http://www.burntorangenation.com/2016/2/...all-series

I know I might be in the minority here, but I really, really enjoy playing UT, even when it's just a money game. To get a game here in Houston, even better!

(02-10-2016 10:04 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  http://www.burntorangenation.com/2016/2/...all-series

I know I might be in the minority here, but I really, really enjoy playing UT, even when it's just a money game. To get a game here in Houston, even better!

love getting a shot at UT.

Some team gets dumped:

Wake Forest
Texas (NRG)
at Army
Baylor
Texas A&M

Me too, but I'm just sick that we blew our ONE best chance in 2015 - - a chance we likely won't ever have again.
UT just landed a class full of 4-stars....

Not really a home game at NRG with their crowd, never has been. Too bad no HRS. How can we expect the students to get excited about going to games when any good game is taken off campus, even with the EZF? When I was at Rice, the 97 game vs Texas at HRS became a big part of why I became such a big fan. I would consider less $ to play a real home game.

(02-10-2016 10:44 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  Some team gets dumped:

Wake Forest
Texas (NRG)
at Army
Baylor
Texas A&M

Drop Wake, join AAC, and play a near full SWC slate.

(02-10-2016 11:02 PM)Buho00 Wrote:  Not really a home game at NRG with their crowd, never has been. Too bad no HRS. How can we expect the students to get excited about going to games when any good game is taken off campus, even with the EZF? When I was at Rice, the 97 game vs Texas at HRS became a big part of why I became such a big fan. I would consider less $ to play a real home game.

Well we have a big games the next two years at home with Baylor and Stanford. If the students can't get excited for two top ten teams, then they'll never be excited.

(02-10-2016 11:02 PM)Buho00 Wrote:  Not really a home game at NRG with their crowd, never has been. Too bad no HRS. How can we expect the students to get excited about going to games when any good game is taken off campus, even with the EZF? When I was at Rice, the 97 game vs Texas at HRS became a big part of why I became such a big fan. I would consider less $ to play a real home game.

We need the money.

People keep saying that we need to pay more to expect more. This is a good way to get some of that money.

Plus until stop playing at the low level we do, it's best for games like this to be away from home. USM bludgeoning us at homecoming did a ton of damage to any interest we had on the season. The next home games were empty. No one wants to see us get crushed - out of sight out of mind is a good thing for the casual fan.

I figured it was just a matter of time till this deal got done. More UT fans in Houston than just about any place, I would imagine. We've played them a lot in the past. Going back 100 years. It provides a national audience for our program, which is not bad for recruiting. And 3.25 million for the three games can not be overlooked. We need the dough.
Hoping that the next deal we sign with the Evil Empire has us play at HRS.

(02-10-2016 11:21 PM)greyowl72 Wrote:  We've played them a lot in the past. Going back 100 years.

The rivalry goes back even a bit longer.

Our first meeting was in 1914, the Institute's third fall. Rice fell, too, 41-0 ... and then 59-0 the next year. The next meeting, on Oct. 27, 1917, however, saw "Rice Dehorn Texas Longhonrs", 13-0.

That 1917 "Football Year (was the) Best in History of Rice" -- 7-1 (1-1 in SWC, with a 10-0 victory over A&M).

(Click on the links to see the 1917 Thresher editions with the news.)

(02-10-2016 11:02 PM)Buho00 Wrote:  Not really a home game at NRG with their crowd, never has been. Too bad no HRS. How can we expect the students to get excited about going to games when any good game is taken off campus, even with the EZF? When I was at Rice, the 97 game vs Texas at HRS became a big part of why I became such a big fan. I would consider less $ to play a real home game.

So would I, if that were an option. It's not, and it probably never will be again. Get over it.

(02-11-2016 05:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 11:02 PM)Buho00 Wrote:  Not really a home game at NRG with their crowd, never has been. Too bad no HRS. How can we expect the students to get excited about going to games when any good game is taken off campus, even with the EZF? When I was at Rice, the 97 game vs Texas at HRS became a big part of why I became such a big fan. I would consider less $ to play a real home game.

So would I, if that were an option. It's not, and it probably never will be again. Get over it.

