(01-04-2020 01:30 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 03:08 PM)Ranger Wrote:  It is almost axiomatic that there is a massive divide, a polarization, among posters on the board concerning Rice football and Bailiff. I believe most if not all of us want the same thing - we just differ on how to get there.

What some of us fear is that Rice football is slowly receding into irrevelance and that there is little time left to fix it.

I have read on this site, for instance, that football is irrelevant to the lives of most Rice students. From what I have read, the athletic department has tried various stratagems to increase student interest, but with little success. If I am remembering correctly, one poster explained that a large portion of the current crop of students comes from geographical regions and overseas where football is not cherished. This could well be a legitimate reason for a lack of student interest, but it is not an excuse.

I stayed up to watch the Stanford UW game yesterday. Perhaps the TV cherry picked shots, but it seemed as if there was a fairly large, enthusiastic student section. And the Rice student body is pretty much the same as the Stanford student body in smarts and geographical origin. So why is Stanford, for instance, (and probably if I researched I could list other academically oriented schools) so enthusiastic about football. This is a school which we may have been able to trounce in the several years before Harbaugh arrived, which I guess was 10 or so years ago. I believe the Cardinal was 1-11 the year before Harbaugh arrived.

These are some things to think about. Why is the football team supported at other academic universities while possibly not at Rice. I have my ideas. But the point is that viewed over the span of 50 years, Rice football has slipped further and further to irrelevance, not only to the student body but also to the national scene.

I suspect that the big changes on the national college football scene will further exacerbate matters, with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. I am not always an advocate for changing the status quo. When you change the status quo, things may go down rather than up. But at this point, the upside is far more extensive than the downside, and I think we have to try. There are obstacles to change. We have heard them ad infinitum. But this is Rice University, which has a talented group of students, friends, and alums. If we cannot overcome obstacles, well.........

In the intervening years has Rice become more or less relevant? Right now, I'd say less, and the slope is getting slipperier...

sadly yes. And landing at the end of that slope, which is coming faster and faster, is DIII.

was at the "Rice" Academy today (on 59 between Greenbriar and Kirby). I think that Tillman bribed them as they had almost as much UH crap as even Texans (or maybe the Texans is selling faster). saw about 30 of 2 different rice shirts-almost hidden. Pathetic-maybe the store in the village has blown them out or maybe it is more evidence for this string....

(01-05-2020 09:44 PM)texowl2 Wrote:  was at the "Rice" Academy today (on 59 between Greenbriar and Kirby). I think that Tillman bribed them as they had almost as much UH crap as even Texans (or maybe the Texans is selling faster). saw about 30 of 2 different rice shirts-almost hidden. Pathetic-maybe the store in the village has blown them out or maybe it is more evidence for this string....

Supply and demand. Or rather no demand, no need for supply.

Over the next 10-15 years, we'll see more and more struggling G5 schools drop football. At least we'll never have worry about losing our program. Rice will always keep it going, but it's not likely enough will be spent to make us much more "relevant" than we are right now.

The only saving grace is that we'll be one of fewer FBS programs, which is a good thing. Hopefully we'll be with the private schools in the AAC, or in the MWC, which would be a very good thing.

Any universities that don't make the cut to 64 (4 conferences of 16 each) will be more and more doomed to permanent minor league status (NCAA FB won't be like the premier league) and irrelevancy, lesser than even minor league hockey or small town grocery stores. One can only hope that somehow widespread NCAA basketball survives or the NCAA bskb tournament will lose it's amazing place in sports. But i'm sure the 64 will try to kill it.

(01-06-2020 06:59 PM)texowl2 Wrote:  Any universities that don't make the cut to 64 (4 conferences of 16 each) will be more and more doomed to permanent minor league status (NCAA FB won't be like the premier league) and irrelevancy, lesser than even minor league hockey or small town grocery stores. ... But i'm sure the 64 will try to kill it.

I'd think that "The 64" would feel the need for a stable of viable G5 teams that they could reliably defeat so they all could have or come close to annual winning records and bowl games. If all the G5 teams can stand their ground and don't cave to The 64's quick-money body-bag games that they will surely offer, then a large fraction of those top 64 teams will finish their seasons at 50-50 or worse. Serves 'em right.

