It seems like it's kind of a taboo subject, but I am curious as to what the actual butts in seats attendance was this year (I did not attend a game in person)

Based on a friend who is a season ticket holder, he mentioned that the biggest crowd was UH -- he thought maybe 10k-12k. I saw a few pictures of that game and it seemed about right.

Other games were reported to be much smaller than that. Like maybe 2k-4k. Was he way off?

(12-05-2018 05:19 PM)garthmanuel Wrote:  Other games were reported to be much smaller than that. Like maybe 2k-4k. Was he way off?

No. 4k was about what I'd peg several games at. And this was an improvement over last year

(12-05-2018 05:19 PM)garthmanuel Wrote:  It seems like it's kind of a taboo subject, but I am curious as to what the actual butts in seats attendance was this year (I did not attend a game in person)

Based on a friend who is a season ticket holder, he mentioned that the biggest crowd was UH -- he thought maybe 10k-12k. I saw a few pictures of that game and it seemed about right.

Other games were reported to be much smaller than that. Like maybe 2k-4k. Was he way off?

UH was probably over 20k. UH fans just don’t know what a full size stadium looks like

(12-05-2018 07:03 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 05:19 PM)garthmanuel Wrote:  It seems like it's kind of a taboo subject, but I am curious as to what the actual butts in seats attendance was this year (I did not attend a game in person)

Based on a friend who is a season ticket holder, he mentioned that the biggest crowd was UH -- he thought maybe 10k-12k. I saw a few pictures of that game and it seemed about right.

Other games were reported to be much smaller than that. Like maybe 2k-4k. Was he way off?

UH was probably over 20k. UH fans just don’t know what a full size stadium looks like

Agree, at least 20k.
However you never saw all the “butts in seats” at the same time with 2-4K in line at concessions

(12-05-2018 09:01 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 07:03 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 05:19 PM)garthmanuel Wrote:  It seems like it's kind of a taboo subject, but I am curious as to what the actual butts in seats attendance was this year (I did not attend a game in person)

Based on a friend who is a season ticket holder, he mentioned that the biggest crowd was UH -- he thought maybe 10k-12k. I saw a few pictures of that game and it seemed about right.

Other games were reported to be much smaller than that. Like maybe 2k-4k. Was he way off?

UH was probably over 20k. UH fans just don’t know what a full size stadium looks like

Agree, at least 20k.
However you never saw all the “butts in seats” at the same time with 2-4K in line at concessions

Or hiding from the blazing hot sun on the concourses.

(12-04-2018 11:21 AM)Ourland Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 10:43 AM)Buho00 Wrote:  Apparently there's no money in a new SWC, otherwise I'd expect Rice to have lead a behind the scenes effort to get some AAC, MWC, and CUSA schools together to form their own conference (Tulane, SMU, UH, Navy, others). That's how we'd improve attendance. Not huge names, but a mix of traditional rivals and like-minded schools would be a good fit. Winning in this CUSA won't make a big difference.

Complete speculation here, but the hope may be for our division to break away from CUSA and absorb Tulane, SMU, and Tulsa at some point. Of course all that depends on the breakup of the B12, which would lead to the breakup of the AAC. That may be a lot of wishful thinking. I don't see any other scenario that leads us to reuniting with private schools that are also a good geographic fit. There's only those three. As long as the status quo persists, we're stuck where we are. I'm sure we're hoping for another big round of realignment.

(12-04-2018 01:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Aligning with schools that "think like us" is pointless because there aren't enough schools that "think like us" within hundreds of miles to form a viable alliance.
We are in CUSA for the foreseeable future. The next witching hour is 2024 when the TV contracts are up for renewal. If we expect to move up, we need to be dominating CUSA by then. It's still doable, but barely. We need to get moving quickly.
I still expect to see TexasU and KU to the B1G, and OU and Okie State to the SEC. What's left of the XII will have to fend for itself, and that's probably our best scenario.

The general desire is to join "like-minded" schools. We've seen what happens when we've tried that but have followed schools with greater ambition... those schools have generally moved on - first UT, TAMU, TT, BU, then CSU, BYU, Utah, et al, then TCU, then UH, SMU, Tulsa, and Tulane. In every case, Rice has aligned with schools that were the best choice in terms of mix of Academics and Athletics at a high level, but in every case those schools have had far greater ambition with where they wanted their athletic programs... and in many cases, those schools sacrificed academic and decency standards to a level where Rice should never do so.

