(05-05-2013 10:09 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  thanks MemOwl

there seems to be a misconception that I want to retain SMU for old time's sake, to remind us of the SWC days, as you say, a nostalgia game. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I was thinking that this a team within driving distance of Houston that does not carry the small time label in the same way that Texas State or ULaLa does, that we can beat and get a little credit for beating. I will be glad to replace them any team that gives us a better combination of those attributes, but nobody has yet advanced a single candidate by name.

Certainly 7-1 in conference and 0-4 OOC will get us to an annual bowl and a boatload of cash, but that is not my goal. My goal is to advance us in the college football hierarchy. Beating an occasional name team won't do that, and if we can't beat SMU regularly, we can forget about going .500 or better against the SEC annually.

My goal is to advance us in the college football--or at least college athletics--hierarchy too. In that regard, I have two points. One, I think that an annual bowl and a boatload of money would do far more in furtherance of that goal than would winning seven out of ten from SMU. Two, I think that winning 7 out of 10 is way too optimistic about how we will fare against SMU going forward. I'm not saying we CAN'T do it, I'm saying we WON'T, because we won't do the things necessary to accomplish that. I think some of you are putting way too much stock in one result. We were both 6-6 and won our bowls. We were pretty much the same as them, at best. Whatever slight advantages the nBE conveys, and I think they will be very slight, they will be getting them and we won't. If we've won one of the last four and if they're getting perhaps a slight advantage going forward, it's hard to figure where winning 7 of 10 is going to come from. Granted, the 0-4/7-1 bowl approach has plenty of difficulty in the execution, but at least the money part would be pretty certain. And right now that's what this program needs more than ANYTHING else.

If we're trying to maintain the status quo then I see where playing SMU helps. But that's not my objective.

(05-05-2013 01:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-05-2013 10:09 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  thanks MemOwl

there seems to be a misconception that I want to retain SMU for old time's sake, to remind us of the SWC days, as you say, a nostalgia game. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I was thinking that this a team within driving distance of Houston that does not carry the small time label in the same way that Texas State or ULaLa does, that we can beat and get a little credit for beating. I will be glad to replace them any team that gives us a better combination of those attributes, but nobody has yet advanced a single candidate by name.

Certainly 7-1 in conference and 0-4 OOC will get us to an annual bowl and a boatload of cash, but that is not my goal. My goal is to advance us in the college football hierarchy. Beating an occasional name team won't do that, and if we can't beat SMU regularly, we can forget about going .500 or better against the SEC annually.

My goal is to advance us in the college football--or at least college athletics--hierarchy too. In that regard, I have two points. One, I think that an annual bowl and a boatload of money would do far more in furtherance of that goal than would winning seven out of ten from SMU. Two, I think that winning 7 out of 10 is way too optimistic about how we will fare against SMU going forward. I'm not saying we CAN'T do it, I'm saying we WON'T, because we won't do the things necessary to accomplish that. I think some of you are putting way too much stock in one result. We were both 6-6 and won our bowls. We were pretty much the same as them, at best. Whatever slight advantages the nBE conveys, and I think they will be very slight, they will be getting them and we won't. If we've won one of the last four and if they're getting perhaps a slight advantage going forward, it's hard to figure where winning 7 of 10 is going to come from. Granted, the 0-4/7-1 bowl approach has plenty of difficulty in the execution, but at least the money part would be pretty certain. And right now that's what this program needs more than ANYTHING else.

If we're trying to maintain the status quo then I see where playing SMU helps. But that's not my objective.

Well, I guess if we won't keep up with SMU, we might as well whore ourselves out for the money.

Road trip to Michigan, Road trip to Florida, Road trip to Notre Dame. We will be the Washington Generals of the NCAA.

I just don't see how this advances us in the hierarchy, but it seems to be what everybody wants. 77-7 all the time, but at least we didn't lower ourselves to playing SMU.

OK, y'all win. No SMU. Hate those bastards. Don't need 'em. Eff 'em.

(05-05-2013 01:43 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Well, I guess if we won't keep up with SMU, we might as well whore ourselves out for the money.
Road trip to Michigan, Road trip to Florida, Road trip to Notre Dame. We will be the Washington Generals of the NCAA.
I just don't see how this advances us in the hierarchy, but it seems to be what everybody wants. 77-7 all the time, but at least we didn't lower ourselves to playing SMU.
OK, y'all win. No SMU. Hate those bastards. Don't need 'em. Eff 'em.

Umm, that's not what I'm saying at all.

