We will take the $2,500,000 a year for 6 years. SMU and Houston pushed for Rice but Tulsa was added.

(04-08-2014 07:34 AM)Mademen Wrote:  While the $$$ in the AAC is better, I still think UH and Rice are in similar athletic boats. No reason to think both programs can't consistently compete at a high level in every sport sans football. The divide in football is just to great IMO and will only get bigger with "cost of scholarship" additions to student athletes.

Rice Stadium is the great equalizer. Never underestimate Rice when it plays at home.

(04-08-2014 10:21 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  We will take the $2,500,000 a year for 6 years.

Yup. As soon as we get done telling ourselves that C-USA is as good as the AAC, we'll get back to complaining about our budget constraints.

AAC money does nothing to solve Rice's athletics deficit, which has been quoted here as being around $15 million annually. Only two things can pull Rice athletics from the brink, a P5 invitation (no way) or the establishment of an athletics endowment fund of about $200 million, from which Rice can pull 10% annually. If The university can raise $1 billion for a centenial campaign, it should be able to raise $200 million for an athletics endowment.

(04-08-2014 10:21 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  We will take the $2,500,000 a year for 6 years. SMU and Houston pushed for Rice but Tulsa was added.

As much as I disagree with the decision to add Tulsa, I can see some merit in that decision. I don't think there was much point in the AAC doubling down on the Houston market. As much as I love you guys (and you know I do), I'd rather see the AAC add someone like UTSA or Buffalo that would bring a new market to the conference, even if they might not be quite as competitive.

I feel like Rice has a much better case for admission to the MW than the AAC. Both sides would get something out of the deal - Rice gets out of the dumpster fire that is what's left of C-USA, and the MW gets a piece of the Houston market, as well as Texas recruiting ground and another not-awful football program (both of which they seem to need desperately). The MWC is also probably going to keep all of its members together for the foreseeable future, so you guys would actually be able to develop rivalries with teams that aren't in Texas. You'd also recall some familiar names from your WAC days, and bringing Boise State in every couple of years would be fun, too. The MW's also a pretty good basketball conference, what with UNM and Utah State and all. It seems ideal for everybody.

(04-09-2014 02:53 AM)T-Moar Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 10:21 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  We will take the $2,500,000 a year for 6 years. SMU and Houston pushed for Rice but Tulsa was added.

As much as I disagree with the decision to add Tulsa, I can see some merit in that decision. I don't think there was much point in the AAC doubling down on the Houston market. As much as I love you guys (and you know I do), I'd rather see the AAC add someone like UTSA or Buffalo that would bring a new market to the conference, even if they might not be quite as competitive.

I feel like Rice has a much better case for admission to the MW than the AAC. Both sides would get something out of the deal - Rice gets out of the dumpster fire that is what's left of C-USA, and the MW gets a piece of the Houston market, as well as Texas recruiting ground and another not-awful football program (both of which they seem to need desperately). The MWC is also probably going to keep all of its members together for the foreseeable future, so you guys would actually be able to develop rivalries with teams that aren't in Texas. You'd also recall some familiar names from your WAC days, and bringing Boise State in every couple of years would be fun, too. The MW's also a pretty good basketball conference, what with UNM and Utah State and all. It seems ideal for everybody.

I agree with you on the MWC. I don't see Rice in the AAC as long as the University of Houston is representing the Houston television market. If UH gets promoted to P5, we will likely be the top replacement for the AAC, but UH may not get the call for a long time.

Better for us if the MWC wanted to go big into Texas once again, and pull us up with UTEP, UTSA and North Texas. The MWC would have presence in the largest Texas markets, and a natural divisional split with the four Texas schools joining the front range schools (New Mexico, Air Force, Colorado State and Wyoming) in the East.

(04-09-2014 07:56 AM)ESE84 Wrote:  I agree with you on the MWC. I don't see Rice in the AAC as long as the University of Houston is representing the Houston television market. If UH gets promoted to P5, we will likely be the top replacement for the AAC, but UH may not get the call for a long time.

Better for us if the MWC wanted to go big into Texas once again, and pull us up with UTEP, UTSA and North Texas. The MWC would have presence in the largest Texas markets, and a natural divisional split with the four Texas schools joining the front range schools (New Mexico, Air Force, Colorado State and Wyoming) in the East.

