(02-26-2018 05:41 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  I apologize for helping to hijack the thread, but I want to make one final point in response to FBO's last post (which I won't list here due to space constraints).

The problem with each sport at Rice that is not a full scholarship sport is that all other schools supplement their partial scholarship athletes with either need-based or ACADEMIC aid. Rice has need-based aid, so we need not discuss that. But, the majority of aid elsewhere is in the nature of ACADEMIC aid that is not available at Rice. Thus, other schools can, for example, add ¼ of a scholarship to ¾ academic aid. Presto: full scholarship! Or, even if it's only ½ academic aid, the student has to pay much less than a corresponding percentage would cost at Rice.

And, don't even get me started on the slots given to the so-called non-revenue sports at Rice. Even if there were 5 more student-athletes who wanted to come to Rice for books only, the administration limits how many student athletes are allowed to matriculate per year. Naturally, the full scholarship sports get as many as they need; the remainder must grovel for crumbs.

Just as an example: men's track and field, by NCAA rules, has 12.6 scholarships to be used for both track and field, as well as cross-country (no separate scholarships for XC). There are 21 events at a conference outdoor championship. Rice has just 38 athletes for indoor, outdoor and cross-country. Texas A&M, with those same 12.6 scholarships, has 61 athletes (60% more than Rice). Don't you think that gives them a huge advantage, on top of the edge they have in admissions?

You cannot give a kid athletic money AND academic money. It's either or...not both. That's illegal. Rice players are either on athletic money or need based money. There are very few athletes on academic money due to the regular students outstanding (elite) academic standing.

I wrote earlier that it would be my final post, but I need to correct an incorrect assertion that it is "illegal" to combine athletic and academic aid. Putting aside the hyperbole of "illegal" for a moment, here's the loophole that permits it: an incoming freshman is eligible for academic aid that does not count against athletic aid if he/she graduates among the top 10% of the high school class, maintained at least a 3.5 GPA, and had a 1200 or higher SAT (or appropriate ACT). This is NCAA Bylaw 15.02.4.3.

Sure this demographic limits application to certain athletes in certain sports, but when you're dealing with limited scholarships, every little bit helps.

(02-26-2018 09:46 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  I wrote earlier that it would be my final post, but I need to correct an incorrect assertion that it is "illegal" to combine athletic and academic aid. Putting aside the hyperbole of "illegal" for a moment, here's the loophole that permits it: an incoming freshman is eligible for academic aid that does not count against athletic aid if he/she graduates among the top 10% of the high school class, maintained at least a 3.5 GPA, and had a 1200 or higher SAT (or appropriate ACT). This is NCAA Bylaw 15.02.4.3.

Sure this demographic limits application to certain athletes in certain sports, but when you're dealing with limited scholarships, every little bit helps.

That’s probably the bottom 5% of the Rice student body. That’s the real issue for us.

(02-26-2018 11:32 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(02-26-2018 11:27 AM)RiceOwl Wrote:  Lance's coaching credentials can be debated but there has not been a coach like him as far as I know. I believe he has plenty of motivation to succeed in everything he does, as seen by a stellar 15 year career and then taking of a private school coaching job. IMO, he loves baseball and has a passion for winning.

The debate about whether or not he is the right hire makes sense but to question his resume seems a bit foolish. All of the suggested hires are absolutely fine with me but my preference would be Lance.

Side note, have we discussed the possibility of getting Kirk Saarloos from TCU? Throwing a hefty contract at him would seem like a no-brainer.

How do you know whether he is motivated or not? And his resume should most definitely be questioned. Again, his stellar MLB career means diddledeesquat when talking about his credentials and ability as a college head coach. And he has just 2 years as a high school coach, which doesn't require the time commitment, travel and recruiting that goes into college coaching.

Oh, and BTW, before we consider the next head coach, can we please give The OG the one year extension (through the 2019 season) that he's requested and deserves. Make the announcement, then begin begin the new head coaching search in earnest. The current uncertainty over the head coaching situation is only hurting recruiting, and it's unbecoming of how Rice should be treating someone of Wayne's stature, and what he has meant to the University.

