(09-30-2021 12:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]For all the talk about whether Rice should engage "sandwichboarding" or not, the bottom line is that Rice doesn't have anything to put on a sandwich board. Women's basketball, women's soccer, volleyball, and academic prestige don't move the needle on conference affiliation. Football, eyeballs on TV sets, and butts in seats are the only things that really matter, and quite frankly, Rice sucks on all three.
We actually do pretty well with eyeballs on TV sets compared to what you'd expect.
Don't have time to dig up the thread, but a poster on the conference board posted a thread with TV ratings for games that each C-USA team has played on a linear TV network and Rice was in the top 3 on average.
(09-30-2021 12:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]For all the talk about whether Rice should engage "sandwichboarding" or not, the bottom line is that Rice doesn't have anything to put on a sandwich board. Women's basketball, women's soccer, volleyball, and academic prestige don't move the needle on conference affiliation. Football, eyeballs on TV sets, and butts in seats are the only things that really matter, and quite frankly, Rice sucks on all three.
I'd like to see athletics win sponsorships that lean into the fact that our alumni base is likely wealthier than average. When I first started watching English county cricket, I was surprised to see that the majority of the on-field ads were for high net worth financial services providers like JPMorgan Chase & Co. or Brooks Macdonald investment management, companies that don't broadly advertise but which find the critical mass of target customers to justify advertising in that niche of sport. I think the closest we currently get to anything like that would be Village Jewelers.
That said, given the on-field performance, I don't think we can sell JPM or Goldman on a sponsorship today. This is something aspirational that I'd like to see in the future, but it can't come for football or basketball for as long as those companies wouldn't want to associate with an expected losing team. Maybe baseball could have done it around 2000-08; I don't think even an annually national tournament women's tennis team could get enough attention from the relevant marketing department unless some alumn executive took it as a pet project.
(09-30-2021 01:11 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote: [ -> ]We actually do pretty well with eyeballs on TV sets compared to what you'd expect.
Don't have time to dig up the thread, but a poster on the conference board posted a thread with TV ratings for games that each C-USA team has played on a linear TV network and Rice was in the top 3 on average.
How much of that is that we get preferential treatment from big schools by virtue of our academics if not history? From 2014-19 (six seasons):
- Marshall: One season with two P5 opponents and one season without any.
- North Texas: One P5 per year.
- Southern Miss.: Three years with two P5 opponents.
I just picked those three because they were on our schedule last year which made getting their past schedules easier, but I think they're pretty representative of the range of prestige of C-USA. Over that same time span, we played two P5 opponents every single year. Our linear TV ratings are not high because people are watching us. They're high because we can (or choose) to schedule more moneybag games than our conference average; the viewers are watching our opponents, and we happen to be on the field, too. I also think we're usually chosen for the CBSSN cable games the least that they can legally do because we bring so few eyeballs. We have a disproportionate number of high viewership televised OOC games that increase the numerator and a smaller denominator from fewer low viewership televised C-USA games.
(09-30-2021 01:29 PM)franklyconfused Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2021 12:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]For all the talk about whether Rice should engage "sandwichboarding" or not, the bottom line is that Rice doesn't have anything to put on a sandwich board. Women's basketball, women's soccer, volleyball, and academic prestige don't move the needle on conference affiliation. Football, eyeballs on TV sets, and butts in seats are the only things that really matter, and quite frankly, Rice sucks on all three.
I'd like to see athletics win sponsorships that lean into the fact that our alumni base is likely wealthier than average. When I first started watching English county cricket, I was surprised to see that the majority of the on-field ads were for high net worth financial services providers like JPMorgan Chase & Co. or Brooks Macdonald investment management, companies that don't broadly advertise but which find the critical mass of target customers to justify advertising in that niche of sport. I think the closest we currently get to anything like that would be Village Jewelers.
That said, given the on-field performance, I don't think we can sell JPM or Goldman on a sponsorship today. This is something aspirational that I'd like to see in the future, but it can't come for football or basketball for as long as those companies wouldn't want to associate with an expected losing team. Maybe baseball could have done it around 2000-08; I don't think even an annually national tournament women's tennis team could get enough attention from the relevant marketing department unless some alumn executive took it as a pet project.
Been saying this for two decades now... falling on deaf ears... Its what happens when CUSA and HLK (I think we still use them) runs your marketing. We could even appeal to a more 'woke' or 'green' audience... or one with a more international flavor... or one with a more tech-savvy slant... whatever our defining (and differentiating) demographics are. Ads for the Ballet and HGO (just expanding on the 'arts' conversation in another thread) rather than Miller Lite and WalMart.
