Did I miss anything? When did Bailiff ever talk about making us a perennial Top 25 team?

I'm going to pick on 2 of the statements you made, because I don't believe they are globally true. The thought probably makes sense, but then if you really think about what what actually transpired, it really isn't true.

(01-21-2014 09:15 AM)NolaOwl Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 07:42 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 01:48 AM)NolaOwl Wrote:  ...
While it is clearly too early to judge Dr. K while he is getting his bearings, I doubt that his charge is to get us into the Top 20 and to fill HRS at every home game. Without dong that, I can't see how we would be desirable for any P5 conference - especially the SEC or Big 12 in our region.

So, what should our goal be?

Bailiff is talking about making us a perennial top 25. It is a solid, tangible and worthwhile goal, and would represent the kind of progress that, by definition, gets the program notice on the national stage.

That, OR filling HRS, would get us on a lot of the short lists for the next round (or whatever round that happens after we get to that point). In my opinion, it's an OR not an AND. We do need to increase attendance though.

And at that point I really don't think we need to restrict ourselves to regional proximity. We "could" be a fit in any of the P5 if we can do either of the above.

I'm only interested in the incremental move up to AAC or MWC if it improves our chances at an eventual P5 spot. And I don't really think it does.

I'm glad to hear that being in the Top 25 is a Bailiff goal. But I disagree with you that winning alone would get us into a P5 conference. No conference wants to add a team who can't fill its own stadium.

Have you ever seen how "full" the stadiums at Rutgers, Maryland, and Pittsburgh get? Those were some of the gets in the latest round of reorganization, and they don't fill their stadiums.

Quote:I also think you crawl before you walk and then run. If we can improve our conference membership even incrementally above the diminished CUSA, we should jump at it.

Finally, even if your favorite deity dropped everything else and we did get a P4 invite, I can't see it coming from the Pac 12, Big 10 or ACC. Teams need regional opponents to establish traditional rivalries. Just my two cents.

And that's why we had West Virginia to Big 12, Maryland and Rutgers to Big 10, and A&M and Missouri to the SEC (with Missouri heading to the East Division).

(01-21-2014 10:59 AM)gsloth Wrote:  I'm going to pick on 2 of the statements you made, because I don't believe they are globally true. The thought probably makes sense, but then if you really think about what what actually transpired, it really isn't true.

(01-21-2014 09:15 AM)NolaOwl Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 07:42 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 01:48 AM)NolaOwl Wrote:  ...
While it is clearly too early to judge Dr. K while he is getting his bearings, I doubt that his charge is to get us into the Top 20 and to fill HRS at every home game. Without dong that, I can't see how we would be desirable for any P5 conference - especially the SEC or Big 12 in our region.

So, what should our goal be?

Bailiff is talking about making us a perennial top 25. It is a solid, tangible and worthwhile goal, and would represent the kind of progress that, by definition, gets the program notice on the national stage.

That, OR filling HRS, would get us on a lot of the short lists for the next round (or whatever round that happens after we get to that point). In my opinion, it's an OR not an AND. We do need to increase attendance though.

And at that point I really don't think we need to restrict ourselves to regional proximity. We "could" be a fit in any of the P5 if we can do either of the above.

I'm only interested in the incremental move up to AAC or MWC if it improves our chances at an eventual P5 spot. And I don't really think it does.

I'm glad to hear that being in the Top 25 is a Bailiff goal. But I disagree with you that winning alone would get us into a P5 conference. No conference wants to add a team who can't fill its own stadium.

Have you ever seen how "full" the stadiums at Rutgers, Maryland, and Pittsburgh get? Those were some of the gets in the latest round of reorganization, and they don't fill their stadiums.

Quote:I also think you crawl before you walk and then run. If we can improve our conference membership even incrementally above the diminished CUSA, we should jump at it.

Finally, even if your favorite deity dropped everything else and we did get a P4 invite, I can't see it coming from the Pac 12, Big 10 or ACC. Teams need regional opponents to establish traditional rivalries. Just my two cents.

And that's why we had West Virginia to Big 12, Maryland and Rutgers to Big 10, and A&M and Missouri to the SEC (with Missouri heading to the East Division).

The difference is that those schools provide value in TV dollars to justify those conferences stretching their footprints.

With the non-P5 conferences soon to be marginalized even further, that group really should consider making all the conferences in this group more closely region-based. But, that would make too much sense to happen.