+1

(02-26-2018 01:36 PM)Volente Beach Owl Wrote:  A track record of success at the collegiate level is a prerequisite in my opinion. I will concede that Coach Graham had only Junior College level experience prior to joining Rice, although his experience there was so incredibly successful that he was an exception to the rule. I wouldn't want a step-up candidate, like a pitching coach or an assistant who has never been a head coach at the collegiate level. Riser fits the profile of someone I'd want to get. I'd like to see 1) Texas roots; 2) Demonstrated track record of success as a head coach at the collegiate level; 3) Bonus points if they've dealt with high academic standards; 4) a motivator and persuasive person.

I am surprised Tulane didn’t make a run at him after Pierce left.

(02-26-2018 10:04 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(02-26-2018 09:46 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  I wrote earlier that it would be my final post, but I need to correct an incorrect assertion that it is "illegal" to combine athletic and academic aid. Putting aside the hyperbole of "illegal" for a moment, here's the loophole that permits it: an incoming freshman is eligible for academic aid that does not count against athletic aid if he/she graduates among the top 10% of the high school class, maintained at least a 3.5 GPA, and had a 1200 or higher SAT (or appropriate ACT). This is NCAA Bylaw 15.02.4.3.

Sure this demographic limits application to certain athletes in certain sports, but when you're dealing with limited scholarships, every little bit helps.

That’s probably the bottom 5% of the Rice student body. That’s the real issue for us.

Setting aside the issue of exactly where that line falls, I think you meant all Rice students except the bottom x%. On paper, that would seem to work to the advantage — not disadvantage — of Rice and similar schools since they should have a higher percentage of partial- and non-athletic-scholarship athletes meeting those criteria.

Whether Rice actually uses that is a different question.

(02-27-2018 03:43 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(02-26-2018 10:04 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(02-26-2018 09:46 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  I wrote earlier that it would be my final post, but I need to correct an incorrect assertion that it is "illegal" to combine athletic and academic aid. Putting aside the hyperbole of "illegal" for a moment, here's the loophole that permits it: an incoming freshman is eligible for academic aid that does not count against athletic aid if he/she graduates among the top 10% of the high school class, maintained at least a 3.5 GPA, and had a 1200 or higher SAT (or appropriate ACT). This is NCAA Bylaw 15.02.4.3.

Sure this demographic limits application to certain athletes in certain sports, but when you're dealing with limited scholarships, every little bit helps.

That’s probably the bottom 5% of the Rice student body. That’s the real issue for us.

Setting aside the issue of exactly where that line falls, I think you meant all Rice students except the bottom x%. On paper, that would seem to work to the advantage — not disadvantage — of Rice and similar schools since they should have a higher percentage of partial- and non-athletic-scholarship athletes meeting those criteria.

Whether Rice actually uses that is a different question.

It’s a disadvantage. I’d guess 95% of rice students are above the NCAA criteria. Unless everyone at Rice gets academic aid there is no way most of our athletes will (generalizing of course). That is the big issue. At other schools most people above the NCAA requirements could get academic scholarships because it’s a much smaller percentage of their student body.
For example if you score a 1200 on the SAT at TCU you’re in their top 60% of students. (Mid 50 is 1130-1340)
If you score a 1200 and go somewhere in our sorry conference, for example Marshall, they can put you on academic scholarship because you’re probably in their top 5% of students. (Mid 50 is 870-970).

Pierce better start winning at Texas (4-3) or he may be available in the near future.
They play Stanford at home four games. It will be interesting how Texas does against them.

(02-26-2018 10:11 PM)jhruzek Wrote:  

(02-26-2018 01:36 PM)Volente Beach Owl Wrote:  A track record of success at the collegiate level is a prerequisite in my opinion. I will concede that Coach Graham had only Junior College level experience prior to joining Rice, although his experience there was so incredibly successful that he was an exception to the rule. I wouldn't want a step-up candidate, like a pitching coach or an assistant who has never been a head coach at the collegiate level. Riser fits the profile of someone I'd want to get. I'd like to see 1) Texas roots; 2) Demonstrated track record of success as a head coach at the collegiate level; 3) Bonus points if they've dealt with high academic standards; 4) a motivator and persuasive person.

