(10-01-2015 08:58 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-01-2015 12:58 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 05:31 PM)At Ease Wrote:  250 posts later we get back to answering the OP's question.

Maybe one easy explanation is that we drew more fans to HRS to watch a bad Rice team in the middle of a 4-18 stretch face Baylor in 2010, than showed up to watch the championship game in 2013.

I was at the championship game.

Bear in mind that you have about 1 week or less to market that game, and weather was not accommodating. Marshall had too far to travel to be represented well.

You're competing against other championship games going on at the same time (and on TV) for unaffiliated fans.

All true. And all irrelevant, because such is the nature of championship games.

The circumstances are what they are, there is no benefit in putting a spin on it. Point is, we need $$$ and since the circumstances and C-USA won't provide any, scheduling Baylor at home makes quite a bit of sense.

I don't disagree

I just think comparing attendance at a regularly scheduled game against a former SWC foe with lots of local alumni to a game scheduled a week in advance against an opponent more than a 1000 miles away is pointless

I'm sure the Rice component of the crowd was pretty close to the same at any rate.

UTSA would probably draw well at home against Baylor too.

(10-01-2015 09:26 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(10-01-2015 01:22 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  If you want to get in the Big 12 or SEC . . . Those conferences don't care unless you're bringing more to the pot than you're taking out.

(10-01-2015 06:20 AM)Middle Ages Wrote:  . . . the ability to significantly move the needle in revenues is limited where we are currently in CUSA

It seems we have a classic chicken-and-egg problem...

It's our size

We need them more than they need us

(10-01-2015 09:48 AM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(10-01-2015 09:05 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-01-2015 12:21 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 11:30 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 11:27 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  We aren't TCU, and never will be.

We aren't TCU but we can try to emulate TCU's level of success. With your attitude, we won't achieve that either. Honestly, Division 3 might be the best spot for Rice if this is the attitude. We can win a bunch and the opponents will be as unimportant as they are now.

Rice really is the nation's #1 school in the country for coming up with excuses and justifications for falling short. Wonder if "We aren't Harvard, and never will be" will be the next tagline to tell us all why USNWR #18 is perfectly fine and we don't need to be #1 because we don't have enough history, or money, or rich alums, or <insert reason here>.

Tell me what's wrong with my attitude. I want to know, because all I've ever advocated for around here is for Rice to strive to be all that it can be in athletics, and especially in football. No, Rice will never be in a power conference. No, we don't need to be playing anyone in the top 10 right now. Where in that do you hear me saying that Rice just needs to give it up? If reality is too much for you to handle, then just block me and keep living in your delusions of grandeur. And quit badmouthing CUSA. We should be kissing it's feet for having us given our history in athletics. It's a perfect geographic fit for us and it's an improving conference with public schools and big markets. It's not the BIG12, but who really gives a damn being that no P5 gives a schitt about us? You really do have issues you need to sort out.

1. Its not how Rice as a school operates
2. No one cares about C-USA. And no one should be kissing their feet.
3. Improving? Stats? Have you seen how C-USA has done recently?

Go back to coogfans. They need we-are-so-awesome-without-any-thought posts a lot more than we do. Your attitude is dangerous to progress and success.

We were the 2nd best group of 5 conference last year, behind only MWC.

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2015/...e_foo.html

Probably won't be this year, but the potential is there.

Its not as impressive as it looks. Try this:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sag...onference/


And this year? We're currently below the MAC, the Missouri Valley and the AAC

(10-01-2015 09:54 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(10-01-2015 08:58 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-01-2015 12:58 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 05:31 PM)At Ease Wrote:  250 posts later we get back to answering the OP's question.

Maybe one easy explanation is that we drew more fans to HRS to watch a bad Rice team in the middle of a 4-18 stretch face Baylor in 2010, than showed up to watch the championship game in 2013.

I was at the championship game.

Bear in mind that you have about 1 week or less to market that game, and weather was not accommodating. Marshall had too far to travel to be represented well.

You're competing against other championship games going on at the same time (and on TV) for unaffiliated fans.

All true. And all irrelevant, because such is the nature of championship games.

The circumstances are what they are, there is no benefit in putting a spin on it. Point is, we need $$$ and since the circumstances and C-USA won't provide any, scheduling Baylor at home makes quite a bit of sense.

