(12-04-2022 03:48 PM)Ourland Wrote:  If a donor offered Rice $100 million dollars for athletics, Rice would turn it down.

Not likely. But they would insist an equal donation for a non-athletic cause or insist the donation be split with at least 50% going to somehing other than athletics.

(12-04-2022 02:03 PM)Owlman49 Wrote:  I'm happy to see my original post generate some "energy" on this topic. I posted it out of complete frustration coming to a head watching Tulane, win the AAC championship and knowing that we are walking into that conference and will most likely be bottom tier at best.

It is clear to me from the postings in this thread/board that most believe we have both internal and/or external issues at Rice. It is a classic chicken and egg scenario. Internally there is a lack of institutional commitment to the importance of athletics as an endeavor. Externally, we have a "financial" and attendance commitment issue.

So what is the solution? Someone suggested getting 100 alumni together to pool and direct funds. I like this idea. Living in DFW my connections across alumni is limited but I would be willing to help and I am sure others on this board would as well. Walt, you seem well connected and it would take someone who is. Want take the lead on this?

Which one is the chicken - the alumni or the Administration?

(12-04-2022 04:02 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 03:48 PM)Ourland Wrote:  They'll make due with what they have

Misspelled “doo”

Hehehe

Very nice.

(12-04-2022 04:10 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 03:48 PM)Ourland Wrote:  If a donor offered Rice $100 million dollars for athletics, Rice would turn it down.

Not likely. But they would insist an equal donation for a non-athletic cause or insist the donation be split with at least 50% going to somehing other than athletics.

See what I mean? They don't want money flowing into athletics. They won't allow it.

(12-04-2022 04:01 PM)Barney Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 02:43 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 01:12 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 12:50 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(12-03-2022 10:28 PM)Grungy Wrote:  [Gnote: Walt said pretty much the same thing I'm saying here before I could hit "Post Reply".]

It's all about money.
Who's going to cough up the money to fund that commitment?

Numbers said at some point in the past that it might cost a million to fund one aspect of attaining relevance, and another million to fund the other half (I forget what it was, and I'm too lazy to look it up).
I think we're looking at tens of millions to become relevant.
Or am I still way low on the estimate?

Do we have deep-pocket alumni or fans that are going to write a check?

Don't imagine that the board is going to spend any/much of that endowment on men's sports.
Bobby Tudor was chairman of the board for a term - he didn't make it happen.
Bucky Allshouse was on the board - he didn't make it happen.
They have each given a lot already.

I'm not against what is being suggested here, and would welcome that kind of change, but I am not going to hold my breath.

Finally, a voice of reason.

People, Rice doesn't want a 'relevant' football program in the eyes of the nation that competes for conference championships every year, or that wins 10 games a year, or that sends three players every season to the NFL. It doesn't care to have that!!!

Rice has a football program because it has played football for over 100 years, and it's part of the 'student experience' on campus. It does this against the backdrop of being the best academic institution in the state, and one of the best in the nation. It will spend as little as possible to make it great, because it isn't a priority. They're satisfied with doing just enough to make it competitive, and to keep us in the same conference as SMU, Tulsa, and Tulane.

I cannot explain why Rice can't think like Stanford, or Baylor, or TCU, but it won't. It will never happen. Rice has a different attitude toward athletics, and it isn't changing.

That may well be the way Rice thinks of athletics, but it is only the alumni who can change that. If the alumni rise up and take control of the direction and focus of athletics, the Administration will follow. If the alumni continue to sit on the side and *****, nothing will happen.

The alumni just don't care enough to enact change in athletics. We here are a very rare breed. Others don't share the passion.

+1
+1
+1
+1
There's alot of talk here about money, and there's alot of talk about coaching.
To me, Rice's primary failing is in its development of a social 'school spirit' community culture. And much of the rest of our frustrations fall from this common issue.
Committing to this doesn't take alot of money. It takes caring about it, and it takes at least some focus on the admissions process. Our exceptional selectivity should allow us to pick students who want to come to Rice for this part of the college experience. We seem strongly committed to the opposite.
What I would love to experience, at least once more in my life, is an authentic rivalry game in Rice Stadium -- where our student section is full, our band legitimate, our team competitive, and the crowd electric.
If I could have that, I wouldn't care if we ever went to another bowl game.

You're right. Fostering a strong sense of school spirit goes a long way in keeping students and alums engaged.

