(07-02-2014 08:21 AM)owl7886 Wrote:  

(07-02-2014 07:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-02-2014 04:22 AM)exowlswimmer Wrote:  Given the number of posts and Rice's international stature, is there any question as to why Rice U doesn't have varsity men's soccer? The interest is there, even as this country's war on men continues.

Title IX gets in the way.

Because adding another non-rev sport is clearly the best way to turn around the financial losses the athletic department has.

Just ask Stanford or any of the Ivies, today's non-rev athlete, tomorrow some of your biggest benefactors and supporters.

According to Wikipedia, Tim Howard briefly replaced Chuck Hagel as the United States Secretary of Defense. No word on how many high school civics papers were affected.
https://twitter.com/JoshParcell/status/4...80/photo/1

(07-02-2014 04:00 PM)exowlswimmer Wrote:  

(07-02-2014 08:21 AM)owl7886 Wrote:  

(07-02-2014 07:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-02-2014 04:22 AM)exowlswimmer Wrote:  Given the number of posts and Rice's international stature, is there any question as to why Rice U doesn't have varsity men's soccer? The interest is there, even as this country's war on men continues.

Title IX gets in the way.

Because adding another non-rev sport is clearly the best way to turn around the financial losses the athletic department has.

Just ask Stanford or any of the Ivies, today's non-rev athlete, tomorrow some of your biggest benefactors and supporters.

Do you have data on that? I'd be interested in seeing the comparison between mean contributions of non-rev athletes and non-athletes.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(07-02-2014 08:33 PM)owl7886 Wrote:  

(07-02-2014 04:00 PM)exowlswimmer Wrote:  

(07-02-2014 08:21 AM)owl7886 Wrote:  Because adding another non-rev sport is clearly the best way to turn around the financial losses the athletic department has.

Just ask Stanford or any of the Ivies, today's non-rev athlete, tomorrow some of your biggest benefactors and supporters.

Do you have data on that? I'd be interested in seeing the comparison between mean contributions of non-rev athletes and non-athletes.

Shall we make a list?

Stanford: John Arrillaga, basketball player.
"Arrillaga first arrived at Stanford in 1955 on a basketball scholarship and worked multiple jobs at a time to help pay for his education. His commitment to Stanford, enthusiasm for Cardinal athletics and expertise in the field of real estate development have led Arrillaga to give back to Stanford over and over, in multiple ways, over the ensuing decades." Gifts include $100 million in 2006 and $151 million in 2013 (Source: http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2013/pr-majo...70113.html)

Or would he (and others, like Bobby Tudor) not count because basketball is not non-revenue?

(07-02-2014 03:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-02-2014 02:31 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(07-02-2014 01:21 PM)NicevilleWRC Wrote:  

(07-02-2014 12:11 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(07-02-2014 09:55 AM)NicevilleWRC Wrote:  Yes. If there's only one thing the US is good at it is creating top tier keepers.

While I wouldn't necessarily count Howard out by 2018, he'll be 39 years old then and even if he could still perform he'll likely be surpassed by Brad Guzan, currently 29 and the #1 keeper for Aston Villa in the EPL (after winning the spot from former USMNT keeper Friedel). Guzan put up two clean sheets during WC qualifiers last year against Costa Rica and Mexico.

As for the next generation, I'm sure there are others out there but in particular there's Cody Cropper, 21 years old and currently a backup with Southampton. He's played for the US youth squad a few times and was invited to train with the USMNT this spring even though he wasn't on the 30-man roster.

This is symptomatic of the team's overall success in the world cups - they are generally good enough to advance past the group stage through heroic goalkeeping efforts and passable defense, all whilst being exposed as sub-par (for elite nations) in midfield and attack. I would suspect that if you looked at the history of elimination games, US possession would be no more than about 35% in any of those games (except possibly against Mexico), and you'd hear the same kind of comments in each of the past 6-7 world cups - good fitness/inadequate technical ability, boy, isn't {Howard,Friedl,Meola,Guzan} outstanding.

I think that gap is closing, but it would be refreshing to advance without setting a record for the number of saves. That said, Gonzalez, Yedlin, Bradley all had very good games, and if not for a few poor finishes, the game could've finished 3-4 with either side prevailing.

