(04-03-2013 05:43 PM)Easygoing_Aplomb Wrote:  Wait, so as it stands, the AAC will be (eventually)

UCF, Houston, Memphis, SMU, East Carolina, Tulane, Tulsa, Navy (football only), and then Cincy, UConn, South Florida and Temple from the old Big East?

Why does the article say 9 of the 12 came from Conference USA? Or is my list wrong?

Cincy and USF are former CUSA schools, too.

EDIT: Yay! My keyboard is the slowest!! (or maybe it's this dial-up connection...)

(04-03-2013 05:49 PM)ESE84 Wrote:  

(04-03-2013 05:43 PM)Easygoing_Aplomb Wrote:  Wait, so as it stands, the AAC will be (eventually)

UCF, Houston, Memphis, SMU, East Carolina, Tulane, Tulsa, Navy (football only), and then Cincy, UConn, South Florida and Temple from the old Big East?

Why does the article say 9 of the 12 came from Conference USA? Or is my list wrong?

South Florida and Cincinnati were also in C-USA, before Rice joined.

Ah, gotcha. Thanks.

(04-03-2013 04:13 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  Step back from the edge for a moment. If Rice can generate significantly more revenue on gameday by playing UTSA, North Texas and Louisiana Tech as opposed to Tulsa, SMU and Tulane, why would we even aspire to rejoin those who left? Sure, they're gone, and it makes us feel "left behind again," but they're not in a stronger position than they were six months ago. The A12 is an inferior, unstable conference that's no better than any other Gof5 conference. I'm tired of the Rice supporters who whine about SMU, Tulsa and Tulane, when those schools did very little to generate any excitement at all among fans or increase revenue on gameday. The way I see it, three, small private schools that have very little following have now been replaced by three public schools who fans like to travel and who have a lot of growth potential. Let Tulsa, SMU and Tulane have thier new conference. We'll be making/saving more money in CUSA and we'll still have our rivalry with UH. It's not the end of the world.

10,000 more football tickets sold on game day at $25 each is $250,000. That should be the focus. I agree that we could not count on C-USA fans, except for UH and maybe UTEP, to help us out.

(04-03-2013 05:52 PM)ESE84 Wrote:  

(04-03-2013 04:13 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  Step back from the edge for a moment. If Rice can generate significantly more revenue on gameday by playing UTSA, North Texas and Louisiana Tech as opposed to Tulsa, SMU and Tulane, why would we even aspire to rejoin those who left? Sure, they're gone, and it makes us feel "left behind again," but they're not in a stronger position than they were six months ago. The A12 is an inferior, unstable conference that's no better than any other Gof5 conference. I'm tired of the Rice supporters who whine about SMU, Tulsa and Tulane, when those schools did very little to generate any excitement at all among fans or increase revenue on gameday. The way I see it, three, small private schools that have very little following have now been replaced by three public schools who fans like to travel and who have a lot of growth potential. Let Tulsa, SMU and Tulane have thier new conference. We'll be making/saving more money in CUSA and we'll still have our rivalry with UH. It's not the end of the world.

10,000 more football tickets sold on game day at $25 each is $250,000. That should be the focus. I agree that we could not count on C-USA fans, except for UH and maybe UTEP, to help us out.

Ah, just got a PM from Greenspan asking how much 10,000 more football tickets sold on game day at $20 each would be. Then he asked if I knew where the following meetings were: 1) al-Qaeda, 2) KKK, 3) Neo-Nazi, 4) Math Club.

(04-03-2013 05:52 PM)ESE84 Wrote:  

(04-03-2013 04:13 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  Step back from the edge for a moment. If Rice can generate significantly more revenue on gameday by playing UTSA, North Texas and Louisiana Tech as opposed to Tulsa, SMU and Tulane, why would we even aspire to rejoin those who left? Sure, they're gone, and it makes us feel "left behind again," but they're not in a stronger position than they were six months ago. The A12 is an inferior, unstable conference that's no better than any other Gof5 conference. I'm tired of the Rice supporters who whine about SMU, Tulsa and Tulane, when those schools did very little to generate any excitement at all among fans or increase revenue on gameday. The way I see it, three, small private schools that have very little following have now been replaced by three public schools who fans like to travel and who have a lot of growth potential. Let Tulsa, SMU and Tulane have thier new conference. We'll be making/saving more money in CUSA and we'll still have our rivalry with UH. It's not the end of the world.