Also agree about the rivalries. I hope we can get something going with Tulane, UH, and SMU. It's too bad that we won't be playing them every season in football, but we'll have to make doo.

(12-04-2022 03:48 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 03:06 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 02:49 PM)dragon2owl Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 02:43 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 01:12 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  That may well be the way Rice thinks of athletics, but it is only the alumni who can change that. If the alumni rise up and take control of the direction and focus of athletics, the Administration will follow. If the alumni continue to sit on the side and *****, nothing will happen.

The alumni just don't care enough to enact change in athletics. We here are a very rare breed. Others don't share the passion.

How many former Rice athletes are there?

A lot of former Rice athletes are Texas or LSU fans too. Not saying they don’t care about Rice but we don’t have a large group of alumni willing to spend their money to make Rice athletics better. The University has never prioritized it so why throw good money at something without a chance. First year in 10+ that I didn’t buy season tickets.

If a donor offered Rice $100 million dollars for athletics, Rice would turn it down. They don't want money or need money. They want to keep athletics 'under control.' They don't want what Parliament wants. The investment will never be at a level we want. They'll make due with what they have, and they're comfortable with that. Rice doesn't want anything distracting from its core mission. That's how it thinks

That's an outright lie. Can we please stop we the total B.S. from people who purport to know what they're talking about. The university did not turn down Patterson's money or Tudor's or Trauber's or the Gibb's or the Bixby's. Yes, all of these folks (as do I) also give to the academic side of the university, but the vast majority goes to Rice athletics.

(12-04-2022 04:10 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 03:48 PM)Ourland Wrote:  If a donor offered Rice $100 million dollars for athletics, Rice would turn it down.

Not likely. But they would insist an equal donation for a non-athletic cause or insist the donation be split with at least 50% going to somehing other than athletics.

Again, not true.

(12-04-2022 04:50 PM)Ourland Wrote:  Also agree about the rivalries. I hope we can get something going with Tulane, UH, and SMU. It's too bad that we won't be playing them every season in football, but we'll have to make doo.

Yes. The AAC has set up its scheduling scheme to include pairs of teams that do play each other EVERY year. I was disappointed to see that our mate in this is UTSA (instead of Tulane, SMU or Tulsa). But UTSA better than UNT, imo.

Chicken or egg. Both here are right and wrong.

The money people don't see the commitment beyond the current state for something bigger as they don't see an executable plan worth throwing $ at.

The Rice admin people at AD, Pres, Board, etc. don't see the commitment from the money people so they keep funding 'as is' at around a low eight-figure a year loss with no appetite to fund more losses.

Both sides waiting for product on field to improve to make 'commitment'. And as all know, that is not happening in the $ sports. Thus, money people go to invest in other things at other parts of Rice, other schools, other philanthropic interests, etc. and admin focuses energy on other Rice projects outside of Athletics.

So a year-after-year stalemate of status quo and incrementalism.

As I've said on prior threads, a change agent is needed to break the logjam. Maybe next AD should not come in from junior AD at a program like Stanford but a Rice insider that can sell to both the $ alums (the $ are there) AND also to the admin (the $ are there). And that sell is not just for a bigger vision of athletic platitudes that already exists but an actual concrete plan.

IMO, that is the change agent that is needed.

(12-04-2022 05:02 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 03:48 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 03:06 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 02:49 PM)dragon2owl Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 02:43 PM)Ourland Wrote:  The alumni just don't care enough to enact change in athletics. We here are a very rare breed. Others don't share the passion.

How many former Rice athletes are there?

A lot of former Rice athletes are Texas or LSU fans too. Not saying they don’t care about Rice but we don’t have a large group of alumni willing to spend their money to make Rice athletics better. The University has never prioritized it so why throw good money at something without a chance. First year in 10+ that I didn’t buy season tickets.

If a donor offered Rice $100 million dollars for athletics, Rice would turn it down. They don't want money or need money. They want to keep athletics 'under control.' They don't want what Parliament wants. The investment will never be at a level we want. They'll make due with what they have, and they're comfortable with that. Rice doesn't want anything distracting from its core mission. That's how it thinks

That's an outright lie. Can we please stop we the total B.S. from people who purport to know what they're talking about. The university did not turn down Patterson's money or Tudor's or Trauber's or the Gibb's or the Bixby's. Yes, all of these folks (as do I) also give to the academic side of the university, but the vast majority goes to Rice athletics.