If that is the case (which I suspect it is too) then why not tear down HRS and put up a SMU or Stanford like new stadium? The amount of money to do all the improvements to HRS (especially the press box) will cost nearly what a new stadium would. We still would have to play UT at NRG (even if HRS or a new stadium was usable since I don't UT will ever want to play us on campus) but the rest of the schedule would be helped by a modern stadium. In fact it could still be done given the location of the EZF...a stadium in the corner of Greenbriar and Rice could be designed to connect at one end to the EZF.

(02-11-2016 09:59 AM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  

(02-11-2016 05:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 11:02 PM)Buho00 Wrote:  Not really a home game at NRG with their crowd, never has been. Too bad no HRS. How can we expect the students to get excited about going to games when any good game is taken off campus, even with the EZF? When I was at Rice, the 97 game vs Texas at HRS became a big part of why I became such a big fan. I would consider less $ to play a real home game.

So would I, if that were an option. It's not, and it probably never will be again. Get over it.

If that is the case (which I suspect it is too) then why not tear down HRS and put up a SMU or Stanford like new stadium? The amount of money to do all the improvements to HRS (especially the press box) will cost nearly what a new stadium would. We still would have to play UT at NRG (even if HRS or a new stadium was usable since I don't UT will ever want to play us on campus) but the rest of the schedule would be helped by a modern stadium. In fact it could still be done given the location of the EZF...a stadium in the corner of Greenbriar and Rice could be designed to connect at one end to the EZF.

Glad that we are continuing to play UT in football, and, while not a big fan of playing at NRG, I understand the financial decision behind that. It is clearly a financial decision, as there are cases of big schools playing at smaller stadia (see, Texas A&M playing SMU at Ford Stadium, UT playing TCU at Amon Carter). HRS has the capacity to hold a game of that size, just not the amenities. I've always agreed with sentiment proposed by Tiki - tear down HRS, and, like Stanford and SMU, build a smaller stadium with all the bells and whistles that is representative of our lot in the life.

"Lack of amenities" has nothing to do with not playing the game at Rice. It's all about the money.

(02-11-2016 09:59 AM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  

(02-11-2016 05:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 11:02 PM)Buho00 Wrote:  Not really a home game at NRG with their crowd, never has been. Too bad no HRS. How can we expect the students to get excited about going to games when any good game is taken off campus, even with the EZF? When I was at Rice, the 97 game vs Texas at HRS became a big part of why I became such a big fan. I would consider less $ to play a real home game.

So would I, if that were an option. It's not, and it probably never will be again. Get over it.

If that is the case (which I suspect it is too) then why not tear down HRS and put up a SMU or Stanford like new stadium? The amount of money to do all the improvements to HRS (especially the press box) will cost nearly what a new stadium would. We still would have to play UT at NRG (even if HRS or a new stadium was usable since I don't UT will ever want to play us on campus) but the rest of the schedule would be helped by a modern stadium. In fact it could still be done given the location of the EZF...a stadium in the corner of Greenbriar and Rice could be designed to connect at one end to the EZF.

We need to get our revenues up first. And some of that might require us selling our souls to the devil (on lien) by playing at HRS, playing on the road.

The issue is that we do not have the luxury of turning down $$. On campus vs off campus is secondary right now, IMO.

(02-11-2016 09:59 AM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  

(02-11-2016 05:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 11:02 PM)Buho00 Wrote:  Not really a home game at NRG with their crowd, never has been. Too bad no HRS. How can we expect the students to get excited about going to games when any good game is taken off campus, even with the EZF? When I was at Rice, the 97 game vs Texas at HRS became a big part of why I became such a big fan. I would consider less $ to play a real home game.

So would I, if that were an option. It's not, and it probably never will be again. Get over it.

If that is the case (which I suspect it is too) then why not tear down HRS and put up a SMU or Stanford like new stadium? The amount of money to do all the improvements to HRS (especially the press box) will cost nearly what a new stadium would. We still would have to play UT at NRG (even if HRS or a new stadium was usable since I don't UT will ever want to play us on campus) but the rest of the schedule would be helped by a modern stadium. In fact it could still be done given the location of the EZF...a stadium in the corner of Greenbriar and Rice could be designed to connect at one end to the EZF.

