(10-06-2021 11:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-06-2021 10:58 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]There are plenty of schools doing just fine by going 3-1 or 4-0 OOC against g5 and then hoping to win 2-3 in conference against peer institutions (against which upsets can always happen based on familiarity) and go to a bowl.
I'd rather do that than be 0-4 every year against every team with a pulse and constantly finding ourselves in a conference that contains 6 or more schools ranked in the bottom quartile. If you're stuck with the latter situation like we are, then you need to dominate that conference winning 6+ games every year against it. If you do that (and it honestly doesn't take much to do that... being ranked 90 would do it most years) then you have a SHOT at going 3-1 or 2-2 OOC, especially if you schedule an FCS and suddenly you're consistently winning 9+ games and a FEW against teams of note.
The bottom line is that we are kidding ourselves even talking about being any sort of player in realignment until we get better ourselves. And that's on us.
A "player" in realignment-- no, but being a viable candidate is still possible given our academics and Houston location (but only if we're finally willing to ante up and commit to significant spending and upgrades).
(10-06-2021 11:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-06-2021 10:58 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]There are plenty of schools doing just fine by going 3-1 or 4-0 OOC against g5 and then hoping to win 2-3 in conference against peer institutions (against which upsets can always happen based on familiarity) and go to a bowl.
I'd rather do that than be 0-4 every year against every team with a pulse and constantly finding ourselves in a conference that contains 6 or more schools ranked in the bottom quartile. If you're stuck with the latter situation like we are, then you need to dominate that conference winning 6+ games every year against it. If you do that (and it honestly doesn't take much to do that... being ranked 90 would do it most years) then you have a SHOT at going 3-1 or 2-2 OOC, especially if you schedule an FCS and suddenly you're consistently winning 9+ games and a FEW against teams of note.
The bottom line is that we are kidding ourselves even talking about being any sort of player in realignment until we get better ourselves. And that's on us.
I have tried to explain this many times over the years: No program will never dominate and win its way out of a conference its alumni and students detest and reject. And we detest and reject this one. It's not simply a matter of "do things better and win more" because overlaying everything here is stultifying apathy engendered by having no rivalries, no peers, no real meaning to any of the games. Have we occasionally caught a good season or two in this conference? Yes, but doing so obviously doesn't change the underlying facts, or Jedi-mind-trick the alumni and students into caring, and that lack of caring eventually leads to the results on the field regressing to the mean instead of this fantasy of sustaining an ever-upward trajectory.
The only shot we ever had at avoiding the endgame we are most definitely in now was to, quite simply, buy our way into a better conference. If our nonvisionary president and BOT and succession of milquetoast ADs had ever had their **** together, they'd have come to the alumni years ago with an urgent campaign and vision for doing this. We could have gone independent and adopted a "play anyone, anywhere, anytime" philosophy (my preferred option), or we could have just gone whole hog on facilities and coaching and recruitment and shown the rest of CFB that Rice was serious about not being the same old Rice.
Instead we remain, as ever, the same old Rice, and this will be proven when even now, when *any* sort of investment proactivity would get us to the AAC or MWC, the powers that be will take their chances that we will get a call-up without it. And we won't.
My October 2 rankings have C-USA as the worst conference, falling behind the dreaded MAC. Compared with 2019, C-USA is about the same, while the MAC got slightly better.
So, Rice is a so-so (or worse) team in the worst conference, and people here expect that any other conference will be interested?
+1'ining to IlliniOwl, though I would add that if we were to schedule more peer institutions OOC (which we've done a little of) we could potentially create some of that.
More to the point of 'where we are', since EVERY school in CUSA is seeking to leave, it seems prudent to reduce rather than maintain the number of conference games in football (the only sport that matters to realignment outside of the north east) if and as any teams leave... keep the playoff but eliminate the cross-over games, at least as counting towards conference standings. If we want to continue to play Marshall as an example, we can do so as an OOC game... and if we want to play FIU every year, we can. (no reason to do that specifically, just as an example and a way to create or foster a rivalry). The more open dates we have, the more chances we have to schedule like-minded institutions and/or rivals... especially outside of the first few weeks of the year.
The challenge of course is that our former peer group has really left us behind. Either we are incredibly unlucky and we keep scheduling Tech and Baylor during 'up' years for them, or we've so let the gap increase to where even in a down year, they crush us (and or we are in a down year).
Create that schedule. Market to it. Recruit to it. Pay to send the mob to it. Pay to send students to it. They attend Rice v UTSA so that they can attend Rice v UT.
That seems to be a relatively low cost way of getting more students involved. Involve the Rice Dance team... involve the rally club... involve the mob in 'away' games. Give them some fun trips to go on that involve sports. That's what we do ANY time we're recruiting support.