(01-20-2014 07:42 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  I'm only interested in the incremental move up to AAC or MWC if it improves our chances at an eventual P5 spot. And I don't really think it does.

It may or may not improve them over where we are now, but if one of those conferences raids CUSA again and we are left out again, that definitely hurts our chances. We *have* to take that opportunity if it comes. Imagine the MWC took UTEP, UNT, UTSA but not us. We'd be seen as having fallen behind them in the pecking order...

(01-21-2014 11:16 AM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 10:59 AM)gsloth Wrote:  I'm going to pick on 2 of the statements you made, because I don't believe they are globally true. The thought probably makes sense, but then if you really think about what what actually transpired, it really isn't true.

(01-21-2014 09:15 AM)NolaOwl Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 07:42 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 01:48 AM)NolaOwl Wrote:  ...
While it is clearly too early to judge Dr. K while he is getting his bearings, I doubt that his charge is to get us into the Top 20 and to fill HRS at every home game. Without dong that, I can't see how we would be desirable for any P5 conference - especially the SEC or Big 12 in our region.

So, what should our goal be?

Bailiff is talking about making us a perennial top 25. It is a solid, tangible and worthwhile goal, and would represent the kind of progress that, by definition, gets the program notice on the national stage.

That, OR filling HRS, would get us on a lot of the short lists for the next round (or whatever round that happens after we get to that point). In my opinion, it's an OR not an AND. We do need to increase attendance though.

And at that point I really don't think we need to restrict ourselves to regional proximity. We "could" be a fit in any of the P5 if we can do either of the above.

I'm only interested in the incremental move up to AAC or MWC if it improves our chances at an eventual P5 spot. And I don't really think it does.

I'm glad to hear that being in the Top 25 is a Bailiff goal. But I disagree with you that winning alone would get us into a P5 conference. No conference wants to add a team who can't fill its own stadium.

Have you ever seen how "full" the stadiums at Rutgers, Maryland, and Pittsburgh get? Those were some of the gets in the latest round of reorganization, and they don't fill their stadiums.

Quote:I also think you crawl before you walk and then run. If we can improve our conference membership even incrementally above the diminished CUSA, we should jump at it.

Finally, even if your favorite deity dropped everything else and we did get a P4 invite, I can't see it coming from the Pac 12, Big 10 or ACC. Teams need regional opponents to establish traditional rivalries. Just my two cents.

And that's why we had West Virginia to Big 12, Maryland and Rutgers to Big 10, and A&M and Missouri to the SEC (with Missouri heading to the East Division).

The difference is that those schools provide value in TV dollars to justify those conferences stretching their footprints.

With the non-P5 conferences soon to be marginalized even further, that group really should consider making all the conferences in this group more closely region-based. But, that would make too much sense to happen.

But that's not what was said. It was a global statement. And if you look at the TV share of some of those teams, I'm not sure even that really makes the case. Look at Maryland for this year - those are anemic numbers almost anytime they were broadcast on a national network. One of the worst ratings for any P5 bowl game, too.

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-...v-ratings/

I completely understand the point, but let's be careful ascribing value to some of this. Because even when you think about the primary driver ($$$), the TV numbers make you wonder what the business case actually was.

And if TV dollars really are a significant part of the equation, Rice is going to have a hard time clearing that hurdle.

(01-21-2014 12:11 PM)gsloth Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 11:16 AM)d1owls4life Wrote:  The difference is that those schools provide value in TV dollars to justify those conferences stretching their footprints.

With the non-P5 conferences soon to be marginalized even further, that group really should consider making all the conferences in this group more closely region-based. But, that would make too much sense to happen.

But that's not what was said. It was a global statement. And if you look at the TV share of some of those teams, I'm not sure even that really makes the case. Look at Maryland for this year - those are anemic numbers almost anytime they were broadcast on a national network. One of the worst ratings for any P5 bowl game, too.

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-...v-ratings/

I completely understand the point, but let's be careful ascribing value to some of this. Because even when you think about the primary driver ($$$), the TV numbers make you wonder what the business case actually was.

And if TV dollars really are a significant part of the equation, Rice is going to have a hard time clearing that hurdle.

I can tell you for certain that TV dollars are a very significant part of the equation. And yeah, it is going to be pretty damn hard for us ever to do that.

