(07-29-2021 08:23 AM)texowl2 Wrote:  

(07-29-2021 07:07 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-29-2021 06:40 AM)erice Wrote:  Ah, the mythical Rock Bottom Conference! Fantastic.

Problem is, the way we've played the last few years, we'd be at or near the rock bottom of that Rock Bottom Conference.
It may be truly be the Rock Bottom Conference, but if we were dominating it and winning it every year and winning our bowl every year, we'd attract attention further up the food chain. Going 5-7, 3-9, 1-11, 2-11, 3-9, 2-3 doesn't attract attention from anywhere higher up. What we need to do is quit b****ing about what league we are in and start dominating it.

I can hardly wait until we go DIII and Trinity and Southwestern are kicking our.....

The truly remarkable thing is that, as we have taken repeated steps down in conference affiliation--from SWC to WAC-16 to leftover WAC to CUSA to leftover CUSA--at each stage we have pretty much gravitated toward the bottom of our new affiliation.

As far as facilities, IMO they are a necessary but not sufficient condition.

(07-29-2021 11:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-29-2021 08:23 AM)texowl2 Wrote:  

(07-29-2021 07:07 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-29-2021 06:40 AM)erice Wrote:  Ah, the mythical Rock Bottom Conference! Fantastic.

Problem is, the way we've played the last few years, we'd be at or near the rock bottom of that Rock Bottom Conference.
It may be truly be the Rock Bottom Conference, but if we were dominating it and winning it every year and winning our bowl every year, we'd attract attention further up the food chain. Going 5-7, 3-9, 1-11, 2-11, 3-9, 2-3 doesn't attract attention from anywhere higher up. What we need to do is quit b****ing about what league we are in and start dominating it.

I can hardly wait until we go DIII and Trinity and Southwestern are kicking our.....

The truly remarkable thing is that, as we have taken repeated steps down in conference affiliation--from SWC to WAC-16 to leftover WAC to CUSA to leftover CUSA--at each stage we have pretty much gravitated toward the bottom of our new affiliation.

As far as facilities, IMO they are a necessary but not sufficient condition.

JK was supposed to be the bright, young, energetic AD who was going to stop the downward slide. What happened?

In any event, if through his efforts we end up in a satisfactory conference, as far as I am concerned his sins are forgiven.

(07-29-2021 11:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The truly remarkable thing is that, as we have taken repeated steps down in conference affiliation--from SWC to WAC-16 to leftover WAC to CUSA to leftover CUSA--at each stage we have pretty much gravitated toward the bottom of our new affiliation.

As far as facilities, IMO they are a necessary but not sufficient condition.

This... and IMO, it's not because we don't spend as much or have vastly worse facilities or whatever. That has been demonstrably untrue.

IMO its because we demand more of our students off the field, both as precursors to admission AND as students. Then we teach them the same things/hire the same coaches/run similar drills/call similar plays and yet somehow, for some reason, we expect superior results because................ I haven't figured that out yet.

This is why RU and I have advocated for a more cerebral version of what Hatfield did... of what Navy and Army and Air Force all do. Not the wishbone per se... but something that is different from what everyone else does... something that they can't 'phone in' to play us and simply prepare for (as an example) UT who is coming in next week and runs a similar scheme but with better players.

The problem is that coaches all want to do the same thing because that's how they advance in their career... and administrators all want to hire the same coaches because there is less risk for them to follow conventional wisdom than there is in being innovative/taking chances.

Said differently, Ken Niumatalolo isn't going to get hired away to UH and then UT like Mensa/Applewhite or like Fraud Graham to Tulsa and ASU (or wherever his dreams took him). His offensive assistants aren't likely to either. Defense, maybe. He either succeeds at Navy or he's mostly 'out'.

(07-29-2021 12:06 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  This... and IMO, it's not because we don't spend as much or have vastly worse facilities or whatever. That has been demonstrably untrue.

Autry to Tudor was probably lipstick on a pig, but it was probably as well as we could do under the constraints at the time. We probably need something at least as nice as Berry Center--which would, of course, be useful for other purposes as well.