No it's not. When Rice needs 'x' amount of dollars for a project, it solicits donations, and it gets them. If anyone were to donate to just 'athletics,' that donation would be met with walls. Don't tell me what I know and don't know please.Thank you. All of us here have been dealing with Rice for a very long time. We know how things work too.

(12-04-2022 05:20 PM)owl40 Wrote:  Chicken or egg. Both here are right and wrong.

The money people don't see the commitment beyond the current state for something bigger as they don't see an executable plan worth throwing $ at.

The Rice admin people at AD, Pres, Board, etc. don't see the commitment from the money people so they keep funding 'as is' at around a low eight-figure a year loss with no appetite to fund more losses.

Both sides waiting for product on field to improve to make 'commitment'. And as all know, that is not happening in the $ sports. Thus, money people go to invest in other things at other parts of Rice, other schools, other philanthropic interests, etc. and admin focuses energy on other Rice projects outside of Athletics.

So a year-after-year stalemate of status quo and incrementalism.

As I've said on prior threads, a change agent is needed to break the logjam. Maybe next AD should not come in from junior AD at a program like Stanford but a Rice insider that can sell to both the $ alums (the $ are there) AND also to the admin (the $ are there). And that sell is not just for a bigger vision of athletic platitudes that already exists but an actual concrete plan.

IMO, that is the change agent that is needed.

I think a dynamic and aggressive AD would help, but the change that I'm envisioning would have to come from the President and BOT. It's a "vision thing". It's the culture that money can't buy.
I'm disappointed that Tudor couldn't have somehow been that person. I'm hoping that our new president might be, eventually.

(12-04-2022 05:23 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 05:02 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 03:48 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 03:06 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 02:49 PM)dragon2owl Wrote:  How many former Rice athletes are there?

A lot of former Rice athletes are Texas or LSU fans too. Not saying they don’t care about Rice but we don’t have a large group of alumni willing to spend their money to make Rice athletics better. The University has never prioritized it so why throw good money at something without a chance. First year in 10+ that I didn’t buy season tickets.

If a donor offered Rice $100 million dollars for athletics, Rice would turn it down. They don't want money or need money. They want to keep athletics 'under control.' They don't want what Parliament wants. The investment will never be at a level we want. They'll make due with what they have, and they're comfortable with that. Rice doesn't want anything distracting from its core mission. That's how it thinks

That's an outright lie. Can we please stop we the total B.S. from people who purport to know what they're talking about. The university did not turn down Patterson's money or Tudor's or Trauber's or the Gibb's or the Bixby's. Yes, all of these folks (as do I) also give to the academic side of the university, but the vast majority goes to Rice athletics.

No it's not. When Rice needs 'x' amount of dollars for a project, it solicits donations, and it gets them. If anyone were to donate to just 'athletics,' that donation would be met with walls. Don't tell me what I know and don't know please.Thank you. All of us here have been dealing with Rice for a very long time. We know how things work too.

lol Seriously? How many of "all of us here" have been major donors to the University and Rice athletics (and by "major" I mean have given well over $250,000 over the past decade)?

(12-04-2022 05:37 PM)Barney Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 05:20 PM)owl40 Wrote:  Chicken or egg. Both here are right and wrong.

The money people don't see the commitment beyond the current state for something bigger as they don't see an executable plan worth throwing $ at.

The Rice admin people at AD, Pres, Board, etc. don't see the commitment from the money people so they keep funding 'as is' at around a low eight-figure a year loss with no appetite to fund more losses.

Both sides waiting for product on field to improve to make 'commitment'. And as all know, that is not happening in the $ sports. Thus, money people go to invest in other things at other parts of Rice, other schools, other philanthropic interests, etc. and admin focuses energy on other Rice projects outside of Athletics.

So a year-after-year stalemate of status quo and incrementalism.

As I've said on prior threads, a change agent is needed to break the logjam. Maybe next AD should not come in from junior AD at a program like Stanford but a Rice insider that can sell to both the $ alums (the $ are there) AND also to the admin (the $ are there). And that sell is not just for a bigger vision of athletic platitudes that already exists but an actual concrete plan.

IMO, that is the change agent that is needed.