(01-07-2020 08:44 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  

(01-06-2020 06:59 PM)texowl2 Wrote:  Any universities that don't make the cut to 64 (4 conferences of 16 each) will be more and more doomed to permanent minor league status (NCAA FB won't be like the premier league) and irrelevancy, lesser than even minor league hockey or small town grocery stores. ... But i'm sure the 64 will try to kill it.

I'd think that "The 64" would feel the need for a stable of viable G5 teams that they could reliably defeat so they all could have or come close to annual winning records and bowl games. If all the G5 teams can stand their ground and don't cave to The 64's quick-money body-bag games that they will surely offer, then a large fraction of those top 64 teams will finish their seasons at 50-50 or worse. Serves 'em right.

None of the 64 want to play a schedule against 12 teams from the 64.

(01-04-2020 02:02 PM)OldOwl Wrote:  I am curious what percentage of incoming freshman at Stanford or international students relative to Rice. The recent report from the Owl Club indicate there was zero support from the Asian alumni and minimal support from other foreign countries.

(10-25-2015 03:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Regarding Stanford having better support from students as compared to Rice, I imagine it's a combo of 3 things:

1) population (almost twice the # of undergrads)
2) playing in a P-5 conference
3) being VERY successful during the past few years (4 11 or 12 win seasons in a row from 2010-2013 with 3 BCS bowls).

You have singled out Asian and international alumni before and you continue to for some reason. But OK, I’ll play devil’s advocate and bite.. here are stats comparing Rice and Stanford incoming classes. These are directly from Stanford.edu and Rice.edu, but not every year’s data is available and takes some searching. If you think I’m cherry-picking, do your own research.
%International Students (Current totals: Stanford 10% - Rice 12%)
2019: Stanford 11% - Rice 11%
2018: Stanford 10% - Rice 12%
2012: Stanford 9.7% - Rice 11%
2010: Stanford 8.5% - Rice 13%
2006: Stanford ?? - Rice 6.9%
1998: Stanford 4% - Rice 2%
1992: Stanford 4.5% - Rice 2%

%Asian-American (Current totals: Stanford 21%- Rice 22%)
2019: Stanford 20% - Rice 33%
2018: Stanford 22% - Rice ??
2012: Stanford 23% - Rice ??
2010: Stanford 20% - Rice ??
2002: Stanford 22% - Rice 16%
2000: Stanford 24% - Rice 14%
1998: Stanford 23% - Rice ??
1996: Stanford 26% - Rice 15%
1992: Stanford 22% - Rice ??

If anything else, Stanford has historically had higher percentages of international students and Asian-Americans in its undergraduate student body, and we have only caught up more recently. Nevertheless, overall student body demographics and diversity remain very similar. Higher proportion of Asians and international students in an undergraduate population do not correlate with less giving. That is a myth that for some reason, you like to hold on to.

(01-08-2020 04:53 AM)MartelOwl_08 Wrote:  Higher proportion of Asians and international students in an undergraduate population do not correlate with less giving. That is a myth that for some reason, you like to hold on to.

I think the correlation being asserted is with less giving to athletics, not less total giving.

(01-08-2020 05:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-08-2020 04:53 AM)MartelOwl_08 Wrote:  Higher proportion of Asians and international students in an undergraduate population do not correlate with less giving. That is a myth that for some reason, you like to hold on to.

I think the correlation being asserted is with less giving to athletics, not less total giving.

Oh I'm perfectly aware that's what OldOwl was referring to. It's just that data on giving rates for Stanford's version of the Owl Club and athletics in general are not publicly available. However, everytime we ever talk about financial support and giving to athletics, OldOwl seems to mention Asians and international students, implying their belief that the two are linked. I'm just saying I think it's based off one data point (Rice).

(01-08-2020 03:28 PM)MartelOwl_08 Wrote:  

(01-08-2020 05:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-08-2020 04:53 AM)MartelOwl_08 Wrote:  Higher proportion of Asians and international students in an undergraduate population do not correlate with less giving. That is a myth that for some reason, you like to hold on to.

I think the correlation being asserted is with less giving to athletics, not less total giving.

Oh I'm perfectly aware that's what OldOwl was referring to. It's just that data on giving rates for Stanford's version of the Owl Club and athletics in general are not publicly available. However, everytime we ever talk about financial support and giving to athletics, OldOwl seems to mention Asians and international students, implying their belief that the two are linked. I'm just saying I think it's based off one data point (Rice).