Quote:IMO its because we demand more of our students off the field, both as precursors to admission AND as students. Then we teach them the same things/hire the same coaches/run similar drills/call similar plays and yet somehow, for some reason, we expect superior results because................ I haven't figured that out yet.
This is why RU and I have advocated for a more cerebral version of what Hatfield did... of what Navy and Army and Air Force all do. Not the wishbone per se... but something that is different from what everyone else does... something that they can't 'phone in' to play us and simply prepare for (as an example) UT who is coming in next week and runs a similar scheme but with better players.
The problem is that coaches all want to do the same thing because that's how they advance in their career... and administrators all want to hire the same coaches because there is less risk for them to follow conventional wisdom than there is in being innovative/taking chances.
Said differently, Ken Niumatalolo isn't going to get hired away to UH and then UT like Mensa/Applewhite or like Fraud Graham to Tulsa and ASU (or wherever his dreams took him). His offensive assistants aren't likely to either. Defense, maybe. He either succeeds at Navy or he's mostly 'out'.

Play sound defense (which nobody in CUSA really does), win the kicking game (which we could do), and do something different and contrarian on offense--a combination of Fred's and Ken's philosophical approaches.

(07-29-2021 12:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-29-2021 12:06 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  This... and IMO, it's not because we don't spend as much or have vastly worse facilities or whatever. That has been demonstrably untrue.

Autry to Tudor was probably lipstick on a pig, but it was probably as well as we could do under the constraints at the time. We probably need something at least as nice as Berry Center--which would, of course, be useful for other purposes as well.

I thought for sure that shmancy new Opera House across the way from Tudor would earn us a seat at this table. Maybe if replace the stage with a basketball court? Or just tell the SEC we might?

(07-29-2021 12:51 PM)erice Wrote:  

(07-29-2021 12:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-29-2021 12:06 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  This... and IMO, it's not because we don't spend as much or have vastly worse facilities or whatever. That has been demonstrably untrue.

Autry to Tudor was probably lipstick on a pig, but it was probably as well as we could do under the constraints at the time. We probably need something at least as nice as Berry Center--which would, of course, be useful for other purposes as well.

I thought for sure that shmancy new Opera House across the way from Tudor would earn us a seat at this table. Maybe if replace the stage with a basketball court? Or just tell the SEC we might?

The fat lady singing could help on the OL in football...of course, she'd have to identify as a man for the weekend games and learn to pull for the trap play (or is that learn to trap on the pull play?)

The Big 12 needs to hold firm, and take the best four from the AAC. That gives us a decent shot as AAC backfill, particularly if that conference decides to go to 14 instead of just 12.

Maybe SMU, Tulane, Tulsa, Southern Miss, Louisiana, Louisiana Tech, and Rice?

(07-29-2021 12:06 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-29-2021 11:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As far as facilities, IMO they are a necessary but not sufficient condition.

This... and IMO, it's not because we don't spend as much or have vastly worse facilities or whatever. That has been demonstrably untrue.

Have you seen SMU's facilities? UH's? Not to mention TCU and Baylor. Patterson Center was a really nice addition, but we are not even in the same ballpark. I agree with both of you that top notch facilities don't have any real impact on winning, though they likely have *some* impact on recruiting. But more than that, it is a physical representation of our commitment to competing at the highest level. Why do you think the SEC and WAC had similar demands for us?

SMU had a couple of well timed good years, but when the moment for moving to the AAC was there, it helped them immensely that they had spent all that money on their facilities (even though it looked like a bad investment for a number of years). It's not "the answer", anymore than running a new-age wishbone is, but it's part of it and right now- when the music is playing again- no conference thinks we are truly committed.

ESPN is dirt. Look at them trying to destroy the Big 12 so they can save money. That's absolutely the lowest.

(07-29-2021 02:01 PM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(07-29-2021 12:06 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-29-2021 11:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As far as facilities, IMO they are a necessary but not sufficient condition.

This... and IMO, it's not because we don't spend as much or have vastly worse facilities or whatever. That has been demonstrably untrue.