I think a dynamic and aggressive AD would help, but the change that I'm envisioning would have to come from the President and BOT. It's a "vision thing". It's the culture that money can't buy.
I'm disappointed that Tudor couldn't have somehow been that person. I'm hoping that our new president might be, eventually.

lol Our new President didn't even name a rep from the Athletic Department to his vision task force; the only area or department at Rice excluded.

(12-04-2022 05:55 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 05:23 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 05:02 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 03:48 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 03:06 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  A lot of former Rice athletes are Texas or LSU fans too. Not saying they don’t care about Rice but we don’t have a large group of alumni willing to spend their money to make Rice athletics better. The University has never prioritized it so why throw good money at something without a chance. First year in 10+ that I didn’t buy season tickets.

If a donor offered Rice $100 million dollars for athletics, Rice would turn it down. They don't want money or need money. They want to keep athletics 'under control.' They don't want what Parliament wants. The investment will never be at a level we want. They'll make due with what they have, and they're comfortable with that. Rice doesn't want anything distracting from its core mission. That's how it thinks

That's an outright lie. Can we please stop we the total B.S. from people who purport to know what they're talking about. The university did not turn down Patterson's money or Tudor's or Trauber's or the Gibb's or the Bixby's. Yes, all of these folks (as do I) also give to the academic side of the university, but the vast majority goes to Rice athletics.

No it's not. When Rice needs 'x' amount of dollars for a project, it solicits donations, and it gets them. If anyone were to donate to just 'athletics,' that donation would be met with walls. Don't tell me what I know and don't know please.Thank you. All of us here have been dealing with Rice for a very long time. We know how things work too.

lol Seriously? How many of "all of us here" have been major donors to the University and Rice athletics (and by "major" I mean have given well over $250,000 over the past decade)?

We understand that you’ve given a lot of money to the university. I certainly appreciate that. That doesn’t mean other alums, who could/should make up the bulk of our fan base, can’t be frustrated by the state of the university. Athletics exists to be the university’s “foot in the door” with alums, community members, and occasionally when we play on national TV, Joe Schmoe in Anywhere, USA.

Because Rice shows no plans to lift our athletic program to new heights, I have donated $1,500 in the last year to my high school’s new hockey arena, and $0 to Rice. Not that $1,500 is going to change the direction of Rice athletics, but on the margin, those donations do make a difference when added up.

(12-04-2022 06:02 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 05:55 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 05:23 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 05:02 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 03:48 PM)Ourland Wrote:  If a donor offered Rice $100 million dollars for athletics, Rice would turn it down. They don't want money or need money. They want to keep athletics 'under control.' They don't want what Parliament wants. The investment will never be at a level we want. They'll make due with what they have, and they're comfortable with that. Rice doesn't want anything distracting from its core mission. That's how it thinks

That's an outright lie. Can we please stop we the total B.S. from people who purport to know what they're talking about. The university did not turn down Patterson's money or Tudor's or Trauber's or the Gibb's or the Bixby's. Yes, all of these folks (as do I) also give to the academic side of the university, but the vast majority goes to Rice athletics.

No it's not. When Rice needs 'x' amount of dollars for a project, it solicits donations, and it gets them. If anyone were to donate to just 'athletics,' that donation would be met with walls. Don't tell me what I know and don't know please.Thank you. All of us here have been dealing with Rice for a very long time. We know how things work too.

lol Seriously? How many of "all of us here" have been major donors to the University and Rice athletics (and by "major" I mean have given well over $250,000 over the past decade)?

We understand that you’ve given a lot of money to the university. I certainly appreciate that. That doesn’t mean other alums, who could/should make up the bulk of our fan base, can’t be frustrated by the state of the university. Athletics exists to be the university’s “foot in the door” with alums, community members, and occasionally when we play on national TV, Joe Schmoe in Anywhere, USA.

Because Rice shows no plans to lift our athletic program to new heights, I have donated $1,500 in the last year to my high school’s new hockey arena, and $0 to Rice. Not that $1,500 is going to change the direction of Rice athletics, but on the margin, those donations do make a difference when added up.

My response above was to a specific post claiming the university would not accept a $100MM donation to Rice athletics...and then to a reply that claimed he and others on this board were in the know about such large donations. I was not snubbing my nose at those giving smaller annual donations. Having said that, I'll repeat that it is the big boosters who ultimately move the needle in incenting university action. That's reality whether we like it or not. And it's true at every single university in the country; not simply Rice.

