(09-18-2018 08:13 PM)nightowl24 Wrote:  So to be clear i'm not on favor of just offering up every legacy a spot in their chosen sport. What i'm saying is we had a kid here in houston that was a superb athlete. He addresses some of the issues we have currently. He's 6'1 maybe 6'2 he obviously is fast. He would have been an option this year. HE WASN'T EVEN RECRUITED BY RICE!! Last I spoke to him(I work at the school he graduated from) he was going to Ohio st, but changed to TT. My point is simply this... oi we recruit them and they don't come fine at least we're using our connections to get these top notch athletes. Currently with respect to football there isn't a lot of legacy players. I wonder why we aren't going for these guys? As stated in one instance we had one in our backyard and didn't even look at him. I've personally sent names of kids that were don't recruit and ultimately they go somewhere else, and these kids WANTED rice. Just seems like we have resources that aren't being used. Why? I don't know? I got friends coaching all over houston I can easily get athletes names from. In one year potentially 60+ DIFFERENT teams and can tell them who can play. I did coach and I did play...I know how to evaluate talent. Just seems that they're making it harder than it has to be. I know my friends from others schools help their schools out and its welcomed. Hell i'm not even asking for any perks, I just want my school to do well.

Now you've got me wondering.
Could it be that the coaches feel intimidated by the ex-athlete, or feel that they may be scrutinized too much, or that the legacy would expect special attention in some way? I have no idea, just wondering...

Could it be that people are seeing a pattern where one really doesn't exist?

Personal testimony here. Bear with me...

I played football on scholarship at Rice. My uncle played football at Rice on scholarship. My mother applied and was accepted, attended and graduated from Rice based on her academic accomplishments. And I now have a cousin on football scholarship at Rice. Kind of a legacy.

I think legacy, qualified students who show interest in Rice are given the same chance as any qualified student who is not legacy.... however, I am not convinced they are targeted or sought after to any greater degree. As far as athletic legacies, there have been too many turnovers in coaching staffs to have this connection. The current football staff/athletic office is the best to my knowledge to embrace the tradition and history of Rice football teams and players. Maybe the legacy players will begin to show up in the near future.

Sent from my SM-G935V using CSNbbs mobile app

(09-19-2018 09:23 PM)NLOWL Wrote:  I played football on scholarship at Rice.

Quote:My uncle played football at Rice on scholarship.

Quote:My mother

Your progression had me deeply disturbed.

until you finished with this:

Quote:applied and was accepted, attended and graduated from Rice based on her academic accomplishments.

Whew. Back to my current zen-like late evening coffee after that self-inflicted scare.....

Glad to help there partner. You know.... I'm just a dumb jock. Thank God my mom was/is intelligent. She is "our" saving grace.

Sent from my SM-G935V using CSNbbs mobile app

Btw... my uncle graduated from Rice and so did I. Cousin is on his way, but not there just yet.

Sent from my SM-G935V using CSNbbs mobile app

(09-19-2018 10:13 PM)NLOWL Wrote:  Btw... my uncle graduated from Rice and so did I. Cousin is on his way, but not there just yet.

Sent from my SM-G935V using CSNbbs mobile app

Most of my friends and family are still (after 30+ years) utterly astounded that I graduated. Many times I am as well.....

Virtual fist bump on that one....

Edited to add: going to a President LeBron event next week. The other esteemed guest on the invitation was my advisor for EE. I cant wait to see him and remind him on his (somewhat sage) advice of: 'Perhaps engineering isnt really the best avenue for you'

It's amazing how quickly this board gets off topic.

I am not talking general applicants. Yes rice has always given preference to those who have rice ties. I'm talking ATHLETICS. Just that ONLY that. We miss MANY really good athletes that were COULD get here and we don't even try. THAT is my ONLY question.

Color me a dumb jock but I don't care about the Brazil admissions part. I'm talking about selectively KNOWING the kids of ex rice athletes and TARGETING those kids because of their ties.

The 8th grader man he sounds great. I wonder if above knows about him. I can tell you my kid right now after this aau season came out ranked in the top 20 for freshman in the greater houston area. There's another kid at foster hs whose most played at rice. He's another kid that's one of the best in the nation as well. $10 says NO ONE on the current rice staff knows about either one of these boys. I know of a soph that is the fastest kid in his district dad played at rice(best db in my mind that played at rice) bet they don't know about him. I know of two other kids of five football players that are stellar bet they aren't on thur radar either. That's 5+ kids here in houston and we aren't on these kids early. That makes no sense to me.

THIS issue with rice. They aren't utilizing their resources. They have access to some of the smartest best athletes and they aren't even going for them. That's dumb to me.

(09-19-2018 11:07 PM)nightowl24 Wrote:  It's amazing how quickly this board gets off topic.

