Uh oh. ESPN, which is 0-2 picking the Owl games this year, is giving the Owls a 66.5% chance of winning on Saturday. They have the Owls as 5.5 point favorites.
Let’s hope they finally get it right this week.
(11-02-2020 11:54 AM)texowl2 Wrote: [ -> ]Will there be fans?
I'm hoping so too. My son and I want to be there
Come out with a balanced offense -- don't wait for 'pound the rock' to fail first...
(11-02-2020 07:08 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]https://riceowls.com/news/2020/11/2/foot...-fans.aspx
Just family of the players - same as the MTSU game. I think they wanted to let in fans but Harris County positivity rate climbed a bit last week, and that probably nixed that thought.
Rice continues to destroy athletics support. Leebron would allow a protest or voting at HRS but won’t let a few thousand fans sit 20ft apart outdoors. Somehow our admin knows more than every other school in Texas.
(11-02-2020 07:21 PM)cr11owl Wrote: [ -> ] (11-02-2020 07:08 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]https://riceowls.com/news/2020/11/2/foot...-fans.aspx
Just family of the players - same as the MTSU game. I think they wanted to let in fans but Harris County positivity rate climbed a bit last week, and that probably nixed that thought.
Rice continues to destroy athletics support. Leebron would allow a protest or voting at HRS but won’t let a few thousand fans sit 20ft apart outdoors. Somehow our admin knows more than every other school in Texas.
Rice requires masks on campus, outdoors, even if you are alone or with family members. They aren’t allowing fans into HRS anytime soon. And I think the Admin is fine with that.
(11-02-2020 08:16 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote: [ -> ]They aren’t allowing fans into HRS anytime soon. And I think the Admin is fine with that.
Bingo. Wonder if this is our way of playing games with the NCAA minimum attendance requirements.
Probably makes sense, instead of hosting a super-spreader event like what’s likely to happen at any A&M home game. Besides, I want Rice football to kill me slow. Reeeeaaal slow.
(11-02-2020 08:16 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote: [ -> ] (11-02-2020 07:21 PM)cr11owl Wrote: [ -> ] (11-02-2020 07:08 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]https://riceowls.com/news/2020/11/2/foot...-fans.aspx
Just family of the players - same as the MTSU game. I think they wanted to let in fans but Harris County positivity rate climbed a bit last week, and that probably nixed that thought.
Rice continues to destroy athletics support. Leebron would allow a protest or voting at HRS but won’t let a few thousand fans sit 20ft apart outdoors. Somehow our admin knows more than every other school in Texas.
Rice requires masks on campus, outdoors, even if you are alone or with family members. They aren’t allowing fans into HRS anytime soon. And I think the Admin is fine with that.
Honestly, they may be gauging costs. I imagine it's not cheap to run a game, and they could be assuming that there would be an unusually lower than anticipated turnout for these games.
Maybe it just makes more economic sense to not have fans?
(11-03-2020 08:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-02-2020 08:16 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote: [ -> ] (11-02-2020 07:21 PM)cr11owl Wrote: [ -> ] (11-02-2020 07:08 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]https://riceowls.com/news/2020/11/2/foot...-fans.aspx
Just family of the players - same as the MTSU game. I think they wanted to let in fans but Harris County positivity rate climbed a bit last week, and that probably nixed that thought.
Rice continues to destroy athletics support. Leebron would allow a protest or voting at HRS but won’t let a few thousand fans sit 20ft apart outdoors. Somehow our admin knows more than every other school in Texas.
Rice requires masks on campus, outdoors, even if you are alone or with family members. They aren’t allowing fans into HRS anytime soon. And I think the Admin is fine with that.
Honestly, they may be gauging costs. I imagine it's not cheap to run a game, and they could be assuming that there would be an unusually lower than anticipated turnout for these games.
Maybe it just makes more economic sense to not have fans?
A very good point and probably true in the near-term, but it's arguably not a good look for long-term attendance/making game day money.
(11-03-2020 08:22 AM)mebehutchi Wrote: [ -> ] (11-03-2020 08:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-02-2020 08:16 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote: [ -> ] (11-02-2020 07:21 PM)cr11owl Wrote: [ -> ] (11-02-2020 07:08 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]https://riceowls.com/news/2020/11/2/foot...-fans.aspx
Just family of the players - same as the MTSU game. I think they wanted to let in fans but Harris County positivity rate climbed a bit last week, and that probably nixed that thought.
Rice continues to destroy athletics support. Leebron would allow a protest or voting at HRS but won’t let a few thousand fans sit 20ft apart outdoors. Somehow our admin knows more than every other school in Texas.
Rice requires masks on campus, outdoors, even if you are alone or with family members. They aren’t allowing fans into HRS anytime soon. And I think the Admin is fine with that.
Honestly, they may be gauging costs. I imagine it's not cheap to run a game, and they could be assuming that there would be an unusually lower than anticipated turnout for these games.
Maybe it just makes more economic sense to not have fans?
A very good point and probably true in the near-term, but it's arguably not a good look for long-term attendance/making game day money.
