CSNbbs

(05-10-2021 05:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-08-2021 10:51 PM)75src Wrote: [ -> ]And why would he have zero interest?

Because he has a better deal at Sam. He has enthusiastic support from his president and they are on an upward trajectory.

Moving to the 14-team WAC (which will have 6 schools from Texas) will provide a huge increase in regional, if not national presence.

If Rice really wants positive change in athletics, it needs to quit being so damn cheap. It needs to lure a proven AD to do the job. Greenspan was a jerk who alienated donors. Karlgaard has done a poor job in his hiring on the men's side. Rice needs someone who has done it all, and who has done it all well.

(05-10-2021 10:48 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-05-2021 04:03 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-05-2021 12:22 PM)GoodOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-05-2021 12:02 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-05-2021 11:48 AM)GoodOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Wondering what percent of those two would you weight each for an AD then?

That's hard to say. Certainly he should be held accountable for the dismal performance of the men's sports and, especially, for overseeing the disgraceful and precipitous collapse of our once great baseball program (for which he played a leading role). However, by the same token, he should get credit for the unprecedented success of almost every women's sports program. More to the point, JK is directly responsible for turning around a long disfunctional athletic department. How you weigh the grade is up to interpretation.

Okay, fair enough.
But if we could have the exact reverse of the current situation, i.e.:
a) unprecedented success of the top 3 Men's sports programs (football, basketball, baseball),
b) coupled with dismal performance of the women's sports and most other lesser men's sports,
c) as well as vision and leadership being just fine, particularly of the men's program
d) coupled with how the athletic department runs an issue
e) along with a the focus on the student-athlete (including academic tutoring/mentoring, scholarship and career development) not being so great Ditto operational budgets of the various sport programs.

Now, I get that all those together might not be exactly compatible with unprecedented success in top 3 men's sports (Football, basketball, baseball) but I think you get my question; would you be happier with the reverse of what we have going on in athletics now?

Interesting question. The obvious answer would be, yes, as unprecedented success of the big 3 men's sports would position us strongly for admission into a P5 conference, with all the benefits that that would entail. Having said that, if not for the recent success of our women's programs, I would never have fallen in love with volleyball and women's basketball, for which I'm now a season ticketholder and SID supporter.

Women's sports... based on the value of our scholarship vs our athletic peer group (not even close) and the lack of a massive potential payday at the end 'fit' us better than men's. The value of losing in p5 vs winning in g5 is not only less, but is actually a disadvantage as opposed to an advantage. The same thing happened in Baseball... because winning your conference got you to the tournament... and once in the tournament, anything could happen. It's also why some small schools from small conferences do well in basketball... but of course, now you're talking about 1 and done's... which isn't consistent with our academic model... and the millions guaranteed in a two round draft vs often much less money, lots of rounds and years of 'development' in baseball is entirely different. Wayne effectively leveraged this... and women's coaches are as well. Basketball hasn't done it... and Football can't (no tournament).

So I give Joe credit for recognizing this reality, but I struggle to put a lot of significance to it.... To me its like Rice sports winning the SAT bowl. It's something Rice MAY be able to do without even trying, but certainly could if we simply decided to. The key thing here is to DO something with this (like leverage it to a better conference) and not only haven't we (at least not yet)... but the handling of baseball alone all but negates that... especially in that I can see at least some (if not a whole lot of) credit going to Stacy for women's sports, and Baseball lies entirely on JK.

So if nothing else, Joe needs to hire a new/better director of Men's athletics (or empower someone else on his staff).

Joe is not remotely bereft of skills.... and is clearly HIGHLY skilled in a number of important areas... and MAYBE this is an area where the man at the top doesn't need to be the one in charge of Football operations... MAYBE this is an opportunity to take an AD from an FCS type school as opposed to a BCS type school, because our marketing is perhaps much more like FCS than BCS.... HOWEVER....

Revenues are our issue. If we had more revenues, we could continue to invest in women's sports. We could continue to invest in and improve upon the academic areas... we could invest in more alumni outreach and AD staff. The amount of revenue that women's sports can generate is HIGHLY limited... and the costs really aren't measurably different from (the same) men's.... meaning I think the top women's basketball coach makes $2.4mm. The top men's coach certainly makes more... but they also make a multiple of the revenue of women's.... a LARGE multiple.

