As mentioned in a previous post, I was at Rice from 68 to 72. I went to all the home games. It was big time football. During my time there, in addition to all of the SWC opponents, we played LSU (four times), Cal, USC, Tenn. In many of the games we were competitive. In one game, we were tied with UT at half 7-7 at the half, ultimately losing 21-7 as their depth outlasted our depth. It was exciting playing big time football. The UT and LSU games were sellouts. It was doubly exciting to be in a packed Rice stadium. In 71, we lead Arkansas most of the game, with them tying it on a last play of the game field goal.

We were playing top teams, and despite the fact that my four years seem to have coincided with the beginning of the decline of Rice football, we were competitive in many of the games against LSU, UT, and Arkansas, and always in the games with our other SWC opponents.

I probably would not go to many games if I were at Rice now. Not too exciting playing the likes of UTSA and WKU.

Date Team Score
9/11/1971 Houston L 21-23
9/18/1971 Southern California L 0-24
9/25/1971 Tulane W 14-11
10/2/1971 @ Louisiana State L 3-38
10/16/1971 Southern Methodist L 10-16
10/23/1971 @ Texas L 10-39
10/30/1971 @ Texas Tech W 9-7
11/6/1971 Arkansas T 24-24
11/13/1971 Texas A&M L 13-18
11/20/1971 @ Texas Christian L 19-20
11/27/1971 Baylor W 23-0
Bill Peterson's year as coach before going to the Oilers. I recall he wanted to turn Sid into an athletics dorm.

(11-01-2014 11:34 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-01-2014 10:38 AM)texowl2 Wrote:  My thinking on that is when UH won 3 of the first 4 SWC titles that the rest decided to cheat and/or admit athletes along the same lines as UH. This led to all the scandals in the 80's and the decline of the league competitively.

They were all already doing that BEFORE the entry of UH. One problem that the old SWC had compared with other conferences is that everybody was recruiting out of the same pot. Most other leagues, there are geographic boundaries that about 90% of the kids adhere to. And the coaches horse trade, "I'll let you take that kid if you let me have this kid," that sort of stuff actually goes on. I know people who were recruited that way. Here, everybody was in Dallas, everybody was in Houston, everybody was in San Antonio, and so forth. When they knock heads on virtually every recruit, you get a lot more hard feelings when somebody bends a rule. There was a lot of information known on the inside that never got to the general public.

UH couldn't break into that game when Yeoman got there, so he recruited 1) small schools and 2) African-American schools. One of the early UH conference champions started more players from AAA and smaller schools than the rest of the SWC combined. He proved that you didn't have to stay with 5-A/4-A to find people who could play. So now the competition that had been going on in the big cities extended down to the smaller schools as well.

UH didn't start the cheating. It was already going on before UH ever arrived in the SWC. I think a much bigger factor was Darrell Royal's retirement. He had been kind of the unofficial, behind the scenes arbiter of how far people could bend the rules without being whacked, and once he stepped down, nobody stepped up to fill that role.

Ok I hear ya, but not at the level of $MU or eATMe under Jackie. I also think having a away game every year hurt the attendance of the big schools, since the Houston fans could see their team every year without driving. And from ur Broyles story, Ark had one more school in Texas to have to travel.

(11-01-2014 10:12 AM)mrbig Wrote:  Since this thread has kind of evolved from Bailiff to conference talk, what would be better for the Rice football brand - being undefeated with a schedule like Marshall's or having 2 losses with a schedule like Rice's? In the past, I favored Rice's tougher schedule, but now I'm not so sure.

I'd much favor two losses with a schedule like Rice's. But keep in mind, we are not a team with two losses with a schedule like Rice's, we are a team with three losses with a schedule like Rice's. Our problem is the third loss, not the other two.