Considering the US has only played in 5 elimination games since 1934 and only 4 from 2002 to present that's not much of a sample size, but your intuition/memory is incorrect.

Believe it or not the US had 52% possession against Belgium, 47% against Ghana in 2010 (including 12 shots on target to 7 against), only 34% possession in our 2-0 victory over Mexico (but 10 to 12 shots and both 6 shots on target), and 58% possession in the subsequent game against Germany which we lost 1-0, despite 6 shots on target to only 2 against.

Wow, I was pretty spectacularly wrong. Even factoring out the last 15 minutes, possession is virtually even against Belgium, which surprises me because it seems that there were long stretches of time where the US didn't see the ball. That said, Belgium was more direct in attack while the US generally took a long time to build up an attack. As in the other football, I guess time of possession is not as important as quality with the ball.

I guess my perception has been that the US is far more reliant on good goalkeeping and overall fitness than most elite nations are, as weighed against skill with the ball.

I bet if you looked at where we held possession, vs where Belgium did it would show you why you felt that way. I felt that we had a much harder time holding possession in the attacking third than Belgium did, and we also struggled in the middle third. It's great that we are keeping the ball, but if we are predominantly knocking it around in our defensive third, it isn't going to result in much.

Could the fact that the US was forced to clear the ball so many times (I think I saw something like 70+ clearances, which is a huge number) count against them? I'm guessing they were the last to touch it, so until Belgium threw in the ball (if cleared to the sideline) or kicked the corner (if cleared over the end line), the US was technically in possession?

Agreed it certainly didn't feel like a US dominated holding the ball, whether in their defensive half (to build up) or not.

(07-02-2014 09:21 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  

(07-02-2014 08:33 PM)owl7886 Wrote:  

(07-02-2014 04:00 PM)exowlswimmer Wrote:  

(07-02-2014 08:21 AM)owl7886 Wrote:  Because adding another non-rev sport is clearly the best way to turn around the financial losses the athletic department has.

Just ask Stanford or any of the Ivies, today's non-rev athlete, tomorrow some of your biggest benefactors and supporters.

Do you have data on that? I'd be interested in seeing the comparison between mean contributions of non-rev athletes and non-athletes.

Shall we make a list?

Stanford: John Arrillaga, basketball player.
"Arrillaga first arrived at Stanford in 1955 on a basketball scholarship and worked multiple jobs at a time to help pay for his education. His commitment to Stanford, enthusiasm for Cardinal athletics and expertise in the field of real estate development have led Arrillaga to give back to Stanford over and over, in multiple ways, over the ensuing decades." Gifts include $100 million in 2006 and $151 million in 2013 (Source: http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2013/pr-majo...70113.html)

Or would he (and others, like Bobby Tudor) not count because basketball is not non-revenue?

I specifically said data for a reason. Not anecdote. Oklahoma State didn't have to offer T Boone Pickens a basketball scholly to get his hundreds of millions.

If anyone has a good idea about the breakdown of donor money from non-rev athletes vs. rev athletes vs. student alumni it would be JK from his experience at Stanford.

It'd be interesting to see the ROI on having so many varsity sports like Stanford compared to our bare minimum approach. Stanford's student athlete (current/alum) population has to be much, much larger than ours, giving them a larger potential donor pool.

(07-03-2014 07:02 AM)owl7886 Wrote:  

(07-02-2014 09:21 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  

(07-02-2014 08:33 PM)owl7886 Wrote:  

(07-02-2014 04:00 PM)exowlswimmer Wrote:  

(07-02-2014 08:21 AM)owl7886 Wrote:  Because adding another non-rev sport is clearly the best way to turn around the financial losses the athletic department has.

Just ask Stanford or any of the Ivies, today's non-rev athlete, tomorrow some of your biggest benefactors and supporters.

Do you have data on that? I'd be interested in seeing the comparison between mean contributions of non-rev athletes and non-athletes.

Shall we make a list?