SO we STILL need to increase revenues.... and the common theme seems to be to get it from alumni donations rather than to 'earn' it with the product on the field in at least the top 2 men's sports.... those in the best position to increase revenues.

I constantly go back to the idea that 'what everyone else does' doesn't work for us. We don't own our city like say Marshall does... We don't even own West U. Why does someone who didn't attend Rice want to attend a game at our stadium? We likely aren't playing THEIR school... We don't have a great experience... No great food, no immersive experience... I've made LOTS of suggestions on this and for a decade, invested my OWN time and money into it... I once again go back to food trucks on the concourse... free wifi and charging stations in the stadium... a charging rail/cocktails tables at the top of the concourse... TVs everywhere... a video board capturing other games... a kids area... turning HRS into a sports bar open before and after the game... build a 'new' press box (and suites) in front of the 'old' one... It could be made out of aluminum... use solar and/or wind and some batteries... maybe technology developed on the campus to extend recycled lead acid batteries or something. We have the space. Back-feed the campus during the week. I could go on and on (and have, numerous times). All of these things by the way could also apply to women's sports... which might not make the same revenue, but could still improve the experience and thus our profile and ability to continue to improve.

Damn, I like these ideas a lot!

(05-10-2021 10:48 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]Revenues are our issue. If we had more revenues, we could continue to invest in women's sports. We could continue to invest in and improve upon the academic areas... we could invest in more alumni outreach and AD staff. The amount of revenue that women's sports can generate is HIGHLY limited... and the costs really aren't measurably different from (the same) men's.... meaning I think the top women's basketball coach makes $2.4mm. The top men's coach certainly makes more... but they also make a multiple of the revenue of women's.... a LARGE multiple.

Revenues have been our issue for 60 years. And nobody has ever focused on them. The philosophy of the department used to be that we have TexasU here for football in even years and LSU in odd years, those games sell out (including temporary bleachers on the concourse), and we run the department of those revenues for the rest of the year. By the mid 1970s those games started drawing 50-55,000 instead of selling out. Then we quit playing LSU in the early 1980s, and we parted ways with TexasU in the mid 1990s, and we have nothing, absolutely nothing, to replace them.

to me, its simple...

RUn the demos of the city of Houston... figure out which schools have the most alumni here and invite them to play us.... and then send emails or even mailers to them... or at least, talk to the alumni groups at those schools and ask them to invite them. Make them welcome. LSU, UT and A&M are obvious, but you might be surprised how many other schools have large alumni groups here and would LOVE to schedule an invasive game in the back yard of those schools.

(05-10-2021 10:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-10-2021 10:48 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]Revenues are our issue. If we had more revenues, we could continue to invest in women's sports. We could continue to invest in and improve upon the academic areas... we could invest in more alumni outreach and AD staff. The amount of revenue that women's sports can generate is HIGHLY limited... and the costs really aren't measurably different from (the same) men's.... meaning I think the top women's basketball coach makes $2.4mm. The top men's coach certainly makes more... but they also make a multiple of the revenue of women's.... a LARGE multiple.

Revenues have been our issue for 60 years. And nobody has ever focused on them. The philosophy of the department used to be that we have TexasU here for football in even years and LSU in odd years, those games sell out (including temporary bleachers on the concourse), and we run the department of those revenues for the rest of the year. By the mid 1970s those games started drawing 50-55,000 instead of selling out. Then we quit playing LSU in the early 1980s, and we parted ways with TexasU in the mid 1990s, and we have nothing, absolutely nothing, to replace them.

This is one of the reasons that I have always been a proponent of a regional conference. The local schools wouldn't draw the same numbers as Texas and LSU, but they would bring a respectable contingent of fans on a consistent basis in all three of the men's sports. There's also the savings in travel. With a moderate increase in the marketing budget, and and a much improved product on the field, Rice would be fine.

(05-11-2021 09:59 AM)Ourland Wrote: [ -> ]This is one of the reasons that I have always been a proponent of a regional conference. The local schools wouldn't draw the same numbers as Texas and LSU, but they would bring a respectable contingent of fans on a consistent basis in all three of the men's sports. There's also the savings in travel. With a moderate increase in the marketing budget, and and a much improved product on the field, Rice would be fine.