I can't STAND it when the CUSA commercials come on and our academics are compared essentially on par with UAB and other places. Yep, UAB is JUST as serious about academics as Rice is, folks.... and the research taking place there changes the world in JUST the same way.
Quote:I just picked those three because they were on our schedule last year which made getting their past schedules easier, but I think they're pretty representative of the range of prestige of C-USA. Over that same time span, we played two P5 opponents every single year. Our linear TV ratings are not high because people are watching us. They're high because we can (or choose) to schedule more moneybag games than our conference average; the viewers are watching our opponents, and we happen to be on the field, too. I also think we're usually chosen for the CBSSN cable games the least that they can legally do because we bring so few eyeballs. We have a disproportionate number of high viewership televised OOC games that increase the numerator and a smaller denominator from fewer low viewership televised C-USA games.
Which is why its so important to 'show up' for those games and not get schooled out of the box. I suspect had we followed up on what felt like a positive first 3 quarters with Arkansas with similarly solid showings (at least starts) against UH and UT, we would have gotten a little attention. Sadly and as usual, like the Marshall game last year and in just about every other similar situation, it seems to have been an aberration and is quickly dismissed.
I mean seriously... If UT had gone just like Arkansas... even with us losing big in the end... whom among us isn't VASTLY more optimistic about our CUSA results??
UAB is the least of our problems when it comes to C-USA academics.
In fact, I know a few people from my time at Rice who went to medical school there and have had great experiences.
Also, not sure how we can expect C-USA to frame their commercials differently. It's their job to promote every school!
(09-30-2021 02:08 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]I can't STAND it when the CUSA commercials come on and our academics are compared essentially on par with UAB and other places. Yep, UAB is JUST as serious about academics as Rice is, folks.... and the research taking place there changes the world in JUST the same way.
Actually, because of the medical center, in many quarters the research going on at UAB may be perceived as superior and more transformational than that taking place at Rice. That's just the way perception works, why I have long advocated for a med school, why I supported the Baylor Med deal until some of the dirty laundry came out, and why I thought Rice should have gone it on its own when the Baylor Med deal fell apart.
(09-30-2021 03:16 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote: [ -> ]UAB is the least of our problems when it comes to C-USA academics.
In fact, I know a few people from my time at Rice who went to medical school there and have had great experiences.
Also, not sure how we can expect C-USA to frame their commercials differently. It's their job to promote every school!
And literally I think the only thing that could materially improve Rice football's long-term prospects would be to kill it a la UAB, and see if there is a resulting flood of outrage and cash to restore it/raise its profile.
And if there isn't, then the lack of justification for its continued existence would be conclusively proven.
(09-30-2021 03:16 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote: [ -> ]UAB is the least of our problems when it comes to C-USA academics.
In fact, I know a few people from my time at Rice who went to medical school there and have had great experiences.
Also, not sure how we can expect C-USA to frame their commercials differently. It's their job to promote every school!
I get that UAB's medical school is good.... but I'm pretty sure that UAB is the second highest rated school in CUSA at #148 (USNWR)... and of course you can get a great education 'anywhere' and some great people come from EVERY school... but that's not at all the same thing as equating a top 20 undergraduate education to a top 150 education (much less top 400 in some cases)
I chose them because they're second. They're (iirc) the BEST of the rest of CUSA.
And I DON'T expect CUSA to do anything other than this.... for the reasons you mention. What I expect is that RICE do something about it. Most obviously, get into a conference with more attractive academic peers.
We talk all the time about B1Gs or PACs insistence on high academic achievement for its members... so why is Rice okay with us being in CUSA??
(09-30-2021 04:13 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]We talk all the time about B1Gs or PACs insistence on high academic achievement for its members... so why is Rice okay with us being in CUSA??
Because these are athletic, not academic conferences, and CUSA members have (unfortunately) become our athletic peers (if not better than that). An athletic conference is about playing football and basketball (men and women), baseball/softball, and running track, not about College Bowl intellectual contests or number of National Merit Scholars in your student body or Rhodes Scholars on your faculty.
(09-30-2021 08:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2021 04:13 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]We talk all the time about B1Gs or PACs insistence on high academic achievement for its members... so why is Rice okay with us being in CUSA??
