Rice may want to think about advocating for a model whereby each conference member owns and sells it's own media rights to the highest network bid.

(06-21-2018 08:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I don't remember the specifics, Tanq... but I recall a pretty high level conversation where this was an advantage we were 'selling', I think when the SWC broke up and they took Baylor instead

It's not a FOIA argument, it's a due process and equal protection argument. As instrumentalities of the state, public universities are bound by the 14th Amendment to observe due process and equal protection. By extension, a conference composed entirely of state universities would be similarly obligated to observe both due process--procedural and substantive--and equal protection in conducting all its business, specifically including disciplinary actions. Put a private university in, and that changes, because the private school is exempt from due process. That's the legal argument, anyway. I've always been at least a little bit skeptical that it would work, and to my knowledge it's never been tested. But like other tings lawyers often advise clients to do, this may not work but it can't hurt. And there are enough lawyers who think it might work that no conference wants to ignore it.

(06-22-2018 09:34 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-21-2018 08:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I don't remember the specifics, Tanq... but I recall a pretty high level conversation where this was an advantage we were 'selling', I think when the SWC broke up and they took Baylor instead

It's not a FOIA argument, it's a due process and equal protection argument. As instrumentalities of the state, public universities are bound by the 14th Amendment to observe due process and equal protection. By extension, a conference composed entirely of state universities would be similarly obligated to observe both due process--procedural and substantive--and equal protection in conducting all its business, specifically including disciplinary actions. Put a private university in, and that changes, because the private school is exempt from due process. That's the legal argument, anyway. I've always been at least a little bit skeptical that it would work, and to my knowledge it's never been tested. But like other tings lawyers often advise clients to do, this may not work but it can't hurt. And there are enough lawyers who think it might work that no conference wants to ignore it.

Aren't the MWC, MAC and Sun Belt entirely public schools?

(06-22-2018 10:05 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 09:34 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-21-2018 08:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I don't remember the specifics, Tanq... but I recall a pretty high level conversation where this was an advantage we were 'selling', I think when the SWC broke up and they took Baylor instead

It's not a FOIA argument, it's a due process and equal protection argument. As instrumentalities of the state, public universities are bound by the 14th Amendment to observe due process and equal protection. By extension, a conference composed entirely of state universities would be similarly obligated to observe both due process--procedural and substantive--and equal protection in conducting all its business, specifically including disciplinary actions. Put a private university in, and that changes, because the private school is exempt from due process. That's the legal argument, anyway. I've always been at least a little bit skeptical that it would work, and to my knowledge it's never been tested. But like other tings lawyers often advise clients to do, this may not work but it can't hurt. And there are enough lawyers who think it might work that no conference wants to ignore it.

Aren't the MWC, MAC and Sun Belt entirely public schools?

Howard is an affiliate Sun Belt member (men's soccer). University of Evansville is an affiliate member of the MAC (men's swimming). Colorado College, MWC affiliate member (women's soccer).

(06-22-2018 04:07 AM)Ourland Wrote:  Rice may want to think about advocating for a model whereby each conference member owns and sells it's own media rights to the highest network bid.

especially since we're not getting paid much for it anyway

I honestly wouldn't care if say UTEP got 200k and we got 0 rather than both of us getting 100k if we could control the content and presentation. MOST conference lead ads essentially place our academic standing on par with these other institutions in the ads... and that cheapens us VASTLY more than the 100k would.... Not to mention that the conference is marketing our content generally to traditional consumers and advertisers for football and basketball... while our most fertile market segment is somewhat different. It's hard to say this simply without coming across as elitist... it's not elite... it's merely different. Rice is a top 20 school... #3 in the country in undergraduate education. You don't market that the way (or to the people) you market UTEP.

Broadcast stories on the Mob, on the arts at Rice, on academic research, especially involving athletes... on the 'minor' sports... on Beer/Bike..... sort of like the longhorn network, but not.

(06-22-2018 09:34 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-21-2018 08:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I don't remember the specifics, Tanq... but I recall a pretty high level conversation where this was an advantage we were 'selling', I think when the SWC broke up and they took Baylor instead

It's not a FOIA argument, it's a due process and equal protection argument. As instrumentalities of the state, public universities are bound by the 14th Amendment to observe due process and equal protection. By extension, a conference composed entirely of state universities would be similarly obligated to observe both due process--procedural and substantive--and equal protection in conducting all its business, specifically including disciplinary actions. Put a private university in, and that changes, because the private school is exempt from due process. That's the legal argument, anyway. I've always been at least a little bit skeptical that it would work, and to my knowledge it's never been tested. But like other tings lawyers often advise clients to do, this may not work but it can't hurt. And there are enough lawyers who think it might work that no conference wants to ignore it.

