A school with the following academic qualifications just won the AAC Championship in a resounding fashion:

• According to U.S. News and World Report, Tulane University is among the top national universities in the United States, ranked 42nd among the best national universities and the 34th in most innovative schools. Tulane is also ranked 4th in service learning.
• DesignIntelligence ranked the School of Architecture’s undergraduate program at No. 17.
• U.S. News & World Report ranks the A.B. Freeman School of Business BSM program 41st in the nation.
• The International Jurist named Tulane Law School’s Master of Laws (LLM) program among the best for academic quality, ranking it 14th.
• In its most recent report, the Princeton Review ranked Tulane in the top universities that are Most Loved, Best Run, and have the Best College City, Best Quality of Life and the Happiest Students.
• Tulane University is ranked as one of the top schools in the nation for producing senior academic administrators who are shaping our nation’s public health workforce.
• Tulane ranks first in the nation among graduate schools that produce the most Peace Corps Volunteers.
  

In addition, they have their own Medical School and Law School.

They won in front of a sellout home crowd with stands full of proud of their school "SMART KIDS!!!" Who love the team!

I asked myself while watching the Tulane vs. UCF game, why might this be? I decided to look at their athletics website. One thing that stood out to me was the massive difference between academic support for athletes at Tulane and Rice. The number of staff at Tulane specific to that area is 12 versus our department with 4. That difference is one data point that reflects the level of commitment Tulane has to student athlete success versus Rice. To be clear, Julie Griswold is fantastic, a wonder woman, she came to Rice while I was still on the field and I know her and her work personally, so this is not a dig at her or the others in that service. I also know that more individuals dedicated to a task doesn't always equate to increased performance. I do know that if you ask Julie she would tell you that she is busier than a one armed paper hanger! This rant is pointed squarely at our inept Rice Institute and their asinine approach to athletics!

TULANE ATHLETIC ACADEMIC SERVICES
Deputy Athletic Director, Student Services/SWA Dr. Charvi Greer
Assistant Director, Academic Services Daniel Jacobs
Assistant Director, Academic Services Wendy LeBlanc
Senior Academic Advisor Meagan Martucci
Senior Academic Advisor Destinee Medrano
Senior Academic Advisor Hannah Richards
Senior Academic Advisor Roger Danison
Senior Academic Advisor Abby McKanna
Graduate Assistant, Academic Services Brandi Brown
Graduate Assistant, Academic Services Crystal Dickerson
Graduate Assistant, Academic Services Amelia Riese
Graduate Assistant, Academic Services Gigi Williamson

RICE ACADEMIC ADVISING FOR ATHLETICS
Julie Griswold Associate Director / Academic Advising for Athletics
Mike Yeakel Associate Director / Academic Advising for Athletics
Kendal Moore Assistant Director / Academic Advising for Athletics
Misha Caylor Assistant Director / Academic Advising for Athletics

There is absolutely NO REASON, I repeat NO REASON, that this type of success in football cannot be done at RICE! All it takes is the same commitment to athletics in general and football specifically as Rice has made to academics!

Excellence in ANY endeavor is something to be proud of by all RICE OWLS! I can tell you there are a lot of proud Green Waves right now, athlete or no! Doctors, lawyers, scientists, professors, students, families and alumni of Tulane of all persuasions will be sporting their Green Wave gear over the next week and when the Cotton Bowl comes around they will bring a GREEN WAVE of support to celebrate THEIR team!

HOW CAN THAT BE BAD FOR TULANE?

To borrow a phrase from our 46th President, "COME ON MAN!":banghead:

You do realize that the ranking stats for Tulane that you posted are a far cry from Rice's current rankings, right?

(12-03-2022 08:54 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  You do realize that the ranking stats for Tulane that you posted are a far cry from Rice's current rankings, right?

The point still stands. It can be done at Rice...and should be done. 49 is right. Earlier posters have said the best we can do is every so often. That's a defeatist attitude.

(12-03-2022 08:54 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  You do realize that the ranking stats for Tulane that you posted are a far cry from Rice's current rankings, right?