Rice can't just look at schools that do have much greater ambitions for their athletics programs and keep following them around like a lost puppy... we really have to reconcile Rice's ambitions in terms of what level of competition it wants to compete in and the kind of students that we have or need to have at Rice (primarily meaning, those that go to class and are generally decent human beings).

edit: I'll add that I think most of CUSA has (1) doesn't care much at all about how athletics fits into their academic missions, and (2) ultimately have ambitions to be UCF... not necessarily a mega-commuter school, but a school that is at least in the conversation with P5 schools, and no longer regarded as "directional U", almost whatever the cost in terms of the relationship of athletics and academics on campus. There is a massive mismatch in both the university mission, the place of athletics at these schools, and their ultimate ambitions.

(12-04-2018 06:25 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  Curious: which group would be more palatable/beneficial to Rice -- Rice University, not just Rice Athletics -- over the long term:

A) the MWC, which has an academic peer (Air Force) and multiple flagship schools but no one within 1000 miles of Houston; or

B) CUSA West, which has better geographic proximity but not even a semblance of any other "overlap" with us to put it euphemistically?

A by far. You can always schedule UTSA, UTEP, UNT and LaTech OOC

(12-05-2018 12:43 AM)Antarius Wrote:  My points were
1. Without OU and UT, the Big XII isnt a P5 conference. So putting all ours eggs into a basket that may break is a bad idea.
2. We share little overlap with a lot of the Big XII. The same is true for CUSA. So even if we did get into the Big XII 2.0, building interest will be just as challenging as now.

Which brings me back to the ISU vs WKU statement- I simply do not believe Iowa State vs Rice would attract much more interest than Rice vs WKU.

True, but Tech, Baylor and TCU do... and again, we can still schedule UTSA et al OOC

Big12 2.0 is much closer to us than CUSA. We can debate Big12 2.0 vs MWC and that might be closer, but I still see a major difference.

The BIGGEST difference is that Baylor, Tech and TCU (not to mention WVU, ISU, K and KS are all big state schools) have all been 'the have's' and they are thus likely to move aggressively and have the contacts to do so. If we try harder/do better, we can go along with them (if that happens) rather than be left behind. The trip to KS and K isn't bad... done it literally dozens of times... especially if you like going around Omaha.

I really kind of hate the idea that we're looking for Texas or A&M to bring along their nerd little brother rather than try and be the coolest kid in middle school such that the big brother WANTS to bring us along. This is the mentality that we need to change

I think we should get close with the XFL... The ties to Houston and Stanford with Luck are potentially HUGE.

Remember how the R&S was a gimmick until the Gamblers won with it? The Oilers later went with it. Be innovative

(12-05-2018 07:03 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 05:19 PM)garthmanuel Wrote:  It seems like it's kind of a taboo subject, but I am curious as to what the actual butts in seats attendance was this year (I did not attend a game in person)

Based on a friend who is a season ticket holder, he mentioned that the biggest crowd was UH -- he thought maybe 10k-12k. I saw a few pictures of that game and it seemed about right.

Other games were reported to be much smaller than that. Like maybe 2k-4k. Was he way off?

UH was probably over 20k. UH fans just don’t know what a full size stadium looks like

Nor a full stadium

Many teams (including Rice) sell sponsorships to inflate attendance. Rather than take cash for the sponsorship actually have them buy tickets. Allows 'tickets sold' to be inflated vs. butts in seats.

I would think taking out part of the stadium is giving up on ever having a chance of being a first rank football program. I do not think we can maintain fan interest playing schools that no one at Rice cares about.
We either have to improve football or get rid of it.

(12-04-2018 12:01 AM)Ourland Wrote:  Tanner Gardner responded to my e-mail. He's really good about that.

Concerning the uniforms, he said that they try to balance the likes of the players, coaches, and fans. Apparently, the players really like these uniforms, so for now they'll stick with them.

On the stadium issue, he agreed that Rice Stadium is way too big, and said that they are actively looking at ways to "right size it." In my opinion, the only way to do that is to remove the upper east deck, but I honestly don't know what they have planned for the future.

Finally, he was in complete agreement concerning our membership in CUSA. He said that they are striving to associate Rice with "like-minded peers, both geographically and institutionally."

This man always takes the time to respond to my e-mails, and when he responds, he gives me real feedback, not vague nothingness. He doesn't have to do that. I've never even met him. He goes out of his way to build relationships. He knows that the little things matter. Guys, these men are working hard for us.

(12-07-2018 02:24 PM)75src Wrote:  I would think taking out part of the stadium is giving up on ever having a chance of being a first rank football program. I do not think we can maintain fan interest playing schools that no one at Rice cares about.
We either have to improve football or get rid of it.

(12-04-2018 12:01 AM)Ourland Wrote:  Tanner Gardner responded to my e-mail. He's really good about that.

