I guess that in my old age I've become jaded and a bit cynical. But I truly dont think that academics is going to be a huge factor in P5 or P4 invites in the future. I think TV and ESPN.. who are driving the train with the money... Will make sure it's essentially a non-factor. And the BIGX et al will go along with that. I think that TV market will be the driving force.
I hate this. But I think we've come to the point that it's pro ball at the P5 level. And I'm sorta surprised that there's a lot of people on The Parliament who think otherwise.
I've never used the ignore button. I truly get a kick out of everybody's different views. Sometimes I shudder. Or cringe. Or laugh out loud. But I enjoy the different opinions.

(07-02-2015 08:42 AM)13thOwl Wrote:  Amazingly you have just put into words the exact opposite of why as a non-Rice guy, I root for Rice Football.

I see this pretty simply.

The reason why many of us are Rice fans isn't just integrity... but the commitment to 'first rate' academics. There are all sorts of relatively weak academic schools who still have their integrity with regard to their academics... And while I'd agree with lots of people that this is a substantially smaller cohort than either the 'win at all costs' groups or the 'win, but don't cheat'... that I will sum up as 'be a high academic school that ALSO wins at athletics'... few other schools and virtually NO g5 schools can even remotely try and appeal to this group.

When you look at the people who go to Rice and ask them why they went... and you look at the people who support Rice athletics but didn't attend, you DON'T generally also see people who support schools like UH or UTSA or Memphis. In fact, they are more likely to support FCS and d3 sports than most other FBS schools.

Rice isn't going to win competing head to head for the same fans as p5 schools, or with schools that are demonstrably different in their academic approaches. Where we are going to win is by offering an FBS product that can compete with those p5 schools to someone who went to a school with a similar academic approach to ours. Those who would root for Princeton in the NCAAs because they felt that Princeton most closely resembled the values of the school they attended.

(07-02-2015 10:50 AM)greyowl72 Wrote:  I guess that in my old age I've become jaded and a bit cynical. But I truly dont think that academics is going to be a huge factor in P5 or P4 invites in the future. I think TV and ESPN.. who are driving the train with the money... Will make sure it's essentially a non-factor. And the BIGX et al will go along with that. I think that TV market will be the driving force.
I hate this. But I think we've come to the point that it's pro ball at the P5 level. And I'm sorta surprised that there's a lot of people on The Parliament who think otherwise.
I've never used the ignore button. I truly get a kick out of everybody's different views. Sometimes I shudder. Or cringe. Or laugh out loud. But I enjoy the different opinions.

Our baseball is pro ball... we just make them go to class.

I get what you're saying and don't disagree... Money drives these changes.

Using examples... The Big12 isn't going to expand because someone 'deserves' to get in... they will expand because they can get more with a playoff.... Or, they will 'expand' merely to keep from contracting because the Pac12 or whomever takes someone from their 'top'.

I believe the new 'rules' about how you get the big bucks could drive some serious changes. Being in a tough division or conference can actually work against you. That isn't going to drive them to add Rice or UH or anyone else not already in p5... but when they make the moves that they will make, there will be opportunities for one or more of us.

If we think Rice can out-Boise Boise or out-UH UH, we're wrong. We are inherently different from them and we should embrace and try and take advantage of the fact that there are people at places like Harvard or Washington-St Louis or in the Med Center and HUNDREDS of other high academic schools, most of whom didn't compete in 1A, who don't value the 'pro' sports that college has become, but would LOVE to see 'the smart kids' take them down every so often.

+1000. I have a child at Baylor and one at Rice. I have little interest in following Baylor athletics. It's not that I am anti P5 athletics. I do root for my local schools.
Knowing the sacrifices most of these kids made to get into Rice, and continue to make does something to me that is unavoidable. A casual observer will never understand my feelings. Heck, I had no allegiance to Rice prior and I suppose it would have been a tough sell to get me to buy in. But now, I am officially a frustrated Rice fan. I understand that it is a tall task to get outsiders to drink the kool-aid. But I applaud those of you who are trying. Don't give up. Rice has a great story to tell.

