Actually, I think the Presidents and AD's of most universities will write a nice note back, but not pay much attention to fans of other schools. Heck, ours don't even pay much attention to our own fans.
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, I think the Presidents and AD's of most universities will write a nice note back, but not pay much attention to fans of other schools. Heck, ours don't even pay much attention to our own fans.
[/quote]Originally Posted by Easydawg
Here you go boys. Go and ask him anything you want to.
http://www.southernmiss.com/info/ad/
Article from the Houston Chronicle ===>
May 5, 2004, 5:23PM
Trustees weigh Rice without football
By TODD ACKERMAN
Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle
Rice University trustees said Tuesday they favor staying in NCAA Division I sports, but they released a consultant's report whose workable options include dropping football.
In a statement issued with the 104-page report, trustees invited input about concerns involving the level at which Rice should participate and an annual $10 million athletics deficit that "must be brought under control." The statement indicates they have made no decision.
"At this point, the sense of the board is that Rice should continue to compete at the Division I level based on demonstrated success," said the statement. It then asked what the Rice community thinks is the best level, given the report's data.
Trustees plan to complete the review this month, the statement said. Input is invited until May 17.
The report, produced by the management consulting firm McKinsey & Co., lists four "viable" options, three of which would dramatically change Rice athletics: remain in Division I-A; drop to Division I-AA and eliminate football scholarships; drop to Division I-AAA and end football altogether; or drop to Division III, which prohibits all scholarships.
"There are, however, no easy answers for Rice," the report said. It made no recommendations but wrote favorably about the I-AAA option.
It said moving to I-AAA would transform Rice athletics by eliminating football, the program that requires the most admissions trade-offs and is the single largest contributor to the economic deficit. Under this option, said the report, Rice could shave about $3.4 million off its annual shortfall and improve its overall athletic grade-point average.
"I-AAA should be viewed as an opportunity to bow out of the football `arms race,' build more competitive teams in other sports and actively work to achieve broad athletic excellence on par with Rice's academic reputation," the report said.
Rice Athletic Director Bobby May said he was pleased to get the report but was not comforted that trustees favor staying in Division I, because they didn't specify which level. He expressed concern that they might opt to drop football.
"I hope there's a strong response from Rice athletic supporters that Division I-A is where we should remain," said May. "That's where we've always been, and that's what helps make Rice what it is."
May said it's important that the trustees' review be finished as soon as possible, because the perception that Rice could drop football or move to a less competitive level can be "damaging."
Faculty council speaker Ed Akin said he believes trustees will carefully review the issue and keep an open mind, even though they're strongly leaning against Division III. The faculty council released a poll Monday showing that a majority of professors favor Division III or an Ivy League-style conference that doesn't award scholarships.
The McKinsey report's biggest booster was history professor Thomas Haskell, a longtime critic of athletics and a member of the faculty council that also recently released a report criticizing the academic and financial costs of athletics.
"The McKinsey report is an extraordinary document, far more incisive and illuminating than anything I had dared hope for," said Haskell, adding that it "fearlessly" explores the consequences of all options. "It brings reason to bear where cult and dogma usually rule."
If Rice is to remain in Division I-A, said the report, it should work to improve fund raising and athletic performance. It also should increase athletes' academic qualifications; better integrate the athletic department (including its budget, management and student services) into the rest of the university; and set well-defined expectations for the cost of competition, specifically admissions trade-offs and finances.
Among the "less attractive options" the report listed were dropping to Division II or III except in baseball, moving everything to Division II, switching to the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics, or eliminating formal intercollegiate athletics altogether in favor of club sports.
The board's statement also asked for input about a student-faculty recreation and convocation center, which also would serve as a venue for intercollegiate basketball and volleyball; and concerns about the admissions process for athletes and the need for better integration of athletes into student life.
Hi all,
Sorry I haven't been around any since the day of the announcement, but I've been juggling a lot of stuff lately.
If anybody gets an answer from Giannini, please post it here or let me know through the mail. He was quoted (though not directly) in the Hattiesburg paper just a couple of days ago saying that UTEP's football attendance last year would've ranked second behind only ECU among CUSA schools, which is 100% bullstuff. They really would've been dead last, right about 1,000 per game lower than Houston. Even among the CUSA schools post-2005, they were ahead of only SMU. See for yourself here:
http://www.ncaasports.com/football/mens/story/7032579
Why he continues to lie after the fact is beyond me.
