Regarding Dropping football or dropping to a lower division, seems like FCS didn't gain us that much when McKinsey looked at it, but we are going to be in a completely different world soon.

Non-superconference FBS might be the new FCS. I used to be "FBS or nothing" on football, but at this point as I think OO put it, "let them play semi-pro and the rest of us can go back to playing college football."

As others have pointed out, dropping men's football would mean either dropping some Women's sports are adding other men's sports.

(08-02-2021 01:45 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  As others have pointed out, dropping men's football would mean either dropping some Women's sports are adding other men's sports.

Why would dropping men's football mean dropping some Women's sports? Does Title IX say the male/female ratio of athletes a) must be ~50/50 ... or b) just that women should be ~50% (but that greater than 50% is permissible). Wouldn't simply dropping football boost Rice's women-athlete percentage way above 50%?

(I imagine that at many schools, dropping football would cause revenue losses that might cause reductions in other sports. But at Rice, does football make money?)

(08-02-2021 01:52 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  (I imagine that at many schools, dropping football would cause revenue losses that might cause reductions in other sports. But at Rice, does football make money?)

I think the issue at Rice is that dropping football means losing lots of University donors

Enough to justify keeping it?? IDK

https://www.aol.com/college-football-wor...37537.html

(08-02-2021 03:21 PM)Ranger Wrote:  https://www.aol.com/college-football-wor...37537.html

I have no doubt Clemson and FSU reached out to the SEC; however, I don't see what they bring to the SEC to make it worthwhile for them....and South Carolina and Florida would certainly do everything possible to block them from entry.

(08-02-2021 01:52 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  

(08-02-2021 01:45 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  As others have pointed out, dropping men's football would mean either dropping some Women's sports are adding other men's sports.

Why would dropping men's football mean dropping some Women's sports? Does Title IX say the male/female ratio of athletes a) must be ~50/50 ... or b) just that women should be ~50% (but that greater than 50% is permissible). Wouldn't simply dropping football boost Rice's women-athlete percentage way above 50%?

(I imagine that at many schools, dropping football would cause revenue losses that might cause reductions in other sports. But at Rice, does football make money?)

Title IX is sex-blind. The item that is the most highly enforced is the equality in dollar-dollar expenditures in scholarships. That has to be as near equal as possible.

If Rice were to go to, say, 62% women's dollar scholarships to 38% men, there would be both a public action available to the government and a private action to some men who could show being 'damaged'.

The key is that one cannot discriminate on sex --- and it doesnt matter if the 'getting better' (or 'getting worse') is male or female. If the educational program (in this case athletics) is pro-women, or pro-make, or for that matter anti-women, or anti-male, it doesnt matter.

This is the same reason the Biden administration['s programs to help, say, farmers of color above any other race has been noted as unsconstitutional in violation of the 14th amendment --- it doesnt matter if the discrimination is 'pro POC' or 'pro caucasian', or for that matter 'anti-POC' or 'anti-caucasian', it is all discrimination on race.

I guess the argument is that the reduction of football scholarships (from FCS to FBS) requires a comparable reduction in scholarships for women to maintain the roughly 50% split in funding/opportunities.

(08-02-2021 01:25 PM)franklyconfused Wrote:  

(08-02-2021 12:56 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(08-02-2021 12:16 PM)BillyD Wrote:  I thought that universities were allowed one sport in a higher classification while all other sports were in a lower classification. But if two sports wanted the higher classification, than all sports had to be on that higher classification. I am a hockey fan and this is fairly common within many universities where hockey is Division 1 while the rest of the athletic program is Division 2 or 3. I don't know if football or other sports are treated differently.

However, only the schools that were doing so before 1975

George, by "were doing so" do you mean "had a split divisions athletics department" by 1975 or "was sponsoring a given sport at all in 1975"? I think there's also some Title IX complications that come into play if we choose to sponsor one sport in D-I. Assuming said sport is baseball, we may have to cut another men's team altogether, like golf or tennis.

I think I mean "were offering scholarships in that particular sport in 1975" -- but I'd have to drill into the regs further.

(08-02-2021 01:25 PM)Texasowl Wrote:  You are not serious are you? You want to destroy the successful women program too?

(07-30-2021 05:37 PM)seniorowl Wrote:  If we don’t end up somewhere better after realignment, we should go D2 or 3 for football.

If it destroys the women’s programs, then no.

(08-02-2021 06:12 PM)seniorowl Wrote:  If it destroys the women’s programs, then no.

