as an example) doing very well on offense but can't stop anyone... you fire the head guy for not solving the defense and perhaps promote the OC as HC? That's rare I admit.
In the other direction, you promote what is working... i.e. if your chief gets hired away, you ABSOLUTELY promote the OC as HC.
Perhaps we should have promoted Applewhite when Todd left?
Note that in Basketball, we replaced a departing coach with one of his assistants thus keeping SOME degree of continuity after what has been seen as success.
The REALITY for Rice is that there are roughly 50 HC jobs in college alone that pay more than we ever will... and perhaps 150 coordinator jobs that pay more than we'd pay our coordinators... and of course, perhaps another 100 that pay more than we pay our assistants.
If you're keeping coaches at Rice, 90+% of the time it will be because nobody else really values them much more than you do.
Unless something they do works at Rice, but won't work many other places.
PERHAPS the problem is that David's success, while measurable, did not put measurably more dollars in the cupboards with which to pay the raise he got for succeeding... which only widened the gap between him and his coaches and perhaps even shrinking the budget for their replacements as opposed to having more money for assistants. We want the University to pay more for 10-3 than 3-10, but the reality is that they don't see much of a financial difference between the two... MOSTLY because of whom most of those 10 wins were against and half of them were 'away' or against a school that nobody here cared about.
We need to tie coaching pay to revenue, not wins... especially revenue generated by things like ticket sales, marketing and branding so as to de-emphasize simply selling the kids out for losses. THAT way, if they do well, we have more money to pay them without gutting the assistants (or just leaving them behind).
One of the biggest reasons I've promoted RU is that while he certainly would like to be rewarded for wins... his overall philosophy (which isn't a 'scheme' per se) is a cerebral one. It would work at Rice and few other places and absolutely appeals to the Med Center and 'campus'. The only other places he could really take his philosophy and have it make a difference would be Duke, Stanford, Vandy and Northwestern.
Everyone else (literally any coach you can name other than guys running the bone) appeals to the same people that UH appeals to.
You then hire assistants and coordinators and EXPECT them to leave, whether they are good or not... because the FOOTBALL is essentially the same.
It's everything else that is different with RU, and RICE

The big problem is that absolutely NOTHING has been tied to revenues for 50 years, long before you and RU got on campus. That's how we got into this mess. I remember at the meeting of alums to discuss replacing Ray Alborn, Hackerman made a big deal that athletics was overspending its budget. I asked him, were they overspending expenses or undergenerating revenues, and he said very directly that the problem was revenue shortfalls. But nobody picked upon that and started addressing it.

While we agree on a lot of things, we do have certain different perspectives, probably as much because you are in Cali and I'm here in Texas. I get the impression that RU sometimes feels like I don't champion him as much as I should. I am going public here with a couple of my thoughts in this regard, and I apologize if I step on any toes in so doing.

I have two thoughts. One, until the university rethinks its position toward corporate support of athletics, I tend to question whether his approach is even possible. Not that it's right or wrong, there's no question in my mind that it's right. I'm just not sure the university is prepared to do the right thing here. Two, I think the level of involvement with the Med Center that is needed is way more than can be done with leaving enough time to handle the coaching responsibilities. Right now, I think the Med Center side justifiably requires more time and effort than the coaching side. I'm just not sure that anyone, even with RU's capabilities, could do justice to both.

Bottom line: I think the approach that RU has crafted (and I assume you have helped with) is absolute genius--both the on-the-field strategic and tactical concepts and the off-the-field Med Center involvement. I'm just not sure that one person can bring both off at the same time. I've been trying to figure out a way that I think it could work. Lord knows it's exactly what we need to make work.
11-14-2017 04:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #50
RE: Chronicle article re: Bailiff
(11-14-2017 04:42 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  
(11-14-2017 04:34 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  We need to tie coaching pay to revenue, not wins... especially revenue generated by things like ticket sales, marketing and branding so as to de-emphasize simply selling the kids out for losses. THAT way, if they do well, we have more money to pay them without gutting the assistants (or just leaving them behind).
Just my opinion, but I'm not really sure how you could ever use this philosophy as a selling point for 99% of coaches. A coach's job is not branding or marketing (other than the marketing organically generated via wins, newspaper press, SportsCenter exposure, etc.). Maybe I'm misunderstanding your comment, but I can't imagine a potential head coach wanting to tie his compensation to the abilities of an athletic department's marketing/ticketing staff, which are people he does not get to handpick, unlike his coaching assistants.

Do you really think that Mike Leach wouldn't jump at that kind of arrangement? Or Nick Saban? Or Lou Holtz? Probably not at Rice, but at a place that supported them, their egos would jump at it.

