(07-25-2016 10:34 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  Being a doormat in a P5 isn't appealing to me. We can make an Access Bowl from the G5, but we wouldn't come close to a big bowl from the P5. I'm not convinced Rice would be willing to increase the athletics budget enough to be competitive in a P5. It would also have to lower admissions requirements for football players. I don't think it will ever do anything like that. In short, I want to be where we'll be competitive. P5 money would be great, but it wouldn't make us anymore relevant than we are right now.

Couldn't possibly disagree more. I assume you're voicing this on the UH sites. I wonder how Tillman would react to your statements.

1) the money would allow us to better fund (and increase our offerings in) our 'non rev' sports which are sports where the value of our scholarship (over that to a school not ranked in the top 100 academically) would really allow us to shine (as we somewhat do already)... especially in Olympic sports and years. Track and swimming would be my top 2 areas for focus on Olympic notice. Oregon was ALL OVER the track and field trials... Stanford and Texas are all over the swimming.
2) the rev would certainly increase baseball and likely basketball fortunes... which are meaningful
3) Despite this, If we were a door mat again (as we were) I wouldn't like it... but there is no reason we'd have to be a door mat. We would likely never put the resources in place to be top 10 with any consistency, but we would likely CONSISTENTLY be top 50... and top 50 teams would beat about 85% of g5 every year.
4) we would get FAR more recognition in a 14 point loss to UT than we would in a 14 point victory over UTSA. 100,000 in person and another million or more on TV (plus mention on the front page of sports even in a loss) vs 25k (at best) in person... fewer than 100k on TV (if it is even on tv) and limited mention on page 5 of the sports. It wouldn't even be close.


The idea of lowering the competition to a point where we can 'compete' is a fools errand. We will ALWAYS gravitate towards the middle (at best) of football rankings within whatever peer group we are in because the correlation between football and academics isn't high... and we will never put more resources to work than our peers can... Not saying it will ALWAYS be UT or whomever, but that it will always be SOMEBODY willing to spend more or cut more academic corners than we will... and of course, we could ALSO go the other way and be more like Cal or Stanford where we have some mediocre years... but also some great ones.

You have the UH model stuck in your head... ignoring that we have a far smaller alumni base and enrollment to spread many costs across, plus we have high academic standards which we aren't willing to sacrifice... AND have repeatedly shown that we are willing to spend above average resources relative to our peers... but not superior resources. To expect superior results (playing in an access bowl) without putting forth superior resources (in a sport like football) is a pipe dream.

UH could charge its students a $100 student fee (just $50/semester) and they would raise $4mm which covers the debt service on a whole lot of construction. Rice wouldn't do this, but even if we would... we would raise $600,000. We would have to impose a $650 student fee to cover the same debt service. Our students would have to LOVE sports 6.5 times more than UH students would to be okay with this. If you think that is true, then you really don't know our students or board. Same with UTSA or La Tech or lots of schools in g5.

(07-25-2016 12:39 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-25-2016 10:34 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  Being a doormat in a P5 isn't appealing to me. We can make an Access Bowl from the G5, but we wouldn't come close to a big bowl from the P5. I'm not convinced Rice would be willing to increase the athletics budget enough to be competitive in a P5. It would also have to lower admissions requirements for football players. I don't think it will ever do anything like that. In short, I want to be where we'll be competitive. P5 money would be great, but it wouldn't make us anymore relevant than we are right now.

Couldn't possibly disagree more. I assume you're voicing this on the UH sites. I wonder how Tillman would react to your statements.

+1. With the Afflicted's logic, UH should tell the XII (and Texas' president) thanks, but no thanks and just drop down to SunBelt to increase their chances of running the table and Access Bowl. Right.

(07-25-2016 12:39 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-25-2016 10:34 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  Being a doormat in a P5 isn't appealing to me. We can make an Access Bowl from the G5, but we wouldn't come close to a big bowl from the P5. I'm not convinced Rice would be willing to increase the athletics budget enough to be competitive in a P5. It would also have to lower admissions requirements for football players. I don't think it will ever do anything like that. In short, I want to be where we'll be competitive. P5 money would be great, but it wouldn't make us anymore relevant than we are right now.

Couldn't possibly disagree more. I assume you're voicing this on the UH sites. I wonder how Tillman would react to your statements.