(12-04-2022 06:11 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 06:02 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 05:55 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 05:23 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 05:02 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  That's an outright lie. Can we please stop we the total B.S. from people who purport to know what they're talking about. The university did not turn down Patterson's money or Tudor's or Trauber's or the Gibb's or the Bixby's. Yes, all of these folks (as do I) also give to the academic side of the university, but the vast majority goes to Rice athletics.

No it's not. When Rice needs 'x' amount of dollars for a project, it solicits donations, and it gets them. If anyone were to donate to just 'athletics,' that donation would be met with walls. Don't tell me what I know and don't know please.Thank you. All of us here have been dealing with Rice for a very long time. We know how things work too.

lol Seriously? How many of "all of us here" have been major donors to the University and Rice athletics (and by "major" I mean have given well over $250,000 over the past decade)?

We understand that you’ve given a lot of money to the university. I certainly appreciate that. That doesn’t mean other alums, who could/should make up the bulk of our fan base, can’t be frustrated by the state of the university. Athletics exists to be the university’s “foot in the door” with alums, community members, and occasionally when we play on national TV, Joe Schmoe in Anywhere, USA.

Because Rice shows no plans to lift our athletic program to new heights, I have donated $1,500 in the last year to my high school’s new hockey arena, and $0 to Rice. Not that $1,500 is going to change the direction of Rice athletics, but on the margin, those donations do make a difference when added up.

My response above was to a specific post claiming the university would not accept a $100MM donation to Rice athletics...and then to a reply that claimed he and others on this board were in the know about such large donations. I was not snubbing my nose at those giving smaller annual donations. Having said that, I'll repeat that it is the big boosters who ultimately move the needle in incenting university action. That's reality whether we like it or not. And it's true at every single university in the country; not simply Rice.

I am thankful we have a fan like Walt. Wish we had more. If we had 100 like him, I doubt we would be having this discussion.

(12-04-2022 02:40 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  Tulane’s student body is almost entirely (91%) out of state, which should dispel the oft-stated notion on here that recruiting a more Texas/Southern student body will help student attendance.

Umm, not really.

The demographics of Tulane and Rice are surprisingly, at least to me, different. Not sure what conclusions can be drawn re student attendance at athletic events, but Rice is significantly more diverse.

https://www.collegesimply.com/colleges/t.../students/

https://www.collegesimply.com/colleges/l.../students/

Where do donations to Rice athletics come from?

Mostly from alumni, and occasionally from outside benefactors (Ralph S. O'Connor is a glowing example).
Former students, former student-athletes (the R-Association).

Do these donors expect anything in return?
Aside from the obvious things like naming rights, reserved parking, or a seat in the Stadium Club there is likely one other thing that all would like.

Respect.
Respect for their contribution.
There is also respect for their past participation, as letter-winners, whether they have made monetary donations or not.

If past donors see little respect for their contributions, are they more or less likely to contribute in the future?
How much does Rice honor the past contributors?

Here are some examples of Rice's institutional forgetfulness...

This used to be mounted on a wall, somewhere.
No one seems to know where.
It was found amidst the mess in the Don Knodel R-Association Office under the R-Room.
(That room is mostly used as the command center for the game time hired security personnel.)
Melissa Kean and I moved it to the safety of Rice's archives, in the Woodson Research Center (WRC here is the Woodson, not Will Rice College).



These were found in the bottom of a cabinet in the same "office".
A selection of award plaques, with the names of award winners (and they were letter-winners).
Also moved to the safety of Rice's archives in the WRC.



The top-most example of those forgotten plaques - the George Martin Award.
WRC



Where might this note have been found?



It was in a closet in the R-Room.



Well - they didn't move it.
I did.
It's in the WRC, where it will almost certainly receive better care.



The John L. Cox Fitness Center (the weight room) on the south end of the stadium had this plaque to honor the contributors to building the facility.



In 2016 and 2017, the football program, and the weight training facility moved to the new Brian Patterson Sports Performance Center on the north end of the stadium, and almost entirely out of the south end.
Two plaques were left behind.
The John L. Cox plaque above, and the Rice Athletic Endowment Fund plaque seen below.
There are participants in the Parliament on the latter.



There was near-zero chance of anyone seeing them on the south end.
I took them down and moved them to the Patterson facility.
I told the person at the front desk what they were, and of my hopes that they could be remounted so that future visitors to Athletics would see them, and respect the contributions of these past donors.
This is what they did with them.
They attained zero chance of being seen.
I found them there by accident when the Rice Historical Society showed the documentary about turning Willy's statue in the large screening room



That's a corridor/stairwell above the large screening room (the volleyball watch party was held there last Thursday).