(10-06-2021 11:50 AM)illiniowl Wrote: [ -> ] (10-06-2021 11:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-06-2021 10:58 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]There are plenty of schools doing just fine by going 3-1 or 4-0 OOC against g5 and then hoping to win 2-3 in conference against peer institutions (against which upsets can always happen based on familiarity) and go to a bowl.
I'd rather do that than be 0-4 every year against every team with a pulse and constantly finding ourselves in a conference that contains 6 or more schools ranked in the bottom quartile. If you're stuck with the latter situation like we are, then you need to dominate that conference winning 6+ games every year against it. If you do that (and it honestly doesn't take much to do that... being ranked 90 would do it most years) then you have a SHOT at going 3-1 or 2-2 OOC, especially if you schedule an FCS and suddenly you're consistently winning 9+ games and a FEW against teams of note.
The bottom line is that we are kidding ourselves even talking about being any sort of player in realignment until we get better ourselves. And that's on us.
I have tried to explain this many times over the years: No program will never dominate and win its way out of a conference its alumni and students detest and reject. And we detest and reject this one. It's not simply a matter of "do things better and win more" because overlaying everything here is stultifying apathy engendered by having no rivalries, no peers, no real meaning to any of the games. Have we occasionally caught a good season or two in this conference? Yes, but doing so obviously doesn't change the underlying facts, or Jedi-mind-trick the alumni and students into caring, and that lack of caring eventually leads to the results on the field regressing to the mean instead of this fantasy of sustaining an ever-upward trajectory.
The only shot we ever had at avoiding the endgame we are most definitely in now was to, quite simply, buy our way into a better conference. If our nonvisionary president and BOT and succession of milquetoast ADs had ever had their **** together, they'd have come to the alumni years ago with an urgent campaign and vision for doing this. We could have gone independent and adopted a "play anyone, anywhere, anytime" philosophy (my preferred option), or we could have just gone whole hog on facilities and coaching and recruitment and shown the rest of CFB that Rice was serious about not being the same old Rice.
Instead we remain, as ever, the same old Rice, and this will be proven when even now, when *any* sort of investment proactivity would get us to the AAC or MWC, the powers that be will take their chances that we will get a call-up without it. And we won't.
Spot on, as many have stated in different ways.
The BOD needs a plan to pony up big bucks, get some big donors lined up to match and THEN make a pitch to the conferences. If academics and location were enough, we would not be in the CUSA right now.
(10-06-2021 11:18 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote: [ -> ] (10-06-2021 11:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-06-2021 10:58 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]There are plenty of schools doing just fine by going 3-1 or 4-0 OOC against g5 and then hoping to win 2-3 in conference against peer institutions (against which upsets can always happen based on familiarity) and go to a bowl.
I'd rather do that than be 0-4 every year against every team with a pulse and constantly finding ourselves in a conference that contains 6 or more schools ranked in the bottom quartile. If you're stuck with the latter situation like we are, then you need to dominate that conference winning 6+ games every year against it. If you do that (and it honestly doesn't take much to do that... being ranked 90 would do it most years) then you have a SHOT at going 3-1 or 2-2 OOC, especially if you schedule an FCS and suddenly you're consistently winning 9+ games and a FEW against teams of note.
The bottom line is that we are kidding ourselves even talking about being any sort of player in realignment until we get better ourselves. And that's on us.
A "player" in realignment-- no, but being a viable candidate is still possible given our academics and Houston location (but only if we're finally willing to ante up and commit to significant spending and upgrades).
I have heard the same. If Rice ponies up and commits $$, AAC and MWC invites are more probable than people (this board) think.
I would think that by now the BOT and President would've had a special session, retreat, what have you -- to focus specifically and very intently on this huge decision point for the University. If they haven't, then it's way past time that JK, Bobby Tudor and others in position of influence 'got in their face' about it. Perhaps they have.
(10-06-2021 11:18 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote: [ -> ] (10-06-2021 11:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-06-2021 10:58 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]There are plenty of schools doing just fine by going 3-1 or 4-0 OOC against g5 and then hoping to win 2-3 in conference against peer institutions (against which upsets can always happen based on familiarity) and go to a bowl.
I'd rather do that than be 0-4 every year against every team with a pulse and constantly finding ourselves in a conference that contains 6 or more schools ranked in the bottom quartile. If you're stuck with the latter situation like we are, then you need to dominate that conference winning 6+ games every year against it. If you do that (and it honestly doesn't take much to do that... being ranked 90 would do it most years) then you have a SHOT at going 3-1 or 2-2 OOC, especially if you schedule an FCS and suddenly you're consistently winning 9+ games and a FEW against teams of note.
The bottom line is that we are kidding ourselves even talking about being any sort of player in realignment until we get better ourselves. And that's on us.