I don't disagree

I just think comparing attendance at a regularly scheduled game against a former SWC foe with lots of local alumni to a game scheduled a week in advance against an opponent more than a 1000 miles away is pointless

I'm sure the Rice component of the crowd was pretty close to the same at any rate.

UTSA would probably draw well at home against Baylor too.

it isn't pointless when the comment was made in response to people asking why we schedule Baylor. The answer is revenue and this stat from At Ease clearly shows that. As for UTSA, don't disagree. If they have attendance and revenue issues and Baylor gives them a home-home, then they would take it too.

Also, you can compare attendance of the Baylor game to several other regularly scheduled C-USA games as well.

(10-01-2015 09:05 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-01-2015 12:21 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 11:30 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 11:27 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  We aren't TCU, and never will be.

We aren't TCU but we can try to emulate TCU's level of success. With your attitude, we won't achieve that either. Honestly, Division 3 might be the best spot for Rice if this is the attitude. We can win a bunch and the opponents will be as unimportant as they are now.

Rice really is the nation's #1 school in the country for coming up with excuses and justifications for falling short. Wonder if "We aren't Harvard, and never will be" will be the next tagline to tell us all why USNWR #18 is perfectly fine and we don't need to be #1 because we don't have enough history, or money, or rich alums, or <insert reason here>.

Tell me what's wrong with my attitude. I want to know, because all I've ever advocated for around here is for Rice to strive to be all that it can be in athletics, and especially in football. No, Rice will never be in a power conference. No, we don't need to be playing anyone in the top 10 right now. Where in that do you hear me saying that Rice just needs to give it up? If reality is too much for you to handle, then just block me and keep living in your delusions of grandeur. And quit badmouthing CUSA. We should be kissing it's feet for having us given our history in athletics. It's a perfect geographic fit for us and it's an improving conference with public schools and big markets. It's not the BIG12, but who really gives a damn being that no P5 gives a schitt about us? You really do have issues you need to sort out.

1. Its not how Rice as a school operates
2. No one cares about C-USA. And no one should be kissing their feet.
3. Improving? Stats? Have you seen how C-USA has done recently?

Go back to coogfans. They need we-are-so-awesome-without-any-thought posts a lot more than we do. Your attitude is dangerous to progress and success.

But to answer your question, yes, I have been watching CUSA's progress. We just won the bowl challenge for the second year in a row, and we finished as the second best G5 conference behind the MWC last year. We also placed four teams in the postseason in basketball. Any objective viewer can see that CUSA is improving and has potential in the future to be the best G5. Oh, but you don't care about all that, and I only went to UH, so I don't know anything compared to you.

(10-01-2015 10:00 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-01-2015 09:48 AM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(10-01-2015 09:05 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-01-2015 12:21 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 11:30 PM)Antarius Wrote:  We aren't TCU but we can try to emulate TCU's level of success. With your attitude, we won't achieve that either. Honestly, Division 3 might be the best spot for Rice if this is the attitude. We can win a bunch and the opponents will be as unimportant as they are now.

Rice really is the nation's #1 school in the country for coming up with excuses and justifications for falling short. Wonder if "We aren't Harvard, and never will be" will be the next tagline to tell us all why USNWR #18 is perfectly fine and we don't need to be #1 because we don't have enough history, or money, or rich alums, or <insert reason here>.

Tell me what's wrong with my attitude. I want to know, because all I've ever advocated for around here is for Rice to strive to be all that it can be in athletics, and especially in football. No, Rice will never be in a power conference. No, we don't need to be playing anyone in the top 10 right now. Where in that do you hear me saying that Rice just needs to give it up? If reality is too much for you to handle, then just block me and keep living in your delusions of grandeur. And quit badmouthing CUSA. We should be kissing it's feet for having us given our history in athletics. It's a perfect geographic fit for us and it's an improving conference with public schools and big markets. It's not the BIG12, but who really gives a damn being that no P5 gives a schitt about us? You really do have issues you need to sort out.

1. Its not how Rice as a school operates
2. No one cares about C-USA. And no one should be kissing their feet.
3. Improving? Stats? Have you seen how C-USA has done recently?