Totally agree. Never say never on the AAC (people thought USF would block UCF) but it seems unlikely. The MWC seems more plausible.

I get what people are saying when they say that given the option of paying millions in entrance/exit fees to move to the AAC while everything else remains the same they'd choose to stay put. But that's not the likely scenario - more likely a new shakeup leads to CUSA losing 2-6 members to some combo of MWC/AAC and then back-filling from the MAC or Sunbelt. We don't want to be left behind in that scenario.

I say we set our standards higher: Big 12, at a minimum. Maybe we don't have the records or attendance in football and basketball to get in right now, but we can already show progress in making the investments needed to get there. The Big 12 geographic footprint, level of competition, etc. are more attractive than what the AAC offers, and the Big 12 does not include a Houston-area school in its membership.

I think we'll need to get MBB in order a bit first - but, at that point, I absolutely agree on the MWC logic. There are obviously some issues with non-revenue sports travel, but we've clearly been down that road before.

(04-09-2014 10:23 AM)Caelligh Wrote:  I say we set our standards higher: Big 12, at a minimum. Maybe we don't have the records or attendance in football and basketball to get in right now, but we can already show progress in making the investments needed to get there. The Big 12 geographic footprint, level of competition, etc. are more attractive than what the AAC offers, and the Big 12 does not include a Houston-area school in its membership.

Make no mistake-- the Big 12 is Dr. K's primary goal (and the current Commish is his mentor from Stanford), and I'd be surprised if he doesn't say as much in his State of Athletics address a week from Saturday...but it's not going to happen tomorrow. It's a 5-year plan, and as others have rightfully pointed out, we need to get MBB back to be competitive, and we need to sustain our football success for another 2 - 3 years forward.

(04-09-2014 10:50 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 10:23 AM)Caelligh Wrote:  I say we set our standards higher: Big 12, at a minimum. Maybe we don't have the records or attendance in football and basketball to get in right now, but we can already show progress in making the investments needed to get there. The Big 12 geographic footprint, level of competition, etc. are more attractive than what the AAC offers, and the Big 12 does not include a Houston-area school in its membership.

Make no mistake-- the Big 12 is Dr. K's primary goal (and the current Commish is his mentor from Stanford), and I'd be surprised if he doesn't say as much in his State of Athletics address a week from Saturday...but it's not going to happen tomorrow. It's a 5-year plan, and as others have rightfully pointed out, we need to get MBB back to be competitive, and we need to sustain our football success for another 2 - 3 years forward.

I agree with you that we have much to do so I hope Dr. K. doesn't express any desires to move to a particular conference right now. We need to do the ground work first and then go for the better conference behind the scenes. It is not the fault of the current CUSA members that we are with them now and we shouldn't look down our noses at them by shouting out our desire to escape their company.

(04-09-2014 11:34 AM)NolaOwl Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 10:50 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 10:23 AM)Caelligh Wrote:  I say we set our standards higher: Big 12, at a minimum. Maybe we don't have the records or attendance in football and basketball to get in right now, but we can already show progress in making the investments needed to get there. The Big 12 geographic footprint, level of competition, etc. are more attractive than what the AAC offers, and the Big 12 does not include a Houston-area school in its membership.

Make no mistake-- the Big 12 is Dr. K's primary goal (and the current Commish is his mentor from Stanford), and I'd be surprised if he doesn't say as much in his State of Athletics address a week from Saturday...but it's not going to happen tomorrow. It's a 5-year plan, and as others have rightfully pointed out, we need to get MBB back to be competitive, and we need to sustain our football success for another 2 - 3 years forward.

I agree with you that we have much to do so I hope Dr. K. doesn't express any desires to move to a particular conference right now. We need to do the ground work first and then go for the better conference behind the scenes. It is not the fault of the current CUSA members that we are with them now and we shouldn't look down our noses at them by shouting out our desire to escape their company.

I'm pretty sure that everyone in CUSA is already used to that, just as we are. Everyone in these conferences is shouting their desire to escape their peers.

