Afflicted and Hatchet...

Take it to PM or the smack forum if you want to speak about other members in such generalities as you do

(03-20-2014 05:08 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(03-20-2014 04:24 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Bottom line, rather than argue about what is or is not possible... because that really says more about us and our individual perspectives than about really deciding what is and is not (in fact) possible... I'd point out that there is nothing in my suggestion that REQUIRES eventual membership in a p5 conference to be successful nor does stating that as a goal preclude success should that status not be attained.

To say it differently... striving for a high goal, whether or not you agree that it is attainable doesn't preclude us from increasing our attendance, revenue, profile, notoriety or ranking.

Deciding that such aspirations are 'impossible' could.

Yes, but the problem is, we keep putting the cart before the horse around here. Instead of debating off-the-wall theoreticals of which P5 conference we should target, why don't we figure out how to fix the problems you have listed? Because the only way those P5 theoreticals become any more realistic is by fixing the core problems this athletic department has. And fixing said problems will require work and effort from all of us beyond debating them here.

Look, you know how much of a die hard I am. But I also am a realist. Could we end up in the Big XII one day...way down the line (and I mean way down the line)...sure. But do I see it as likely, no. Should we stop asking said conferences about interest? Hell no. But, what the focus should be on right now is us and making Rice the best it can be. Because we are far from that right now. And that best may eventually get us to a big boy conference...but it may not and we will be at it in the AAC or right here in C-USA. All I want is Rice's best.

Exactly. Not being able to get into a P5 doesn't mean that we just quit and take it lying down. We make the best of our situation. We continue to build athletics infrastructure, invest in marketing, hold coaches accountable etc... We do everything in our power to be the best G5 program on Earth and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. We can do amazing things from where we are!

(03-20-2014 05:08 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  Look, you know how much of a die hard I am. But I also am a realist. Could we end up in the Big XII one day...way down the line (and I mean way down the line)...sure. But do I see it as likely, no. Should we stop asking said conferences about interest? Hell no. But, what the focus should be on right now is us and making Rice the best it can be. Because we are far from that right now. And that best may eventually get us to a big boy conference...but it may not and we will be at it in the AAC or right here in C-USA. All I want is Rice's best.

I agree with this for the most part ... with the possible exception that I think we need to more aggressively strive towards that mini-step of an AAC (or even MWC) invite. To your point ... this represents a much more realistic initial step that gets us at least towards the top tier of the non-P5 grouping (and hopefully somewhat stems the snowballing loss of general fan interest).

Nothing we would do that would make us MORE attractive to a p5 conference would make us less so to the MWC or the AAC... even if you believe those are 'better' conferences.

Since we don't control ANY of the 'steps', why should we focus on an interim step that we really don't care that much about? I think the idea that there is somehow something magical about those conferences is rooted in your support for teams IN those conferences rather than reality. If you're not p5, the difference in numbers and finance are really pretty immaterial.

(03-20-2014 05:44 PM)Orange County Owl Wrote:  

(03-20-2014 05:08 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  Look, you know how much of a die hard I am. But I also am a realist. Could we end up in the Big XII one day...way down the line (and I mean way down the line)...sure. But do I see it as likely, no. Should we stop asking said conferences about interest? Hell no. But, what the focus should be on right now is us and making Rice the best it can be. Because we are far from that right now. And that best may eventually get us to a big boy conference...but it may not and we will be at it in the AAC or right here in C-USA. All I want is Rice's best.

I agree with this for the most part ... with the possible exception that I think we need to more aggressively strive towards that mini-step of an AAC (or even MWC) invite. To your point ... this represents a much more realistic initial step that gets us at least towards the top tier of the non-P5 grouping (and hopefully somewhat stems the snowballing loss of general fan interest).

OCO, where I differ with you is that I do not perceive the MWC or AAC (after Louisville leaves in a couple months) as being superior to CUSA, and I very much doubt others do either.

