PonyFans.com

Well, it looks like Rice is considering what division-1 athletics 'may' be like for them in 5 yrs also - whether to remain or drop out. here's the link & the article from the rice board.

<A HREF="http://www.owlzone.com/cgi-bin/webbbs/webbbs_config.pl?read=33595" TARGET=_blank>http://www.owlzone.com/cgi-bin/webbbs/webbbs_config.pl?read=33595</A>

There is all this speculation about what might work from the fans, and there is the Faculty Committee on Athletics at work also. Here is the Thresher Article from last week and their report on Athletics at Rice:

=-=-=--===-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

by Mark Berenson Thresher Editorial Staff

The Faculty Council's Athletic Subcommittee presented its report on the current state of intercollegiate athletics at Rice at the council's April 8 meeting, which in part calls for consideration of Rice's future in Division I-A athletics.

The council passed two resolutions, which called for a general evaluation of Rice athletics and addressed the admission of certain athletes.

Speaker of the Faculty lack Zammito declined to comment on the resolutions beyond what was reported in the faculty council's minutes.

In the first resolution, an Athletic Review Committee is requested, which would be "specifically commissioned to encourage informed and respectful campus-wide debate over the future of Rice athletics."

The committee would be modeled on a committee convened in 1991 by then-President George Rupp. The Faculty Council requested that the committee be convened by September and complete its work by the time new NCAA I-A eligibility requirements go into effect in Aug. 2004. In Oct. 2001, Rice Athletic Director Bobby May told the Thresher that Rice was in no danger of losing its I-A status based on the new requirements, which focus on such criteria as the number of scholarships a school gives out, the number of varsity teams a school has and its average attendance at home football games.

The resolution ended by requesting that after gathering information from students, faculty and alumni, the committee present one or more recommended courses of action.

The second resolution focuses on the admission of the bottom quartile of athletes. Currently, a three-member faculty subcommittee makes recommendations on the admission of athletes. However, the committee's recommendations can be overturned by the athletic department

According to the resolution, 'The number of matriculating athletes with recentered scores below 900 increased from zero in 1998 to eight in 2002. Consequently by 2002 there was a sharp downturn in the relative SAT scores of athletes versus the general student population."

The second resolution notes that the existence of the athlete admission subcommittee has failed to address concerns about the quality of the bottom quartile of athletes, and thus other steps were necessary.

"Faculty Council recommends that no athletic candidate be admitted to the University who is rejected by the .athletics admissions subcommittee by a vote of either 2/1 or 3/0," the resolution concludes.

The faculty council's resolutions were discussed at the board meeting held the past two days. President Malcolm Gillis declined to comment on the nature of the board's conversation until after he and Board Chairman Bill Barnett speak with Zammito next month.

"The board is fully informed of the faculty council's views on this, and the board is also fully informed of surveys of students and faculty done in recent years," Gillis said.

Gillis said the board will be reviewing all aspects of athletics in the next few years, and he is unsure whether Rice will be playing Division I-A athletics in five years.

"I'm very certain that we will be playing intercollegiate athletics five years from now," Gillis said. "I have no idea what the outside environment is going to look like."

However, Gillis said he believes if intercollegiate athletics continues in its current form, Rice will not remain Division I-A

"If this is the way it is, then we aren't going to be in [Division I-A athletics]," Gillis said.

The decision on Rice's athletic status will be made by the Board of Trustees, and Gillis said based on the board meeting, he does not expect any sudden changes.

“This is clearly an evolutionary situation," Gillis said. "There will be no precipitous changes judging by the board's reaction."

This would be horrible, if Rice bows out of D-I. Some of the proposed conference shifts include SMU and Rice both going to Conference-USA, or a new regionalized conference. Besides, Rice is a longtime rival and conference foe, and those traditional matchups need to be maintained.

Yes, it would be terrible if Rice dropped out of Div. 1. But you have to admire the university for the courage to consider it. Everyone on this board says money drives decisions, but at a heavy price into the future. Ivy League schools, U. of Chicago, Army, etc. were once dominant in athletics, but no more. Tulane is asking the tough questions. Private schools (with Stanford, Notre Dame, BYU, Duke in BB, and Miami being the few exceptions)are priced out of the current student-athlete and sports model.

For us, we will stick to it and hope for a better regional model. However, with BCS schools outspending everyone with their budgets, enrollments, alumni base; there needs to be better leadership from the NCAA and University Presidents to honor the graduation goals, academic progress targets, etc. while reducing the "arms war" of BCS FB and BB. Can they seize control from the BCS Conferences? We need leadership from Myles Brand and the Presidents now. The timing to show better direction couldn't be better as the re-schuffling begins.

Rice, Houston, Tulane all in jeopardy of losing Division 1A status...

While this would be a bad thing in the short term, this would be great in the long run.

We are in no jeopardy of losing Division 1A status. We clear every hurdle with easy, and attendance isn’t going to get worse for us. Unlike small market schools, it will only become easier for a school in recruiting rich Dallas to bring in bigger name opponents as the money-whore Sun Belt and MAC schools drop out of Division 1A. If suddenly the sacrificial payday opponents are gone, and the BCS schools need to schedule home-and-homes, the logical next step is to look for weak opponents that play in strong recruiting markets. SMU, UCF, San Diego State would top that list.

The more schools that drop, the more prominent we become nationally. The less conferences there are for networks to sign, the better the deal for a SMU-level conference; especially as MSOs warm to the College Sports Network, and they grow in subs.