Thanks for the explanation #s. I can see how the inclusion of a private university in the mix could very easily weaken from a due process and equal protection argument being wielded.

How often are there 'conference' sanctions and punishments against an individual?

(06-22-2018 10:16 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 04:07 AM)Ourland Wrote:  Rice may want to think about advocating for a model whereby each conference member owns and sells it's own media rights to the highest network bid.

especially since we're not getting paid much for it anyway

I honestly wouldn't care if say UTEP got 200k and we got 0 rather than both of us getting 100k if we could control the content and presentation. MOST conference lead ads essentially place our academic standing on par with these other institutions in the ads... and that cheapens us VASTLY more than the 100k would.... Not to mention that the conference is marketing our content generally to traditional consumers and advertisers for football and basketball... while our most fertile market segment is somewhat different. It's hard to say this simply without coming across as elitist... it's not elite... it's merely different. Rice is a top 20 school... #3 in the country in undergraduate education. You don't market that the way (or to the people) you market UTEP.

Broadcast stories on the Mob, on the arts at Rice, on academic research, especially involving athletes... on the 'minor' sports... on Beer/Bike..... sort of like the longhorn network, but not.

Of course - you must be referring to the Great Horned Network

head is reeling though trying to conceptualize
MOB:Traditional Marching Band :: MOBtv: Traditional TV

im thinking Monty Python, but weirder and harder to understand.

new thread on this in 3..2..1..


The Fractal Show...

appears one video frame at a time interspersed seemingly randomly* throughout the broadcast day


student community service projects spotlighted on "Reach Out ... Owl Be There"

and now, something totally different......

Call it Modern Owl Broadcasting -- keep the MOB.

Seriously.... the concept has merit.

Imagine a football broadcast that actually showed the halftime shows? UNT would love it, as would all of the band members across the country.

I proposed a youtube like channel for KTRU that carried ALL of our sports, selected lectures, student productions, Shep school productions... Now Moody

Again, the idea is to capture 80% of a smaller, more academic oriented market rather than competing for 0.02% of a market that focuses solely on what happens on the field.

NO, that doesn't mean we don't care about winning... in fact, the wins would be precisely what would give us 80% of the market. Our audience would much rather watch Rice beat UT in baseball than Harvard beat Yale or A&M beat UT.... and if you're beating UT (or at least a threat to do so, and picking them as obvious) then you're going to get a few Aggies and LSU and Baylor and Tech fans living in Houston who can't get to their favorite team's games who might want to see it live.... especially if their game is LSU v Podunk U.

Hadn't seen this posted anywhere. Just for public schools but good gauge of where the landscape is for $

Crazy that Texas spends over $100M/year than many other Big XII players (K-State, Iowa St., etc.) and how much more they spend than other 'big boy' programs like Ohio St., Michigan, Florida, etc. ROI not there against results for $ spent.

For C-USA, interesting to see that most programs are in the $25-$35M spend (I think similar to Rice) but that is $20M less than AAC, $50M less than most P5 programs, and $100M less than the big boys. That problem needs to be solved either by more University funding, more private funding, or different conference environment to afford more investment. Winning in C-USA in and by itself won't get it done.

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

(06-29-2018 07:47 AM)owl40 Wrote:  Hadn't seen this posted anywhere. Just for public schools but good gauge of where the landscape is for $

Crazy that Texas spends over $100M/year than many other Big XII players (K-State, Iowa St., etc.) and how much more they spend than other 'big boy' programs like Ohio St., Michigan, Florida, etc. ROI not there against results for $ spent.

For C-USA, interesting to see that most programs are in the $25-$35M spend (I think similar to Rice) but that is $20M less than AAC, $50M less than most P5 programs, and $100M less than the big boys. That problem needs to be solved either by more University funding, more private funding, or different conference environment to afford more investment. Winning in C-USA in and by itself won't get it done.

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

For all the crap aimed at the Aggies, they seem to be doing something right. Similar revenue to UT with significantly lower expenses.

