Things sure have changed at Rice

[Sixties SWC Fan]

I know some of you have read about (and remember) the days when Rice used to be awesome in football. In the Fifties, they frequented the top ten even. After 1961, I'm not sure they even have made a bowl game. However, their program was so strong at one time they built a 70,000 seat stadium and used to fill it sometimes!
It's incredible, and, as some have noted on other threads, sad too based on their academic standards and wanting to do things the "right" way.

Any ideas on why they were so great back then and what happened over time?

[RGV Pony]

I'm certainly no expert on RiceOwl-lore, but I'll bet a lot of their problems are just like ours. The House that Doak Built was in fact built before the Cowboys, before the Texans, before the Rangers, etc. One might note that we didn't wind up with a house that Eric & Craig built (post-Cowboys, Rangers, etc.)...you quoted 1961 regarding Rice. I'm not up on AFL history, but I'll bet Rice's heyday was before the Oilers, before the Colt .45s, probably even before Gilley's.

[Water Pony]

According to the report on "Intercollegiate Athletics at Rice University" to the Board of Trustees Athletics Subcommittee, April 2004:

"First, Rice began to lose its ability to keep up with rivals such as the University of Texas and Texas A&M University. Huge enrollment increases at those schools created a giant advantage in recruiting. The 1965 re-adoption of the "two-platoon" system in football - the practice of having separate offensive and defensive players - and the growing importance of expensive training facilities exacerbated this scale difference leaving Rice at a considerable disadvantage. Second, the Houston Oilers began to play professional football in 1960. Fans began trickle away, and then left in droves as the popularity of the fledgling American Football League grew. Jess Neely also retired in 1966 after coaching the Owls for 27 seasons. Over the next 18 years, Rice had nine football coaches, and by the late 1970s, Rice teams regularly struggled just to compete. . . . . . . Competition for an audience, Rice's size, and its ongoing efforts to build a national academic reputation, contributed to Rice's transformation from successful contender, to occasional competitor, to 'cellar dweller' in many sports."

[Sam I Am]

There have been several stories about how few really successful college football program co-exist in pro football cities, especially if the college is a private school. TCU may have survived in Ft. Worth because the Cowboys are identified with Dallas.

[Water Pony]

The few success stories, modest or otherwise, would include Stanford, Boston College, U. of Miami, USC and Notre Dame (2 hours from Chicago). Successful private universities with good sports, except for FB, and compete with Pro Sports are represented by Northwestern and Vanderbilt (both subsidized by BCS conferences).

The difference appears to be whether the private university is part of a BCS conference or there is some anomaly lilke Fort Worth. Larger city located private school peers, who struggle and fight the good fight as SMU does, include Rice, Tulane and Termple.

Having a large enrollment and alumni base appears to be an important entry fee, despite the post graduate benefits and reputation of these quality schools.

[PonySoprano]

USC has no pro football competition. The NFL has not had a team in LA since 1995 - when the Raiders moved back to Oakland.

[LA_Mustang]

USC may not have NFL football to worry about but they do have A LOT of competition for casual So Cal resident....beaches, skiing an hour away, 1000s of the most beautiful people in the world milling around the malls and bars, Sunset Blvd., Hollywood, blah, blah, blah. And before their recent success they weren't exactly packing the massive Coliseum. I went to several games while I lived there between 98-01 and all but the ND game were not even half full. Granted that WAS still about 40K and not the 15K we are used to dealing with. They have a setup similar to the boulevard on campus and the student atmosphere at that time was very similar to that at SMU when I was in school. Football was just not that big of a deal. I know its apples and oranges because they play in the PAC-10 and we play in the WAC but there are/were similarities.

[Southland]

quote="PonySoprano"]USC has no pro football competition. The NFL has not had a team in LA since 1995 - when the Raiders moved back to Oakland.[/quote]

Well, pre-1995 is when they drew the biggest crowds. Today USC rarely breaks 70,000. UCLA/ND (pending year) is usually the only game to top that mark.

It is a residual effect from the eight pro teams and 8-9 other Division 1 universities (UCLA only other D1A football), which suck up a lot of expendable income from southern California residents.

That said USC still outdraws SMU by 50,000 per game.

I've gone over this before... the math just doesn't work. We produce around 2000 graduates per year (undergrad/graduate). Of the 2000, subtract 30% that move out of Texas. Then subtract the people who live more than 90 minutes outside Dallas; then subtract the people who don't care about sports; then subtract the new grads who don't have money to spend on tickets....

... Now what are you left with? Not much; and there you have the reason why SMU has trouble drawing a crowd: it’s not that people don’t care, it’s the target audience is too small.