A "player" in realignment-- no, but being a viable candidate is still possible given our academics and Houston location (but only if we're finally willing to ante up and commit to significant spending and upgrades).
No, not even a viable candidate. I'm afraid you are kidding yourself. In part, to be fair, I say this because I am quite certain that we are not willing to "ante up" as you put it, and if that changed then viable candidate status might be reachable at some point. But not when you've gone 3-9, 1-11, 2-11, 3-9, 2-3, 2-3 over the last 6 years. We need a run of something like 8-5, 11-3, 10-4, 12-2, 9-4, 11-3 over 6 years to attract interest.
(10-06-2021 10:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-06-2021 11:18 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote: [ -> ] (10-06-2021 11:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-06-2021 10:58 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]There are plenty of schools doing just fine by going 3-1 or 4-0 OOC against g5 and then hoping to win 2-3 in conference against peer institutions (against which upsets can always happen based on familiarity) and go to a bowl.
I'd rather do that than be 0-4 every year against every team with a pulse and constantly finding ourselves in a conference that contains 6 or more schools ranked in the bottom quartile. If you're stuck with the latter situation like we are, then you need to dominate that conference winning 6+ games every year against it. If you do that (and it honestly doesn't take much to do that... being ranked 90 would do it most years) then you have a SHOT at going 3-1 or 2-2 OOC, especially if you schedule an FCS and suddenly you're consistently winning 9+ games and a FEW against teams of note.
A "player" in realignment-- no, but being a viable candidate is still possible given our academics and Houston location (but only if we're finally willing to ante up and commit to significant spending and upgrades).
No, not even a viable candidate. I'm afraid you are kidding yourself. In part, to be fair, I say this because I am quite certain that we are not willing to "ante up" as you put it, and if that changed then viable candidate status might be reachable at some point. But not when you've gone 3-9, 1-11, 2-11, 3-9, 2-3, 2-3 over the last 6 years. We need a run of something like 8-5, 11-3, 10-4, 12-2, 9-4, 11-3 over 6 years to attract interest.
That's your opinion. I disagree, and strongly so. From what I've heard we are currently in active discussions with both the MWC and AAC. That implies we're a viable candidate. Whether we can close the deal is another question altogether. You are greatly underestimating the importance and attractiveness of the Houston and Texas marketplace for teams in these conferences. But keep on repeating your negative nelly schtick.
(10-06-2021 10:57 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote: [ -> ]From what I've heard we are currently in active discussions with both the MWC and AAC. That implies we're a viable candidate. Whether we can close the deal is another question altogether. You are greatly underestimating the importance and attractiveness of the Houston and Texas marketplace for teams in these conferences.
I'll believe it when I see it.
(10-06-2021 10:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-06-2021 11:18 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote: [ -> ] (10-06-2021 11:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-06-2021 10:58 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]There are plenty of schools doing just fine by going 3-1 or 4-0 OOC against g5 and then hoping to win 2-3 in conference against peer institutions (against which upsets can always happen based on familiarity) and go to a bowl.
I'd rather do that than be 0-4 every year against every team with a pulse and constantly finding ourselves in a conference that contains 6 or more schools ranked in the bottom quartile. If you're stuck with the latter situation like we are, then you need to dominate that conference winning 6+ games every year against it. If you do that (and it honestly doesn't take much to do that... being ranked 90 would do it most years) then you have a SHOT at going 3-1 or 2-2 OOC, especially if you schedule an FCS and suddenly you're consistently winning 9+ games and a FEW against teams of note.
The bottom line is that we are kidding ourselves even talking about being any sort of player in realignment until we get better ourselves. And that's on us.
A "player" in realignment-- no, but being a viable candidate is still possible given our academics and Houston location (but only if we're finally willing to ante up and commit to significant spending and upgrades).
No, not even a viable candidate. I'm afraid you are kidding yourself. In part, to be fair, I say this because I am quite certain that we are not willing to "ante up" as you put it, and if that changed then viable candidate status might be reachable at some point. But not when you've gone 3-9, 1-11, 2-11, 3-9, 2-3, 2-3 over the last 6 years. We need a run of something like 8-5, 11-3, 10-4, 12-2, 9-4, 11-3 over 6 years to attract interest.
sadly the non-ante has been proven over and over again. Spending OPM never a problem, but a true all-in-not seen it and, in fact, quite the contrary, as there many many opportunities to do so, but when you have a mentality of not spending money regardless of whether it would make money, there is no ante.
You even wonder if "they" would support a viable d-iii program.
Winning a CUSA championship in 2013 really did nothing to help Rice because the fans here are not interested in the other schools.
(10-06-2021 08:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (10-05-2021 10:50 PM)75src Wrote: [ -> ]I am willing to increase my contribution if Rice gets in better conference but if we remain stuck in the CUSA I am going to give up despite being a Rice fan for over 60 years because there is no future left.