I guess my problem with this is that I don't know what it buys us. SMU and Tulane did it because they did not have other viable options. Old Stanford Stadium was pretty much a wreck, much worse shape than HRS structurally, so that made sense for them too. We could still turn HRS into a very viable facility, and the potential extra seats could come in handy should we ever be considered to move up.

(02-11-2016 12:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-11-2016 09:59 AM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  

(02-11-2016 05:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 11:02 PM)Buho00 Wrote:  Not really a home game at NRG with their crowd, never has been. Too bad no HRS. How can we expect the students to get excited about going to games when any good game is taken off campus, even with the EZF? When I was at Rice, the 97 game vs Texas at HRS became a big part of why I became such a big fan. I would consider less $ to play a real home game.

So would I, if that were an option. It's not, and it probably never will be again. Get over it.

If that is the case (which I suspect it is too) then why not tear down HRS and put up a SMU or Stanford like new stadium? The amount of money to do all the improvements to HRS (especially the press box) will cost nearly what a new stadium would. We still would have to play UT at NRG (even if HRS or a new stadium was usable since I don't UT will ever want to play us on campus) but the rest of the schedule would be helped by a modern stadium. In fact it could still be done given the location of the EZF...a stadium in the corner of Greenbriar and Rice could be designed to connect at one end to the EZF.

I guess my problem with this is that I don't know what it buys us. SMU and Tulane did it because they did not have other viable options. Old Stanford Stadium was pretty much a wreck, much worse shape than HRS structurally, so that made sense for them too. We could still turn HRS into a very viable facility, and the potential extra seats could come in handy should we ever be considered to move up.

If we do away with the South Endzone seats (or the place where seats used to be) the capacity wouldn't be all that much greater than in a new stadium. And if you build it right you could do so with areas that could be converted easily to seats if you ever need them. I would look to do a 35K base stadium.

But why? It won't make any difference to attendance, and recruiting concerns are addressed by new team facilities. A new stadium just to have a new stadium?

(02-11-2016 12:31 PM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  

(02-11-2016 12:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-11-2016 09:59 AM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  

(02-11-2016 05:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 11:02 PM)Buho00 Wrote:  Not really a home game at NRG with their crowd, never has been. Too bad no HRS. How can we expect the students to get excited about going to games when any good game is taken off campus, even with the EZF? When I was at Rice, the 97 game vs Texas at HRS became a big part of why I became such a big fan. I would consider less $ to play a real home game.

So would I, if that were an option. It's not, and it probably never will be again. Get over it.

If that is the case (which I suspect it is too) then why not tear down HRS and put up a SMU or Stanford like new stadium? The amount of money to do all the improvements to HRS (especially the press box) will cost nearly what a new stadium would. We still would have to play UT at NRG (even if HRS or a new stadium was usable since I don't UT will ever want to play us on campus) but the rest of the schedule would be helped by a modern stadium. In fact it could still be done given the location of the EZF...a stadium in the corner of Greenbriar and Rice could be designed to connect at one end to the EZF.

I guess my problem with this is that I don't know what it buys us. SMU and Tulane did it because they did not have other viable options. Old Stanford Stadium was pretty much a wreck, much worse shape than HRS structurally, so that made sense for them too. We could still turn HRS into a very viable facility, and the potential extra seats could come in handy should we ever be considered to move up.

If we do away with the South Endzone seats (or the place where seats used to be) the capacity wouldn't be all that much greater than in a new stadium. And if you build it right you could do so with areas that could be converted easily to seats if you ever need them. I would look to do a 35K base stadium.

But what would that accomplish? How would that be better than what we can do with HRS for comparable money?

(02-11-2016 12:34 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  But why? It won't make any difference to attendance, and recruiting concerns are addressed by new team facilities. A new stadium just to have a new stadium?

I think you'd see a bit of a bump in attendance, at least temporarily. If you can rope in those people who come just out of curiousity, you will see a permanent boost.