(03-20-2014 06:02 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(03-20-2014 05:44 PM)Orange County Owl Wrote:  

(03-20-2014 05:08 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  Look, you know how much of a die hard I am. But I also am a realist. Could we end up in the Big XII one day...way down the line (and I mean way down the line)...sure. But do I see it as likely, no. Should we stop asking said conferences about interest? Hell no. But, what the focus should be on right now is us and making Rice the best it can be. Because we are far from that right now. And that best may eventually get us to a big boy conference...but it may not and we will be at it in the AAC or right here in C-USA. All I want is Rice's best.

I agree with this for the most part ... with the possible exception that I think we need to more aggressively strive towards that mini-step of an AAC (or even MWC) invite. To your point ... this represents a much more realistic initial step that gets us at least towards the top tier of the non-P5 grouping (and hopefully somewhat stems the snowballing loss of general fan interest).

OCO, where I differ with you is that I do not perceive the MWC or AAC (after Louisville leaves in a couple months) as being superior to CUSA, and I very much doubt others do either.

Walt ... So here would be my question ... why has every single school that received an invite from CUSA to the AAC accepted before the ink has dried?

And I will honestly say that I have not heard one single person or media outlet (outside of this board) who doesn't see the AAC as competitively superior to CUSA in the primary revenue sports (FB and MBB). Agree with you that the difference in TV revenue is at this point minimal-to-moderate, but I think that's about to change.

MWC's geography makes it a bit of a different beast ... and they had down years in both FB and MBB. But - still competitively superior. Fully admit that travel for non-revenue athletes makes this one a bit more complicated.

(03-20-2014 06:11 PM)Orange County Owl Wrote:  Walt ... So here would be my question ... why has every single school that received an invite from CUSA to the AAC accepted before the ink has dried?

And I will honestly say that I have not heard one single person or media outlet (outside of this board) who doesn't see the AAC as competitively superior to CUSA in the primary revenue sports (FB and MBB). Agree with you that the difference in TV revenue is at this point minimal-to-moderate, but I think that's about to change.

Because in 2013, the AAC had an automatic bid to a BCS bowl. It no longer does, but it did for that year. That alone COULD have been a massive stepping stone for one of them.

Are there really that many people (outside of the AAC and CUSA) who even TALK about comparisons of the AAC to CUSA? I honestly doubt it.

IF the TV revenue changes, then it will almost by definition be viewed as better and you may well be right... But when we went to the WAC, it was LIGHTYEARS better than CUSA in terms of revenue (I think McKinsey said 14mm vs about 5mm)... yet half a dozen schools from that conference moved up and virtually nobody from the WAC did.... so the differences aren't really that material in the grand scheme of things.... at least UH and TCU and the like didn't seem to think so at the time.

Frankly I think UTSA has as good or better chances of becoming p5 members than virtually anyone else in either conference. UTSA has 30,000 students and virtually no professional competition in a decent sized (and growing) TV town. They aren't particularly burdened by academics and don't have significant legacy costs to contend with. If they did what UNT did in terms of spending on facilities, I think they'd be a possibility to jump to p5. UNT is also a candidate, but they are a bit more like UH in terms of competition.

Since the AAC has been mentioned, someone please remind me what Tulane did -- besides being located in New Orleans, which many love to visit -- to be asked to join the AAC? They're building a tiny on-campus stadium and seem to have a level of student/alum/community-fan apathy that rivals Rice's.

(While I believe that the AAC is -- and is perceived as being -- superior athletically to the present C-USA, I do hope that our current leadership (Drs. K & L) will stimulate significant competitive and economic improvements over the next 10 years.)

(03-20-2014 05:44 PM)Orange County Owl Wrote:  

(03-20-2014 05:08 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  Look, you know how much of a die hard I am. But I also am a realist. Could we end up in the Big XII one day...way down the line (and I mean way down the line)...sure. But do I see it as likely, no. Should we stop asking said conferences about interest? Hell no. But, what the focus should be on right now is us and making Rice the best it can be. Because we are far from that right now. And that best may eventually get us to a big boy conference...but it may not and we will be at it in the AAC or right here in C-USA. All I want is Rice's best.

