PonyFans.com

For those of you, who want facts on the pro's and con's of Collegiate Sports, especially non-BCS schools, attached is the Consultant Study which Rice had performed on it's options for athletics. This is a 123 page document, which I haven't analyzed yet. But one of the issues presented is the role and performance of Revenue Sports, subsidizing the athletic department.

When you have an university, especially with the academic reputation of Rice, making a serious attempt to understand the impact, short and long term, on the benefits to the university achieved through competing in Division 1 sports, it deserves attention.

All kinds of conclusions can be reached for there are no easier answers, except for the ready brillant posters, who have no problem perscribing an immediate answer for everything. Don't you love simple answers to complex issues?

Here it is:

http://professor.rice.edu/images/professor/report.pdf

Will Rice remain Division 1?

The Cliff Notes Version: This university can not afford to pay for this school to continue to get its [deleted] beat in the major revenue sports for another 50 years since nobody seems to care anymore and no body comes to our games. Either we need to find another source of funds to subsidize our ineptitude or we will be required to compete in a less expensive collegiate division.

As always, Stallion, thanks for your predictable reply. I assume your remarks are directed at us and not Rice. Beyond the painfully obvious, are you writing a check or do you have a specific suggestion?

Taken literally, you would hang it up now. Am I correct? Success is both the persciption and the outcome. We are missing the details between.

The Report clearly says Rice is not willingly to modify its academic standards ANY FURTHER(ie 22% below the academic standards of the university at large). The CONCLUSION is that the only real viable financially responsible alternative is to drop to Division III or be willing to accept annual deficits expected to be 10 Million plus per year. The Report concludes that Rice has no realistic chance of running a financially stable program regardless of alumni contributions. ITS EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE ALWAYS SAID-if you aren't willing to compete with an academic model which is reasonably comparable with your natural and traditional rivals then Division 1A is a financial boon-doggle. Rice is apparently unwilling to make that commitment. I unabashably state that SMU should do what is necessary to compete in Division 1A including minimum NCAA admission standards(limited by no non-qualifiers, partial qualifiers and limited by 3-4 JUCOs per year in Football and 1-2 Basketball JUCOs per year allowing reasonable pool of those students who are able to qualify for minimum NCAA admission standards among JUCOs-these standards to be reanylyzed based upon the effect recently enacted NCAA eligibility admission for JUCOs passed a couple of weeks ago.) Despite your little fantasy dream my proposals are more conservative than about 75% of the NCAA institutions playing Division 1A football. I'm not the fanatic you seem to be suggesting-just delivering the the cold reality without the sugar-coated BS you hear from the Cheerleaders on this board. SMU has gone about 85% of the way to MY POSITION all along and it will begin to bear fruit in coming years.

Do I detect some optimism? Given the financial commitment you suggest above (not sure of the source given our enrollment), combined with a "minimal" loosening of entry requirements, you are providing us more upside that I expected.

Rice is like the U. of Chicago. It can survive very well without big time athletics because of its academic standing. SMU does not have that luxury yet. So we will have to ante up and also let down, finacially and academically that is. Yez, Stallion might have it right this time.

Not only is he right - there is no other answer. It is not even worthy of deliberation. The only problem is he does not go far enough. We need to also make sure there are curriculum avenues for our athletes if we are to stay in 1-A. (Yes that mean glorified basketweaving). Look at who is winning and copy them - its not that tough.

I would like to see a few new or returning degree programs. Physical Education and Spert Management would be a nice start.

And don't give me the argument about PE majors not making the money post graduation that other majors make... I don't think the actors or dancers from SMU Meadows school make much money. You have a few but most become waiters.

I remember reading that 70% of post 1980 graduates work outside their major field.

for those that didn't read the report it was made abundantly clear that a large percentage of Rice athletes especially Football and Basketball players are majoring in Kinesiology and(damn I forgot the other). BTW I'm not suggesting that these courses aren't legitimate just that they are more focused on the interests of athletes and compatable with the rigorous schedule of Division 1A athlete. But if Rice and just about every other school can have this type of curriculm-then why can't SMU.

Stallion wrote:The Cliff Notes Version: This university can not afford to pay for this school to continue to get its [deleted] beat in the major revenue sports for another 50 years since nobody seems to care anymore and no body comes to our games. Either we need to find another source of funds to subsidize our ineptitude or we will be required to compete in a less expensive collegiate division.

The financial problems schools are experiencing can be directly linked to two NCAA rules… one: Title 9, two: the NCAA Football Division 1A minimum requirement for total programs. Until the NCAA amends those rules, non-BCS athletic programs are going to fall like flies.

Right now Title 9 requires an equal number of total programs, and there are no exemptions.

Title 9 should be amended to require a school to carry both men’s and women’s programs if the school chooses to compete in an individual sport (or the opposite sex equivalent – baseball-softball). It should also hold sports that do not have an opposite sex equivalent exempt from the rule (football, rowing, bowling and wrestling).

The above amendment would represent true equality (the reason the rule was supposedly launched), force the Men’s and Women’s programs to work together on fundraising (which they don’t), force schools to be responsible when launching/eliminating programs (which they aren’t, it’s mostly a numbers game), and make the athletic department decisions easier when analyzing the P&L.

Second, and more damaging, is the NCAA Football Division 1A requirement for total sports programs (16). Why would the number of total sports programs you carry have any effect on whether or not you can field a Division 1A football team? That figure doesn’t affect any other sport, and as we well know, it’s not like the conferences share revenue with one another in college football.

If a school wants to compete in Division 1A football and limit itself to 8 total sports programs (because it makes sense financially for that university), it should be able to.

Now combine those two rules, and you can see the difficulty an athletic department goes through to make sure it maintains at least 16 total programs, and in parallel, keep a balanced ratio men:women. From the standpoint of budgeting, it must be a nightmare.

Amending Title 9 and losing the NCAA Division 1A requirement would go a long way towards establishing some sanity. It would alleviate much of the financial strain schools are suffering from by giving the school’s control of the variables in their athletic budget.

I think people are dead wrong by saying this is linked to academic standards and/or athletic performance. CSU Fresno is in the basement for academic standards, competes at a very high level in revenue sports, and is in horrible financial difficulty.

They cut two sports last year, are planning to cut two more after May 2005, are running a $15M deficit, and that does not include the $2.3M owed on their new arena. That is with partial qualifiers, JUCOs galore, bowl games, NCAA Tournaments, etc.