1) the money would allow us to better fund (and increase our offerings in) our 'non rev' sports which are sports where the value of our scholarship (over that to a school not ranked in the top 100 academically) would really allow us to shine (as we somewhat do already)... especially in Olympic sports and years. Track and swimming would be my top 2 areas for focus on Olympic notice. Oregon was ALL OVER the track and field trials... Stanford and Texas are all over the swimming.
2) the rev would certainly increase baseball and likely basketball fortunes... which are meaningful
3) Despite this, If we were a door mat again (as we were) I wouldn't like it... but there is no reason we'd have to be a door mat. We would likely never put the resources in place to be top 10 with any consistency, but we would likely CONSISTENTLY be top 50... and top 50 teams would beat about 85% of g5 every year.
4) we would get FAR more recognition in a 14 point loss to UT than we would in a 14 point victory over UTSA. 100,000 in person and another million or more on TV (plus mention on the front page of sports even in a loss) vs 25k (at best) in person... fewer than 100k on TV (if it is even on tv) and limited mention on page 5 of the sports. It wouldn't even be close.


The idea of lowering the competition to a point where we can 'compete' is a fools errand. We will ALWAYS gravitate towards the middle (at best) of football rankings within whatever peer group we are in because the correlation between football and academics isn't high... and we will never put more resources to work than our peers can... Not saying it will ALWAYS be UT or whomever, but that it will always be SOMEBODY willing to spend more or cut more academic corners than we will... and of course, we could ALSO go the other way and be more like Cal or Stanford where we have some mediocre years... but also some great ones.

You have the UH model stuck in your head... ignoring that we have a far smaller alumni base and enrollment to spread many costs across, plus we have high academic standards which we aren't willing to sacrifice... AND have repeatedly shown that we are willing to spend above average resources relative to our peers... but not superior resources. To expect superior results (playing in an access bowl) without putting forth superior resources (in a sport like football) is a pipe dream.

UH could charge its students a $100 student fee (just $50/semester) and they would raise $4mm which covers the debt service on a whole lot of construction. Rice wouldn't do this, but even if we would... we would raise $600,000. We would have to impose a $650 student fee to cover the same debt service. Our students would have to LOVE sports 6.5 times more than UH students would to be okay with this. If you think that is true, then you really don't know our students or board. Same with UTSA or La Tech or lots of schools in g5.

Please stop making this about UH. It's not. I don't spend as much time as I do on this board because my heart is with UH. I don't show up to almost all the home football games draped in navy blue and waving a flag because my heart is with UH. It's time to find some new material.

As for the response, I think we're agreeing on the fact that Rice has a much smaller alumni base and financial resources as far as donors are concerned. It's simply a numbers game. Rice has fewer numbers. I get in trouble when I remind people of that around here. I'm glad someone other than myself can say it though.

We're going to have to do this thing the old fashioned way. Rice has never been the kind to pour millions into coaching salaries, facilities, and athletic budgets. I don't see it happening. What I do see happening is a very slow investment process that will proceed at the pace of donations/ endowments. Wherever that takes us is better than where we are now. As the product and facilities improve, so will income.

Afflicted- remember that a P5 membership comes with a $20M+ increase in TV rights plus more MBB tourney credits and other goodies like increased ticket sales from hosting games at Rice people actually care about and would attend. Would also expect some big donors to come out of woodwork knowing that Rice is really serious about committing to big time athletics vs. current suspended animation mode of kind of serious but always feeling like it could go away at any time. I know this keeps many on-the-sidelines as who would want to donate their hard earned cash to something that could go away.

Bottom line is that you have a ton of pros, very few cons all while the athletic budget would double overnight just on increased revenues and potential to tap into the big time donations increasing exponentially.

To those who are making the why would we go and be a doormat argument, look across the landscape of Northwestern, Duke, Stanford, Wake, Baylor, and TCU all as examples of private schools who have had success against the big boys while also spending plenty of time in the basement. Required work but plenty of data to support the argument of getting on national stage and being relevant. Would you rather have that or the current situation?

Surprised that this is even being debated on Parliament. A no-brainer in my opinion.

(07-25-2016 01:48 PM)owl40 Wrote:  Afflicted- remember that a P5 membership comes with a $20M+ increase in TV rights plus more MBB tourney credits and other goodies like increased ticket sales from hosting games at Rice people actually care about and would attend. Would also expect some big donors to come out of woodwork knowing that Rice is really serious about committing to big time athletics vs. current suspended animation mode of kind of serious but always feeling like it could go away at any time. I know this keeps many on-the-sidelines as who would want to donate their hard earned cash to something that could go away.

