(03-10-2015 01:14 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 08:35 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  I think that axiom could be expanded to include all sports fans, frankly. I know there are a lot of folks on here that have no formal professional/academic affiliation with Rice that still happen to be big supporters of Rice because of the ideals that Rice stands for with regard to the student-athlete paradigm and the way we strive to run a clean intercollegiate athletics program. But, unfortunately, I believe there just aren't that many casual fans that have that mentality, even when it comes to college athletics, which supposedly values the concept that these guys are students first and athletes second.

Let's be honest: if you're choosing to watch a football game and have no affiliation with any of the following schools, are you going to watch Rice vs. Vanderbilt or Texas vs. Tennessee? Probably the latter, because, as a casual fan, you are simply looking to derive the most entertainment value for the cost of your time. You perceive that the Battle of the UTs provides you more bang for your buck, so you decide to watch that. The fact that the players in the latter game don't possess the book smarts of those in the former matchup is of no consequence to you, Joe Viewer. All you're looking for is the best football matchup; whether or not the players do their own homework or not is largely irrelevant to the vast majority of casual football fans. That's why it's such a struggle to attract casual fans to come to Rice games, at least until we establish a better track record of putting a winning / competitive product on the field.

Your post brings to mind the following opinion I have of casual sports fans: they want to watch a well-played game in the sport they are watching. They sure don't seem to be interested in the meercat-style, timeout calling, unimaginative play, plodding games.

Look at how excited posters are about Mike Rhoades' first team--and he's still a losing coach at this point. BUT his coaching style is entertaining, his players are expected to play at 100% every minute, he is candid to a fault so far in most every media interview before, after games or during coaches shows. He also has stated that he wants to beat the best teams ("bring 'em on") as opposed to just padding his record with only the bottom feeders. I think you can say much of the same for Wayne Graham's teams over the years.

When you talk about attracting the casual fans, in my opinion, you need a coach that is just as exciting a personality as the style of play his players play. Mike Rhoades said the following about coaching styles and attitudes: (close paraphrase here) "The players tend to take on the personality of the Head Coach." That's what helps separate the boys from the men, and develops a following outside of just alumns 9 times out of 10. Odds are, a coach with a strong personality that excites and grows the home base while eliciting enmity and envy from the opponents puts butts in seats and grows revenues for his sport and his school more often than not.

So, John Jenkins? Woody Hayes? No Tom Landry?

I don't know if this can be pigeonholed so easily. For me, if I care about who wins, I care, and that is enough. But if I don't care, for example a game between Gatech and UGA, then what I want to see is an exciting back and forth game between evenly matched teams. I don't care if the coaches are Good Time Joe or Mr. Dour. Probably don't even need to know their name. the teams don't have to dazzle me with trick plays, like Boise did in that Oklahoma bowl game, although that works too, at least if the trick plays work. What usually attracts me is determination and grit, the will to be fierce competitors and never die. which Boise also showed in that game. But if I moved to Atlanta, I doubt I would bother to go see the GT-UGA game even if it was two miles from my house. I would probably need either a free ticket or to have previously found something to like about one of them from TV. Not going to bother otherwise.

JMHFFO

I think casual fans are attracted by a coach who does one thing - WIN.

The most charismatic thing a coach can do is win in double digits, every year. Gary Patterson is nobody's idea of a charismatic coach. But he has established a pretty good following among casual fans. For that matter, pretty much the same could be said of Nick Saban.

There have certainly been coaches who attracted fans with their personalities. But I think more of them did it by winning and winning consistently.

This is where I've always had reservations about Bailiff. I don't know whether he can sustain 10-win seasons. Last season we fell off a bit, but certainly not disastrously. He is slowly addressing my reservations. I wish the progress was faster. But at this point, I can't rule out the possibility that he could put together a string of double-digit winning seasons. That's why we need. I still worry that his teams are just too sloppy and don't do enough of the little things well to win 10+ year in and year out. But as I say, what I've seen recently causes me to have more optimism in that regard than any thing I saw previously at Texas State or at Rice.
Maybe the way to replicate TCU's climb includes having a coach who spent time there.