(07-03-2020 10:18 PM)75src Wrote:  I would like it since it puts the SWC back together which would make Rice relevant again. It will not happen. One reason is that A&M would not want to leave the SEC.

No way Rice could or would be ready to compete at that level. We'd be looking at 1-11 football (assuming we could find a suitable non-conference weak sister for that 12th game) and something like 2-24 men's basketball year-in and year-out.

On the other hand, your comment about aTm shows just what the SEC means in terms of athletics. Look at how the relative prestige of TexasU and aTm has shifted since the Aggies went to the SEC. Oh, what might have been--but won't ever now.

(07-04-2020 07:21 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-03-2020 10:18 PM)75src Wrote:  I would like it since it puts the SWC back together which would make Rice relevant again. It will not happen. One reason is that A&M would not want to leave the SEC.

No way Rice could or would be ready to compete at that level. We'd be looking at 1-11 football (assuming we could find a suitable non-conference weak sister for that 12th game) and something like 2-24 men's basketball year-in and year-out.

On the other hand, your comment about aTm shows just what the SEC means in terms of athletics. Look at how the relative prestige of TexasU and aTm has shifted since the Aggies went to the SEC. Oh, what might have been--but won't ever now.

Yeah, but we were looking at one win seasons when we were still in the SWC. Nothing new there.

Possibly in this make believe world, after a few years, the influx of money and the recruiting advantages of being in a big boy league would kick in. Possibly.

Bet if we were in a league like that we would be forced to re-expand our stadium, instead of looking to down size it further.

(07-04-2020 08:41 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-04-2020 07:21 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-03-2020 10:18 PM)75src Wrote:  I would like it since it puts the SWC back together which would make Rice relevant again. It will not happen. One reason is that A&M would not want to leave the SEC.

No way Rice could or would be ready to compete at that level. We'd be looking at 1-11 football (assuming we could find a suitable non-conference weak sister for that 12th game) and something like 2-24 men's basketball year-in and year-out.

On the other hand, your comment about aTm shows just what the SEC means in terms of athletics. Look at how the relative prestige of TexasU and aTm has shifted since the Aggies went to the SEC. Oh, what might have been--but won't ever now.

Yeah, but we were looking at one win seasons when we were still in the SWC. Nothing new there.

Possibly in this make believe world, after a few years, the influx of money and the recruiting advantages of being in a big boy league would kick in. Possibly.

Bet if we were in a league like that we would be forced to re-expand our stadium, instead of looking to down size it further.

I didn't read the article, but presumably in a world where conferences were equally composed of current P5s & G5s, each conference's TV money would be roughly equal and distributed equally (or maybe the NCAA would take it all and distribute it equally). So theoretically that major driver of inequality would be eliminated (at least going forward).

Which is why it has no chance of ever happening, as there are 66 P5s and 64 G5s, so even if the lions agree to let the lambs vote on where to get dinner...

Been thinking about it, and with today's announcement that Rice will delay until at least the 26th, as well as other announcements of seasons/games cancelled and awaiting decisions of more schools and conferences, I was considering whether Rice might actually be able to find a way to improve the school's athletic lot in life if these seasons were all or mostly all indeed cancelled/delayed by the virus this year. If we can tread water while other programs sink financially and fall out over the course of this year (I don't think it looks likely right now that any season will be fully completed even if started unless something big changes) perhaps there will be changes/openings that allow a better position for Rice athletics to exist in the future?

Silly me, I should have known better. But things're looking up: Jim Harbaugh might soon be available for a Sunset Tour down here in east Tejas:

Somehow, a win is a low point for Michigan
Michigan survived in a triple-overtime against a Rutgers team usually in the Big ten basement. Things are not going well for Jim Harbaugh's squad...

Guys... I wanted to respond to these comments. If you want to reply to a different comment, please quote it using the green plus, and then come to this thread to reply to it. Old threads (3+ years) are being closed to increase efficiency.

(07-04-2020 08:41 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-04-2020 07:21 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-03-2020 10:18 PM)75src Wrote:  I would like it since it puts the SWC back together which would make Rice relevant again. It will not happen. One reason is that A&M would not want to leave the SEC.

No way Rice could or would be ready to compete at that level. We'd be looking at 1-11 football (assuming we could find a suitable non-conference weak sister for that 12th game) and something like 2-24 men's basketball year-in and year-out.

On the other hand, your comment about aTm shows just what the SEC means in terms of athletics. Look at how the relative prestige of TexasU and aTm has shifted since the Aggies went to the SEC. Oh, what might have been--but won't ever now.

Yeah, but we were looking at one win seasons when we were still in the SWC. Nothing new there.

Possibly in this make believe world, after a few years, the influx of money and the recruiting advantages of being in a big boy league would kick in. Possibly.