10,000 more football tickets sold on game day at $25 each is $250,000. That should be the focus. I agree that we could not count on C-USA fans, except for UH and maybe UTEP, to help us out.

Times 6 home games is $1.5mm PER YEAR. Of course, if they are only coming because THEIR team is playing, then they will quickly leave us as well.

THIS is actually the game for a lot of these schools. UTSA has some REAL potential. They have a large, if unaffected alumni base... and they are the only game in San Antonio... AND they have a bowl game in town.

I don't know how many alums they have in Houston or Dallas, but it's not a long drive to SA (or a suspension of reality) to imagine watching LSU (or Alabama or whomever) play UTSA in the Alamodome in an SEC game in front of 70,000 fairly evenly split. FTR, 70k * 40 for a cheap SEC game (most are closer to $100) is $2.8mm for ONE GAME... times 6 home games is almost $17mm. THAT is P5 money right there, people. And UTSA is closer to it than we are.

UTEP can't really do this because El Paso doesn't have enough alums from those other schools close enough to make the trip. UTSA might have a real shot. UNT in Denton might be able to as well.

WE could, but we have to have a broader appeal than our own alumni, AND we have to offer something different from the OTHER schools/teams that compete for Houston...

We've got it, but we won't go after it. Instead we seem to want to try and beat them (A&M, UT and even UH to a lesser degree) with one arm tied behind our backs while ignoring our specialties.

(04-03-2013 06:08 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  THIS is actually the game for a lot of these schools. UTSA has some REAL potential. They have a large, if unaffected alumni base... and they are the only game in San Antonio... AND they have a bowl game in town.

I don't know how many alums they have in Houston or Dallas, but it's not a long drive to SA (or a suspension of reality) to imagine watching LSU (or Alabama or whomever) play UTSA in the Alamodome in an SEC game in front of 70,000 fairly evenly split. FTR, 70k * 40 for a cheap SEC game (most are closer to $100) is $2.8mm for ONE GAME... times 6 home games is almost $17mm. THAT is P5 money right there, people. And UTSA is closer to it than we are.

Bingo. I've been thinking about this for awhile, that it's verrrrry easy to picture UTSA pulling a USF and leapfrogging the old school teams. Big alum base. Big playing venue. Only game in town. Our only hope is the Houston TV (cable) market; there's no other reason that the Big Ten wanted Rutgers and Maryland. Cable $, cable $, cable $.

(04-03-2013 06:22 PM)smackdaddy Wrote:  

(04-03-2013 06:08 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  THIS is actually the game for a lot of these schools. UTSA has some REAL potential. They have a large, if unaffected alumni base... and they are the only game in San Antonio... AND they have a bowl game in town.

I don't know how many alums they have in Houston or Dallas, but it's not a long drive to SA (or a suspension of reality) to imagine watching LSU (or Alabama or whomever) play UTSA in the Alamodome in an SEC game in front of 70,000 fairly evenly split. FTR, 70k * 40 for a cheap SEC game (most are closer to $100) is $2.8mm for ONE GAME... times 6 home games is almost $17mm. THAT is P5 money right there, people. And UTSA is closer to it than we are.

Bingo. I've been thinking about this for awhile, that it's verrrrry easy to picture UTSA pulling a USF and leapfrogging the old school teams. Big alum base. Big playing venue. Only game in town. Our only hope is the Houston TV (cable) market; there's no other reason that the Big Ten wanted Rutgers and Maryland. Cable $, cable $, cable $.

Houston Cable Market is in chaos.