Go back to coogfans. They need we-are-so-awesome-without-any-thought posts a lot more than we do. Your attitude is dangerous to progress and success.

We were the 2nd best group of 5 conference last year, behind only MWC.

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2015/...e_foo.html

Probably won't be this year, but the potential is there.

Its not as impressive as it looks. Try this:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sag...onference/

Code:

1  SEC-WEST            (A) =  88.75      88.95  (  1)      7      88.88  (  1)
   2  PAC-12(SOUTH)       (A) =  80.09      78.64  (  3)      6      79.31  (  3)
   3  SEC-EAST            (A) =  79.55      78.78  (  2)      7      79.35  (  2)
   4  BIG 12              (A) =  76.22      76.60  (  5)     10      76.32  (  5)
   5  BIG TEN-EAST        (A) =  76.14      78.09  (  4)      7      78.49  (  4)
   6  ACC-ATLANTIC        (A) =  74.80      74.13  (  8)      7      74.60  (  7)
   7  PAC-12(NORTH)       (A) =  74.79      76.14  (  6)      6      75.27  (  6)
   8  ACC-COASTAL         (A) =  74.35      74.78  (  7)      7      74.54  (  8)
   9  BIG TEN-WEST        (A) =  73.09      73.11  (  9)      7      73.10  (  9)
  10  I-A INDEPENDENTS    (A) =  68.49      67.79  ( 10)      4      68.43  ( 10)
  11  MWC-MOUNTAIN        (A) =  66.80      66.41  ( 11)      6      66.64  ( 11)
  12  MISSOURI VALLEY     (AA)=  64.12      64.35  ( 12)     10      64.34  ( 12)
[b]  13  CONFERENCE USA-EAST (A) =  62.30      63.41  ( 13)      7      62.73  ( 13)[/b]
  14  MAC-WEST            (A) =  61.61      59.95  ( 16)      6      61.09  ( 14)
  15  AMERICAN ATHLETIC   (A) =  60.88      59.97  ( 15)     11      60.47  ( 16)
[b]  16  CONFERENCE USA-WEST (A) =  60.15      61.40  ( 14)      6      60.84  ( 15)[/b]
  17  MWC-WEST            (A) =  57.52      57.13  ( 17)      6      57.24  ( 17)
  18  SUN BELT            (A) =  55.95      55.78  ( 18)     11      55.89  ( 18)
  19  MAC-EAST            (A) =  53.09      52.90  ( 19)      7      52.91  ( 19)
  20  BIG SOUTH           (AA)=  52.56      52.56  ( 20)      6      52.57  ( 20)

And this year? We're currently below the MAC, the Missouri Valley and the AAC

CUSA as a whole appears to be above the AAC. Since we are broken into divisions, our weaker west division is below the AAC, but the stronger east division is ranked above. Average our two divisions and we have a 61.23 central mean - greater than the AAC. And when you do the same for MWC and MAC, you get 62.16 and 57.35 for the central mean. So really, our conference as a whole may well be better than all but the Independents, and oddly enough, the Missouri Valley.

(10-01-2015 09:54 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  I just think comparing attendance at a regularly scheduled game against a former SWC foe with lots of local alumni to a game scheduled a week in advance against an opponent more than a 1000 miles away is pointless

It's the whole point. The degree to which revenue and visibility can account for or mitigate the annually increasing costs sunk into football by the university will determine the future of the program.

~10 years ago Bobby May lamented a major threat to the future of Rice football was from those who took its existence for granted. It's unfortunate to see that attitude still prevalent today, because there is a breaking point where those costs become unjustifiable, and we are still trending in that direction.

(10-01-2015 10:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  CUSA as a whole appears to be above the AAC. Since we are broken into divisions, our weaker west division is below the AAC, but the stronger east division is ranked above. Average our two divisions and we have a 61.23 central mean - greater than the AAC. And when you do the same for MWC and MAC, you get 62.16 and 57.35 for the central mean. So really, our conference as a whole may well be better than all but the Independents, and oddly enough, the Missouri Valley.

RiceLad, I don't disagree with this. My central point in all of this is that it doesn't really matter. My objections are not to C-USA and the G5 in general, it is to our attitude that C-USA is a perfectly fine place to be. I am well aware that we aren't getting a call from the SEC, however that doesn't mean we should be happy, content or even accepting of our circumstances.