Bet if we were in a league like that we would be forced to re-expand our stadium, instead of looking to down size it further.

The problem of that period wasn't that we couldn't compete with the SWC. Its that we couldn't always compete with out OOC schedule. In 1985... a 3-8 year, in addition to playing 8 conference games in the SWC, we played Miami, Air Force and Lamar. We won 2 conference games. Today we'd normally play 4 OOC games. If we had won 2 conference games and 4 OOC games... we would have been bowl eligible and likely playing a team that won a conference like CUSA in that bowl. 1987, 4-7. We lost to Texas State but beat Lamar and Air Force. Hold serve against Texas State and not lose 17-14 to UT or 23-17 to ranked Baylor and again, we're bowling against the winner of a CUSA type team. 1989, we were 2-8-1.... We lost by 1 to Tulane, by 1 to Texas, Tied Wake and lost to ULaLa. Thats just a few points and 'holding serve' against a lesser league from once again, being in a bowl AS BIG as any we've played in. Remember when we were 10-4 and WON CUSA, we played 6-6, 3-5 in Conference Mississippi State in the Liberty Bowl. I know they were 'better' than their record... but THAT was their record.

We were a lot closer than people think we were back then, even despite the neglect.... and the chasm between conferences like SWC and CUSA have widened by leaps and bounds. If we were a +/- 2-6 or so p5 team, I have zero doubts that we would be bowling most years.... in bowls like the BEST ones we've played in in the past two decades

(11-30-2020 12:29 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  We were a lot closer than people think we were back then, even despite the neglect.

But we're not close today, because that neglect has continued for another 30, 40, or 50 years (depending on your starting point).

(11-30-2020 11:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-30-2020 12:29 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  We were a lot closer than people think we were back then, even despite the neglect.

But we're not close today, because that neglect has continued for another 30, 40, or 50 years (depending on your starting point).

death by neglect is the same as death by axe. Just less bloody for the executioners. Same intent nevertheless, but provides cover to the spineless....

(11-30-2020 11:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-30-2020 12:29 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  We were a lot closer than people think we were back then, even despite the neglect.

But we're not close today, because that neglect has continued for another 30, 40, or 50 years (depending on your starting point).

I would say since 1950, when HRS was completed.

(12-01-2020 09:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-30-2020 11:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-30-2020 12:29 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  We were a lot closer than people think we were back then, even despite the neglect.

But we're not close today, because that neglect has continued for another 30, 40, or 50 years (depending on your starting point).

I would say since 1950, when HRS was completed.

I think the neglect didn't really start with football until the early to mid-1960s. We were still a national player in football as recently as 1961, and probably for a few years after that. I remember that our game with Arkansas in 1969 drew a pretty big contingent of the national media, including Dan Jenkins.

But the Rice business model has always sort of neglected other sports. The model when I got here was, "We play TexasU or LSU at home each year, and the money we make off those games determines the rest of the program." I'm not aware of any effort to support basketball as a stand-alone until maybe Mike Schuler or more likely Scott Thompson. My biggest disappointment with Willis was that, as a very personable alumnus who had played for Schuler and coached under Scott, I expected him to be a live wire promoter and marketer of the program, and that just didn't happen. The most successful effort, by far, to support a non-football sport was Wayne Graham in baseball.

Of course, that business model started to fall apart when we no longer played LSU at home or in Baton Rouge on a regular basis, starting in the early 1980s. And it completely fell apart when the XII happened and we lost TexasU as a conference opponent too. Today, as far as I can tell, we have no business model except to take the path of least resistance.

(12-01-2020 11:47 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Today, as far as I can tell, we have no business model except to take the path of least resistance.

Pretty much what I have seen since 1950.

(12-01-2020 12:39 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 11:47 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Today, as far as I can tell, we have no business model except to take the path of least resistance.

Pretty much what I have seen since 1950.

The Rice Model can be a lesson to the nation overall on what not to do, but, oh well...seems they're he77-bent on following in those footsteps anyway.

In fairness, we've added a sizeable building at the south end and a huge one at the north. We've completely redone Autry and the gym and added a new Tennis facility. I'm not saying we've kept up with the Jones', but we've certainly made some advances... meanwhile we've lowered the bar on our competition. When we played, Baylor was a spit-hole at least for visitors and while I haven't seen all of the CUSA facilities, some of them don't look much better than what we have.