You do realize that we owned Tulane in the CUSA 3.0 days and now we are back in the dumpster and Tulane is miles ahead of us? Nothing has changed between then and now in the academic standings of either school

(12-03-2022 08:54 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  You do realize that the ranking stats for Tulane that you posted are a far cry from Rice's current rankings, right?

Walt, COME ON MAN!

I did get my sheepskin from Rice so give me a little credit.

Since you want to measure, guess what else we have that's better than those "not as highly ranked academically" GREEN WAVERS?

We are much more well endowed:

Rice Endowment:
$6,166,323,000

Tulane Endowment:
$1,458,648,000

Your point is mute. Like many academic oriented universities there are areas where we excel and they do not and vice versa. I also know that Tulane like Rice and 63 other institutions are members of the Association of American Universities, an elite group of top-ranked research institutions. Which, on its face is indicative of a commitment to academic excellence.

So, the point, that you seem to miss, is not to compare how big mine is versus yours. The point is that WINNING IN ATHLETICS AND SPECIFICALLY IN FOOTBALL CAN BE DONE AT AN ACADEMICALLY ORIENTED INSTITUTION! It simply takes the same level of commitment to athletics as the university has to academics!

So for our beloved institution, MONEY nor BRAINS is the problem, it's half-assed COMMITMENT!

(12-03-2022 09:57 PM)Owlman49 Wrote:  

(12-03-2022 08:54 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  You do realize that the ranking stats for Tulane that you posted are a far cry from Rice's current rankings, right?

Walt, COME ON MAN!

I did get my sheepskin from Rice so give me a little credit.

Since you want to measure, guess what else we have that's better than those "not as highly ranked academically" GREEN WAVERS?

We are much more well endowed:

Rice Endowment:
$6,166,323,000

Tulane Endowment:
$1,458,648,000

Your point is mute. Like many academic oriented universities there are areas where we excel and they do not and vice versa. I also know that Tulane like Rice and 63 other institutions are members of the Association of American Universities, an elite group of top-ranked research institutions. Which, on its face is indicative of a commitment to academic excellence.

So, the point, that you seem to miss, is not to compare how big mine is versus yours. The point is that WINNING IN ATHLETICS AND SPECIFICALLY IN FOOTBALL CAN BE DONE AT AN ACADEMICALLY ORIENTED INSTITUTION! It simply takes the same level of commitment to athletics as the university has to academics!

So for our beloved institution, MONEY nor BRAINS is the problem, it's half-assed COMMITMENT!

+1

(12-03-2022 10:01 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(12-03-2022 09:57 PM)Owlman49 Wrote:  

(12-03-2022 08:54 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  You do realize that the ranking stats for Tulane that you posted are a far cry from Rice's current rankings, right?

Walt, COME ON MAN!

I did get my sheepskin from Rice so give me a little credit.

Since you want to measure, guess what else we have that's better than those "not as highly ranked academically" GREEN WAVERS?

We are much more well endowed:

Rice Endowment:
$6,166,323,000

Tulane Endowment:
$1,458,648,000

Your point is mute. Like many academic oriented universities there are areas where we excel and they do not and vice versa. I also know that Tulane like Rice and 63 other institutions are members of the Association of American Universities, an elite group of top-ranked research institutions. Which, on its face is indicative of a commitment to academic excellence.

So, the point, that you seem to miss, is not to compare how big mine is versus yours. The point is that WINNING IN ATHLETICS AND SPECIFICALLY IN FOOTBALL CAN BE DONE AT AN ACADEMICALLY ORIENTED INSTITUTION! It simply takes the same level of commitment to athletics as the university has to academics!

So for our beloved institution, MONEY nor BRAINS is the problem, it's half-assed COMMITMENT!