SMU is perceived (rightly or wrongly) as an elitist school that has alienated itself from the public at large. Thus, SMU must depend on its alumni, and that math is never going to work for the school. If SMU wants to have a strong atmosphere, it must either triple its enrollment, or focus a lot of the budget on community related PR (frankly, given the variables in play, neither is reasonable). SMU is going to be a 17-25K per game attendance school… and no amount of winning or anger or pep rallies or bitterness is going to change that.

So get over the fact that this isn’t USC or Notre Dame or Syracuse or Texas… it’s never going to be. Let’s shoot for 20,000 per game, and grow incrementally from there. When we hit 25,000 consistently, you can start complaining again.

[MizterTea]

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/printstory. ... ge/2556770





Rice should take note of Trinity's peace of mind
By JOHN P. LOPEZ
Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle
SAN ANTONIO -- Walk across the campus and you begin to think the red stone walls should be covered with ivy.

The campus sits elegantly and comfortably within shouting distance of urban sprawl, but you wouldn't know there was bustle nearby.

Long shadows crawl across footpaths and park benches. It's like a soothing blanket was thrown over campus.

Nearby, inner-city A-frames rim these 100-plus acres of academia. But this place is seemingly a million miles away from it all, insulated by its own grandeur.

A bell tower sounds the hour. A young woman bikes along a street lined with Colonial-style homes. Twigs crackle under a jogger's feet as he runs along a trail that winds around the intramural fields. At the baseball stadium, the constant ting of an aluminum bat slices through the air.

This place is so august and elegant. It could be Rice University. Or perhaps Rice's future.

Time will tell what will happen to Rice's athletic programs. Leave them alone? Drop from Division I-A football? Drop all sports to Division III?

Those are the questions.

There is one place where the third option was the answer. At Trinity University, they don't offer scholarships for athletics. But in nearly every other way, the similarities between it and Rice are striking.

From having similarly chic coffee houses, bookstores and movie houses on campus or close by, to even being near the busiest freeway in town, Rice and Trinity are alike.

Like Rice, Trinity is known for its academics. In a given year, some 30 National Merit Scholars are admitted into the university. There have been Fulbright Fellows, Rhodes Scholars and Mellon, Carnegie, Goldwater, Truman award winners. Virtually every academic honor or fellowship known has been awarded to Trinity students.

The number of undergraduate students (just under 2,700), average SAT scores of incoming students (1,300) and diversity of the student population (they hail from 48 states and 35 foreign countries) are strikingly similar to Rice's statistics.

Once upon a time, Trinity also played Division I sports in everything but football.

The Tigers won a national title at the Division I level in tennis in 1972 and advanced to the NCAA Division I baseball playoffs three times in five years from 1969-1973.

And Trinity produced a string of superb stars, particularly in tennis. Chuck McKinley, who won the 1963 Wimbledon singles title, came here. So did [deleted] Stockton, a finalist at Wimbledon and the French Open, and tennis stars Tony Giammalva, Brian Gottfried, Larry Gottfried and Frank Connor, who remains the only athlete to compete in the U.S. Open in both tennis and golf.

Marvin Upshaw, who won a Super Bowl ring with the Kansas City Chiefs, was known as the, "Maroon Mauler" while at Trinity. And Houston's Larry Jeffries, who played for the Detroit Pistons, was maybe the Tigers' biggest basketball star.

But the Trinity board of trustees made a tough, controversial decision. Some students protested. Alumni fussed.

In 1973, the board decided to drop Division I athletics in all sports except tennis. In 1990, tennis also dropped to Division III.

"It's very difficult to make that kind of transition because you have a certain culture and expectation level from your fan base," Trinity athletic director Bob King said. "Philosophically, it is a huge change.

"Even at Trinity to this day there are some people who wish we hadn't made that transition. But it was the best move for this university. Absolutely, no question about it."

Since figuring out, "who we are," as King put it, the Tigers have become one of the top Division III athletic programs in the nation.

The Tigers have won four NCAA Division III national titles since 2000. The most recent was the 2003 women's basketball title, a run that was keyed by Megan Selmon, the daughter of former University of Oklahoma football star Dewey Selmon.

When talking about why Division III fits a place like Trinity, Chris Ellertson, dean of admissions and financial aid, points to Selmon as proof that trying to remain at Division I would have been out of character.

"She was one of only six students (nationally) picked for the Woodrow Wilson Fellowship," Ellertson said. "She was a double major in international studies and Spanish. Her junior season, she was the conference player of the year and an academic All-American. But her senior year, she missed the first half of basketball season because she was studying abroad.

"When she returned, they wound up winning the national championship. This is what I love about Division III. I've worked Division I, and I know there's a mentality where there's a sense of ownership by coaches. If they offer that student a scholarship, they believe the athlete belongs to them. Here the coaches encourage them to study abroad. We've even had coaches change their practice schedules because a student had a lab."

