I know it has been referenced many times in the past, but in the context of in intercollegiate athletics today, is it worthwhile to do whatever it takes (short of compromising on character and on academics- at least to the level of Stanford, NW) to get back into a P5 conference just for the exposure/ advertising it provides for the university?

I have no idea what we spend on advertising, but imagine what a win, or even a good showing in the first two games would do in terms of exposure- not just for the football team, but for Rice University. Now imagine, in the current world of P5 TV contracts, how much of that exposure we could get for 4-5 solid months if we were in the Big 12, SEC, ACC, Big 10, or P12.

I do know that we are doing no good for the Rice brand by continuing to be in the conference we are in. Read the names of all the schools in today's CUSA again. We do not belong.

(08-08-2014 10:18 AM)Middle Ages Wrote:  I do know that we are doing no good for the Rice brand by continuing to be in the conference we are in. Read the names of all the schools in today's CUSA again. We do not belong.

Unfortunately, like it or not, we DO belong. We've spent 50 years going out of our way to prove that this is exactly where we belong.

I don't want to belong there. IMO it's well past time for us to start proving that we don't belong there. And I am very optimistic that the current AD is well on his way to leading us toward proving that we don't belong there in the future. But off the last 50 years, it's exactly where we belong today.

Agree with both of you. We really need to get into a P5 conference or we risk continued drifting into irrelevance. Agree with 69. We probably deserve to be where we currently are.

(08-08-2014 03:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-08-2014 10:18 AM)Middle Ages Wrote:  I do know that we are doing no good for the Rice brand by continuing to be in the conference we are in. Read the names of all the schools in today's CUSA again. We do not belong.

Unfortunately, like it or not, we DO belong. We've spent 50 years going out of our way to prove that this is exactly where we belong.

I don't want to belong there. IMO it's well past time for us to start proving that we don't belong there. And I am very optimistic that the current AD is well on his way to leading us toward proving that we don't belong there in the future. But off the last 50 years, it's exactly where we belong today.

I don't disagree with you from a football/athletics standpoint- we made our bed. I guess what I meant is from an institutional standpoint. There are no schools left that are even in the same ballpark as far as academics/ prestige. CUSA 2.0 was not very good in that respect either, but at least with Tulane, SMU, and Tulsa there were some reasonably similar schools in the conference.Look at the current lineup- we are the clear outlier institutionally. My point generally is that, while we may not be harming our national reputation, these associations are certainly not doing anything to help it

I agree 100%... unfortunately the economics dictate our location.

IMO, we should strive to be among the best G-5 teams in the country, and not merely the best in CUSA.

If we can find/create more revenue, I'd be fine with dropping p-5 schools from our schedule and scheduling the 'powers' of the g-5 to prove that we're the best of the rest. We can then play an appropriately skilled p-5 school in the bowls (as opposed to 'hoping' that in 4 years, we are up enough and/or they are down enough to make it exciting).

Of course, we need their money right now... so it is a double edged sword

(08-08-2014 05:08 PM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(08-08-2014 03:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-08-2014 10:18 AM)Middle Ages Wrote:  I do know that we are doing no good for the Rice brand by continuing to be in the conference we are in. Read the names of all the schools in today's CUSA again. We do not belong.

Unfortunately, like it or not, we DO belong. We've spent 50 years going out of our way to prove that this is exactly where we belong.
I don't want to belong there. IMO it's well past time for us to start proving that we don't belong there. And I am very optimistic that the current AD is well on his way to leading us toward proving that we don't belong there in the future. But off the last 50 years, it's exactly where we belong today.

I don't disagree with you from a football/athletics standpoint- we made our bed. I guess what I meant is from an institutional standpoint. There are no schools left that are even in the same ballpark as far as academics/ prestige. CUSA 2.0 was not very good in that respect either, but at least with Tulane, SMU, and Tulsa there were some reasonably similar schools in the conference.Look at the current lineup- we are the clear outlier institutionally. My point generally is that, while we may not be harming our national reputation, these associations are certainly not doing anything to help it

The time to have made this argument was 50 years ago when it would have mattered. Unfortunately, those of us who made it then did not ultimately prevail. I don't think it was because our argument was not convincing or compelling, but rather because the decision makers already had their minds made up and weren't interested in being confused by facts.

Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, and Vandy were in roughly the same position as Rice 50 years ago. Each of them chose a vastly different path from the one taken by Rice. I don't think any of them would trade places with us. There are 5 P5 conferences. Four of them include a highly regarded private academic school. There's a reason why the fifth doesn't, and the decisions made by Rice's leadership regarding athletics over five decades comprise that reason.

Is it also any coincidence that Duke, Vandy, and Northwestern are now rated higher than us as institutions? They were not when i matriculated over 20 years ago.

Balderdash. Stanford, Duke, Vandy and Northwestern didn't choose anything. They are charter members of their respective conferences. Rice's conference dissolved.