I don't look down on our conference mates. I want them to have what I want for Rice: membership in a geographically proximate conference (for the benefit of student-athletes and home market fans) that offers a high level of competition, opportunities to sustain/develop natural rivalries, and equal access to post-season opportunities and the visibility and financial benefits of media contracts.

(04-09-2014 11:34 AM)NolaOwl Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 10:50 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 10:23 AM)Caelligh Wrote:  I say we set our standards higher: Big 12, at a minimum. Maybe we don't have the records or attendance in football and basketball to get in right now, but we can already show progress in making the investments needed to get there. The Big 12 geographic footprint, level of competition, etc. are more attractive than what the AAC offers, and the Big 12 does not include a Houston-area school in its membership.

Make no mistake-- the Big 12 is Dr. K's primary goal (and the current Commish is his mentor from Stanford), and I'd be surprised if he doesn't say as much in his State of Athletics address a week from Saturday...but it's not going to happen tomorrow. It's a 5-year plan, and as others have rightfully pointed out, we need to get MBB back to be competitive, and we need to sustain our football success for another 2 - 3 years forward.

I agree with you that we have much to do so I hope Dr. K. doesn't express any desires to move to a particular conference right now. We need to do the ground work first and then go for the better conference behind the scenes. It is not the fault of the current CUSA members that we are with them now and we shouldn't look down our noses at them by shouting out our desire to escape their company.

It isn't a question of looking down at them. The problem is I simply do not care about them and have no interest in seeing Rice play them. We have very little in common and this minimal overlap leads to no rivalry whatsoever.

Also, I don't want to hear the phrase better conference behind the scenes ever again. Reminds me of slick Rick [Greenspan].

(04-09-2014 01:48 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 11:34 AM)NolaOwl Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 10:50 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 10:23 AM)Caelligh Wrote:  I say we set our standards higher: Big 12, at a minimum. Maybe we don't have the records or attendance in football and basketball to get in right now, but we can already show progress in making the investments needed to get there. The Big 12 geographic footprint, level of competition, etc. are more attractive than what the AAC offers, and the Big 12 does not include a Houston-area school in its membership.

Make no mistake-- the Big 12 is Dr. K's primary goal (and the current Commish is his mentor from Stanford), and I'd be surprised if he doesn't say as much in his State of Athletics address a week from Saturday...but it's not going to happen tomorrow. It's a 5-year plan, and as others have rightfully pointed out, we need to get MBB back to be competitive, and we need to sustain our football success for another 2 - 3 years forward.

I agree with you that we have much to do so I hope Dr. K. doesn't express any desires to move to a particular conference right now. We need to do the ground work first and then go for the better conference behind the scenes. It is not the fault of the current CUSA members that we are with them now and we shouldn't look down our noses at them by shouting out our desire to escape their company.

It isn't a question of looking down at them. The problem is I simply do not care about them and have no interest in seeing Rice play them. We have very little in common and this minimal overlap leads to no rivalry whatsoever.

Also, I don't want to hear the phrase better conference behind the scenes ever again. Reminds me of slick Rick [Greenspan].

Yes, but we have to for now so let's make the best of it.

And so I agree with Nola. We can want better for ourselves (as everyone does), but we don't have to trash where we are to do so. We have plenty of our own faults to fix.

As well, while I'm glad to see the ambition, I have no idea how Dr. K will ever prove to the Big XII we are worth enough TV dollars wise to make sense for them. We should jump at any chance we can get to join the MWC or AAC. But for now, we have to fix our own problems first.

(04-09-2014 10:23 AM)Caelligh Wrote:  I say we set our standards higher: Big 12, at a minimum. Maybe we don't have the records or attendance in football and basketball to get in right now, but we can already show progress in making the investments needed to get there. The Big 12 geographic footprint, level of competition, etc. are more attractive than what the AAC offers, and the Big 12 does not include a Houston-area school in its membership.

Ultimately, yes, but I expect the Big 12 to look much more favorably on a school from the top of the AAC than one from the top of C-USA or the Sun Belt.

(04-09-2014 02:35 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 10:23 AM)Caelligh Wrote:  I say we set our standards higher: Big 12, at a minimum. Maybe we don't have the records or attendance in football and basketball to get in right now, but we can already show progress in making the investments needed to get there. The Big 12 geographic footprint, level of competition, etc. are more attractive than what the AAC offers, and the Big 12 does not include a Houston-area school in its membership.