I'm very certain there is a way to drop football without losing any of our women's programs. Heck, start with men's soccer and men's swimming. There you go. It's more complicated than that, but there are places to start.

But once again here, Rice's problem is geography. If we dropped football and stayed D1, two logical fits would be the Big East and the Big West. Alas, neither of those conferences would be a geographic fit for Rice in any possible way. I wouldn't want to be in the Big East anyway because it is almost entirely religious schools, but the Big West... mmm, yes, I would go for that in a heartbeat. The Big West has five UCs and Cal Poly, and it doesn't have a private school at present, so Rice could fill that niche while further bolstering the academic profile of the conference. But of course, Rice isn't going to drop football as a proactive move, and there is no geographic bridge to the Big West, so...

What amuses me the most about us is that in addition to putting ourselves behind the 8-ball, we seem to be uniquely skilled at depriving ourselves of options for getting out of dire situations once we are in them. It really is quite incredible. Rice doesn't belong in CUSA whatsoever, but whether we keep football or drop it, we seem to be screwed in terms of our future options in D1. The only way we get out of this and manage to save some face is to get an invitation to join the AAC (which I do not see happening).

(08-03-2021 04:07 PM)Wiessman Wrote:  The only way we get out of this and manage to save some face is to get an invitation to join the AAC (which I do not see happening).

The only way I see that occurring is if UH is plucked by the Big 12 and the AAC wants to maintain an easy recruiting presence in Houston (versus a school having to wait for a game against SMU or Tulane to invite Houston area recruits to watch in person).

One of the items that is a strength of the AAC relative to the Big 12 (and some other P5 conferences) is that, of its 11 football schools, only 2 are located in cities with populations less than 300,000 (Navy in Annapolis, MD and ECU in Greenville, NC) and those nine (with maybe the exception of Philly) are located in football recruiting hotbeds.

(08-03-2021 04:31 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(08-03-2021 04:07 PM)Wiessman Wrote:  The only way we get out of this and manage to save some face is to get an invitation to join the AAC (which I do not see happening).

The only way I see that occurring is if UH is plucked by the Big 12 and the AAC wants to maintain an easy recruiting presence in Houston (versus a school having to wait for a game against SMU or Tulane to invite Houston area recruits to watch in person).

One of the items that is a strength of the AAC relative to the Big 12 (and some other P5 conferences) is that, of its 11 football schools, only 2 are located in cities with populations less than 300,000 (Navy in Annapolis, MD and ECU in Greenville, NC) and those nine (with maybe the exception of Philly) are located in football recruiting hotbeds.

Another note. If the AAC is raided for Houston/Cincy/Memphis/UCF (possible). They will be down to four baseball programs. We need to win big this spring to make that relevant.

Pray!

Annapolis is less than a hour drive from Baltimore and DC. Easy yo fly into Thurgood Marshall.

(08-03-2021 04:46 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(08-03-2021 04:31 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(08-03-2021 04:07 PM)Wiessman Wrote:  The only way we get out of this and manage to save some face is to get an invitation to join the AAC (which I do not see happening).

The only way I see that occurring is if UH is plucked by the Big 12 and the AAC wants to maintain an easy recruiting presence in Houston (versus a school having to wait for a game against SMU or Tulane to invite Houston area recruits to watch in person).

One of the items that is a strength of the AAC relative to the Big 12 (and some other P5 conferences) is that, of its 11 football schools, only 2 are located in cities with populations less than 300,000 (Navy in Annapolis, MD and ECU in Greenville, NC) and those nine (with maybe the exception of Philly) are located in football recruiting hotbeds.

Another note. If the AAC is raided for Houston/Cincy/Memphis/UCF (possible). They will be down to four baseball programs. We need to win big this spring to make that relevant.

I saw on TV the Big 12 is talking to the Pac 12 about combining leagues. Some mention of UH might be considered to join Big 12 but dont understand what UH would offer accept men basketball. Football has not done anything the last three years and women sports have been marginal. Dont see any advantage for Pac 12 combining with the leftovers Big 12.