SOme of this I'm okay with... But whom are you speaking of?

UH doesn't want to play us. They've made it VERY clear. Their model is to put a superior product to ours with a superior opponent in order to 'own' Houston. SMU is happy to go along, as is Tulane.... If UTSA were better, they'd poach them in a minute over us.

So HBU? Lamar? Sam? TSU? UNT? UTSA? How many do those people really bring? I'm certainly okay with them all being 'on the list'... but I think we'd bring more people from OU, Nebraska or even Michigan from the city of Houston alone.... much less A&M or LSU. How about Ole Miss?

But you've got to market it. I don't think a lot of big schools market a lot to their 'local' alumni for 'away' games... because they don't usually have many seats at 'away' games, and they don't have facilities (or space on the campus) to host alumni events. We can address this.

(05-11-2021 11:25 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-11-2021 09:59 AM)Ourland Wrote: [ -> ]This is one of the reasons that I have always been a proponent of a regional conference. The local schools wouldn't draw the same numbers as Texas and LSU, but they would bring a respectable contingent of fans on a consistent basis in all three of the men's sports. There's also the savings in travel. With a moderate increase in the marketing budget, and and a much improved product on the field, Rice would be fine.

SOme of this I'm okay with... But whom are you speaking of?

UH doesn't want to play us. They've made it VERY clear. Their model is to put a superior product to ours with a superior opponent in order to 'own' Houston. SMU is happy to go along, as is Tulane.... If UTSA were better, they'd poach them in a minute over us.

So HBU? Lamar? Sam? TSU? UNT? UTSA? How many do those people really bring? I'm certainly okay with them all being 'on the list'... but I think we'd bring more people from OU, Nebraska or even Michigan from the city of Houston alone.... much less A&M or LSU. How about Ole Miss?

But you've got to market it. I don't think a lot of big schools market a lot to their 'local' alumni for 'away' games... because they don't usually have many seats at 'away' games, and they don't have facilities (or space on the campus) to host alumni events. We can address this.

UTSA, North Texas, Texas State, ULL, Louisiana Tech, Southern Mississippi, UTEP, and Arkansas State are the schools I'd target for a new conference. U of H may feel like it's too good for us, but they've shown a willingness to schedule Rice consistently nonetheless. The FCS schools like HBU, Lamar, and TSU will always be ready and willing to play us whenever we want, so they make perfect local opponents to fill out a schedule, and they have enough fans to help both schools make money. In football, I'd schedule two local powerhouses every season, like Texas, LSU, or Oklahoma. We have relations with them. They'd put us on their schedule.

(05-11-2021 01:49 PM)Ourland Wrote: [ -> ]UTSA, North Texas, Texas State, ULL, Louisiana Tech, Southern Mississippi, UTEP, and Arkansas State are the schools I'd target for a new conference. U of H may feel like it's too good for us, but they've shown a willingness to schedule Rice consistently nonetheless. The FCS schools like HBU, Lamar, and TSU will always be ready and willing to play us whenever we want, so they make perfect local opponents to fill out a schedule, and they have enough fans to help both schools make money. In football, I'd schedule two local powerhouses every season, like Texas, LSU, or Oklahoma. We have relations with them. They'd put us on their schedule.

Seriously?

Texas

In the past 8 full seasons (2012-19), Texas has played Rice only twice. Going forward, Rice and Texas have just 2 games scheduled (2021, 2023), with both games in Austin.

LSU

Although we were unlucky to miss the LSU game at NRG this past season, they are on the future schedule just once (2024), in Baton Rouge.

Oklahoma

From 1980-present (40 full seasons), Rice has played Oklahoma just once (2000).


Going forward, there are no home (NRG) games on the schedule that would draw the crowds that those schools would. The only ones with marginal interest are:

2024 - Army
2025 - BYU
2026 - Army
2027 - Boise State
2029 - Northwestern

(05-11-2021 03:31 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-11-2021 01:49 PM)Ourland Wrote: [ -> ]UTSA, North Texas, Texas State, ULL, Louisiana Tech, Southern Mississippi, UTEP, and Arkansas State are the schools I'd target for a new conference. U of H may feel like it's too good for us, but they've shown a willingness to schedule Rice consistently nonetheless. The FCS schools like HBU, Lamar, and TSU will always be ready and willing to play us whenever we want, so they make perfect local opponents to fill out a schedule, and they have enough fans to help both schools make money. In football, I'd schedule two local powerhouses every season, like Texas, LSU, or Oklahoma. We have relations with them. They'd put us on their schedule.

