(09-18-2014 03:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Now, even then they wouldn't want us as we stand.. so you are 100% correct that we have work to do... but I can see where we would be a better fit than some. My biggest concern is that UTSA gets there before us.

The good thing for Rice is that UTSA would recruit from the same talent pool as the rest of the SEC teams, while Rice's recruiting pool barely overlaps with the rest of the SEC schools. And Houston has 2 airport hubs and is a couple hours closer to the rest of SEC country than San Antonio. Of course, UTSA has better crowds and less market competition.

(09-18-2014 03:07 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  If Dr K doesn't have his sights set on P5 membership (in some "reasonable" time frame - I have no idea what reasonable means), I'll be surprised, and very disappointed.

Karlgaard was candid on this as well. In his assessment, a mid-major school's best chance of an invite comes during periods of conference realignment. These upheavals occur every several years and then conferences scramble to maintain quorums so they can continue to exist (RIP SWC and WAC), and also make moves to retain visibility in desired geographic areas. It's at those times that conferences become less choosy about who they invite. Examples include the 1990s when Rice actually did get a P5 invite, and the recent scramble that gave TCU et. al their chance. Rice was not positioned to capitalize on the latest realignment scramble. K considers it part of his job to position Rice for the next realignment scramble.

If we kiss P5 goodbye with just a 35K stadium, we might as well forget football unless maybe at the D3 level. There is no sense spending a bunch of money on football when we get no real marketing from a level of football that is not really noticed by the media.

Tulane lost its large on-campus stadium back in the 1970s because it was old and they moved to the Superdome. When they wanted to move back on campus, they built a small stadium.

(09-18-2014 02:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 01:44 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Example... If we tear down our stadium and build a nice shiny new 35k seat one, with or without a track, we have eliminated ONE of the positive points for inclusion in a p5.

If we tear down Rice Stadium and build a nice shiny new 35K seat one, we are kissing P5 goodbye. That may or may not be the right move. Obviously Tulane has pretty much decided that it's the right move for them, at least for now, and their situation is not that dissimilar to ours. But that move should be made with an open an honest understanding of what the consequences are.

Bottom line: What to do about the stadium should be discussed in the context of what is our objective. Certain stadium decisions fit with certain objectives, and not with others.

Is TCU worth $20 million a year in TV revenue?



quote='d1owls4life' pid='11136791' dateline='1411072495']

(09-18-2014 03:07 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 11:10 AM)d1owls4life Wrote:  ...P5 is beyond a pipe dream and not even something I consider remotely possible.

You may need to consider replacements for your current handle. The P5 create more separation every year. We've heard plenty of speculation that 64 teams will separate in some fashion from the rest of us. If that happens, football revenue drops even more for the also-rans. We're going to need a new model for paying for athletics and I'm not sure it can include D1 membership.

If Dr K doesn't have his sights set on P5 membership (in some "reasonable" time frame - I have no idea what reasonable means), I'll be surprised, and very disappointed.

I'm sure he does to an extent. But, getting there is going to be next to impossible and there are plenty of other things we need to fix to give our programs the best chance to succeed. The fact still remains: we aren't worth $20 million a year in TV revenue. That is the driving factor in all of this. If we were, our C-USA deal would be a lot better than it is....or we would be in the P5 already.
[/quote]

(09-18-2014 07:30 PM)ranfin Wrote:  Is TCU worth $20 million a year in TV revenue?

(09-18-2014 03:34 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 03:07 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 11:10 AM)d1owls4life Wrote:  ...P5 is beyond a pipe dream and not even something I consider remotely possible.

You may need to consider replacements for your current handle. The P5 create more separation every year. We've heard plenty of speculation that 64 teams will separate in some fashion from the rest of us. If that happens, football revenue drops even more for the also-rans. We're going to need a new model for paying for athletics and I'm not sure it can include D1 membership.

If Dr K doesn't have his sights set on P5 membership (in some "reasonable" time frame - I have no idea what reasonable means), I'll be surprised, and very disappointed.

I'm sure he does to an extent. But, getting there is going to be next to impossible and there are plenty of other things we need to fix to give our programs the best chance to succeed. The fact still remains: we aren't worth $20 million a year in TV revenue. That is the driving factor in all of this. If we were, our C-USA deal would be a lot better than it is....or we would be in the P5 already.

Pretty sure the members of the Big XII didn't take less money to bring them in. They also were in a pretty good position at a time when that conference was weakened.

(09-17-2014 03:44 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Of course, the flip side of the Rice-to-SEC dream is that Rice might never make another bowl game. Seriously, 5 SEC West teams in the AP Top 10! Improved recruiting, coaching, and facilities can only take Rice so far when going up against a schedule of semi-pro teams where the students barely need to study.