It's a smart move by both conferences. The Big 12 leftovers aren't attractive by themselves, but they could take UH, Cincinnati, Memphis, and UCF to stabilize themselves. A merger would then open up markets for the PAC 12 in the Central and Eastern Timezones. It opens up recruiting hotbeds as well to which they don't have access. A 24-member entity is also a lot of inventory to sell to TV executives. Shrewd. I hope it works out.

https://www.si.com/.amp/college/2021/08/...e-alliance

(08-03-2021 10:04 PM)Ourland Wrote:  It's a smart move by both conferences. The Big 12 leftovers aren't attractive by themselves, but they could take UH, Cincinnati, Memphis, and UCF to stabilize themselves. A merger would then open up markets for the PAC 12 in the Central and Eastern Timezones. It opens up recruiting hotbeds as well to which they don't have access. A 24-member entity is also a lot of inventory to sell to TV executives. Shrewd. I hope it works out.

https://www.si.com/.amp/college/2021/08/...e-alliance

Strongly disagree. Makes good sense for those remaining in the Big12 as they're desperate right now to stay relevant. I fail to see the benefit for the Pac-12, especially recognizing that it would change their long-held policy against religious schools and school of low academic standing.

(08-03-2021 10:54 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(08-03-2021 10:04 PM)Ourland Wrote:  It's a smart move by both conferences. The Big 12 leftovers aren't attractive by themselves, but they could take UH, Cincinnati, Memphis, and UCF to stabilize themselves. A merger would then open up markets for the PAC 12 in the Central and Eastern Timezones. It opens up recruiting hotbeds as well to which they don't have access. A 24-member entity is also a lot of inventory to sell to TV executives. Shrewd. I hope it works out.

https://www.si.com/.amp/college/2021/08/...e-alliance

Strongly disagree. Makes good sense for those remaining in the Big12 as they're desperate right now to stay relevant. I fail to see the benefit for the Pac-12, especially recognizing that it would change their long-held policy against religious schools and school of low academic standing.

I agree that the PAC would have to lower their standards quite a bit to take the XII (other than Iowa State and Kansas). They would get the benefit of having some Central Time Zone locations for football games. Being so far west has been a disadvantage for them in attracting CT and ET viewers, where most of the country's population is, to the point that they're considering 9:00 AM PT kickoffs to hit the noon ET time slot. Only the most hardcore of football fans on the East Coast stay up into the early hours of Sunday to watch a PAC or MWC night game.

Another thing to consider in this meeting is that the PAC commissioner just started about a month ago. Bob Bowlsby has working relationships with all the other conference commissioners, but he'd never met Kliavkoff from the PAC until yesterday. I expect the PAC would be far more interested in formalizing a regular season relationship with the B1G, but if they are worried about SEC/ACC/ESPN's increasing leverage over football, the XII could at least be a worthwhile partner in some capacity. We may see a substantial divide in football between the schools that play their games on Fox and the schools that play on ESPN. After Bowlsby just accused ESPN of conspiring to tear down the XII, I don't see how they could possibly win the next media contract. I imagine they'll be looking to partner with CBS and/or Fox.

(08-03-2021 10:54 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(08-03-2021 10:04 PM)Ourland Wrote:  It's a smart move by both conferences. The Big 12 leftovers aren't attractive by themselves, but they could take UH, Cincinnati, Memphis, and UCF to stabilize themselves. A merger would then open up markets for the PAC 12 in the Central and Eastern Timezones. It opens up recruiting hotbeds as well to which they don't have access. A 24-member entity is also a lot of inventory to sell to TV executives. Shrewd. I hope it works out.

https://www.si.com/.amp/college/2021/08/...e-alliance

Strongly disagree. Makes good sense for those remaining in the Big12 as they're desperate right now to stay relevant. I fail to see the benefit for the Pac-12, especially recognizing that it would change their long-held policy against religious schools and school of low academic standing.

Desperate times call for desperate measures. We're talking about a scheduling alliance here, not a full merger of two conferences who will share one identity. It's the best of both worlds for the PAC 12. They get access to more markets, and more visibility, while not having to expand its membership to include schools that don't fit it's academic profile. Very smart.

So is NOW the appropriate time for the sandwich boards???

In all seriousness, I hope/pray/wish JK is working the phones/email/texts/instagram/tik tok or whatever else the power brokers use to communicate these days to advocate for Rice and better our conference position. We have wasted so much time languishing with our performances in the big money sports since the last round of massive realignment ('10-'11). If we had capitalized on our conference victory in 2013 and trip to the Liberty Bowl, we would be in a much stronger position now. But, instead, we kept DB on for too long, and after the 2014 Hawaii Bowl, we haven't sniffed the postseason or football relevance since. I guess we hope that someone throws us a lifeline and bets on the promise of Rice, and the academic prestige (whatever that is worth) the school brings to any conference.