(12-07-2016 09:21 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 08:25 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 06:36 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 05:59 PM)Pimpa Wrote:  But who is going to help move the freshman into the colleges during O-Week?

Our basketball players are pretty strong from all that SEAL training, I'm sure they could be persuaded to pitch in...and baseball players?

If practice hasn't officially started, is there any reason for the entire basketball or baseball teams to be on campus for orientation week?

Don't the basketball players at least get here as early as possible to scrimmage pick-up?

No idea. At other schools, athletes whose season starts early fall show up early (football, cross country). Legal practice can't start for basketball, so I'd guess it would be limited to freshmen (and O-week advisors if any).

I could be wrong, but don't see a specific reason for them to be here. Assume Rhoades doesn't push the envelope.

Athletes have to miss enough time off during respective seasons. To make the basketball team or baseball team show up for the largely ceremonial task of helping with move-in would be ridiculous.

(12-06-2016 08:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  For all the people crying about lack of funding, paydays like this are one way to address the problem.

All of this whining about the BOT ought to put more money into athletics? lf athletics wants more money, then athletics needs to get serious about generating more revenues. This is one way to do that.

Hear, hear! It sounds like this game in Australia will do more for football revenue than all of the folks on the "Make Rice Football Great Again" thread put together.

(12-07-2016 09:09 AM)Mademen Wrote:  Wow, if I am in the business offices of Rice Athletics, this move stinks to high heaven. How the hell do you market your season tickets without the Stanford game? You can build mini-packages around the Stanford game and do an "Operation Sellout" type of plan with an opponent of that quality. You also invite recruits to a game of this caliber. Seems like a short-sighted cash grab.

I agree, but marketing tickets this year is going to be a Herculean endeavor anyways, given the lack of momentum behind the program, brought on by the fact that it's been two years since we made a bowl and had a winning season, three years since we won the conference championship and the retention of Bailiff / lack of returning talent. Might as well get a big money-grab that doesn't require us to actually field a good team.

(12-07-2016 10:14 AM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  Athletes have to miss enough time off during respective seasons. To make the basketball team or baseball team show up for the largely ceremonial task of helping with move-in would be ridiculous.

+1000.

If this ends up happening, any money the athletic department gets is just a cherry on top. What a fantastic opportunity for the players! Like a bowl game without having to win! Planning a few credit class around the trip through one of the academic departments would be great as well.

I played in the Alaska Baseball League for a couple summers. Back then, there was a team from Hawaii in the league. Every other summer, each team would get an 8-day road trip to Hawaii. That was a great trip, even if the per diem for summer ball was only $15/day!

(12-07-2016 09:35 AM)Owl-88 Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 09:09 AM)Mademen Wrote:  ... Seems like a short-sighted cash grab.

We have our motto for next season.

This is EXACTLY the kind of thing that we absolutely NEED to be doing in today's world of intercollegiate athletics. Economically, reputationally, experientially, any other way you can think of, this is a slam dunk.

If we expect to move out of CUSA in any direction but down, we need to be ready to play anybody, anywhere, any time. You can't say both, "I hate CUSA," and, "We can't give up any games at HRC." You just can't. Period. Anybody who does not understand that intuitively does not understand the landscape of intercollegiate athletics in the 21st century.

The Bailiff supporters seem united in their belief that we need to spend more money on football. We're not going to get it from the BOT. Period. We're not going to get any significant relaxation in academic standards from the BOT. Nor should we, neither one. The BOT would be delinquent in their responsibilities if they gave significantly on either one. I can see conforming our admissions requirements to Stanford and Northwestern and Duke. I can see establishing an undergraduate BBA program, which would attract and benefit many students, not just athletes. I can see investing more in a short-run make-good effort. But that's it, and the compelling case has not been made for any of them. The bottom line is that the athletic program is going to have to find a way to make it within essentially the existing parameters. And if David Bailiff is not able to do that, then the correct action is to replace David Bailiff, not whine and moan about the situation. The athletic program needs to produce its way out of the mess that it is in. This is a step in that direction. Improving basketball is a major step in that direction. Changing football coaches is IMO a step in that direction. But the debate needs to be held in the context of reality.