I inquired several times about them, and also worked with Melissa Kean to see if the Athletic Department could be moved to honor these donors again, with no results.
Back in October, I retrieved the John L. Cox plaque, and put it back where it was originally, in the hallway between the band hall and the old visitor's locker rooms.
Precious few will see it there, but it's again associated with the facility that these donors funded.
My respect for those donors compelled me to put it back.



The endowment plaque is still leaning against the wall behind the column.



There are also about 60 jackets and sweaters languishing in hampers in a store room under the R-Room that were never given to the letter-winners who should have received them.

Can it be done at Rice?
Can they respect past contributors?

(12-04-2022 08:37 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 02:40 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  Tulane’s student body is almost entirely (91%) out of state, which should dispel the oft-stated notion on here that recruiting a more Texas/Southern student body will help student attendance.

Umm, not really.

The demographics of Tulane and Rice are surprisingly, at least to me, different. Not sure what conclusions can be drawn re student attendance at athletic events, but Rice is significantly more diverse.

https://www.collegesimply.com/colleges/t.../students/

https://www.collegesimply.com/colleges/l.../students/

Racially, yes, Tulane is the far whiter school.

To that point, I often see it handwaved on here that if Rice were to admit more from Texas and neighboring states (Rice is already 40% from TX), our athletic culture would be better.

A supermajority (81%) of Tulane students are NOT from what the university defines as Louisiana + South Central (https://admission.tulane.edu/apply/getti...-profile).

What I’m getting at is there is likely a correlation between race and interest in collegiate athletics (football especially, for better or worse). Given that Texas K-12 at present is less than 45% white + black students (https://schools.texastribune.org/states/tx/), which is lower than most states Tulane recruits from (https://www.njspotlightnews.org/2020/01/...ystem/amp/ , https://data.nysed.gov/enrollment.php?ye...tate=yes), it is likely counterproductive to the cause of increased football attendance to try and over represent Texas students.

And before anyone accuses me of being racist for saying that white and black students are more likely to enjoy football, white and black viewers are over represented compared to their share of the population when it comes to NFL viewership (a decent proxy) https://brandongaille.com/17-captivating...ographics/ …

Anyhow, it would be stupid to fill our university with students based on their likelihood on football fandom, but as long as Rice is >50% Asian/Hispanic, I would expect our interest in football to lag our peers.

(12-04-2022 10:27 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 08:37 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 02:40 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  Tulane’s student body is almost entirely (91%) out of state, which should dispel the oft-stated notion on here that recruiting a more Texas/Southern student body will help student attendance.

Umm, not really.

The demographics of Tulane and Rice are surprisingly, at least to me, different. Not sure what conclusions can be drawn re student attendance at athletic events, but Rice is significantly more diverse.

https://www.collegesimply.com/colleges/t.../students/

https://www.collegesimply.com/colleges/l.../students/

Racially, yes, Tulane is the far whiter school.

To that point, I often see it handwaved on here that if Rice were to admit more from Texas and neighboring states (Rice is already 40% from TX), our athletic culture would be better.

A supermajority (81%) of Tulane students are NOT from what the university defines as Louisiana + South Central (https://admission.tulane.edu/apply/getti...-profile).

What I’m getting at is there is likely a correlation between race and interest in collegiate athletics (football especially, for better or worse). Given that Texas K-12 at present is less than 45% white + black students (https://schools.texastribune.org/states/tx/), which is lower than most states Tulane recruits from (https://www.njspotlightnews.org/2020/01/...ystem/amp/ , https://data.nysed.gov/enrollment.php?ye...tate=yes), it is likely counterproductive to the cause of increased football attendance to try and over represent Texas students.

And before anyone accuses me of being racist for saying that white and black students are more likely to enjoy football, white and black viewers are over represented compared to their share of the population when it comes to NFL viewership (a decent proxy) https://brandongaille.com/17-captivating...ographics/ …

Anyhow, it would be stupid to fill our university with students based on their likelihood on football fandom, but as long as Rice is >50% Asian/Hispanic, I would expect our interest in football to lag our peers.

I think the racial make up of the student body is irrelevant if the team is winning.