Have you seen SMU's facilities? UH's? Not to mention TCU and Baylor. Patterson Center was a really nice addition, but we are not even in the same ballpark. I agree with both of you that top notch facilities don't have any real impact on winning, though they likely have *some* impact on recruiting. But more than that, it is a physical representation of our commitment to competing at the highest level. Why do you think the SEC and WAC had similar demands for us?

SMU had a couple of well timed good years, but when the moment for moving to the AAC was there, it helped them immensely that they had spent all that money on their facilities (even though it looked like a bad investment for a number of years). It's not "the answer", anymore than running a new-age wishbone is, but it's part of it and right now- when the music is playing again- no conference thinks we are truly committed.

All that any conference official needs to do is tour Rice Stadium to see Rice's dismal support of the football program. We aren't going anywhere meaningful in this round of realignment.

(07-29-2021 11:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As we converse here, literally, the two bell cow programs of the XII are in the process of moving to the richest conference in the country. How big a consideration do you think women's or Olympic or non-revenue (take your pick) sports have been in those negotiations? My over and under is that they maybe spent 5 minutes, total, between both schools, taking about them.

That being said, I have felt for some time (and I think Hambone agrees) that building those sports could be a route to a renaissance in Rice athletics. They don't cost much, their athletes tend to be true student-athletes, and they probably relate well to a significant part of both students and faculty. Heck, those of us here in the 1960s and 1970s saw Harry Fouke build UH into at least a regional power starting with a golf team.

I'll take the under for $10k.

(07-29-2021 11:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-29-2021 08:23 AM)texowl2 Wrote:  

(07-29-2021 07:07 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-29-2021 06:40 AM)erice Wrote:  Ah, the mythical Rock Bottom Conference! Fantastic.

Problem is, the way we've played the last few years, we'd be at or near the rock bottom of that Rock Bottom Conference.
It may be truly be the Rock Bottom Conference, but if we were dominating it and winning it every year and winning our bowl every year, we'd attract attention further up the food chain. Going 5-7, 3-9, 1-11, 2-11, 3-9, 2-3 doesn't attract attention from anywhere higher up. What we need to do is quit b****ing about what league we are in and start dominating it.

I can hardly wait until we go DIII and Trinity and Southwestern are kicking our.....

The truly remarkable thing is that, as we have taken repeated steps down in conference affiliation--from SWC to WAC-16 to leftover WAC to CUSA to leftover CUSA--at each stage we have pretty much gravitated toward the bottom of our new affiliation.

As far as facilities, IMO they are a necessary but not sufficient condition.

The move from WAC to the 2006 version of CUSA was a HUGE upgrade.

(07-29-2021 02:01 PM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(07-29-2021 12:06 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-29-2021 11:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As far as facilities, IMO they are a necessary but not sufficient condition.

This... and IMO, it's not because we don't spend as much or have vastly worse facilities or whatever. That has been demonstrably untrue.

Have you seen SMU's facilities? UH's? Not to mention TCU and Baylor. Patterson Center was a really nice addition, but we are not even in the same ballpark. I agree with both of you that top notch facilities don't have any real impact on winning, though they likely have *some* impact on recruiting. But more than that, it is a physical representation of our commitment to competing at the highest level. Why do you think the SEC and WAC had similar demands for us?

SMU had a couple of well timed good years, but when the moment for moving to the AAC was there, it helped them immensely that they had spent all that money on their facilities (even though it looked like a bad investment for a number of years). It's not "the answer", anymore than running a new-age wishbone is, but it's part of it and right now- when the music is playing again- no conference thinks we are truly committed.

None of those teams are in our conference.

IMO, Players don't care that fans have to pee into a hog trough or that the concessions and press box stink... and it has almost always been true that whomever has the newest, has the best... and as soon as you're done building your new facility, SOMEONE out there is planning a better one....

My point is that we seem to spend more on coaching and still get worse results than most of CUSA. While our facilities aren't by any measure 'great', neither are MANY in CUSA... so why are we getting inferior results?

As I said, I think its because we have to pay more to get the same coaches... because of the limits we put on ourselves... and none of what we do values or accentuates 'Rice' kids any more than UH or Blinn Jr College kids... and we limit our kids by requiring stingent academics.

SO where is our advantage?

