(06-06-2022 11:03 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 11:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 10:55 AM)Ourland Wrote:  There's no reason that football, basketball, and baseball can't win half of its games every season. That should be the minimal amount of success expected.

That's a very low bar.

Yet still seemingly out of reach.

If we stop climbing at the halfway mark, we shall never reach the top.

(06-06-2022 11:10 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 11:03 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 11:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 10:55 AM)Ourland Wrote:  There's no reason that football, basketball, and baseball can't win half of its games every season. That should be the minimal amount of success expected.

That's a very low bar.

Yet still seemingly out of reach.

If we stop climbing at the halfway mark, we shall never reach the top.

It's not a low bar. It's the 'minimum' that should be expected. It's realistic. No one stops climbing at .500. That's where the climbing starts.

(06-03-2022 05:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-03-2022 02:30 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(06-03-2022 07:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Two, what I need from each of you is to tell me exactly what you need in the way of support to accomplish them.

And immediately after this, I presume you will hit the brick wall that every other Rice AD has hit for the last 5ish decades.

Number one, I wouldn't take the job without some reassurances that I would be given a chance to overcome that wall. It is my belief that the Board would be generally supportive of such efforts, but the problem as been punching past the gate-keepers in the administration.

I agree that your approach is the correct one, but - no offense intended - anyone who looks at the Rice athletics situation objectively should come to a similar conclusion. It seems reasonable to assume that at least Del Conte and Karlgaard were smart and thorough and would have performed enough due diligence on this position to understand its needs. I wouldn't be surprised to know that each received the kinds of assurances you list but ultimately weren't (in JK's case, haven't been) able to overcome those gatekeepers.

My conclusion is the person with the ability and willingness to make this happen on his/her own probably doesn't exist. On the other hand, an AD with a really superior coach in either basketball or football might be able to push for the kinds of changes needed because a demonstration of the kinds of revenue that are generated by a consistent winning program might be meaningful enough to push through barriers. And no, I don't include baseball because its revenue potential just isn't near the ceiling of the other two "major" sports.

I am not optimistic. Nor am I Optimistic™.

(06-06-2022 02:17 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(06-03-2022 05:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-03-2022 02:30 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(06-03-2022 07:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Two, what I need from each of you is to tell me exactly what you need in the way of support to accomplish them.

And immediately after this, I presume you will hit the brick wall that every other Rice AD has hit for the last 5ish decades.

Number one, I wouldn't take the job without some reassurances that I would be given a chance to overcome that wall. It is my belief that the Board would be generally supportive of such efforts, but the problem as been punching past the gate-keepers in the administration.

I agree that your approach is the correct one, but - no offense intended - anyone who looks at the Rice athletics situation objectively should come to a similar conclusion. It seems reasonable to assume that at least Del Conte and Karlgaard were smart and thorough and would have performed enough due diligence on this position to understand its needs. I wouldn't be surprised to know that each received the kinds of assurances you list but ultimately weren't (in JK's case, haven't been) able to overcome those gatekeepers.

My conclusion is the person with the ability and willingness to make this happen on his/her own probably doesn't exist. On the other hand, an AD with a really superior coach in either basketball or football might be able to push for the kinds of changes needed because a demonstration of the kinds of revenue that are generated by a consistent winning program might be meaningful enough to push through barriers. And no, I don't include baseball because its revenue potential just isn't near the ceiling of the other two "major" sports.

I am not optimistic. Nor am I Optimistic™.

Good post!

(06-06-2022 11:03 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 11:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 10:55 AM)Ourland Wrote:  There's no reason that football, basketball, and baseball can't win half of its games every season. That should be the minimal amount of success expected.

That's a very low bar.

Yet still seemingly out of reach.

And a bar which the Owls are nowhere close to reaching in total between the 3 men's sports. If this was a limbo contest, the Owls are pretty much walking under that bar without even bending backward.

(06-06-2022 03:04 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 02:17 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(06-03-2022 05:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-03-2022 02:30 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(06-03-2022 07:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Two, what I need from each of you is to tell me exactly what you need in the way of support to accomplish them.

And immediately after this, I presume you will hit the brick wall that every other Rice AD has hit for the last 5ish decades.

Number one, I wouldn't take the job without some reassurances that I would be given a chance to overcome that wall. It is my belief that the Board would be generally supportive of such efforts, but the problem as been punching past the gate-keepers in the administration.

I agree that your approach is the correct one, but - no offense intended - anyone who looks at the Rice athletics situation objectively should come to a similar conclusion. It seems reasonable to assume that at least Del Conte and Karlgaard were smart and thorough and would have performed enough due diligence on this position to understand its needs. I wouldn't be surprised to know that each received the kinds of assurances you list but ultimately weren't (in JK's case, haven't been) able to overcome those gatekeepers.

