The talent level is just not what we are used to seeing. We've got one guy attracting much interest from MLB scouts, and he had a bad outing this weekend. We used to have three or four get drafted every year. That's huge difference.

It will take a couple of years to get back thee, if we can. I don't know how much the talent fall-off was due to negative recruiting against Wayne's age/longevity, how much was the $20,000 difference in cost to attend versus TCU/Baylor/et al, and how much was due to other factors. But there has been a talent falloff. And I can assure you that I was a much better coach when I had an all-American than when I didn't.

It's hard to predict whether a talent decline will show up in pitching or hitting or defense. We've had bad moments with all three so far. But without question, it is going to show up in at least one of those areas.

The real key is who we can recruit going forward. I have high hopes there.

(03-17-2019 01:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The talent level is just not what we are used to seeing. We've got one guy attracting much interest from MLB scouts, and he had a bad outing this weekend. We used to have three or four get drafted every year. That's huge difference.
It will take a couple of years to get back thee, if we can. I don't know how much the talent fall-off was due to negative recruiting against Wayne's age/longevity, how much was the $20,000 difference in cost to attend versus TCU/Baylor/et al, and how much was due to other factors. But there has been a talent falloff. And I can assure you that I was a much better coach when I had an all-American than when I didn't.
It's hard to predict whether a talent decline will show up in pitching or hitting or defense. We've had bad moments with all three so far. But without question, it is going to show up in at least one of those areas.
The real key is who we can recruit going forward. I have high hopes there.

I would add to that, the fact that there are multiple schools in the Texas and Louisiana that are performing at a much higher level then perhaps 15 years ago. Part of that is probably talent diverted that would have come to Rice in the past, but also there seems to be some very good coaching out there. Regardless, I hope that the Rice Investment should be a game changer, and one that I wish had been available 10 years ago, if not 20.

(03-17-2019 02:07 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-17-2019 01:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The talent level is just not what we are used to seeing. We've got one guy attracting much interest from MLB scouts, and he had a bad outing this weekend. We used to have three or four get drafted every year. That's huge difference.
It will take a couple of years to get back thee, if we can. I don't know how much the talent fall-off was due to negative recruiting against Wayne's age/longevity, how much was the $20,000 difference in cost to attend versus TCU/Baylor/et al, and how much was due to other factors. But there has been a talent falloff. And I can assure you that I was a much better coach when I had an all-American than when I didn't.
It's hard to predict whether a talent decline will show up in pitching or hitting or defense. We've had bad moments with all three so far. But without question, it is going to show up in at least one of those areas.
The real key is who we can recruit going forward. I have high hopes there.

I would add to that, the fact that there are multiple schools in the Texas and Louisiana that are performing at a much higher level then perhaps 15 years ago. Part of that is probably talent diverted that would have come to Rice in the past, but also there seems to be some very good coaching out there. Regardless, I hope that the Rice Investment should be a game changer, and one that I wish had been available 10 years ago, if not 20.

I think it will be a huge game changer. If not, then I was wrong about the impact of the cost differential. But when the parents of a TCU player tell me that their son went there because it was $20,000 a year cheaper than Rice, I have to believe that cost us a pitcher who could have held down FAU on Saturday, and another pitcher who could have shut them down Sunday, and a few hitters who would have put more runs on the board.

We can talk all we want about how much a Rice education is worth. But the primary goal of a university is to prepare its students for a successful career, and when the highest and best career is potentially professional baseball, then how great the computer science department is takes a back seat to mom and dad coughing up and additional $20 grand per year.

