To all of you who oppose this move, I have one simple question: WTF would you do instead?
And a follow-up: How and why would that be better?

Being excited about having 20,000 people at a game is what's wrong with this program.

(12-09-2016 06:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  To all of you who oppose this move, I have one simple question: WTF would you do instead?
And a follow-up: How and why would that be better?

Being excited about having 20,000 people at a game is what's wrong with this program.

I would find a way to sell more than 20,000 seats to a home game against a like-minded school, like I said I was going to do. Or I wouldn't say that's the plan and simply say the plan is to play body bag games for $ like we always have. Why is it hard to understand this isn't a knock on this decision? This in isolation is what it is.

Its disappointing we keep getting told these days are behind us and there is a plan to make that the so...but it just never is the case. Same old. Same old. So much for the new vision.

(12-09-2016 06:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  To all of you who oppose this move, I have one simple question: WTF would you do instead?
And a follow-up: How and why would that be better?

Being excited about having 20,000 people at a game is what's wrong with this program.

We understand the economics of the move.

That's not the same thing as liking the decision.


It's also not the same thing as opposing it.

(1) Moving the game to Australia sounds like guaranteed money. Keeping the game at Rice and hoping to increase fan interest might have worked ... or it might not have. Financially, moving the game is the safer option.
(2) It will be a great experience for the players. Even if the fans are missing out, don't forget the players. This is like complaining about Rice going to the Hawaii bowl instead of a bowl that could be more easily attended by fans.
(3) While Rice gets less local exposure (nominally), getting national exposure will be nice. Would be nicer if we had a coaching staff that could/did recruit outside Texas.
(4) Easier for me to write this when I live out-of-town and wouldn't have been at the home game anyway!

(12-09-2016 08:39 AM)BufflOwl Wrote:  

(12-09-2016 06:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  To all of you who oppose this move, I have one simple question: WTF would you do instead?
And a follow-up: How and why would that be better?
Being excited about having 20,000 people at a game is what's wrong with this program.

I would find a way to sell more than 20,000 seats to a home game against a like-minded school, like I said I was going to do. Or I wouldn't say that's the plan and simply say the plan is to play body bag games for $ like we always have. Why is it hard to understand this isn't a knock on this decision? This in isolation is what it is.
Its disappointing we keep getting told these days are behind us and there is a plan to make that the so...but it just never is the case. Same old. Same old. So much for the new vision.

There is a plan. It requires money. This is a way to get money. What part of that is so difficult to comprehend?

(12-09-2016 09:54 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  We understand the economics of the move.
That's not the same thing as liking the decision.
It's also not the same thing as opposing it.

What's a decision that you would like? What would be the consequences?

I'm sorry, but it's hard to comprehend how supposedly intelligent people can fail to understand obvious reality. Whether you or I or JK or DB or anyone else likes this decision is totally irrelevant. There is no viable option but to take this deal if it is offered. There simply is not.

If we actually had a real chance to beat Stanford, it would be insanity to move this game. You could strongly argue that the monetized value of a victory over Stanford on national TV would exceed the payout for this Australia jaunt.

We would also draw more than 20,000 if we had a snowball's chance in hell of winning. But we don't have a chance, our program is moribund, we obviously have no idea how to think creatively or long-term with our program, Bailiff is still our coach, etc.

Moving this game to Australia is a no-brainer, alas. The move itself isn't what makes this galling; rather, it is the necessity of it that is truly disturbing.

(12-09-2016 02:03 PM)Wiessman Wrote:  If we actually had a real chance to beat Stanford, it would be insanity to move this game. You could strongly argue that the monetized value of a victory over Stanford on national TV would exceed the payout for this Australia jaunt.
We would also draw more than 20,000 if we had a snowball's chance in hell of winning. But we don't have a chance, our program is moribund, we obviously have no idea how to think creatively or long-term with our program, Bailiff is still our coach, etc.
Moving this game to Australia is a no-brainer, alas. The move itself isn't what makes this galling; rather, it is the necessity of it that is truly disturbing.

Number one, if we didn't move the game, it wouldn't be on national TV.
Number two, this is thinking both creatively and long-term.
Number three, the necessity exists because we have an athletic department that has not given a thought to revenue maximization for 50 years. Not even under CDC did we put enough emphasis on revenue generation, IMO, and he was light years ahead of any of his predecessors in that regard.

Bottom line: The BOT is not going to write athletics a blank check, no matter how hard some people whine. To get anywhere outside the current free-fall requires a strategy to increase revenues. We're not going to get more than 20,000 until we put a better product on the field. We're not going to put a better product on the field until we get more money to spend in that effort. That money is not going to grow on trees. The athletic department is going to have to find ways to generate substantially more revenues.