(06-29-2018 07:47 AM)owl40 Wrote:  For C-USA, interesting to see that most programs are in the $25-$35M spend (I think similar to Rice) but that is $20M less than AAC, $50M less than most P5 programs, and $100M less than the big boys. That problem needs to be solved either by more University funding, more private funding, or different conference environment to afford more investment. Winning in C-USA in and by itself won't get it done.

#3 has about the same odds as winning the lottery. No functioning revenue generating conference will take us and the zero contribution we bring right now.Which means it needs to first be #1 or #2. The University already provides 60+% of the revenue for the department.

Which leaves the ball squarely in #2.

(06-29-2018 09:53 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 07:47 AM)owl40 Wrote:  For C-USA, interesting to see that most programs are in the $25-$35M spend (I think similar to Rice) but that is $20M less than AAC, $50M less than most P5 programs, and $100M less than the big boys. That problem needs to be solved either by more University funding, more private funding, or different conference environment to afford more investment. Winning in C-USA in and by itself won't get it done.

#3 has about the same odds as winning the lottery. No functioning revenue generating conference will take us and the zero contribution we bring right now.Which means it needs to first be #1 or #2. The University already provides 60+% of the revenue for the department.
Which leaves the ball squarely in #2.

Or operating revenues. Our ticket sales are under $2 million all year for all sports. Auburn, Bama, LSU, Texas, aTm do better than that for one home football game. And our corporate sponsorships are virtually nil.

There are so many things the University can do to raise additional funds, like getting a sponsor to name the stadium, and requiring all students to pay an athletic fee.

(06-29-2018 09:53 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 07:47 AM)owl40 Wrote:  For C-USA, interesting to see that most programs are in the $25-$35M spend (I think similar to Rice) but that is $20M less than AAC, $50M less than most P5 programs, and $100M less than the big boys. That problem needs to be solved either by more University funding, more private funding, or different conference environment to afford more investment. Winning in C-USA in and by itself won't get it done.

#3 has about the same odds as winning the lottery. No functioning revenue generating conference will take us and the zero contribution we bring right now.Which means it needs to first be #1 or #2. The University already provides 60+% of the revenue for the department.

Which leaves the ball squarely in #2.

(06-29-2018 10:11 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 09:53 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 07:47 AM)owl40 Wrote:  For C-USA, interesting to see that most programs are in the $25-$35M spend (I think similar to Rice) but that is $20M less than AAC, $50M less than most P5 programs, and $100M less than the big boys. That problem needs to be solved either by more University funding, more private funding, or different conference environment to afford more investment. Winning in C-USA in and by itself won't get it done.

#3 has about the same odds as winning the lottery. No functioning revenue generating conference will take us and the zero contribution we bring right now.Which means it needs to first be #1 or #2. The University already provides 60+% of the revenue for the department.
Which leaves the ball squarely in #2.

Or operating revenues. Our ticket sales are under $2 million all year for all sports. Auburn, Bama, LSU, Texas, aTm do better than that for one home football game. And our corporate sponsorships are virtually nil.

Rice isn't going to suddenly manage to pack the stands unless something changes with regards to the conference (Which again comes back to #1 or #2). Sure, I expect Bloomgren to not lay a steady stream of eggs, but even then, at best, tickets may go to 5 million or so. Which leaves a multi tens of million dollar gap.

So it does come down to private funding. Corporate sponsorship and donors.

(06-29-2018 10:15 AM)OldOwl Wrote:  There are so many things the University can do to raise additional funds, like getting a sponsor to name the stadium, and requiring all students to pay an athletic fee.

The first is an option, but doubtful. UH struggled with that and got far less than they expected. And their stadium is new and shiny and their team is decent.

For the second - Considering a single digit percentage of students attend games regularly, I cannot see putting a fee on the whole student populace as ever happening.

(06-29-2018 12:13 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 10:15 AM)OldOwl Wrote:  There are so many things the University can do to raise additional funds, like getting a sponsor to name the stadium, and requiring all students to pay an athletic fee.

The first is an option, but doubtful. UH struggled with that and got far less than they expected. And their stadium is new and shiny and their team is decent.

For the second - Considering a single digit percentage of students attend games regularly, I cannot see putting a fee on the whole student populace as ever happening.

Athletic funds come from the University’s operating budget so I’m sure the “fee” is already built in.

We need an alum like Doerr who has more money than he knows what to do with to like athletics instead of “leadership institutes”.

Doerr is worth $8.2 billion, more than 6 times T Boone Pickens and we all know how he made OSU relevant.