At least one of those two losses needs to turn into a win, on a pretty consistent basis, if we are to attract anyone's attention. We can't turn those losses into wins if we don't play those games. We could go undefeated every year with a schedule like Marshall's and nobody would ever notice. It would be the proverbial tree falling in the forest with nobody around to hear. Beat ND or beat aTm, and people notice. But you can't beat teams that you don't play.

If we were to finish 11-2 with this schedule, particularly if aTm had not fallen apart, we would be a legitimate contender for the non-P5 BCS slot (or whatever they call it). Or if aTm had fallen apart early enough for us to finish 12-1, we would pretty much be a mortal lock for that slot.

(11-01-2014 01:30 PM)texowl2 Wrote:  Ok I hear ya, but not at the level of $MU or eATMe under Jackie. I also think having a away game every year hurt the attendance of the big schools, since the Houston fans could see their team every year without driving. And from ur Broyles story, Ark had one more school in Texas to have to travel.

But keep in mind, $MU and Jackie happened after Darrell stepped down. Pretty much right after, but things definitely shifted when he was no longer there. I think Darrell and Frank would have worked it out where Arkansas would have stayed for the good of the conference. But DeLoss and Frank were never going to do that. The difference between Texas's attitude toward conference mates (SWC or XII) under DeLoss and the attitude of the top SEC programs toward conference mates is night and day. Alabama gladly shares conference revenues with Vanderbilt because 1) that's what Bear did, and nobody including Saban is willing to take on changing anything that Bear did, 2) they realize that they need Vandy and that Vandy pulls its weight in sports other than football, and 3) Alabama arrogance <<< Texas arrogance.

My perspective is as something of an insider--an insider at Rice, an insider at UH, and an insider at the SWC. There are some biases here, obviously, but also a lot of knowledge, some of which I don't think I have the liberty of discussing, certainly not in this kind of forum. The SWC went from Texas and eight schools who loved Darrell to Texas and eight schools who hated DeLoss. Once that happened, breakup was inevitable. As long as Texas insisted upon dominating, there were going to be schools who got angry and left. My own opinion is that we should have been one of the first to leave, and Bobby and I had more than one discussion about that point. There were at least two offers that I would have jumped for in the early 1990s.

Owl40, excellent analysis. My thoughts on your groups, from 1 to 7.

1) The Loyalists. This group has dwindled over time because a) at the ages you note, nature takes a toll, b) Rice has done absolutely zero to attract more people into this group, and c) Rice has actually gone to great lengths over the years to antagonize this group. The Rice athletic department from 1965 to date is the classic case study of how to destroy a loyal customer base.
2) Opponent Fans. This is the group that Rice has relied upon to bail out its horrendous marketing efforts elsewhere. Standard quote from any of several Rice ADs from 1967 to 1984, "We don't need to market. When Texas and LSU come to town they bring enough people to pay for our athletic program, and that's all we need. Besides, if we win they'll knock the doors down and if we don't there is nothing we can do." This is reflected in a lot of comments on here, and I usually call them out when I see them. I don't know if you were listing them in order of priority or not, but I think you are right in that this isn't going to change unless and until we get into a P5 conference, and we aren't getting into a P5 conference until the attendance problem is solved, so this probably needs to be ranked #7 in priority. It has almost certainly been the #1 priority for 50 years. Basically, the solution here is to fix the other six.
3) Students. Other standard quote from any of several Rice AD's from 1967 to 1984, "They get in free, so why should we care whether they come or not." Very simple. The key to growing group 1) has to be feeding it from group 5), and the key to growing group 5) has to be feeding it from here. Look at what Duke does, look at what Stanford does, look at what Northwestern does, look at what Scott Thompson did, and take the best from each. Vandy does some combination of opponents' fans plus having the most beautiful women around as eye candy. I'm certainly not opposed to beautiful women, but I don't think that formula works for us unless and until we get to P5 status. So we need to look for ideas elsewhere.
4) Parents/Friends of Players/Coaches. I'm not sure how much upside is here. I'm thinking more in the hundreds than the thousands, but when you are where we are, even hundreds matter. And like group 1) there is no question that these people are not treated as well as they should be, and we should do a better job here out of loyalty even more than marketing.
5) Alumni not in group 1. Again, you feed this from group 3). The best way to grow this is to get them as students and keep them. Trying to bring them in after they have lost touch is at least 10 times harder. For right now, we have to go the hard way because of the sins of the past, but the better solution long term is to feed from below. I don't think we'll ever get the kind of loyalty that aTm does here, but we don't need that much loyalty. One thing that I think helps a lot both here and fund-raising is CDC's idea of really upgrading club sports, and perhaps adding a few varsity sports (things like fencing or bowling that don't require a lot of funding and work for men and women), in order to increase the number and improve the experience of those who have some connection to athletics. This in turns expands both the ticket buying population and the giving population.
6) Football Fans in H-Town area. This is a huge key. I really like Hambone's multimedia sports bar approach. As a bonus, given the issues organizing watch parties for away games, what better than to use this facility?
7) "Promotions" like bands, kids groups, cheerleading groups, etc. Yes, minor league baseball should be the source of ideas here.