Because these are athletic, not academic conferences, and CUSA members have (unfortunately) become our athletic peers (if not better than that). An athletic conference is about playing football and basketball (men and women), baseball/softball, and running track, not about College Bowl intellectual contests or number of National Merit Scholars in your student body or Rhodes Scholars on your faculty.
What you say is true, of course, but Hambone's point is too- conferences/ schools either care about the institutions they are aligned with or they don't. Granted, we have put ourselves in a position where it's difficult to take a principled stand because we have nowhere else to go. Stanford, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, and Duke have not been forced to make that decision.
But we (theoretically) could take a stand and commit to getting in a conference with more like-minded schools. We just haven't.
(09-30-2021 11:56 PM)Middle Ages Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2021 08:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2021 04:13 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]We talk all the time about B1Gs or PACs insistence on high academic achievement for its members... so why is Rice okay with us being in CUSA??
Because these are athletic, not academic conferences, and CUSA members have (unfortunately) become our athletic peers (if not better than that). An athletic conference is about playing football and basketball (men and women), baseball/softball, and running track, not about College Bowl intellectual contests or number of National Merit Scholars in your student body or Rhodes Scholars on your faculty.
What you say is true, of course, but Hambone's point is too- conferences/ schools either care about the institutions they are aligned with or they don't. Granted, we have put ourselves in a position where it's difficult to take a principled stand because we have nowhere else to go. Stanford, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, and Duke have not been forced to make that decision.
But we (theoretically) could take a stand and commit to getting in a conference with more like-minded schools. We just haven't.
This.
I have no doubt that if we were in the PAC or B1G, one of the reasons we would articulate would be that the other schools in the conference were similarly academically inclined. We speak of being 'like-minded' with Tulane and SMU, and used to talk about it regarding Tulsa and Air Force. With whom are we 'like-minded' in CUSA??
You are absolutely correct that this is where we are so we have to make the best of it... but my point in the context of some other recent conversations is....
We looked at spending a billion dollars on BCM to improve our profile. We solicited $100mm from a foundation for the RMC no doubt to also improve our profile/appeal to students. We've done the same for numerous other buildings on campus. We built a 100mm building for a department that already had a fairly new, $100mm building and wasn't being 'challenged' ( we weren't at risk of losing appeal as a music school)... at WHAT POINT does it become as important to Rice that we compete with 'like-minded institutions' as it is for the B1G or PAC, or the Shepard School?
Sounds like Colorado State and Air Force are turning down the American (in addition to San Diego St and Boise St doing it more silently a while back). I can't wait until they turn to their 10th-14th options and we get our chance to shine.
If I'm Craig Thompson and the Mountain West, I try to poach SMU and Tulsa/Wichita State now. No reason at all apart from pettiness.
(10-01-2021 09:13 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]https://twitter.com/PeteThamel/status/14...2351111169
Confirming that MWC is staying intact. (For now.)
I guess that's good for us?
I think it's negative for us. The MWC was the most likely landing for us (although not as likely as status quo). The MWC is now unlikely to need to backfill or expand into Texas. AAC is already burdened with Tulane and Tulsa and so won't want us. We no have nowhere to go for a while.
(10-01-2021 09:27 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote: [ -> ] (10-01-2021 09:13 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]https://twitter.com/PeteThamel/status/14...2351111169
Confirming that MWC is staying intact. (For now.)
I guess that's good for us?
I think it's negative for us. The MWC was the most likely landing for us (although not as likely as status quo). The MWC is now unlikely to need to backfill or expand into Texas. AAC is already burdened with Tulane and Tulsa and so won't want us. We no have nowhere to go for a while.
On the other hand, I've heard speculation that AFA and CSU were convinced to stay by the promise of expansion into Texas. And the AAC now still needs four schools (if they stick with the goal of adding four).
Of course that could all be true and the result is MWC gets SMU, Tulsa, and Tulane, Navy leaves, and most of the reason AAC was attractive is gone.
The easiest, quickest way for Rice to show it is serious about athletics would be to fire Bloomgren. It’s obvious he has not worked out.
(10-01-2021 09:39 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (10-01-2021 09:27 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote: [ -> ] (10-01-2021 09:13 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]https://twitter.com/PeteThamel/status/14...2351111169
Confirming that MWC is staying intact. (For now.)
I guess that's good for us?
I think it's negative for us. The MWC was the most likely landing for us (although not as likely as status quo). The MWC is now unlikely to need to backfill or expand into Texas. AAC is already burdened with Tulane and Tulsa and so won't want us. We no have nowhere to go for a while.