(08-08-2014 07:09 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Balderdash. Stanford, Duke, Vandy and Northwestern didn't choose anything. They are charter members of their respective conferences. Rice's conference dissolved.

No, they chose to keep up with their peers in those conferences. Rice chose not to. Those are both specific choices with specific and predictable consequences.

Do you seriously doubt that if Rice's program had been where Duke basketball (national champion) or Stanford football (#9) were in 1992, that the Big 12 would not have invited Rice, even if it had meant having a number other than 12 (which doesn't seem to bother them now)? Vandy and Northwestern weren't at those levels, but they were pulling enough of their own weight to be retained.

(08-08-2014 08:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-08-2014 07:09 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Balderdash. Stanford, Duke, Vandy and Northwestern didn't choose anything. They are charter members of their respective conferences. Rice's conference dissolved.

No, they chose to keep up with their peers in those conferences. Rice chose not to. Those are both specific choices with specific and predictable consequences.

That's not really true either...at least not from the mid-1960s until the mid-to-late '90s. Stanford was the doormat of the Pac-10 in football for all of the '80s and '90s, Northwestern was even worse than Rice in football for 30+ years until Barnett was hired in the mid-'90s, and Duke and Vandy only turned around their football fortunes over the last 5 - 7 years after decades in the basement of the ACC and SEC.

The truly big TV money for the major conferences came just as the SWC disbanded. Stanford, Vandy, Duke and Northwestern all benefitted from the dramatic increase in revenues and used that to revitalize their languishing football programs. With no SWC, we lost that opportunity.

And Nwestern and Vandy didn't have to pull their weight to stay. Nice thing about being a charter member.

(08-08-2014 09:54 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(08-08-2014 08:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-08-2014 07:09 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Balderdash. Stanford, Duke, Vandy and Northwestern didn't choose anything. They are charter members of their respective conferences. Rice's conference dissolved.

No, they chose to keep up with their peers in those conferences. Rice chose not to. Those are both specific choices with specific and predictable consequences.

That's not really true either...at least not from the mid-1960s until the mid-to-late '90s. Stanford was the doormat of the Pac-10 in football for all of the '80s and '90s, Northwestern was even worse than Rice in football for 30+ years until Barnett was hired in the mid-'90s, and Duke and Vandy only turned around their football fortunes over the last 5 - 7 years after decades in the basement of the ACC and SEC.
The truly big TV money for the major conferences came just as the SWC disbanded. Stanford, Vandy, Duke and Northwestern all benefitted from the dramatic increase in revenues and used that to revitalize their languishing football programs. With no SWC, we lost that opportunity.

Stanford was not the doormat of the Pac-12 when they were making consecutive Rose Bowl trips in the early 70s. Yes, they had a down time in football, but not nearly as long as ours. And while they were doing that, they were fielding very competitive teams in a number of other sports. Duke was going to final fours and winning basketball championships, and basketball was big money in the ACC. Vandy had a number of successful basketball teams and was doing quite well in many other sports. Northwestern is actually the outlier, they did pretty much suck at everything until Barnett turned football around. Northwestern is probably the one school that benefitted from the charter member thing. They also benefit (as does Vandy) from the fact that each conference wants to keep at least one private member at all times so that conference business can get around some of the open meetings and FOIA and other transparency regulations. ACC had Wake in addition to Duke and Pac-10 had USC in addition to Stanford, so they didn't have the same hammer, which of course Rice didn't have either because of Baylor and SMU and TCU.

But this is the point. Those others (with the possible exception of Northwestern) found a way to be good at SOMETHING. Football might have been down, but they were competitive in basketball or baseball or something. And several of them were huge pioneers in women's sports.

Rice wasn't worth a damn at ANYTHING for over 20 years. I know from talking to SEC contacts that they were fine with Vandy sucking at football (it gave the others an easy win, and Nashville is a pretty good alumni trip) as long as they were competitive somewhere else. That's how they carried their end of the bargain. Rice did not win a single conference championship in any sport, men or women, for over 20 years, and not only didn't win but seldom if ever contended. Rice men's basketball has NEVER been to the finals of a conference post-season tournament. Never. None of the others (except maybe Northwestern) came close to the widespread record of futility that Rice achieved.

Sorry, but Vandy and Northwestern were not good in ANY sport for 30+ years...until the big TV money came in in the mid-1990s-- just when the SWC disbanded. Neither one of those two schools did anything in the 60s, 70s, 80s and early 90s...and Vandy didn't do anything in any sport until the early 00s.

For all our warts, we fielded much more competitive football and basketball teams in the late '80s and early-to-mid 1990s than either Vandy or Northwestern....and even our poor teams of the 1970s and early '80s were far more competitive than Vandy's or Northwestern's.