I am not talking general applicants. Yes rice has always given preference to those who have rice ties. I'm talking ATHLETICS. Just that ONLY that. We miss MANY really good athletes that were COULD get here and we don't even try. THAT is my ONLY question.

Color me a dumb jock but I don't care about the Brazil admissions part. I'm talking about selectively KNOWING the kids of ex rice athletes and TARGETING those kids because of their ties.

The 8th grader man he sounds great. I wonder if above knows about him. I can tell you my kid right now after this aau season came out ranked in the top 20 for freshman in the greater houston area. There's another kid at foster hs whose most played at rice. He's another kid that's one of the best in the nation as well. $10 says NO ONE on the current rice staff knows about either one of these boys. I know of a soph that is the fastest kid in his district dad played at rice(best db in my mind that played at rice) bet they don't know about him. I know of two other kids of five football players that are stellar bet they aren't on thur radar either. That's 5+ kids here in houston and we aren't on these kids early. That makes no sense to me.

THIS issue with rice. They aren't utilizing their resources. They have access to some of the smartest best athletes and they aren't even going for them. That's dumb to me.

What order should "child of Rice athletes" be in, in terms of methods for filtering students-athletes that would be good fits for Rice academically/athletically? At some point it becomes a bit of a slight time suck for an athletics staff member to comb through every single letterman/woman, contact them to see a) if they have kids b) if their kids are high-school age and c) determine if junior is a good athlete and makes good grades. I just don't think using "child of Rice athlete" as a top 1 or 2 filter for recruiting is a particularly good use of time - Rice recruits student athletes primarily for their athletic ability / academic ability, not because of their connection to Rice. The value of a "connection to Rice" is perceived to be that said student-athlete is more likely to stay at Rice / not transfer - if there is data that shows that Rice legacy athletes are significantly less likely to transfer than their non-legacy counterparts, then I'm all for using a "connection to Rice" as a primary way to target kids. But I haven't seen data confirming/denying that.

If the kids are good enough to get noticed by the coaches, then the problem of not recruiting kids of Rice athletes solves itself indirectly and the Rice angle can be focused on to "seal the deal" during the middle/end of the recruiting process. If they aren't, the Rice athlete can always email the coaching/athletics staff the pertinent info on their child. At that point, if the kid goes on to star somewhere else, then that's on the coaching staff. If the kid is not talented, then we know why he/she was never recruited in the first place.

I think all of us who know of kids that we think Rice should be looking at should let the coaching staff know of these kids. I took it on myself years ago to let the staff know of a local kid. I got a call from an assistant coach essentially saying thank you but no thank you. But I at least knew they had looked at him.

So drop an email to somebody and tell them to check out ___________. Maybe they will not see the kid the way you do, but they will at least look.

(09-19-2018 08:57 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Could it be that people are seeing a pattern where one really doesn't exist?

Cosign - in fact, the example in the OP doesn't even seem to fit the indictment he wants to level.

Exhibit A in the "Rice Football hurts itself by not recruiting legacy kids" argument is a kid now running track at some other college? All that says to me is either 127 other schools also didn't feel this kid could play D-I football, or (much more likely) he simply made a personal decision to choose track over football for his college career and therefore any time and resources spent by Rice FB would have been wasted. He sounds like a blue chip track recruit, actually, and not blue chip for football, so choosing track seems like a sound decision (also, concussions are a bit rarer in track).

Hard to control for all the variables if you're trying to prove that Rice has a pattern of overlooking its alums' kids. Maybe the staff disagreed about a given kid's talent level (and hey, they might be wrong and I'm sure they have been but why would they be more prone to be wrong about a legacy kid than a nonlegacy?). Maybe another kid didn't fit our needs at a given time. Maybe some kids didn't have the best measurables or visibility and needed to recruit themselves to Rice harder instead of waiting for Rice to find them. Maybe some kids never would have accepted an offer from Rice anyway (which frankly seems likelier to be the case the better the kid actually is).

Anyway, I have a feeling that this type of complaint and argument-by-anecdote is pretty common to a lot of football programs and strongly correlates (inversely) with winning percentage at any given time.

