(09-22-2017 03:29 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Where is this "massive real estate project" allegedly going to be built, exactly?

NW or SW corner of Greenbriar & University?

Gotta be NW-pretty empty. SW has businesses and houses.

couldn't be said any better:

http://www.ricethresher.org/article/2017...ng-culture

I thought about putting this in the Facebook Livestream comment section, but I figured the first item (in particular) belongs in a discussion the future of Rice Athletics...

The first part of this column by Dennis Dodd talks about conference realignment may already be getting a push, and may come sooner than anyone thought. It's all about the online (not cable) broadcasts:

Quote:When we look back, the next round of conference realignment may have started now -- right under our noses. What have amounted to pilgrimages to the West Coast by high-powered conference administrators visiting the corporate offices of Google, Amazon and Facebook have become the norm.

It has long been speculated that those internet giants will at least have a hand in the next round of conference alignment by bidding on media rights. It's early -- way early -- but at least preliminary discussions have begun on possible business relationships.

"Everyone in college sports has made a trip to the West Coast to talk to them and others," one TV industry source said.

source: https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...alignment/

This is mostly focused on the P5 positioning for this. But it mentions MWC experiments with it, where (in same column):

Quote:One industry source envisioned himself on the board of one of these internet giants. They've been making billions in annual profits. How or how much -- the source speculated -- are live sports going to add to the bottom line?

That remains an open-ended question. The Mountain West's Facebook streams have averaged between 500,000 and 1.5 million views, Thompson said.

"A view is less than two seconds," Thompson pointed out. "You might watch a catch."

So while the Rice game had about 1000 viewers at any given time (plus or minus), how many actual views did it get? (There is a sarcastic comment that could be made here. For once, I'll avoid it.)

Anyway, this is another area where Rice's small alumni and fan base works against it.

BTW, at the end of the column, it talks about possible coming changes in the transfer rules. It's actually kind of interesting, and things could actually get tighter (to get a waiver).

Quote:A recent report was a bit misleading in saying the NCAA is considering "all" Division I transfers to be eligible immediately. I'm hearing it's just as likely athletes in minor sports will now be sitting out a transfer year as there is football, basketball and hockey players able to transfer immediately. What's more likely to happen is an academic bar set so high for transfers (think minimum GPA), the transfer year waiver will affect only a few athletes.

For graduate transfers, schools may be required to make a two-year scholarship commitment for graduate school to slow the free-agent aspect of the rule. Any school taking a grad transfer then would be bound financially to that scholarship even if the athlete left after one season. A wasted scholarship will make administrators think twice about going to the free-agent market.

Well, any minimum GPA requirement will be a joke. Schools are now openly giving credit and passing grades for fictional classes, and getting away with it.

(09-27-2017 09:39 AM)texowl2 Wrote:  couldn't be said any better:

http://www.ricethresher.org/article/2017...ng-culture

I think this author has made some great points. Most of them hashed and re-hashed ad nauseum on this board.
After reading the article very carefully I have one question... Rice has a proven social and party culture???? When did this happen?

(09-27-2017 10:39 AM)greyowl72 Wrote:  

(09-27-2017 09:39 AM)texowl2 Wrote:  couldn't be said any better:

http://www.ricethresher.org/article/2017...ng-culture

I think this author has made some great points. Most of them hashed and re-hashed ad nauseum on this board.
After reading the article very carefully I have one question... Rice has a proven social and party culture???? When did this happen?

Don, I think the school has changed since we were there. There was zero party culture then.

(09-27-2017 10:57 AM)Ranger Wrote:  

(09-27-2017 10:39 AM)greyowl72 Wrote:  

(09-27-2017 09:39 AM)texowl2 Wrote:  couldn't be said any better:

http://www.ricethresher.org/article/2017...ng-culture

I think this author has made some great points. Most of them hashed and re-hashed ad nauseum on this board.
After reading the article very carefully I have one question... Rice has a proven social and party culture???? When did this happen?

Don, I think the school has changed since we were there. There was zero party culture then.

You're probably right. I also remember a lot of snow and ice and 2 mile hikes thru inclement weather to get to class.

Quote:From the administration, to the athletic directors, to the coaching staff, to the players, to the students, to the fans, and to everyone affiliated with the Rice football program, it’s crystal clear: there is a lack of investment in a winning football team.

Right, what we need is to pay our football coach at a level near the top of our conference competition, invest large $$ into improving facilities at HRS, get an AD who our football coaches and top boosters will love and has strong connections in conference realignment, and as a backup, should this AD flame out for any unlikely reason like calling Rice student-athletes terrorists, we bring in an AD with much-needed business analytical skills and marketing expertise.

Let's make it happen.

(09-27-2017 11:34 AM)At Ease Wrote:  

Quote:From the administration, to the athletic directors, to the coaching staff, to the players, to the students, to the fans, and to everyone affiliated with the Rice football program, it’s crystal clear: there is a lack of investment in a winning football team.

Right, what we need is to pay our football coach at a level near the top of our conference competition, invest large $$ into improving facilities at HRS, get an AD who our football coaches and top boosters will love and has strong connections in conference realignment, and as a backup, should this AD flame out for any unlikely reason like calling Rice student-athletes terrorists, we bring in an AD with much-needed business analytical skills and marketing expertise.

Let's make it happen.

