(05-03-2021 04:10 PM)illiniowl Wrote: This illustrates perfectly that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Jon Warren and Leroy Burrell both have 12.6 scholarships to work with, but when Jon offers a kid a quarter scholarship, that kid needs to come up with an additional ~$50K+ per year to go to Rice, whereas it will cost the kid ~$15K to go to UH (if he's from Texas; and still a lot less than Rice even if not from Texas). NC A&T is a public school as well.
Does Leroy Burrell have an endowment that assures that any family making less than 150k (or whatever the number is) will be able to afford it?
Why does this fact just get ignored when 'your side' of this discussion speaks? Are you suggesting that there are NO sprinters in the nation (faster than our pole vaulters) whose parent's wouldn't qualify for zero tuition at Rice, or at least a level comparable to some state schools???
(05-03-2021 04:40 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote: With the notable exception of illiniowl, there is an astonishing level of ignorance on this topic. In fact, there is an inverse relationship between the intensity of the post, on the one hand, and knowledge of how things work in the real world, on the other.
Real constructive post here... If we're so ignorant, then enlighten us. All I've seen you argue is 'those speeds aren't as good as you think' or 'no football coach will let their players run track'.... or 'he only has 12.6 scholarships' which completely ignores everything I've said about the parents being teachers (which gives us an idea of what they earn, plus the sort of student their child likely is) and the Rice Investment. You call me ignorant, and then ignore what I'm saying?? You've quite literally said nothing about those concepts.
I get it... He has 12.6 scholarships and the MATH of XC and Track with distance runners favors that approach. Nobody has denied that, ignored it, nor is uninformed about it. I suspect that with rare exception, EVERY SINGLE ONE of those scholarship athletes is at least in consideration for some other form of aid.
If you're saying that a kid can't be on 'need based' scholarship and run track... you haven't said that. That would enlighten (and shock) me.
If you're saying that the track coach can't lobby for a student he doesn't offer a scholarship for, that is precisely what we are saying could change. Why do you seem to be against even trying?
You DID say that 'nobody' wants to run track AND play football... do you really want to stand by that as an absolute fact?? I only need to identify one person in the nation to dispute that.
You seem so defensive of the track coaches when the WORST they are being accused of is being a PART of Rice missing an opportunity?? If you're saying there are obstacles for the coach to the opportunity, then why don't we work on them??
I can say that the intensity of MY posts has to do with the 'can't' attitude that you (and perhaps illiniowl??) seem to have. You seem resigned to this being the best we can expect from anyone at any level in the process. Its the best the track coach can do, the best the football coach can do, the best the AD can do, the best admissions and financial aid can do??
(05-03-2021 11:38 PM)InterestedX Wrote: In 2004 the Rice men won the WAC. It was a rare conference title in the sport. Several football players contributed to the effort, including Jeremy Hurd, Clifford Sparks and Bio Bilaye-Benibo.
I guess this shoots down the comment that it was '50 years ago' when football worked with track. I know we did it 30 years ago... this was about 15 and McGuffie was about 5. Cue someone saying 'he was redshirting'... so do lots of other kids... every year. They may not be McGuffie, but they're still as good as/better than what we're putting out there now.
I didn't know the above, but I'm CONFIDENT that YOU did WRC... hence the 'intensity' of my posts. Numbers brought up someone from 50 years ago and you jumped on it like an ant to sugar... when you knew full well (or should have known) that such things weren't limited to 50 years ago.
Quote:Rice is an extremely tough place to recruit for track and field, with limited slots and admissions people who really won't help you much.
So why are we arguing about speeds and times and coaches and not about how to fix the admissions issue?
I gave a pretty good reason for them to get on board... that 'diversity' at Rice, especially within the African-American population has a lot to do with athletics... and we need to find more ways to at least maintain our diversity as we expand. It's not as if we're currently 'passing' on a lot of qualifying African-American students... that 8% or so is 'as much as we want'.... If we are, shame on us... At best, they are passing on US. At the very least, we need to find a way to get 8% of the expanded number to continue to accept... So we either need to find ways to make us more attractive to that segment of the population, or we need to expand the criteria for selection. Since it seems our largest single cohort for admissions amongst that group is athletics, it seems highly constructive for those groups to work together.... ESPECIALLY with children of our own graduates (generally higher propensity for success).