(03-17-2019 02:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-17-2019 02:07 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-17-2019 01:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The talent level is just not what we are used to seeing. We've got one guy attracting much interest from MLB scouts, and he had a bad outing this weekend. We used to have three or four get drafted every year. That's huge difference.
It will take a couple of years to get back thee, if we can. I don't know how much the talent fall-off was due to negative recruiting against Wayne's age/longevity, how much was the $20,000 difference in cost to attend versus TCU/Baylor/et al, and how much was due to other factors. But there has been a talent falloff. And I can assure you that I was a much better coach when I had an all-American than when I didn't.
It's hard to predict whether a talent decline will show up in pitching or hitting or defense. We've had bad moments with all three so far. But without question, it is going to show up in at least one of those areas.
The real key is who we can recruit going forward. I have high hopes there.

I would add to that, the fact that there are multiple schools in the Texas and Louisiana that are performing at a much higher level then perhaps 15 years ago. Part of that is probably talent diverted that would have come to Rice in the past, but also there seems to be some very good coaching out there. Regardless, I hope that the Rice Investment should be a game changer, and one that I wish had been available 10 years ago, if not 20.

I think it will be a huge game changer. If not, then I was wrong about the impact of the cost differential. But when the parents of a TCU player tell me that their son went there because it was $20,000 a year cheaper than Rice, I have to believe that cost us a pitcher who could have held down FAU on Saturday, and another pitcher who could have shut them down Sunday, and a few hitters who would have put more runs on the board.

We can talk all we want about how much a Rice education is worth. But the primary goal of a university is to prepare its students for a successful career, and when the highest and best career is potentially professional baseball, then how great the computer science department is takes a back seat to mom and dad coughing up and additional $20 grand per year.

Let's be clear: the Rice Investment is *not* the inauguration of Rice giving *substantial* need-based financial aid, *including to "walk on" baseball players*. That avenue has been there and has been utilized for years. The criteria are being somewhat expanded and we are definitely giving a marketing push. But people should not be expecting a complete paradigm shift because it isn't one.

(03-17-2019 02:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-17-2019 02:07 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-17-2019 01:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The talent level is just not what we are used to seeing. We've got one guy attracting much interest from MLB scouts, and he had a bad outing this weekend. We used to have three or four get drafted every year. That's huge difference.
It will take a couple of years to get back thee, if we can. I don't know how much the talent fall-off was due to negative recruiting against Wayne's age/longevity, how much was the $20,000 difference in cost to attend versus TCU/Baylor/et al, and how much was due to other factors. But there has been a talent falloff. And I can assure you that I was a much better coach when I had an all-American than when I didn't.
It's hard to predict whether a talent decline will show up in pitching or hitting or defense. We've had bad moments with all three so far. But without question, it is going to show up in at least one of those areas.
The real key is who we can recruit going forward. I have high hopes there.

I would add to that, the fact that there are multiple schools in the Texas and Louisiana that are performing at a much higher level then perhaps 15 years ago. Part of that is probably talent diverted that would have come to Rice in the past, but also there seems to be some very good coaching out there. Regardless, I hope that the Rice Investment should be a game changer, and one that I wish had been available 10 years ago, if not 20.

I think it will be a huge game changer. If not, then I was wrong about the impact of the cost differential. But when the parents of a TCU player tell me that their son went there because it was $20,000 a year cheaper than Rice, I have to believe that cost us a pitcher who could have held down FAU on Saturday, and another pitcher who could have shut them down Sunday, and a few hitters who would have put more runs on the board.

We can talk all we want about how much a Rice education is worth. But the primary goal of a university is to prepare its students for a successful career, and when the highest and best career is potentially professional baseball, then how great the computer science department is takes a back seat to mom and dad coughing up and additional $20 grand per year.

The great thing about the Investment it flips (and more) that delta with private schools.

Taking TCU as the benchmark (since it was the example) --- the 20k deficit we ran in that calculus now turns into a 40k deficit for TCU. Assuming the average scholarship award is .433 (11.7/27), that translates to, on average, a net 22.6k positive delta.

The key is the Investment literally puts the program at par with public schools. In fact, what used to be a 50k Rice deficit in that calculus now translates to an overall 10k deficit for a public Texas school w/ in-state tuition. That changes a negative 28k delta to a 5.7k positive delta on average for cost considerations between Rice and a public Texas school as a baseball program attractor.