The split is very clear, haves and have-nots. The ranking of the have nots isn't important. I simply posted the list to illustrate that we are debating whether we are ranked along with the Missouri Valley, MAC and AAC - the very fact that we are having this discussion shows how dire our situation is.

C-USA is where we are. Agreed. C-USA is what we need to win. Agreed. C-USA championships and 9-10 win seasons are NOT the be all and end all however. We need to run the table in C-USA. We need to play Texas and find a way to win and only then we have a shot at escaping the sinking ship of the have-nots.

(10-01-2015 11:00 AM)At Ease Wrote:  ~10 years ago Bobby May lamented a major threat to the future of Rice football was from those who took its existence for granted. It's unfortunate to see that attitude still prevalent today, because there is a breaking point where those costs become unjustifiable, and we are still trending in that direction.

Excellent point.

I have said it before, I am not interested in being D1 for the sake of being D1. We are D1 to try to be the best. If this isn't the goal, then we should pack it up and walk away.

(10-01-2015 11:00 AM)At Ease Wrote:  

(10-01-2015 09:54 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  I just think comparing attendance at a regularly scheduled game against a former SWC foe with lots of local alumni to a game scheduled a week in advance against an opponent more than a 1000 miles away is pointless

It's the whole point. The degree to which revenue and visibility can account for or mitigate the annually increasing costs sunk into football by the university will determine the future of the program.

~10 years ago Bobby May lamented a major threat to the future of Rice football was from those who took its existence for granted. It's unfortunate to see that attitude still prevalent today, because there is a breaking point where those costs become unjustifiable, and we are still trending in that direction.

You are right that playing Baylor is a good thing for us, for attendance and for revenue.

The problem is that Rice's showing for both games was probably pretty close to the same. Given the importance of the Marshall game, I'm guessing any differences would be attributable to the short notice/prior plans/timing. Can't blame Marshall for not showing up in droves on short notice when travel costs would've been at a premium. What the P5, the media, advertising, etc care about is how many people show up to a Rice game to see Rice. That number probably fluctuates a little based on how well we're playing (in negative ways), but it's not seen as increasing. What I recall of student attendance in the 70's and 80's and what I see now isn't encouraging either. Having a lot of visiting fans show up doesn't help that problem.

Our older fans want to see us beat SWC foes (I do too). Younger fans want to see us win (if they're interested at all), period. It's a balance on that side of the equation, and we're hampered by a small student body and alumni base in that regard.

(10-01-2015 01:17 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Our older fans want to see us beat SWC foes (I do too). Younger fans want to see us win (if they're interested at all), period. It's a balance on that side of the equation, and we're hampered by a small student body and alumni base in that regard.

Younger fans want to see us win and play well against quality opponents, period. And I say that from experience, as I am one of those younger fans.

My friends aren't interested in watching LaTech whoop our backsides or us whoop theirs. Of course winning is better than losing, but neither moves the needle. What does move the needle (downwards) is people watching us get embarrassed against UT and Baylor on TV.

(10-01-2015 11:00 AM)At Ease Wrote:  ~10 years ago Bobby May lamented a major threat to the future of Rice football was from those who took its existence for granted. It's unfortunate to see that attitude still prevalent today, because there is a breaking point where those costs become unjustifiable, and we are still trending in that direction.

Good point, and I would add a corollary postulation, which is that I think a major threat to the future of Rice University as an elite academic institution is from those who take that status for granted.

There is not a single of our peer schools that is not formally associated in a conference with other peer schools, whether at the FBS, FCS (Ivy), or D-III level. And we're not just the only outlier in that regard, we're so far from the norm it's beyond ridiculous.

Conference affiliation *matters*. It affects your perception by both your peers and the public. You strengthen beneficial relationships with peer institutions through regular conference meetings and workings. And you benefit from public exposure and association with other well known, valuable names/brands.

In CUSA we have the worst of all possible worlds: no regular formal ties with any peer institution, meager media exposure, and what little media exposure we do get sees our name/brand linked with some lowest-tier school 95 times out of 100.

To think there will never be serious consequences for this is crazy.