We either have to pay a LOT more... or have MUCH better facilities... OR we have to do something that accentuates 'Rice' kids.

My personal opinion is that if we do the latter, we can also have much better facilities for the same money or less money than if we paid a ton for coaches.

(07-29-2021 03:21 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-29-2021 02:01 PM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(07-29-2021 12:06 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-29-2021 11:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As far as facilities, IMO they are a necessary but not sufficient condition.

This... and IMO, it's not because we don't spend as much or have vastly worse facilities or whatever. That has been demonstrably untrue.

Have you seen SMU's facilities? UH's? Not to mention TCU and Baylor. Patterson Center was a really nice addition, but we are not even in the same ballpark. I agree with both of you that top notch facilities don't have any real impact on winning, though they likely have *some* impact on recruiting. But more than that, it is a physical representation of our commitment to competing at the highest level. Why do you think the SEC and WAC had similar demands for us?

SMU had a couple of well timed good years, but when the moment for moving to the AAC was there, it helped them immensely that they had spent all that money on their facilities (even though it looked like a bad investment for a number of years). It's not "the answer", anymore than running a new-age wishbone is, but it's part of it and right now- when the music is playing again- no conference thinks we are truly committed.

None of those teams are in our conference.

IMO, Players don't care that fans have to pee into a hog trough or that the concessions and press box stink... and it has almost always been true that whomever has the newest, has the best... and as soon as you're done building your new facility, SOMEONE out there is planning a better one....

My point is that we seem to spend more on coaching and still get worse results than most of CUSA. While our facilities aren't by any measure 'great', neither are MANY in CUSA... so why are we getting inferior results?

As I said, I think its because we have to pay more to get the same coaches... because of the limits we put on ourselves... and none of what we do values or accentuates 'Rice' kids any more than UH or Blinn Jr College kids... and we limit our kids by requiring stingent academics.

SO where is our advantage?

We either have to pay a LOT more... or have MUCH better facilities... OR we have to do something that accentuates 'Rice' kids.

My personal opinion is that if we do the latter, we can also have much better facilities for the same money or less money than if we paid a ton for coaches.

To get a move up in conferences, I believe it's all of the above. if you are just talking about being more competitive on the field, okay, fine- no arguments. Maybe we can be top half of CUSA in a few years, or a new conference of leftovers when the top half of CUSA and SBC decide to leave us behind.

(07-29-2021 03:34 PM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(07-29-2021 03:21 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-29-2021 02:01 PM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(07-29-2021 12:06 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-29-2021 11:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As far as facilities, IMO they are a necessary but not sufficient condition.

This... and IMO, it's not because we don't spend as much or have vastly worse facilities or whatever. That has been demonstrably untrue.

Have you seen SMU's facilities? UH's? Not to mention TCU and Baylor. Patterson Center was a really nice addition, but we are not even in the same ballpark. I agree with both of you that top notch facilities don't have any real impact on winning, though they likely have *some* impact on recruiting. But more than that, it is a physical representation of our commitment to competing at the highest level. Why do you think the SEC and WAC had similar demands for us?

SMU had a couple of well timed good years, but when the moment for moving to the AAC was there, it helped them immensely that they had spent all that money on their facilities (even though it looked like a bad investment for a number of years). It's not "the answer", anymore than running a new-age wishbone is, but it's part of it and right now- when the music is playing again- no conference thinks we are truly committed.

None of those teams are in our conference.

IMO, Players don't care that fans have to pee into a hog trough or that the concessions and press box stink... and it has almost always been true that whomever has the newest, has the best... and as soon as you're done building your new facility, SOMEONE out there is planning a better one....

My point is that we seem to spend more on coaching and still get worse results than most of CUSA. While our facilities aren't by any measure 'great', neither are MANY in CUSA... so why are we getting inferior results?

As I said, I think its because we have to pay more to get the same coaches... because of the limits we put on ourselves... and none of what we do values or accentuates 'Rice' kids any more than UH or Blinn Jr College kids... and we limit our kids by requiring stingent academics.

SO where is our advantage?

We either have to pay a LOT more... or have MUCH better facilities... OR we have to do something that accentuates 'Rice' kids.