I wonder if the scholarship rules will allow Rice to revamp. The major difference now between a scholarship and an Investment athlete (i.e. a full ride) is the the allowance available to scholarship athletes that would not be normally available under the Investment.

The NCAA limits on scholarships has been pretty much tossed out the door under the auspices of the Investment. One can stretch that 11.7 amazingly far if/when a number of your athletes are 'full' Investment --- thus, this gives the staff a far more unbridled approach at recruiting both athletes from 'lower income' families *and* from 'upper income' athletes. If you parcel out a large amount of 'quarter' or 'no' scholarships (completely doable under the Investment), that opens up the ability to throw down 'larger percentage' packages to athletes from upper incomes.

This is pretty much a magic Hamburger Helper for partial scholarship sports programs. It can literally be used to make a strict 11.7 scholarship program into, perhaps, a full scholarship-type paradigm. With everyone else being hobbled at the 11.7 level.

My guess is that the staff can be nicely creative in how they use this to recruit. I think (hope) this will *dramatically* help the recruiting efforts at Rice.

(03-17-2019 02:47 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(03-17-2019 02:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-17-2019 02:07 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-17-2019 01:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The talent level is just not what we are used to seeing. We've got one guy attracting much interest from MLB scouts, and he had a bad outing this weekend. We used to have three or four get drafted every year. That's huge difference.
It will take a couple of years to get back thee, if we can. I don't know how much the talent fall-off was due to negative recruiting against Wayne's age/longevity, how much was the $20,000 difference in cost to attend versus TCU/Baylor/et al, and how much was due to other factors. But there has been a talent falloff. And I can assure you that I was a much better coach when I had an all-American than when I didn't.
It's hard to predict whether a talent decline will show up in pitching or hitting or defense. We've had bad moments with all three so far. But without question, it is going to show up in at least one of those areas.
The real key is who we can recruit going forward. I have high hopes there.

I would add to that, the fact that there are multiple schools in the Texas and Louisiana that are performing at a much higher level then perhaps 15 years ago. Part of that is probably talent diverted that would have come to Rice in the past, but also there seems to be some very good coaching out there. Regardless, I hope that the Rice Investment should be a game changer, and one that I wish had been available 10 years ago, if not 20.

I think it will be a huge game changer. If not, then I was wrong about the impact of the cost differential. But when the parents of a TCU player tell me that their son went there because it was $20,000 a year cheaper than Rice, I have to believe that cost us a pitcher who could have held down FAU on Saturday, and another pitcher who could have shut them down Sunday, and a few hitters who would have put more runs on the board.

We can talk all we want about how much a Rice education is worth. But the primary goal of a university is to prepare its students for a successful career, and when the highest and best career is potentially professional baseball, then how great the computer science department is takes a back seat to mom and dad coughing up and additional $20 grand per year.

Let's be clear: the Rice Investment is *not* the inauguration of Rice giving *substantial* need-based financial aid, *including to "walk on" baseball players*. That avenue has been there and has been utilized for years. The criteria are being somewhat expanded and we are definitely giving a marketing push. But people should not be expecting a complete paradigm shift because it isn't one.

I think it can be utilized as a dramatic boon to expand the reach of partial scholarship sports in particular.

The 'walk on' question is really a sidebar to what it *could* be used for. It can be used to dramatically expand the reach of the 11.7 scholarship pool available.

Not surprised since are recruiting was a disaster the last few years

(03-17-2019 02:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-17-2019 02:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-17-2019 02:07 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-17-2019 01:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The talent level is just not what we are used to seeing. We've got one guy attracting much interest from MLB scouts, and he had a bad outing this weekend. We used to have three or four get drafted every year. That's huge difference.
It will take a couple of years to get back thee, if we can. I don't know how much the talent fall-off was due to negative recruiting against Wayne's age/longevity, how much was the $20,000 difference in cost to attend versus TCU/Baylor/et al, and how much was due to other factors. But there has been a talent falloff. And I can assure you that I was a much better coach when I had an all-American than when I didn't.
It's hard to predict whether a talent decline will show up in pitching or hitting or defense. We've had bad moments with all three so far. But without question, it is going to show up in at least one of those areas.
The real key is who we can recruit going forward. I have high hopes there.