Stanford: John Arrillaga, basketball player.
"Arrillaga first arrived at Stanford in 1955 on a basketball scholarship and worked multiple jobs at a time to help pay for his education. His commitment to Stanford, enthusiasm for Cardinal athletics and expertise in the field of real estate development have led Arrillaga to give back to Stanford over and over, in multiple ways, over the ensuing decades." Gifts include $100 million in 2006 and $151 million in 2013 (Source: http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2013/pr-majo...70113.html)

Or would he (and others, like Bobby Tudor) not count because basketball is not non-revenue?

I specifically said data for a reason. Not anecdote. Oklahoma State didn't have to offer T Boone Pickens a basketball scholly to get his hundreds of millions.

And what reason is that? You had your opportunity to represent Rice's honor in intercollegiate athletics. I too was honored to wear the blue and grey in competition. What is it about revenue vs. non-rev that has you so upset? Is it that the emperor has no clothes when it comes to interest surveys, gender quotas or any of the myriad of social engineering policies that discourage males from competing if not specifically recruited for athletics.

My point, and it is without much empirical evidence, that all students should be able to pursue their passion as they will later reflect and give back to those institutions that helped them flourish!

Stanford and the Ivies have broad based athletic programs that allow that. For women's athletics only, Rice too has a policy of accepting all comers. Your track and field experience is a case in point.

Rice has fewer men's sports than any of the Ivies or the near peer competitors we aspire to be associated with. Rice varsity fencing, swimming and diving are dead, not because of a lack of interest but because of social engineering quotas that prevent us from offering these sports without offering additional women's athletic opportunities for which (if surveyed) there is little interest.

Your example, T Boone Pickens; he has a passion for sport, played Basketball at TAMU on scholarship before losing it and transferring to and graduating from Oklahoma State. You're right, he didn't have a BB scholarship at Oklahoma State but his passion for sport and competition led him to give back to his alma mater.

(07-02-2014 09:21 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  Or would he (and others, like Bobby Tudor) not count because basketball is not non-revenue?

Basketball is a revenue sport. Besides, I hope and expect that "keep the roster full" is already part of the plan for basketball.

(07-03-2014 04:09 PM)exowlswimmer Wrote:  And what reason is that?

Because empirical data is how we prove hypotheses?

(07-03-2014 04:09 PM)exowlswimmer Wrote:  You had your opportunity to represent Rice's honor in intercollegiate athletics. I too was honored to wear the blue and grey in competition.

Your track and field experience is a case in point.

I've rearranged your sentences here to group these, but have not modified them in any way.

I'm not sure if you've got me mixed up with someone else, but I never participated in intercollegiate athletics. I ran track/xc in high school, but I was not terribly good.

(07-03-2014 04:09 PM)exowlswimmer Wrote:  What is it about revenue vs. non-rev that has you so upset? Is it that the emperor has no clothes when it comes to interest surveys, gender quotas or any of the myriad of social engineering policies that discourage males from competing if not specifically recruited for athletics.

I'm not upset about rev vs non-rev. I didn't object to the citation of basketball players above because they were basketball players, but because they were anecdotes. Two out of millions of athletes across the country through the years. That's not enough to prove anything. The only reason I was limiting the discussion to non-rev was because rev sports can, at least in theory, pay for their expenditures. Non-rev sports are the ones who must generate other types of value.

(07-03-2014 04:09 PM)exowlswimmer Wrote:  My point, and it is without much empirical evidence, that all students should be able to pursue their passion as they will later reflect and give back to those institutions that helped them flourish!

Stanford and the Ivies have broad based athletic programs that allow that. For women's athletics only, Rice too has a policy of accepting all comers.

Rice has fewer men's sports than any of the Ivies or the near peer competitors we aspire to be associated with. Rice varsity fencing, swimming and diving are dead, not because of a lack of interest but because of social engineering quotas that prevent us from offering these sports without offering additional women's athletic opportunities for which (if surveyed) there is little interest.

All students should be able to pursue their passion, or just those whose passion aligns with the existing NCAA sports? It's a noble thought to want to give more students more opportunities, but it doesn't come in a vacuum. The money has to come from somewhere, and if the students on the team are the only ones with interest, other uses of the money may benefit more students.