Concerning the uniforms, he said that they try to balance the likes of the players, coaches, and fans. Apparently, the players really like these uniforms, so for now they'll stick with them.

On the stadium issue, he agreed that Rice Stadium is way too big, and said that they are actively looking at ways to "right size it." In my opinion, the only way to do that is to remove the upper east deck, but I honestly don't know what they have planned for the future.

Finally, he was in complete agreement concerning our membership in CUSA. He said that they are striving to associate Rice with "like-minded peers, both geographically and institutionally."

This man always takes the time to respond to my e-mails, and when he responds, he gives me real feedback, not vague nothingness. He doesn't have to do that. I've never even met him. He goes out of his way to build relationships. He knows that the little things matter. Guys, these men are working hard for us.

Smaller capacity isn't a bad thing for Rice, it'll be a better fit that can be fresh, fun and fan friendly. But it has to be done right - and probably won't be easy to perform the structural changes required to downsize and end up with a significant improvement for the program. Make it quirky, be unconventional. I wonder how the Stadium would look from the campus if only the east upper deck was removed.

But I do not like the idea of giving up on ever being big time again. What is the point of having minor league football? We might as well tear down the whole stadium and do away with football.

(12-07-2018 07:45 PM)Buho00 Wrote:  

(12-07-2018 02:24 PM)75src Wrote:  I would think taking out part of the stadium is giving up on ever having a chance of being a first rank football program. I do not think we can maintain fan interest playing schools that no one at Rice cares about.
We either have to improve football or get rid of it.

(12-04-2018 12:01 AM)Ourland Wrote:  Tanner Gardner responded to my e-mail. He's really good about that.

Concerning the uniforms, he said that they try to balance the likes of the players, coaches, and fans. Apparently, the players really like these uniforms, so for now they'll stick with them.

On the stadium issue, he agreed that Rice Stadium is way too big, and said that they are actively looking at ways to "right size it." In my opinion, the only way to do that is to remove the upper east deck, but I honestly don't know what they have planned for the future.

Finally, he was in complete agreement concerning our membership in CUSA. He said that they are striving to associate Rice with "like-minded peers, both geographically and institutionally."

This man always takes the time to respond to my e-mails, and when he responds, he gives me real feedback, not vague nothingness. He doesn't have to do that. I've never even met him. He goes out of his way to build relationships. He knows that the little things matter. Guys, these men are working hard for us.

Smaller capacity isn't a bad thing for Rice, it'll be a better fit that can be fresh, fun and fan friendly. But it has to be done right - and probably won't be easy to perform the structural changes required to downsize and end up with a significant improvement for the program. Make it quirky, be unconventional. I wonder how the Stadium would look from the campus if only the east upper deck was removed.

(12-04-2018 03:57 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 03:43 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 03:42 PM)Ourland Wrote:  Just the thought of WKU makes me cringe.

Well you’ve got bigger problems than your team’s conference affiliation then.

I can't argue with that.

(12-07-2018 07:45 PM)Buho00 Wrote:  Smaller capacity isn't a bad thing for Rice, it'll be a better fit that can be fresh, fun and fan friendly. ... Make it quirky, be unconventional. I wonder how the Stadium would look from the campus if only the east upper deck was removed.

Slides down from the upper deck to the lower deck would be fresh, fun, fan friendly, quirky, and unconventional. Kids would definitely beg their parents to come to a place with huge slides. Another space with a huge 3-D maze/jungle gym that connects the different levels.

Quote:Another space with a huge 3-D maze/jungle gym

You mean the literal embodiment of the figurative state of Rice Athletics?

I LIKE IT!!!!

I don't understand why we would have to tear down a deck in order to improve the experience. That seems like a) a waste of money and b) something not easily reversed Worst of all, they are mostly great seats.

The VASTLY easier solution that accomplishes the same thing is to build a new press box and suites IN FRONT of the existing press box and suites on the west side. Build new elevator banks that are also support structures as well as concession and 'power' hubs.

Can do the same on the East, though not the press box obviously. The seats you lose are 'the worst' of the great seats (furthest from the field) and again, the elevator banks can double as hubs for concessions.

The biggest advantage is that you aren't having to make a 10,000 seat decision with 5,000 of them being pretty prime, but we can instead make perhaps a 3,000 seat decision and keep the 7,000 'prime' seats.

On the east side (facing the university) I would change the facade to mirror Lovett Hall.... build a Rice Historical Society Museum there in a building that mirrors Lovett. I think that would be pretty powerful, improve and extend the experience, integrate athletics more strongly into our history and every visit to the school, and create vastly more activity at the stadium rather than being essentially unused for months per year.