My conclusion is the person with the ability and willingness to make this happen on his/her own probably doesn't exist. On the other hand, an AD with a really superior coach in either basketball or football might be able to push for the kinds of changes needed because a demonstration of the kinds of revenue that are generated by a consistent winning program might be meaningful enough to push through barriers. And no, I don't include baseball because its revenue potential just isn't near the ceiling of the other two "major" sports.

I am not optimistic. Nor am I Optimistic™.

Good post!

Agree. Any AD candidates that mention needing 'reassurances' are quickly weeded out of the process. Rice wants someone who will not make waves, but who will rather play by its rules, and that's part of the problem. 'Movers and shakers' aren't welcome.

When Karlgaard took the job, I remembered him stating on several occasions that he believed Rice wasn't only committed to D1 athletics, but that it wanted to achieve P5 status. He was either lied to, or he doesn't have the ability to make that happen within Rice's parameters. Who could?

Rice is its own worst enemy. I hate to think of how bad things have to get before it decides that it's time to change its business model and way of thinking as it pertains to athletics. Maybe that change is already happening, but Karlgaard has simply made terrible hires in football, basketball, and baseball (Bragga). If so, the onus is on him, not so much the university

(06-06-2022 02:17 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(06-03-2022 05:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-03-2022 02:30 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(06-03-2022 07:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Two, what I need from each of you is to tell me exactly what you need in the way of support to accomplish them.

And immediately after this, I presume you will hit the brick wall that every other Rice AD has hit for the last 5ish decades.

Number one, I wouldn't take the job without some reassurances that I would be given a chance to overcome that wall. It is my belief that the Board would be generally supportive of such efforts, but the problem as been punching past the gate-keepers in the administration.

I agree that your approach is the correct one, but - no offense intended - anyone who looks at the Rice athletics situation objectively should come to a similar conclusion. It seems reasonable to assume that at least Del Conte and Karlgaard were smart and thorough and would have performed enough due diligence on this position to understand its needs. I wouldn't be surprised to know that each received the kinds of assurances you list but ultimately weren't (in JK's case, haven't been) able to overcome those gatekeepers.

My conclusion is the person with the ability and willingness to make this happen on his/her own probably doesn't exist. On the other hand, an AD with a really superior coach in either basketball or football might be able to push for the kinds of changes needed because a demonstration of the kinds of revenue that are generated by a consistent winning program might be meaningful enough to push through barriers. And no, I don't include baseball because its revenue potential just isn't near the ceiling of the other two "major" sports.

I am not optimistic. Nor am I Optimistic™.

When I chose that handle 17-18 years ago, I was optimistic. Now, I think maybe PessimisticOwl would be a better choice. But with a landscape full of pessimistic Owls, people would never be able to find me. Which one is he, they would say, they all sound alike. Can't, won't, didn't, couldn't.

I am not at all convinced that just a new AD, or a new coach, or a new whatever can solve the problem. I am not convinced that all of the above would do it. I think what we need is what we don't have, and cannot hire - a large, well-heeled alumni base demanding results and willing to pay for them - what some here call the TCU model and others call the Stanford model.

I am pessimistically thinking that perhaps Rice's heyday, if it can be called that, is over. It ran from about 1999 to about 2014. Give ot take a couple of years at either end.

Regardless of what I think are our prospects, I refuse to settle for mediocre as a goal.

(06-06-2022 04:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 02:17 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(06-03-2022 05:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-03-2022 02:30 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(06-03-2022 07:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Two, what I need from each of you is to tell me exactly what you need in the way of support to accomplish them.

And immediately after this, I presume you will hit the brick wall that every other Rice AD has hit for the last 5ish decades.

Number one, I wouldn't take the job without some reassurances that I would be given a chance to overcome that wall. It is my belief that the Board would be generally supportive of such efforts, but the problem as been punching past the gate-keepers in the administration.

I agree that your approach is the correct one, but - no offense intended - anyone who looks at the Rice athletics situation objectively should come to a similar conclusion. It seems reasonable to assume that at least Del Conte and Karlgaard were smart and thorough and would have performed enough due diligence on this position to understand its needs. I wouldn't be surprised to know that each received the kinds of assurances you list but ultimately weren't (in JK's case, haven't been) able to overcome those gatekeepers.

My conclusion is the person with the ability and willingness to make this happen on his/her own probably doesn't exist. On the other hand, an AD with a really superior coach in either basketball or football might be able to push for the kinds of changes needed because a demonstration of the kinds of revenue that are generated by a consistent winning program might be meaningful enough to push through barriers. And no, I don't include baseball because its revenue potential just isn't near the ceiling of the other two "major" sports.

I am not optimistic. Nor am I Optimistic™.

When I chose that handle 17-18 years ago, I was optimistic. Now, I think maybe PessimisticOwl would be a better choice. But with a landscape full of pessimistic Owls, people would never be able to find me. Which one is he, they would say, they all sound alike. Can't, won't, didn't, couldn't.

I am not at all convinced that just a new AD, or a new coach, or a new whatever can solve the problem. I am not convinced that all of the above would do it. I think what we need is what we don't have, and cannot hire - a large, well-heeled alumni base demanding results and willing to pay for them - what some here call the TCU model and others call the Stanford model.