I also think it's crazy to think there is a ladder we can climb from CUSA to P5 just by winning this glorified FCS conference every year and coupling that with year-in, year-out wins over Top 25 teams (both of which we are pretty far from legitimately achieving). TCU and Utah didn't win their way to P5 invites by beating lots of Old Dominions and Florida Internationals in addition to their signature wins. They were beating BYU, Air Force, Colorado State, each other, state flagship schools like Wyoming and New Mexico, Louisville, Houston, Cincinnati, etc. The difference in quality in terms of public perception is staggering. We don't have the chance in this conference to even try and come close to replicating what TCU did.

(10-01-2015 02:23 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(10-01-2015 11:00 AM)At Ease Wrote:  ~10 years ago Bobby May lamented a major threat to the future of Rice football was from those who took its existence for granted. It's unfortunate to see that attitude still prevalent today, because there is a breaking point where those costs become unjustifiable, and we are still trending in that direction.

Good point, and I would add a corollary postulation, which is that I think a major threat to the future of Rice University as an elite academic institution is from those who take that status for granted.

There is not a single of our peer schools that is not formally associated in a conference with other peer schools, whether at the FBS, FCS (Ivy), or D-III level. And we're not just the only outlier in that regard, we're so far from the norm it's beyond ridiculous.

Conference affiliation *matters*. It affects your perception by both your peers and the public. You strengthen beneficial relationships with peer institutions through regular conference meetings and workings. And you benefit from public exposure and association with other well known, valuable names/brands.

In CUSA we have the worst of all possible worlds: no regular formal ties with any peer institution, meager media exposure, and what little media exposure we do get sees our name/brand linked with some lowest-tier school 95 times out of 100.

To think there will never be serious consequences for this is crazy.

I also think it's crazy to think there is a ladder we can climb from CUSA to P5 just by winning this glorified FCS conference every year and coupling that with year-in, year-out wins over Top 25 teams (both of which we are pretty far from legitimately achieving). TCU and Utah didn't win their way to P5 invites by beating lots of Old Dominions and Florida Internationals in addition to their signature wins. They were beating BYU, Air Force, Colorado State, each other, state flagship schools like Wyoming and New Mexico, Louisville, Houston, Cincinnati, etc. The difference in quality in terms of public perception is staggering. We don't have the chance in this conference to even try and come close to replicating what TCU did.

That's true if CUSA stands still and doesn't improve. The fact that our conference has public schools in big markets is, at least, encouraging. I know that it's easier for a public school to improve it's athletics faster than a private one. And not to sound like a broken record, but a P5 isn't going to invite Rice University. We are a drain on resources and we wouldn't be able to carry our weight. The more quickly people around here realize this, the more quickly we can find other ways to generate the revenue that will make us profitable. I've always been an advocate of an athletics endowment fund, just like Stanford's. That's the answer to this problem. If Rice can raise $1billion dollars in one year during the centennial campaign, please tell me why it can't raise $200 million for an athletics endowment?

(10-01-2015 01:31 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Younger fans want to see us win and play well against quality opponents, period. And I say that from experience, as I am one of those younger fans.

My friends aren't interested in watching LaTech whoop our backsides or us whoop theirs. Of course winning is better than losing, but neither moves the needle. What does move the needle (downwards) is people watching us get embarrassed against UT and Baylor on TV.

If I remember correctly, I'm only a few years ahead of you, and I completely agree with the sentiment, but this goes across all sports. Frankly, even when some of those other schools were strong (for example, the few years that CUSA was a 5-bid conference to the CWS Regionals stage), I had a hard time getting motivated to come watch us play an ECU or a Southern Miss. I still went to see a bunch of games against them in a bunch of sports, but my friends and I were generally infinitely more interested whenever we were playing UH, Texas, or A&M at anything. Most importantly, games against UH in any sport were always circled on our calendars - this season, it appears that only baseball will be doing that.

Even if LaTech and UNT and UTSA are all close by geographically and would be good to develop rivalries with, they're just not the same, and with games like them on our schedule, I do not make it a point to watch those games (whereas I stayed up way past midnight in my time zone to watch our non-conference games against Texas, Baylor, A&M, and Kansas the last few years). Besides, even if we have not been the dominant program in the current CUSA, my general expectation (some may call it snobbery) is that we are in an upgraded Sun Belt, and that we should be dominating each game. I am saying that essentially, my attitude tends to be like that of some fans of powerhouse programs that won't show up to a game if, say, Alabama is playing Sam Houston State. I fully expect us to be able to dominate these games, and when we don't, I'm very depressed.. but I digress...

