I am happy...

...it isn't worse.

Three of our tie-ins are with bowls against a P5 opponent. Most years we'll have two teams playing P5 competition and both those games are within driving distance. The NO Bowl is an awesome destination against the Sun Belt champ. There's nothing wrong with that. I don't know what some of you guys expect. After the last 45 years of athletics neglect, were lucky to even have a football program. Nevermind that we're doing it from within a stable conference that provides opportunity and with university leaders who have a vision of more future successes in athletics. C'mon guys. The sky isn't falling! These are good developments!

(08-21-2013 11:50 PM)mrbig Wrote:  I am thrilled CUSA still has this many tie-ins and that at least three of the are close enough to Rice's current recruiting footprint and fanbase to positively impact the program even if they don't sell their allotment of tickets (assuming winning records and bowl appearances continue).

I should note that I am not thrilled that Rice is still stuck in CUSA or that Rice is viewed as less desireable than our departed conference-mates. But putting all that aside, I am thrilled that CUSA has maintained a reasonably spot in terms of bowl tie-ins. I feared CUSA would become like the WAC when Rice was there, and good Rice teams would be sitting at home in December/January. This essentially guarantees Rice a spot in a bowl if they win 7 games (and most likely 6), which cannot be viewed as a bad thing, everything else as it is.

The athletic subsidy needs to be looked at as a marketing expediture instead of just a fixed limit of money we can throw away. Even $10M a year is too much if it is spent ineptly and hurts Rice's image instead of helping it. Our image gets hurt if we stay playing forever in a conference with directional states with low academic standing and lose to them. It is worth spending more money if we can land in a different conference where we are not the only American
Association of Universities member. The different directions we can go are:

1. Improve enough to make a P5 conference since all of them have some AAU members. Also, we would get national attention if we are in a P5 conference

2. I threw out the Ivy wish because there is prestige in just being in the conference such as Cornell, Brown, Penn etc. The extra cost could be justified by improving our recognition academically. However, it is not going to happen since they are not looking to add members.

3. Go to D3 and play Chicago, Washington of St.Louis etc. Less money goes out but our teams would not get much recognition.

4. Do away with football and keep the rest of our sports D1. We would have a problem finding a conference around here since they all mainly want schools that play football. Lamar U dropped football about 20 years ago but is bringing it back.

(08-21-2013 05:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 04:08 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  The Rice BOT regards the current deficit as unsustainable. Some of the Ivies spend that and more, year in and year out. Last number I saw was for Princeton, for 2011 I think it was, and their subsidy was $18 million. Some of the lesser Ivies have shoestring budgets compared to that, but who wants to be them?

Yes, that's something that those who want Rice to have an Ivy League athletic program do not realize. To have a true Ivy League program would require substantially GREATER commitment to non-revenue sports than Rice makes now.

(08-22-2013 12:54 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  Three of our tie-ins are with bowls against a P5 opponent. Most years we'll have two teams playing P5 competition and both those games are within driving distance. The NO Bowl is an awesome destination against the Sun Belt champ. There's nothing wrong with that. I don't know what some of you guys expect. After the last 45 years of athletics neglect, were lucky to even have a football program. Nevermind that we're doing it from within a stable conference that provides opportunity and with university leaders who have a vision of more future successes in athletics. C'mon guys. The sky isn't falling! These are good developments!

With all due respect, I believe you are misreading the announcement. We will be in 3 of the 5 bowl games each year. Only the Gildan Bowl and Heart of Texas bowl are an "every year" thing.

No, the sky isn't falling... but neither are these "good developments"... unless you consider not falling any further than we were to be "good".

FTR, we already had tie-ins with most of these bowls with the same opportunities to play p5 teams.

(08-22-2013 03:23 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-22-2013 12:54 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  Three of our tie-ins are with bowls against a P5 opponent. Most years we'll have two teams playing P5 competition and both those games are within driving distance. The NO Bowl is an awesome destination against the Sun Belt champ. There's nothing wrong with that. I don't know what some of you guys expect. After the last 45 years of athletics neglect, were lucky to even have a football program. Nevermind that we're doing it from within a stable conference that provides opportunity and with university leaders who have a vision of more future successes in athletics. C'mon guys. The sky isn't falling! These are good developments!

With all due respect, I believe you are misreading the announcement. We will be in 3 of the 5 bowl games each year. Only the Gildan Bowl and Heart of Texas bowl are an "every year" thing.

No, the sky isn't falling... but neither are these "good developments"... unless you consider not falling any further than we were to be "good".

FTR, we already had tie-ins with most of these bowls with the same opportunities to play p5 teams.

Heart of Dallas isn't every year. It is every other year with the Armed Forces Bowl being the other bowl in that rotation.

Considering all the bowls that the P5 conferences were gobbling up, I'd say the fact we have as many tie-ins as before is a good thing. But, I agree that is nothing to be ecstatic about.

Please understand, I've got no problem with being excited that despite the defections we've "held serve". I also have no problem describing the fact that we've lost teams from the top of our league to other leagues as a negative.

To me, it's clearly only a matter of perspective as to whether these are good or bad developments. Remember that we lost the Liberty Bowl. Obviously a tie-in to the Cotton Bowl would be a positive.