(12-07-2016 11:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  This is EXACTLY the kind of thing that we absolutely NEED to be doing in today's world of intercollegiate athletics. Economically, reputationally, experientially, any other way you can think of, this is a slam dunk.

If we expect to move out of CUSA in any direction but down, we need to be ready to play anybody, anywhere, any time. You can't say both, "I hate CUSA," and, "We can't give up any games at HRC." You just can't. Period. Anybody who does not understand that intuitively does not understand the landscape of intercollegiate athletics in the 21st century.

The Bailiff supporters seem united in their belief that we need to spend more money on football. We're not going to get it from the BOT. Period. We're not going to get any significant relaxation in academic standards from the BOT. Nor should we, neither one. The BOT would be delinquent in their responsibilities if they gave significantly on either one. I can see conforming our admissions requirements to Stanford and Northwestern and Duke. I can see establishing an undergraduate BBA program, which would attract and benefit many students, not just athletes. I can see investing more in a short-run make-good effort. But that's it, and the compelling case has not been made for any of them. The bottom line is that the athletic program is going to have to find a way to make it within essentially the existing parameters. And if David Bailiff is not able to do that, then the correct action is to replace David Bailiff, not whine and moan about the situation. The athletic program needs to produce its way out of the mess that it is in. This is a step in that direction. Improving basketball is a major step in that direction. Changing football coaches is IMO a step in that direction. But the debate needs to be held in the context of reality.

If you think going to Australia is going to help the Rice football program, we will just have to agree to disagree. You have a premier opponent for a Labor Day game in your own backyard at your own stadium. Every single player Rice is recruiting would go to that game. Will you get ESPN coverage for the game that might not have been there otherwise? Perhaps. But if I'm the AD at Rice, the home game with Stanford is my chance to show that the program can still be vibrant and that the University is an absolute jewel to recruits. To me this is a concession by the AD that football is a lost and sunken cost and if that is the case, then Rice should just drop to DIII.

(12-07-2016 01:10 PM)Mademen Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 11:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  This is EXACTLY the kind of thing that we absolutely NEED to be doing in today's world of intercollegiate athletics. Economically, reputationally, experientially, any other way you can think of, this is a slam dunk.

If we expect to move out of CUSA in any direction but down, we need to be ready to play anybody, anywhere, any time. You can't say both, "I hate CUSA," and, "We can't give up any games at HRC." You just can't. Period. Anybody who does not understand that intuitively does not understand the landscape of intercollegiate athletics in the 21st century.

The Bailiff supporters seem united in their belief that we need to spend more money on football. We're not going to get it from the BOT. Period. We're not going to get any significant relaxation in academic standards from the BOT. Nor should we, neither one. The BOT would be delinquent in their responsibilities if they gave significantly on either one. I can see conforming our admissions requirements to Stanford and Northwestern and Duke. I can see establishing an undergraduate BBA program, which would attract and benefit many students, not just athletes. I can see investing more in a short-run make-good effort. But that's it, and the compelling case has not been made for any of them. The bottom line is that the athletic program is going to have to find a way to make it within essentially the existing parameters. And if David Bailiff is not able to do that, then the correct action is to replace David Bailiff, not whine and moan about the situation. The athletic program needs to produce its way out of the mess that it is in. This is a step in that direction. Improving basketball is a major step in that direction. Changing football coaches is IMO a step in that direction. But the debate needs to be held in the context of reality.

If you think going to Australia is going to help the Rice football program, we will just have to agree to disagree. You have a premier opponent for a Labor Day game in your own backyard at your own stadium. Every single player Rice is recruiting would go to that game. Will you get ESPN coverage for the game that might not have been there otherwise? Perhaps. But if I'm the AD at Rice, the home game with Stanford is my chance to show that the program can still be vibrant and that the University is an absolute jewel to recruits. To me this is a concession by the AD that football is a lost and sunken cost and if that is the case, then Rice should just drop to DIII.