While their ratings aren't great, Maryland apparently will bring enough subscribers to the Big Ten Network ($$$) as well as a boost in their other TV deal with ESPN/ABC to justify the schools in the Big Ten splitting the pot further. Otherwise, they wouldn't be there.

The Big XII will very quickly lose the Houston market (television and recruiting) totally to the SEC if they don't figure out how to get a presence over here, is the sales pitch I'd make.

(01-21-2014 12:21 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 12:11 PM)gsloth Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 11:16 AM)d1owls4life Wrote:  The difference is that those schools provide value in TV dollars to justify those conferences stretching their footprints.

With the non-P5 conferences soon to be marginalized even further, that group really should consider making all the conferences in this group more closely region-based. But, that would make too much sense to happen.

But that's not what was said. It was a global statement. And if you look at the TV share of some of those teams, I'm not sure even that really makes the case. Look at Maryland for this year - those are anemic numbers almost anytime they were broadcast on a national network. One of the worst ratings for any P5 bowl game, too.

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-...v-ratings/

I completely understand the point, but let's be careful ascribing value to some of this. Because even when you think about the primary driver ($$$), the TV numbers make you wonder what the business case actually was.

And if TV dollars really are a significant part of the equation, Rice is going to have a hard time clearing that hurdle.

I can tell you for certain that TV dollars are a very significant part of the equation. And yeah, it is going to be pretty damn hard for us ever to do that.

While their ratings aren't great, Maryland apparently will bring enough subscribers to the Big Ten Network ($$$) as well as a boost in their other TV deal with ESPN/ABC to justify the schools in the Big Ten splitting the pot further. Otherwise, they wouldn't be there.

I don't doubt somebody made the case. But when I see the actual TV numbers, and look at the empty stadium, and I wonder just what they were buying. Certainly a bet on the future. But we've seen what that bet on LHN has paid off so far - certainly not what the media consultants were selling.

(01-21-2014 01:32 PM)gsloth Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 12:21 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 12:11 PM)gsloth Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 11:16 AM)d1owls4life Wrote:  The difference is that those schools provide value in TV dollars to justify those conferences stretching their footprints.

With the non-P5 conferences soon to be marginalized even further, that group really should consider making all the conferences in this group more closely region-based. But, that would make too much sense to happen.

But that's not what was said. It was a global statement. And if you look at the TV share of some of those teams, I'm not sure even that really makes the case. Look at Maryland for this year - those are anemic numbers almost anytime they were broadcast on a national network. One of the worst ratings for any P5 bowl game, too.

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-...v-ratings/

I completely understand the point, but let's be careful ascribing value to some of this. Because even when you think about the primary driver ($$$), the TV numbers make you wonder what the business case actually was.

And if TV dollars really are a significant part of the equation, Rice is going to have a hard time clearing that hurdle.

I can tell you for certain that TV dollars are a very significant part of the equation. And yeah, it is going to be pretty damn hard for us ever to do that.

While their ratings aren't great, Maryland apparently will bring enough subscribers to the Big Ten Network ($$$) as well as a boost in their other TV deal with ESPN/ABC to justify the schools in the Big Ten splitting the pot further. Otherwise, they wouldn't be there.

I don't doubt somebody made the case. But when I see the actual TV numbers, and look at the empty stadium, and I wonder just what they were buying. Certainly a bet on the future. But we've seen what that bet on LHN has paid off so far - certainly not what the media consultants were selling.

Yeah, I understand what you are saying. It didn't make much sense to me either. In this case, the Big Ten Network has been a boon for that conference, so I'm guessing their media people knew what they were talking about. But, maybe their string of good luck ends here?

(01-21-2014 10:59 AM)gsloth Wrote:  I'm going to pick on 2 of the statements you made, because I don't believe they are globally true. The thought probably makes sense, but then if you really think about what what actually transpired, it really isn't true.

(01-21-2014 09:15 AM)NolaOwl Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 07:42 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 01:48 AM)NolaOwl Wrote:  ...
While it is clearly too early to judge Dr. K while he is getting his bearings, I doubt that his charge is to get us into the Top 20 and to fill HRS at every home game. Without dong that, I can't see how we would be desirable for any P5 conference - especially the SEC or Big 12 in our region.

So, what should our goal be?

Bailiff is talking about making us a perennial top 25. It is a solid, tangible and worthwhile goal, and would represent the kind of progress that, by definition, gets the program notice on the national stage.