Yes, there are guys who wouldn't want that. Guys that we don't want.
(This post was last modified: 11-14-2017 04:58 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
11-14-2017 04:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
75src Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,591
Joined: Mar 2009
Reputation: 25
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #51
RE: Chronicle article re: Bailiff
I remember talking to Dean the former athletic department accountant about the problems of Rice athletics. He was proud that the athletic budget had been held to 5% of the total athletic budget. I thought looking at it as just a cost center was what was wrong with Rice athletics because we have let our inflation adjusted revenues drop in the last 50 years when other schools were improving. `We were probably doing better than A&M 50 years ago but that has really changed.
11-14-2017 05:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mrbig Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,662
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 127
I Root For: Rice
Location: New Orleans
Post: #52
RE: Chronicle article re: Bailiff
(11-14-2017 04:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  While we agree on a lot of things, we do have certain different perspectives, probably as much because you are in Cali and I'm here in Texas. I get the impression that RU sometimes feels like I don't champion him as much as I should. I am going public here with a couple of my thoughts in this regard, and I apologize if I step on any toes in so doing.

I have two thoughts. One, until the university rethinks its position toward corporate support of athletics, I tend to question whether his approach is even possible. Not that it's right or wrong, there's no question in my mind that it's right. I'm just not sure the university is prepared to do the right thing here. Two, I think the level of involvement with the Med Center that is needed is way more than can be done with leaving enough time to handle the coaching responsibilities. Right now, I think the Med Center side justifiably requires more time and effort than the coaching side. I'm just not sure that anyone, even with RU's capabilities, could do justice to both.

Bottom line: I think the approach that RU has crafted (and I assume you have helped with) is absolute genius--both the on-the-field strategic and tactical concepts and the off-the-field Med Center involvement. I'm just not sure that one person can bring both off at the same time. I've been trying to figure out a way that I think it could work. Lord knows it's exactly what we need to make work.

Lots of Rice alums work in the med center. Find some who can help spearhead this to take some of the pressure off RU. I know 2 Rice baseball season ticketholders (for more than 1 decade) who enjoy football and work in the med center. I'm sure there are plenty more.
11-14-2017 06:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,279
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1284
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #53
RE: Chronicle article re: Bailiff
(11-14-2017 04:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(11-14-2017 04:42 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  
(11-14-2017 04:34 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  We need to tie coaching pay to revenue, not wins... especially revenue generated by things like ticket sales, marketing and branding so as to de-emphasize simply selling the kids out for losses. THAT way, if they do well, we have more money to pay them without gutting the assistants (or just leaving them behind).
Just my opinion, but I'm not really sure how you could ever use this philosophy as a selling point for 99% of coaches. A coach's job is not branding or marketing (other than the marketing organically generated via wins, newspaper press, SportsCenter exposure, etc.). Maybe I'm misunderstanding your comment, but I can't imagine a potential head coach wanting to tie his compensation to the abilities of an athletic department's marketing/ticketing staff, which are people he does not get to handpick, unlike his coaching assistants.

Do you really think that Mike Leach wouldn't jump at that kind of arrangement? Or Nick Saban? Or Lou Holtz? Probably not at Rice, but at a place that supported them, their egos would jump at it.

Yes, there are guys who wouldn't want that. Guys that we don't want.

Yes... One more thing....

First, 99% of coaches wouldn't be on that plan... Only the 'head' coach. Everyone else gets paid the going rate and they are measured and paid by wins and losses. If a coach is worth it, the head coach can share his marketing revenue.

Said differently, and of course I'm over-simplifying.... rather than give Bailiff a bump from 500k-900k for winning 10 rather than 4, we keep him at 500k for coaching football, and give him say 50% of the increase in revenue. He can use some of that for other coaches if he wants, but the 'budget' as far as the University is concerned is the same.

In healthcare, we'd love this arrangement. We do it all the time. The Hospital pays you a stipend based on their history of billing and collections, and you get to keep increases in the billing and collections because you 'added value'.

This is actually how most of the world works, especially in the 'CEO' model of football.

I'll say it a third way

We Hire Coach 'Next' for 500k, plus let's just say $1mm for his assistants and another $1mm for equipment etc. That's $2.5mm

The next year we win more games and we are asked to pay an additional 100k to keep the assistants... Where does that money come from? Equipment.

The year after, we win more and the coach is approached by ESU for $750k, so we have to offer him $750k to keep him. Where does THAT money come from?