Let's face it: Rice isn't going to sell too many season tickets next year, so it needs to get revenue and exposure where it can. I was actually planning on coming to Houston to watch the Stanford@Rice game next year, but with Bailiff's retention, the game is not nearly as interesting as seeing what a new Rice coach could put together. I don't think I'll bother. I get upset when Rice sells the UT games to Reliant, but Stanford is not nearly the same draw in Houston as UT or A&M.

I am sure the players are extremely excited about going to Sydney, and such trips would appeal to recruits as well.

If Rice had a legitimate chance of beating Stanford next year, Rice should try to keep the homefield advantage, but Rice football is in dire straits.

Frankly, JK should have used the payout from this game to directly buyout Bailiff after this past season. USM did something similar to buyout Jeff Bower, who was a much more solid coach than Bailiff.

(12-07-2016 01:41 PM)Bay Area Owl Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 01:10 PM)Mademen Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 11:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  This is EXACTLY the kind of thing that we absolutely NEED to be doing in today's world of intercollegiate athletics. Economically, reputationally, experientially, any other way you can think of, this is a slam dunk.

If we expect to move out of CUSA in any direction but down, we need to be ready to play anybody, anywhere, any time. You can't say both, "I hate CUSA," and, "We can't give up any games at HRC." You just can't. Period. Anybody who does not understand that intuitively does not understand the landscape of intercollegiate athletics in the 21st century.

The Bailiff supporters seem united in their belief that we need to spend more money on football. We're not going to get it from the BOT. Period. We're not going to get any significant relaxation in academic standards from the BOT. Nor should we, neither one. The BOT would be delinquent in their responsibilities if they gave significantly on either one. I can see conforming our admissions requirements to Stanford and Northwestern and Duke. I can see establishing an undergraduate BBA program, which would attract and benefit many students, not just athletes. I can see investing more in a short-run make-good effort. But that's it, and the compelling case has not been made for any of them. The bottom line is that the athletic program is going to have to find a way to make it within essentially the existing parameters. And if David Bailiff is not able to do that, then the correct action is to replace David Bailiff, not whine and moan about the situation. The athletic program needs to produce its way out of the mess that it is in. This is a step in that direction. Improving basketball is a major step in that direction. Changing football coaches is IMO a step in that direction. But the debate needs to be held in the context of reality.

If you think going to Australia is going to help the Rice football program, we will just have to agree to disagree. You have a premier opponent for a Labor Day game in your own backyard at your own stadium. Every single player Rice is recruiting would go to that game. Will you get ESPN coverage for the game that might not have been there otherwise? Perhaps. But if I'm the AD at Rice, the home game with Stanford is my chance to show that the program can still be vibrant and that the University is an absolute jewel to recruits. To me this is a concession by the AD that football is a lost and sunken cost and if that is the case, then Rice should just drop to DIII.

Let's face it: Rice isn't going to sell too many season tickets next year, so it needs to get revenue and exposure where it can. I was actually planning on coming to Houston to watch the Stanford@Rice game next year, but with Bailiff's retention, the game is not nearly as interesting as seeing what a new Rice coach could put together. I don't think I'll bother. I get upset when Rice sells the UT games to Reliant, but Stanford is not nearly the same draw in Houston as UT or A&M.

I am sure the players are extremely excited about going to Sydney, and such trips would appeal to recruits as well.

If Rice had a legitimate chance of beating Stanford next year, Rice should try to keep the homefield advantage, but Rice football is in dire straits.

Frankly, JK should have used the payout from this game to directly buyout Bailiff after this past season. USM did something similar to buyout Jeff Bower, who was a much more solid coach than Bailiff.

USM sold their home game with Nebraska to fire Ellis Johnson after one season in which he went 0-12.

(12-07-2016 01:49 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 01:41 PM)Bay Area Owl Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 01:10 PM)Mademen Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 11:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  This is EXACTLY the kind of thing that we absolutely NEED to be doing in today's world of intercollegiate athletics. Economically, reputationally, experientially, any other way you can think of, this is a slam dunk.