Anyway, the more I think about it, the more I think EasyDawg has is right, and Tech got passed over for one reason: they would provide competition. The fact is everybody in the new Eastern division of CUSA wants the period from 2005-2009 to be an audition for bigger and better things. I've seen people here say that Marshall and ECU will bolt for the Big East at the first opportunity. Well, I'm telling you right now that's just as true of Southern Miss, Memphis, Tulane, and UAB. Everybody's jockeying for position. Now, given that, do you take the geographically isolated school that is no threat in football and may make you a few extra bucks in basketball and TV contracts, or the one whom against you'll find yourself competing head-to-head for recruits and might just whoop your ass every other year?
I've come to the conclusion that CARTEK hit the nail on the head. CUSA, or to be more specific, the schools in it, is thinking short term and utilizing the same screwed-up "business model" that caused it be so unstable in the first place. This reorganization started out with the intent--or at least the presentation of the intent--to finally be a stable, regional, football-driven conference. However, with the departure of TCU, it quickly devolved into just a big "do over" with everybody hoping they can be the next to jump ship.
Harborpointe, thanks for being the machete of intelligence in the dense jungle of CUSA.
HP,
You made a great point in that the schools in the eastern division of the CUSA are jockeying for a Big East invite. Suffice it to say, they will come calling and I believe sooner rather than later. The question is who will get the call? My bet is on ECU........ and it may come as early as next month's Big East meetings, but more likely next spring. 8 schools are a terrible number for football scheduling. You need nine to make it work for home/away conference matchups. That is the very reason that the WAC is looking to expand by one as quickly as possible. BC will be leaving the Big East in '05, after they lose Miami and Va Tech this year. They need someone to replace BC to make the schedule thing work....... This thing ain't over yet!
DFIH
Thanks DFIH ... that gives me some hope. (My $$$ is on UCF to BE, though ... USF needs a travel partner.)
But when the next round comes, will Tech have done everything possible to be the most attractive candidate?
The Big East can't add another all-sports member in the immediate future since that would give it 17 basketball schools, and that's worse than having only eight for football. Adding a football-only member is the only move the BE likely can make until either something changes with Notre Dame's situation or the much-discussed Big East split around 2010.
If the BE really wants nine football schools, all it has to do is retain Temple as a football-only member after this year.
If I had to put money on one school being the next to go to the BE, I'd pick Memphis. I was surprised they didn't make the cut this last time. That basketball program is quite a selling point, as is the city of Memphis and potentially the Liberty Bowl.
I wouldn't be surprised if, after a few years, a football/non-football split happens just like it did in CUSA. I think right now there were just too many unknowns on the football end for anybody to want to cut the non-football schools and their tournament money.
Pure speculation on my part, and I know we'd take it any way it came, but realistically, I'd say we're hoping to get in as part of a set when they decide to go to 12 in football.
Didn't Noder Dame recently sign like a 10 year 100 billion dollar contract with NBC? Kidding on the 100 billion, but I think it was for 10 years. I don't think any conference should hold out hope nor make decisions based on this school.
If it is for football only, then UCF probably gets the nod over Temple, in my humble opinion. Memphis is a better choice in case the split happens and they need basketball revenue, but barring that, I think for a full membership it is ECU; football only: UCF.
Champ967, I wish I knew what we plan to do for our becoming more attractive! I can only hope that we are getting some feedback from the WAC schools that are leaving in the way of input. I do not believe that over the last couple of days in Phoenix any one would have had an interest in meaningful dialoge on that topic. I feel certain that Jim was probably pretty angry at all or some of the AD's represented (I don't know that for a fact, but I would be willing to bet). Once 'cooler heads' surface, I feel confident that he will visit with Ninas, the AD's, and anyone else who will give meaningful and realistic input. He is a lot smarter than some on this board give him credit for. He is after all a Claiborne Academy Graduate, like many well placed posters on this board happen to be.................
DFIH
I really think if the BE wanted 9 in football that badly, they would've made that move in November along with the rest of the expansion. As per a sports report show on the Sunshine Network, UCF going football-only in the BE was something they (UCF) considered an option, but as you know, that didn't happen.
I look for the BE to just put up with the pains of 8 for a few years and let things settle down, then have the football schools peel off and add 4.
Then again, would they even have to split? I know there's never been a 20-team conference, but is there any reason there couldn't be one, with 2 divisions of 10 teams, 6 in each playing football?
Is there a limit imposed by the NCAA, maybe 16? If that were the case I think the Big East is full right now with 8 football and all 16 play basketball. Is that right?
That would quickly go the way of the old super-WAC.
My totally-unfounded, pie-in-the-sky prediction ... BE football schools will want UCF as an all sports member by next year. And BE bball schools will split sooner rather than later.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