(07-02-2015 12:22 PM)RiceBull Wrote:  But now, I am officially a frustrated Rice fan.

Glad to have you.

And don't worry, the frustration part is likely to get worse.

But every now and then, something happens to make it all worthwhile, e.g., Rice 19 - UT 17 (1994), Rice 24 - A&M 20 (1973) and of course, Rice defeating Stanford for the NCAA Baseball National Championship in 2003 (favorite off-the-field moment was the ESPN announcers discussing the average SAT scores of the two teams...priceless!).

Let's just hope such moments occur with more frequency in the coming years.

I have come by my Rice fandom honestly as the parent of a Rice student. I have really come to enjoy Rice athletics and have been to three football games and a basketball game with my child. (You know I really enjoy Rice sports because I will readily admit I have watched a Rice football game on the American Sports Network in Standard Definition.) I do not live in the Texas or any of the contiguous states but I am fully intrigued by all the talk of realignment and the politics of college sports. I am a true fan because I enjoy college sports even though there is so much non-sense and politics. That is all that really qualifies me to comment but I am going to do so anyway as someone who periodically reads through this board. I am far enough away from the situation that I hope I have some objectivity and can lend a different perspective.

As many have pointed out the reality is that television is really all that matters. Unless you can bring subscribers to the B1G Network or the SEC Network the academics matter little. The fact that Rice is such a small school means that it will never be able to command the attention of the media distributors in the CURRENT landscape of college athletics. If Rice entered the B1G not one television distributor would add the B1G Netwrok or pay an increased fee because of Rice’s presence. The same with the SEC Network or any of the other P5 conferences. I know this creates unending frustration by people with a long Rice history. Times have simply changed. People talk proudly about Rice's past but the Rice golden age was a time before the Rockets, Astros, Oilers, Texans even existed. There were one or two games (and later five or six) games on television per week. People now consume sports differently. I think that it makes it incredibly unlikely that Rice will ever be able to achieve the level of prominence it once did. The schools that are similar that are still in major conferences are only there by the fact that they were grandfathered in and Rice had the misfortune of its legacy conference being the Southwest which came apart at the seams. When you look at the facts Northwestern’s attendance isn’t significantly better than Rice’s when you factor in the opposition. Neither is Dukes or Vanderbilts. They just benefit from their legacy positions with their conferences.

Many believe there is going to be another shift in the college athletics landscape and I think this is likely true. I had the occasion to spend some time with the President of another G5 institution who is convinced that when the time comes that schools are paying players more than cost of attendance – and he does believe that time is coming more sooner than later – that the only private schools that are going to be able to stay in the P5 are Notre Dame, the University of Southern California and Stanford. They are the only ones who can afford to play in a world where players are making more than cost of attendance. That doesn’t mean that they will want to but they could make it work. This university president I spoke with told me that Northwestern (for example) is bleeding money even with all the riches from the B1G and that is just going to increase in the future. He believes that the next seismic shift is when you have schools who choose to stop being semi-pro. When you have schools that will pay cost of attendance but pay nothing more. The reason I referenced Northwestern, Vanderbilt and Duke earlier is that they are certainly going to be in this group. The fundamental question it would seem to me isn’t if Rice is getting itself to be in a position to be in a conference with the University of Texas, Texas A&M or LSU but whether Rice is in a position to be in whatever successor conference Northwestern, Vanderbilt and Duke may create when realignment 2.0 happens?

So who will be candidates to participate in this new league? In the general region that Rice inhabits you have to think that TCU and Baylor are leading candidates because of brand equity. There is also SMU and Tulane as well as Tulsa. None of these schools offer what Rice does academically but how do their athletic brands compare? You will have schools like Boston College, Syracuse, Wake Forest, Miami, TCU, and Baylor who are almost certain to be included. If you add those to the three I mentioned before you are at nine schools. Who knows where BYU might fit in and what Army, Navy and Air Force may opt to do as a group since they all have a kind of national brand equity. That’s 13. I know I may be forgetting some. Some of those schools may actually opt to stay with the Cincinnati, Memphis and UConn ... who may not be paying athletes at the same rate that the P5 are paying them.