+1

Then get more alums or corporations to open up their wallets. The commitment from Tulane didn't come out of their endowment. That's the primary problem we have at Rice. The number of donors who give more than $5,000 annually to Rice Athletic is small compared to other schools (I'll bet including Tulane). I'm embarrassed by the small number of donors who give more than $25,000/yr to Rice athletics, let alone the sparse number that qualify for the Blue & Gray Society (those who give $50,000+ in a given year or $500,000+ lifetime to Rice Athletics). THAT's the problem. It's us as much to blame here as it is the university as a whole. I have found from my dealings with Rice Athletics and the School of Social Sciences, the university has been more than willing to chip in on major projects if and when at least equal funds are raised elsewhere. This was the case with the Patterson Center, with the first stage HRS renovations, with Kraft Hall and with the recent baseball field turf project.

[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.

Here's the current board - who amongst them do you think will vote to spend a chunk of the endowment on athletics?
Put together 11 names.

Robert T. Ladd, Chair
Elle Anderson
Bart Broadman
Reginald DesRoches
Wanda Gass
Terrence Marlin Gee
George Gonzalez
James T. Hackett
Patti Kraft
Holli Ladhani
Asuka Nakahara
Brian Patterson
Byron Pope
David Rhodes
Gloria G. Tarpley
Jeremy Thigpen
Claudia Vassar
Jim Whitehurst
Lori Whitten
Mike Yuen

I agree that money is a requirement, but the money won’t come until the school commits to making it happen. Yes, the admin has spent a lot of money over the years, but they’ve never fully committed to making it happen. In my estimation, that is a big part of why the money never flows.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(12-03-2022 10:31 PM)markbrindley Wrote:  I agree that money is a requirement, but the money won’t come until the school commits to making it happen. Yes, the admin has spent a lot of money over the years, but they’ve never fully committed to making it happen. In my estimation, that is a big part of why the money never flows.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

B.S. At every school the impetus for increased financial commitment to athletics come first from the boosters. The university follows.

(12-03-2022 10:34 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-03-2022 10:31 PM)markbrindley Wrote:  I agree that money is a requirement, but the money won’t come until the school commits to making it happen. Yes, the admin has spent a lot of money over the years, but they’ve never fully committed to making it happen. In my estimation, that is a big part of why the money never flows.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

B.S. At every school the impetus for increased financial commitment to athletics come first from the boosters. The university follows.

Notice I didn’t say financial commitment from the university as you imply. Institutional commitment is what is missing when it comes to fund raising. The university needs to make an institutional commitment to athletics at a high level in order for funds to flow. The current level of commitment to athletics leaves potential donors wondering if there will even be athletics at Rice in 10 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(12-03-2022 10:41 PM)markbrindley Wrote:  

(12-03-2022 10:34 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-03-2022 10:31 PM)markbrindley Wrote:  I agree that money is a requirement, but the money won’t come until the school commits to making it happen. Yes, the admin has spent a lot of money over the years, but they’ve never fully committed to making it happen. In my estimation, that is a big part of why the money never flows.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

B.S. At every school the impetus for increased financial commitment to athletics come first from the boosters. The university follows.

Notice I didn’t say financial commitment from the university as you imply. Institutional commitment is what is missing when it comes to fund raising. The university needs to make an institutional commitment to athletics at a high level in order for funds to flow. The current level of commitment to athletics leaves potential donors wondering if there will even be athletics at Rice in 10 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Again, I disagree. You're simply passing the blame and trying shirk all responsibility. B.S.

(12-03-2022 10:34 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-03-2022 10:31 PM)markbrindley Wrote:  I agree that money is a requirement, but the money won’t come until the school commits to making it happen. Yes, the admin has spent a lot of money over the years, but they’ve never fully committed to making it happen. In my estimation, that is a big part of why the money never flows.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

B.S. At every school the impetus for increased financial commitment to athletics come first from the boosters. The university follows.

Walt is correct here. That said, we (and President DesRoches shouldn’t either) underestimate the amount of money that is on the sidelines until Karlgaard is removed as AD.

(12-03-2022 10:45 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(12-03-2022 10:34 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-03-2022 10:31 PM)markbrindley Wrote:  I agree that money is a requirement, but the money won’t come until the school commits to making it happen. Yes, the admin has spent a lot of money over the years, but they’ve never fully committed to making it happen. In my estimation, that is a big part of why the money never flows.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

B.S. At every school the impetus for increased financial commitment to athletics come first from the boosters. The university follows.