(04-03-2013 04:13 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  Step back from the edge for a moment. If Rice can generate significantly more revenue on gameday by playing UTSA, North Texas and Louisiana Tech as opposed to Tulsa, SMU and Tulane, why would we even aspire to rejoin those who left? Sure, they're gone, and it makes us feel "left behind again," but they're not in a stronger position than they were six months ago. The A12 is an inferior, unstable conference that's no better than any other Gof5 conference. I'm tired of the Rice supporters who whine about SMU, Tulsa and Tulane, when those schools did very little to generate any excitement at all among fans or increase revenue on gameday. The way I see it, three, small private schools that have very little following have now been replaced by three public schools who fans like to travel and who have a lot of growth potential. Let Tulsa, SMU and Tulane have thier new conference. We'll be making/saving more money in CUSA and we'll still have our rivalry with UH. It's not the end of the world.

I'm not on the edge but a 'contrarian' point would be that Tulane (on upswing), Tulsa, and SMU are significantly better football teams/competition than UNT, La Tech, and UTSA. La Tech lost basically their entire starting team plus coaching staff. They will be one of the biggest swings in W's and L's of any D-1 team next year. It is more pronounced than the Rice 2008 to 2009 teams. Clearly, Tulsa and SMU have proven they can win. UTSA and UNT have not done anything and I think all would agree here that they are vastly inferior teams to those who left to nBE (not to mention W. Ky, Old Dominion, etc.).

So we can focus on butts in seats of visiting teams and the resulting revenue or we can focus on how to beat higher quality opponents that give us a chance for a better lot in life and getting real $ vs. relying upon other teams to show-up at HRS (vs. our own fans/H-Town/student/alums).

I think basing a 'pro' C-USA argument on how many opposing fans will travel to your home games (and the resulting revenue) is an odd way to frame this. Seems like very 'unconventional wisdom.' To help support that argument, maybe we should lobby C-USA to invite Katy HS and Pearland HS into C-USA too?

This whole situation is a step backwards for Rice as while others have acted, Rice's inaction (to date) has created a negative reaction by watching. As I've stated on earlier posts, there still may be a positive outcome to all of this as the $$ and dominoes fall over next 12-24 months but in immediate-term it is bad. You can't sugarcoat or spin it.

(04-03-2013 04:13 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  Step back from the edge for a moment. If Rice can generate significantly more revenue on gameday by playing UTSA, North Texas and Louisiana Tech as opposed to Tulsa, SMU and Tulane, why would we even aspire to rejoin those who left? Sure, they're gone, and it makes us feel "left behind again," but they're not in a stronger position than they were six months ago. The A12 is an inferior, unstable conference that's no better than any other Gof5 conference. I'm tired of the Rice supporters who whine about SMU, Tulsa and Tulane, when those schools did very little to generate any excitement at all among fans or increase revenue on gameday. The way I see it, three, small private schools that have very little following have now been replaced by three public schools who fans like to travel and who have a lot of growth potential. Let Tulsa, SMU and Tulane have thier new conference. We'll be making/saving more money in CUSA and we'll still have our rivalry with UH. It's not the end of the world.

THIS THIS THIS :iagree:

SMU, Tulsa and Tulane, although we were associated them for a while, do almost Nothing for Rice. While SMU has long historical ties, and reminds of of our long-ago SWC days,SMU is NOT Texas or A&M. Same for UH--and we'll still play them as crosstown rivals OOC.

Rice Athletics needs money and attendance from somewhere, and it wasn't going to come from playing SMU, Tulsa and Tulane year after year. Even playing Baylor is kind of pointless, although not as much as thoe first three.

Sure, UTSA, NTx and LA Tech are "beneath us", if we stick our noses up in the air and refusde to embrace reality. Rice did nothing athletically for most of the last 40 years in FB and MBB. In order to regroup and regenerate, Rice Athletics needs some consistent new dollars coming in over a consistent period of time, and consistent attendance as well. Instead of the body-bag game strategy, which does help address those issues at the cost of bad losses and furhter eroding Rices' reputation, let's go ahead and try kicking A$$ over these lessert conferance mates for a few years, asave our money, invest it into the two big men's soprts, and see if in 5 or 10 years we can have a different narrative to crow about as a winning, butt-kicking little private school which, unlike Tulsa, happens to be in one of the nations largest markets and is in good recruiting ground.

