(09-19-2016 06:39 PM)Ranger Wrote:  No, not the game, the student bodies.

I have read posts here that the current Rice student body simply does not care for football and that is the reason for poor student attendance at the games. I think someone posted that today's students are more international and less Texan and therefore less inclined to know and care for football.

I generally watch Stanford football broadcasts. I generally see full stadiums with energetic and enthused student sections. And it would seem to me that the student body demographics are fairly similar to ours, drawing from brainy kids from throughout the world. The atmosphere seems electric.

I would think the attendance and excitement is generated by having a good team and playing good ball, as well as playing top competition.

Or perhaps the admission forms have a question - Do you enjoy watching football. And the Admissions Office rejects anyone who answers in the affirmative.

Nope, don't think so.

Maybe Rice students don't care to witness a crappy product on the field. (I call it a crappy product based on your numerous disappointed comments during the games. It sure sounds crappy to me.)

(09-19-2016 06:45 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(09-19-2016 06:39 PM)Ranger Wrote:  No, not the game, the student bodies.

I have read posts here that the current Rice student body simply does not care for football and that is the reason for poor student attendance at the games. I think someone posted that today's students are more international and less Texan and therefore less inclined to know and care for football.

I generally watch Stanford football broadcasts. I generally see full stadiums with energetic and enthused student sections. And it would seem to me that the student body demographics are fairly similar to ours, drawing from brainy kids from throughout the world. The atmosphere seems electric.

I would think the attendance and excitement is generated by having a good team and playing good ball, as well as playing top competition.

Or perhaps the admission forms have a question - Do you enjoy watching football. And the Admissions Office rejects anyone who answers in the affirmative.

Nope, don't think so.

Maybe Rice students don't care to witness a crappy product on the field. (I call it a crappy product based on your numerous disappointed comments during the games. It sure sounds crappy to me.)

The Stanford student body is also gigantic compared to Rice. 3X the size of Rice. But to the point about opponents the student section looked good against Baylor.

(09-19-2016 07:14 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-19-2016 06:45 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(09-19-2016 06:39 PM)Ranger Wrote:  No, not the game, the student bodies.

I have read posts here that the current Rice student body simply does not care for football and that is the reason for poor student attendance at the games. I think someone posted that today's students are more international and less Texan and therefore less inclined to know and care for football.

I generally watch Stanford football broadcasts. I generally see full stadiums with energetic and enthused student sections. And it would seem to me that the student body demographics are fairly similar to ours, drawing from brainy kids from throughout the world. The atmosphere seems electric.

I would think the attendance and excitement is generated by having a good team and playing good ball, as well as playing top competition.

Or perhaps the admission forms have a question - Do you enjoy watching football. And the Admissions Office rejects anyone who answers in the affirmative.

Nope, don't think so.

Maybe Rice students don't care to witness a crappy product on the field. (I call it a crappy product based on your numerous disappointed comments during the games. It sure sounds crappy to me.)

The Stanford student body is also gigantic compared to Rice. 3X the size of Rice. But to the point about opponents the student section looked good against Baylor.

That underestimates the difference. Much of Stanford season ticketholders are alumni of their grad schools (like my brother), having gone to the Ivies or elsewhere for their undergraduate studies. Counting grad alumni, Staford students and alumni outnumber Rice by better than a 10 - 1 margin, and probably closer to 25+ - 1. Almost everyone seated around us at the Stanford - USC game this past Saturday (or eating at the alumni tailgate) were alums of the various grad schools.

(09-20-2016 12:02 PM)ETx Owl Wrote:  Perception. I knew weanies at Rice who transferred to Stanford, because it was a better school.

(09-20-2016 04:00 PM)Barrett Wrote:  Morale on this Board is low, which is understandable. We're 0-3 during conference realignment talks and at a time when our intra-city rival, UH, is enjoying a wave of success and looks poised to jumping to a P5 conference. People here are p-ssed off, and not surprisingly so.
I think Ranger is not just griping for griping's sake. I think he's making the decent point that, no matter how nerdy the Rice student body is perceived to be, going to football games and cheering on the football team is possible. His example of how it can be: Stanford. So it's not the demographic or intellectual make-up of the Rice student body that explains why football doesn't appear to be that popular or important to the students. What's happening at Stanford, Ranger is saying, can happen here.

(09-20-2016 04:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-20-2016 04:00 PM)Barrett Wrote:  Morale on this Board is low, which is understandable. We're 0-3 during conference realignment talks and at a time when our intra-city rival, UH, is enjoying a wave of success and looks poised to jumping to a P5 conference. People here are p-ssed off, and not surprisingly so.
I think Ranger is not just griping for griping's sake. I think he's making the decent point that, no matter how nerdy the Rice student body is perceived to be, going to football games and cheering on the football team is possible. His example of how it can be: Stanford. So it's not the demographic or intellectual make-up of the Rice student body that explains why football doesn't appear to be that popular or important to the students. What's happening at Stanford, Ranger is saying, can happen here.

One of the differences between Stanford and Rice is that Stanford put a quality product on the field the past two years.

(09-20-2016 06:05 PM)Barrett Wrote:  I would say the PRIMARY difference between Stanford and Rice is the on-field product quality. There are other differences, surely, but that is the glaring one. If our product were just as good as Stanford's, Rice students would care more about Rice football. I can guarantee you that there are plenty of Rice students watching college football on Saturdays on their TVs in their colleges. They love college football. They just aren't interested in poor quality football.