Seriously?

Texas

In the past 8 full seasons (2012-19), Texas has played Rice only twice. Going forward, Rice and Texas have just 2 games scheduled (2021, 2023), with both games in Austin.

LSU

Although we were unlucky to miss the LSU game at NRG this past season, they are on the future schedule just once (2024), in Baton Rouge.

Oklahoma

From 1980-present (40 full seasons), Rice has played Oklahoma just once (2000).


Going forward, there are no home (NRG) games on the schedule that would draw the crowds that those schools would. The only ones with marginal interest are:

2024 - Army
2025 - BYU
2026 - Army
2027 - Boise State
2029 - Northwestern

So, what's your solution? No conference wants us. If you were AD, what would you do?

(05-11-2021 03:31 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-11-2021 01:49 PM)Ourland Wrote: [ -> ]UTSA, North Texas, Texas State, ULL, Louisiana Tech, Southern Mississippi, UTEP, and Arkansas State are the schools I'd target for a new conference. U of H may feel like it's too good for us, but they've shown a willingness to schedule Rice consistently nonetheless. The FCS schools like HBU, Lamar, and TSU will always be ready and willing to play us whenever we want, so they make perfect local opponents to fill out a schedule, and they have enough fans to help both schools make money. In football, I'd schedule two local powerhouses every season, like Texas, LSU, or Oklahoma. We have relations with them. They'd put us on their schedule.

Seriously?
Texas
In the past 8 full seasons (2012-19), Texas has played Rice only twice. Going forward, Rice and Texas have just 2 games scheduled (2021, 2023), with both games in Austin.
LSU
Although we were unlucky to miss the LSU game at NRG this past season, they are on the future schedule just once (2024), in Baton Rouge.
Oklahoma
From 1980-present (40 full seasons), Rice has played Oklahoma just once (2000).
Going forward, there are no home (NRG) games on the schedule that would draw the crowds that those schools would. The only ones with marginal interest are:
2024 - Army
2025 - BYU
2026 - Army
2027 - Boise State
2029 - Northwestern

My understanding is that we have been ducking them at the request of our coaches, in particularly David when he was here.

If I were AD, I'd tell the football coach, "Look, you came up with a list of things you wanted that amounts to a one-time investment of $1 million, and thereafter about $1 million/year. Those are all reasonable requests, but the only way to pay for them is to play moneybag games."

(05-11-2021 06:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-11-2021 03:31 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-11-2021 01:49 PM)Ourland Wrote: [ -> ]UTSA, North Texas, Texas State, ULL, Louisiana Tech, Southern Mississippi, UTEP, and Arkansas State are the schools I'd target for a new conference. U of H may feel like it's too good for us, but they've shown a willingness to schedule Rice consistently nonetheless. The FCS schools like HBU, Lamar, and TSU will always be ready and willing to play us whenever we want, so they make perfect local opponents to fill out a schedule, and they have enough fans to help both schools make money. In football, I'd schedule two local powerhouses every season, like Texas, LSU, or Oklahoma. We have relations with them. They'd put us on their schedule.

Seriously?
Texas
In the past 8 full seasons (2012-19), Texas has played Rice only twice. Going forward, Rice and Texas have just 2 games scheduled (2021, 2023), with both games in Austin.
LSU
Although we were unlucky to miss the LSU game at NRG this past season, they are on the future schedule just once (2024), in Baton Rouge.
Oklahoma
From 1980-present (40 full seasons), Rice has played Oklahoma just once (2000).
Going forward, there are no home (NRG) games on the schedule that would draw the crowds that those schools would. The only ones with marginal interest are:
2024 - Army
2025 - BYU
2026 - Army
2027 - Boise State
2029 - Northwestern

My understanding is that we have been ducking them at the request of our coaches, in particularly David when he was here.