So to go back to the OP's question: No, I don't believe it helps us to be hammered in games against Baylor and Texas and Texas A&M and ND, but I think we need these kinds of games and opponents in order to keep some of us interested.

(10-01-2015 04:07 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(10-01-2015 02:23 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(10-01-2015 11:00 AM)At Ease Wrote:  ~10 years ago Bobby May lamented a major threat to the future of Rice football was from those who took its existence for granted. It's unfortunate to see that attitude still prevalent today, because there is a breaking point where those costs become unjustifiable, and we are still trending in that direction.

Good point, and I would add a corollary postulation, which is that I think a major threat to the future of Rice University as an elite academic institution is from those who take that status for granted.

There is not a single of our peer schools that is not formally associated in a conference with other peer schools, whether at the FBS, FCS (Ivy), or D-III level. And we're not just the only outlier in that regard, we're so far from the norm it's beyond ridiculous.

Conference affiliation *matters*. It affects your perception by both your peers and the public. You strengthen beneficial relationships with peer institutions through regular conference meetings and workings. And you benefit from public exposure and association with other well known, valuable names/brands.

In CUSA we have the worst of all possible worlds: no regular formal ties with any peer institution, meager media exposure, and what little media exposure we do get sees our name/brand linked with some lowest-tier school 95 times out of 100.

To think there will never be serious consequences for this is crazy.

I also think it's crazy to think there is a ladder we can climb from CUSA to P5 just by winning this glorified FCS conference every year and coupling that with year-in, year-out wins over Top 25 teams (both of which we are pretty far from legitimately achieving). TCU and Utah didn't win their way to P5 invites by beating lots of Old Dominions and Florida Internationals in addition to their signature wins. They were beating BYU, Air Force, Colorado State, each other, state flagship schools like Wyoming and New Mexico, Louisville, Houston, Cincinnati, etc. The difference in quality in terms of public perception is staggering. We don't have the chance in this conference to even try and come close to replicating what TCU did.

That's true if CUSA stands still and doesn't improve. The fact that our conference has public schools in big markets is, at least, encouraging. I know that it's easier for a public school to improve it's athletics faster than a private one. And not to sound like a broken record, but a P5 isn't going to invite Rice University. We are a drain on resources and we wouldn't be able to carry our weight. The more quickly people around here realize this, the more quickly we can find other ways to generate the revenue that will make us profitable. I've always been an advocate of an athletics endowment fund, just like Stanford's. That's the answer to this problem. If Rice can raise $1billion dollars in one year during the centennial campaign, please tell me why it can't raise $200 million for an athletics endowment?

1. Marshall, Southern Miss, MTSU, Old Dominion-- big markets???

2. The $1B raised for the Centennial was over a 5+ year period, and included athletics (e.g., Tudor Fieldhouse).

3. I hope you're going to be one of the lead donors in building that $200MM endowment.

(10-01-2015 04:07 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  That's true if CUSA stands still and doesn't improve. The fact that our conference has public schools in big markets is, at least, encouraging. I know that it's easier for a public school to improve it's athletics faster than a private one. And not to sound like a broken record, but a P5 isn't going to invite Rice University. We are a drain on resources and we wouldn't be able to carry our weight. The more quickly people around here realize this, the more quickly we can find other ways to generate the revenue that will make us profitable. I've always been an advocate of an athletics endowment fund, just like Stanford's. That's the answer to this problem. If Rice can raise $1billion dollars in one year during the centennial campaign, please tell me why it can't raise $200 million for an athletics endowment?

Afflicted, I feel for you because I agree with parts of what you said - particularly in bold (and it seems to be the reason why you are getting some flak directed at you here. I also agreed with your previous statement that we can never be TCU - illiniowl above explained it very well by comparing their opponents during their rise to the Big 12 versus our current opponents.