That, OR filling HRS, would get us on a lot of the short lists for the next round (or whatever round that happens after we get to that point). In my opinion, it's an OR not an AND. We do need to increase attendance though.

And at that point I really don't think we need to restrict ourselves to regional proximity. We "could" be a fit in any of the P5 if we can do either of the above.

I'm only interested in the incremental move up to AAC or MWC if it improves our chances at an eventual P5 spot. And I don't really think it does.

I'm glad to hear that being in the Top 25 is a Bailiff goal. But I disagree with you that winning alone would get us into a P5 conference. No conference wants to add a team who can't fill its own stadium.

Have you ever seen how "full" the stadiums at Rutgers, Maryland, and Pittsburgh get? Those were some of the gets in the latest round of reorganization, and they don't fill their stadiums.

Quote:I also think you crawl before you walk and then run. If we can improve our conference membership even incrementally above the diminished CUSA, we should jump at it.

Finally, even if your favorite deity dropped everything else and we did get a P4 invite, I can't see it coming from the Pac 12, Big 10 or ACC. Teams need regional opponents to establish traditional rivalries. Just my two cents.

And that's why we had West Virginia to Big 12, Maryland and Rutgers to Big 10, and A&M and Missouri to the SEC (with Missouri heading to the East Division).

Interesting argument. You picked the schools who you though would have poor attendance. But the record shows they did much better in filling their stadiums in 2013 than we did. The following shows average 2013 attendance vs. stadium size for Rice, Maryland, Pittsburgh and Rutgers:

Rice 18785 47000 39%
Maryland 38878 51802 75%
Pittsburgh 49741 65050 76%
Rutgers 46549 52454 88%

Hey George, if you're reading, these numbers come from:

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/...b4454b9929

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NCA...l_stadiums

As far as geography, Maryland and Rutgers are in states that border on Pennsylvania where Penn State is in the Big 10. A&M and Missouri also are in states bordering SEC state schools. Granted, West Virginia is more of a reach to the Big 12, but it does pack its stadium and has been winning the past few years. So, I'm sticking to my view.

(01-21-2014 12:55 PM)KingNayte Wrote:  The Big XII will very quickly lose the Houston market (television and recruiting) totally to the SEC if they don't figure out how to get a presence over here, is the sales pitch I'd make.

There are enough UTexas alumni living in the Houston metropolitan area on an annual basis to negate the TV argument and that doesn't even include the other Big XII alumni in Houston.

Recruiting is the one big advantage that could be gained because schools currently do not make a semi-annual trip to Houston to play games. The SEC has a similar issue, but College Station is much closer than Austin which makes side recruiting trips much easier. The Big XII could gain an advantage in Houston over the SEC with a weekly presence year round, but the advantage is debatable because there is limited local competition for the available talent today. Everybody has to travel in to recruit Houston and there is enough talent to land on rosters at most of the P5 and non-P5 conference schools without needing a local presence.

(01-21-2014 02:51 PM)NolaOwl Wrote:  Interesting argument. You picked the schools who you though would have poor attendance. But the record shows they did much better in filling their stadiums in 2013 than we did. The following shows average 2013 attendance vs. stadium size for Rice, Maryland, Pittsburgh and Rutgers:

Rice 18785 47000 39%
Maryland 38878 51802 75%
Pittsburgh 49741 65050 76%
Rutgers 46549 52454 88%

Hey George, if you're reading, these numbers come from:

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/...b4454b9929

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NCA...l_stadiums

As far as geography, Maryland and Rutgers are in states that border on Pennsylvania where Penn State is in the Big 10. A&M and Missouri also are in states bordering SEC state schools. Granted, West Virginia is more of a reach to the Big 12, but it does pack its stadium and has been winning the past few years. So, I'm sticking to my view.

Cutting down the thread length some. If Maryland averaged 39k and Pittsburgh 50k this year, I'd be shocked. That's some gate inflation even bigger than what we know goes on at Rice. I watched some of their games this season (particularly Maryland), and they weren't close to that full.

I noticed on their schedule that Maryland pulled a Rice by playing at a pro football stadium and got almost 56k there.