I would add to that, the fact that there are multiple schools in the Texas and Louisiana that are performing at a much higher level then perhaps 15 years ago. Part of that is probably talent diverted that would have come to Rice in the past, but also there seems to be some very good coaching out there. Regardless, I hope that the Rice Investment should be a game changer, and one that I wish had been available 10 years ago, if not 20.

I think it will be a huge game changer. If not, then I was wrong about the impact of the cost differential. But when the parents of a TCU player tell me that their son went there because it was $20,000 a year cheaper than Rice, I have to believe that cost us a pitcher who could have held down FAU on Saturday, and another pitcher who could have shut them down Sunday, and a few hitters who would have put more runs on the board.

We can talk all we want about how much a Rice education is worth. But the primary goal of a university is to prepare its students for a successful career, and when the highest and best career is potentially professional baseball, then how great the computer science department is takes a back seat to mom and dad coughing up and additional $20 grand per year.

The great thing about the Investment it flips (and more) that delta with private schools.

Taking TCU as the benchmark (since it was the example) --- the 20k deficit we ran in that calculus now turns into a 40k deficit for TCU. Assuming the average scholarship award is .433 (11.7/27), that translates to, on average, a net 22.6k positive delta.

The key is the Investment literally puts the program at par with public schools. In fact, what used to be a 50k Rice deficit in that calculus now translates to an overall 10k deficit for a public Texas school w/ in-state tuition. That changes a negative 28k delta to a 5.7k positive delta on average for cost considerations between Rice and a public Texas school as a baseball program attractor.

I wonder if the scholarship rules will allow Rice to revamp. The major difference now between a scholarship and an Investment athlete (i.e. a full ride) is the the allowance available to scholarship athletes that would not be normally available under the Investment.

The NCAA limits on scholarships has been pretty much tossed out the door under the auspices of the Investment. One can stretch that 11.7 amazingly far if/when a number of your athletes are 'full' Investment --- thus, this gives the staff a far more unbridled approach at recruiting both athletes from 'lower income' families *and* from 'upper income' athletes. If you parcel out a large amount of 'quarter' or 'no' scholarships (completely doable under the Investment), that opens up the ability to throw down 'larger percentage' packages to athletes from upper incomes.

This is pretty much a magic Hamburger Helper for partial scholarship sports programs. It can literally be used to make a strict 11.7 scholarship program into, perhaps, a full scholarship-type paradigm. With everyone else being hobbled at the 11.7 level.

My guess is that the staff can be nicely creative in how they use this to recruit. I think (hope) this will *dramatically* help the recruiting efforts at Rice.

By way of comparison, for my family, our estimated cost of attendance at Rice one year ago was between $28k-31k. Using approximately the same numbers, it is now $18.8k... comprised of room & board, books, and "personal expenses". That makes it less than the cost of attendance at UT Austin (last year). For athletes, I think books and room & board are covered, so if we had a star baseball player, I think the cost of attendance would basically be free, regardless of whether they received an athletic scholarship (and, hopefully, that would not increase if they did get a partial scholarship, but never underestimate University bureaucracy).

The ~$10k delta between this year and last year is a big deal... it could potentially be more for athletes (in particular, partial scholarship athletes) based on some of the odd stories of how the university applied athletic scholarships in the past.

It may mean a shift in strategy for Rice baseball to give full scholarships to players whose families make more than $130,000 (the cutoff for the program) and zero to families under that threshold, but it seems like there were some odd constraints on partial scholarships - something like "they must be distributed to a minimum of n athletes". (From what I could find, it is 11.3 among a maximum of 27 athletes, each receiving a minimum of 25% cost of attendance).