I am just the opposite. I don't give a flying ^%$# about the conference - I care about winning. Not sure what you mean about giving up, but I won't.
(10-07-2021 02:33 AM)75src Wrote: [ -> ]Winning a CUSA championship in 2013 really did nothing to help Rice because the fans here are not interested in the other schools.
Not backing it up with more winning is what hurt the most. It's the difference between being Orville Moody and Tiger Woods.
Whatever league we find ourselves in, winning is the first and most important thing.
Believe, I under the lack of enthusiasm over playing schools we have nothing in common with. Used to be the same attitude toward Texas Tech, then the new kid in the SWC, and no, I don't load up my car to go see Middle Tenn or Old Dominion. But the next step in moving back up is now and always will be, winning at whatever level we are at, and winning a lot. And winning a lot -not 6-6 or the occasional upset, but a LOT - will bring fans back.
Just win, baby.
I will soon be flying more than 1,000 miles to the town where we have a conference game the very next day at noon... and have almost no interest in staying for the game
(10-07-2021 09:22 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]I will soon be flying more than 1,000 miles to the town where we have a conference game the very next day at noon... and have almost no interest in staying for the game
You must be talking about Charlotte. I don't blame you. CUSA isn't for us.
(10-07-2021 09:22 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]I will soon be flying more than 1,000 miles to the town where we have a conference game the very next day at noon... and have almost no interest in staying for the game
Back when we were in the WAC, I timed a gambling trip to Reno so as to also take in a basketball game at Nevada-Reno.
I was excited to see MY team play, not giving a damn about Reno's team. I was badly disappointed in the Rice performance and the out come of the game. I care(d) more about winning the game than the opponent. Still do.
Anecdote: Ran into Willis Wilson and an assistant in an elevator. they seemed amazed and pleased that (a) there was a Rice fan there, and (b) I was wearing my Rice gear.
Help educate the ignorant here..
As I read various rumors and articles about conference realignment/expansion, the schools in question seem to be lacking 1 of 4 things.
1. An on campus stadium suitable for decent sized FBS crowds.
2. A market/recruiting area that helps with media rights and overall conference recruiting.
3. Money..How will the school fund the athletic budget requirements for a better conference.
4. Academics..Does the candidate school raise or lower the collective institutional profile of the conference.
Rice is literally the only school mentioned in expansion rumors that knocks all 4 of these questions out of the ballpark. You guys have the market, the stadium(though it could be spruced up), the money, and academics that ANY conference would want..
My question.. Is it the administration of the University that's hesitant to commit to athletics, or is the Alumni base just too small to generate the interest?
(10-07-2021 10:00 AM)Tmac13 Wrote: [ -> ]Help educate the ignorant here..
As I read various rumors and articles about conference realignment/expansion, the schools in question seem to be lacking 1 of 4 things.
1. An on campus stadium suitable for decent sized FBS crowds.
2. A market/recruiting area that helps with media rights and overall conference recruiting.
3. Money..How will the school fund the athletic budget requirements for a better conference.
4. Academics..Does the candidate school raise or lower the collective institutional profile of the conference.
Rice is literally the only school mentioned in expansion rumors that knocks all 4 of these questions out of the ballpark. You guys have the market, the stadium(though it could be spruced up), the money, and academics that ANY conference would want..
My question.. Is it the administration of the University that's hesitant to commit to athletics, or is the Alumni base just too small to generate the interest?
Unfortunately, the answers are probably yes and yes.
(10-07-2021 10:00 AM)Tmac13 Wrote: [ -> ]Help educate the ignorant here..
As I read various rumors and articles about conference realignment/expansion, the schools in question seem to be lacking 1 of 4 things.
1. An on campus stadium suitable for decent sized FBS crowds.
2. A market/recruiting area that helps with media rights and overall conference recruiting.
3. Money..How will the school fund the athletic budget requirements for a better conference.
4. Academics..Does the candidate school raise or lower the collective institutional profile of the conference.
Rice is literally the only school mentioned in expansion rumors that knocks all 4 of these questions out of the ballpark. You guys have the market, the stadium(though it could be spruced up), the money, and academics that ANY conference would want..
My question.. Is it the administration of the University that's hesitant to commit to athletics, or is the Alumni base just too small to generate the interest?
I might be in the minority here but I have been trying to follow realignment news and rumors closely and I do think it more likely than not that we announce a move to AAC or MWC this year.
Historically it’s been the admin that wanted to de-emphasize athletics at a time when society was emphasizing (some say over-emphasizing) collegiate athletics.
Our small fan base (partly as a result of the above) does not do us any favors.
But at the G level that is merely one drawback which IMO is outweighed by the other positives you mention.
And our stellar all-sports rankings across the board (Directors Cup, Womens sports, Baseball, …)