(06-29-2018 12:11 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Rice isn't going to suddenly manage to pack the stands unless something changes with regards to the conference (Which again comes back to #1 or #2). Sure, I expect Bloomgren to not lay a steady stream of eggs, but even then, at best, tickets may go to 5 million or so. Which leaves a multi tens of million dollar gap.

So it does come down to private funding. Corporate sponsorship and donors.

Agree that winning is a good start to generating higher ticket sales revenues. But I am unsure a conference change to the AAC or MWC helps. We have shared conferences previously with Tulane, SMU, Tulsa, Memphis, Colorado State and New Mexico. Those opponents did not fill the stands.

(06-29-2018 12:11 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Rice isn't going to suddenly manage to pack the stands unless something changes with regards to the conference (Which again comes back to #1 or #2). Sure, I expect Bloomgren to not lay a steady stream of eggs, but even then, at best, tickets may go to 5 million or so. Which leaves a multi tens of million dollar gap.

So it does come down to private funding. Corporate sponsorship and donors.

I have a different thought (others have also expressed it as well)

The idea that 'money' games are a bad thing is somewhat true... but the idea that schools like Oregon or OSU or Michigan or LSU (at least historically... I'm not in the know enough right now to pick specific names) wouldn't like an opportunity on occasion to play in front of large alumni bases for what would essentially be a home crowd of people who can't get to 'home' games without cannibalizing their home games... in a hotbed of recruiting...

Look up distant schools with large alumni groups in Houston and try and schedule them... sort of what we did with the service academies. Modified money games They won't pay us $1mm like UT would (to go to Austin) but we might make $500k in gate... provide a great atmosphere... and MAYBE become some of those people's #2 school... the guys they CAN get a ticket to see... or at least the guys they'd like to see beat UT.

Hate to dredge up the old argument, but I just don't believe that schools worthy of being in the top 50 would be 'beaten up' by schools in the top 25... but those other schools aren't ALWAYS in the top 25 either.

and if you pick them off...............

Shorten the conference schedule to 6 or 7 games... no crossover... leaves 5 or 6 'rivalry' or 'modified' money games, plus a playoff.

AND (as I've said) market completely to a different audience.

I don't like schools who put people who really have no interest in college on the field.... but I LOVE to beat the teams that do.

I'm not a lot of people, but I'm a lot of Rice people... and almost nobody else does or COULD market to them.

(06-29-2018 02:35 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 12:11 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Rice isn't going to suddenly manage to pack the stands unless something changes with regards to the conference (Which again comes back to #1 or #2). Sure, I expect Bloomgren to not lay a steady stream of eggs, but even then, at best, tickets may go to 5 million or so. Which leaves a multi tens of million dollar gap.

So it does come down to private funding. Corporate sponsorship and donors.

I have a different thought (others have also expressed it as well)

The idea that 'money' games are a bad thing is somewhat true... but the idea that schools like Oregon or OSU or Michigan or LSU (at least historically... I'm not in the know enough right now to pick specific names) wouldn't like an opportunity on occasion to play in front of large alumni bases for what would essentially be a home crowd of people who can't get to 'home' games without cannibalizing their home games... in a hotbed of recruiting...

Look up distant schools with large alumni groups in Houston and try and schedule them... sort of what we did with the service academies. Modified money games They won't pay us $1mm like UT would (to go to Austin) but we might make $500k in gate... provide a great atmosphere... and MAYBE become some of those people's #2 school... the guys they CAN get a ticket to see... or at least the guys they'd like to see beat UT.

Hate to dredge up the old argument, but I just don't believe that schools worthy of being in the top 50 would be 'beaten up' by schools in the top 25... but those other schools aren't ALWAYS in the top 25 either.

and if you pick them off...............

Shorten the conference schedule to 6 or 7 games... no crossover... leaves 5 or 6 'rivalry' or 'modified' money games, plus a playoff.

AND (as I've said) market completely to a different audience.

I don't like schools who put people who really have no interest in college on the field.... but I LOVE to beat the teams that do.

I'm not a lot of people, but I'm a lot of Rice people... and almost nobody else does or COULD market to them.

Problem is, those schools want both the money and the chance to play in Houston. That's why Rice ended up dropping plans to host LSU. LSU would agree to come to Rice only on condition that they received the entire gate for the game.

The money means too much to them to agree to play body bag games on the other school's terms.