If we expect to move out of CUSA in any direction but down, we need to be ready to play anybody, anywhere, any time. You can't say both, "I hate CUSA," and, "We can't give up any games at HRC." You just can't. Period. Anybody who does not understand that intuitively does not understand the landscape of intercollegiate athletics in the 21st century.

The Bailiff supporters seem united in their belief that we need to spend more money on football. We're not going to get it from the BOT. Period. We're not going to get any significant relaxation in academic standards from the BOT. Nor should we, neither one. The BOT would be delinquent in their responsibilities if they gave significantly on either one. I can see conforming our admissions requirements to Stanford and Northwestern and Duke. I can see establishing an undergraduate BBA program, which would attract and benefit many students, not just athletes. I can see investing more in a short-run make-good effort. But that's it, and the compelling case has not been made for any of them. The bottom line is that the athletic program is going to have to find a way to make it within essentially the existing parameters. And if David Bailiff is not able to do that, then the correct action is to replace David Bailiff, not whine and moan about the situation. The athletic program needs to produce its way out of the mess that it is in. This is a step in that direction. Improving basketball is a major step in that direction. Changing football coaches is IMO a step in that direction. But the debate needs to be held in the context of reality.

If you think going to Australia is going to help the Rice football program, we will just have to agree to disagree. You have a premier opponent for a Labor Day game in your own backyard at your own stadium. Every single player Rice is recruiting would go to that game. Will you get ESPN coverage for the game that might not have been there otherwise? Perhaps. But if I'm the AD at Rice, the home game with Stanford is my chance to show that the program can still be vibrant and that the University is an absolute jewel to recruits. To me this is a concession by the AD that football is a lost and sunken cost and if that is the case, then Rice should just drop to DIII.

Let's face it: Rice isn't going to sell too many season tickets next year, so it needs to get revenue and exposure where it can. I was actually planning on coming to Houston to watch the Stanford@Rice game next year, but with Bailiff's retention, the game is not nearly as interesting as seeing what a new Rice coach could put together. I don't think I'll bother. I get upset when Rice sells the UT games to Reliant, but Stanford is not nearly the same draw in Houston as UT or A&M.

I am sure the players are extremely excited about going to Sydney, and such trips would appeal to recruits as well.

If Rice had a legitimate chance of beating Stanford next year, Rice should try to keep the homefield advantage, but Rice football is in dire straits.

Frankly, JK should have used the payout from this game to directly buyout Bailiff after this past season. USM did something similar to buyout Jeff Bower, who was a much more solid coach than Bailiff.

USM sold their home game with Nebraska to fire Ellis Johnson after one season in which he went 0-12.

Yeah, that's right. I got my coaches mixed up. Actually, USM hardly paid Jeff Bower anything relative to other programs, so he had been an exceptionally good deal for them. USM quickly corrected their mistake in hiring Ellis Johnson. I wish we would act proactively like this. AD Rick Greenspan, for instance, should have been fired within his first year.

That's the problem with Bailiff: he's not cheap. If certain boosters just wanted a caretaker coach who ran a clean, orderly program with no incentives for winning, we should only be paying Bailiff $200k.

The sad thing is we could not have the Australia game with one of the CUSA opponents the fans are not interested in instead of moving the Stanford game. Probably because Stanford is the bigger name now. But it will probably be on television although at a strange time.

(12-07-2016 01:10 PM)Mademen Wrote:  If you think going to Australia is going to help the Rice football program, we will just have to agree to disagree. You have a premier opponent for a Labor Day game in your own backyard at your own stadium. Every single player Rice is recruiting would go to that game.

To watch you get blown out in front of 15,000 people? WTF would that accomplish?

Quote:Will you get ESPN coverage for the game that might not have been there otherwise? Perhaps. But if I'm the AD at Rice, the home game with Stanford is my chance to show that the program can still be vibrant and that the University is an absolute jewel to recruits. To me this is a concession by the AD that football is a lost and sunken cost and if that is the case, then Rice should just drop to DIII.

Football IS a lost and sunken cost unless ways can be found to increase revenues. This is one of those.

