Maybe a slight deviation from the topic, but the conversation where people wish there weren't so many bowl games....would that be equivalent to wishing there weren't so many teams? Teams like Rice who cannot typically achieve a decent representation of fans in its own stadium, one might question if the market is flooded with football in their home town. Is the market over sold? I really enjoy watching and rooting for my Rice Owls, but one does have to question it.

(11-06-2015 09:53 PM)WeatherfordOwl Wrote:  Maybe a slight deviation from the topic, but the conversation where people wish there weren't so many bowl games....would that be equivalent to wishing there weren't so many teams? Teams like Rice who cannot typically achieve a decent representation of fans in its own stadium, one might question if the market is flooded with football in their home town. Is the market over sold? I really enjoy watching and rooting for my Rice Owls, but one does have to question it.

Completely agree. And that is why I have and do strongly argue against the D1 forever attitude. I am not content with Rice playing D1 just for the sake of playing D1. Our goal has to be the P5 and in the top conferences, otherwise as the gap between the haves and have nots continues to grow, the benefit to the University drops precipitously.

And this is why I was happy that UAB originally cut football - it served as a reminder that 20 million a year or whatever with minimal benefit is not tolerated.

Go big or go home.

That has been my thinking since Rice was left behind in the last round of conference moves. Although I remember the last of the days when Rice football really mattered since my parents started taking me to games starting around 1960 and told stories about Rice football before that, the current version of Rice football is just a pale shadow of that. The problem is other programs have progressed much further than we have. The current team could probably beat a team from 50 years ago because the current linemen are much bigger than the past lineman. There was a time when Rice football was the best football in Houston. We were in the SWC and UH was not until 1976. The Oilers did not come until 1960.

(11-09-2015 09:59 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(11-06-2015 09:53 PM)WeatherfordOwl Wrote:  Maybe a slight deviation from the topic, but the conversation where people wish there weren't so many bowl games....would that be equivalent to wishing there weren't so many teams? Teams like Rice who cannot typically achieve a decent representation of fans in its own stadium, one might question if the market is flooded with football in their home town. Is the market over sold? I really enjoy watching and rooting for my Rice Owls, but one does have to question it.

Completely agree. And that is why I have and do strongly argue against the D1 forever attitude. I am not content with Rice playing D1 just for the sake of playing D1. Our goal has to be the P5 and in the top conferences, otherwise as the gap between the haves and have nots continues to grow, the benefit to the University drops precipitously.

And this is why I was happy that UAB originally cut football - it served as a reminder that 20 million a year or whatever with minimal benefit is not tolerated.

Go big or go home.

(11-10-2015 01:54 PM)75src Wrote:  That has been my thinking since Rice was left behind in the last round of conference moves. Although I remember the last of the days when Rice football really mattered since my parents started taking me to games starting around 1960 and told stories about Rice football before that, the current version of Rice football is just a pale shadow of that. The problem is other programs have progressed much further than we have. The current team could probably beat a team from 50 years ago because the current linemen are much bigger than the past lineman. There was a time when Rice football was the best football in Houston. We were in the SWC and UH was not until 1976. The Oilers did not come until 1960.

I hope we are not naive enough to think that those other members of the SWC and Rice are apples to apples in terms of football/athletic programs. Those "other programs have progressed" because of commitment to athletics, funding, school size, alumni base size, etc etc etc.......that list is longer than the 57 year conference championship drought.

(11-10-2015 04:01 PM)Holder_Owl_84 Wrote:  I hope we are not naive enough to think that those other members of the SWC and Rice are apples to apples in terms of football/athletic programs. Those "other programs have progressed" because of commitment to athletics, funding, school size, alumni base size, etc etc etc.......that list is longer than the 57 year conference championship drought.

It is not apples to apples, but it doesn't matter. We are playing the same game at the end of the day.

If our handicaps are too much to overcome, then we should go to Division 3. This isn't elementary school where we get participation awards. Either we find a way to overcome the hurdles or we find a game and level better suited to our performance limits.

(11-04-2015 09:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don't know if this is true, but when I was a student, I heard on campus that the '63 team, at 6-4, had voted not to accept a Sun Bowl bid.

Things were very different then, and a SB bid was literally beneath the dignity of a SWC team.

But turning it down did not make the point that we were all about excellence, nor did it result in players coming to Rice who were impressed by our standards. It was the beginning of the long journey into obscurity. I wonder if things would have been different had we accepted that bid.

IIRC, the 1954 team declined a bowl invitation (Gator?) because they were "only" 7-3.

The 1994 team was 5-6 but technically SWC co-champions. The Cotton Bowl berth went to the team that had been out the Bowl the longest. Texas Tech went because they had never been. How would you have felt about Rice being in the Bowl that year? I had mixed feelings.

(11-11-2015 10:38 AM)JSA Wrote:  

(11-04-2015 09:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don't know if this is true, but when I was a student, I heard on campus that the '63 team, at 6-4, had voted not to accept a Sun Bowl bid.

Things were very different then, and a SB bid was literally beneath the dignity of a SWC team.

But turning it down did not make the point that we were all about excellence, nor did it result in players coming to Rice who were impressed by our standards. It was the beginning of the long journey into obscurity. I wonder if things would have been different had we accepted that bid.

IIRC, the 1954 team declined a bowl invitation (Gator?) because they were "only" 7-3.

The 1994 team was 5-6 but technically SWC co-champions. The Cotton Bowl berth went to the team that had been out the Bowl the longest. Texas Tech went because they had never been. How would you have felt about Rice being in the Bowl that year? I had mixed feelings.

I would have been happy. despite all the talk we would have heard about the record and the Aggies, I felt it was a great opportunity to take another step back from the depths.

Nothing good can come from declining a bowl in the 21st century.

(11-11-2015 10:38 AM)JSA Wrote:  

(11-04-2015 09:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don't know if this is true, but when I was a student, I heard on campus that the '63 team, at 6-4, had voted not to accept a Sun Bowl bid.

Things were very different then, and a SB bid was literally beneath the dignity of a SWC team.

But turning it down did not make the point that we were all about excellence, nor did it result in players coming to Rice who were impressed by our standards. It was the beginning of the long journey into obscurity. I wonder if things would have been different had we accepted that bid.

IIRC, the 1954 team declined a bowl invitation (Gator?) because they were "only" 7-3.

The 1994 team was 5-6 but technically SWC co-champions. The Cotton Bowl berth went to the team that had been out the Bowl the longest. Texas Tech went because they had never been. How would you have felt about Rice being in the Bowl that year? I had mixed feelings.

After all this time of never questioning that 1994 tiebreaker, I just now realized that we got screwed. We had played 36 seasons in the SWC since our last Cotton Bowl in 1957. Tech had only played 34, having joined the league in 1960.