Maybe. I wonder where the cost savings are. A couple of dozen ticket takers and ushers? Reduced water usage in the restrooms? No clean up in the stands? I would be interested in seeing a cost analysis. It would probably be true for any event that usually caters to the public. Nobody allowed at theatre or opera offerings? Nobody allowed at the rodeo? Saves a few bucks, I am sure.
If the choice is between football without fans and no football, I choose the former. Is that really the choice we face? I am afraid to put Leebron to a choice.
(11-03-2020 08:22 AM)mebehutchi Wrote: [ -> ] (11-03-2020 08:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-02-2020 08:16 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote: [ -> ] (11-02-2020 07:21 PM)cr11owl Wrote: [ -> ] (11-02-2020 07:08 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]https://riceowls.com/news/2020/11/2/foot...-fans.aspx
Just family of the players - same as the MTSU game. I think they wanted to let in fans but Harris County positivity rate climbed a bit last week, and that probably nixed that thought.
Rice continues to destroy athletics support. Leebron would allow a protest or voting at HRS but won’t let a few thousand fans sit 20ft apart outdoors. Somehow our admin knows more than every other school in Texas.
Rice requires masks on campus, outdoors, even if you are alone or with family members. They aren’t allowing fans into HRS anytime soon. And I think the Admin is fine with that.
Honestly, they may be gauging costs. I imagine it's not cheap to run a game, and they could be assuming that there would be an unusually lower than anticipated turnout for these games.
Maybe it just makes more economic sense to not have fans?
A very good point and probably true in the near-term, but it's arguably not a good look for long-term attendance/making game day money.
Roadrunner chiming in here. If the 'economic sense' argument were a valid reason for not allowing fans, wouldn't it have made more economic sense for Rice to just not have a football season then? I mean, how much economic sense does it make to start playing halfway through the season - half of those games being away games - and not even allowing fans in the stadium for home games?
(11-03-2020 09:54 AM)Volkmar Wrote: [ -> ]Roadrunner chiming in here. If the 'economic sense' argument were a valid reason for not allowing fans, wouldn't it have made more economic sense for Rice to just not have a football season then? I mean, how much economic sense does it make to start playing halfway through the season - half of those games being away games - and not even allowing fans in the stadium for home games?
Yep... I have to imagine the cost of now a dozen busses, twice the number of planes and twice as many hotel rooms, not to mention 'safe' meal practices while away is VASTLY greater than the cost of hosting a home game.... and that the cost of ushers and ticket takers and a cleaning crew who are perhaps university/department staff that we'd like to keep employed anyway for around 10k fans is a rounding error to the cost of the home game itself.
(11-03-2020 10:05 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-03-2020 09:54 AM)Volkmar Wrote: [ -> ]Roadrunner chiming in here. If the 'economic sense' argument were a valid reason for not allowing fans, wouldn't it have made more economic sense for Rice to just not have a football season then? I mean, how much economic sense does it make to start playing halfway through the season - half of those games being away games - and not even allowing fans in the stadium for home games?
Yep... I have to imagine the cost of now a dozen busses, twice the number of planes and twice as many hotel rooms, not to mention 'safe' meal practices while away is VASTLY greater than the cost of hosting a home game.
But then you'd have the potential fallout from canceling the season - people are probably a lot less likely to pull donations, reducing support, etc. over the long term if we at least play this year.
Not wedded to the idea, but was just thinking that Rice could basically be trying to cut the least painful losses.
(11-03-2020 10:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-03-2020 10:05 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-03-2020 09:54 AM)Volkmar Wrote: [ -> ]Roadrunner chiming in here. If the 'economic sense' argument were a valid reason for not allowing fans, wouldn't it have made more economic sense for Rice to just not have a football season then? I mean, how much economic sense does it make to start playing halfway through the season - half of those games being away games - and not even allowing fans in the stadium for home games?
Yep... I have to imagine the cost of now a dozen busses, twice the number of planes and twice as many hotel rooms, not to mention 'safe' meal practices while away is VASTLY greater than the cost of hosting a home game.
But then you'd have the potential fallout from canceling the season - people are probably a lot less likely to pull donations, reducing support, etc. over the long term if we at least play this year.
Not wedded to the idea, but was just thinking that Rice could basically be trying to cut the least painful losses.
That has little (imo) to do with the economic sense of not allowing fans.
I could pithily add, unless its an admission that the games our fans are least interested in are home games against conference foes.
We didn't play UH
across town
We didn't play
at home vs Army
We didn't get paid a whole lot of
money to play LSU
down the street
We didn't play Lamar
at home
We didn't play (*but might make up) UAB
at home.
Thats 5 of 6 games that ALL would have been at or very near home. Very low cost to a profit and relatively easy to contain and protect our students. What did we protect our students from that we didn't turn right around and expose them to against MTSU? 3 of those 5 would have likely been decent TV games, even if you didn't allow fans.
So now we get MTSU, UTSA and UTEP at home, but travel to USM, LaTech and UNT??