If revenues aren't increased either because of actual dollars OR because of increased buy-in from the BOT, then we have to start cutting corners... and 4 years later, just as we should be hitting our stride, the cuts in facilities and equipment and deferred maintenance and coaching and recruiting budgets start to bite us.

Sound familiar?
(This post was last modified: 11-14-2017 06:27 PM by Hambone10.)
11-14-2017 06:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #54
RE: Chronicle article re: Bailiff
(11-14-2017 06:27 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(11-14-2017 04:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(11-14-2017 04:42 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  
(11-14-2017 04:34 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  We need to tie coaching pay to revenue, not wins... especially revenue generated by things like ticket sales, marketing and branding so as to de-emphasize simply selling the kids out for losses. THAT way, if they do well, we have more money to pay them without gutting the assistants (or just leaving them behind).
Just my opinion, but I'm not really sure how you could ever use this philosophy as a selling point for 99% of coaches. A coach's job is not branding or marketing (other than the marketing organically generated via wins, newspaper press, SportsCenter exposure, etc.). Maybe I'm misunderstanding your comment, but I can't imagine a potential head coach wanting to tie his compensation to the abilities of an athletic department's marketing/ticketing staff, which are people he does not get to handpick, unlike his coaching assistants.

Do you really think that Mike Leach wouldn't jump at that kind of arrangement? Or Nick Saban? Or Lou Holtz? Probably not at Rice, but at a place that supported them, their egos would jump at it.

Yes, there are guys who wouldn't want that. Guys that we don't want.

Yes... One more thing....

First, 99% of coaches wouldn't be on that plan... Only the 'head' coach. Everyone else gets paid the going rate and they are measured and paid by wins and losses. If a coach is worth it, the head coach can share his marketing revenue.

Said differently, and of course I'm over-simplifying.... rather than give Bailiff a bump from 500k-900k for winning 10 rather than 4, we keep him at 500k for coaching football, and give him say 50% of the increase in revenue. He can use some of that for other coaches if he wants, but the 'budget' as far as the University is concerned is the same.

In healthcare, we'd love this arrangement. We do it all the time. The Hospital pays you a stipend based on their history of billing and collections, and you get to keep increases in the billing and collections because you 'added value'.

This is actually how most of the world works, especially in the 'CEO' model of football.

I'll say it a third way

We Hire Coach 'Next' for 500k, plus let's just say $1mm for his assistants and another $1mm for equipment etc. That's $2.5mm

The next year we win more games and we are asked to pay an additional 100k to keep the assistants... Where does that money come from? Equipment.

The year after, we win more and the coach is approached by ESU for $750k, so we have to offer him $750k to keep him. Where does THAT money come from?

If revenues aren't increased either because of actual dollars OR because of increased buy-in from the BOT, then we have to start cutting corners... and 4 years later, just as we should be hitting our stride, the cuts in facilities and equipment and deferred maintenance and coaching and recruiting budgets start to bite us.

Sound familiar?

Unfortunately, spot on.
11-14-2017 06:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,279
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1284
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #55
RE: Chronicle article re: Bailiff
(11-14-2017 04:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The big problem is that absolutely NOTHING has been tied to revenues for 50 years, long before you and RU got on campus. That's how we got into this mess. I remember at the meeting of alums to discuss replacing Ray Alborn, Hackerman made a big deal that athletics was overspending its budget. I asked him, were they overspending expenses or undergenerating revenues, and he said very directly that the problem was revenue shortfalls. But nobody picked upon that and started addressing it.

While we agree on a lot of things, we do have certain different perspectives, probably as much because you are in Cali and I'm here in Texas. I get the impression that RU sometimes feels like I don't champion him as much as I should. I am going public here with a couple of my thoughts in this regard, and I apologize if I step on any toes in so doing.

I have two thoughts. One, until the university rethinks its position toward corporate support of athletics, I tend to question whether his approach is even possible. Not that it's right or wrong, there's no question in my mind that it's right. I'm just not sure the university is prepared to do the right thing here. Two, I think the level of involvement with the Med Center that is needed is way more than can be done with leaving enough time to handle the coaching responsibilities. Right now, I think the Med Center side justifiably requires more time and effort than the coaching side. I'm just not sure that anyone, even with RU's capabilities, could do justice to both.

Bottom line: I think the approach that RU has crafted (and I assume you have helped with) is absolute genius--both the on-the-field strategic and tactical concepts and the off-the-field Med Center involvement. I'm just not sure that one person can bring both off at the same time. I've been trying to figure out a way that I think it could work. Lord knows it's exactly what we need to make work.

I think you're spot on.... with the only caveat being... we only don't know because we haven't tried.