My personal opinion is that if we do the latter, we can also have much better facilities for the same money or less money than if we paid a ton for coaches.

To get a move up in conferences, I believe it's all of the above. if you are just talking about being more competitive on the field, okay, fine- no arguments. Maybe we can be top half of CUSA in a few years, or a new conference of leftovers when the top half of CUSA and SBC decide to leave us behind.

ETA- I didn't see your last sentence. I don't disagree with that. I'm just concerned about half steps when we are competing for spots with groups doing much more

The Patterson center was dated the day it opened. It's fine-a huge upgrade from the old dump we were in, which was legitimately the worst facility in the country... But the Patterson Center is in the bottom 1/3 of FBS in terms of facilities.

As John Thrasher nears retirement, he doesn't want FSU 'left behind' in college football

Quote:"I just want us to be prepared..." Thrasher said.

"My point to (FSU director of athletics) David Coburn and to (new ACC commissioner) Jim Phillips is I don't want Florida State to be left behind. I consider us as part of the ACC, but I also know that we have a marquee name, Clemson has a marquee name. I think there might be people coming after us, I don't know, but we've got to be prepared no matter what the options are."

"At the end of the day, it's all about money. It's about TV revenue, contracts. Nobody can leave a conference without a significant buyout penalty, including us, so it would have to be something very special for us to leave," Thrasher said.

"On the other hand, that doesn't mean we can't attract some other people. I think the ACC, when you put the academic side of what it's about today against any of the other conferences, we're head and shoulders (above), I think. That, to me, is attractive to some of the universities out there. Preparation, options, all that's on the table. We're getting prepared for whatever happens."

"The Oklahoma, Texas thing, in my opinion, is the tip of the iceberg. It's there, but it's certainly going to be much broader than that when it's said and done."

MA
My point was simply that we always seem to gravitate towards the middle or bottom of whatever conference we 'get' moved to... and we need to solve that issue before anything else matters. There is no situation whereby we can do essentially what everyone else does and somehow be better at it than they are with any consistency. It just can't happen.

Trying to beat everyone else in facilities is an extremely expensive proposition and highly unlikely.
Trying to beat everyone else in 'discovering great coaches' is a pipe dream
Trying to beat everyone else in getting better athletes who are also great students is also likely a pipe dream, unless we do something different... and few things we could do there couldn't be adopted by everyone else as well... IF they are designed to get guys to the NFL on offense.

(07-30-2021 10:11 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  My point was simply that we always seem to gravitate towards the middle or bottom of whatever conference we 'get' moved to... and we need to solve that issue before anything else matters. There is no situation whereby we can do essentially what everyone else does and somehow be better at it than they are with any consistency. It just can't happen.

And that's the problem we have to fix. Without that, noting else matters. With that, who knows what opportunities might present themselves? And that's on Rice, not on anybody else. The good news is that makes it fixable. The bad news is we pretty much have to abandon the historic "Rice way"--losing is okay as long as you have a good enough excuse, and if you don't know where you are going, the path of least resistance will get you there.

Quote:Trying to beat everyone else in facilities is an extremely expensive proposition and highly unlikely.
Trying to beat everyone else in 'discovering great coaches' is a pipe dream
Trying to beat everyone else in getting better athletes who are also great students is also likely a pipe dream, unless we do something different... and few things we could do there couldn't be adopted by everyone else as well... IF they are designed to get guys to the NFL on offense.

I don't think we necessarily need a great coach, but we need one who knows how to be competitive within Rice's unique constraints. Wayne clearly could. I think Ken could. And Fred could. David "got Rice" in a lot of non-football ways but his approach to football could not and cannot be sustained at Rice.

I like a combination of Fred's and Ken's philosophical approach to football--Play sound defense, win the kicking game, and do something different and contrarian on offense,

I guess the next step in this process is going to be waiting to see what the B1G does.

I think we need to hope the Big 12 remnants mostly stick together and raid MWC and AAC, opening up a potential space for us. If we don't either get into one of those or a new, regional conference that includes at least 3 of UH/SMU/Tulane/Tulsa...

Edit: I mean we the fans wait. Not JK and Leebron.