I believe that for Rice to reassert stature in the world of college athletics they need to make sure that they are included in that group. I think all positioning should be with that in mind. Toward that end academics may or may not matter. It seems that in that circumstance of realignment 2.0 Tulane, SMU and Tulsa are more relevant and a greater threat to Rice’s future than are Houston, Cincinnati, Boise or Memphis. This is where the Houston media market may be particularly helpful. That’s where the investment in basketball may be particularly meaningful and critical. A strong and vibrant basketball program may make a huge difference when those decisions are made. Toward that end I think Rice is doing a great job positioning themselves with basketball and other sports.

I just wanted to present a bit of a contrarian outsider view about what may happen next and a different lens to consider Rice’s place in the college football landscape.

(07-02-2015 12:39 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  But every now and then, something happens to make it all worthwhile, e.g., Rice 19 - UT 17 (1994), Rice 24 - A&M 20 (1973) and of course, Rice defeating Stanford for the NCAA Baseball National Championship in 2003 (favorite off-the-field moment was the ESPN announcers discussing the average SAT scores of the two teams...priceless!).

Let's just hope such moments occur with more frequency in the coming years.

This is precisely the sort of thing I'm talking about.

at MOST schools, you couldn't talk about something that happened 10 or 20 or 40 years ago and have that be a source of pride.... or to feel JUST a little bit better about the mid-fielder or swimmer who is majoring in Bio-chemistry as they 'beat' their opponent majoring in something somewhat less challenging at a school somewhat less challenging.

When A&M and LSU play, few people care what those people do off the field/In the classroom... even when they are pretty darn smart.

(07-02-2015 01:03 PM)Otts Wrote:  I just wanted to present a bit of a contrarian outsider view about what may happen next and a different lens to consider Rice’s place in the college football landscape.

First, WELCOME to the Parliament of Owls.

I edited merely for brevity.

I don't think you are as alone as you think you are... but opinions obviously vary. The only thing I'd add to your comment is that the reason the big12 has the ability to amend their membership without anyone losing money is because TV understands the value of an extra game... similarly, there is value to the conferences in being part of the playoffs. I could imagine (as an example) schools in the SEC West, which is by many measures the toughest division in college sports deciding that playing that many 'murderous' games, plus at least one other 'big' game actually COSTS them money...

My point being that millions of people are going to watch two highly rated teams play... almost without regard to whom they are... and that all of the schools with big and loyal fan bases are already in those conferences. That 'the next' moves are more likely to be driven by smaller issues than the more obvious 'size' issues.... and you allude to some of them.

There are certain things we can't change... mostly our size... but what we CAN do is develop what is essentially an 'alternative' following.

Interestingly, The University of Miami did something very similar... embracing a 'gangster' mentality and appealing to 'tough guys' all around (despite the teal and orange)... Unfortunately this image was antithetical to the mission of the University AND easily adopted by other schools.... but it lasted for a good while. By embracing our 'academic' culture, we too can develop a following beyond our alumni base and you see it in baseball. Fortunately for us, not many schools can copy it (Stanford, Duke, Vandy, Northwestern) and it is completely in sync with our University's mission.

That (imo) is what we need to embrace in order to make ourselves as attractive as we can for either simply succeeding where we are, OR moving up. We aren't going to beat schools like UH or UTSA (on the field OR off) by merely finding new or more creative ways to get athletes in school and keep them eligible.

Love your take, Otts! Makes a lot of sense.

One clarification, though. In:

(07-02-2015 01:03 PM)Otts Wrote:  ... the President of another G5 institution ... is convinced that when the time comes that schools are paying players more than cost of attendance ... that the only schools that are going to be able to stay in the P5 are Notre Dame, the University of Southern California and Stanford. They are the only ones who can afford to play in a world where players are making more than cost of attendance. ...

Did you mean "only schools" ... or "only private schools"?

I'd think that the losing-more-money aspect of Realignment 2.0 will also not that popular with state schools, either, as many are getting less and less from taxpayers.