IDK if there was 'business interruption insurance' anywhere along the line... but I'm betting that most donors would have rather we canceled the latter 6 than the first 5... two of which were technically not 'home' games.
The only way this makes sense is if they did it to pad the record... avoiding the better teams and playing only teams we most likely had a shot at beating, which is why UAB MAY be made up. I mean, every other year we 'end on a hot streak' that we credit to some improvement in our team as opposed to a softening of our schedule. It MAY be about ensuring our cut of conference revenues (the paltry sum they are).
I get your point and there may be something in there to it... but given the exposure we're still putting our people to, the loss of revenue and local interest, I think there could have been vastly better ways to keep our donors happy. If you're going to not allow fans for cost and safety, why cancel 5 of your 8 'home' (meaning lower cost and safer) games?
(11-03-2020 10:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-03-2020 10:05 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-03-2020 09:54 AM)Volkmar Wrote: [ -> ]Roadrunner chiming in here. If the 'economic sense' argument were a valid reason for not allowing fans, wouldn't it have made more economic sense for Rice to just not have a football season then? I mean, how much economic sense does it make to start playing halfway through the season - half of those games being away games - and not even allowing fans in the stadium for home games?
Yep... I have to imagine the cost of now a dozen busses, twice the number of planes and twice as many hotel rooms, not to mention 'safe' meal practices while away is VASTLY greater than the cost of hosting a home game.
But then you'd have the potential fallout from canceling the season - people are probably a lot less likely to pull donations, reducing support, etc. over the long term if we at least play this year.
Not wedded to the idea, but was just thinking that Rice could basically be trying to cut the least painful losses.
People have already pulled donations.
(11-03-2020 12:12 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote: [ -> ] (11-03-2020 10:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-03-2020 10:05 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-03-2020 09:54 AM)Volkmar Wrote: [ -> ]Roadrunner chiming in here. If the 'economic sense' argument were a valid reason for not allowing fans, wouldn't it have made more economic sense for Rice to just not have a football season then? I mean, how much economic sense does it make to start playing halfway through the season - half of those games being away games - and not even allowing fans in the stadium for home games?
Yep... I have to imagine the cost of now a dozen busses, twice the number of planes and twice as many hotel rooms, not to mention 'safe' meal practices while away is VASTLY greater than the cost of hosting a home game.
But then you'd have the potential fallout from canceling the season - people are probably a lot less likely to pull donations, reducing support, etc. over the long term if we at least play this year.
Not wedded to the idea, but was just thinking that Rice could basically be trying to cut the least painful losses.
People have already pulled donations.
Because we didn't play the full slate of games?
(11-03-2020 10:45 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-03-2020 10:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-03-2020 10:05 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-03-2020 09:54 AM)Volkmar Wrote: [ -> ]Roadrunner chiming in here. If the 'economic sense' argument were a valid reason for not allowing fans, wouldn't it have made more economic sense for Rice to just not have a football season then? I mean, how much economic sense does it make to start playing halfway through the season - half of those games being away games - and not even allowing fans in the stadium for home games?
Yep... I have to imagine the cost of now a dozen busses, twice the number of planes and twice as many hotel rooms, not to mention 'safe' meal practices while away is VASTLY greater than the cost of hosting a home game.
But then you'd have the potential fallout from canceling the season - people are probably a lot less likely to pull donations, reducing support, etc. over the long term if we at least play this year.
Not wedded to the idea, but was just thinking that Rice could basically be trying to cut the least painful losses.
That has little (imo) to do with the economic sense of not allowing fans.
I could pithily add, unless its an admission that the games our fans are least interested in are home games against conference foes.
We didn't play UH across town
We didn't play at home vs Army
We didn't get paid a whole lot of money to play LSU down the street
We didn't play Lamar at home
We didn't play (*but might make up) UAB at home.
Thats 5 of 6 games that ALL would have been at or very near home. Very low cost to a profit and relatively easy to contain and protect our students. What did we protect our students from that we didn't turn right around and expose them to against MTSU? 3 of those 5 would have likely been decent TV games, even if you didn't allow fans.
So now we get MTSU, UTSA and UTEP at home, but travel to USM, LaTech and UNT??
IDK if there was 'business interruption insurance' anywhere along the line... but I'm betting that most donors would have rather we canceled the latter 6 than the first 5... two of which were technically not 'home' games.
The only way this makes sense is if they did it to pad the record... avoiding the better teams and playing only teams we most likely had a shot at beating, which is why UAB MAY be made up. I mean, every other year we 'end on a hot streak' that we credit to some improvement in our team as opposed to a softening of our schedule. It MAY be about ensuring our cut of conference revenues (the paltry sum they are).
I get your point and there may be something in there to it... but given the exposure we're still putting our people to, the loss of revenue and local interest, I think there could have been vastly better ways to keep our donors happy. If you're going to not allow fans for cost and safety, why cancel 5 of your 8 'home' (meaning lower cost and safer) games?
A lot of this is valid, but I would point out that the LSU game would have been pulled whether we were open to playing or not. The SEC cancelled OOC.