That just seems so obvious I can't understand why it doesn't happen.

(12-08-2018 04:01 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I don't understand why we would have to tear down a deck in order to improve the experience. That seems like a) a waste of money and b) something not easily reversed Worst of all, they are mostly great seats.

The VASTLY easier solution that accomplishes the same thing is to build a new press box and suites IN FRONT of the existing press box and suites on the west side. Build new elevator banks that are also support structures as well as concession and 'power' hubs.

Can do the same on the East, though not the press box obviously. The seats you lose are 'the worst' of the great seats (furthest from the field) and again, the elevator banks can double as hubs for concessions.

The biggest advantage is that you aren't having to make a 10,000 seat decision with 5,000 of them being pretty prime, but we can instead make perhaps a 3,000 seat decision and keep the 7,000 'prime' seats.

On the east side (facing the university) I would change the facade to mirror Lovett Hall.... build a Rice Historical Society Museum there in a building that mirrors Lovett. I think that would be pretty powerful, improve and extend the experience, integrate athletics more strongly into our history and every visit to the school, and create vastly more activity at the stadium rather than being essentially unused for months per year.

That just seems so obvious I can't understand why it doesn't happen.

Because the stadium isnt the problem. Rice has 4000 people in attendance because the product is terrible, not because the stadium is old, the concessions are pop ups or the press box requires hieroglyphic style walking to pass each other.

Budget unlimited, the above makes sense. But given that we have very little revenue and a small current and projected fan base, all $$$ has to be towards developing a quality product.

(12-08-2018 04:31 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Because the stadium isnt the problem. Rice has 4000 people in attendance because the product is terrible, not because the stadium is old, the concessions are pop ups or the press box requires hieroglyphic style walking to pass each other.

Budget unlimited, the above makes sense. But given that we have very little revenue and a small current and projected fan base, all $$$ has to be towards developing a quality product.

I agree with statement 1.... but there is no reason we can't multi-task.

The biggest advantage of my concept is that it involves the Rice Historical Society who would likely essentially fund the 'museum' portion. We could solve the east concessions and restrooms for VERY little money on top of what the 'museum' would cost. Luxury boxes would be at least somewhat self-funding.

OF COURSE the product needs to improve... but facilities improvements can still happen. Money for things like luxury boxes and museums wouldn't come from the general athletics budget.

That's why the museum/visitors center idea makes so much sense.

(12-07-2018 02:24 PM)75src Wrote:  I would think taking out part of the stadium is giving up on ever having a chance of being a first rank football program. I do not think we can maintain fan interest playing schools that no one at Rice cares about.
We either have to improve football or get rid of it.

[/quote]

I can appreciate this sentiment. I used to feel the same way. For me, it has become more about what would be gained than what would be lost.
If the deck were gone, someone could do something very creative with the open lower concourse.

A canopy could finally be built over all the lower seating and concession areas on the east side. The early kickoffs in September and October are scorchers. Install giant fans.

Seating could be reinstalled throughout the lower bowl to make up for seats lost by removing the deck. As it is, about 15k lower seats have no benches or chair backs, and they're mostly all good seats. That's seating we would need for games against UH, Baylor, Texas Tech etc.

As it is. The upper east deck isn't needed. I feel like it sucks the energy from the stadium. If it were gone, I think the game day experience would improve as fans become a little more consolidated. Not to mention, the view of the campus and medical center would be incredible.

Maybe some luxury boxes could be put in. I do not like reducing the potential capacity very much because it would prevent us from ever having first class football again. If we are unable to have good football in the future maybe we ought to throw in the towel and do away with football completely.

(12-10-2018 04:06 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(12-07-2018 02:24 PM)75src Wrote:  I would think taking out part of the stadium is giving up on ever having a chance of being a first rank football program. I do not think we can maintain fan interest playing schools that no one at Rice cares about.
We either have to improve football or get rid of it.

I can appreciate this sentiment. I used to feel the same way. For me, it has become more about what would be gained than what would be lost.
If the deck were gone, someone could do something very creative with the open lower concourse.

A canopy could finally be built over all the lower seating and concession areas on the east side. The early kickoffs in September and October are scorchers. Install giant fans.

Seating could be reinstalled throughout the lower bowl to make up for seats lost by removing the deck. As it is, about 15k lower seats have no benches or chair backs, and they're mostly all good seats. That's seating we would need for games against UH, Baylor, Texas Tech etc.

As it is. The upper east deck isn't needed. I feel like it sucks the energy from the stadium. If it were gone, I think the game day experience would improve as fans become a little more consolidated. Not to mention, the view of the campus and medical center would be incredible.
[/quote]