I believe that the money in our approach collectively would fund not only RU, but an external staff... essentially the NFP that other Athletic departments have. I agree that he probably would end up being more of a CEO type than 'hands on', but that describes all sorts of coaches in this day.

Putting dollars and making assumptions, I think we'd ultimately have to pay our OC and DC what some P5 guys make because of the demands we'd place on them, and one would be the Assistant HC making perhaps as much as RUs base plus some bonuses... but only if they're performing well enough to do it.

If they aren't performing well enough to deserve that money, then you don't pay it to them...
11-14-2017 08:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,112
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #56
RE: Chronicle article re: Bailiff
(11-14-2017 01:03 PM)McHargue Wrote:  I think the "full percentage" is not an actual number but more of a measure of effort. Our research is given 100% or A+ effort where athletics is.. Not. I'm not saying we need to devote the same resources to football that we do to research because that's not the mission of the university, nor should it be. However we clearly do not prioritize athletics and I think it is a blemish on the reputation of Rice, where it could be another strength.

Do you think that the BOT would be meeting their fiduciary duty to increase football outlays by 100 per cent?

Look, I am a FB supporter, would love to see it succeed. But, the objective side of me sees that if the BOT were to substantially increase the net outlay to the program, there would be real issues as to their adherence to the fiduciary duty they owe to Rice by sitting on the board.

The duties of a board for an institute of higher learning are *far* different than the core duty of a normal corporate board of 'maximizing shareholder value'. And even different than the duty owed by a board for a charitable cause or foundation.

I would *love* it to see the BOT toss the resources to be '100 per cent' funded (whatever the h-ll that is...), but the FB program is in such a position that it may *very well* be funded at the '100 per cent level' even at the current level and given the duty owed by the BOT to Rice.

So as much as I would love to emotionally feel shirked by the BOT funding level, it could very well be at the upper limit given the ROI that the FB enjoys.

Rice FB has dug a huge hole for itself; and a cast of characters shares the blame over the course of thirty some-odd years. The problem is that the BOT hands may very well tied on the issue of substantially increased funding to a '100 per cent level' as seems to be wanted.
11-14-2017 09:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,112
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #57
RE: Chronicle article re: Bailiff
(11-14-2017 03:16 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  
(11-14-2017 02:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We need both a stronger university commitment and improvement in the coaching area. One won’t get it done without the other. My own belief is that it is going to have to be incremental. BOT funds something, athletics shows a positive ROI, BOT springs for more. BOT just sprung for a large hunk of cost of EZF. The ROI on that investment so far does not make a compelling case for additional funding.

100% agree with this.

+1.
11-14-2017 09:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
gsloth Offline
perpetually tired
*

Posts: 6,654
Joined: Aug 2007
Reputation: 54
I Root For: Rice&underdogs
Location: Central VA

Donators
Post: #58
RE: Chronicle article re: Bailiff
(11-14-2017 09:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(11-14-2017 01:03 PM)McHargue Wrote:  I think the "full percentage" is not an actual number but more of a measure of effort. Our research is given 100% or A+ effort where athletics is.. Not. I'm not saying we need to devote the same resources to football that we do to research because that's not the mission of the university, nor should it be. However we clearly do not prioritize athletics and I think it is a blemish on the reputation of Rice, where it could be another strength.

Do you think that the BOT would be meeting their fiduciary duty to increase football outlays by 100 per cent?

Look, I am a FB supporter, would love to see it succeed. But, the objective side of me sees that if the BOT were to substantially increase the net outlay to the program, there would be real issues as to their adherence to the fiduciary duty they owe to Rice by sitting on the board.

The duties of a board for an institute of higher learning are *far* different than the core duty of a normal corporate board of 'maximizing shareholder value'. And even different than the duty owed by a board for a charitable cause or foundation.

I would *love* it to see the BOT toss the resources to be '100 per cent' funded (whatever the h-ll that is...), but the FB program is in such a position that it may *very well* be funded at the '100 per cent level' even at the current level and given the duty owed by the BOT to Rice.

So as much as I would love to emotionally feel shirked by the BOT funding level, it could very well be at the upper limit given the ROI that the FB enjoys.

Rice FB has dug a huge hole for itself; and a cast of characters shares the blame over the course of thirty some-odd years. The problem is that the BOT hands may very well tied on the issue of substantially increased funding to a '100 per cent level' as seems to be wanted.

On the boards's fiduciary responsibility, there are lots of programs, and even G5 programs, that have larger athletic department deficits than what Rice runs, and that's at schools with much smaller endowments than what Rice has. So clearly some boards have a view that is different, when it comes to institutional subsidies, than others do.

