(05-03-2020 06:39 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-02-2020 11:28 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(05-02-2020 08:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  3) An athletic director who was basically told, "The job is yours as long as you don't make any waves."

I certainly hope that you are not referring to Bobby May, because, if you are, that is the epitome of ignorance on your part.
Your uninformed statement about an athletic director not making waves is borderline libelous, if it was aimed at Bobby May. That is, unless you have written proof of what you have claimed.

No, I wasn't referring to Bobby May, which should have been obvious from the time line. I'm actually referring to some of his predecessors under whom the record of futility that you recited so thoroughly was accumulated. I won't disclose to which one or ones my specific statements applied.

In future, you should probably read what I write before jumping to unwarranted conclusions.

Yes, I did read what you wrote. The question to which you responded was "what happened after 80 and 81"?

Who were the ADs after 1981?

Augie Erfurth 1982-83
Watson Brown 1984-85
Jerry Berndt 1986-88
Bobby May 1987-2005

I doubt that any reasonable person could believe that substantive policy changes could have been effectuated by athletic directors serving 2, 2, and 3 years. No way that a single policy would continue seamlessly through a 7 year period during which 3 individuals with different priorities were in charge of athletics. I'm calling b.s.

(05-05-2020 06:33 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(05-03-2020 06:39 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-02-2020 11:28 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(05-02-2020 08:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  3) An athletic director who was basically told, "The job is yours as long as you don't make any waves."

I certainly hope that you are not referring to Bobby May, because, if you are, that is the epitome of ignorance on your part.
Your uninformed statement about an athletic director not making waves is borderline libelous, if it was aimed at Bobby May. That is, unless you have written proof of what you have claimed.

No, I wasn't referring to Bobby May, which should have been obvious from the time line. I'm actually referring to some of his predecessors under whom the record of futility that you recited so thoroughly was accumulated. I won't disclose to which one or ones my specific statements applied.
In future, you should probably read what I write before jumping to unwarranted conclusions.

Yes, I did read what you wrote. The question to which you responded was "what happened after 80 and 81"?
Who were the ADs after 1981?
Augie Erfurth 1982-83
Watson Brown 1984-85
Jerry Berndt 1986-88
Bobby May 1987-2005
I doubt that any reasonable person could believe that substantive policy changes could have been effectuated by athletic directors serving 2, 2, and 3 years. No way that a single policy would continue seamlessly through a 7 year period during which 3 individuals with different priorities were in charge of athletics. I'm calling b.s.

I'm not quite sure how being told, "The job is yours as long as you don't make waves," constitutes a substantive policy change.

Do you have a point? If so, what is it?

I think the bigger issue was that prior to Bobby, the ADs served 2,2 and 3 years each... often with football coach being their primary job (and focus). Its as if we decided that we were going to improve football by making the HC the AD (also saving some money/combining salaries) which of course could/did hurt other sports... and when Bobby came in, he took a more balanced view.

Still, I was on the RUAC in the 90s with Bobby, and I can tell you that he was incredibly good at getting a whole lot out of nothing. Imagine what he could have done with real money.

(05-06-2020 11:10 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I think the bigger issue was that prior to Bobby, the ADs served 2,2 and 3 years each... often with football coach being their primary job (and focus). Its as if we decided that we were going to improve football by making the HC the AD (also saving some money/combining salaries) which of course could/did hurt other sports... and when Bobby came in, he took a more balanced view.
Still, I was on the RUAC in the 90s with Bobby, and I can tell you that he was incredibly good at getting a whole lot out of nothing. Imagine what he could have done with real money.

Bobby did a frankly incredible job getting the most out of the system that constrained him. But that system was one set up to generate failure, as it had repeatedly under various ADs for the 20 or so years preceding Bobby.

I've said many times, I wish Bobby had spent a couple of years working at Duke or Stanford, or working for somebody like Don Canham at Michigan, so he would have seen that a properly-run athletic program bore little or no resemblance to "the Rice way" of running athletics. Of course, if he had, he might have refused the Rice AD job and we would have been worse off without him.

You are right, the much bigger issue was prior to Bobby. By the time Bobby got the AD job, things just may have been too far gone to matter.

I have always felt Bobby did more to salvage Rice athletics than anybody. Maybe we would have no athletics without Graham, as many say, but without Bobby, there is no Graham.

(05-07-2020 09:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I have always felt Bobby did more to salvage Rice athletics than anybody. Maybe we would have no athletics without Graham, as many say, but without Bobby, there is no Graham.

He did a fantastic job of raising our competitiveness, completely out of the abyss of the 80's. Some may complain he was not the right man for the change in the college sports environment, but what support was he given. When a general or CEO has a failing or falling division, does he just wait around for a better Colonel to come around? What would Patton do? Go in and help kick ###? Not wait until someone develops a plan. This is 100% on the BOT and presidents of the last 50 years who had neither the guts to kill it or to fix it. Much easier just to pretend to support with 2/3rds daily rations and ignore what as my son said two years ago at a FB game "Isn't it obvious they are not trying?" I know of no truer observation of Rice sports other than owlnumbers two part of mantra of make any excuse and don't rock the boat.

(05-07-2020 09:56 PM)texowl2 Wrote:  

(05-07-2020 09:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I have always felt Bobby did more to salvage Rice athletics than anybody. Maybe we would have no athletics without Graham, as many say, but without Bobby, there is no Graham.

He did a fantastic job of raising our competitiveness, completely out of the abyss of the 80's. Some may complain he was not the right man for the change in the college sports environment, but what support was he given. When a general or CEO has a failing or falling division, does he just wait around for a better Colonel to come around? What would Patton do? Go in and help kick ###? Not wait until someone develops a plan. This is 100% on the BOT and presidents of the last 50 years who had neither the guts to kill it or to fix it. Much easier just to pretend to support with 2/3rds daily rations and ignore what as my son said two years ago at a FB game "Isn't it obvious they are not trying?" I know of no truer observation of Rice sports other than owlnumbers two part of mantra of make any excuse and don't rock the boat.

THIS.

The BOT and presidents at Rice have been hiding behind excuses for 40 years. They deflect blame. Shame on them. They've starved athletics to the brink of full collapse. The fact that we've fallen into the abyss of college athletics is squarely on their shoulders.

They are the only entity that has the power to change the bylaws that restrict the flow of money into athletics from donors, corporate sponsors, and Rice University itself.