Trinity finished fourth in the Division III all-sports standings a year ago. The Tigers have made it deep into national tournaments in football, basketball and soccer. And the level of talent is only marginally lower than what the Tigers once knew.

Lance Key, a former soccer player, is playing Major League Soccer. Jerheme Urban, a former wide receiver, is entering his second season with the Seattle Seahawks.

And as Ellertson said, "There is no special treatment of athletes. There is no special housing. There is no special dining hall. There's no special weight area. There are no special tutors."

The GPA of Trinity student-athletes actually is higher than the general student population. Athletes' graduation rate is about 90 percent.

"Philosophically, academically and in every other way the trustees felt the transition to Division III was in the best long-term interests of the university," King said. "It has been exactly that. We're really on a roll. We're exactly where we belong. We don't see (Division III) as negative. Everybody has to figure out who they are."

While Rice wrestles with tough decisions, Trinity basks in success.

"This was a long process," King said, "and it didn't come easy. But we've found our niche."

At Rice, only time will tell where the Owls will find theirs.

[MizterTea]

the real problems are, in the end, that this is an acemdemic-driven school with a football program that cannot win consistently (or with any excitement). I am beginning to agree with the column (see above) - a school like Rice would be better served getting out of D1. Since they have a "cap" on enrollment each year - and usually have a waiting list of national merit scholars, they do not need the PR of a D1 team to boost admissions. Also, since there is little local interest - they might as well be playing (and winning) against lesser opponents. They can still do their OPERATION sell-out program, a $5 ticket is a $5 ticket (no one will care whether its SF Austin or Air Force)

in the end, I am starting to think it is the best thing for that program.

(mind you foo's I am not saying it would be good for SMU)

[king_k]

No alumni base, tough academic standards, conference, and Ken Hatfield 1970's option offense= no success nowadays.

You can be a successful private school, but it is hard to maintain the academic standards at Rice and succeed. Rice only has around 2,000 students as compared to Notre Dame and Stanford with around and over 10,000 students and large active alumni bases. Confererence affiliation and location helps too. Rice has to compete with all the Big XII schools and LSU for recruits. Who wants to go to a crazy hard academic school with only 2000 students and run the option. You can't attract athletes that way. I think Rice's situation is hopeless especially with the resurgence of UH.

Somebody said Temple is a private school, but they are a 30,000+ student public school. Pittsburgh and Wake Forest (very small) are private schools who have had some success in football w/o tradition and especially in bball, but they are in major conferences.

[Stallion]

Rice flounders because they are happy playing Division 1A football but aren't committed to competing in Division 1A-a point which the Rice report clearly admits. They have been happy to simply piggy-back on the SWC schools for years playing by their own standards and rules. I have no problem with Rice making that decision but please let's not kid ourselves why they aren't successful. They don't have a competitive Model. I've got about 78 seasons of evidence to prove it. Rice will never have long term success in Division 1A as long as they insist upon playing under the present standards. -Never! Ever!

[Water Pony]

I would only add that if they can't compete, that doesn't make them bad. It is just that Division 1 is controlled by the Golden Rule: "He who has the gold, rules!"

In my own "most naive one of all" (O.M.N.O.O.A) opinion, my heart and respect goes out to Rice, and Vanderbilt, and Northwestern, etc. I wish they were more competitive. College and college sports would be better for it.

Fortunately for us, SMU, despite our private school and medium size enrollment, we don't have the burden of competing with Rice, Vandy, NW, etc. academically. We could even be successful in FB as we are in our non-revenue sports.

[EastStang]

The University of Miami doesn't have great attendance either even with competing for National Championships. Without an annual game against the likes of Fla. State, Florida, Virginia Tech, Pitt, BC or ND their attendance would be in the 30,000 range. Floridians expect games between FSU, Miami and UF and get them. Texans used to expect games between UT/SMU, A&M/TCU, but that expectancy was changed when the SWC blew up. One reason Miami gets those games is that UF and FSU need to go to the largest city in Florida for their alums. If UT did not play OU in Dallas every year, I suspect that they'd want to play us and TCU again. I think the Aggies are feeling the heat to a degree and may want to add UNT, SMU or TCU to the schedule for recruiting reasons.

[Sixties SWC Fan]

Wow, fantastic replies from many of you. I would start to reply with a follow-up question to one thread and then see another not long after that covered that same area.

Someone mentioned Temple and it being much larger, but, from my understanding, Temple is a commuter school for the most part. One would think having the fertile Philadelphia and surrounding area would be a boon, but I guess it's no guarantee obviously.

I miss the old SWC days too, as my username attests>