(12-07-2016 02:10 PM)75src Wrote:  The sad thing is we could not have the Australia game with one of the CUSA opponents the fans are not interested in instead of moving the Stanford game. Probably because Stanford is the bigger name now. But it will probably be on television although at a strange time.

Right now Sydney is 17 hours ahead of us. In August we will be on daylight savings and they will be off, so I think the difference should be 15 hours. That would mean an 11 am Saturday kickoff there (not so unusual here any more) would be 8 pm Friday night here, 9 pm on the east coast, 6 pm on the west coast, pretty much an ideal time slot.

I'm sure everyone with an opinion knows the exact details of the transaction, but just to mention, the numbers I heard last week at the press box at Stanford are quite significant.

How can anyone decide whether we agree or disagree with the decision if we don't know the parameters involved. Assume Rice nets $1.5MM from the trip as opposed to selling tickets in a rainstorm for a game that is televised locally. If the number we receive to travel is great enough, I don't see how we can take the risk of a possible adverse situation at home.

(12-07-2016 02:19 PM)Houston Owl Wrote:  I'm sure everyone with an opinion knows the exact details of the transaction, but just to mention, the numbers I heard last week at the press box at Stanford are quite significant.
How can anyone decide whether we agree or disagree with the decision if we don't know the parameters involved. Assume Rice nets $1.5MM from the trip as opposed to selling tickets in a rainstorm for a game that is televised locally. If the number we receive to travel is great enough, I don't see how we can take the risk of a possible adverse situation at home.

Opposition to this move can only be justified by complete disregard of the economic factors. If 50,000 people were going to show up every time we open the gates of Rice Stadium next fall, this would still be a good deal for the exposure. Since they're not, the economics turn this into a slam dunk.

I keep hearing how we don't spend enough on football, and that excuses poor performance. Well, if that's the problem, then the solution is more money. And this is one way to get some.

(12-07-2016 02:19 PM)Houston Owl Wrote:  I'm sure everyone with an opinion knows the exact details of the transaction, but just to mention, the numbers I heard last week at the press box at Stanford are quite significant.

How can anyone decide whether we agree or disagree with the decision if we don't know the parameters involved. Assume Rice nets $1.5MM from the trip as opposed to selling tickets in a rainstorm for a game that is televised locally. If the number we receive to travel is great enough, I don't see how we can take the risk of a possible adverse situation at home.

Net gain of 1.5 MM would be significant. So travel, lodging and meals would be covered, including shipping equipment, and this would have our own gate receipts already subtracted out?

If that's the case, financially it does become a no brainer.

Believe you to be closer to the situation than most of the posters commenting, so that's good for me.

Exposure probably matters more than the money even though the money is also good. Football should be considered as a marketing expenditure.

(12-07-2016 02:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 02:19 PM)Houston Owl Wrote:  I'm sure everyone with an opinion knows the exact details of the transaction, but just to mention, the numbers I heard last week at the press box at Stanford are quite significant.
How can anyone decide whether we agree or disagree with the decision if we don't know the parameters involved. Assume Rice nets $1.5MM from the trip as opposed to selling tickets in a rainstorm for a game that is televised locally. If the number we receive to travel is great enough, I don't see how we can take the risk of a possible adverse situation at home.

Opposition to this move can only be justified by complete disregard of the economic factors. If 50,000 people were going to show up every time we open the gates of Rice Stadium next fall, this would still be a good deal for the exposure. Since they're not, the economics turn this into a slam dunk.

I keep hearing how we don't spend enough on football, and that excuses poor performance. Well, if that's the problem, then the solution is more money. And this is one way to get some.

(12-06-2016 06:03 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 05:57 PM)JSA Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 05:42 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  Wouldn't be surprised if the Australian sponsors are paying for travel costs... That's what they do for Ireland games. Also, I wonder if we will start our season a week earlier, on the 26th.

Not a fan of this move though. Why give up your sexiest home game?

Agree. Is Army our sexiest home game now?

Believe that's a question for THRILL

Dunno Ive always been partial to Navy whites

reputations are a helluva thing