I am pessimistically thinking that perhaps Rice's heyday, if it can be called that, is over. It ran from about 1999 to about 2014. Give ot take a couple of years at either end.

Regardless of what I think are our prospects, I refuse to settle for mediocre as a goal.

Refuse2SettleOwl aka Optimistic Owl.

(06-06-2022 05:32 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 04:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 02:17 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(06-03-2022 05:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-03-2022 02:30 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  And immediately after this, I presume you will hit the brick wall that every other Rice AD has hit for the last 5ish decades.

Number one, I wouldn't take the job without some reassurances that I would be given a chance to overcome that wall. It is my belief that the Board would be generally supportive of such efforts, but the problem as been punching past the gate-keepers in the administration.

I agree that your approach is the correct one, but - no offense intended - anyone who looks at the Rice athletics situation objectively should come to a similar conclusion. It seems reasonable to assume that at least Del Conte and Karlgaard were smart and thorough and would have performed enough due diligence on this position to understand its needs. I wouldn't be surprised to know that each received the kinds of assurances you list but ultimately weren't (in JK's case, haven't been) able to overcome those gatekeepers.

My conclusion is the person with the ability and willingness to make this happen on his/her own probably doesn't exist. On the other hand, an AD with a really superior coach in either basketball or football might be able to push for the kinds of changes needed because a demonstration of the kinds of revenue that are generated by a consistent winning program might be meaningful enough to push through barriers. And no, I don't include baseball because its revenue potential just isn't near the ceiling of the other two "major" sports.

I am not optimistic. Nor am I Optimistic™.

When I chose that handle 17-18 years ago, I was optimistic. Now, I think maybe PessimisticOwl would be a better choice. But with a landscape full of pessimistic Owls, people would never be able to find me. Which one is he, they would say, they all sound alike. Can't, won't, didn't, couldn't.

I am not at all convinced that just a new AD, or a new coach, or a new whatever can solve the problem. I am not convinced that all of the above would do it. I think what we need is what we don't have, and cannot hire - a large, well-heeled alumni base demanding results and willing to pay for them - what some here call the TCU model and others call the Stanford model.

I am pessimistically thinking that perhaps Rice's heyday, if it can be called that, is over. It ran from about 1999 to about 2014. Give ot take a couple of years at either end.

Regardless of what I think are our prospects, I refuse to settle for mediocre as a goal.

Refuse2SettleOwl aka Optimistic Owl.

I more think of him now as ItCouldAlwaysBeWorseOwl. I do see where he's coming from a lot of time.

(06-06-2022 06:15 PM)gsloth Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 05:32 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 04:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 02:17 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(06-03-2022 05:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Number one, I wouldn't take the job without some reassurances that I would be given a chance to overcome that wall. It is my belief that the Board would be generally supportive of such efforts, but the problem as been punching past the gate-keepers in the administration.

I agree that your approach is the correct one, but - no offense intended - anyone who looks at the Rice athletics situation objectively should come to a similar conclusion. It seems reasonable to assume that at least Del Conte and Karlgaard were smart and thorough and would have performed enough due diligence on this position to understand its needs. I wouldn't be surprised to know that each received the kinds of assurances you list but ultimately weren't (in JK's case, haven't been) able to overcome those gatekeepers.

My conclusion is the person with the ability and willingness to make this happen on his/her own probably doesn't exist. On the other hand, an AD with a really superior coach in either basketball or football might be able to push for the kinds of changes needed because a demonstration of the kinds of revenue that are generated by a consistent winning program might be meaningful enough to push through barriers. And no, I don't include baseball because its revenue potential just isn't near the ceiling of the other two "major" sports.

I am not optimistic. Nor am I Optimistic™.

When I chose that handle 17-18 years ago, I was optimistic. Now, I think maybe PessimisticOwl would be a better choice. But with a landscape full of pessimistic Owls, people would never be able to find me. Which one is he, they would say, they all sound alike. Can't, won't, didn't, couldn't.

I am not at all convinced that just a new AD, or a new coach, or a new whatever can solve the problem. I am not convinced that all of the above would do it. I think what we need is what we don't have, and cannot hire - a large, well-heeled alumni base demanding results and willing to pay for them - what some here call the TCU model and others call the Stanford model.

I am pessimistically thinking that perhaps Rice's heyday, if it can be called that, is over. It ran from about 1999 to about 2014. Give ot take a couple of years at either end.

Regardless of what I think are our prospects, I refuse to settle for mediocre as a goal.

Refuse2SettleOwl aka Optimistic Owl.

I more think of him now as ItCouldAlwaysBeWorseOwl. I do see where he's coming from a lot of time.

Not all the time? Where do we differ? I am for winning, and I am for improving.


I have seen it worse. But I am too old now to settle for .500, even if it is every year. If one cannot aspire to be the best, they are not aspiring at all.