I hope someday Rice can upgrade not to the A12 or nBE or whatever it will be called, and not backwards to the MWC, but to the ACC if it exists, even if watered down a bit. Or the BigXII-II, but I'd still prefer the ACC. Wish we hadn't been so stupid to blow the SEC deal back ion the day but whatever.

(04-03-2013 08:39 PM)owl40 Wrote:  I'm not on the edge but a 'contrarian' point would be that Tulane (on upswing), Tulsa, and SMU are significantly better football teams/competition than UNT, La Tech, and UTSA. La Tech lost basically their entire starting team plus coaching staff.

(04-03-2013 08:39 PM)owl40 Wrote:  This whole situation is a step backwards for Rice as while others have acted, Rice's inaction (to date) has created a negative reaction by watching. As I've stated on earlier posts, there still may be a positive outcome to all of this as the $$ and dominoes fall over next 12-24 months but in immediate-term it is bad. You can't sugarcoat or spin it.

I think if we are lamenting a conference change because losing Tulane dilutes the SoS, then we have lost our bearings. Tulane was awful, even if they are clawing their way back toward mediocre.

LaTech won't necessarily drop down to 2 or 3 wins. Just because Rice did that after a good season and we passively accepted it doesn't mean it's the norm for everyone.

And losing Tulsa is a good thing. It significantly increases our chances of getting to the conference title game, given that our current staff appears incapable of beating them, and there is a consensus that winning a conference championship is a critical path item in the project to restore Rice athletics.

(04-03-2013 08:39 PM)owl40 Wrote:  La Tech lost basically their entire starting team plus coaching staff. They will be one of the biggest swings in W's and L's of any D-1 team next year.

Can I infer from this quote that you are expecting Rice to beat La Tech? Would failure to do so qualify as a "bad loss" in your vernacular, even if it is raining, or Taylor McHargue is out with an injury, or a seagull flies in the way of a last second 67 yard field goal by Chris Boswell that appears poised to otherwise sail through the uprights and give us a 2 point victory?

(04-04-2013 06:44 AM)MemOwl Wrote:  And losing Tulsa is a good thing. It significantly increases our chances of getting to the conference title game, given that our current staff appears incapable of beating them, and there is a consensus that winning a conference championship is a critical path item in the project to restore Rice athletics.

The way to run hurdles is to jump higher, not stop and cheer when someone takes them away.

Winning conference is a critical path NOW. If conference becomes weak and diluted, while winning is better than not, I don't think it will hold the same critical nature as before.

(04-04-2013 08:10 AM)Antarius Wrote:  Winning conference is a critical path NOW. If conference becomes weak and diluted, while winning is better than not, I don't think it will hold the same critical nature as before.

So when does men's basketball start competing for a conference championship? 3+ additional years? the 9th year of Braun's tenure?

(04-03-2013 10:35 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(04-03-2013 04:13 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  Step back from the edge for a moment. If Rice can generate significantly more revenue on gameday by playing UTSA, North Texas and Louisiana Tech as opposed to Tulsa, SMU and Tulane, why would we even aspire to rejoin those who left? Sure, they're gone, and it makes us feel "left behind again," but they're not in a stronger position than they were six months ago. The A12 is an inferior, unstable conference that's no better than any other Gof5 conference. I'm tired of the Rice supporters who whine about SMU, Tulsa and Tulane, when those schools did very little to generate any excitement at all among fans or increase revenue on gameday. The way I see it, three, small private schools that have very little following have now been replaced by three public schools who fans like to travel and who have a lot of growth potential. Let Tulsa, SMU and Tulane have thier new conference. We'll be making/saving more money in CUSA and we'll still have our rivalry with UH. It's not the end of the world.

THIS THIS THIS :iagree:

SMU, Tulsa and Tulane, although we were associated them for a while, do almost Nothing for Rice. While SMU has long historical ties, and reminds of of our long-ago SWC days,SMU is NOT Texas or A&M. Same for UH--and we'll still play them as crosstown rivals OOC.

Rice Athletics needs money and attendance from somewhere, and it wasn't going to come from playing SMU, Tulsa and Tulane year after year. Even playing Baylor is kind of pointless, although not as much as thoe first three.