Absolutely. We would be a perennial cellar dweller in the SEC - East or West Division, competitive only with Vanderbilt. Our culture is the polar opposite of the big state schools. However, it would definitely fill up HRS with traveling fans and would make each conference game an event.

This is just a pipe dream. With a big new TV contract from ESPN and 14 members already, I don't think they are looking at expansion in the near future. Dr. K is right on with his analysis.

But, if we were to be asked to join, who would be invited in with us? Arkansas came in with SC. A&M with Mizzou. Most of the obvious candidates, such as FSU, GaTech, Duke, Memphis et al, would draw oppostion from their in-state member rivals.

(BTW, Karlgaard thinks the P5 conference least unlikely to invite Rice is the ACC, not the SEC.)

(09-18-2014 09:20 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  (BTW, Karlgaard thinks the P5 conference least unlikely to invite Rice is the ACC, not the SEC.)

We probably aren't ever going to be in the SEC for a variety of reasons, but one huge one is that the Texas market is already covered by A&M in terms of the SEC Network, the conference's primary cash cow for the present and future. If you look at how the network's deals with carriers are structured, cable subscribers within the "SEC Footprint" pay a certain subscriber fee every month, while subscribers outside the "footprint" pay a much smaller fee. This "footprint" is all the states which have SEC teams in them. The addition of A&M and Mizzou to the conference led the states of Texas and Missouri to be added into this "footprint", and thus all the millions of cable subscribers in those states pay a premium for the SEC network (along with cable subscribers in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, etc.). This greatly enhances the SEC Network's bottom line, and thus the money coming back to all the schools.

Texas and Missouri are now covered. Adding us does nothing for them economically. If the SEC ever expands again, I would bet it would be to North Carolina and/or Virginia to gain those states' subscribers and add them to the footprint.

Is "least unlikely" == "Most likley" ?

(09-18-2014 09:37 PM)rice-parent Wrote:  Is "least unlikely" == "Most likley" ?

If you consider .1% chance likely, when the other conferences are less than .1%.

(Numbers used are hypotheticals and just pulled out of my sleep-deprived brain randomly. I have no idea what the actual odds are. And I, too, have felt that the ACC might be the conference that may be looking for a Texas anchor at some point.)

(09-18-2014 03:59 PM)mrbig Wrote:  The good thing for Rice is that UTSA would recruit from the same talent pool as the rest of the SEC teams, while Rice's recruiting pool barely overlaps with the rest of the SEC schools. And Houston has 2 airport hubs and is a couple hours closer to the rest of SEC country than San Antonio. Of course, UTSA has better crowds and less market competition.

Exactly... plus we bring serious academic credentials and 'other' sports.... and while they have less competition, I'm betting most SEC schools have more alums in Houston than San Antonio

It's a sales job, no doubt.... but we aren't unarmed.

(09-18-2014 07:33 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  Pretty sure the members of the Big XII didn't take less money to bring them in. They also were in a pretty good position at a time when that conference was weakened.

That's the point. We need to be ready (like tcu was) when they need another team. I believe the TCU move was so they could keep a conference playoff... which is worth a lot of money to the conference... so while TCU wasn't worth 20mm... adding another team was, and TCU was the best fit available.

I mention the possibility of getting 2 or 3 playoff slots rather than one in a similar light. We aren't worth 20mm, but that slot plus us might be.

(09-18-2014 08:03 PM)NolaOwl Wrote:  Absolutely. We would be a perennial cellar dweller in the SEC - East or West Division, competitive only with Vanderbilt. Our culture is the polar opposite of the big state schools. However, it would definitely fill up HRS with traveling fans and would make each conference game an event.

I personally mentioned the SEC merely because they are so obviously top heavy so my point was obvious, not because I thought they were the best target.

I'd say the Pac, both Bigs and the ACC are more likely.... but its not like we have a say in who decides they need to make changes. If a few SEC schools move to the ACC so that they have an easier conference schedule and therefore a better chance of making the playoff, suddenly the SEC is looking. I'm not saying it happens... just that anything seems possible in this day and age.

I agree with the above, other than the celler dweller comment. Why would we have to be? Stanford isn't. I know everyone recruits Texas for the talent, but we're IN Texas. That has to be worth SOMETHING. In the current west, I think we could be consistently between Mississippi and Arkansas (15-46). In the east, 15-46 would place us between 2nd and 6th in that conference.

Of course, that assumes that Mississippi and Miss State and Tenn and Missou and FLA don't get tired of the view from behind Alabama, A&M, AUburn, LSU and Georgia and bolt for the ACC where they would all have an excellent shot at a playoff slot.

I think that sort of 'balancing' of the conferences might be the next realignment...

(09-18-2014 03:59 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Of course, UTSA has better crowds and less market competition.