In the long run (2015ish), if there are only 8 conferences (ACC, Big XII, Big Ten, Pac 10, SEC, new conference with Big East schools, MWC, and a new southern conference), the stronger prospect for a national tournament, stronger revenue for the non-BCS conference schools, and better opportunity for television exposure.

Bottom line, I agree it would be great to be in a conference with fellow private schools Rice and Tulane, and fellow Texas school Houston; but I’m not going to shed any tears if they become road kill… with every casualty, it only strengthens our position in the region and nationally.

I would be very saddened if Rice went 1-AA or worse. We have played Rice virtually every year in football since 1917. I would hate giving up any more traditions in this post-tradition college football age. I wouldn't shed a tear for some other schools, but I would for Rice.

I'll start off by saying that I hate to see tradition and history thrown into the garbage can. I like Rice and like playing them. I also liked being in the SWC and ranked #2 nationally. That was then. This is now.

Having said that, I completely agree with Southland. Every year that we can survive and, hopefully, get stronger, makes us more viable on the national scale. If certain schools drop off the map and we sitck around that, in and of itself, makes us stronger. Add in the DFW tv market and we get stronger.

Another part of the story...

From the official Rice Athletics website:

The current Rice Stadium, seating 70K, was completed in 1950 to replace one (now used for track and soccer) seating 37K. Civic interest in Houston was a driving force. Hey, they had the only game in town, almost (see below).

From the UH website:

The UH stadium seats 37K after the 1998/99 renovation. From 1950 until the Astrodome was completed in 1965 the Cougars played their home games at Rice.

What I failed to include above was that PRIOR to the building of the current Rice Stadium, there was according to Rice grads I met many years ago, serious discussion about dropping football. They probably would have done that almost fifty years ago had the new stadium not been built.

If any has current contact with Rice people, classes of about 1945 - 1950, perhaps the above could be verified.

Rice is making the right decision in taking a hard look at where they think they'll be 5 yrs down the road, as should SMU & TCU.

It should be abundantly clear by now that I-A football has two very clear and distinct classes, BCS & non-BCS schools. The former share the wealth while the latter follow around with their tongues hanging out, hoping to someday prove worthy of an invite to join the party.

Many schools sacrifice their academic integrity and spend beyond all common sense in hopes of attracting attention, but where has it gotten them? I would imagine the folks at Rice, a clearly superior university by comparison with SMU, TCU and the rest of their WAC conference mates...are struggling with the wisdom of trying to compete at the highest level. Does a school like Rice really need athletics to maintain it's status as one of the country's premier universities? I don't think there is any question but that athletics affects the "quality of life" on a college campus for many students, but judging by the apathy shown by the student population at Rice (and SMU), is it really critical that we try to compete at the same level as UT and A$M?

The folks at Rice are undoubtedly frustrated by their neighbors' (referring to SMU, TCU, Baylor and Houston) apparent determination to follow a dream that may be unrealistic. I would guess Rice would be more than happy to join a group of nearby WAC east and SBC schools in forming a new SWC, as many of us have dicsussed on this board. Outside of their baseball program, Rice has had very few years in which they have competed for championships and I'm sure they'd welcome a conference affiliation in which they could be more competitive, even if that meant never sniffing top 25 national status again.

I will admit that's the thing that appeals to me, i.e., playing with a group of schools in relatively close proximity who all have similar budgets, resources, fan bases, etc... A place where common sense prevails and you don't have to pay your football coach $1 mil/yr to compete (that's not meant as a knock on Coach Bennett who I'm sure wouldn't mind earning that $1 mil/yr)

College football clearly drives the bus. If Rice chooses to drop out of the arms race, who can blame them? If we don't join them, it will be because our closest affinity is with TCU. Logic dicates that we should someday reunite with TCU, Rice & Baylor. At least all these changes give us something to talk about in our "off season".

Long live the memory of Mustang baseball. And...Go you Mustang golfers!

Sprecifically, what are the key criteria (graduation rates, progress toward degree, SAT score, attendance, number of sports, etc.?) for Division 1 Qualifications and when are they offically set or measured.

It seems the emerging events (ACC expansion, conference schuffling, high quality universities questioning ability to subsidize FB, Title IX, partial qualifiers, etc.) are converging to challenge the status quo and sports model. Will the NCAA Presidents seize the moment and right the ship.

Having said that, I see us in the boat as Division 1 goes forward. SMU is part of the tradition and future of FB. Left handed compliment is that we are not Rice, where academics do not define us. The posts above re-enforce our position. I am not happy with BCS dominance but we will compete and get better.

On Memorial Weekend, toast the 1935 Team, Doak Walker, Kyle Rote, Raymond Berry, Forrest Gregg, Don Meridith, Jerry Levias, Eric Dickerson, Craig James, Kevin Garnett, Vic Vilora and everyone who has ever run on to Ownby, the Cotton Bowl, Texas Stadium and Ford as a Mustang.

We will survive. We will be Champions again.

This is my point. Where are the NCAA Presidents and Myles Brand. We need leadership:

<A HREF="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/mike_fish/news/2003/05/23/fish_acc/" TARGET=_blank>http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/mike_fish/news/2003/05/23/fish_acc/</A>

Interestingly enough, there has been NO MENTION of this in The Houston Chronicle this week, from what I can tell. What does that tell you about Rice's status in a town where the ONLY daily newspaper caters to the Texans, the Astros, the Rockets, the Comets, etc. If you get NCAA coverage in the Chronicle sports pages, it's either about U.T., A&M or, god forbid...the University of Oklahoma! Other schools are either buried deep inside the sports section or not even mentioned.

------------------
"Winning ain't everything...but it's a lot more fun than the alternative!" S.M.U. SPIRIT: IT STARTS NOW!