Maybe we just need to arrange a big TV watch party. We could invite the local Stanford alums also.

(12-09-2016 03:01 PM)75src Wrote:  Maybe we just need to arrange a big TV watch party. We could invite the local Stanford alums also.

That would be fun nationwide, as I suspect we have strong alumni presences in many of the same non-Houston places, such as the SF Bay Area, Los Angeles, Seattle, NYC, Washington, D.C.

I hope both alumni associations get together on this.

(12-09-2016 03:01 PM)75src Wrote:  Maybe we just need to arrange a big TV watch party. We could invite the local Stanford alums also.

In Rice Stadium.
$5 seat with a free large popcorn for everyone
(Beer&sodas are extra -but available of course)
Let the kiddos dress up in rice & Stanford colors and play touch fball pickup games on the field while it's all going on.

(12-09-2016 12:34 AM)Minnewaska Owl Wrote:  Playing this game in Australia will do absolutely nothing for the Rice brand or bring us any lasting publicity.

It could certainly give Rice a positive image boost, at least academically, if the Admissions and PR folks conduct extensive outreach a) in Australia (to Australian media, presentations to programs elite high schools and, perhaps, a public mini-expo in advance of the game and b) with the U.S. audience via facts/video clips given to the broadcasters and an impressive (not arcane) promotional video for halftime etc.

Stanford surely has a higher profile, both academically and athletically. Rice folks will need to be assertive, not wilting, in communicating Rice's accomplishments and value to these large audiences.

If we got 5-10k to come out for that then we might even get a couple of live cut-ins on ESPN

(12-09-2016 06:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  To all of you who oppose this move, I have one simple question: WTF would you do instead?
And a follow-up: How and why would that be better?

Being excited about having 20,000 people at a game is what's wrong with this program.

First, fire the f@&*%#g coach (you started it with WTF).

Why is it better? To give the team a chance to win (Bailiff won't win, period. It will be a blowout). To give the fans hope for a win. To give the students hope that Rice might actually compete. To give locals a reason to come to the game and see a new Rice. To get the attention of ESPN with a new coaching regime.

(12-09-2016 02:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Number one, if we didn't move the game, it wouldn't be on national TV.
Number two, this is thinking both creatively and long-term.
Number three, the necessity exists because we have an athletic department that has not given a thought to revenue maximization for 50 years. Not even under CDC did we put enough emphasis on revenue generation, IMO, and he was light years ahead of any of his predecessors in that regard.

Bottom line: The BOT is not going to write athletics a blank check, no matter how hard some people whine. To get anywhere outside the current free-fall requires a strategy to increase revenues. We're not going to get more than 20,000 until we put a better product on the field. We're not going to put a better product on the field until we get more money to spend in that effort. That money is not going to grow on trees. The athletic department is going to have to find ways to generate substantially more revenues.

It is thinking creatively and long-term, but it is a third- or fourth-best option. But the first-best and second-best aren't available. Moving the game is, at best, after-the-fact creative thinking.

Also, if we were any good at all, this game would be on ESPN almost for certain, even if it were to be played at HRS. ESPN1 does count as national TV these days.

We need the money, and that is not being argued here. But it is terrible that we have to do this. It would be fine to consider if it were merely an option that we could mull over.

(12-09-2016 04:56 PM)Wiessman Wrote:  We need the money, and that is not being argued here. But it is terrible that we have to do this. It would be fine to consider if it were merely an option that we could mull over.

Like it was for Stanford?

(12-09-2016 05:31 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(12-09-2016 04:56 PM)Wiessman Wrote:  We need the money, and that is not being argued here. But it is terrible that we have to do this. It would be fine to consider if it were merely an option that we could mull over.

Like it was for Stanford?

They got a home game and paid for their road game. This isn't the same thing for them as it is for us.

(12-09-2016 11:53 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-09-2016 08:39 AM)BufflOwl Wrote:  

(12-09-2016 06:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  To all of you who oppose this move, I have one simple question: WTF would you do instead?
And a follow-up: How and why would that be better?
Being excited about having 20,000 people at a game is what's wrong with this program.

I would find a way to sell more than 20,000 seats to a home game against a like-minded school, like I said I was going to do. Or I wouldn't say that's the plan and simply say the plan is to play body bag games for $ like we always have. Why is it hard to understand this isn't a knock on this decision? This in isolation is what it is.
Its disappointing we keep getting told these days are behind us and there is a plan to make that the so...but it just never is the case. Same old. Same old. So much for the new vision.

There is a plan. It requires money. This is a way to get money. What part of that is so difficult to comprehend?

(12-09-2016 09:54 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  We understand the economics of the move.
That's not the same thing as liking the decision.
It's also not the same thing as opposing it.