We all pull for Rice for the same reasons. For those of us who aren't alums, we were either exposed to Rice athletics at a very early age or we just love that Rice has it's priorities together. It doesn't sacrifice academic integrity for athletics success. For me, it's both. My original comment has been largely taken out of context. While I respect Rice's academic pedigree and integrity, especially in relation to athletics, its something P5 conferences don't care about at all. No school is going to be asked to join a P5 just because they hold AAU status and run their athletics program with integrity. It doesn't matter that Rice graduates 95 percent of it's athletes. It's not a factor. What P5 conferences look for is schools who spend a lot of money on athletics and who put a lot of people in the stands. Period. Therefore, academics "go out the window" when speaking of survival in major college athletics. It's all about money. Big boys want to play other big boys.

(07-02-2015 01:39 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  Love your take, Otts! Makes a lot of sense.

One clarification, though. In:

(07-02-2015 01:03 PM)Otts Wrote:  ... the President of another G5 institution ... is convinced that when the time comes that schools are paying players more than cost of attendance ... that the only schools that are going to be able to stay in the P5 are Notre Dame, the University of Southern California and Stanford. They are the only ones who can afford to play in a world where players are making more than cost of attendance. ...

Did you mean "only schools" ... or "only private schools"?

I'd think that the losing-more-money aspect of Realignment 2.0 will also not that popular with state schools, either, as many are getting less and less from taxpayers.

Thanks for the clarification. I did make that edit. I just wrote that very quickly and probably did not proof it carefully enough.

(07-02-2015 01:03 PM)Otts Wrote:  I had the occasion to spend some time with the President of another G5 institution who is convinced that when the time comes that schools are paying players more than cost of attendance – and he does believe that time is coming more sooner than later – that the only private schools that are going to be able to stay in the P5 are Notre Dame, the University of Southern California and Stanford. They are the only ones who can afford to play in a world where players are making more than cost of attendance. That doesn’t mean that they will want to but they could make it work.

Great analysis. Stanford said publicly (through a long article in their alumni magazine) last year that they would not pay more than the cost of attendance. I agree that they could afford to pay (due to their large athletic endowment), but odds are that they would choose to drop out of the P5 instead.

(07-02-2015 02:03 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  We all pull for Rice for the same reasons. For those of us who aren't alums, we were either exposed to Rice athletics at a very early age or we just love that Rice has it's priorities together. It doesn't sacrifice academic integrity for athletics success. For me, it's both. My original comment has been largely taken out of context. While I respect Rice's academic pedigree and integrity, especially in relation to athletics, its something P5 conferences don't care about at all. No school is going to be asked to join a P5 just because they hold AAU status and run their athletics program with integrity. It doesn't matter that Rice graduates 95 percent of it's athletes. It's not a factor. What P5 conferences look for is schools who spend a lot of money on athletics and who put a lot of people in the stands. Period. Therefore, academics "go out the window" when speaking of survival in major college athletics. It's all about money. Big boys want to play other big boys.

Here's where I disagree with you (see bold above)-- no one debates the point that TV and revenue drives conference realignment; $$$ is far and away the most heavily weighted criteria in any such decisions. However, I think you are dead wrong in saying that conferences are not cognizant of academic standards. Academics is a factor, but not a driving factor. (Similar to road record and out-of-conference SoS being a consideration by the baseball selection committee, but far outweighed by RPI in their decision making.) Having said that, other things being relatively equal between potential P5 candidates, I do believe academics does come into play. I think that's why I honestly believe we are more attractive to any of the P5 conferences vis-à-vis UH (regardless to all the boasting coming out of the mouths of UH administration).

(07-02-2015 04:01 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 02:03 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  We all pull for Rice for the same reasons. For those of us who aren't alums, we were either exposed to Rice athletics at a very early age or we just love that Rice has it's priorities together. It doesn't sacrifice academic integrity for athletics success. For me, it's both. My original comment has been largely taken out of context. While I respect Rice's academic pedigree and integrity, especially in relation to athletics, its something P5 conferences don't care about at all. No school is going to be asked to join a P5 just because they hold AAU status and run their athletics program with integrity. It doesn't matter that Rice graduates 95 percent of it's athletes. It's not a factor. What P5 conferences look for is schools who spend a lot of money on athletics and who put a lot of people in the stands. Period. Therefore, academics "go out the window" when speaking of survival in major college athletics. It's all about money. Big boys want to play other big boys.