Walt is correct here. That said, we (and President DesRoches shouldn’t either) underestimate the amount of money that is on the sidelines until Karlgaard is removed as AD.

Personally, I don't believe that. Yes, there are a contingent of alums who have in recent years pulled back their donations, but the vast majority of those that fall into this category (if not all of them) are giving relatively small amounts annually. I very much doubt the big time donors are withholding gifts because of Karlgaard.

(12-03-2022 10:45 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(12-03-2022 10:34 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-03-2022 10:31 PM)markbrindley Wrote:  I agree that money is a requirement, but the money won’t come until the school commits to making it happen. Yes, the admin has spent a lot of money over the years, but they’ve never fully committed to making it happen. In my estimation, that is a big part of why the money never flows.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

B.S. At every school the impetus for increased financial commitment to athletics come first from the boosters. The university follows.

Walt is correct here. That said, we (and President DesRoches shouldn’t either) underestimate the amount of money that is on the sidelines until Karlgaard is removed as AD.

We’ll have to agree to disagree. This entire Bloomgren situation is a great example of our lack of institutional commitment. JK may be the problem. Either way, a statement needs to be made that we intend to treat athletics equal to any other department at Rice and the athletics administration and coaching staff will be held accountable for that standard. It won’t happen, it it needs to if you expect individuals to step up and donate on a repeated basis.

Go ahead Walt, call BS again. I’m getting used to it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(12-03-2022 10:41 PM)markbrindley Wrote:  

(12-03-2022 10:34 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-03-2022 10:31 PM)markbrindley Wrote:  I agree that money is a requirement, but the money won’t come until the school commits to making it happen. Yes, the admin has spent a lot of money over the years, but they’ve never fully committed to making it happen. In my estimation, that is a big part of why the money never flows.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

B.S. At every school the impetus for increased financial commitment to athletics come first from the boosters. The university follows.

Notice I didn’t say financial commitment from the university as you imply. Institutional commitment is what is missing when it comes to fund raising. The university needs to make an institutional commitment to athletics at a high level in order for funds to flow. The current level of commitment to athletics leaves potential donors wondering if there will even be athletics at Rice in 10 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What he said!! and I repeat, "So for our beloved institution, MONEY nor BRAINS is the problem, it's half-assed COMMITMENT!" Case in point, our new President has put together a Strategic Planning process and there is not one athletic representative named in this communication:

https://president.rice.edu/communication...ed-january

(12-03-2022 08:54 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  You do realize that the ranking stats for Tulane that you posted are a far cry from Rice's current rankings, right?

Walt does it not stand to reason that if our ranking is so far ahead of Tulane that it would be appropriate for us to devote even more attention than they do to academic counseling for athletes?

Makes more sense than what the converse seems to imply.

Then, by comparison, I think of $ hundred million plus having been devoted to the John and Ann Doerr school for development of leaders or whatever it’s called.

Sorry but rice fans and non rice fans don't see commitment. Just don't...

(12-03-2022 11:10 PM)Ricefootballnet Wrote:  

(12-03-2022 08:54 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  You do realize that the ranking stats for Tulane that you posted are a far cry from Rice's current rankings, right?

Walt does it not stand to reason that if our ranking is so far ahead of Tulane that it would be appropriate for us to devote even more attention than they do to academic counseling for athletes?

Makes more sense than what the converse seems to imply.

Then, by comparison, I think of $ hundred million plus having been devoted to the John and Ann Doerr school for development of leaders or whatever it’s called.

My good friend, the Doerr school was 100% funded by a single donor; not by the University. It's not where the university directed it's available funds. Now, if someone wants to step up and donate just $1MM to academic counseling of athletes...

(12-04-2022 07:38 AM)texowl2 Wrote:  Sorry but rice fans and non rice fans don't see commitment. Just don't...

I agree. The perception beyond the hedges is that Rice is not committed to the money sports in the same way that Houston, TCU, and Tulane are.