Sure, UTSA, NTx and LA Tech are "beneath us", if we stick our noses up in the air and refusde to embrace reality. Rice did nothing athletically for most of the last 40 years in FB and MBB. In order to regroup and regenerate, Rice Athletics needs some consistent new dollars coming in over a consistent period of time, and consistent attendance as well. Instead of the body-bag game strategy, which does help address those issues at the cost of bad losses and furhter eroding Rices' reputation, let's go ahead and try kicking A$$ over these lessert conferance mates for a few years, asave our money, invest it into the two big men's soprts, and see if in 5 or 10 years we can have a different narrative to crow about as a winning, butt-kicking little private school which, unlike Tulsa, happens to be in one of the nations largest markets and is in good recruiting ground.

I hope someday Rice can upgrade not to the A12 or nBE or whatever it will be called, and not backwards to the MWC, but to the ACC if it exists, even if watered down a bit. Or the BigXII-II, but I'd still prefer the ACC. Wish we hadn't been so stupid to blow the SEC deal back ion the day but whatever.

Rice's reputation is futher eroded by being associated with these schools. This has been the obvious conclusion of every school that has left CUSA, and it's why we seem to finally be looking around.

We need attendance, so let's drop SMU and Baylor, who have been one of the very small set of opponents that draw in excess of 20K at HRS? In favor of La Tech and UNT... who have drawn for **** in Houston? Who struggle to average that much at home? The last TWO La-Tech Rice games in the WAC era both drew less than 8500 fans. FFS, we don't have to guess on how many fans these schools bring. Outside of maybe UTSA (who's home attendance was starting to errode) they're negligible.

Inflating grades doesn't make students smarter; more wins against weaker competition isn't going to do anything substantive for our program, either.

(04-03-2013 08:39 PM)owl40 Wrote:  

(04-03-2013 04:13 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  Step back from the edge for a moment. If Rice can generate significantly more revenue on gameday by playing UTSA, North Texas and Louisiana Tech as opposed to Tulsa, SMU and Tulane, why would we even aspire to rejoin those who left? Sure, they're gone, and it makes us feel "left behind again," but they're not in a stronger position than they were six months ago. The A12 is an inferior, unstable conference that's no better than any other Gof5 conference. I'm tired of the Rice supporters who whine about SMU, Tulsa and Tulane, when those schools did very little to generate any excitement at all among fans or increase revenue on gameday. The way I see it, three, small private schools that have very little following have now been replaced by three public schools who fans like to travel and who have a lot of growth potential. Let Tulsa, SMU and Tulane have thier new conference. We'll be making/saving more money in CUSA and we'll still have our rivalry with UH. It's not the end of the world.

I'm not on the edge but a 'contrarian' point would be that Tulane (on upswing), Tulsa, and SMU are significantly better football teams/competition than UNT, La Tech, and UTSA. La Tech lost basically their entire starting team plus coaching staff. They will be one of the biggest swings in W's and L's of any D-1 team next year. It is more pronounced than the Rice 2008 to 2009 teams. Clearly, Tulsa and SMU have proven they can win. UTSA and UNT have not done anything and I think all would agree here that they are vastly inferior teams to those who left to nBE (not to mention W. Ky, Old Dominion, etc.).

So we can focus on butts in seats of visiting teams and the resulting revenue or we can focus on how to beat higher quality opponents that give us a chance for a better lot in life and getting real $ vs. relying upon other teams to show-up at HRS (vs. our own fans/H-Town/student/alums).

I think basing a 'pro' C-USA argument on how many opposing fans will travel to your home games (and the resulting revenue) is an odd way to frame this. Seems like very 'unconventional wisdom.' To help support that argument, maybe we should lobby C-USA to invite Katy HS and Pearland HS into C-USA too?

This whole situation is a step backwards for Rice as while others have acted, Rice's inaction (to date) has created a negative reaction by watching. As I've stated on earlier posts, there still may be a positive outcome to all of this as the $$ and dominoes fall over next 12-24 months but in immediate-term it is bad. You can't sugarcoat or spin it.

Good post.