I'm asking a simple question. If the goal is to advance the status of our football/athletic program, how does playing SMU help achieve that? What if we do beat them 7 out of 10, what does that accomplish?

If getting beat 77-7 four times a season brings in the money that we need to get the program back closer to breaking even, that fills a bigger need than anything that I can see that we could accomplish by winning 7 out of 10 against SMU.

I mean, if you can come up with something that we can accomplish by playing SMU that helps us get where we want to go, what is it?

I get that it's close, that we can compete, that they bring a few more people than some possible opponents, that they have a name that some people know. I get all that, but I don't see how any of that helps us do anything but try to hang onto some semblance of what used to be the status quo.

And that's all I'm saying. The rest of your comments are hyperbole that didn't come from me.

I don't hate SMU. They just don't fit what we need to do.

(05-05-2013 02:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-05-2013 01:43 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Well, I guess if we won't keep up with SMU, we might as well whore ourselves out for the money.
Road trip to Michigan, Road trip to Florida, Road trip to Notre Dame. We will be the Washington Generals of the NCAA.
I just don't see how this advances us in the hierarchy, but it seems to be what everybody wants. 77-7 all the time, but at least we didn't lower ourselves to playing SMU.
OK, y'all win. No SMU. Hate those bastards. Don't need 'em. Eff 'em.

Umm, that's not what I'm saying at all.

I'm asking a simple question. If the goal is to advance the status of our football/athletic program, how does playing SMU help achieve that? What if we do beat them 7 out of 10, what does that accomplish?

If getting beat 77-7 four times a season brings in the money that we need to get the program back closer to breaking even, that fills a bigger need than anything that I can see that we could accomplish by winning 7 out of 10 against SMU.

I mean, if you can come up with something that we can accomplish by playing SMU that helps us get where we want to go, what is it?

I get that it's close, that we can compete, that they bring a few more people than some possible opponents, that they have a name that some people know. I get all that, but I don't see how any of that helps us do anything but try to hang onto some semblance of what used to be the status quo.

And that's all I'm saying. The rest of your comments are hyperbole that didn't come from me.

I don't hate SMU. They just don't fit what we need to do.

I believe that we're competitive against SMU. I don't expect them to go 10-0 against us, and I don't expect us to go 10-0 against them.

Because of June Jones, recent bowl trips, etc, they probably have better visibility than us, and certainly have more of a 'name' than Texas State, UTSA and others on the national scene.

So going 6-4 or 7-3 over 10 years against them, both of which are very do-able in my mind (I would hope and expect to move to 2-0 against them if we play'd them next year, assuming 2012 as a starting point) . . .. benefits us in two ways:

a. provides us with 1 of the wins we need to be bowl eligible in 7 of the next 10 years, against a team we're competitive with (meaning a better game, test, experience gain for our team than a blowout in either direction)
b. provides us with a win over a team that most fans in the country have heard about (versus Sam Houston, Texas State or UNT or UTSA, who all may be BETTER than SMU in a given year, but don't have Doak Walker, Don Meredith, Eric Dickerson, and even the Death Penalty notoriety going for them).

e.g., I think we gained more from beating a slightly above average Air Force team than whatever publicity we gained from beating whichever-Michigan University in the Texas Bowl in 2008. Whichever-Michigan may have been a better team than Air Force this year . . . . but the fact that I can't readily recall whether we beat Eastern, Central or Western Michigan is a pretty good example of the point I'm trying to make.

(05-05-2013 02:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If getting beat 77-7 four times a season brings in the money that we need to get the program back closer to breaking even, that fills a bigger need than anything that I can see that we could accomplish by winning 7 out of 10 against SMU.

But is it the goal? Just to bring in some money? You seem pretty positive that we "won't" do what we need to do to keep up with 0or ahead of SMU, so what makes you think getting abuttload of money is going to make a difference? Who is it you are trusting to spend that cash wisely? And why?

"I'd play UH and the three biggest paydays we could get on a 2-for-1 or better basis. I would tend to guess that all three of them would probably be in the SEC." That's you in post #46.

You're not going to get many home and homes with the teams that will either give a big payday or bring or a lot of fans, and if we can't beat SMU. we can't beat them.

2-1 will give us a lot of road games, a poor home schedule, and will likely cause a lot of Owls to lose interest as we continually battle to reach .500 (remember these are teams that cannot compete with SMU), so if that is the way out, count me out. We've tried this before, and IIRC, the consensus back then was that we didn't need to be scheduling body bag games and giving 2 for 1s. Lets say that SMU does nothing for us. Fine. This, though, is just slow suicide. We'll die rich, but we will die.

