And why Rice can as well:

http://www.cbssports.com/general/eye-on-...on-is-no-1

"How is Stanford winning in the high-profile sports?

"It's not complicated, but it's not easy," football coach David Shaw said. "If you think about it in a vacuum and say if you can take the smartest and most competitive and toughest individuals with some measure of talent, you know you're going to be successful. We don't sacrifice talent. We need talent. To me, in the past I think people used that as an excuse for Stanford: 'It's OK, you won't get the most talented kids. You'll get a bunch of smart kids.' We're getting both."

Again, there's much we can emulate from Stanford, but their football model is NOT one of them. First off, because of their very attractive and desireable local, coupled with their academic reputation, they can successfully recruit nationally. We simply cannot as Houston is not perceived by most out of staters as a desireable location, and the Texas political environment adds to the difficulty of attracting recruits from the West Coast or Northeast or South Florida. Second, most top high school talent who have NFL aspirations want to showcase their skills in college, and usually means a P5 conference. You have to be a truly standout talent to get national exposure playing in CUSA.

(07-09-2014 03:59 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Again, there's much we can emulate from Stanford, but their football model is NOT one of them. First off, because of their very attractive and desireable local, coupled with their academic reputation, they can successfully recruit nationally. We simply cannot as Houston is not perceived by most out of staters as a desireable location, and the Texas political environment adds to the difficulty of attracting recruits from the West Coast or Northeast or South Florida. Second, most top high school talent who have NFL aspirations want to showcase their skills in college, and usually means a P5 conference. You have to be a truly standout talent to get national exposure playing in CUSA.

I agree and disagree about emulating Stanford's football model. I agree from the standpoint of national recruiting and the inherent advantages of that come with being in a P5 conference, (which prohibitively applies to all of their sports).

I disagree from the standpoint of 1. identifying prospective recruits and 2. installing a culture of toughness in addition to a semi-contrarian scheme. I like that Stanford beat uptempo spread formation teams by playing smash-mouth football and emphasizing defensive toughness and fortitude. I think that Coach K brought that to Rice and that Coach Yoxall can bring that next level of toughness to our team. As for offensive and defensive schemes, we might not completely think of our offensive scheme as contrarian like for example the triple option; which is a fair assessment. But remember that we emphasized multi Tight End sets when Wilson, McDonald, and Cook were here, and honestly have managed to hybridize the triple option with the spread. As for defense, Bailiff brought the 4-2-5 over, but I think this year we may see some fundamental changes due to our issues on the edge. Hopefully, Coach Yoxall can remedy our size issues on the ends.

Just saw this:

Quote:Retweeted by Stanford Baseball

Stanford ranked as the #1 college in the world this year by Forbes, & also was just named the #1 college for athletics. Not a bad combo..

(07-09-2014 05:02 PM)grol Wrote:  Just saw this:

Quote:Retweeted by Stanford Baseball

Stanford ranked as the #1 college in the world this year by Forbes, & also was just named the #1 college for athletics. Not a bad combo..

I don't see the world list for 2014, but I see the US one.

The "wild card" metric by cbssports.com was a bit ridiculous in my opinion. But, it just is another way to look at the results of the director's cup, which Stanford dominates. Just focusing on the "important" sports.

Hey, Rice admin, you listening? You see how being good at sports is good for you?

(07-09-2014 03:59 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Again, there's much we can emulate from Stanford, but their football model is NOT one of them. First off, because of their very attractive and desireable local, coupled with their academic reputation, they can successfully recruit nationally. We simply cannot as Houston is not perceived by most out of staters as a desireable location, and the Texas political environment adds to the difficulty of attracting recruits from the West Coast or Northeast or South Florida. Second, most top high school talent who have NFL aspirations want to showcase their skills in college, and usually means a P5 conference. You have to be a truly standout talent to get national exposure playing in CUSA.

Gonna have to disagree with you as to location, Walt. No doubt Stanford is in Nirvana, but after you get past 20 schollys per year I think Houston holds its own against other cities competing for kids. Mild weather, no snow, clean city, relatively cheap cost of living, beautiful campus and campus attitude, etc etc. Florida has nothing on us (well, better beaches maybe). I do agree about California; we ain't getting anyone from that state.
I also think our political climate is a positive, not a negative.