I think there are more compelling arguments than athletics giving rates to suggest that Rice might be too China-oriented... Related to national security and intellectual property theft. And no, I'm not Wade Townsend and I don't think Ping is a communist party plant.

Yes you miss the point but you indicate the data is not available. I was referring of only giving to the athletic dept comparison.

This is a ridiculous argument. Student support has very little to do with student body makeup or anything to with stats except the significant stat of wins and losses. No one wants to show up to see a (perennial) loser on the field.

Big picture: sports are entertainment. There are probably a handful of students who crave seeing a D1 football game in person for nostalgic reasons (involved in football in high school) or general hobbyist interest in football (sports nuts, DFS players, etc.), but we are talking about the 200 or so that show up on a regular basis regardless of the station of the team (I was among these). Outside of that small minority, no one wants to watch what is objectively a terrible football team play other typically terrible football teams only to watch "your" team get snuffed into the ground like a cigarette butt on a weekly basis.

For the few years that Rice was decent when I was a student, I noticed quite a few of these "international" students in the stands as I had a great time explaining basic rules of football to them (what is a 1st, 2nd, 3rd down? why do the umpires throw yellow flags on the ground? how many points do you get if you run to the end of the field?). All they knew was that the team was doing well (via word of mouth) and thought it would be fun to come out for a sport of which they were unfamiliar with given that the scale and spectacle of D1 college football is something most people don't experience growing up even if they are from a large football crazy high school (such as I was). I suspect this dynamic is no different at Stanford, Notre Dame, or Prairie View. No one shows up "to support the football team" except friends and family of the players and maybe 200 or so football degenerates, which is exactly the crowd we have at the moment.

In the mid-1960s, Rice was still considered a relevant football program (beat Texas in 1965, and LSU in 1966) and overall athletics were pretty good until about 1970 (SWC champions in basketball, track, tennis during 1965-70 time frame, and baseball team was nationally ranked for at least part of one season). But Bo Hagan replaced Neely as both football coach and AD in 1966, and quickly drove football into the ground, followed by all other sports (tennis was the last to go, after Harold Solomon turned pro). Rice was not competitive (other than the occasional one-off) in any sport for almost the entire 1970s and 1980s. At the same time, the attitude of the athletic department was about as fan-unfriendly as possible. The effect is that Rice athletics managed to turn off the casual fan among alumni and Houstonians, as well as pretty much a whole generation of students.

I'm not surprised that student support is poor. The program systematically drove them away for 20 years, so students found other things to do, and doing those other things got passed down. I once had an (unnamed) athletic director ask me, "Why do we care about students? They get in free, we don't make any money off them?" I told him it was because that was his next generation of fans, but he didn't seem to think that was important.

I don't think Rice can get the Houstonians back. UH has taken that market. Rice still has the old alumni, but that group is dwindling. The only way to get young alumni involved is to get students back and wait a few years, and at this point I'm not sure how to get students back.

(01-11-2020 01:54 AM)flash3200 Wrote:  This is a ridiculous argument. Student support has very little to do with student body makeup or anything to with stats except the significant stat of wins and losses. No one wants to show up to see a (perennial) loser on the field.

Big picture: sports are entertainment. There are probably a handful of students who crave seeing a D1 football game in person for nostalgic reasons (involved in football in high school) or general hobbyist interest in football (sports nuts, DFS players, etc.), but we are talking about the 200 or so that show up on a regular basis regardless of the station of the team (I was among these). Outside of that small minority, no one wants to watch what is objectively a terrible football team play other typically terrible football teams only to watch "your" team get snuffed into the ground like a cigarette butt on a weekly basis.

For the few years that Rice was decent when I was a student, I noticed quite a few of these "international" students in the stands as I had a great time explaining basic rules of football to them (what is a 1st, 2nd, 3rd down? why do the umpires throw yellow flags on the ground? how many points do you get if you run to the end of the field?). All they knew was that the team was doing well (via word of mouth) and thought it would be fun to come out for a sport of which they were unfamiliar with given that the scale and spectacle of D1 college football is something most people don't experience growing up even if they are from a large football crazy high school (such as I was). I suspect this dynamic is no different at Stanford, Notre Dame, or Prairie View. No one shows up "to support the football team" except friends and family of the players and maybe 200 or so football degenerates, which is exactly the crowd we have at the moment.