I understand what nightowl is saying. I also understand what westside is saying. I am a product of the stupidity of the recruiting machine. It is dumb luck I got to play at Rice (I guess George is right).
When Rice passes on the gene pool of past performers, it is essentially a negative evaluation of the past player and the perceived ability of their legacy. The general consensus among pundits is “more athletic” is better for the future. As such, much of Rice’s past seems to be that athleticism was lacking which contributed to the less than stellar results on the field. Therefore, the impetus for Rice recruiting going forward is to distance itself from its past. Even this year the talk for football is “give recruiting a few years and Rice will be better.” What I think, and I assume nightowl, is that augmenting the future with the past is the best path to relevancy. Obviously, if a Rice connected recruit is sought after by other schools, they are easy to identify. But not identifying the Rice connected recruit who can add value despite what the “measurables” may say and the cursory evaluation they may receive from Rice because of their association to the past is a potentially untapped resource that shouldn’t be squandered.
I wrote a letter to Rice football when I was in High School. I got one letter back from Rice that began “Dear David”. Umm, I am not David and the letter was typed so the doctor handwriting thing didn’t apply. It is a trend that has continued for me at Rice. I still can’t register as an alumni because I am not found in the database. Maybe I should try registering under David. I also got a birthday card from Rice football for several years in May. My birthday is in October. I can also tell you from experience that Rice athletics doesn’t care what I think. I still love Rice. I want my son to go to Rice. But if Rice feels otherwise, I know he will be successful somewhere else and I will get a new team to support.

(09-20-2018 12:29 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(09-19-2018 08:57 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Could it be that people are seeing a pattern where one really doesn't exist?

Cosign - in fact, the example in the OP doesn't even seem to fit the indictment he wants to level.

Exhibit A in the "Rice Football hurts itself by not recruiting legacy kids" argument is a kid now running track at some other college? All that says to me is either 127 other schools also didn't feel this kid could play D-I football, or (much more likely) he simply made a personal decision to choose track over football for his college career and therefore any time and resources spent by Rice FB would have been wasted. He sounds like a blue chip track recruit, actually, and not blue chip for football, so choosing track seems like a sound decision (also, concussions are a bit rarer in track).

Hard to control for all the variables if you're trying to prove that Rice has a pattern of overlooking its alums' kids. Maybe the staff disagreed about a given kid's talent level (and hey, they might be wrong and I'm sure they have been but why would they be more prone to be wrong about a legacy kid than a nonlegacy?). Maybe another kid didn't fit our needs at a given time. Maybe some kids didn't have the best measurables or visibility and needed to recruit themselves to Rice harder instead of waiting for Rice to find them. Maybe some kids never would have accepted an offer from Rice anyway (which frankly seems likelier to be the case the better the kid actually is).

Anyway, I have a feeling that this type of complaint and argument-by-anecdote is pretty common to a lot of football programs and strongly correlates (inversely) with winning percentage at any given time.

That is the rub. The Rice Football coaches and well positioned power base will implement their will upon the direction of the program. It is how it is and should be. It is not unique to Rice. Ultimately, the coaches will be held accountable for their decisions by their performance. The power base, not so much.

Wait...this is actually a real thread? Hmmm. And I was told the ABO was whacked out and imagined...

again to be very clear, i'm not saying let's recruit "rice legacies" OVER any other athlete. again (and honestly i'm not seeing the confusion here) i'm simply saying why are we not even targeting these kids? people i played in college, i coached here in texas on the varsity level, and i played professional ball. I am very well aware of choosing players that "fit". I'm not saying just because they are a rice legacy they are an automatic "in". I'm saying there are kids that SHOULD be on their radar and from my knowledge aren't. This is just dumb to me. we have a resource and we are flat out not using it, and it's FREE. we are talking about recruiting and seeing kids decommit and others choosing other schools. i'm saying there are kids in the houston area that are children of rice athletes that are from the houston area and we aren't even looking at these kids, we aren't using resources to help us get better.

like i said this isn't about plugging every rice players kid to be an owl. it's a legit question to why are we not KNOWING who are great athletes of our lettermen. i'm sorry, not sorry, this is just common sense to me. i get very well that not all kids are going to want to follow in their parents footsteps. rice is on my both my sons' lists, 3rd for both. regardless if they go there or not why would rice not legitimately TRY to get these type kids(not saying my kid is that kid or not). there is a much better chance of that kid saying "you know i got a better offer over here, but i want to help my parents' school be a contender. i commit." But we are spinning our wheels constantly going after kids with no rice ties TRYING to win them over when you have kids that don't need as much to win over because of the ties(of course this a general statement as some may have had a bad experience so they as letterwinners don't want their kids going here). People have listed the rice legacies here, for the amount of players that have gone through rice that's a really short list. and maybe this is the norm across all college teams....again it was an initial question.

only reference that i could find is that on nfl.com. per this report as of june 2017 there were 15 current ncaa players whose father's played in the nfl. I"m sure there are more that are college players whose father's played in college as well. Maybe its a moot point because the number isn't large enough that we should waste any time dedicating any form of resource to it. I guess i just feel that we have a lot of hurdles we are trying to overcome and this was just a thought that could be one way we use what we have to get what we need.