I agree with this for the most part ... with the possible exception that I think we need to more aggressively strive towards that mini-step of an AAC (or even MWC) invite. To your point ... this represents a much more realistic initial step that gets us at least towards the top tier of the non-P5 grouping (and hopefully somewhat stems the snowballing loss of general fan interest).

Yeah, I can agree with that. It would be an incremental step in improving our lot that is much more realistic than debating which P5 we are going to jump to, which we have about as much chance of doing that right now as predicting a perfect NCAA MBB bracket.

We've been in a downward spiral since the SWC breakup.
SWC to WAC-16. WAC-16 to WAC light. WAC light to CUSA (lateral). CUSA to CUSA light.
A move to AAC or MWC would be perceived as a step in the other direction, a halt to the spiral.
There will be future changes. We will move again. If the options are CUSA light to MWC, CUSA light to AAC, or CUSA light to Sunbelt, which is best? Which is worst?
Of course, we have to find a conference we can win consistently to attract anyone's attention.

I agree that we need to halt the downward spiral. We need to be in a conference with schools that excel in either or both academics and athletics. CUSA light does neither. The problem is that the best conferences are probably not receptive to us joining. The Ivy league has great academics but is not noticed all that much athletically. The P5 conferences have good athletics but they are not inviting us right now. There ware some good academics DIII conferences but their athletics are ignored by the general public who do not care what the Beavers of MIT and Cal Tech or the Maroon of Chicago are doing.

It was a shame that the SWC broke up because we have been falling down ever since. The private schools still in the P5 are doing all right because they are still in a good conference. Stanford is doing even better by winning in the Pac 12.

(03-20-2014 05:08 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(03-20-2014 04:24 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Bottom line, rather than argue about what is or is not possible... because that really says more about us and our individual perspectives than about really deciding what is and is not (in fact) possible... I'd point out that there is nothing in my suggestion that REQUIRES eventual membership in a p5 conference to be successful nor does stating that as a goal preclude success should that status not be attained.

To say it differently... striving for a high goal, whether or not you agree that it is attainable doesn't preclude us from increasing our attendance, revenue, profile, notoriety or ranking.

Deciding that such aspirations are 'impossible' could.

Yes, but the problem is, we keep putting the cart before the horse around here. Instead of debating off-the-wall theoreticals of which P5 conference we should target, why don't we figure out how to fix the problems you have listed? Because the only way those P5 theoreticals become any more realistic is by fixing the core problems this athletic department has. And fixing said problems will require work and effort from all of us beyond debating them here.

Look, you know how much of a die hard I am. But I also am a realist. Could we end up in the Big XII one day...way down the line (and I mean way down the line)...sure. But do I see it as likely, no. Should we stop asking said conferences about interest? Hell no. But, what the focus should be on right now is us and making Rice the best it can be. Because we are far from that right now. And that best may eventually get us to a big boy conference...but it may not and we will be at it in the AAC or right here in C-USA. All I want is Rice's best.

+1 I think that's it, pretty much in a nutshell. We need to do well where we are first. And "doing well" is not just the on-the-field results, but that has to be there too.

Here is what I don't understand...

I think everyone agrees that all the marketing and planning in the world won't make any difference if we aren't successful... and being successful alone may not be enough (see Boise, Fresno and others)... and that 'here' is our only option for accomplishing this goal until someone decides to offer us a different one, which probably only comes because we are successful and market well.

So what difference does it make if we dominate our current conference because we want to dominate our current conference or if we dominate our current conference with the goal of getting a 'better' date?

Our actions are exactly the same either way and the only real difference is the view of the eye of the beholder as to whether our best hope is to be the 'best of the rest' or if we have a chance of getting a date to the prom.... which is almost by definition an opinion rather than a fact.