(11-02-2014 02:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-01-2014 01:30 PM)texowl2 Wrote:  Ok I hear ya, but not at the level of $MU or eATMe under Jackie. I also think having a away game every year hurt the attendance of the big schools, since the Houston fans could see their team every year without driving. And from ur Broyles story, Ark had one more school in Texas to have to travel.

But keep in mind, $MU and Jackie happened after Darrell stepped down. Pretty much right after, but things definitely shifted when he was no longer there. I think Darrell and Frank would have worked it out where Arkansas would have stayed for the good of the conference. But DeLoss and Frank were never going to do that. The difference between Texas's attitude toward conference mates (SWC or XII) under DeLoss and the attitude of the top SEC programs toward conference mates is night and day. Alabama gladly shares conference revenues with Vanderbilt because 1) that's what Bear did, and nobody including Saban is willing to take on changing anything that Bear did, 2) they realize that they need Vandy and that Vandy pulls its weight in sports other than football, and 3) Alabama arrogance <<< Texas arrogance.

My perspective is as something of an insider--an insider at Rice, an insider at UH, and an insider at the SWC. There are some biases here, obviously, but also a lot of knowledge, some of which I don't think I have the liberty of discussing, certainly not in this kind of forum. The SWC went from Texas and eight schools who loved Darrell to Texas and eight schools who hated DeLoss. Once that happened, breakup was inevitable. As long as Texas insisted upon dominating, there were going to be schools who got angry and left. My own opinion is that we should have been one of the first to leave, and Bobby and I had more than one discussion about that point. There were at least two offers that I would have jumped for in the early 1990s.

DeLoss was clearly a megalomaniac and your analysis makes sense. The SWC changed from a league to a confederation, clear example was the death of the humble/Exxon network. The LHN was his ultimate trademark. You gotta wonder how long the big XII or nine or ten or whatever will last. Guess Boone is why as one would wonder why OU put up with him. And perhaps as most of the rest will do whatever they can to stay in a P5.

(11-02-2014 07:08 AM)texowl2 Wrote:  DeLoss was clearly a megalomaniac and your analysis makes sense. The SWC changed from a league to a confederation, clear example was the death of the humble/Exxon network. The LHN was his ultimate trademark. You gotta wonder how long the big XII or nine or ten or whatever will last. Guess Boone is why as one would wonder why OU put up with him. And perhaps as most of the rest will do whatever they can to stay in a P5.

OU and Okie State must by state law go as a pair. They will be #15 and #16 in the SEC as soon as someone figures out how to move another team to the east without causing the east to revolt. The logical historic choice is Auburn, whose long-standing historic rivals were Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama, and Mississippi Sate (4 east, 2 west) plus Georgia Tech (now ACC). Make Alabama their cross-over rivalry game and be done with it. Except Georgia, Tennessee, and Florida don't want Auburn infringing on their domain.