(03-17-2019 05:58 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-17-2019 02:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-17-2019 02:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-17-2019 02:07 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-17-2019 01:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The talent level is just not what we are used to seeing. We've got one guy attracting much interest from MLB scouts, and he had a bad outing this weekend. We used to have three or four get drafted every year. That's huge difference.
It will take a couple of years to get back thee, if we can. I don't know how much the talent fall-off was due to negative recruiting against Wayne's age/longevity, how much was the $20,000 difference in cost to attend versus TCU/Baylor/et al, and how much was due to other factors. But there has been a talent falloff. And I can assure you that I was a much better coach when I had an all-American than when I didn't.
It's hard to predict whether a talent decline will show up in pitching or hitting or defense. We've had bad moments with all three so far. But without question, it is going to show up in at least one of those areas.
The real key is who we can recruit going forward. I have high hopes there.

I would add to that, the fact that there are multiple schools in the Texas and Louisiana that are performing at a much higher level then perhaps 15 years ago. Part of that is probably talent diverted that would have come to Rice in the past, but also there seems to be some very good coaching out there. Regardless, I hope that the Rice Investment should be a game changer, and one that I wish had been available 10 years ago, if not 20.

I think it will be a huge game changer. If not, then I was wrong about the impact of the cost differential. But when the parents of a TCU player tell me that their son went there because it was $20,000 a year cheaper than Rice, I have to believe that cost us a pitcher who could have held down FAU on Saturday, and another pitcher who could have shut them down Sunday, and a few hitters who would have put more runs on the board.

We can talk all we want about how much a Rice education is worth. But the primary goal of a university is to prepare its students for a successful career, and when the highest and best career is potentially professional baseball, then how great the computer science department is takes a back seat to mom and dad coughing up and additional $20 grand per year.

The great thing about the Investment it flips (and more) that delta with private schools.

Taking TCU as the benchmark (since it was the example) --- the 20k deficit we ran in that calculus now turns into a 40k deficit for TCU. Assuming the average scholarship award is .433 (11.7/27), that translates to, on average, a net 22.6k positive delta.

The key is the Investment literally puts the program at par with public schools. In fact, what used to be a 50k Rice deficit in that calculus now translates to an overall 10k deficit for a public Texas school w/ in-state tuition. That changes a negative 28k delta to a 5.7k positive delta on average for cost considerations between Rice and a public Texas school as a baseball program attractor.

I wonder if the scholarship rules will allow Rice to revamp. The major difference now between a scholarship and an Investment athlete (i.e. a full ride) is the the allowance available to scholarship athletes that would not be normally available under the Investment.

The NCAA limits on scholarships has been pretty much tossed out the door under the auspices of the Investment. One can stretch that 11.7 amazingly far if/when a number of your athletes are 'full' Investment --- thus, this gives the staff a far more unbridled approach at recruiting both athletes from 'lower income' families *and* from 'upper income' athletes. If you parcel out a large amount of 'quarter' or 'no' scholarships (completely doable under the Investment), that opens up the ability to throw down 'larger percentage' packages to athletes from upper incomes.

This is pretty much a magic Hamburger Helper for partial scholarship sports programs. It can literally be used to make a strict 11.7 scholarship program into, perhaps, a full scholarship-type paradigm. With everyone else being hobbled at the 11.7 level.

My guess is that the staff can be nicely creative in how they use this to recruit. I think (hope) this will *dramatically* help the recruiting efforts at Rice.

By way of comparison, for my family, our estimated cost of attendance at Rice one year ago was between $28k-31k. Using approximately the same numbers, it is now $18.8k... comprised of room & board, books, and "personal expenses". That makes it less than the cost of attendance at UT Austin (last year). For athletes, I think books and room & board are covered, so if we had a star baseball player, I think the cost of attendance would basically be free, regardless of whether they received an athletic scholarship (and, hopefully, that would not increase if they did get a partial scholarship, but never underestimate University bureaucracy).

