(06-08-2016 04:04 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote: (06-08-2016 01:37 PM)Orange County Owl Wrote: ...we're not currently the top draw for the lower tier partners we have now - let alone in a world where we're competing for air time on our own.
To go down this (independent) road we can't just win - we have to be outrageous/notorious/flamboyant. Crazy new offense, ridiculous pre-game/post-game shenanigans, unbelievable stadium special effects - we would have to do something that gets on SportsCenter (and beyond) every game. Until we're winning at TCU/Boise levels (and maybe after that), we'll have to do something to make Rice Football a must-see.
I don't think we'd have to be ridiculous, but since we'd control the TV/Internet, the MOB would certainly get a lot more attention... which WOULD garner some attention... and encourage them to do better (and give them more resources). Yes, we should take advantage of the now 7pm games and go with the lights and lasers (we should be pretty good at that) having the Owl swoop through the stadium (like in the Centennial)
There isn't a magic bullet. This is an AND, not an OR. But I believe these are things that we CAN do, that the University WOULD support (because it improves those aspects of athletics that they value) and would therefore improve the product on the field and thus move us in the right direction...
(06-08-2016 04:14 PM)Antarius Wrote: (06-08-2016 01:37 PM)Orange County Owl Wrote: Note that the preliminary CUSA 2016 TV schedule was just released, and CUSA's national partners selected only 4 of our games. And, one of those was ESPN's selection of the Baylor game - which is quite frankly 99% about Baylor. Another one was Army - which is probably 70% about Army. Some other games will likely be added down the road, but you get my point.
As a point of comparison, these same partners selected 11 Marshall telecasts, and they play exactly one name opponent (Louisville).
I mention this only because I think people underestimate how difficult it would be to acquire TV exposure for our games without a conference affiliation. Using the example above, we're not currently the top draw for the lower tier partners we have now - let alone in a world where we're competing for air time on our own.
And without TV exposure, recruiting becomes very, very difficult. Branding does as well, although admittedly I'm not sure how much branding support we're getting from BeIn Sports (maybe more Rice gear in Munich and Barcelona?).
I agree. However with the new TV deal, we really stand to gain nothing. We could fundraise 200 grand in a week if we needed to.
It will certainly be difficult, however given that we give up absolutely nothing, its a worthwhile shot.
We give up almost nothing, and we take back control of our scheduling. The value of 7pm Saturday games in terms of atmosphere and 'players wanting to come and play here' over a noon scorcher with none of the frills is worth far more than I think we realize... especially for things that matter to the players, students and alumni, and thus the University. When our PLAYERS are saying that they're watching UT/Tech on Saturday Night (because we finished playing at 4pm) we've got a problem.
Besides... Exactly what is difficult? We've already replaced the revenue with actual fans in the seats. ANY tv (actually internet) eyes are gravy and don't need to add a dime to be 'better' than what we had.
(06-08-2016 05:20 PM)Antarius Wrote: (06-08-2016 05:04 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote: We AVERAGED over 35,000 in 1997, bolstered by UT and an Operation Sellout of over 40,000 for SMU (edit - or maybe SMU was 1998 and Air Force was the 1997 OpSellOut opponent? At any rate the numbers were big as Ham is suggesting).
1997 was a blip - we were up 15,000 over 1996. And then 1998 dropped back to 22000
Given that we only had 5 home games with a total attendance of 177,000, the UT game was a MASSIVE outlier that completely skewed the results. And we played SMU on the road.
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_r...e/1997.pdf
Not sure what your point was, unless it was to demonstrate that having one huge game is enough to skew your average significantly.
This wasn't the case (one huge game). UT didn't draw more than about 45k in the late 90's and again, this just seems to be arguing about arguing. Rick was providing an 'in addition', but still recognizing that his memory is what mine was....
It was suggested that we didn't draw 35,000 for UH or NAVY or AIR FORCE, and it has been demonstrated that we DID. The claim that we AVERAGED 35,000 one year was certainly the result of serendipitous scheduling (which fell off the previous and following years as you'd expect... but it STILL gives us an average attendance for those 3 years of more than 5,000 seats more than we average today. That means that over those 3 years, we took in $2.25mm more than we do with todays attendance. Take out the UT game and we STILL probably make $2mm more over 3 years. THAT is the point.
It's not about one game with 60,000... because we haven't had that since perhaps the 70's?