As has been said in numerous ways numerous times... Our goals to dominate CUSA or to be towards the middle to bottom of a p5 conference have the same essential outcomes in terms of 'team power rankings' and bowl games. Where they differ is in cost/revenue/fans/brand recognition. We can spend 10mm and get 1mm more in revenue and maybe a 10% bump in brand and dominate CUSA... or we can spend 20mm and get 30mm more in revenue and maybe a 30% bump in recognition in p5. From my perspective, we would also get a MASSIVE bump in student and alumni interest as a p5... because many more of our students peers attend flagship state Universities than attend UT-(SA or EP) or Alabama (Birmingham). It creates interest at all levels and rivalries that can create some fun for the MOB, fans, alums and students.... and attending a game with 30-50,000 in attendance is just flat out vastly more fun than attending one with 12,000 in attendance. I don't care HOW big (or small) your stadium is.

More important, it makes us even more unique. It would distinguish us from the Ivies and eliminate a negative relative to Stanford, Cal and elsewhere.

Once again, while I understand why someone might attend Stanford rather than Rice because they have p5 football and we don't.... I honestly can't imagine ANYONE deciding to turn down Stanford and attend Rice BECAUSE we were NOT in p5. If you care, you want p5 and if you don't, it doesn't matter.

We don't control getting into p5... of course I realize that... but we need to have a plan to do that. We need to be asking schools like UT or other top 50-100 state schools with which we have good academic relationships 'what it takes'. The WORST thing that happens as far as I'm concerned is that we spend 30mm over the next 5 years or so and end up only getting 5mm of it back, but we dominate CUSA and get a 10% bump in exposure and IDK, a 10% bump in alumni interest. What is THAT worth?? Think about how unique we are in g5. I think we are the ONLY g5 school in the top 50 and only one of about 5 in the top 150. The BEST thing that happens is that we get invited and end up actually doing WELL in a p5 conference and become Stanford or better... and our non revs EXPLODE.

if the answer is that there is NOTHING we can do, then we need to spend enough to dominate CUSA and expand our non-rev offerings... especially in areas that overlap with our huge increase in students from Asia. Whether that's Judo or Badminton or Table Tennis or Soccer... We need to market ourselves to non-revs as a way to get the best education money can buy for free/by playing sports... in a league where you still have an opportunity to win a whole lot without having to be the non-rev equivalent of a 1 and done lottery pick. Get the people who would mostly (using a football equivalent) sit on UTs bench or start for Tech. We need to find ways to maximize 'PWO's' based on academic opportunities... etc etc etc.

Hambone, I'm still with you at that level of optimism, and it's refreshing to still see it on this board amid the sea of defeatism and cynicism over the last four months and more. I understand how people can feel like supporting Rice athletics is a Sisyphian exercise, but if a turnaround is to happen, it can never start from anywhere except where we are when we start it.

Hambone is right, but, sadly, there is one thing missing, the desire to actually do something proactive.

Its not that I'm optimistic... or that I think lots of people share my goals... its really just a realization that anything other than the goal we were TOLD that we have, to dominate CUSA/Compete for championships etc etc is water torture... and despite this as our STATED goal, we're doing much more of the water torture.

What I'm articulating is that getting into p5 is not within our control, but everything that we SHOULD do to dominate CUSA would also work towards that end... and THAT end is much more fiscally responsible even than simply trying to dominate CUSA. Its like buying a base model of a Mercedes vs buying the 'tricked out' model of a Chevy. They both cost about the same, but one is generally a much better value than the other.

Non-Revs are an area where Rice can shine because of the value of what is essentially an academic scholarship vis a vis g5 and even most of p5... AND, surprise surprise, most p5 schools have a number of sports where they go outside their traditional p5 conference to form a new alliance to compete.... so we might be able to get into a conference with p5 schools in some non-traditional non-revs like Badminton, sailing, riflery or the like... and that potentially begins the steps toward more affiliations and conversations at the top.

(12-08-2020 10:25 AM)texowl2 Wrote:  

(12-08-2020 09:50 AM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  Former University of Texas head football coach Fred Akers, dead at 82.

always thought that the teasips blew it on Fred. He was very close to two national championships-Just Joe Montana and a fumbled punt at the cotton bowl stopped that. It took a long time for them to get to as close as he had them. Seem to remember a lot of grumbling about boring. I will take boring and winning over exciting and losing-see Mackovic, John.

Thoughts on boring and losing-see Rice most games past 60-odd years?

(12-08-2020 01:17 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(12-08-2020 10:25 AM)texowl2 Wrote:  

(12-08-2020 09:50 AM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  Former University of Texas head football coach Fred Akers, dead at 82.

always thought that the teasips blew it on Fred. He was very close to two national championships-Just Joe Montana and a fumbled punt at the cotton bowl stopped that. It took a long time for them to get to as close as he had them. Seem to remember a lot of grumbling about boring. I will take boring and winning over exciting and losing-see Mackovic, John.

Thoughts on boring and losing-see Rice most games past 60-odd years?

You left out frustrating