(Rutgers, one of the worst offenders year-in and year-out (even before last year's $40M deficit), is definitely starting to get significant pushback from the faculty. And we know about Cal's struggles on debt service.)

I'm not trying to say which is right or wrong, but it's interesting to consider that side of the coin, too.
11-15-2017 09:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mrbig Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,662
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 127
I Root For: Rice
Location: New Orleans
Post: #59
RE: Chronicle article re: Bailiff
(11-14-2017 09:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(11-14-2017 01:03 PM)McHargue Wrote:  I think the "full percentage" is not an actual number but more of a measure of effort. Our research is given 100% or A+ effort where athletics is.. Not. I'm not saying we need to devote the same resources to football that we do to research because that's not the mission of the university, nor should it be. However we clearly do not prioritize athletics and I think it is a blemish on the reputation of Rice, where it could be another strength.

Do you think that the BOT would be meeting their fiduciary duty to increase football outlays by 100 per cent?

Look, I am a FB supporter, would love to see it succeed. But, the objective side of me sees that if the BOT were to substantially increase the net outlay to the program, there would be real issues as to their adherence to the fiduciary duty they owe to Rice by sitting on the board.

The duties of a board for an institute of higher learning are *far* different than the core duty of a normal corporate board of 'maximizing shareholder value'. And even different than the duty owed by a board for a charitable cause or foundation.

I would *love* it to see the BOT toss the resources to be '100 per cent' funded (whatever the h-ll that is...), but the FB program is in such a position that it may *very well* be funded at the '100 per cent level' even at the current level and given the duty owed by the BOT to Rice.

I'm not sure how much different people would like to see dedicated to Rice Football or Rice Athletics. But Rice had an operating budget of $660 million last fiscal year. You can dig through the recent financial statements if you are so inclined.

My intuition is that an extra $2 million could be committed to football for operating expenses (equipment, recruiting, coaching salaries) for 10 years to see how it goes, along with a 1-time investment to finish the EZF properly. That would be a drop-in-the-bucket for Rice's expenditures, would not do any long-term harm to the endowment, and would give the program a little more of an opportunity to improve itself. If the university starts seeing some ROI (not necessarily financial, it could just be increased visibility that pays off in other ways), then consider further investment. If not, then start scaling back. But in most situations, you have to have money to make money, and Rice football by all accounts does not have much money right now (other than paying our head coach a reasonable salary).
11-15-2017 09:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,540
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #60
RE: Chronicle article re: Bailiff
(11-15-2017 09:53 AM)mrbig Wrote:  
(11-14-2017 09:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(11-14-2017 01:03 PM)McHargue Wrote:  I think the "full percentage" is not an actual number but more of a measure of effort. Our research is given 100% or A+ effort where athletics is.. Not. I'm not saying we need to devote the same resources to football that we do to research because that's not the mission of the university, nor should it be. However we clearly do not prioritize athletics and I think it is a blemish on the reputation of Rice, where it could be another strength.

Do you think that the BOT would be meeting their fiduciary duty to increase football outlays by 100 per cent?

Look, I am a FB supporter, would love to see it succeed. But, the objective side of me sees that if the BOT were to substantially increase the net outlay to the program, there would be real issues as to their adherence to the fiduciary duty they owe to Rice by sitting on the board.

The duties of a board for an institute of higher learning are *far* different than the core duty of a normal corporate board of 'maximizing shareholder value'. And even different than the duty owed by a board for a charitable cause or foundation.

I would *love* it to see the BOT toss the resources to be '100 per cent' funded (whatever the h-ll that is...), but the FB program is in such a position that it may *very well* be funded at the '100 per cent level' even at the current level and given the duty owed by the BOT to Rice.

I'm not sure how much different people would like to see dedicated to Rice Football or Rice Athletics. But Rice had an operating budget of $660 million last fiscal year. You can dig through the recent financial statements if you are so inclined.

My intuition is that an extra $2 million could be committed to football for operating expenses (equipment, recruiting, coaching salaries) for 10 years to see how it goes, along with a 1-time investment to finish the EZF properly. That would be a drop-in-the-bucket for Rice's expenditures, would not do any long-term harm to the endowment, and would give the program a little more of an opportunity to improve itself. If the university starts seeing some ROI (not necessarily financial, it could just be increased visibility that pays off in other ways), then consider further investment. If not, then start scaling back. But in most situations, you have to have money to make money, and Rice football by all accounts does not have much money right now (other than paying our head coach a reasonable salary).


I can go for this idea.
11-15-2017 10:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.