However, my interpretation of your viewpoint (correct me if I'm wrong) is that you perceive that the fanbase is waiting/hoping/pushing for a P5 invite first, and that revenues will come later as a result of the first. Instead, you believe that we should create the revenue first, and even if a P5 invite does not come, we will be profitable (especially assuming that the other CUSA schools develop into nice programs as well).

If this is the case, then I need you to help me see how your proposal is sustainable. Granted, a P5 invite is next to impossible, but I don't see how we can build a strong program by basing its budget entirely off donations. Even if we could raise $200 million for an athletics endowment, we are still playing against opponents most of us don't care about, and this won't necessarily bring in more fans and build interest - both are important to create a self-sustaining system. Even if those other CUSA schools (public schools in major metropolitan centers as you mention) do develop nicely, I'm not sure any of us will care any more about our games against them than we do now. I'm just having a hard time seeing what your proposed fundraising campaign for athletics would accomplish.

I'm looking at SMU - and although they aren't a direct comparison to Stanford, I think of them because they seem to have suddenly invested a lot into their athletics programs recently, and all that's gotten them is two big-name coaches (June Jones was a hot name at the time, and Larry Brown) and nothing much else to show for it.

I frankly think our best bet now is if there are a defection or two from the AAC or if the decision is to add teams, we do everything we can to jump on board. We are MUCH better off with Navy, Tulane, SMU, Tulsa et al than where we are now. And it appears to me to be just about the highest rung we can hope for in the short run. I hope JK's opinion is similarly situated....

(10-01-2015 04:22 PM)MartelOwl_08 Wrote:  

(10-01-2015 01:31 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Younger fans want to see us win and play well against quality opponents, period. And I say that from experience, as I am one of those younger fans.

My friends aren't interested in watching LaTech whoop our backsides or us whoop theirs. Of course winning is better than losing, but neither moves the needle. What does move the needle (downwards) is people watching us get embarrassed against UT and Baylor on TV.

If I remember correctly, I'm only a few years ahead of you, and I completely agree with the sentiment, but this goes across all sports. Frankly, even when some of those other schools were strong (for example, the few years that CUSA was a 5-bid conference to the CWS Regionals stage), I had a hard time getting motivated to come watch us play an ECU or a Southern Miss. I still went to see a bunch of games against them in a bunch of sports, but my friends and I were generally infinitely more interested whenever we were playing UH, Texas, or A&M at anything. Most importantly, games against UH in any sport were always circled on our calendars - this season, it appears that only baseball will be doing that.

Even if LaTech and UNT and UTSA are all close by geographically and would be good to develop rivalries with, they're just not the same, and with games like them on our schedule, I do not make it a point to watch those games (whereas I stayed up way past midnight in my time zone to watch our non-conference games against Texas, Baylor, A&M, and Kansas the last few years). Besides, even if we have not been the dominant program in the current CUSA, my general expectation (some may call it snobbery) is that we are in an upgraded Sun Belt, and that we should be dominating each game. I am saying that essentially, my attitude tends to be like that of some fans of powerhouse programs that won't show up to a game if, say, Alabama is playing Sam Houston State. I fully expect us to be able to dominate these games, and when we don't, I'm very depressed.. but I digress...

So to go back to the OP's question: No, I don't believe it helps us to be hammered in games against Baylor and Texas and Texas A&M and ND, but I think we need these kinds of games and opponents in order to keep some of us interested.

Good points. Which is why we need to play a UT, an A&M, or an LSU every year, in addition to UH. It's not only students and alumni, but the casual fan in Houston pays at least some attention when we play those teams.

All of us, and every Rice student, know people who went/go to Texas, A&M, UH, and LSU. Rice has bragging rights academically over win of these schools. It is fun to watch us try to get those over them athletically as well. I don't know really know anybody who went to any of the schools we play in C-USA now. I would wager most of our students don't either. I hope we beat them, but it really doesn't (and never will) create crazy excitement on campus or lasting memories when we beat Florida Atlantic and UTSA. And that excitement and those memories is how Rice students become Rice alums who are fans that care about sports.

(10-01-2015 04:50 PM)Ricefootballnet Wrote:  I frankly think our best bet now is if there are a defection or two from the AAC or if the decision is to add teams, we do everything we can to jump on board. We are MUCH better off with Navy, Tulane, SMU, Tulsa et al than where we are now. And it appears to me to be just about the highest rung we can hope for in the short run. I hope JK's opinion is similarly situated....