I am surprised Tulane didn’t make a run at him after Pierce left.

(02-27-2018 04:10 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 03:43 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(02-26-2018 10:04 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(02-26-2018 09:46 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  I wrote earlier that it would be my final post, but I need to correct an incorrect assertion that it is "illegal" to combine athletic and academic aid. Putting aside the hyperbole of "illegal" for a moment, here's the loophole that permits it: an incoming freshman is eligible for academic aid that does not count against athletic aid if he/she graduates among the top 10% of the high school class, maintained at least a 3.5 GPA, and had a 1200 or higher SAT (or appropriate ACT). This is NCAA Bylaw 15.02.4.3.

Sure this demographic limits application to certain athletes in certain sports, but when you're dealing with limited scholarships, every little bit helps.

That’s probably the bottom 5% of the Rice student body. That’s the real issue for us.

Setting aside the issue of exactly where that line falls, I think you meant all Rice students except the bottom x%. On paper, that would seem to work to the advantage — not disadvantage — of Rice and similar schools since they should have a higher percentage of partial- and non-athletic-scholarship athletes meeting those criteria.

Whether Rice actually uses that is a different question.

It’s a disadvantage. I’d guess 95% of rice students are above the NCAA criteria. Unless everyone at Rice gets academic aid there is no way most of our athletes will (generalizing of course). That is the big issue. At other schools most people above the NCAA requirements could get academic scholarships because it’s a much smaller percentage of their student body.
For example if you score a 1200 on the SAT at TCU you’re in their top 60% of students. (Mid 50 is 1130-1340)
If you score a 1200 and go somewhere in our sorry conference, for example Marshall, they can put you on academic scholarship because you’re probably in their top 5% of students. (Mid 50 is 870-970).

The Dean of Engineering presented some statistics in a meeting today. For Rice Engineering, the SAT scores of the middle 50% of the entering class are 1490-1570.

Think about that for a second: a 1480 SAT score is in the BOTTOM quartile.

Recruiting athletes who are competitive with the student body as a whole is a challenge that we rightfully embrace. But recruiting athletes who would qualify for academic merit aid at a greater rate than the rest of the student body is probably impossible.

(02-27-2018 06:29 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  The Dean of Engineering presented some statistics in a meeting today. For Rice Engineering, the SAT scores of the middle 50% of the entering class are 1490-1570.

Think about that for a second: a 1480 SAT score is in the BOTTOM quartile.

Wow! Glad I matriculated when I did. Probably wouldn't have even been accepted with my bottom quartile SAT score!

Even scarier is the top quartile of the entering class scored between 1570 - 1600! Top 25%! Not top 5%.

BTW - I did graduate, with high honors, and just retired after a 40 year career based on my BS CHE degree from Rice, so it seemed to work out for everyone.

(02-27-2018 04:10 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  It’s a disadvantage. I’d guess 95% of rice students are above the NCAA criteria. Unless everyone at Rice gets academic aid there is no way most of our athletes will (generalizing of course). That is the big issue. At other schools most people above the NCAA requirements could get academic scholarships because it’s a much smaller percentage of their student body.
For example if you score a 1200 on the SAT at TCU you’re in their top 60% of students. (Mid 50 is 1130-1340)
If you score a 1200 and go somewhere in our sorry conference, for example Marshall, they can put you on academic scholarship because you’re probably in their top 5% of students. (Mid 50 is 870-970).

I started to respond but it’s a moot point. I looked at the current NCAA Bylaws and found nothing resembling the alleged rule we were debating.

The relevant part of 15.02.4.3 permits “Financial aid awarded solely on bases having no relationship to athletics ability” which means that our competitors can still give academic scholarships to 88th-percentile students, and Rice cannot give academic scholarships to 90th-percentile students.