Also, while Rice may choose not to use it, and the NCAA does not encourage it, a survey of interest is a perfectly valid method (in concert with such data as club sports participation) under Title IX to prove that sufficient women's sports are being offered. If it were as clear cut in a survey as you suggest and the only reason we are not offering more men's sports, why wouldn't Rice use the survey?

(07-03-2014 04:09 PM)exowlswimmer Wrote:  Your example, T Boone Pickens; he has a passion for sport, played Basketball at TAMU on scholarship before losing it and transferring to and graduating from Oklahoma State. You're right, he didn't have a BB scholarship at Oklahoma State but his passion for sport and competition led him to give back to his alma mater.

This wouldn't be much of a message board if athletes were the only ones with a passion for sport and competition.

Perhaps we need to move this discussion to another thread. Title IX and our passion for sport are on the record. Your strident objections to my statements are a given; as social scientists, like all scientists (and most Rice students and graduates) we need empirical data. Until you have more data, we are stuck where we are, males who identifiy with the athletic program and support and you who want to continue supporting women's sport as required by federal edict but not yet supported by revenue generated. The solution is not simple. Calculating the ROI (scholarship and non scholarship athletes) may take years!

I'm happy to leave it here and return the thread to its rightful topic with games starting back up tomorrow. I suspect you're right that this isn't going anywhere until/unless someone publishes data.

Go Germany!


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

edit: So apparently there is data out there. The below paper indicates athletes do give more and more frequently. Unfortunately, I can only access the abstract, which gives no detail regarding the margin of difference and mentions in passing that the most pronounced difference is in athletes from a high profile sport.

Holmes, Jessica A., James A. Meditz, and Paul M. Sommers. "Athletics and Alumni Giving Evidence From a Highly Selective Liberal Arts College." Journal of Sports Economics 9.5 (2008): 538-552.

I have no problem with those who, for some inexplicable reason, actually like soccer. But, please don't try to sell us "non-believers" on the notion that the sport is somehow "exciting". Saturday's two quarterfinal games had 3.5 hours of actual play that produced a grand total of .............. ONE GOAL! When this whole tournament is over, the sport will fall back to its normal irrelevance in this country, and then, in four years, the attempted mass brainwashing will commence once again.

Also, on Friday, I believe that Belgium, for the first 85 minutes or so, had 2 shots on goal. Dreadful.

(07-06-2014 11:42 AM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  I have no problem with those who, for some inexplicable reason, actually like soccer. But, please don't try to sell us "non-believers" on the notion that the sport is somehow "exciting". Saturday's two quarterfinal games had 3.5 hours of actual play that produced a grand total of .............. ONE GOAL! When this whole tournament is over, the sport will fall back to its normal irrelevance in this country, and then, in four years, the attempted mass brainwashing will commence once again.

Also, on Friday, I believe that Belgium, for the first 85 minutes or so, had 2 shots on goal. Dreadful.

For every person who tried to "convert" someone to enjoying soccer, there are at least two people who actively try to dense grate the sport, rather than just saying it isn't for them, or not putting themselves in a position to have to try and defense their dislike for it.

So please, if you don't like soccer, don't contribute to the conversation. You don't see people coming to your track posts (which I enjoy) trying to tell you why they don't like track and can't understand how people can enjoy it.

(07-06-2014 01:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  For every person who tried to "convert" someone to enjoying soccer, there are at least two people who actively try to dense grate the sport, rather than just saying it isn't for them, or not putting themselves in a position to have to try and defense their dislike for it.
So please, if you don't like soccer, don't contribute to the conversation. You don't see people coming to your track posts (which I enjoy) trying to tell you why they don't like track and can't understand how people can enjoy it.

I think the biggest sign of the advancement of soccer is the decline in the number of people who reflexively must comment about how much they hate the sport at every opportunity (and you are right that this does seem to be a phenomena limited to certain people who don't like soccer). Now it seems to be limited to obvious trolls like Ann Coulter.

I do agree some of the QF games were snoozefests, but the Brazil/Colombia match was as exciting a sporting event as I've seen this year. High def TV's elevate the enjoyment level of watching the sport too. You could tell in high def that Neymar's injury was legit and not theatrics.