Another approach would have OU, Okie State, aTm, Mizzou, Arkansas, LSU, Ole Miss, and Miss State in the west, with Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vandy, and Kentucky in the east. Alabama's historic rivals were Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, Vandy, LSU, Miss State (4 east, 2 west, Starkvile and Tuscaloosa are actually the two closest SEC campuses to each other) plus Tulane (now AAC). Or 18 teams starting with that alignment, move Kentucky to the west and put two of Florida State, Clemson, and Miami in the east (SC would probably block Clemson, and Florida could be expected to block Miami and Florida State). Another way to do the 18 school route with Miami included would be to move Vandy to the west and give each division a private school.

Bottom line, Rice's SEC ship has almost certainly sailed. The XII after losing OU and Okie State might be a distinct possibility in that scenario, but I'm not sure that what would then the left of the XII would be anything to shout about. Texas, Baylor, Tech, TCU, Kansas, K State, Iowa St, and WV, maybe add 4 of Cincy, Memphis, Tulane, UH, and Rice to get back to having XII actual members. If Texas bolted and went independent (which the LHN makes a distinct possibility) that might be a decent basketball league, but not much more.

(10-31-2014 10:31 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(10-31-2014 06:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We have improved, but the source of the improvement has been almost exclusively better recruiting, for which the numbers indicate that we are probably coming pretty close to our ceiling as a non-P5 small private school with high academic standards. That means that the improvement needed to get us to 50-6 has to come from better schemes, preparation, and execution, and those have not been David's strong points.

I was right beside Walt with the pitchforks, tar, and feathers in mid-2012, but I actually disagree that "the source of the improvement has been almost exclusively better recruiting."
Improved recruiting has definitely helped. But I think Rice looks better prepared the last 2 years than 2009-11. I think the schemes are better - Thurmond is a huge upgrade over any of the prior D coordinators and (surprisingly to me) Edmondson is a better OC than Beaty or Reagan. I think there are fewer round peg / square hole issues.
I'm not saying everything is perfect, as good as it could be, or as good as it needs to be. But I see more talented players that are also better prepared and make fewer mental mistakes. Just think about how Rice defended the triple-option in 2012 and 2014 compared to the 63-14 shellacking against Navy in 2009. We're not give up 73 to UH again. I look back at some of the horrific 2009-11 results and feel pretty sure nothing like that will ever happen again under Bailiff, and it isn't just because of better recruiting.

Admittedly, because of schedule conflicts, the only games I've seen are ND live and ODU on TV. But I would describe what I've seen as not so much fewer mistakes as better ability to overcome mistakes with athleticism. ND was a typical first game, lots of mistakes both ways, they won and won big because they could overcome more of theirs with athleticism, but we were actually athletic enough to overcome some of ours against pretty good opposition. That's not something Rice has been able to do in the past.

(11-01-2014 12:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-31-2014 11:50 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(10-31-2014 11:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Damn it, Rice needs to cultivate fans who want to come to see RICE play. This has been our problem forever, we depend on the opponent to bring the people. No, no, no, a thousand times no. We need to develop RICE fans who want to come see RICE play, regardless of the opponent.

I don't disagree with that. Hope you didn't misunderstand.
I think our fans are fairly loyal. I don't think we really have more than 10% or 20% difference in the Rice alumni/parent/student fan base between a good opponent and a bad one (albeit both Rice crowds drop in a year when we win less than 5 games).
Getting significant increases in our own fan base will depend on our winning games.
Getting increases in outside fans depends on who we play, at least at this time.

We don't have enough, regardless of the opponent. Agree that winning is a key to getting a larger fan base. But not the only key, it's necessary but not sufficient. We simply haven't done a good job of cultivating or retaining our fan base.

My impression is that Rice had such fans when I was there in the 1980s because they had done that (cultivating support) in the 50s and 60s.