We really don't have a way out that stands head and shoulders above the others, but that doesn't mean we have to just sell out.

Screw SMU. This is now about how to approach the future. And I don't like your plan. I'll go with Ham for now.

(05-05-2013 03:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Screw SMU. This is now about how to approach the future. And I don't like your plan. I'll go with Ham for now.

I'm not quite sure how what I'm saying differs from Hambone:

(05-05-2013 12:48 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  scheduling OOC games to me is about creating what we can't create with our conference schedule. With few exceptions, I see us not being able to create any buzz by a victory in nCUSA. I don't really see that we can't/shouldn't win 6 games in CUSA, so I don't need to schedule "wins". I would schedule "buzz". Either pay us to play, putt butts in the our seats if you come, or be a "name" we have a shot at beating. SMU is better than 5 cent state, but not as good as Ole Miss

I think there are some very unrealistic expectations going on here. This program needs to generate $10 million a year more in revenues to survive, before we can even start thinking about moving up the totem pole. One possibility might be:

Three bodybag games at $2 million per = $6 million
The alternative revenue sources that Hambone and ruowls have proposed = $2 million (SWAG, but I think in the ballpark)
Turn basketball into the next coming of Gonzaga = $2 million

I don't know whether that's doable. But I don't know any other way to do it, and we absolutely MUST do it somehow. If we don't do it, the administration and board are going to have no alternative but to pull the plug at some point, and frankly I won't blame them when they do.

The reason I am pessimistic about our ability to keep up with SMU is that they are going to be able--and willing--to outspend us unless we find a way to generate those revenues. Assuming they do, then at some point it our ability to compete will inevitably go the way it has gone with Baylor and TCU. And there's nothing we can do about that without revenues. And I don't see how playing SMU helps with the revenue problem.

If you have another way to skin the revenue cat, what is it?
If you think we can keep going without finding a revenue solution, how?

There are a lot of things I'd like to do if the choices were not constrained by reality. But when you've mismanaged things for 40 years, you usually don't have too many good options left. And we don't.

(05-05-2013 12:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-05-2013 12:48 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  pay us to play,

I thought we had had enough of body bag games. Seems i remember a lot of talk about that a few years back.

Playing body bag games when you aren't competitive in your conference is a waste... which is why I stated balancing the budget as goal one. If you use the money from a body bag game to get better... to hire better coaches... to pay for improvements that are meaningful on the field, then it has a purpose. If you're just playing them to balance the budget... which means to keep you as you are... then you'd better already be at the top of the conference when you schedule them. Does that make sense?

You can't be $6mm away from a balanced budget and use 3 body bag games just to keep you here... you have to be $4mm away and then use 3 body bag games to add $2mm to things that make you better... or $2mm away and use 2 games, or flat and use 1 game... or at a surplus and you can avoid them altogether.

As I understand it, we are 2-3mm under where we need to be, and more like 4-5mm under where we'd like to be. IMO, that is too many body bags... but I could/would make a go of it if that is the best we can hope to do.

Getting paid $2mm to lose 77-7 is one thing... losing 45-31 at home in front of 45k paid is still $1mm more than many games... and it seems that you had a chance to WIN that game.

(05-05-2013 03:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  But is it the goal? Just to bring in some money? You seem pretty positive that we "won't" do what we need to do to keep up with or ahead of SMU, so what makes you think getting a buttload of money is going to make a difference? Who is it you are trusting to spend that cash wisely? And why?

We won't do what we need to do to keep up with SMU because we won't be able to afford to do it. Unless we get a bunch more revenues. So yes, a buttload of money is exactly what would make a difference in our ability to beat SMU or win CUSA. But we can't get that buttload of money playing SMU. As for spending it wisely, I don't trust the current cast. But that's a separate issue.

Quote:You're not going to get many home and homes with the teams that will either give a big payday or bring or a lot of fans, and if we can't beat SMU, we can't beat them.

I don't expect to beat them, at least not early on. And the money is what we need to be able to build a program that can beat SMU. And maybe beat those guys at some point.

Quote:2-1 will give us a lot of road games, a poor home schedule, and will likely cause a lot of Owls to lose interest as we continually battle to reach .500 (remember these are teams that cannot compete with SMU), so if that is the way out, count me out. We've tried this before, and IIRC, the consensus back then was that we didn't need to be scheduling body bag games and giving 2 for 1s. Lets say that SMU does nothing for us. Fine. This, though, is just slow suicide. We'll die rich, but we will die.
We really don't have a way out that stands head and shoulders above the others, but that doesn't mean we have to just sell out.