Bottom line is that you have a ton of pros, very few cons all while the athletic budget would double overnight just on increased revenues and potential to tap into the big time donations increasing exponentially.

To those who are making the why would we go and be a doormat argument, look across the landscape of Northwestern, Duke, Stanford, Wake, Baylor, and TCU all as examples of private schools who have had success against the big boys while also spending plenty of time in the basement. Required work but plenty of data to support the argument of getting on national stage and being relevant. Would you rather have that or the current situation?

Surprised that this is even being debated on Parliament. A no-brainer in my opinion.

But that money doesn't come until you get invited. Rice has to increase the athletic budget first, at the same time increase coaching salaries etc. It has to do that without a dime of B12 TV money or student fees. That's the hard part. It would be wonderful to at least swim in the P5 money, but is Rice really going to step outside of itself to get there? I don't think so. And where are all of the donors right now? Surely they know Rice needs them desperately? If you love your university, your support is unconditional and shouldn't depend on conference affiliation. How sure are you all that Rice donors will come out of the woodwork? Hate to always play devil's advocate here, but someone has to.

(07-25-2016 01:48 PM)owl40 Wrote:  To those who are making the why would we go and be a doormat argument, look across the landscape of Northwestern, Duke, Stanford, Wake, Baylor, and TCU all as examples of private schools who have had success against the big boys while also spending plenty of time in the basement. Required work but plenty of data to support the argument of getting on national stage and being relevant. Would you rather have that or the current situation?

Surprised that this is even being debated on Parliament. A no-brainer in my opinion.

I 100% disagree with Afflicted and agree with the sentiment that you and others posted in response. But as a reminder, Rice has 3,879 undergrads (6,623 total). Northwestern has 8,314 undergrads (20,955 total). Duke has 6,485 (14,950). Stanford has 6,980 (15,877). Wake is a little closer at 4,812 (7,591). Baylor 14,189 (16,787) and TCU 8,894 (10,323) are also much larger. I'm not saying it is impossible. I fully expect a well-run Rice athletic department perform similarly to Northwestern, Duke, and hopefully even Stanford in a P5. But there are still some issues that make it a little harder for Rice.

Please note that I do not endorse increasing student size or decreasing admission standards to make Rice more competitive. I like Rice being smaller than peer institutions and there are plenty of football players with sufficient test scores and grades. "We choose ... [these] ... things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard...."

from the conference realignment board:

(07-25-2016 03:05 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  Tim Montemayor @TheMontyShow
#BIGXII source tells me #BYU is “as much a lock as they can be without putting paper to pen…can’t see Texas keeping them out now"
2:33 PM - 25 Jul 2016

If BYU and UH are the two, or two if the four, then Rice really needs to move UP somewhere this round, even if only to the AAC. Big XII of course would be better, but hard to see Rice overtaking UH and the other schools mentioned for a spot there right now the way things are. Still, I'd take it in a heartbeat if it came.

I agree with Hambone that we have fallen down to the level of competition since the SWC broke up. I have been watching Rice football for the last 55 years and our past strategy of trying to do football on the cheap has been a failure. It seems that the revenues have fallen more than the costs. I do not see much of a future for Rice Football unless we do get into a better conference because not too many of our possible fans are interested in Western Kentucky, Middle Tennessee etc.

I am disappointed that it is UH getting the mention about getting in the Big 12 Instead of Rice. Rice football was much more important than UH football in the early 1960s when I started watching football. I had become used to UH being a rogue program that could run up the score when they had a chance but would coug it in other games.

(07-25-2016 01:25 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(07-25-2016 12:39 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-25-2016 10:34 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  Being a doormat in a P5 isn't appealing to me. We can make an Access Bowl from the G5, but we wouldn't come close to a big bowl from the P5. I'm not convinced Rice would be willing to increase the athletics budget enough to be competitive in a P5. It would also have to lower admissions requirements for football players. I don't think it will ever do anything like that. In short, I want to be where we'll be competitive. P5 money would be great, but it wouldn't make us anymore relevant than we are right now.

Couldn't possibly disagree more. I assume you're voicing this on the UH sites. I wonder how Tillman would react to your statements.

+1. With the Afflicted's logic, UH should tell the XII (and Texas' president) thanks, but no thanks and just drop down to SunBelt to increase their chances of running the table and Access Bowl. Right.