I think you’re right about Stanford and Prairie View... But there are some schools, like Notre Dame, where it’s so ingrained in the culture that you go win or lose. For example, I went to a BC-Notre Dame game during the Ty Willingham years when quite frankly, BC was better than Notre Dame. The student section at Notre Dame was packed to the gills.

(01-11-2020 08:43 AM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  

(01-11-2020 01:54 AM)flash3200 Wrote:  This is a ridiculous argument. Student support has very little to do with student body makeup or anything to with stats except the significant stat of wins and losses. No one wants to show up to see a (perennial) loser on the field.

Big picture: sports are entertainment. There are probably a handful of students who crave seeing a D1 football game in person for nostalgic reasons (involved in football in high school) or general hobbyist interest in football (sports nuts, DFS players, etc.), but we are talking about the 200 or so that show up on a regular basis regardless of the station of the team (I was among these). Outside of that small minority, no one wants to watch what is objectively a terrible football team play other typically terrible football teams only to watch "your" team get snuffed into the ground like a cigarette butt on a weekly basis.

For the few years that Rice was decent when I was a student, I noticed quite a few of these "international" students in the stands as I had a great time explaining basic rules of football to them (what is a 1st, 2nd, 3rd down? why do the umpires throw yellow flags on the ground? how many points do you get if you run to the end of the field?). All they knew was that the team was doing well (via word of mouth) and thought it would be fun to come out for a sport of which they were unfamiliar with given that the scale and spectacle of D1 college football is something most people don't experience growing up even if they are from a large football crazy high school (such as I was). I suspect this dynamic is no different at Stanford, Notre Dame, or Prairie View. No one shows up "to support the football team" except friends and family of the players and maybe 200 or so football degenerates, which is exactly the crowd we have at the moment.

I think you’re right about Stanford and Prairie View... But there are some schools, like Notre Dame, where it’s so ingrained in the culture that you go win or lose. For example, I went to a BC-Notre Dame game during the Ty Willingham years when quite frankly, BC was better than Notre Dame. The student section at Notre Dame was packed to the gills.

Notre Dame is one of the few "Blue Blood" football teams that has a (perceived) reasonable expectation of great success year in and year out. Since they made themselves open to bowl games in 1969, their longest streak without a major bowl is only 6 years, and only two such periods are longer than 4 years. Nearly any graduate of Notre Dame in the last fifty years likely attended while the football team played at least one Cotton, Sugar, Orange, or Fiesta Bowl or the BCS championship, if not several such games.

So what does Notre Dame have that Stanford, Prairie View, and Rice don't? Does it start with boosters opening checkbooks? Does it start with the trustees demanding that the administration prioritize football? Does it start with winning often enough despite the odds that major opponents consider you a peer worth scheduling? The truth is almost certainly in between these. I think the places to start are the budget and administrative accountability, but I'm in no position to change either of those.

(01-11-2020 10:23 AM)franklyconfused Wrote:  

(01-11-2020 08:43 AM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  

(01-11-2020 01:54 AM)flash3200 Wrote:  This is a ridiculous argument. Student support has very little to do with student body makeup or anything to with stats except the significant stat of wins and losses. No one wants to show up to see a (perennial) loser on the field.

Big picture: sports are entertainment. There are probably a handful of students who crave seeing a D1 football game in person for nostalgic reasons (involved in football in high school) or general hobbyist interest in football (sports nuts, DFS players, etc.), but we are talking about the 200 or so that show up on a regular basis regardless of the station of the team (I was among these). Outside of that small minority, no one wants to watch what is objectively a terrible football team play other typically terrible football teams only to watch "your" team get snuffed into the ground like a cigarette butt on a weekly basis.

For the few years that Rice was decent when I was a student, I noticed quite a few of these "international" students in the stands as I had a great time explaining basic rules of football to them (what is a 1st, 2nd, 3rd down? why do the umpires throw yellow flags on the ground? how many points do you get if you run to the end of the field?). All they knew was that the team was doing well (via word of mouth) and thought it would be fun to come out for a sport of which they were unfamiliar with given that the scale and spectacle of D1 college football is something most people don't experience growing up even if they are from a large football crazy high school (such as I was). I suspect this dynamic is no different at Stanford, Notre Dame, or Prairie View. No one shows up "to support the football team" except friends and family of the players and maybe 200 or so football degenerates, which is exactly the crowd we have at the moment.