It's not a great opportunity. But I think it's the best we have. I'm not at all certain that it's not the ONLY choice we have. When you mismanage something for 40 years, you probably aren't going to have many good options left. In the words of the late Wayne Woodrow Hayes, "Things refuse to be mismanaged long." We're in slow suicide mode now. Or maybe not-so-slow suicide mode.

If you have a better idea, what is it? Keep in mind that you have to generate substantial extra revenues to have a reasonable argument for even continuing the program, much less advancing it.

I don't have a better plan, because until today I didn't know we had to have 10MM in extra revenue to survive. When did this happen? Did the BOT take away the subsidy?

In any case, I don't have to have a better plan before I am allowed to dislike yours. Just because somebody comes to me saying "This is the only way" doesn't mean i have to either like it or accept that judgement.

All I know is that when the AD calls for me to renew my season tickets, and those consist of four home games against UTSA et all, I may well decide to pass on them, and if the closest road game is Ruston, La, or El Paso I may decide to pass on all of them. If SMU was on the slate, either home or road, it would be marginally better for me, marginally more likely that I would renew my tickets and/or go to Dallas. So while you are filling the coffers, remember we need to keep the interest of the fans. The base is small enough. Constant beatdowns on the road against top ten teams is good for bank account and not much else. I doubt a succession of 6-6 (6-2) seasons with a trip to the Last Place Bowl will keep the interest up.

Good luck, you two. I will be the first to nominate you for sainthood if you succeed.

(05-05-2013 06:34 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Playing body bag games when you aren't competitive in your conference is a waste... which is why I stated balancing the budget as goal one. If you use the money from a body bag game to get better... to hire better coaches... to pay for improvements that are meaningful on the field, then it has a purpose. If you're just playing them to balance the budget... which means to keep you as you are... then you'd better already be at the top of the conference when you schedule them. Does that make sense?
You can't be $6mm away from a balanced budget and use 3 body bag games just to keep you here... you have to be $4mm away and then use 3 body bag games to add $2mm to things that make you better... or $2mm away and use 2 games, or flat and use 1 game... or at a surplus and you can avoid them altogether.
As I understand it, we are 2-3mm under where we need to be, and more like 4-5mm under where we'd like to be. IMO, that is too many body bags... but I could/would make a go of it if that is the best we can hope to do.
Getting paid $2mm to lose 77-7 is one thing... losing 45-31 at home in front of 45k paid is still $1mm more than many games... and it seems that you had a chance to WIN that game.

I don't have a problem with that, but I think the revenue increase we need is $10 million. Right now I think we are budgeted for a $10 million loss, and I think we are coming in with a $12-15 million actual loss, which is consistent with your numbers.

McKinsey estimated the cost of a D-III program at $4 million a year, and with inflation that's probably closer to $5-6 million now. McKinsey also felt that D-III would actually create opportunities for more (non-scholarship) athletes to compete than now. I think that's where we need to be to silence the criticism. I think we need to get pretty close to that before the board is going to let us spend more. And I don't think we can compete at this level long-term without spending more, as I believe you agree.

Let's assume we're at $14 million now, we need to get to $6 million to be comfortable, and we need to spend about $2 million more right now to be truly competitive. Those are all guesses, but I don't think they are bad guesses. Reduce the $14 million loss with $10 million more revenues, spend the extra $2 million on the stuff you mention--plus greatly expanding club and intramural sports (which will cost only a tiny part of that) to build goodwill and take away the other "advantage" of D-III--and we're at $6 million. Anybody got any better data than those admittedly SWAG numbers? Anybody got any better ideas where to come up with $10 million?

For that matter, let's assume all is copacetic if we get back to the $10 million number. And let's assume that $2 million is the additional spending we need. Then the revenue nut is another $6 million. How do you get even that much?

As far as SMU, one way I would characterize the extra $2 million in spending is that's what we need to spend to keep up with SMU. If we don't spend it, we won't be able to hang with them.

I'm not in love with the plan, but I don't see any other that's available. Somebody got another way to make the numbers work?