15.5.3.2.4.1
Academic Honor Awards—Based on High School Record.
Academic honor awards that are part of an institution’s normal arrangements for academic scholarships, based solely
on the recipient’s high school record and awarded independently of athletics interests and in amounts consistent with the pattern of all such awards made by institutions, are exempt from an institution’s equivalency computation, provided the recipient was ranked in the upper 10 percent of the high school graduating class or achieved a cumulative grade-point average of at least 3.500 (based on a maximum of 4.000) or a minimum ACT sum score of 105 or a minimum SAT score of 1200 (critical reading and
math) for SAT tests taken before March 1, 2016; or a minimum SAT score of 1270 (critical reading and math) for tests taken on or after March 1, 2016, based on the concordance determined by the College Board.
(Adopted: 1/12/99 effective 8/1/99, Revised: 1/14/08 effective 8/1/08, 1/16/10 effective 8/1/10, 2/2/16)
15.5.3.2.4.1.1
Additional Requirements.
The following additional requirements shall be met:
(Adopted: 1/12/99 effective 8/1/99, Revised: 1/18/14 effective 8/1/14)
(a) The awards may include additional, nonacademic criteria (e.g., interviews, essays, need analysis), provided the additional criteria are not based on athletics ability, participation or interests, and the awards are consistent with the pattern of all such awards provided to all students;
(b) No quota of awards shall be designated for student-athletes;
© Athletics participation shall not be required before or after collegiate enrollment;
(d) No athletics department staff member shall be involved in designating the recipients of such awards; and
(e) Any additional criteria shall not include athletics ability, participation or interests.

15.5.3.2.4.1.2 Renewals.
The renewal of an academic honor award (per Bylaw 15.5.3.2.4.1) may be exempted from an institution’s equivalency computation regardless of whether the recipient qualified for exemption in his or her initial academic year enrollment, provided:
(Adopted: 1/12/99 effective 8/1/99, Revised: 3/18/10)
(a) The recipient achieves a cumulative grade-point average of at least 3.000 (based on a maximum of 4.000) at the certifying institution; and
(b) The recipient meets all NCAA, conference and institutional progress-toward-degree requirements.

(02-27-2018 11:17 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  I started to respond but it’s a moot point. I looked at the current NCAA Bylaws and found nothing resembling the alleged rule we were debating.

The relevant part of 15.02.4.3 permits “Financial aid awarded solely on bases having no relationship to athletics ability” which means that our competitors can still give academic scholarships to 88th-percentile students, and Rice cannot give academic scholarships to 90th-percentile students.

Yes. Other schools specifically direct their potential student athletes to the academic side first, so they can find out how much aid they'll get on the basis of their high school rankings, GPA, and test scores. But, this exact aid must be available to ALL students. Rice is at a severe disadvantage because 1200/3.5/top 10% would be given to EVERY Rice student who is NOT an athlete. Therefore, no recruit is going to get $1.00 of ACADEMIC aid from Rice, while that same student may just get ¾ of a full scholarship from the likes of Baylor.

So what does Stanford do? Asking for information.

(02-28-2018 12:25 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So what does Stanford do? Asking for information.

Keep in mind that Stanford gives a free ride to ANY student from a family earning less than $100,000/yr.

(02-27-2018 11:45 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  Rice is at a severe disadvantage because 1200/3.5/top 10% would be given to EVERY Rice student who is NOT an athlete. Therefore, no recruit is going to get $1.00 of ACADEMIC aid from Rice, while that same student may just get ¾ of a full scholarship from the likes of Baylor.

Baylor would dole out about $15K a year for someone who was at the low end of the NCAA requirements for non-countable academic aid.

https://www.baylor.edu/admissions/index.php?id=934970

(02-27-2018 11:42 PM)InterestedX Wrote:  15.5.3.2.4.1
...

Thanks. I had searched for 1200, but for some reason it didn’t show up.

There are also some important conditions in there that weren’t in the above summary.