I think you’re right about Stanford and Prairie View... But there are some schools, like Notre Dame, where it’s so ingrained in the culture that you go win or lose. For example, I went to a BC-Notre Dame game during the Ty Willingham years when quite frankly, BC was better than Notre Dame. The student section at Notre Dame was packed to the gills.

Notre Dame is one of the few "Blue Blood" football teams that has a (perceived) reasonable expectation of great success year in and year out. Since they made themselves open to bowl games in 1969, their longest streak without a major bowl is only 6 years, and only two such periods are longer than 4 years. Nearly any graduate of Notre Dame in the last fifty years likely attended while the football team played at least one Cotton, Sugar, Orange, or Fiesta Bowl or the BCS championship, if not several such games.

So what does Notre Dame have that Stanford, Prairie View, and Rice don't? Does it start with boosters opening checkbooks? Does it start with the trustees demanding that the administration prioritize football? Does it start with winning often enough despite the odds that major opponents consider you a peer worth scheduling? The truth is almost certainly in between these. I think the places to start are the budget and administrative accountability, but I'm in no position to change either of those.

It started decades ago, with winning, and has been reinforced with decades of winning.

12-0 is a first step for us, not the end of the road.

(01-11-2020 10:23 AM)franklyconfused Wrote:  

(01-11-2020 08:43 AM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  

(01-11-2020 01:54 AM)flash3200 Wrote:  This is a ridiculous argument. Student support has very little to do with student body makeup or anything to with stats except the significant stat of wins and losses. No one wants to show up to see a (perennial) loser on the field.

Big picture: sports are entertainment. There are probably a handful of students who crave seeing a D1 football game in person for nostalgic reasons (involved in football in high school) or general hobbyist interest in football (sports nuts, DFS players, etc.), but we are talking about the 200 or so that show up on a regular basis regardless of the station of the team (I was among these). Outside of that small minority, no one wants to watch what is objectively a terrible football team play other typically terrible football teams only to watch "your" team get snuffed into the ground like a cigarette butt on a weekly basis.

For the few years that Rice was decent when I was a student, I noticed quite a few of these "international" students in the stands as I had a great time explaining basic rules of football to them (what is a 1st, 2nd, 3rd down? why do the umpires throw yellow flags on the ground? how many points do you get if you run to the end of the field?). All they knew was that the team was doing well (via word of mouth) and thought it would be fun to come out for a sport of which they were unfamiliar with given that the scale and spectacle of D1 college football is something most people don't experience growing up even if they are from a large football crazy high school (such as I was). I suspect this dynamic is no different at Stanford, Notre Dame, or Prairie View. No one shows up "to support the football team" except friends and family of the players and maybe 200 or so football degenerates, which is exactly the crowd we have at the moment.

I think you’re right about Stanford and Prairie View... But there are some schools, like Notre Dame, where it’s so ingrained in the culture that you go win or lose. For example, I went to a BC-Notre Dame game during the Ty Willingham years when quite frankly, BC was better than Notre Dame. The student section at Notre Dame was packed to the gills.

Notre Dame is one of the few "Blue Blood" football teams that has a (perceived) reasonable expectation of great success year in and year out. Since they made themselves open to bowl games in 1969, their longest streak without a major bowl is only 6 years, and only two such periods are longer than 4 years. Nearly any graduate of Notre Dame in the last fifty years likely attended while the football team played at least one Cotton, Sugar, Orange, or Fiesta Bowl or the BCS championship, if not several such games.

So what does Notre Dame have that Stanford, Prairie View, and Rice don't? Does it start with boosters opening checkbooks? Does it start with the trustees demanding that the administration prioritize football? Does it start with winning often enough despite the odds that major opponents consider you a peer worth scheduling? The truth is almost certainly in between these. I think the places to start are the budget and administrative accountability, but I'm in no position to change either of those.

What does Notre Dame have that no one else has?

Two words:

TOUCHDOWN JESUS!

What is a ridiculous argument? What are you referring to? Seem like you are talking about football attendance only?