Vandy won four SEC east baseball championships in 1971-74 and won the conference championship in 1973 and 74. In basketball they won the NIT in 1990 and were an NCAA Sweet Sixteen team in 1988. They won the SEC in 1992 and again advanced to the Sweet Sixteen. They also won an SEC championship in the 1960s. They have nine NCAA tournament appearances, four Sweet Sixteens, and one Elite Eight. Their women won the NIT in 1984 and have 20 NCAA tournament appearances and 12 Sweet Sixteens. And their football, while nowhere near Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, LSU, and Tennessee, was way ahead of Rice's over the duration. They had bowl appearances in 1974 and 1982. Yeah, that looks a lot like Rice 1970-1990. NOT.

I'll give you Northwestern. But it's the outlier. And as I said above, they benefitted from the keep one private school for confidentiality consideration. As did Vandy. But Vandy did carry a fair share of the weight. And Duke and Stanford clearly did.

(08-08-2014 11:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Vandy won four SEC east baseball championships in 1971-74 and won the conference championship in 1973 and 74. In basketball they won the NIT in 1990 and were an NCAA Sweet Sixteen team in 1988. They won the SEC in 1992 and again advanced to the Sweet Sixteen. They also won an SEC championship in the 1960s. They have nine NCAA tournament appearances, four Sweet Sixteens, and one Elite Eight. Their women won the NIT in 1984 and have 20 NCAA tournament appearances and 12 Sweet Sixteens. Yeah, that looks a lot like Rice 1970-1990. NOT.

I'll give you Northwestern. But it's the outlier. And as I said above, they benefitted from the keep one private school for confidentiality consideration. As did Vandy. But Vandy did carry a fair share of the weight. And Duke and Stanford clearly did.

If you're going to include baseball and the 1990s, we've been a perennial national power since the mid-90s; the epitome of consistency for the past 20 years, at the most elite level of the sport.

(08-08-2014 11:28 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(08-08-2014 11:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Vandy won four SEC east baseball championships in 1971-74 and won the conference championship in 1973 and 74. In basketball they won the NIT in 1990 and were an NCAA Sweet Sixteen team in 1988. They won the SEC in 1992 and again advanced to the Sweet Sixteen. They also won an SEC championship in the 1960s. They have nine NCAA tournament appearances, four Sweet Sixteens, and one Elite Eight. Their women won the NIT in 1984 and have 20 NCAA tournament appearances and 12 Sweet Sixteens. Yeah, that looks a lot like Rice 1970-1990. NOT.

I'll give you Northwestern. But it's the outlier. And as I said above, they benefitted from the keep one private school for confidentiality consideration. As did Vandy. But Vandy did carry a fair share of the weight. And Duke and Stanford clearly did.

If you're going to include baseball and the 1990s, we've been a perennial national power since the mid-90s; the epitome of consistency for the past 20 years, at the most elite level of the sport.

I'm talking 1970-1990. That's what I've said in every post. Yeah, the Vandy basketball spills over a bit into the early 1990s, but that's because the program was in great shape at the end of the 1980s.

You said Vandy wasn't good at anything for 30+ years. That's simply incorrect.

It wasn't just Rice. Towards the end of the SWC, 4 out of 9 schools were pulling almost all of the weight. In the SEC, Big 10, and Pac 10, it was 8 or 9 out of 10. That, more than anything else, is why the SWC dissolved and the others didn't. Given that half of our conference mates weren't doing much, I think the SWC was doomed regardless of what Rice did.

Conversely, I don't think Northwestern or Vanderbilt were ever really at risk, regardless of what they did, because their conferences had enough overall strength to stay together.

I do agree with 69/70/75 that Rice did essentially nothing to endear us to our conference mates, and that if Rice had made some different choices over the years, our post-SWC position would be much better than it has been.

If only Stanford knew how to cover a kickoff.....

(08-08-2014 06:35 PM)owl95 Wrote:  Is it also any coincidence that Duke, Vandy, and Northwestern are now rated higher than us as institutions? They were not when i matriculated over 20 years ago.

Interesting point. (Although I'm not so sure about Duke; since 1988, there's only been one year - 1989 - when we outranked them. And that was our peak and their nadir.)

Our US News ranking bounced around in the 90's and first half of 00's, and has settled at the worse end of the range (17-18) since then.

Northwestern improved rapidly through the 90's, and has held fairly steady around 12 since then.

Vandy has been on a trend that's more a slow improvement, and has reached us at 17/18.

Duke has been relatively constant, maybe falling off a couple clicks over time to about 8/9.

And for comparison, Stanford's been about like Duke, only a few clicks better.

Here are the numbers:

And here it is graphically, with a linear regression to illustrate the trends. Linear doesn't look like a great fit, but in any case we don't look great compared to the others.



And of course, have to add the caveat: these numbers are influenced by the constant tinkering US News does with their ratings system (which seems to have slowed in recent years), so it's hard to tell what's signal and what's noise.

I came to Rice because the combination of academic excellence and big time athletics appealed to me. Had I known then how the next 25 years would play out, I would probably have gone to Duke or Vandy. Stanford and Northwestern were further away than I wanted to go.

I'm not everyone, but that was my decision process.