If I were AD, I'd tell the football coach, "Look, you came up with a list of things you wanted that amounts to a one-time investment of $1 million, and thereafter about $1 million/year. Those are all reasonable requests, but the only way to pay for them is to play moneybag games."

This

Look, a 'moneybag' game doesn't HAVE to be vs a top 20 team. It often WILL be of course since those teams are routinely top 20, but remember that if we sell 20,000 extra seats at $50 each, that's $1mm as well.... and since I think we only average about 12k paid, that's NOT a huge ask. I mean, imagine if we averaged just 30,000 for 6 home games? vs our current 12k and assuming only $25 per ticket (and no concessions nor parking) that's an additional $2.7mm. This is AGAIN why I say certain CUSA teams KILL us, because they bring NOBODY.

but there is also one other key....

My understanding (from an extremely well placed source) is that the University essentially absorbs that in the stipend they give us... so the support essentially declines when we fund it ourselves. That would need to stop. Said more clearly, they give us (the entire department) $15mm in the years we don't play UT and $13 in the rears we do. We need for them to give us a steady $14mm, and we need to make up the difference.

(05-11-2021 06:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-11-2021 03:31 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-11-2021 01:49 PM)Ourland Wrote: [ -> ]UTSA, North Texas, Texas State, ULL, Louisiana Tech, Southern Mississippi, UTEP, and Arkansas State are the schools I'd target for a new conference. U of H may feel like it's too good for us, but they've shown a willingness to schedule Rice consistently nonetheless. The FCS schools like HBU, Lamar, and TSU will always be ready and willing to play us whenever we want, so they make perfect local opponents to fill out a schedule, and they have enough fans to help both schools make money. In football, I'd schedule two local powerhouses every season, like Texas, LSU, or Oklahoma. We have relations with them. They'd put us on their schedule.

Seriously?
Texas
In the past 8 full seasons (2012-19), Texas has played Rice only twice. Going forward, Rice and Texas have just 2 games scheduled (2021, 2023), with both games in Austin.
LSU
Although we were unlucky to miss the LSU game at NRG this past season, they are on the future schedule just once (2024), in Baton Rouge.
Oklahoma
From 1980-present (40 full seasons), Rice has played Oklahoma just once (2000).
Going forward, there are no home (NRG) games on the schedule that would draw the crowds that those schools would. The only ones with marginal interest are:
2024 - Army
2025 - BYU
2026 - Army
2027 - Boise State
2029 - Northwestern

My understanding is that we have been ducking them at the request of our coaches, in particularly David when he was here.

If I were AD, I'd tell the football coach, "Look, you came up with a list of things you wanted that amounts to a one-time investment of $1 million, and thereafter about $1 million/year. Those are all reasonable requests, but the only way to pay for them is to play moneybag games."

I suspected this to be the case. I would be very surprised if we couldn't get Texas, LSU, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Baylor to play us regularly. These are games that we need not only for income, but also exposure. We need an attractive schedule to show recruits as well.

(05-11-2021 10:56 PM)Ourland Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-11-2021 06:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-11-2021 03:31 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-11-2021 01:49 PM)Ourland Wrote: [ -> ]UTSA, North Texas, Texas State, ULL, Louisiana Tech, Southern Mississippi, UTEP, and Arkansas State are the schools I'd target for a new conference. U of H may feel like it's too good for us, but they've shown a willingness to schedule Rice consistently nonetheless. The FCS schools like HBU, Lamar, and TSU will always be ready and willing to play us whenever we want, so they make perfect local opponents to fill out a schedule, and they have enough fans to help both schools make money. In football, I'd schedule two local powerhouses every season, like Texas, LSU, or Oklahoma. We have relations with them. They'd put us on their schedule.

Seriously?
Texas
In the past 8 full seasons (2012-19), Texas has played Rice only twice. Going forward, Rice and Texas have just 2 games scheduled (2021, 2023), with both games in Austin.
LSU
Although we were unlucky to miss the LSU game at NRG this past season, they are on the future schedule just once (2024), in Baton Rouge.
Oklahoma
From 1980-present (40 full seasons), Rice has played Oklahoma just once (2000).
Going forward, there are no home (NRG) games on the schedule that would draw the crowds that those schools would. The only ones with marginal interest are:
2024 - Army
2025 - BYU
2026 - Army
2027 - Boise State
2029 - Northwestern

My understanding is that we have been ducking them at the request of our coaches, in particularly David when he was here.