It seems that we're merely arguing over whether the glass is half full or half empty... with the only difference there being as I said... the argument that it is half empty discourages it from being filled.... at least by the people with the deep pockets who want to make sure their multi-million dollar investment is being used to make things better

First things first. We have to win whatever conference we are in, and do it consistently. And so far we haven't mastered that. If it's a question of falling further until we find a league we can win, then we've got more falling to do.

At the same time, we need to market. We have to put butts in seats and ultimately eyeballs in front of TVs. We're further ahead on the winning front than we are here.

Once we do those two things, we have a shot at moving up in the world. If Boise and Fresno were in Houston and Dallas instead of Boise and Fresno, they would probably have moved up already. We don't have that problem.

But as long as we are a solid 0 for 2 doing the things we need to do, we're kidding ourselves talking about moving to any other conference except possibly Sunbelt.

There's going to be movement. It's just a question of which direction we go.

(03-20-2014 10:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  First things first. We have to win whatever conference we are in, and do it consistently. And so far we haven't mastered that. If it's a question of falling further until we find a league we can win, then we've got more falling to do.

At the same time, we need to market. We have to put butts in seats and ultimately eyeballs in front of TVs. We're further ahead on the winning front than we are here.

Once we do those two things, we have a shot at moving up in the world. If Boise and Fresno were in Houston and Dallas instead of Boise and Fresno, they would probably have moved up already. We don't have that problem.

But as long as we are a solid 0 for 2 doing the things we need to do, we're kidding ourselves talking about moving to any other conference except possibly Sunbelt.

There's going to be movement. It's just a question of which direction we go.

That's right. Do the things that any program in our situation would do to improve the overall health of their athletics programs. CUSA is definitely the kind of conference in which we can compete and win regularly. Take advantage of that and enjoy the ride. Experience consistent success for a change and build things up.

"History doesn't repeat but it does rhyme." Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain)

Let's take a page out of the Notre Dame playbook used from the 1920s to today. Bold, expensive but with a vastly better potential outcome than begging for crumbs from the P5.

Anywhere, anytime baby! Go Independent in football, use CUSA as an anchor (just like the ACC scheduling alliance ND has for football), they need us, more than we need them. Schedule the best from around the country to build our program, then use a scheduling alliance with CUSA to fill in our dance card.

Plenty of P5 schools would love to showcase "their" program in Houston and recruit here. Air travel is easy, and we have the facility, 45K expandable to 72K. Never (perhaps too strong, make me an offer I can't refuse Reliant) sell a home game off campus.

Work together to build the Rice brand instead of infighting over an every smaller piece of the pie. A home schedule of brand name and mid tier P5 schools is preferable to a constant embarrassment of ODU, Marshall, Middle Tennessee and UAB home games. Stick to Texas schools for the CUSA fill ins, UTSA, UNT, UTEP and then add Texas A&M, Texas, the service Academies, like minded peer privates and large state universities with a local alumni base that can fill the stadium (and possibly make us roll off the tarps for overflow crowds.)

Make it clear that we will not compromise our standards but at the same time front load our now indy TV package, free or almost free at first but with performance based escalators so that eventually, TV and streaming broadcasts are a money generator for the institution rather than a drag.

Make it clear that athletic expenses are an extension of the advertising and marketing efforts of the university and reduce the institutional infighting between athletics and other departments.

(full disclosure, a long term goal is to have my sport, men's swimming, reinstated but that won't happen unless the many other more pressing issues, see above are addressed.)

What about the fact that we're recruiting better in C-USA-light than we did in the WAC, C-USA, and arguably the SWC? Rice can still sell its products to kids that care about academics even if we're in a weak conference, and sometimes excelling in C-USA light is more attractive to players than struggling vs better competition. It's the fans that aren't buying the product because it's perceived as a lower level (although Rice itself is producing more talented teams now). More pro prospects now than we used to produce in any of those other conferences (most of the recent NFL players were recruited in the old C-USA, but we're beating out BCS schools for recruits as often or more now - see class 0f 15 recruit Ross Donnelly). Obviously a lot of that is Bailiff, and the argument can be made that he would recruit 4 and 5-stars if in a P5 conference, but the MWC would not be an upgrade as far as getting talent, IMO.