I think their attendance is dropping some as the novelty wears off. I cannot see them (yet, anyway), bringing significant fans to most SEC away gems.

(09-19-2014 10:56 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 03:59 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Of course, UTSA has better crowds and less market competition.

I think their attendance is dropping some as the novelty wears off. I cannot see them (yet, anyway), bringing significant fans to most SEC away gems.

Nobody brings significant fans to SEC away games, except at Vandy and maybe at Kentucky, because there are no seats available for them.

(09-19-2014 11:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-19-2014 10:56 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 03:59 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Of course, UTSA has better crowds and less market competition.

I think their attendance is dropping some as the novelty wears off. I cannot see them (yet, anyway), bringing significant fans to most SEC away gems.

Nobody brings significant fans to SEC away games, except at Vandy and maybe at Kentucky, because there are no seats available for them.

To the extent that they ARE in attendance, other than the small allotments for the schools... they bought their tickets on the secondary market and provided no substantial additional revenue to the host.

I suspect part of the reason our seats are disjointed at places like A&M is because as a practice, they wouldn't want the opposing fans to have a significant block.

(09-19-2014 12:55 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-19-2014 11:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-19-2014 10:56 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 03:59 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Of course, UTSA has better crowds and less market competition.

I think their attendance is dropping some as the novelty wears off. I cannot see them (yet, anyway), bringing significant fans to most SEC away gems.

Nobody brings significant fans to SEC away games, except at Vandy and maybe at Kentucky, because there are no seats available for them.

To the extent that they ARE in attendance, other than the small allotments for the schools... they bought their tickets on the secondary market and provided no substantial additional revenue to the host.

I suspect part of the reason our seats are disjointed at places like A&M is because as a practice, they wouldn't want the opposing fans to have a significant block.

The allotments we get at ND and aTm are pretty much equivalent to what Alabama gets at Jordan-Hare or Auburn gets at Florida Field. The one exception is Georgia-Florida in Jacksonville, which is half and half, like Oklahoma-Texas in Dallas.

(09-18-2014 09:20 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  (BTW, Karlgaard thinks the P5 conference least unlikely to invite Rice is the ACC, not the SEC.)

viva Rice and SMU to the ACC!

(09-19-2014 01:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-19-2014 12:55 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-19-2014 11:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-19-2014 10:56 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 03:59 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Of course, UTSA has better crowds and less market competition.

I think their attendance is dropping some as the novelty wears off. I cannot see them (yet, anyway), bringing significant fans to most SEC away gems.

Nobody brings significant fans to SEC away games, except at Vandy and maybe at Kentucky, because there are no seats available for them.

To the extent that they ARE in attendance, other than the small allotments for the schools... they bought their tickets on the secondary market and provided no substantial additional revenue to the host.

I suspect part of the reason our seats are disjointed at places like A&M is because as a practice, they wouldn't want the opposing fans to have a significant block.

The allotments we get at ND and aTm are pretty much equivalent to what Alabama gets at Jordan-Hare or Auburn gets at Florida Field. The one exception is Georgia-Florida in Jacksonville, which is half and half, like Oklahoma-Texas in Dallas.

OK, forget the away games. But their attendance is dropping some from previous levels.

JMHO, The argument to push us to the ACC wouldn't be based on competitiveness but survival. The more I think about it, the more I think the next move is going to be the ACC or big10 tempts some 'historical' power like Tenn or Arkansas or Ms or Mo or the like who is sick of playing second or third fiddle, often not making bowls and getting the extra weeks of practice in the SEC to jump ship. Once that happens, the possibilities for realignment are myriad... but I think that the idea of super-conferences with top to bottom top 20 teams may actually be 'too much of a good thing'.

(09-19-2014 02:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-19-2014 01:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-19-2014 12:55 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-19-2014 11:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-19-2014 10:56 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think their attendance is dropping some as the novelty wears off. I cannot see them (yet, anyway), bringing significant fans to most SEC away gems.

Nobody brings significant fans to SEC away games, except at Vandy and maybe at Kentucky, because there are no seats available for them.

To the extent that they ARE in attendance, other than the small allotments for the schools... they bought their tickets on the secondary market and provided no substantial additional revenue to the host.
I suspect part of the reason our seats are disjointed at places like A&M is because as a practice, they wouldn't want the opposing fans to have a significant block.

The allotments we get at ND and aTm are pretty much equivalent to what Alabama gets at Jordan-Hare or Auburn gets at Florida Field. The one exception is Georgia-Florida in Jacksonville, which is half and half, like Oklahoma-Texas in Dallas.

OK, forget the away games. But their attendance is dropping some from previous levels.

This is actually one attraction that Rice had to the SEC. They would like away games where they can accommodate more of their fans.