On the other hand, I've heard speculation that AFA and CSU were convinced to stay by the promise of expansion into Texas. And the AAC now still needs four schools (if they stick with the goal of adding four).
Of course that could all be true and the result is MWC gets SMU, Tulsa, and Tulane, Navy leaves, and most of the reason AAC was attractive is gone.
(10-01-2021 09:27 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote: [ -> ] (10-01-2021 09:13 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]https://twitter.com/PeteThamel/status/14...2351111169
Confirming that MWC is staying intact. (For now.)
I guess that's good for us?
I think it's negative for us. The MWC was the most likely landing for us (although not as likely as status quo). The MWC is now unlikely to need to backfill or expand into Texas. AAC is already burdened with Tulane and Tulsa and so won't want us. We no have nowhere to go for a while.
It's probably a good thing for us. If they were to lose only Colorado State and Air Force, that would leave two openings for UTSA and North Texas, not Rice. Now, the AAC will take UTSA. It gives us time to get ready for when Boise State and Memphis leave for the Big12. It gives us time to get our act together to be worthy of promotion.
I'm happy for the MWC. That's clearly a better conference than the AAC, even with whomever it adds. I have a dislike of Aresco and ESPN. Shame on them for trying to kneecap a rival conference that has a TV deal with Fox. I hope we can earn an invite to the MWC. Maybe all this isn't over, and they'll try to get into Texas with Rice and North Texas.
Here we are still batting around all these hypothetical scenarios and ignoring the elephant in the room. NOBODY is going to want Rice until we get our own act together, something that we have shown an alarming unwillingness to do, or even try.
10-15 years ago, I stated my objectives as:
Become Navy in football. Yes, they are currently on a down cycle, but even with that they are 146-99 over the last 20 years. Over the same time frame Rice is 84-141.
Become Gonzaga in basketball. Maybe we never reach their recent heights, but being where they were 10 years ago would be a massive improvement.
Remain (now it would be return to) Wayne Graham's Rice in baseball. Good season is making it to Omaha, average season is making a super, bad season is not making a super.
If we were at those levels, somebody (indeed lots of folks) would want us. As a bottom dweller in CUSA, we are kidding ourselves to believe that anybody does. OK, we are not bottom dwellers in women's sports, we're quite good, but that doesn't move any needles regarding conference alignment.
If I were AD at Rice today, I'd tell every coach, "You have three goals: 1) win the conference, 2) win at least once in post-season, 3) lead the nation in graduation rate and academic progress rate." When Rice starts thinking in those terms, it has a chance. Until then it will just fall further.
(10-01-2021 12:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]Here we are still batting around all these hypothetical scenarios and ignoring the elephant in the room. NOBODY is going to want Rice until we get our own act together, something that we have shown an alarming unwillingness to do, or even try.
10-15 years ago, I stated my objectives as:
Become Navy in football. Yes, they are currently on a down cycle, but even with that they are 146-99 over the last 20 years. Over the same time frame Rice is 84-141.
Become Gonzaga in basketball. Maybe we never reach their recent heights, but being where they were 10 years ago would be a massive improvement.
Remain (now it would be return to) Wayne Graham's Rice in baseball. Good season is making it to Omaha, average season is making a super, bad season is not making a super.
If we were at those levels, somebody (indeed lots of folks) would want us. As a bottom dweller in CUSA, we are kidding ourselves to believe that anybody does. OK, we are not bottom dwellers in women's sports, we're quite good, but that doesn't move any needles regarding conference alignment.
If I were AD at Rice today, I'd tell every coach, "You have three goals: 1) win the conference, 2) win at least once in post-season, 3) lead the nation in graduation rate and academic progress rate." When Rice starts thinking in those terms, it has a chance. Until then it will just fall further.
Never going to happen, with the possible exception of baseball. With NIL payments at P5 schools going through the roof, it is a virtual certainty that any outstanding athletes Rice might discover in football or men's basketball will be recruited by other schools looking to fill a hole in their recruiting.
Also, please let us all know the magic fairy dust the coaches can use to entice those athletes to compete in this conference.
(10-01-2021 01:02 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote: [ -> ]Also, please let us all know the magic fairy dust the coaches can use to entice those athletes to compete in this conference.
The same magic fairy dust our conference opponents are using, because that's whom we have to beat to win conference championships.
I don't really understand the logic behind complaining that CUSA is a terrible conference that we need to get out of, when we aren't competitive in CUSA. The way out of CUSA--the only way upward--is to beat the hell out of CUSA opponents, year in and year out. We don't do that.