(07-10-2014 09:08 AM)davidw Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 03:59 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Again, there's much we can emulate from Stanford, but their football model is NOT one of them. First off, because of their very attractive and desireable local, coupled with their academic reputation, they can successfully recruit nationally. We simply cannot as Houston is not perceived by most out of staters as a desireable location, and the Texas political environment adds to the difficulty of attracting recruits from the West Coast or Northeast or South Florida. Second, most top high school talent who have NFL aspirations want to showcase their skills in college, and usually means a P5 conference. You have to be a truly standout talent to get national exposure playing in CUSA.

Gonna have to disagree with you as to location, Walt. No doubt Stanford is in Nirvana, but after you get past 20 schollys per year I think Houston holds its own against other cities competing for kids. Mild weather, no snow, clean city, relatively cheap cost of living, beautiful campus and campus attitude, etc etc. Florida has nothing on us (well, better beaches maybe). I do agree about California; we ain't getting anyone from that state.
I also think our political climate is a positive, not a negative.

I take it from your above comment that you're a Texan. I can tell you with accuracy, as an out-of-stater myself-- both when I applied back in the mid-'70s and today (and confirmed by the admissions department), that Houston is an overall negative in attracting out-of-state students; particularly from the East or West Coasts...and the main reasons most frequently cited are (1) the hot, humid weather, and (2) the ultra conservative political climate.

I agree with Walt about Houston's image nationally. Houston is the subject of stupid jokes on TV. Rice is relatively unknown -- off the radar screen. But, once you're here, you end up liking Houston and Rice a lot.

(07-10-2014 10:34 AM)grol Wrote:  I agree with Walt about Houston's image nationally. Houston is the subject of stupid jokes on TV. Rice is relatively unknown -- off the radar screen. But, once you're here, you end up liking Houston and Rice a lot.

Who says? Seriously? I can only speak for myself, but as much as I love Rice and truly miss not being a season ticketholder at all sporting events, there is no way I'm going to live in Houston. I do make 6 - 10 trips a year down to campus-- for Rice Baseball, Homecoming and Advisory Board meetings, but I'm not a big fan of Houston as a city.

This discussion is wildly missing the point, which was that Stanford has decided to stop using academics as an excuse in athletics. Obviously some of the other factors differ between the schools, conference affiliation being a big one, but their outlook on academics is one that Rice should share. Karlgaard clearly believes, but some here are not on board yet.

(07-10-2014 10:43 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 10:34 AM)grol Wrote:  I agree with Walt about Houston's image nationally. Houston is the subject of stupid jokes on TV. Rice is relatively unknown -- off the radar screen. But, once you're here, you end up liking Houston and Rice a lot.

Who says? Seriously? I can only speak for myself, but as much as I love Rice and truly miss not being a season ticketholder at all sporting events, there is no way I'm going to live in Houston. I do make 6 - 10 trips a year down to campus-- for Rice Baseball, Homecoming and Advisory Board meetings, but I'm not a big fan of Houston as a city.

Aw, shucks. Guess Bailiff and co. can't successfully recruit old guys who live in Chicago. We will have to focus on a different demographic.

(07-10-2014 10:56 AM)RiceFootball2K5 Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 10:43 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 10:34 AM)grol Wrote:  I agree with Walt about Houston's image nationally. Houston is the subject of stupid jokes on TV. Rice is relatively unknown -- off the radar screen. But, once you're here, you end up liking Houston and Rice a lot.

Who says? Seriously? I can only speak for myself, but as much as I love Rice and truly miss not being a season ticketholder at all sporting events, there is no way I'm going to live in Houston. I do make 6 - 10 trips a year down to campus-- for Rice Baseball, Homecoming and Advisory Board meetings, but I'm not a big fan of Houston as a city.

Aw, shucks. Guess Bailiff and co. can't successfully recruit old guys who live in Chicago. We will have to focus on a different demographic.

I admire your soft touch. I couldn't word a soft response, my instinct was to go for the kill. Obviously, political discourse on the athletic message board seems to be a one way street heading to division of a very small population. I continue to defer to your approach...

I'm going to say it a little more bluntly (surprise, surprise). I've also heard David, Wayne and Joe all say similar things.... I don't intend to be speaking for them, merely to state that they seem to embrace the idea I am espousing if not the specifics....