If I were AD, I'd tell the football coach, "Look, you came up with a list of things you wanted that amounts to a one-time investment of $1 million, and thereafter about $1 million/year. Those are all reasonable requests, but the only way to pay for them is to play moneybag games."

I suspected this to be the case. I would be very surprised if we couldn't get Texas, LSU, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Baylor to play us regularly. These are games that we need not only for income, but also exposure. We need an attractive schedule to show recruits as well.

And it isn't as if some of the national programs with national recruiting footprints wouldn't love to showcase themselves in the Houston area, a hotbed of high quality, college level talent.

(05-12-2021 07:51 AM)bigowlsfan Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-11-2021 10:56 PM)Ourland Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-11-2021 06:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-11-2021 03:31 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-11-2021 01:49 PM)Ourland Wrote: [ -> ]UTSA, North Texas, Texas State, ULL, Louisiana Tech, Southern Mississippi, UTEP, and Arkansas State are the schools I'd target for a new conference. U of H may feel like it's too good for us, but they've shown a willingness to schedule Rice consistently nonetheless. The FCS schools like HBU, Lamar, and TSU will always be ready and willing to play us whenever we want, so they make perfect local opponents to fill out a schedule, and they have enough fans to help both schools make money. In football, I'd schedule two local powerhouses every season, like Texas, LSU, or Oklahoma. We have relations with them. They'd put us on their schedule.

Seriously?
Texas
In the past 8 full seasons (2012-19), Texas has played Rice only twice. Going forward, Rice and Texas have just 2 games scheduled (2021, 2023), with both games in Austin.
LSU
Although we were unlucky to miss the LSU game at NRG this past season, they are on the future schedule just once (2024), in Baton Rouge.
Oklahoma
From 1980-present (40 full seasons), Rice has played Oklahoma just once (2000).
Going forward, there are no home (NRG) games on the schedule that would draw the crowds that those schools would. The only ones with marginal interest are:
2024 - Army
2025 - BYU
2026 - Army
2027 - Boise State
2029 - Northwestern

My understanding is that we have been ducking them at the request of our coaches, in particularly David when he was here.

If I were AD, I'd tell the football coach, "Look, you came up with a list of things you wanted that amounts to a one-time investment of $1 million, and thereafter about $1 million/year. Those are all reasonable requests, but the only way to pay for them is to play moneybag games."

I suspected this to be the case. I would be very surprised if we couldn't get Texas, LSU, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Baylor to play us regularly. These are games that we need not only for income, but also exposure. We need an attractive schedule to show recruits as well.

And it isn't as if some of the national programs with national recruiting footprints wouldn't love to showcase themselves in the Houston area, a hotbed of high quality, college level talent.

I agree. It would have to be schools with very large alumni numbers in Houston, or that have significant national appeal. We need teams that can attract 60k to NRG Stadium. Notre Dame, Texas, LSU, Oklahoma, and A&M would be my targets.

Anyone, anywhere.

Recruit kids with a chip on their shoulder. Recruit kids who CHOOSE the path BECAUSE it is hard. If you aren't already doing that, why recruit them to Rice when they can attend other schools and do half the academic work (if they choose)?

(05-12-2021 10:37 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]Anyone, anywhere.

Recruit kids with a chip on their shoulder. Recruit kids who CHOOSE the path BECAUSE it is hard. If you aren't already doing that, why recruit them to Rice when they can attend other schools and do half the academic work (if they choose)?

ABSOLUTELY. Beef up the nonconference schedule, and creat a regional conference that strikes local interest. That would be my formula. Dump those CUSA East schools!

Anyone, anywhere, anytime!

(05-12-2021 12:43 PM)Ourland Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-12-2021 10:37 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]Anyone, anywhere.

Recruit kids with a chip on their shoulder. Recruit kids who CHOOSE the path BECAUSE it is hard. If you aren't already doing that, why recruit them to Rice when they can attend other schools and do half the academic work (if they choose)?

ABSOLUTELY. Beef up the nonconference schedule, and creat a regional conference that strikes local interest. That would be my formula. Dump those CUSA East schools!

Anyone, anywhere, anytime!