My only aside is that my argument isn't that Rice measures up when we all know it doesn't - it's that somehow filling a stadium or maintaining regional rivalries was important in the conference realignment. A few made sense on that criteria. Several did not. Maryland and Rutgers don't fit that model IMO, despite their states bordering PA. It's a completely different cultural change from the I-95 corridor to State College and points further west, and that's forcing something to try to get them to have something in common that really isn't there.

Kind of like what C-USA is trying to force with its footprint.

But if I were in Maryland's and Rutger's shoes, I would have made the jump if offered. The $$$ absolutely was worth it, even with the buyout Maryland will have to come up with. I'm just not sure what return the Big 10 gets out of it while dividing up the money among more hands.

(01-21-2014 05:39 PM)gsloth Wrote:  Cutting down the thread length some. If Maryland averaged 39k and Pittsburgh 50k this year, I'd be shocked. That's some gate inflation even bigger than what we know goes on at Rice. I watched some of their games this season (particularly Maryland), and they weren't close to that full.

I noticed on their schedule that Maryland pulled a Rice by playing at a pro football stadium and got almost 56k there.

My only aside is that my argument isn't that Rice measures up when we all know it doesn't - it's that somehow filling a stadium or maintaining regional rivalries was important in the conference realignment. A few made sense on that criteria. Several did not. Maryland and Rutgers don't fit that model IMO, despite their states bordering PA. It's a completely different cultural change from the I-95 corridor to State College and points further west, and that's forcing something to try to get them to have something in common that really isn't there.

Kind of like what C-USA is trying to force with its footprint.

But if I were in Maryland's and Rutger's shoes, I would have made the jump if offered. The $$$ absolutely was worth it, even with the buyout Maryland will have to come up with. I'm just not sure what return the Big 10 gets out of it while dividing up the money among more hands.

I agree with you about the attendance figures to some extent. Those numbers probably reflect tickets sold, as do ours. I know several Rice alums, and Tulane alums too, who buy the ticket packages but don't go to the games.

And, I think you are right that $ influences these conference alignments more than anything else. By adding Rutgers and Maryland, the Big 10 gets a bigger slice of the TV money. Rutgers and Maryland ostensibly will get more $ too.

Depressingly, Rice will probably fall short on these criteria as well.

You want to make a regional fit with a travel partner, try:
Rice and UT to PAC
Rice and SMU to ACC
Rice and Tulane to BiG

Far fetched all, some nearly as much so as things that already transpired

(01-20-2014 11:04 AM)KingNayte Wrote:  http://regressing.deadspin.com/this-map-...84/@kylenw

show people that and find folks ready to write big checks. I really think that with the departure of A&M, this is our best angle for the Big XII. It's a confrence that still at least superficially cares about academics, and no longer gets any closer to Houston than Austin. Any coach would like a chance to get free recruiting trips to H-town regularly.

It looks like I'm not the only one that had this image come to mind...



It seems like the biggest appeal that Rice will have in terms of Geography is the opportunity to open the market more to the conference's alumni that live in Houston, helping to get that population engaged. In the post-SWC (really, the sanctions era of the SWC), no conference has a "lock" on Houston area talent, and realistically I don't think that any school would subsequently see much difference in their recruiting pool by adding a school from Houston.

(01-22-2014 03:31 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 11:04 AM)KingNayte Wrote:  http://regressing.deadspin.com/this-map-...84/@kylenw

show people that and find folks ready to write big checks. I really think that with the departure of A&M, this is our best angle for the Big XII. It's a confrence that still at least superficially cares about academics, and no longer gets any closer to Houston than Austin. Any coach would like a chance to get free recruiting trips to H-town regularly.

It looks like I'm not the only one that had this image come to mind...



It seems like the biggest appeal that Rice will have in terms of Geography is the opportunity to open the market more to the conference's alumni that live in Houston, helping to get that population engaged. In the post-SWC (really, the sanctions era of the SWC), no conference has a "lock" on Houston area talent, and realistically I don't think that any school would subsequently see much difference in their recruiting pool by adding a school from Houston.

Love the XKCD graphic, but I disagree somewhat with your conclusions. For an individual school, having inroads to the big (and quickly growing) population center that is Houston is small. But for a whole conference, it can be pretty significant.

Also someone mentioned the number of UT alums in the Houston area keeps them relevant here. The percentage of college football fans who are actually alums of a college, more specifically the college they route for, is small compared to the overall number of general college FB fans.