Here's where I disagree with you (see bold above)-- no one debates the point that TV and revenue drives conference realignment; $$$ is far and away the most heavily weighted criteria in any such decisions. However, I think you are dead wrong in saying that conferences are not cognizant of academic standards. Academics is a factor, but not a driving factor. (Similar to road record and out-of-conference SoS being a consideration by the baseball selection committee, but far outweighed by RPI in their decision making.) Having said that, other things being relatively equal between potential P5 candidates, I do believe academics does come into play. I think that's why I honestly believe we are more attractive to any of the P5 conferences vis-à-vis UH (regardless to all the boasting coming out of the mouths of UH administration).

Listen, I hope you're right, but I really don't think so. The only conference that truly cares about academics is the Big10, and even they wouldn't invite a school with a following as small as Rice's. UH is a whole different subject matter. I'm not trying to be the Parliament contrarian here, I just call it like I see it. History tells me that a tiny private school with 20,000 fans won't get invited to a P5 conference.

I don't understand how the universities can stay tax exempt if they pay players to play. How is this any different then semi-pro leagues. I read some universities will pay up to $10000 to players where some universities will pay $4000. The universities who will pay top dollar or increase the bribe will get the top players.

(07-02-2015 04:30 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 04:01 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 02:03 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  We all pull for Rice for the same reasons. For those of us who aren't alums, we were either exposed to Rice athletics at a very early age or we just love that Rice has it's priorities together. It doesn't sacrifice academic integrity for athletics success. For me, it's both. My original comment has been largely taken out of context. While I respect Rice's academic pedigree and integrity, especially in relation to athletics, its something P5 conferences don't care about at all. No school is going to be asked to join a P5 just because they hold AAU status and run their athletics program with integrity. It doesn't matter that Rice graduates 95 percent of it's athletes. It's not a factor. What P5 conferences look for is schools who spend a lot of money on athletics and who put a lot of people in the stands. Period. Therefore, academics "go out the window" when speaking of survival in major college athletics. It's all about money. Big boys want to play other big boys.

Here's where I disagree with you (see bold above)-- no one debates the point that TV and revenue drives conference realignment; $$$ is far and away the most heavily weighted criteria in any such decisions. However, I think you are dead wrong in saying that conferences are not cognizant of academic standards. Academics is a factor, but not a driving factor. (Similar to road record and out-of-conference SoS being a consideration by the baseball selection committee, but far outweighed by RPI in their decision making.) Having said that, other things being relatively equal between potential P5 candidates, I do believe academics does come into play. I think that's why I honestly believe we are more attractive to any of the P5 conferences vis-à-vis UH (regardless to all the boasting coming out of the mouths of UH administration).

Listen, I hope you're right, but I really don't think so. The only conference that truly cares about academics is the Big10, and even they wouldn't invite a school with a following as small as Rice's. UH is a whole different subject matter. I'm not trying to be the Parliament contrarian here, I just call it like I see it. History tells me that a tiny private school with 20,000 fans won't get invited to a P5 conference.

(07-02-2015 07:20 PM)OldOwl Wrote:  I don't understand how the universities can stay tax exempt if they pay players to play. How is this any different then semi-pro leagues. I read some universities will pay up to $10000 to players where some universities will pay $4000. The universities who will pay top dollar or increase the bribe will get the top players.

(07-02-2015 04:30 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 04:01 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 02:03 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  We all pull for Rice for the same reasons. For those of us who aren't alums, we were either exposed to Rice athletics at a very early age or we just love that Rice has it's priorities together. It doesn't sacrifice academic integrity for athletics success. For me, it's both. My original comment has been largely taken out of context. While I respect Rice's academic pedigree and integrity, especially in relation to athletics, its something P5 conferences don't care about at all. No school is going to be asked to join a P5 just because they hold AAU status and run their athletics program with integrity. It doesn't matter that Rice graduates 95 percent of it's athletes. It's not a factor. What P5 conferences look for is schools who spend a lot of money on athletics and who put a lot of people in the stands. Period. Therefore, academics "go out the window" when speaking of survival in major college athletics. It's all about money. Big boys want to play other big boys.