(09-20-2016 06:05 PM)Barrett Wrote:  I would say the PRIMARY difference between Stanford and Rice is the on-field product quality. There are other differences, surely, but that is the glaring one. If our product were just as good as Stanford's, Rice students would care more about Rice football. I can guarantee you that there are plenty of Rice students watching college football on Saturdays on their TVs in their colleges. They love college football. They just aren't interested in poor quality football.

(09-20-2016 06:05 PM)Barrett Wrote:  I would say the PRIMARY difference between Stanford and Rice is the on-field product quality. There are other differences, surely, but that is the glaring one. If our product were just as good as Stanford's, Rice students would care more about Rice football. I can guarantee you that there are plenty of Rice students watching college football on Saturdays on their TVs in their colleges. They love college football. They just aren't interested in poor quality football.

(09-20-2016 07:15 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(09-20-2016 06:05 PM)Barrett Wrote:  I would say the PRIMARY difference between Stanford and Rice is the on-field product quality. There are other differences, surely, but that is the glaring one. If our product were just as good as Stanford's, Rice students would care more about Rice football. I can guarantee you that there are plenty of Rice students watching college football on Saturdays on their TVs in their colleges. They love college football. They just aren't interested in poor quality football.

Our attendance wasn't great when we won CUSA, and I'd bet Stanford's attendance doesn't go below 10,000 when they have a bad record (and they have).

Put Stanford in a G5 league, and their attendance drops.

We were placed in G5 as a consequence of institutional support, poor attendance and inability to attract TV market, not because the Big 12 wouldn't take a team that didn't compete at 'the highest level'. Every league has a last place team. Look at Baylor's cumulative record over the first 10 years (or so) of the Big 12.

But I agree that on field performance is a factor.

(09-20-2016 07:55 PM)Owlcatraz Wrote:  

(09-20-2016 06:05 PM)Barrett Wrote:  I would say the PRIMARY difference between Stanford and Rice is the on-field product quality. There are other differences, surely, but that is the glaring one. If our product were just as good as Stanford's, Rice students would care more about Rice football. I can guarantee you that there are plenty of Rice students watching college football on Saturdays on their TVs in their colleges. They love college football. They just aren't interested in poor quality football.

Things can change. I left Rice and started grad school at Stanford in '07 -- Rice was coming off its first bowl appearance in decades, and Stanford was coming off a winless season. I was disappointed to be missing out on a football program that was clearly on the rise (this was pre-$0.05 St., which changed a lot of things).

On the Stanford campus, the football team and its crazy new coach were something of a joke. The gameday experience actually reminded me a lot of Rice's -- as a student, I could walk in right at kickoff and get a great seat in a mostly empty student section. There were more students there (and fans, in general) than at Rice, but you can probably chalk that up to it being a much larger school, and the fact that it's a lot nicer to spend a few September hours outside in Palo Alto than in Houston. Rice can't do much about either.

Stanford's turnaround started that season, with the huge upset at USC and another in the Big Game. The next year, you had to line up before gametime if you wanted student tickets. Even so, I was convinced that Rice's '08 team would have beaten Stanford (remember, this was less than ten years ago). The year after, they had to move the student ticket allocation prior to gameday, and a lottery for the biggest games. The football team had gone from a joke to the hottest ticket on campus in three years.

So how did they do it? Sure, they have a lot of advantages that helped them get over the top (and stay there) faster; going from completely inept to a consistent BCS bowl participant in three years was incredible, especially for a team like Stanford without a recent tradition of success. But they would never have gotten there without Harbaugh and Luck, two guys who, by some accounts, could very well have ended up at Rice.

[I'll pause to allow for your what-if daydreams.]

I guess the point of all this is that it's possible, with the right hire and a little recruiting luck (literally or figuratively, as the case may be). Stanford did it, and the students responded (but it took a couple years of sustained success, something we haven't experienced yet). UH is trying, even without the stud QB (remember, we were better than them within the last ten years, too). Why can't we?

(09-20-2016 06:56 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  

(09-20-2016 06:05 PM)Barrett Wrote:  I would say the PRIMARY difference between Stanford and Rice is the on-field product quality. There are other differences, surely, but that is the glaring one. If our product were just as good as Stanford's, Rice students would care more about Rice football. I can guarantee you that there are plenty of Rice students watching college football on Saturdays on their TVs in their colleges. They love college football. They just aren't interested in poor quality football.

Barrett, generally speaking, the ones who are interested in CFB are at the games on Saturdays.

There are more people who watch NFL games who don't go to Rice games, but I know VERY few (none?) people who watch CFB who don't go to Rice games.

"I would go to the Rice game, but my Tigers are playing at 7 too so I can't geaux!" is not a phenomenon that I ever see.

(09-20-2016 10:32 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(09-20-2016 06:56 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  

(09-20-2016 06:05 PM)Barrett Wrote:  I would say the PRIMARY difference between Stanford and Rice is the on-field product quality. There are other differences, surely, but that is the glaring one. If our product were just as good as Stanford's, Rice students would care more about Rice football. I can guarantee you that there are plenty of Rice students watching college football on Saturdays on their TVs in their colleges. They love college football. They just aren't interested in poor quality football.

Barrett, generally speaking, the ones who are interested in CFB are at the games on Saturdays.

There are more people who watch NFL games who don't go to Rice games, but I know VERY few (none?) people who watch CFB who don't go to Rice games.

"I would go to the Rice game, but my Tigers are playing at 7 too so I can't geaux!" is not a phenomenon that I ever see.

I actually saw that many times. I knew people who would stay home to watch UGA, UT and Oklahoma instead of walking to HRS if they were on. After a game people would be in the OC lounge watching other games on the big screen and would ask "did we win".