As a non-p5 school, Rice has a huge advantage... Our advantage is that the academic scholarship/opportunity we offer is far far far superior to the one offered by the vast majority of our peers.... and yet the athletic exposure is more or less the same. Holding the city 'constant' to make a point, I will pick UH. What I mean is that as there isn't really much of a 'pro' circuit for MOST of the sports we sponsor, I can't imagine that going 12-6 in volleyball at UH vs going 10-8 at Rice makes the difference between the value of a UH diploma vs a Rice diploma worth it. As such, we should NEVER lose a recruit in a non-rev, full scholarship sport to UH. They can certainly recruit some athletes we can't, and they may uncover some academically qualified talent that we miss.... but head-to-head, we should NEVER lose... which eliminates the risk that we go 10-8 while UH goes 12-6.

It is therefore incumbent upon us NOT to 'compete' with places like UH or even UNT for athletic facilities... because they have to overcome their lifetime lack of academic reputation in just 4-5 years of campus life. We can't be horrible, but we shouldn't have to have 'the best' either IF we are recruiting to our strengths.

Obviously, not everyone loves Houston... Not everyone wants a small school... and even 'mediocre' academic schools have concentrations where they are solid and even exceptional... etc etc... but on the whole, our coaches should be able to sell the value of a Rice education over virtually ANY of our peers and convince them and their families that 5 years of 'B' facilities followed by 50 years of an 'A' diploma >>>> 5 years of 'A' facilities followed by 50 years of a 'B' diploma.

Stanford is in a similar position.... but within the p5, there are a number of very solid academic schools... who while perhaps not of the caliber of Stanford or even Rice, still fine academic institutions with lots of value to the diploma... Just look at all of the p5 schools in the top 50 of most rankings.

Their job is actually a bit tougher within their peer group than ours...

but their job vs us is clearly easier because they can afford far better facilities AND have a similar academic reputation.

I think there are a number of p5 schools with mediocre or even poor academic reputations and/or mediocre to poor facilities and teams as well where we can start to make inroads and really set ourselves apart from the non-p5 group in terms of our ability to attract the top student-athletes.

I think this is absolutely an area where we should focus, particularly for the more visible (rev) sports, but it will require more funding and more cooperation across the campus to accomplish. Given that the ultimate result is that we get a better student AND a better athlete (which should result in more positive national recognition for the University) I would think that this might be an area where we could get even more assistance from the administration and board.

We CAN somewhat emulate the Stanford model... because we share SOME attributes... but you can't sell what you don't have. If a guy says he is looking for a blue suit and all you have is grey, you can't sell him a blue suit... Let's face it... the guy isn't REALLY looking for a blue suit... he wants to look good, and he likes blue. What you CAN do is shine a blue light on your gray suit and put it with a blue shirt to show how well blue and grey go together... HRS and our locker rooms and facilities aren't a blue suit... but as long as they aren't horrible (like a lime green suit)... then you've got a shot.

Only a crazy person would leave the West Coast to play for Rice....

CA is a big state. It is segmented into North/South. The North/South mirror each other. The P5 has a private and state school near each other with both having good academic standing (North has higher academic rating than South while South is usually better in rev sports ranking). The area between these schools is poorly recruited by them but produces some pretty good talent.

(07-10-2014 03:15 PM)ruowls Wrote:  CA is a big state. It is segmented into North/South. The North/South mirror each other. The P5 has a private and state school near each other with both having good academic standing (North has higher academic rating than South while South is usually better in rev sports ranking). The area between these schools is poorly recruited by them but produces some pretty good talent.

Central Cali is exactly the sort of place where Rice could make serious inroads. We may not be able to get guys to turn down Cal, Stanford, USC or UCLA... but we should be able to do better against places like Fresno, who obviously gets some pretty good talent.

I don't expect our coaches to do this without extra help... because most places don't go far beyond their comfort zones for recruits... and they rely on their personal networks of coaches to do much of their recruiting... but we should have the advantage over places like Fresno of being able to use the high school's academic counselors to increase our reach... Of course, if we have a coach with a connection as well, so much the better.

To me, THIS is what I see as doing things the Rice way... not only having coaches recruit great athletes that we hope the school thinks are good students, but having the school recruit great students that we hope the coaches think are good athletes.

Think of it this way... If the school has a kid with a great GPA and a solid SAT who is perhaps worthy of a merit or need based scholarship, and they can convince the coaches that he/she is worthy of an athletic one, isn't that 'better' for the school while ALSO being good for athletics? Even if they aren't good enough to earn an athletic scholarship, I can't imagine being given the CHANCE to walk on (if they want to) would HURT us in recruiting that student (as a student).

(07-09-2014 03:59 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  ...You have to be a truly standout talent to get national exposure playing in CUSA.