(05-05-2013 06:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don't have a better plan, because until today I didn't know we had to have 10MM in extra revenue to survive. When did this happen? Did the BOT take away the subsidy?
In any case, I don't have to have a better plan before I am allowed to dislike yours. Just because somebody comes to me saying "This is the only way" doesn't mean i have to either like it or accept that judgement.
All I know is that when the AD calls for me to renew my season tickets, and those consist of four home games against UTSA et all, I may well decide to pass on them, and if the closest road game is Ruston, La, or El Paso I may decide to pass on all of them. If SMU was on the slate, either home or road, it would be marginally better for me, marginally more likely that I would renew my tickets and/or go to Dallas. So while you are filling the coffers, remember we need to keep the interest of the fans. The base is small enough. Constant beatdowns on the road against top ten teams is good for bank account and not much else. I doubt a succession of 6-6 (6-2) seasons with a trip to the Last Place Bowl will keep the interest up.
Good luck, you two. I will be the first to nominate you for sainthood if you succeed.

I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from putting words in my mouth that I did not say. I think I explained the subsidy issue as I understand it in a post above. We're losing money after the subsidy is added in, and we need to spend more than we are spending now to be competitive. We have to balance the budget first, and generate some excess to do some things that we need in order to remain competitive. We can't get there without more revenues.

That's been the problem for 40 years. We just kept cutting costs, without ever trying to generate more revenues. Can't do that any more.

You don't have to come up with a better idea in order to say you don't like mine. But you can't get upset because we don't do something that isn't possible, either. And right now, what you want isn't possible. If we don't fill the coffers, we won't have a program.

Re:Texas Bowl pub vs Armed Forces Bowl pub...the W Mich game was on the NFL Network while the AFA game was on ESPN...huge difference in post game publicity...everytime ESPN did a bowl update there were a bunch of highlights of our win.

(05-05-2013 07:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-05-2013 06:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don't have a better plan, because until today I didn't know we had to have 10MM in extra revenue to survive. When did this happen? Did the BOT take away the subsidy?
In any case, I don't have to have a better plan before I am allowed to dislike yours. Just because somebody comes to me saying "This is the only way" doesn't mean i have to either like it or accept that judgement.
All I know is that when the AD calls for me to renew my season tickets, and those consist of four home games against UTSA et all, I may well decide to pass on them, and if the closest road game is Ruston, La, or El Paso I may decide to pass on all of them. If SMU was on the slate, either home or road, it would be marginally better for me, marginally more likely that I would renew my tickets and/or go to Dallas. So while you are filling the coffers, remember we need to keep the interest of the fans. The base is small enough. Constant beatdowns on the road against top ten teams is good for bank account and not much else. I doubt a succession of 6-6 (6-2) seasons with a trip to the Last Place Bowl will keep the interest up.
Good luck, you two. I will be the first to nominate you for sainthood if you succeed.

I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from putting words in my moth that I did not say. I think I explained the subsidy issue as I understand it in a post above. We're losing money after the subsidy is added in, and we need to spend more than we are spending now to be competitive. We have to balance the budget first, and generate some excess to do some things that we need in order to remain competitive. We can't get there without more revenues.

That's been the problem for 40 years. We just kept cutting costs, without ever trying to generate more revenues. Can't do that any more.

You don't have to come up with a better idea in order to say you don't like mine. But you can't get upset because we don't do something that isn't possible, either. And right now, what you want isn't possible. If we don't fill the coffers, we won't have a program.

Sorry if you think I was putting words in your mouth. I feel the same way every time some yahoo tells me I am OK with mediocrity.

If we don't fill the coffers, we won't have a program. And if we do what is needed to fill to those coffers, we probably won't have a program, either. Well, good luck. I didn't realize the problem to be solved was how to win respect AND raise a lot of money at the same time. Maybe we really do need one of those coaches who cuts corners. Just for a while, of course.

(05-04-2013 12:33 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  If SMU was in the Big12 or ACC or something, I'd understand playing them rather than Purdue or Kansas.... but the Big East is just slightly better sports than CUSA and much worse geography.

I'm still catching up to this thread, but I think it's important to note that SMU will never play in the Big East.

(05-05-2013 07:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Sorry if you think I was putting words in your mouth. I feel the same way every time some yahoo tells me I am OK with mediocrity.

Apology accepted, no worries. And if you think I'm one of the ones accusing you of being OK with mediocrity, I apologize. I certainly don't intend to convey that and I don't think that. If anything, just the opposite. You want more out of the program than it's capable of. I think there are a lot of people on here who either are incredibly optimistic or simply don't realize how dire a mess we are in.