(01-11-2020 01:54 AM)flash3200 Wrote:  This is a ridiculous argument. Student support has very little to do with student body makeup or anything to with stats except the significant stat of wins and losses. No one wants to show up to see a (perennial) loser on the field.

Big picture: sports are entertainment. There are probably a handful of students who crave seeing a D1 football game in person for nostalgic reasons (involved in football in high school) or general hobbyist interest in football (sports nuts, DFS players, etc.), but we are talking about the 200 or so that show up on a regular basis regardless of the station of the team (I was among these). Outside of that small minority, no one wants to watch what is objectively a terrible football team play other typically terrible football teams only to watch "your" team get snuffed into the ground like a cigarette butt on a weekly basis.

For the few years that Rice was decent when I was a student, I noticed quite a few of these "international" students in the stands as I had a great time explaining basic rules of football to them (what is a 1st, 2nd, 3rd down? why do the umpires throw yellow flags on the ground? how many points do you get if you run to the end of the field?). All they knew was that the team was doing well (via word of mouth) and thought it would be fun to come out for a sport of which they were unfamiliar with given that the scale and spectacle of D1 college football is something most people don't experience growing up even if they are from a large football crazy high school (such as I was). I suspect this dynamic is no different at Stanford, Notre Dame, or Prairie View. No one shows up "to support the football team" except friends and family of the players and maybe 200 or so football degenerates, which is exactly the crowd we have at the moment.

Out

(01-11-2020 12:55 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  

(01-11-2020 10:23 AM)franklyconfused Wrote:  

(01-11-2020 08:43 AM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  

(01-11-2020 01:54 AM)flash3200 Wrote:  This is a ridiculous argument. Student support has very little to do with student body makeup or anything to with stats except the significant stat of wins and losses. No one wants to show up to see a (perennial) loser on the field.

Big picture: sports are entertainment. There are probably a handful of students who crave seeing a D1 football game in person for nostalgic reasons (involved in football in high school) or general hobbyist interest in football (sports nuts, DFS players, etc.), but we are talking about the 200 or so that show up on a regular basis regardless of the station of the team (I was among these). Outside of that small minority, no one wants to watch what is objectively a terrible football team play other typically terrible football teams only to watch "your" team get snuffed into the ground like a cigarette butt on a weekly basis.

For the few years that Rice was decent when I was a student, I noticed quite a few of these "international" students in the stands as I had a great time explaining basic rules of football to them (what is a 1st, 2nd, 3rd down? why do the umpires throw yellow flags on the ground? how many points do you get if you run to the end of the field?). All they knew was that the team was doing well (via word of mouth) and thought it would be fun to come out for a sport of which they were unfamiliar with given that the scale and spectacle of D1 college football is something most people don't experience growing up even if they are from a large football crazy high school (such as I was). I suspect this dynamic is no different at Stanford, Notre Dame, or Prairie View. No one shows up "to support the football team" except friends and family of the players and maybe 200 or so football degenerates, which is exactly the crowd we have at the moment.

I think you’re right about Stanford and Prairie View... But there are some schools, like Notre Dame, where it’s so ingrained in the culture that you go win or lose. For example, I went to a BC-Notre Dame game during the Ty Willingham years when quite frankly, BC was better than Notre Dame. The student section at Notre Dame was packed to the gills.

Notre Dame is one of the few "Blue Blood" football teams that has a (perceived) reasonable expectation of great success year in and year out. Since they made themselves open to bowl games in 1969, their longest streak without a major bowl is only 6 years, and only two such periods are longer than 4 years. Nearly any graduate of Notre Dame in the last fifty years likely attended while the football team played at least one Cotton, Sugar, Orange, or Fiesta Bowl or the BCS championship, if not several such games.

So what does Notre Dame have that Stanford, Prairie View, and Rice don't? Does it start with boosters opening checkbooks? Does it start with the trustees demanding that the administration prioritize football? Does it start with winning often enough despite the odds that major opponents consider you a peer worth scheduling? The truth is almost certainly in between these. I think the places to start are the budget and administrative accountability, but I'm in no position to change either of those.

What does Notre Dame have that no one else has?

Two words:

TOUCHDOWN JESUS!

NBC - Notre Dame Broadcasting Company.