(08-22-2013 01:05 PM)mrbig Wrote:  I should note that I am not thrilled that Rice is still stuck in CUSA or that Rice is viewed as less desireable than our departed conference-mates. But putting all that aside, I am thrilled that CUSA has maintained a reasonably spot in terms of bowl tie-ins. I feared CUSA would become like the WAC when Rice was there, and good Rice teams would be sitting at home in December/January. This essentially guarantees Rice a spot in a bowl if they win 7 games (and most likely 6), which cannot be viewed as a bad thing, everything else as it is.

There are currently 35 bowl games and I read that there will soon be 38. Had that been the case in the late '90s, Rice wouldn't have sat at home.

If the 38 number is correct, then most if not all eligible teams will be in bowls, which significantly alters the cost-benefit calculus of tie-ins to bottom-rung bowls.

We live in CUSA. These are the bowl tie ins.
If we don't like that set up the only thing to do is WIN.
Every year. No matter what the schedule.
It's the only way to get the attention we need to move up..
And to solve the financial deficit

(08-22-2013 04:21 PM)greyowl72 Wrote:  We live in CUSA. These are the bowl tie ins.
If we don't like that set up the only thing to do is WIN.
Every year. No matter what the schedule.
It's the only way to get the attention we need to move up..
And to solve the financial deficit

Yep. Nailed it.

Yes. The CUSA bowl situation crystallizes the objective - just win. One and only one premium bowl tie-in. Second prize is a set of steak knives.

Usually, the P5 conferences can not fill all their bowl slots so they trickle down to the other conferences.

(08-22-2013 03:55 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(08-22-2013 03:23 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-22-2013 12:54 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  Three of our tie-ins are with bowls against a P5 opponent. Most years we'll have two teams playing P5 competition and both those games are within driving distance. The NO Bowl is an awesome destination against the Sun Belt champ. There's nothing wrong with that. I don't know what some of you guys expect. After the last 45 years of athletics neglect, were lucky to even have a football program. Nevermind that we're doing it from within a stable conference that provides opportunity and with university leaders who have a vision of more future successes in athletics. C'mon guys. The sky isn't falling! These are good developments!

With all due respect, I believe you are misreading the announcement. We will be in 3 of the 5 bowl games each year. Only the Gildan Bowl and Heart of Texas bowl are an "every year" thing.

No, the sky isn't falling... but neither are these "good developments"... unless you consider not falling any further than we were to be "good".

FTR, we already had tie-ins with most of these bowls with the same opportunities to play p5 teams.

Heart of Dallas isn't every year. It is every other year with the Armed Forces Bowl being the other bowl in that rotation.

Considering all the bowls that the P5 conferences were gobbling up, I'd say the fact we have as many tie-ins as before is a good thing. But, I agree that is nothing to be ecstatic about.

(08-21-2013 05:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-21-2013 04:08 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  The Rice BOT regards the current deficit as unsustainable. Some of the Ivies spend that and more, year in and year out. Last number I saw was for Princeton, for 2011 I think it was, and their subsidy was $18 million. Some of the lesser Ivies have shoestring budgets compared to that, but who wants to be them?

Yes, that's something that those who want Rice to have an Ivy League athletic program do not realize. To have a true Ivy League program would require substantially GREATER commitment to non-revenue sports than Rice makes now.

The only Ivy I am very familiar with is Cornell. They have an undergrad enrollment of just over 14K in Ithaca.

Cornell has 36 Varsity sports including lightweight football (when did that stop at Rice?), two weight classes of rowing, women's equestrian, women's fencing, and both men's and women's polo among the 36.

Overall their facilities are below Rice's. Even Lynah Rink home of nationally ranked men's and women's ice hockey is quite old having been built in 1957 with a major renovation in 2006. http://www.cornellbigred.com/sports/2007...spx?&tab=3

Like Rice their budget numbers are pretty tightly held but in 2011 the athletic department was put on a 5 year plan where 11 sports (including baseball) would be dropped if they were not totally self funded. Each year Joannie receives emails at the close of the fiscal year with a list of each sport, its budget shortfall, and what contributions to that sport have been made. Of the Ivies Yale outspends its competitors yearly whereas Cornell is somewhere in the bottom half.

While none of the private schools are listed this most recent listing of university athletic programs and budgets is pretty amazing.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/col...s/2142443/

(08-22-2013 04:44 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Yes. The CUSA bowl situation crystallizes the objective - just win. One and only one premium bowl tie-in. Second prize is a set of steak knives.

Good analogy.
And I love that movie/play!

CUSA has 6 tie-ins every year and the backup spot in the Independence.

(08-22-2013 05:39 PM)75src Wrote:  Usually, the P5 conferences can not fill all their bowl slots so they trickle down to the other conferences.

This happens perhaps once or twice a year... but our objective should be to be in one of the bowls where the p5 conference WANTS to be, and not the one they bypass in favor of the better bowl. The one they bypass is almost by definition the least attractive of their options.

We need to have a goal of at least sitting at the adult table even if we are on the corner in the backless chair and not being happy with the kiddie table with the plastic cutlery.

(08-20-2013 05:29 PM)3-OwlsInTheNest Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 03:31 PM)ausowl Wrote:  "C-USA officials are also negotiating bids for bowl games in the Bahamas, Boca Raton, Fla, and Shreveport, La."

One of these is not like the others.

Heh.

...well, Shreveport doesn't begin with the letter B.

I'm late to this party, but Boca Raton doesn't have casinos.