Would Rice consider going Independent?

(07-10-2014 04:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 03:15 PM)ruowls Wrote:  CA is a big state. It is segmented into North/South. The North/South mirror each other. The P5 has a private and state school near each other with both having good academic standing (North has higher academic rating than South while South is usually better in rev sports ranking). The area between these schools is poorly recruited by them but produces some pretty good talent.

Central Cali is exactly the sort of place where Rice could make serious inroads. We may not be able to get guys to turn down Cal, Stanford, USC or UCLA... but we should be able to do better against places like Fresno, who obviously gets some pretty good talent.

Would Rice consider joining the MWC?

(07-11-2014 10:03 AM)TARDledo Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 03:59 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  ...You have to be a truly standout talent to get national exposure playing in CUSA.

Would Rice consider going Independent?

(07-10-2014 04:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 03:15 PM)ruowls Wrote:  CA is a big state. It is segmented into North/South. The North/South mirror each other. The P5 has a private and state school near each other with both having good academic standing (North has higher academic rating than South while South is usually better in rev sports ranking). The area between these schools is poorly recruited by them but produces some pretty good talent.

Central Cali is exactly the sort of place where Rice could make serious inroads. We may not be able to get guys to turn down Cal, Stanford, USC or UCLA... but we should be able to do better against places like Fresno, who obviously gets some pretty good talent.

Would Rice consider joining the MWC?

??? First off, the MWC does not provide much more national exposure than CUSA, if any...unless you're Boise State. Second, and this has been discussed ad nauseum in other threads, it makes absolutely no sense for Rice to go independent. It not only destroys all the other sports, but doesn't help our situation in football either; in fact, in all likelihood it would make scheduling that much more difficult....and we'd actually be losing revenue.

(07-11-2014 10:03 AM)TARDledo Wrote:  Would Rice consider going Independent?

Would Rice consider joining the MWC?

I don't know what Rice would or would not consider (not an insider). But we've discussed both possibilities a lot on here. The general consensus is that while Rice would probable construct a decent schedule as an independent (football only), it would be nearly impossible to get invited to bowls because we don't have the national following of other independents. Also, it would probably be hard for Rice to get enough home games against interesting opponents for this to make sense. I mean, sure, we could probably play UT, A&M, UH, SMU, Baylor, etc. almost every year. But only a few of those teams would give us a 1-to-1 match on home/away games. If CUSA blew up for good and Rice couldn't find a new home (MWC or better), then independent might be better than dropping down to Sun Belt (or lower). But that is the only situation in which I personally think it should be considered.

As for the MWC, its kind of like a west coast version of CUSA. I don't think the gap between the two conferences in money or quality opponents, to the extent it is there at all, makes up for likely increased travel costs and decreased local exposure (no other Texas teams). At least right now Rice plays UTSA, North Texas, Southern Miss, and La Tech, which are all close enough for somewhat easy travel.

(07-11-2014 10:03 AM)TARDledo Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 03:59 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  ...You have to be a truly standout talent to get national exposure playing in CUSA.

Would Rice consider going Independent?

Would probably be far too hard to schedule football games... and unless we played p5 schools, we still wouldn't get the exposure. All non-p5's are pretty much the same.... not exactly, but essentially. We'd also lose some advantages for other sports where tournaments are based on conference tournament results.

Quote:

(07-10-2014 04:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 03:15 PM)ruowls Wrote:  CA is a big state. It is segmented into North/South. The North/South mirror each other. The P5 has a private and state school near each other with both having good academic standing (North has higher academic rating than South while South is usually better in rev sports ranking). The area between these schools is poorly recruited by them but produces some pretty good talent.

Central Cali is exactly the sort of place where Rice could make serious inroads. We may not be able to get guys to turn down Cal, Stanford, USC or UCLA... but we should be able to do better against places like Fresno, who obviously gets some pretty good talent.

Would Rice consider joining the MWC?

SUre, but why? Travel costs would be far greater and you'd lose our obvious back yard. We've already lost touch with UT and A&M, and now SMU and UH. If we left CUSA, we'd lose touch with UNT and UTSA (unless they went with us)

By having regional rivalries, you create double the opportunity for parents, families, alumni and friends to see their teams play in person.

We play a number of west coast teams in baseball, so those create opportunities for west coast players families to see them play if they come to Rice. Canadian players who come play for us don't have many opportunities to have their families watch them live... and I doubt we have significant numbers of alums in any single province of Canada.