Here's where I disagree with you (see bold above)-- no one debates the point that TV and revenue drives conference realignment; $$$ is far and away the most heavily weighted criteria in any such decisions. However, I think you are dead wrong in saying that conferences are not cognizant of academic standards. Academics is a factor, but not a driving factor. (Similar to road record and out-of-conference SoS being a consideration by the baseball selection committee, but far outweighed by RPI in their decision making.) Having said that, other things being relatively equal between potential P5 candidates, I do believe academics does come into play. I think that's why I honestly believe we are more attractive to any of the P5 conferences vis-à-vis UH (regardless to all the boasting coming out of the mouths of UH administration).

Listen, I hope you're right, but I really don't think so. The only conference that truly cares about academics is the Big10, and even they wouldn't invite a school with a following as small as Rice's. UH is a whole different subject matter. I'm not trying to be the Parliament contrarian here, I just call it like I see it. History tells me that a tiny private school with 20,000 fans won't get invited to a P5 conference.

They can call it a stipend for work or something along those lines. I was offered more than tuition and board at my state university. Sizeable stipend for spending a little time in a lab, and $$$ for a new laptop as well.

(07-02-2015 07:20 PM)OldOwl Wrote:  I don't understand how the universities can stay tax exempt if they pay players to play. How is this any different then semi-pro leagues. I read some universities will pay up to $10000 to players where some universities will pay $4000. The universities who will pay top dollar or increase the bribe will get the top players.

(07-02-2015 07:28 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  They can call it a stipend for work or something along those lines. I was offered more than tuition and board at my state university. Sizeable stipend for spending a little time in a lab, and $$$ for a new laptop as well.

What were the terms of your TV contract to broadcast video of your lab time, cr11owl? :-)

(07-02-2015 09:41 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 07:20 PM)OldOwl Wrote:  I don't understand how the universities can stay tax exempt if they pay players to play. How is this any different then semi-pro leagues. I read some universities will pay up to $10000 to players where some universities will pay $4000. The universities who will pay top dollar or increase the bribe will get the top players.

(07-02-2015 07:28 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  They can call it a stipend for work or something along those lines. I was offered more than tuition and board at my state university. Sizeable stipend for spending a little time in a lab, and $$$ for a new laptop as well.

What were the terms of your TV contract to broadcast video of your lab time, cr11owl? :-)

Pretty poor. Lots of time on ASN in standard def

(07-02-2015 10:50 AM)greyowl72 Wrote:  I guess that in my old age I've become jaded and a bit cynical. But I truly dont think that academics is going to be a huge factor in P5 or P4 invites in the future. I think TV and ESPN.. who are driving the train with the money... Will make sure it's essentially a non-factor. And the BIGX et al will go along with that. I think that TV market will be the driving force.
I hate this. But I think we've come to the point that it's pro ball at the P5 level. And I'm sorta surprised that there's a lot of people on The Parliament who think otherwise.
I've never used the ignore button. I truly get a kick out of everybody's different views. Sometimes I shudder. Or cringe. Or laugh out loud. But I enjoy the different opinions.

So, Rutgers to B1G was based on Academics, TV Market, or strength of football program?

Whichever it was, Rice has all three to a significant degree.

What Rice does not yet have, is a B1G member in an adjoining state. If OU were to switch to the conference, then that takes away the single biggest obstacle to us becoming a "serious candidate".

The second of which is our athletic budget, which Dr. Karlgaard has set out to triple.

Rutgers to the Big 10 was based primarily on bringing the Big 10 Network to the cable systems of New York/New Jersey.

So - to answer your question directly - TV market.

(07-02-2015 11:43 PM)Orange County Owl Wrote:  Rutgers to the Big 10 was based primarily on bringing the Big 10 Network to the cable systems of New York/New Jersey.

So - to answer your question directly - TV market.

Plus Rutgers is an AAU member. As is every other Big 10 school save for Nebraska.