The ~$10k delta between this year and last year is a big deal... it could potentially be more for athletes (in particular, partial scholarship athletes) based on some of the odd stories of how the university applied athletic scholarships in the past.

It may mean a shift in strategy for Rice baseball to give full scholarships to players whose families make more than $130,000 (the cutoff for the program) and zero to families under that threshold, but it seems like there were some odd constraints on partial scholarships - something like "they must be distributed to a minimum of n athletes". (From what I could find, it is 11.3 among a maximum of 27 athletes, each receiving a minimum of 25% cost of attendance).

An athlete cannot receive both athletic and need-based aid.

A baseball player (or any player in a sport not required to give full scholarships) whose family makes <$65K will get a complete free ride under the Investment. But that was basically the case before the Investment as well. Rice has been a "meets 100% of family need" school for many years now, and families in that range have expected contributions basically near zero.

A player whose family makes between $65K & $130K will get no less than free tuition, or in other words, at least $46.6K of need-based aid toward a total cost of attendance of $65K; between $130K and $200K, it's no less than half tuition, or $23.3K. Again, any difference between the family's expected contribution and the total cost will be met without loans. However, also again, this isn't a huge change from pre-Investment financial aid practice.

A player whose family makes over $200K isn't going to qualify for much need-based financial aid and the program can likely do better for the player by giving them athletic scholarship money instead. The same calculus obtained prior to the Investment.

TL;DR: To borrow the analogy of another thread, the Investment is an incremental change, not a transformational one.

(03-17-2019 05:58 PM)I45owl Wrote:  It may mean a shift in strategy for Rice baseball to give full scholarships to players whose families make more than $130,000 (the cutoff for the program) and zero to families under that threshold, but it seems like there were some odd constraints on partial scholarships - something like "they must be distributed to a minimum of n athletes". (From what I could find, it is 11.3 among a maximum of 27 athletes, each receiving a minimum of 25% cost of attendance).

Full scholarships are very rare in baseball. Alex Bregman got one from LSU, because 1) he's Alex Bregman, and 2) LSU had made very creative use of academic scholarships for other baseball players. My favorite Bregman story is still the interview last year. Interviewer, "Did you ever think you'd hit 30 home runs in a season in major league baseball?" Bregman, "Yes."

My understanding is that Rice had started making the best out of its prior situation with, IIRC, Pope being the one who figured out how to work the system. The new Rice scholarship structure just makes things a bit more definite. I would expect the recruiting disadvantage to be eliminated.

(03-18-2019 02:39 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  A baseball player (or any player in a sport not required to give full scholarships) whose family makes <$65K will get a complete free ride under the Investment. But that was basically the case before the Investment as well. Rice has been a "meets 100% of family need" school for many years now, and families in that range have expected contributions basically near zero.

Prior to the Investment, there was high tuition and massive grants and scholarships. Years ago the grant/scholarship pool was roughly 50% of the tuition pool (defined as students x nominal tuition). Don't know what it's been recently. Students from low income families got 100%, high income 0%. It gave the administration lots of discretion, which is not necessarily a good thing.

The problem for equivalency sports as I understood it, was need-based money counted against the 11.7. Under the Investment, the tuition benefit to low income families doesn't count against 11.7. A stud pitcher from a family making $50K is a walkon so far as baseball is concerned. Rick Mello told me the change eliminates any disadvantage we had based on tuition.

I would argue that while that at its heart it's an accounting change, it really is transformational for equivalency sports and for the University as a whole. Leebron's alumni letter received today cites a 39% increase in early decision applications and 30% in applications overall. That selectivity in itself is probably worth a couple of places in USNews rankings.

Edit: Another possible effect - I think the numbers used to value athletic scholarships in calculating Rice's subsidy to athletics used the full nominal tuition. If they use actual numbers, the subsidy goes down. Again, an accounting trick, but I'm OK with it.