Our nonconference schedule has been fine -- better than fine, really -- for several years now. We have played UT, ND, Stanford, Wake, Army, Baylor, UH, LSU, TAMU, etc., and there is no indication that this philosophy is changing. We are doing a good, balanced job with the 4 annual slots we have. The nonconference schedule is not the problem.

The problem is, of course, that we have allowed ourselves to be relegated to a conference with zero appeal to Rice folks, and I very much doubt a conference of minor ArkLaTex schools and us would be any sort of game-changing improvement over the conference of minor but more spread out schools we're already in.

I mean, maybe I could see 1000-2000 more fans per home game -- which I guess is better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick -- but I am pretty sure that all of that marginal increase would be visiting fans. I am no more likely to make the effort to see us play Texas State and ULaLa than I am to see us play MTSU and UAB.

It would be interesting to see a genuine focus group or poll on this issue, but my strong sense is that the problem on the Rice side is and always will be the "minor," not the geography.

I will and do travel to see us play marquee nonconference games (home or away), but my interest level drops through the floor around about Oct. 1 every year and I frankly have come to the conclusion that there is no viable way for Rice to fix this. The only way is independence, where we would play 6+ marquee schools per year instead of 2 or 3, and make a huge, concerted effort at trying to rejoin the P5 level, but this is never happening because this is Rice.

And the longer we keep tilting at windmills here in G5, the wider the talent and resources gap grows, and soon I won't be going to see us play the noncon games either, because they won't have a prayer of being competitive or even nostalgically enjoyable.

So I don't really see the point of G5 football for Rice anymore.

(05-12-2021 02:19 PM)illiniowl Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-12-2021 12:43 PM)Ourland Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-12-2021 10:37 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]Anyone, anywhere.

Recruit kids with a chip on their shoulder. Recruit kids who CHOOSE the path BECAUSE it is hard. If you aren't already doing that, why recruit them to Rice when they can attend other schools and do half the academic work (if they choose)?

ABSOLUTELY. Beef up the nonconference schedule, and creat a regional conference that strikes local interest. That would be my formula. Dump those CUSA East schools!

Anyone, anywhere, anytime!

Our nonconference schedule has been fine -- better than fine, really -- for several years now. We have played UT, ND, Stanford, Wake, Army, Baylor, UH, LSU, TAMU, etc., and there is no indication that this philosophy is changing. We are doing a good, balanced job with the 4 annual slots we have. The nonconference schedule is not the problem.

The problem is, of course, that we have allowed ourselves to be relegated to a conference with zero appeal to Rice folks, and I very much doubt a conference of minor ArkLaTex schools and us would be any sort of game-changing improvement over the conference of minor but more spread out schools we're already in.

I mean, maybe I could see 1000-2000 more fans per home game -- which I guess is better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick -- but I am pretty sure that all of that marginal increase would be visiting fans. I am no more likely to make the effort to see us play Texas State and ULaLa than I am to see us play MTSU and UAB.

It would be interesting to see a genuine focus group or poll on this issue, but my strong sense is that the problem on the Rice side is and always will be the "minor," not the geography.

I will and do travel to see us play marquee nonconference games (home or away), but my interest level drops through the floor around about Oct. 1 every year and I frankly have come to the conclusion that there is no viable way for Rice to fix this. The only way is independence, where we would play 6+ marquee schools per year instead of 2 or 3, and make a huge, concerted effort at trying to rejoin the P5 level, but this is never happening because this is Rice.

And the longer we keep tilting at windmills here in G5, the wider the talent and resources gap grows, and soon I won't be going to see us play the noncon games either, because they won't have a prayer of being competitive or even nostalgically enjoyable.

So I don't really see the point of G5 football for Rice anymore.

You're looking at OOC in isolation... When balanced against our Conference schedule where 80+% of them are north of 100, we aren't moving the needle... and more importantly, we're not raising enough money.

The point of scheduling tough OOC games is to generate revenue, interest in attending games and to recruit a kid who thinks he's good enough to compete with p5 guys on a more regular basis as opposed to guys who are happy to be the prettiest girl at the ugly dance.

It's also important to remember that we're in a delimma here. We want a better conference, but a better conference doesn't want us. We'll have to make the best of a bad situation. Creating a regional conference does that.