Why do I keep having to remind you guys that UH and Rice are in two completely different worlds? UH belongs in the B12 because it has done all the things necessary to be a member. We all know what those things are. Rice isn't going to do that. It's pretty simple. Can you honestly ever see Rice paying a football coach $1 million annually, or charging it's students fees so athletic renovations can happen somewhere on campus? Rice isn't going to act like that, and why would anyone here want it to? Rice will build at it's own pace, and that pace won't exceed the pace of money coming in from donors, something which Rice doesn't have many. For all the talk about getting into a P5, no one here ever realistically talks about what will need to happen to get there, and if it's something Rice will even be willing to do, especially at the pace demanded here. To Rice, this is a marathon, not a sprint.

More UH love and rantings from Tillman ...

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football...ealignment

(07-25-2016 03:58 PM)Orange County Owl Wrote:  More UH love and rantings from Tillman ...

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football...ealignment

The most amazing thing from that article (besides the UH display in Victoria's Secret at the Galleria) was the UK locker room/facilities that it provided a link to.

HOLY HECK! I've suddenly become a little less smitten with our new digs.

http://www.aseaofblue.com/2016/7/21/1224...1469481832

(07-25-2016 04:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-25-2016 03:58 PM)Orange County Owl Wrote:  More UH love and rantings from Tillman ...

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football...ealignment

The most amazing thing from that article (besides the UH display in Victoria's Secret at the Galleria) was the UK locker room/facilities that it provided a link to.

HOLY HECK! I've suddenly become a little less smitten with our new digs.

http://www.aseaofblue.com/2016/7/21/1224...1469481832

The only useful thing I see that we might've added is the upgraded lockers. But cmon why do you need a barber shop? This is the BS that has ruined college athletics, similar to the Clemson facility that is going in that has putt putt. Can't wait for a non-athlete to sue one of these schools for having exclusive stuff at a state funded University that isn't actually useful to an athlete.

(07-25-2016 04:46 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(07-25-2016 04:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-25-2016 03:58 PM)Orange County Owl Wrote:  More UH love and rantings from Tillman ...

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football...ealignment

The most amazing thing from that article (besides the UH display in Victoria's Secret at the Galleria) was the UK locker room/facilities that it provided a link to.

HOLY HECK! I've suddenly become a little less smitten with our new digs.

http://www.aseaofblue.com/2016/7/21/1224...1469481832

The only useful thing I see that we might've added is the upgraded lockers. But cmon why do you need a barber shop? This is the BS that has ruined college athletics, similar to the Clemson facility that is going in that has putt putt. Can't wait for a non-athlete to sue one of these schools for having exclusive stuff at a state funded University that isn't actually useful to an athlete.

I agree with you on these things being unnecessary, but until the NCAA steps in and puts some sort of cap on capital expenditures, fancy, stupid things like the barbershop will keep becoming more, and more common, and fancier and stupider. The thing is, these facilities and these fancy and stupid things will help pull in players who are on the fence, because, if anything, it means that the school cares about their players and their well being. And if the players can't get paid, they may as well get free hair cuts.

Rice already has a coach that makes $1MM annually and another that is very close to that number. I can easily see Rice paying a football coach $1MM per year.

(07-25-2016 04:46 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(07-25-2016 04:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-25-2016 03:58 PM)Orange County Owl Wrote:  More UH love and rantings from Tillman ...

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football...ealignment

The most amazing thing from that article (besides the UH display in Victoria's Secret at the Galleria) was the UK locker room/facilities that it provided a link to.

HOLY HECK! I've suddenly become a little less smitten with our new digs.

http://www.aseaofblue.com/2016/7/21/1224...1469481832

The only useful thing I see that we might've added is the upgraded lockers. But cmon why do you need a barber shop? This is the BS that has ruined college athletics, similar to the Clemson facility that is going in that has putt putt. Can't wait for a non-athlete to sue one of these schools for having exclusive stuff at a state funded University that isn't actually useful to an athlete.

Might as well have the football players at Kentucky enjoy their time there to the fullest, before they're unleashed into the real world armed with an incredibly useful "community and leadership development" degree.

(07-25-2016 01:26 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  Please stop making this about UH. It's not.

You realize that this thread is about UH, right? If you thought it was 'better', you'd be suggesting they do it as well. Obviously you know exactly what we're talking about.

Quote:As for the response, I think we're agreeing on the fact that Rice has a much smaller alumni base and financial resources as far as donors are concerned. It's simply a numbers game. Rice has fewer numbers. I get in trouble when I remind people of that around here. I'm glad someone other than myself can say it though.