Being in the American Conference of whatever it's called would help a little with fan perception because the opponents would be slightly more attractive, but I'm not sure we'd be any better on the field. So I'm fine re-building in our current conference and looking only for an upgrade to one of the P5.

I think Leebron's statement shows that Rice is not UT, or even UH or SMU, we have a different philosophy and mission, but that doesn't mean we're a lesser program, we're just more unique.

(03-22-2014 03:22 PM)Buho00 Wrote:  What about the fact that we're recruiting better in C-USA-light than we did in the WAC, C-USA, and arguably the SWC? Rice can still sell its products to kids that care about academics even if we're in a weak conference, and sometimes excelling in C-USA light is more attractive to players than struggling vs better competition. It's the fans that aren't buying the product because it's perceived as a lower level (although Rice itself is producing more talented teams now). More pro prospects now than we used to produce in any of those other conferences (most of the recent NFL players were recruited in the old C-USA, but we're beating out BCS schools for recruits as often or more now - see class 0f 15 recruit Ross Donnelly). Obviously a lot of that is Bailiff, and the argument can be made that he would recruit 4 and 5-stars if in a P5 conference, but the MWC would not be an upgrade as far as getting talent, IMO.

Being in the American Conference of whatever it's called would help a little with fan perception because the opponents would be slightly more attractive, but I'm not sure we'd be any better on the field. So I'm fine re-building in our current conference and looking only for an upgrade to one of the P5.

I think Leebron's statement shows that Rice is not UT, or even UH or SMU, we have a different philosophy and mission, but that doesn't mean we're a lesser program, we're just more unique.

Very good post. I concur.

i too generally agree with the above...

Swimmer, while what you say I agree with (and said something similar before) it is unworkable for a number of reasons, other than as an academic exercise. It is meaningful from one perspective... in that as the conference declines, we need to increase our OOC competition to remain relevent... but it seems that we are doing that...

Comparisons of talent are a matter of opinion. While I think we certainly recruit more NFL talent now than we did when we ran the wishbone, that seems a bit of an obvious comment and unrelated to how effective/highly ranked the 'teams' are... so please, let's not start that again. Whether or not we are better in 2014 than 1994 is irrelevent. Whether or not we are one of the top 10 or 25 or 50 or 100 best teams in 2014 is all that matters.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(03-20-2014 09:54 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Here is what I don't understand...

I think everyone agrees that all the marketing and planning in the world won't make any difference if we aren't successful... and being successful alone may not be enough (see Boise, Fresno and others)... and that 'here' is our only option for accomplishing this goal until someone decides to offer us a different one, which probably only comes because we are successful and market well.

So what difference does it make if we dominate our current conference because we want to dominate our current conference or if we dominate our current conference with the goal of getting a 'better' date?

Our actions are exactly the same either way and the only real difference is the view of the eye of the beholder as to whether our best hope is to be the 'best of the rest' or if we have a chance of getting a date to the prom.... which is almost by definition an opinion rather than a fact.

It seems that we're merely arguing over whether the glass is half full or half empty... with the only difference there being as I said... the argument that it is half empty discourages it from being filled.... at least by the people with the deep pockets who want to make sure their multi-million dollar investment is being used to make things better

(tried to reply 1-1/2 days ago, but got dropped).

I don't know that it makes much difference. I think that all the speculation about which P5 is best for Rice, and who we ought to be approaching, etc, given the realities of the situation (we need to focus on winning and improving where we are, and getting the fixable things fixed) . . . . .

Well the closest analogy, might be me wondering which of Emma Stone, Emma Thompson or Jennifer Aniston I should be thinking about asking out for next Saturday night.

The astute on this Board know that my wife would never let me out of the house on the date when the time came. So what does it matter?