Pimpa
Special Teams
Posts: 914
Joined: Apr 2007
Reputation: 35
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: South Texas
|
RE: New Realignment Thread
(08-04-2021 07:30 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote: (08-04-2021 06:36 PM)Ourland Wrote: (08-04-2021 02:30 PM)Pimpa Wrote: (08-04-2021 11:52 AM)Ourland Wrote: (08-04-2021 09:37 AM)Pimpa Wrote: 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.
Everyone already knows about Rice. They all know what it stands for, what it offers, and what it can't offer. There's nothing any sales pitch or sandwich board can do to change that. It's too late. Actions speak louder than words, and for 40 years Rice has taken no action.
I partly agree with you. If we had a massive renovation project for Rice Stadium that we've been holding close to the chest, NOW would be a really, really good time to release those. At least it could show fans/potential suitors/Joe Public that we are serious about our commitment to playing the right way at the highest levels.
But I disagree with the sentiment that we do nothing and rest on our laurels. To paraphrase Jack Burton from "Big Trouble in Little China", "Where has that gotten us? Nowhere....fast." In other words, resting on our academic reputation, our location, etc., hasn't moved the needle in the past, and is highly unlikely to move the needle now. We have had opportunity after opportunity to make things right to make sure we weren't left behind since the dissolution of the Southwest Conference, and, by resting on our reputation/location/etc., we've just slid down the food chain. I started my original post by making a backhanded joke about Greenspan, but what is the cost for JK/BOT/Leebron to come out HARD in selling Rice to anyone that will have us? It costs us nothing, it signals who we are and what we want, and if it works to improve our lot, all the better. We can't afford to do things the old way, we can't afford to just sit back and hope we get a lifeline from someone. We need to be proactive. If nothing else than to at least signal to the few of us who still care about Rice Athletics that we are serious and in it for the long haul.
Behind the scenes, I'm sure everyone from top to bottom is doing all it can to be sure Rice finds a lifeline. I'm not concerned about that. The problem is that there's nothing you can do now to suddenly change the image of the athletics program when all three of your biggest sports have been bad for several years.
If Rice gets into the AAC, it's going be because the private schools value academic pedigree, a shared history, and location over actual performance on the field. There's nothing we can show on the men's side that speaks of success. It's going to be for other reasons that we're invited.
Agree wholeheartedly with you final comment. However, there is president. Do tell what Rutgers brought to the Big10 in ANY sports for either men or women....and they're not exactly known for their academic prowess either. What they brought was the NY Metro area, and virtually nothing else. Maryland was pretty much the same situation, except they had a solid (but not elite) basketball program....but they brought the extended DC metro area. Similarly, at the time they joined the then Pac-10, what exactly did Utah or Colorado bring? Yes, Utah could be counted on to have a quality, post-season caliber basketball program, but their football program only improved after they joined the Pac-12.
The motivations for the realignment moves 10 years ago are different than the motivations now. 10 years ago, all of the large conferences were interested in creating their own conference linear TV network, particularly in light of the pending creation of the Longhorn Network. The push at that time was for the SEC, ACC, Big Ten and Pac 12 to create networks and open up potential TV markets that cable providers could then charge for as part of a Sports tier. Thus, while the SEC wanted entry into Texas for other reasons as well (see: recruiting), it allowed them to claim Texas and Missouri as potential "home" markets for their linear TV channel when selling it to cable providers. The BIG wanted to get into the NY/NJ and DMV markets, hence the addition of Rutgers and Maryland. Colorado and Utah crated a solid geographic footprint for the PAC12. The PAC 12 also did things differently - they create one "global" network for sporting events across the conference, then created six individual channels for a pair of schools that would then exclusively show programming and sporting events (track, volleyball, baseball, soccer) related only to those schools. Thus, there was PAC 12 LA (UCLA-USC), PAC 12 Washington (UW and WSU), PAC 12 Bay Area (Stanford and Cal), PAC 12 Arizona (AZ and AZ St.) and then PAC 12 Mountain (Utah and Colorado). The problem with the PAC 12 is they didn't partner with an established network with preexisting distributions (a la SEC and ESPN or the BIG and Fox), so no one felt obliged to pick up their networks. The PAC 12 networks has been a giant albatross in this media contract for the PAC12, while the SEC and BIG's respective networks have seen a good deal of success.
All of that being said, things are different now. Markets don't matter in this day and age of streaming and cord cutting - only brands do. Whereas Rice may have been attractive from a TV market standpoint during prior realignment cycles (i.e., the Houston TV market), now the conferences care about brands and how that will increase ad buys, ratings and marketing power. The SEC didn't need the state of Texas as a market anymore, but they could definitely prosper by adding the brand of the University of Texas and OU. Now, Rice's location in Houston may help in opening up (or keeping) recruiting bases for some schools in Houston and Texas, but the lack of a winning "brand" (which we had about 10 years to really develop) is what hurts Rice in this realignment cycle. That's why we should be proactive and willing to think outside the box.
|
|