I would only add that the focus on visiting attendance/revenue as posited here is completely impractical and at odds with our history against these teams, and neglects that fewer of our own fans are going to show up to watch these directional schools.

(04-04-2013 10:19 AM)At Ease Wrote:  

(04-03-2013 08:39 PM)owl40 Wrote:  

(04-03-2013 04:13 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  Step back from the edge for a moment. If Rice can generate significantly more revenue on gameday by playing UTSA, North Texas and Louisiana Tech as opposed to Tulsa, SMU and Tulane, why would we even aspire to rejoin those who left? Sure, they're gone, and it makes us feel "left behind again," but they're not in a stronger position than they were six months ago. The A12 is an inferior, unstable conference that's no better than any other Gof5 conference. I'm tired of the Rice supporters who whine about SMU, Tulsa and Tulane, when those schools did very little to generate any excitement at all among fans or increase revenue on gameday. The way I see it, three, small private schools that have very little following have now been replaced by three public schools who fans like to travel and who have a lot of growth potential. Let Tulsa, SMU and Tulane have thier new conference. We'll be making/saving more money in CUSA and we'll still have our rivalry with UH. It's not the end of the world.

I'm not on the edge but a 'contrarian' point would be that Tulane (on upswing), Tulsa, and SMU are significantly better football teams/competition than UNT, La Tech, and UTSA. La Tech lost basically their entire starting team plus coaching staff. They will be one of the biggest swings in W's and L's of any D-1 team next year. It is more pronounced than the Rice 2008 to 2009 teams. Clearly, Tulsa and SMU have proven they can win. UTSA and UNT have not done anything and I think all would agree here that they are vastly inferior teams to those who left to nBE (not to mention W. Ky, Old Dominion, etc.).

So we can focus on butts in seats of visiting teams and the resulting revenue or we can focus on how to beat higher quality opponents that give us a chance for a better lot in life and getting real $ vs. relying upon other teams to show-up at HRS (vs. our own fans/H-Town/student/alums).

I think basing a 'pro' C-USA argument on how many opposing fans will travel to your home games (and the resulting revenue) is an odd way to frame this. Seems like very 'unconventional wisdom.' To help support that argument, maybe we should lobby C-USA to invite Katy HS and Pearland HS into C-USA too?

This whole situation is a step backwards for Rice as while others have acted, Rice's inaction (to date) has created a negative reaction by watching. As I've stated on earlier posts, there still may be a positive outcome to all of this as the $$ and dominoes fall over next 12-24 months but in immediate-term it is bad. You can't sugarcoat or spin it.

Good post.

I would only add that the focus on visiting attendance/revenue as posited here is completely impractical and at odds with our history against these teams, and neglects that fewer of our own fans are going to show up to watch these directional schools.

To add to the good points above, not only are we going to have fewer Rice fans show up, we are also unlikely to engage the local Houston community at all.

Football fans who are unaffiliated with either team aren't going to show up to watch a pillowfight.

(04-04-2013 08:10 AM)Antarius Wrote:  The way to run hurdles is to jump higher, not stop and cheer when someone takes them away.

Winning conference is a critical path NOW. If conference becomes weak and diluted, while winning is better than not, I don't think it will hold the same critical nature as before.

I largely agree with you. The administration does not; if it did, we would have different head coaches than we do for the two main revenue sports.

I am probably the last person, other than maybe Tiki, that could be called a Greenspan supporter--and I do think our lack of visible activity on the conference realignment front has been a big mistake-- but let's not ignore the possibility that behind the scenes Greenspan and Leebron have been begging every 'step-up' conference out there and none want us in our current state. I have made the argument many times for the potential value Rice brings to any conference, and I firmly believe that we are a diamond in the rough, but step back and put yourselves in the shoes of a P5 conference- we don't currently add anything other than a trip to Houston every other year (good for recruiting), some TV time in the Houston market (good for recruiting)- but not a significant share, and the intangible, hard to quantify benefit of being associated with a prestigious academic school. Potentially we add enough of a share of the Houston TV market to impact a TV contract. Potentially we add a competitive game in Houston every other year, where our Houston-area alums can see my team in a great game in a great setting without traveling. Potentially we become another great national 'face' for the conference as a top-20 academic school competing at the 'truly' top level of D-1.

