(03-30-2021 09:26 AM)mrbig Wrote: It really shouldn't matter. If he is the son of a Rice alum (male or female), particularly an alum who was a student-athlete at Rice, Rice would be nuts to not at least go through the recruiting process. Even if they ultimately do not make an offer, you know the kid grew up hearing about Rice and has probably been to some events on campus and likely has some positive connections and connotations. More of a leg up then calling Joe Blow at the next school over who is the same talent level but has no Rice connection.
Couldn't possibly agree more.
We offer scholarships to ALL SORTS of kids that we probably don't think we will get. That's not just smart, but its stupid NOT to. If every kid we offer accepts our offer, we need to raise the bar. It's not exactly the same, but if the quality of a University is even remotely determined by those they reject, why wouldn't that also be true for athletics? Have your name in the conversation, even if you end up getting dropped. It makes recruits ask 'what's going on over there'.
Hint... Great players often have 'friends' (or in this case, siblings) that are also great players, sometimes under-recruited. If you get one, you might get them both.
Jarrett Dillard's brother saw lots of playing time at Rice. While he wasn't the player Jarrett was, he was STILL one of our best RBs.
Here is how I see it...
If the child (or niece or nephew or cousin) of a Rice grad is getting multiple p5 offers, WE should almost always be offering as well. Hell, if the kids neighbor is a RIce grad, I'd be recruiting him/her. Put the offer on the list... ask for an early commit. Seriously, do we think UT or any top p5 program would 'back off' on a kid they really wanted just because he were a child of a Rice alum who gave an early commitment?? They might LOVE it because that MIGHT clear the deck of the chaff. Do we expect to get that kid?? Of course not... but we're going to get more p5 recruits from that pool than we will from any other... AND we're going to get infinitely more of them than those we DON'T offer.
If the kid and his family qualifies for significant or even full financial aid, I can see asking them to be a PWO (so as not to tie up a scholarship offer if the person perhaps didn't really want to attend). Heck, I might even suggest that myself (as a former walk-on, if my kids were athletic).... or yes... ask them as a courtesy to keep us on the list, even if they knew already they would accept at UT. As them for the courtesy of having our hat on the table when they video their decision.
If the kid is more of a 'maybe', then again, PWO (or scholarship if it is available) makes a lot of sense. Recruit him and at least 'have the talk'.
The fact that some of our best players of the past 20-30 years have kids who are being recruited as D-1 athletes and we aren't even calling them is APPALLING.
AT LEAST have the courtesy of telling the parents, we would LOVE to have your child, but we just don't think he's a fit for our system... or we don't have a schollie available.... but we'd love to have a 'family member' on the team and would love to help connect them to see if they qualify for other aid. LEVERAGE RIce's endowment for a qualified student and alumni family.
THIS is where athletics IMO fails. It values the coach(es) and what THEIR vision is rather than the University. The (qualifying, or at least very close/subjective) child of an alum is the way you create legacies and the sort of endowments that lead to people leaving family fortunes to a University... to endow buildings or ballparks... or scholarships.
What does it say that we're asking our athletic alumni to endow athletic scholarships to give funds and opportunities to (qualified) kids, but we don't have any funds nor opportunity to offer their (qualified) children?? That is just RIDICULOUS.
In the case of these two specific kids, there is NO DOUBT that they are AT LEAST as good as half the guys on our current roster (meaning by an objective analysis, they are qualified) .... and IMO, would both likely be absolute STARS (more subjective).