(02-27-2018 11:45 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  Yes. Other schools specifically direct their potential student athletes to the academic side first, so they can find out how much aid they'll get on the basis of their high school rankings, GPA, and test scores. But, this exact aid must be available to ALL students. Rice is at a severe disadvantage because 1200/3.5/top 10% would be given to EVERY Rice student who is NOT an athlete. Therefore, no recruit is going to get $1.00 of ACADEMIC aid from Rice, while that same student may just get ¾ of a full scholarship from the likes of Baylor.

That makes sense in principle.

The following is not directed at you.

If other schools have enough athletes who were top 10% students in HS to put Rice at a severe disadvantage then maybe it’s time to stop:
1. Talking smack about their academics
2. Viewing Rice’s admission requirements for athletes — which have historically been way lower than these numbers — as some sort of insurmountable obstacle

TBH I think it’s time to stop doing those things anyway.

(02-28-2018 03:25 AM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 11:42 PM)InterestedX Wrote:  15.5.3.2.4.1
...

Thanks. I had searched for 1200, but for some reason it didn’t show up.

There are also some important conditions in there that weren’t in the above summary.

(02-27-2018 11:45 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  Yes. Other schools specifically direct their potential student athletes to the academic side first, so they can find out how much aid they'll get on the basis of their high school rankings, GPA, and test scores. But, this exact aid must be available to ALL students. Rice is at a severe disadvantage because 1200/3.5/top 10% would be given to EVERY Rice student who is NOT an athlete. Therefore, no recruit is going to get $1.00 of ACADEMIC aid from Rice, while that same student may just get ¾ of a full scholarship from the likes of Baylor.

That makes sense in principle.

The following is not directed at you.

If other schools have enough athletes who were top 10% students in HS to put Rice at a severe disadvantage then maybe it’s time to stop:
1. Talking smack about their academics
2. Viewing Rice’s admission requirements for athletes — which have historically been way lower than these numbers — as some sort of insurmountable obstacle

TBH I think it’s time to stop doing those things anyway.

Ask some aggies and longhorns what they think of being top 10% in their hs class...

1. Some of these schools deserve to be shamed for how they bend over backwards to accommodate athletes. UNC should’ve lost accreditation.
2. I don’t think it’s insurmountable but for football and basketball in particular I’d guess the NCAA average is much much lower than what we’re talking about here (which is why this is the bar for academic aid). To point 1 above Marshall takes up to 5 kids a year who don’t meet the NCAA’s requirements (a 16 on the ACT is like reading at an elementary school level). They then get them eligible and sign them to play the year after. We’re basically in a conference with a JUCO.

(02-27-2018 08:00 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 06:29 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  The Dean of Engineering presented some statistics in a meeting today. For Rice Engineering, the SAT scores of the middle 50% of the entering class are 1490-1570.

Think about that for a second: a 1480 SAT score is in the BOTTOM quartile.

Wow! Glad I matriculated when I did. Probably wouldn't have even been accepted with my bottom quartile SAT score!

Even scarier is the top quartile of the entering class scored between 1570 - 1600! Top 25%! Not top 5%.

BTW - I did graduate, with high honors, and just retired after a 40 year career based on my BS CHE degree from Rice, so it seemed to work out for everyone.

How the hell did you graduate with a CHE degree, much less high honors, with a bottom quartile SAT score ??? You must have gotten 800 in math and -0- in verbal. Hats off to you !

(02-28-2018 10:26 AM)davidw Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 08:00 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 06:29 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  The Dean of Engineering presented some statistics in a meeting today. For Rice Engineering, the SAT scores of the middle 50% of the entering class are 1490-1570.

Think about that for a second: a 1480 SAT score is in the BOTTOM quartile.

Wow! Glad I matriculated when I did. Probably wouldn't have even been accepted with my bottom quartile SAT score!

Even scarier is the top quartile of the entering class scored between 1570 - 1600! Top 25%! Not top 5%.

BTW - I did graduate, with high honors, and just retired after a 40 year career based on my BS CHE degree from Rice, so it seemed to work out for everyone.

How the hell did you graduate with a CHE degree, much less high honors, with a bottom quartile SAT score ??? You must have gotten 800 in math and -0- in verbal. Hats off to you !

Hard work will do the trick.