Quote:If we don't fill the coffers, we won't have a program. And if we do what is needed to fill to those coffers, we probably won't have a program, either. Well, good luck. I didn't realize the problem to be solved was how to win respect AND raise a lot of money at the same time. Maybe we really do need one of those coaches who cuts corners. Just for a while, of course.

I would never, ever support hiring one of those coaches who cuts corners. Todd got way too close for my comfort, and I would rather shut the program down than hire a coach who breaks the rules.

I think you stated the problem quite succinctly. We do have to win respect and make money at the same time. I would add that if we don't make the money, we're not going to be able to do the things needed to win respect.

By the way, I don't think the bunch in charge right now has a clue.

Since I can come up with revenue outside of football, I can see a reason to keep SMU.

Who in Texas is Rice's biggest competition for a slot in moving up? I'd say SMU and UH. Therefore, I'd play them both. 1) We can get them both for a home and home or at least a home and home/neutral (essentially home). 2) it gives everyone a barometer on how we stack up directly against them (a direct comparison). 3) if we are better than .500 against them then we have the potential of displacing them in the feeding frenzy order. 4) We benefit when either of them knock off a P5 if we can sustain a winning record against them both.

To round out the schedule, I'd schedule a home game against teams that want to play us in Houston without a home and home. 1) This game should be a win 8 out of 10 years (10/10 ideally). The final OOC game would alternate between a P5 school who will play us home and home and another school we are trying to displace from moving up (MWC teams most likely and especially SDSU). 1) Again, we have to go at least .500 against the P5 schools to show we belong and .500 against the ones we are trying to displace to show that we are just as good as they are.

There you have it. Four OOC games that gives us at least 2 home and 2 (with the advantage of one of those away games in Houston) away every year with the likelihood of being able to play at least .500 and make a statement that we belong just as much as those we are playing.

(05-05-2013 08:59 PM)ruowls Wrote:  Since I can come up with revenue outside of football, I can see a reason to keep SMU.
Who in Texas is Rice's biggest competition for a slot in moving up? I'd say SMU and UH. Therefore, I'd play them both. 1) We can get them both for a home and home or at least a home and home/neutral (essentially home). 2) it gives everyone a barometer on how we stack up directly against them (a direct comparison). 3) if we are better than .500 against them then we have the potential of displacing them in the feeding frenzy order. 4) We benefit when either of them knock off a P5 if we can sustain a winning record against them both.
To round out the schedule, I'd schedule a home game against teams that want to play us in Houston without a home and home. 1) This game should be a win 8 out of 10 years (10/10 ideally). The final OOC game would alternate between a P5 school who will play us home and home and another school we are trying to displace from moving up (MWC teams most likely and especially SDSU). 1) Again, we have to go at least .500 against the P5 schools to show we belong and .500 against the ones we are trying to displace to show that we are just as good as they are.
There you have it. Four OOC games that gives us at least 2 home and 2 (with the advantage of one of those away games in Houston) away every year with the likelihood of being able to play at least .500 and make a statement that we belong just as much as those we are playing.

From a competitiveness standpoint, I like it. I just don't think the money will work. I know you have some things, and I totally agree that we should be pursuing the hell out of every one of your ideas. But I'm thinking they would produce maybe $2 million, and we need a lot more than that. Maybe my $2 million is low for your revenue proposals. If you think you can do substantially more than that, then maybe the dog could hunt here.

$2m plus increased revenue from more home games with better attendance. The key is getting 6 home games (7 if UH is neutral and we share revenue). Then all you have to do is increase attendance by increasing on-field performance and primary links to the Houston community. That should be worth a couple of million easy.

(05-05-2013 09:37 PM)ruowls Wrote:  $2m plus increased revenue from more home games with better attendance. The key is getting 6 home games (7 if UH is neutral and we share revenue). Then all you have to do is increase attendance by increasing on-field performance and primary links to the Houston community. That should be worth a couple of million easy.

My original idea was that 35,000 per game for 6 home games would be 120,000 extra over the season, at roughly $40 a pop would be close to $5 million. Do that and get basketball to be the next Gonzaga and your community stuff and it could work. But we're a long way from being able to generate those numbers. I'd like ultimately to get to pretty much exactly what you suggest. But I'm not sure we can go there without raising some serious bucks first.

Whatever we do has to be revenue driven. As I wrote above, I don't think a lot of people really understand just how bad things are.

I understand.

And like I said when I came to Rice.... "Trust me. I can get it done."

Or if you prefer, "I only thought people from California threw the ball."

Or, "Defe???, a little help here."