Bottom line is, first we have to win. We need to be a winning program for at least 3 consecutive seasons. And during those seasons we need to win a few games we are not supposed to, against P5 competition, and we have to make some noise nationally (win the conference, beat a TAM/ UT/ OU, have a record-setting offense or defense, etc.). Once we are doing those kinds of things, attendance will increase, our appeal for TV will increase, and the intrinsic qualities that we all talk about as being desirable to another conference will become more pronounced. This is the TCU/ Boise St. model. I thought SMU was on the same path but they seem to have stalled.

Don't kid yourself- if we were a tempest of a team down here in Houston, beating up on P5 competition and making headlines we would be snapped up by somebody (see TCU). As it is we are considered a very low level program that accepts our place. I think the Armed Forces Bowl could be the start to changing perceptions, but we'll see. It is solely up to Rice.

I generally agree with MA here, and while I get what 40 is saying and he makes good points, I think I would say it differently from them both.

UTSA has greater potential to draw in Houston than Tulsa or SMU do, no matter how good they are. That MAY be true of UNT as well (can't say for certain yet). La Tech I don't think travels well, but they aren't much of a drop off... Western Kentucky and others don't help.

So from a standpoint of total butts in the seats, I THINK it is at worst a wash.... however, as 40 rightly points out... the cache of beating UNT is nothing compared to beating Tulsa... so our own fanbase isn't going to be quite as energized... and that is a problem... My problem with MA's description of "winning" is that being ranked number 100 and beating teams ranked below you doesn't really interest anyone outside of that small group, which almost by definition is wither getting left behind themselves, or going to pass you. UTSA could EASILY pass us... as could NT. The ONLY team we beat last year with a winning record was SMU... and we could win 9-10 games this year without beating anyone ranked above 90 or so. You can't merely "win"... you must have QUALITY wins. THIS is the TCU/Boise model

Whether we go about it using La Tech's model of anyone, anywhere... taking in big money games and using it to get better... or whether we go about trying to win CUSA and then get a little better as a result and then pick off bottom dwellers of the P5, and get better and then beat the middle of a P5 and get better is a matter of debate... but merely "winning", especially when that is defined as it seems to have been by beating absolutely nobody of mention while losing, often badly to teams of even marginal note is absolutely worthless in terms of moving forward.

We can't merely win lots of games this year. We have to win MANY games convincingly. We have to beat Kansas handily, and they STILL have to get up off the bottom of their conference for it to mean anything. Beating A&M would do it... but that is honestly the only real team of note (and unfortunately they are a VERY significant note) on our schedule. 12-1 losing only to A&M might STILL have us playing a 6-6 team in our bowl game... so we have to beat the ever loving SNOT out of that team. We can't lose, or win close... as it would only serve to prove that an undefeated non-p5 team would barely finish in the top half of an AQ conference. I know it's a tough task... but this is where we are.

RU and I were just looking at some data that supports my comment....

Troy has been near the top of it's conference for the last few years. They've been to bowl games, they have a large alumni base and haven't ONCE been mentioned as an expansion candidate. Winning our conference, if your conference is bad, isn't nearly enough.

Second, the bowl games themselves (and this is BEFORE the downgrade in quality of CUSA) pairs the CUSA Champion against typically a 7-5 or 6-6 team from an AQ conference... remembering that quite often, 3-4 of their 6 or 7 victories are against teams NOT in their conference... and 3/4 of most AQ conference go to bowl games... That means that if you are regularly going to the liberty bowl and BEATING that team, you are showing yourself to be PERHAPS worthy of being in the bottom half of an AQ conference... and if you lose, then you are AT BEST in the bottom quarter. Note that despits 3 bowls, we've yet to play one AQ team in a bowl because we haven't been deemed worthy of playing (or earned) even a 2-6 or 3-5 in the AQ conference team.

Our 2 victories over AQ teams have BOTH come down to the very last play of the game.

THAT is the clearest indicator of where we are... and why we aren't wanted.