(11-04-2014 09:53 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(11-01-2014 12:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-31-2014 11:50 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(10-31-2014 11:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Damn it, Rice needs to cultivate fans who want to come to see RICE play. This has been our problem forever, we depend on the opponent to bring the people. No, no, no, a thousand times no. We need to develop RICE fans who want to come see RICE play, regardless of the opponent.

I don't disagree with that. Hope you didn't misunderstand.
I think our fans are fairly loyal. I don't think we really have more than 10% or 20% difference in the Rice alumni/parent/student fan base between a good opponent and a bad one (albeit both Rice crowds drop in a year when we win less than 5 games).
Getting significant increases in our own fan base will depend on our winning games.
Getting increases in outside fans depends on who we play, at least at this time.

We don't have enough, regardless of the opponent. Agree that winning is a key to getting a larger fan base. But not the only key, it's necessary but not sufficient. We simply haven't done a good job of cultivating or retaining our fan base.

My impression is that Rice had such fans when I was there in the 1980s because they had done that (cultivating support) in the 50s and 60s.

The numbers were down quite bit by the 80s. There were definitely more in the 70s and even more in the 60s.

(11-04-2014 11:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 09:53 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(11-01-2014 12:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-31-2014 11:50 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(10-31-2014 11:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Damn it, Rice needs to cultivate fans who want to come to see RICE play. This has been our problem forever, we depend on the opponent to bring the people. No, no, no, a thousand times no. We need to develop RICE fans who want to come see RICE play, regardless of the opponent.

I don't disagree with that. Hope you didn't misunderstand.
I think our fans are fairly loyal. I don't think we really have more than 10% or 20% difference in the Rice alumni/parent/student fan base between a good opponent and a bad one (albeit both Rice crowds drop in a year when we win less than 5 games).
Getting significant increases in our own fan base will depend on our winning games.
Getting increases in outside fans depends on who we play, at least at this time.

We don't have enough, regardless of the opponent. Agree that winning is a key to getting a larger fan base. But not the only key, it's necessary but not sufficient. We simply haven't done a good job of cultivating or retaining our fan base.

My impression is that Rice had such fans when I was there in the 1980s because they had done that (cultivating support) in the 50s and 60s.

The numbers were down quite bit by the 80s. There were definitely more in the 70s and even more in the 60s.

In the 60's, I could scalp tickets.

(11-04-2014 12:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  In the 60's, I could scalp tickets.

Yes, but not by 1976 or 1977.

(11-04-2014 12:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 12:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  In the 60's, I could scalp tickets.

Yes, but not by 1976 or 1977.

Probably not even by the time I graduated. But in 1963 I could, and did.

I find it interesting that there seems to be a group of posters on the CUSA main board that have high regard for David as a coach.

(11-05-2014 08:32 AM)Pan95 Wrote:  I find it interesting that there seems to be a group of posters on the CUSA main board that have high regard for David as a coach.

I don't.

We look at him through a different looking glass, just as most other schools do for their coach. We are obviously going to be much more critical of him because we believe that we can exceed everyone's expectations and achieve excellence.

There are two reasons that other poster's from other schools hold Bailiff in high regard: they have both lower expectations for us as a school, and they are also a bit less biased in their assessment of him as a coach.

They don't expect us to be competing for any championship in football, so any coach achieving that is exceeding expectations and is therefore doing something right. And while that is driven by a lower expectation, they are also being less biased in their assessment, and see a coach who actually prepares a disciplined team (does anyone think we are highly penalized?), who has recruited and developed talent that requires extra attention from both the opposing defense and offense, and who obviously has good enough in-game coaching acumen that he is winning games recently at above a .500 rate. And that ties back to the expectations, as most of us on the board think/know we can do better in each of those categories, but that's because a fan base will always think that (I'm sure Alabama fans even have issues with Nick Saban).