There are a lot of people in Houston, and a lot of their kids are in above-average athletics programs. It's not a golden ticket, but it's a better ticket than thinking we can consistently convince 40 thousand people to watch us play schools they haven't heard of from far away.

(01-22-2014 03:48 PM)KingNayte Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 03:31 PM)I45owl Wrote:  It seems like the biggest appeal that Rice will have in terms of Geography is the opportunity to open the market more to the conference's alumni that live in Houston, helping to get that population engaged. In the post-SWC (really, the sanctions era of the SWC), no conference has a "lock" on Houston area talent, and realistically I don't think that any school would subsequently see much difference in their recruiting pool by adding a school from Houston.

Love the XKCD graphic, but I disagree somewhat with your conclusions. For an individual school, having inroads to the big (and quickly growing) population center that is Houston is small. But for a whole conference, it can be pretty significant.

Also someone mentioned the number of UT alums in the Houston area keeps them relevant here. The percentage of college football fans who are actually alums of a college, more specifically the college they route for, is small compared to the overall number of general college FB fans.

There are a lot of people in Houston, and a lot of their kids are in above-average athletics programs. It's not a golden ticket, but it's a better ticket than thinking we can consistently convince 40 thousand people to watch us play schools they haven't heard of from far away.

I think you both are making a similar point. Disregard UT for a moment. Think about Texas Tech, Baylor, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State. In my field of work here in Houston, I know and work with multiple alumni from these institutions. That has to mean something to the thousands of alumni living and working in Houston who don't get the chance to see games in Norman, Lubbock, or Stillwater and even Waco as it is still a 3 hour drive from Houston to Waco. Add in the fact Houston will soon be the third largest city in the United States, it makes sense for the BigXII to secure their presence. But UH can make that argument as well. Our disadvantage versus UH is a combination of UH building a new facility, the possibility of UH friendlier AD at UT, and the perception that we are doing nothing to improve our athletic facilities and logistical support.

(Edited to clarify comparison of Rice to UH in terms of BigXII perception)

(01-22-2014 04:24 PM)Pan95 Wrote:  Our disadvantage is a combination of building a new facility, the possibility of UH friendlier AD at UT, and the perception that we are doing nothing to improve our athletic facilities and logistical support.

And the fact we aren't worth $20-30 million a year in TV money.

(01-22-2014 04:40 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 04:24 PM)Pan95 Wrote:  Our disadvantage is a combination of building a new facility, the possibility of UH friendlier AD at UT, and the perception that we are doing nothing to improve our athletic facilities and logistical support.

And the fact we aren't worth $20-30 million a year in TV money.

Sorry d1owls4life,

I just realized that I was not clear in that I was comparing Rice to UH in terms of our disadvantages. My bad.

just a few years ago, (and perhaps even today) we had fans of places like UT who would buy season tickets to Rice baseball in order to make sure they had good seats for the few Rice/UT games... then they would sell their Rice/A&M or whomever else attractive we had on the schedule... and then they would have access to Regional and Super-Regional tickets that were easy sells if UT wasn't in our region.

I'm not suggesting that we would have lots of UT or LSU fans buy season football tickets... but consider how many thousands of UT fans NEVER get to go see a game in Austin, either because it is so far or because tickets at a reasonable price are hard to come by. They could assure themselves 50 yard line seats for Rice/UT or Rice/LSU for not much more than a single game ticket in the nosebleed section at Austin or Baton Rouge would cost. You price the single game ticket at (just pulling numbers) $75. Compared to the CHEAPEST UT season ticket at $420 or $70/game (and much more for a good seat) and it's a steal. The season ticket for a BOX SEAT at Rice is only $150 (ignoring the Owl club donation) and that is a steal. You can get a VERY good season ticket for basically the cost of a single nose-bleed game at UT or LSU.

The reason UT doesn't want to come to Houston is that 100,000 fans at an average of probably $100 per fan is $10mm. Even if they pay us $2mm to come, they net $8mm. LSU now gets a trip to College Station every year, but how many seats do you think their fans have access to? I'd rather be in a conference with schools like UT, but until we are, I think I'd rather play teams like LSU OOC. I use LSU rather than say Tech because the point is more obvious.

Seriously... 1 game at HRS with 60,000 fans, with 40,000 of them paying $100 is $4mm. That right there pays over a few years for a number of the upgrades necessary to fund the improvements required to host 60,000 fans.