Contrary to what you think, you get in trouble around here because you think we don't know our numeric limitations and/or that those things are all that matter... and since we can't do it UH's way, you think we should settle for 'something else'. You talk a lot about wearing Blue and cheering at our games... and MAYBE you do. I cheer for pee wee football as well.... yet you still, almost without exception find yourself in disagreement with everyone on here.... most of whom are or have been (if they've moved) in those same seats for decades.

You're happy with Rice being in this 'second division' precisely because you DON'T love this University and what it stands for. It's a cute diversion for you. You don't get it. WHY DOES Rice play Texas? You would prefer we don't. That, in and of itself shows that you don't understand this University or its board or its supporters

(07-25-2016 01:25 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  +1. With the Afflicted's logic, UH should tell the XII (and Texas' president) thanks, but no thanks and just drop down to SunBelt to increase their chances of running the table and Access Bowl. Right.

Exactly

Kentucky's facility is exactly what I was talking about a week or so ago.. Our new facility puts us on par with most schools, but we definitely aren't suddenly at the top of the heap.

(07-25-2016 03:37 PM)75src Wrote:  I agree with Hambone that we have fallen down to the level of competition since the SWC broke up. I have been watching Rice football for the last 55 years and our past strategy of trying to do football on the cheap has been a failure. It seems that the revenues have fallen more than the costs. I do not see much of a future for Rice Football unless we do get into a better conference because not too many of our possible fans are interested in Western Kentucky, Middle Tennessee etc.

I am disappointed that it is UH getting the mention about getting in the Big 12 Instead of Rice. Rice football was much more important than UH football in the early 1960s when I started watching football. I had become used to UH being a rogue program that could run up the score when they had a chance but would coug it in other games.

you also forgot to mention that they have been notoriously fast and loose (and that is generous) with NCAA rules. Letting them in the SWC was a big reason for why the SWC fell apart. Jess Neely would have never done so.

(07-25-2016 05:11 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  Might as well have the football players at Kentucky enjoy their time there to the fullest, before they're unleashed into the real world armed with an incredibly useful "community and leadership development" degree.

Yeah, it's nice, but ours is pretty much in the same league as theirs. And my thought was a bit too heavy on the ping-pong/video games, barber shop, etc.... Nothing wrong with a bit of lounging which our players will also be able to do in the Patterson EZF, but if you spend too much time away from academics, then it's gonna show when you get out into the real world after your eligibility is up.

I hope we have some good visual displays in our EZF about Rice football and athlete grads and pictures of their significant accomplishments after they left the hedges. As much as the nice new facilities will help with recruiting, having big displays on Patterson himself, Bobby Tudor and players like that should be emphasized in the tour and ask them to look at the difference in Rice football grads and the other school's grads they may see. That is how to use the facilities to differentiate between what Kentucky is selling and what we are selling. Four or five years vs a lifetime, and compete on the gridiron as well, not or.

(07-25-2016 05:13 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-25-2016 01:26 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  Please stop making this about UH. It's not.

You realize that this thread is about UH, right? If you thought it was 'better', you'd be suggesting they do it as well. Obviously you know exactly what we're talking about.

Quote:As for the response, I think we're agreeing on the fact that Rice has a much smaller alumni base and financial resources as far as donors are concerned. It's simply a numbers game. Rice has fewer numbers. I get in trouble when I remind people of that around here. I'm glad someone other than myself can say it though.

Contrary to what you think, you get in trouble around here because you think we don't know our numeric limitations and/or that those things are all that matter... and since we can't do it UH's way, you think we should settle for 'something else'. You talk a lot about wearing Blue and cheering at our games... and MAYBE you do. I cheer for pee wee football as well.... yet you still, almost without exception find yourself in disagreement with everyone on here.... most of whom are or have been (if they've moved) in those same seats for decades.

You're happy with Rice being in this 'second division' precisely because you DON'T love this University and what it stands for. It's a cute diversion for you. You don't get it. WHY DOES Rice play Texas? You would prefer we don't. That, in and of itself shows that you don't understand this University or its board or its supporters

(07-25-2016 01:25 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  +1. With the Afflicted's logic, UH should tell the XII (and Texas' president) thanks, but no thanks and just drop down to SunBelt to increase their chances of running the table and Access Bowl. Right.

Exactly

Oh gimme a break. That's fine. I love both universities. This is all so ridiculous. If anyone here wants to find out what kind of fan I am, come hang out in The Roost sometime. You'll see me. If not, no hard feelings.