My only complaint with the coverage is I'd like to see more of Brazil's culture, and less pre-match and post-match analysis.

Ich bin ein Costa Rican

I've really enjoyed the Cup matches this year. Maybe more than the last 3 or 4. I'm into it a bit more because my kids ( ages 21 and 32) are into it. But I suspect that after next weekend I'll slide back into the baseball/ football mode and leave professional/ international soccer till 2018.

Probably has to do with my age.

(07-06-2014 03:13 PM)greyowl72 Wrote:  Ich bin ein Costa Rican

I've really enjoyed the Cup matches this year. Maybe more than the last 3 or 4. I'm into it a bit more because my kids ( ages 21 and 32) are into it. But I suspect that after next weekend I'll slide back into the baseball/ football mode and leave professional/ international soccer till 2018.

Probably has to do with my age.

I think it mostly has to do with the quality of domestic soccer and the lack of coverage and the game times of the top overseas leagues rather than age. If the MLS was a better league (it's getting better) there would be more people watching it, but I fear it will never become a top tier league simply due to geography and it's exclusion from the champions league play (as well as it's schedule).

(07-06-2014 11:42 AM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  I have no problem with those who, for some inexplicable reason, actually like soccer. But, please don't try to sell us "non-believers" on the notion that the sport is somehow "exciting". Saturday's two quarterfinal games had 3.5 hours of actual play that produced a grand total of .............. ONE GOAL! When this whole tournament is over, the sport will fall back to its normal irrelevance in this country, and then, in four years, the attempted mass brainwashing will commence once again.

Also, on Friday, I believe that Belgium, for the first 85 minutes or so, had 2 shots on goal. Dreadful.

Did you have this cut/pasted for the past three weeks and were eagerly anticipating a lousy match or two so that you could come here to post this? This has been a great tournament (by every commentator's estimation). Did you happen to watch Saturday's quarterfinals? The last fifteen minutes of Costa Rica/Netherlands was incredible. There was nonstop up-and-down action and tons of excellent chances (including two shots off the woodwork). I was watching with a few guys who aren't generally interested in soccer and they were pretty captivated.

I'm not going to try to defend soccer to you or to post statistics about the soccer viewing audience in the US. Let's just say that you come off not unlike a grumpy old man: http://screamer.deadspin.com/dan-shaughn...1594470556

I will say, though, that is so completely uncool to come to an OT soccer thread just to generally lash out against a sport in which quite a few of us are interested (check the average # of comments/soccer thread on the Parliament). I have no interest in hockey but I wouldn't go to an OT Stanley Cup discussion just to say that hockey is terrible. As RiceLad said, you follow the niche-est of sports and I would be offended if somebody hijacked your threads with comments about how lame women's cross country is.

(07-06-2014 01:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 11:42 AM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  I have no problem with those who, for some inexplicable reason, actually like soccer. But, please don't try to sell us "non-believers" on the notion that the sport is somehow "exciting". Saturday's two quarterfinal games had 3.5 hours of actual play that produced a grand total of .............. ONE GOAL! When this whole tournament is over, the sport will fall back to its normal irrelevance in this country, and then, in four years, the attempted mass brainwashing will commence once again.

Also, on Friday, I believe that Belgium, for the first 85 minutes or so, had 2 shots on goal. Dreadful.

For every person who tried to "convert" someone to enjoying soccer, there are at least two people who actively try to dense grate the sport, rather than just saying it isn't for them, or not putting themselves in a position to have to try and defense their dislike for it.

So please, if you don't like soccer, don't contribute to the conversation. You don't see people coming to your track posts (which I enjoy) trying to tell you why they don't like track and can't understand how people can enjoy it.

Actually, I think that track and field is much worse off than soccer. As a spectator sport, it is nothing short of brutal. With the exception of Eugene, and a few big high school meets, very few Americans care. Why? The meets are too long, primarily because some Braniac, years ago, decided to have men and women at the same competition. Imagine going to a pro basketball game, with NBA and WNBA alternating quarters, after which each has played 4 quarters. Instead of 2.25 hours of enjoyment, you'd have 4.5 hours of disconnected action. THAT is track and field in this country.