What's a decision that you would like? What would be the consequences?

I'm sorry, but it's hard to comprehend how supposedly intelligent people can fail to understand obvious reality. Whether you or I or JK or DB or anyone else likes this decision is totally irrelevant. There is no viable option but to take this deal if it is offered. There simply is not.

Simple question if that's only option why do we have so many senior staff positions whose job it is to fundraise, market, analyze business data, generate revenue and more? Perhaps we can save money by letting go of the people who are supposed to be bringing it in and can't. Then we can just play body bag games to fund the programs. Lol @ "New Vision". #RiceRising

(12-09-2016 08:31 PM)BufflOwl Wrote:  Simple question if that's only option why do we have so many senior staff positions whose job it is to fundraise, market, analyze business data, generate revenue and more? Perhaps we can save money by letting go of the people who are supposed to be bringing it in and can't. Then we can just play body bag games to fund the programs. Lol @ "New Vision". #RiceRising

We have those people and they do a pretty good job. But this game promises to pay about what the Owl Club raises in a year.

You cannot run an athletic program without dealing with economic realities.

How in the hell do you expect things to work?

Query--If we go 2-10 in 2017 and this turns out to be the money we need to buy out the last year of Bailiff's contract, how do you feel about it then?

(12-09-2016 10:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-09-2016 08:31 PM)BufflOwl Wrote:  Simple question if that's only option why do we have so many senior staff positions whose job it is to fundraise, market, analyze business data, generate revenue and more? Perhaps we can save money by letting go of the people who are supposed to be bringing it in and can't. Then we can just play body bag games to fund the programs. Lol @ "New Vision". #RiceRising

We have those people and they do a pretty good job. But this game promises to pay about what the Owl Club raises in a year.

You cannot run an athletic program without dealing with economic realities.

How in the hell do you expect things to work?

Query--If we go 2-10 in 2017 and this turns out to be the money we need to buy out the last year of Bailiff's contract, how do you feel about it then?

I don't care if we fire Bailiff. I just care that we've been told the 3 years now how there is a new vision and new people and new plan. However, as you are so eloquently explaining for us the reality of how things work is this is just how it is. Body bag games because nobody can get the endowment, Owl Club or ticket sales up enough to fund the department much less fund a buyout. Thanks for making it abundantly clear nothing has changed at Rice in ever.

(12-09-2016 11:18 PM)BufflOwl Wrote:  

(12-09-2016 10:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-09-2016 08:31 PM)BufflOwl Wrote:  Simple question if that's only option why do we have so many senior staff positions whose job it is to fundraise, market, analyze business data, generate revenue and more? Perhaps we can save money by letting go of the people who are supposed to be bringing it in and can't. Then we can just play body bag games to fund the programs. Lol @ "New Vision". #RiceRising

We have those people and they do a pretty good job. But this game promises to pay about what the Owl Club raises in a year.
You cannot run an athletic program without dealing with economic realities.
How in the hell do you expect things to work?
Query--If we go 2-10 in 2017 and this turns out to be the money we need to buy out the last year of Bailiff's contract, how do you feel about it then?

I don't care if we fire Bailiff. I just care that we've been told the 3 years now how there is a new vision and new people and new plan. However, as you are so eloquently explaining for us the reality of how things work is this is just how it is. Body bag games because nobody can get the endowment, Owl Club or ticket sales up enough to fund the department much less fund a buyout. Thanks for making it abundantly clear nothing has changed at Rice in ever.

There is a new vision and new people and a new plan, and things are changing. If you think a new plan is going to work without money, then please explain.

While you're explaining, please explain how playing Stanford in Sydney is a body bag game, but playing Stanford at HRS is not. Do they have some special breed of scary people that they can take to Sydney but not Houston? Exactly why are we going to need body bags for Sydney but not at home?

I call these money bag games, and quite frankly we need more of them. This program needs to do every single thing it possibly can to increase revenues.

There is not enough money to do what needs to be done. The BOT is not going to write a blank check, nor should they. I would not, if I were in their position. The Owl Club has stepped up quite a bit in the last few years (one of those changes that has been made), but expecting the Owl Club to produce the kinds of revenues we need is pretty unrealistic. The program is going to have to generate significantly increased operating revenues, in a conference that provides probably $20 million less per year than the league that we could have been in had we been willing to make the investment 25 years ago.

I don't think some unicorn is going to show up and fart the money we need all over the program. Failing that, this is the only way that we can go. I think for most universities, if they got something like this, the conversation would be almost exclusively about what a great opportunity this is. I am starting to think that the only place where it would produce this kind of reaction is Rice. And maybe that's exactly what's wrong with the program.

I don't know how to engage in reasonable discussion with people who refuse to accept facts.