We were quite intentionally left out of the AAC when it was formed, and we're not getting in because there are too many schools in that conference that benefit from us suffering in one way or another.

Frankly, I can't believe that anyone sees the AAC as a viable option. That is enemy territory to the core. The only option for us to move up in the G5 is the MWC, and that is why I support going in that direction.

(10-01-2015 04:54 PM)RiceFootball2K5 Wrote:  

(10-01-2015 04:22 PM)MartelOwl_08 Wrote:  

(10-01-2015 01:31 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Younger fans want to see us win and play well against quality opponents, period. And I say that from experience, as I am one of those younger fans.

My friends aren't interested in watching LaTech whoop our backsides or us whoop theirs. Of course winning is better than losing, but neither moves the needle. What does move the needle (downwards) is people watching us get embarrassed against UT and Baylor on TV.

If I remember correctly, I'm only a few years ahead of you, and I completely agree with the sentiment, but this goes across all sports. Frankly, even when some of those other schools were strong (for example, the few years that CUSA was a 5-bid conference to the CWS Regionals stage), I had a hard time getting motivated to come watch us play an ECU or a Southern Miss. I still went to see a bunch of games against them in a bunch of sports, but my friends and I were generally infinitely more interested whenever we were playing UH, Texas, or A&M at anything. Most importantly, games against UH in any sport were always circled on our calendars - this season, it appears that only baseball will be doing that.

Even if LaTech and UNT and UTSA are all close by geographically and would be good to develop rivalries with, they're just not the same, and with games like them on our schedule, I do not make it a point to watch those games (whereas I stayed up way past midnight in my time zone to watch our non-conference games against Texas, Baylor, A&M, and Kansas the last few years). Besides, even if we have not been the dominant program in the current CUSA, my general expectation (some may call it snobbery) is that we are in an upgraded Sun Belt, and that we should be dominating each game. I am saying that essentially, my attitude tends to be like that of some fans of powerhouse programs that won't show up to a game if, say, Alabama is playing Sam Houston State. I fully expect us to be able to dominate these games, and when we don't, I'm very depressed.. but I digress...

So to go back to the OP's question: No, I don't believe it helps us to be hammered in games against Baylor and Texas and Texas A&M and ND, but I think we need these kinds of games and opponents in order to keep some of us interested.

Good points. Which is why we need to play a UT, an A&M, or an LSU every year, in addition to UH. It's not only students and alumni, but the casual fan in Houston pays at least some attention when we play those teams.

All of us, and every Rice student, know people who went/go to Texas, A&M, UH, and LSU. Rice has bragging rights academically over win of these schools. It is fun to watch us try to get those over them athletically as well. I don't know really know anybody who went to any of the schools we play in C-USA now. I would wager most of our students do either. I hope we beat them, but it really doesn't (and never will) create crazy excitement on campus or lasting memories when we beat Florida Atlantic and UTSA. And that excitement and those memories is how Rice students become Rice alums who are fans that care about sports.

Correct. It is because we have no common applicants in our applicant pool. This is not meant to be an academic superiority comment, just a fact. We have overlap with Tulane, SMU etc. to some degree. We have overlap with UH by virtue of geographic location. This leads to natural rivalries.

What is frustrating is that several on this board keep insisting that rivalries and interest exist and can exist amongst the young alumni, when that is patently false. Not enough people on campus and who have recently graduated have any interest in watching Rice play Middle Tennessee State.

And yes, we know Bailiff can't change that, and we aren't expecting him to. Let's just call a spade a spade though - C-USA is a boat taking on water. We use it to stay afloat as long as we can and then try to jump. There is no long term future for Rice in C-USA and there never will be. Because we will never be able to get a critical mass to care about the schools in C-USA.

(10-01-2015 04:42 PM)MartelOwl_08 Wrote:  I'm looking at SMU - and although they aren't a direct comparison to Stanford, I think of them because they seem to have suddenly invested a lot into their athletics programs recently, and all that's gotten them is two big-name coaches (June Jones was a hot name at the time, and Larry Brown) and nothing much else to show for it.

Lots of, um, publicity?