(09-27-2017 11:17 AM)greyowl72 Wrote:  

(09-27-2017 10:57 AM)Ranger Wrote:  

(09-27-2017 10:39 AM)greyowl72 Wrote:  

(09-27-2017 09:39 AM)texowl2 Wrote:  couldn't be said any better:

http://www.ricethresher.org/article/2017...ng-culture

I think this author has made some great points. Most of them hashed and re-hashed ad nauseum on this board.
After reading the article very carefully I have one question... Rice has a proven social and party culture???? When did this happen?

Don, I think the school has changed since we were there. There was zero party culture then.

You're probably right. I also remember a lot of snow and ice and 2 mile hikes thru inclement weather to get to class.

You forgot to mention it was uphill both ways.

(09-27-2017 10:05 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Well, any minimum GPA requirement will be a joke. Schools are now openly giving credit and passing grades for fictional classes, and getting away with it.

But that is as much to keep them eligible than to have them make scholar-athlete lists. If the GPA level is something at least moderately challenging, does it behoove the schools to keep getting them in classes that keep their GPA above that threshold, so that they can transfer without a redshirt (or lost) year? Call me cynical to think that they might try to keep players in a certain range to limit transfer options.

The grad transfer scholarship for 2 years could be interesting. Not sure how they square the circle where I'm not sure many players are graduating in 3 years. There are some, but most are probably getting done in 4 years, so typically they'll only have 1 redshirt year left. I like trying to force the hand on players (particularly football) who transfer for one semester and then go to pro combine training and drop school once their athletic season is over. Just not sure if that's the best way.

(09-27-2017 09:56 AM)gsloth Wrote:  Anyway, this is another area where Rice's small alumni and fan base works against it.

Yes.

In the past, market size was one of the most important factors in conference alignment. That would have worked in Rice’s favor, had we gotten some of the other factors in decent shape.

As video distribution moves online, market size becomes irrelevant, replaced by click potential, and Rice’s position becomes more difficult than it used to be.

People keep saying this is a critical moment. I disagree. I think there was a critical period that was several decades long and has now probably ended.

http://www.ricethresher.org/article/2017...e-football

more of the same, but the best is the reply from Mark Williams, probably the first Rice kicker of real note (by no means dissing Froggie) who punted and kicked terrifically in the early 70's. Not sure how capable Bailiff is, but the rest is true.

It's great to see the Thresher sportswriters really bear down on the football issue and offering different viewpoints.

(09-28-2017 08:55 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  It's great to see the Thresher sportswriters really bear down on the football issue and offering different viewpoints.

Agreed. I think his target for coaching salaries might be a bit off, but the idea still has merit.

I still don't agree that Bailiff's failings are attributable to a lack of resources, and I don't believe the assistants he has are the best available for what they are being payed. Begs the question, if he's that good, how come nobody has ever wanted to hire him, even after a winning season?

(09-28-2017 09:26 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  I still don't agree that Bailiff's failings are attributable to a lack of resources, and I don't believe the assistants he has are the best available for what they are being payed. Begs the question, if he's that good, how come nobody has ever wanted to hire him, even after a winning season?

UTSA did after the 2015 season. But, your point is valid considering the lack of public interest after the 2013 season.

I think the lack of resources exacerbate the problem.

(09-28-2017 09:34 AM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 09:26 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  I still don't agree that Bailiff's failings are attributable to a lack of resources, and I don't believe the assistants he has are the best available for what they are being payed. Begs the question, if he's that good, how come nobody has ever wanted to hire him, even after a winning season?

UTSA did after the 2015 season. But, your point is valid considering the lack of public interest after the 2013 season.

I think the lack of resources exacerbate the problem.

a) UTSA didn't hire him - they didn't even make an offer.
b) I really don't think Bailiff could make good use of resources even if he were showered with them. He's not effectively using what resources and talent he has at his disposal. It's not smart to give lots of resources to a manager who can't make good use of them.

(09-28-2017 09:37 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 09:34 AM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 09:26 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  I still don't agree that Bailiff's failings are attributable to a lack of resources, and I don't believe the assistants he has are the best available for what they are being payed. Begs the question, if he's that good, how come nobody has ever wanted to hire him, even after a winning season?

UTSA did after the 2015 season. But, your point is valid considering the lack of public interest after the 2013 season.

I think the lack of resources exacerbate the problem.

a) UTSA didn't hire him - they didn't even make an offer.
b) I really don't think Bailiff could make good use of resources even if he were showered with them. It's not smart to give lots of resources to a manager who can't make good use of them.

I assumed that wanting to talk to him would fulfill your requirement of "wanted to hire him". I would assume interviewing someone says that you believe them to be a potential fit.

On the second point, there are obviously those who believe the opposite. I really have no idea which side is true.

(09-28-2017 09:37 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 09:34 AM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 09:26 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  I still don't agree that Bailiff's failings are attributable to a lack of resources, and I don't believe the assistants he has are the best available for what they are being payed. Begs the question, if he's that good, how come nobody has ever wanted to hire him, even after a winning season?

UTSA did after the 2015 season. But, your point is valid considering the lack of public interest after the 2013 season.

I think the lack of resources exacerbate the problem.

a) UTSA didn't hire him - they didn't even make an offer.
b) I really don't think Bailiff could make good use of resources even if he were showered with them. He's not effectively using what resources and talent he has at his disposal. It's not smart to give lots of resources to a manager who can't make good use of them.

Agreed. I think the resources argument only has value if we are only losing to P5 schools with more money. When we cannot even compete and win against our own conference opponents, (especially the current version of C-USA, where I think we stack up more favorably with in terms of athletic budget, resources, facilities (versus the pre-AAC C-USA)) then the issue is not resources, but the people commanding those resources.