carry on

(09-20-2018 12:42 PM)nightowl24 Wrote:  again to be very clear, i'm not saying let's recruit "rice legacies" OVER any other athlete. again (and honestly i'm not seeing the confusion here) i'm simply saying why are we not even targeting these kids? people i played in college, i coached here in texas on the varsity level, and i played professional ball. I am very well aware of choosing players that "fit". I'm not saying just because they are a rice legacy they are an automatic "in". I'm saying there are kids that SHOULD be on their radar and from my knowledge aren't. This is just dumb to me. we have a resource and we are flat out not using it, and it's FREE. we are talking about recruiting and seeing kids decommit and others choosing other schools. i'm saying there are kids in the houston area that are children of rice athletes that are from the houston area and we aren't even looking at these kids, we aren't using resources to help us get better.

like i said this isn't about plugging every rice players kid to be an owl. it's a legit question to why are we not KNOWING who are great athletes of our lettermen. i'm sorry, not sorry, this is just common sense to me. i get very well that not all kids are going to want to follow in their parents footsteps. rice is on my both my sons' lists, 3rd for both. regardless if they go there or not why would rice not legitimately TRY to get these type kids(not saying my kid is that kid or not). there is a much better chance of that kid saying "you know i got a better offer over here, but i want to help my parents' school be a contender. i commit." But we are spinning our wheels constantly going after kids with no rice ties TRYING to win them over when you have kids that don't need as much to win over because of the ties(of course this a general statement as some may have had a bad experience so they as letterwinners don't want their kids going here). People have listed the rice legacies here, for the amount of players that have gone through rice that's a really short list. and maybe this is the norm across all college teams....again it was an initial question.

I think part of the problem is that we need the lettermen to come around more often and establish relationships with the coaches doing the recruiting. I realize everyone is busy (especially those with kids in high school) so it's not always possible. But I don't see many other ways for the coaches to know that so and so is a Rice letterman's son. Somebody earlier in the thread mentioned the turnover in the department and that ties in here as well.

I don't think Rice has ever done as good a job as it should of keeping alumni involved, not just in athletics but across the board.

I've said this before, but the opposite end of the spectrum was really brought home to me a few years back at the "Kick 6" Iron Bowl between Auburn and Alabama. My brother is an Auburn alum and scholarship donor, with seats equivalent to our Stadium Club. We came down in separate elevators, and when we met at the bottom, he told me that he had ridden down with the president and that in the elevator he had heard the president get commitments for two new buildings. That was very much a target rich environment--heavy hitters among the donor group, well liquored up, and at the height of euphoria. But that's how the big boys do it, and that's how they get money. We do not appear to have ever learned that lesson.

(09-20-2018 04:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't think Rice has ever done as good a job as it should of keeping alumni involved, not just in athletics but across the board.

I've said this before, but the opposite end of the spectrum was really brought home to me a few years back at the "Kick 6" Iron Bowl between Auburn and Alabama. My brother is an Auburn alum and scholarship donor, with seats equivalent to our Stadium Club. We came down in separate elevators, and when we met at the bottom, he told me that he had ridden down with the president and that in the elevator he had heard the president get commitments for two new buildings. That was very much a target rich environment--heavy hitters among the donor group, well liquored up, and at the height of euphoria. But that's how the big boys do it, and that's how they get money. We do not appear to have ever learned that lesson.

Well, Leebron and Ping do frequent the Stadium Club during games, and mingle for 30 - 60 minutes.

(09-20-2018 04:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't think Rice has ever done as good a job as it should of keeping alumni involved, not just in athletics but across the board.

I've said this before, but the opposite end of the spectrum was really brought home to me a few years back at the "Kick 6" Iron Bowl between Auburn and Alabama. My brother is an Auburn alum and scholarship donor, with seats equivalent to our Stadium Club. We came down in separate elevators, and when we met at the bottom, he told me that he had ridden down with the president and that in the elevator he had heard the president get commitments for two new buildings. That was very much a target rich environment--heavy hitters among the donor group, well liquored up, and at the height of euphoria. But that's how the big boys do it, and that's how they get money. We do not appear to have ever learned that lesson.

If you’ve been to campus lately we get plenty of $ for new buildings, just on the academic side of campus. You realize compared to Auburn we are probably “the big boys” in terms of donations. They are funded by the state so they don’t need to match us. In 2017 Auburn just completed their first billion dollar campaign (first ever in Alabama). They received gifts from 106,976 people, or more than double the number of living owl alums. The endowment is $738M for 24,000 undergrads.

The big public schools probably raise more than us UT/A&M/Michigan/Cal/UVA. And of course we raise less than Princeton/Harvard/Stanford/Yale. But I wouldn’t call any SEC other schools the “big boys” when it comes to donations. We’re in a pretty elite club with our new financial aid initiative and it’s due to donations from alums.