(11-05-2014 09:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-05-2014 08:32 AM)Pan95 Wrote:  I find it interesting that there seems to be a group of posters on the CUSA main board that have high regard for David as a coach.

I don't.

We look at him through a different looking glass, just as most other schools do for their coach. We are obviously going to be much more critical of him because we believe that we can exceed everyone's expectations and achieve excellence.

There are two reasons that other poster's from other schools hold Bailiff in high regard: they have both lower expectations for us as a school, and they are also a bit less biased in their assessment of him as a coach.

They don't expect us to be competing for any championship in football, so any coach achieving that is exceeding expectations and is therefore doing something right. And while that is driven by a lower expectation, they are also being less biased in their assessment, and see a coach who actually prepares a disciplined team (does anyone think we are highly penalized?), who has recruited and developed talent that requires extra attention from both the opposing defense and offense, and who obviously has good enough in-game coaching acumen that he is winning games recently at above a .500 rate. And that ties back to the expectations, as most of us on the board think/know we can do better in each of those categories, but that's because a fan base will always think that (I'm sure Alabama fans even have issues with Nick Saban).

Oh I agree, I'm just stirring up stuff...

(11-04-2014 11:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 09:53 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(11-01-2014 12:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-31-2014 11:50 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(10-31-2014 11:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Damn it, Rice needs to cultivate fans who want to come to see RICE play. This has been our problem forever, we depend on the opponent to bring the people. No, no, no, a thousand times no. We need to develop RICE fans who want to come see RICE play, regardless of the opponent.

I don't disagree with that. Hope you didn't misunderstand.
I think our fans are fairly loyal. I don't think we really have more than 10% or 20% difference in the Rice alumni/parent/student fan base between a good opponent and a bad one (albeit both Rice crowds drop in a year when we win less than 5 games).
Getting significant increases in our own fan base will depend on our winning games.
Getting increases in outside fans depends on who we play, at least at this time.

We don't have enough, regardless of the opponent. Agree that winning is a key to getting a larger fan base. But not the only key, it's necessary but not sufficient. We simply haven't done a good job of cultivating or retaining our fan base.

My impression is that Rice had such fans when I was there in the 1980s because they had done that (cultivating support) in the 50s and 60s.

The numbers were down quite bit by the 80s. There were definitely more in the 70s and even more in the 60s.

I have no doubt of that, but I know of at least two (my great aunt and uncle that would drive down from Temple). Tiki may be the last of those that became fans in the Neely era

Of course, the Oilers siphoned off support from all college teams in the Houston area in that timeframe as well.

(11-05-2014 09:23 AM)Pan95 Wrote:  

(11-05-2014 09:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-05-2014 08:32 AM)Pan95 Wrote:  I find it interesting that there seems to be a group of posters on the CUSA main board that have high regard for David as a coach.

I don't.

We look at him through a different looking glass, just as most other schools do for their coach. We are obviously going to be much more critical of him because we believe that we can exceed everyone's expectations and achieve excellence.

There are two reasons that other poster's from other schools hold Bailiff in high regard: they have both lower expectations for us as a school, and they are also a bit less biased in their assessment of him as a coach.

They don't expect us to be competing for any championship in football, so any coach achieving that is exceeding expectations and is therefore doing something right. And while that is driven by a lower expectation, they are also being less biased in their assessment, and see a coach who actually prepares a disciplined team (does anyone think we are highly penalized?), who has recruited and developed talent that requires extra attention from both the opposing defense and offense, and who obviously has good enough in-game coaching acumen that he is winning games recently at above a .500 rate. And that ties back to the expectations, as most of us on the board think/know we can do better in each of those categories, but that's because a fan base will always think that (I'm sure Alabama fans even have issues with Nick Saban).

Oh I agree, I'm just stirring up stuff...

Oh, well then stir away!

(11-05-2014 09:28 AM)I45owl Wrote:  Tiki may be the last of those that became fans in the Neely era

Me.