Ultimately, yes, but I expect the Big 12 to look much more favorably on a school from the top of the AAC than one from the top of C-USA or the Sun Belt.

I don't agree with this, because Rice has some intrinsic qualities as a university that still make it more attractive than, say, UH or UCF. All else being equal, universities are going to choose to athletically associate with the more distinguished schools, especially schools with deeper pockets. Assuming Rice gets its ship in order, Rice can put together an attractive case for why its academics, Houston location, and long historical tradition in D1 make it more appealing than commuter schools like UH and UCF. Rice has to get its athletics act together, but Rice's academic reputation still matters for something. TCU's admission into the Big 12 was based on a personal relationship between CDC and DeLoss Dodds. Rice can still get a foot in the door as a distinguished academic school, but it has to then offer an organized and promising athletics program.

Shot-calling conferences like the PAC-12, Big Ten, and SEC are going to demand that any new entrant be distinguished academically, either as a flagship public university or a good private school. Boise State and Fresno State will never get into the PAC-12. I just don't see the PAC-12, Big Ten, or SEC bringing in any commuter schools, because they can afford to be very choosy. The big conferences consider Rice as disorganized athletically, but if Rice can get its act together, Rice would offer some appeal, especially with the Houston market. It's the more iffy conferences like the AAC that have to micro-manage TV market-share, etc. The big boy conferences still think they can shape the TV market.

PS: I think Rice should focus its attention on getting into a P5 conference, where the big money is, rather than worrying about positioning itself with the AAC and MWC, etc. Rice should look for favorably match-ups within the non-P5 (ie, Texas schools and schools that are easy to travel to, even by flying), but the prize is definitely P5 admittance.

(04-09-2014 03:01 PM)Bay Area Owl Wrote:  TCU's admission into the Big 12 was based on a personal relationship between CDC and DeLoss Dodds.

That's a bit of an overreach. Their admission was based upon a foundation of decades of historical ties, demographics in providing a DFW area team, 10+ years of football excellence, clear evidence of commitment to athletics in the form of several new or refurbished facilities investments, and a pending move to the Big East. It was finished by the personal relationship and charm offensive of CDC.

(04-09-2014 02:35 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 10:23 AM)Caelligh Wrote:  I say we set our standards higher: Big 12, at a minimum. Maybe we don't have the records or attendance in football and basketball to get in right now, but we can already show progress in making the investments needed to get there. The Big 12 geographic footprint, level of competition, etc. are more attractive than what the AAC offers, and the Big 12 does not include a Houston-area school in its membership.

Ultimately, yes, but I expect the Big 12 to look much more favorably on a school from the top of the AAC than one from the top of C-USA or the Sun Belt.

Why???

(04-09-2014 03:01 PM)Bay Area Owl Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 02:35 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 10:23 AM)Caelligh Wrote:  I say we set our standards higher: Big 12, at a minimum. Maybe we don't have the records or attendance in football and basketball to get in right now, but we can already show progress in making the investments needed to get there. The Big 12 geographic footprint, level of competition, etc. are more attractive than what the AAC offers, and the Big 12 does not include a Houston-area school in its membership.

Ultimately, yes, but I expect the Big 12 to look much more favorably on a school from the top of the AAC than one from the top of C-USA or the Sun Belt.

I don't agree with this, because Rice has some intrinsic qualities as a university that still make it more attractive than, say, UH or UCF. All else being equal, universities are going to choose to athletically associate with the more distinguished schools, especially schools with deeper pockets. Assuming Rice gets its ship in order, Rice can put together an attractive case for why its academics, Houston location, and long historical tradition in D1 make it more appealing than commuter schools like UH and UCF. Rice has to get its athletics act together, but Rice's academic reputation still matters for something. TCU's admission into the Big 12 was based on a personal relationship between CDC and DeLoss Dodds. Rice can still get a foot in the door as a distinguished academic school, but it has to then offer an organized and promising athletics program.

Shot-calling conferences like the PAC-12, Big Ten, and SEC are going to demand that any new entrant be distinguished academically, either as a flagship public university or a good private school. Boise State and Fresno State will never get into the PAC-12. I just don't see the PAC-12, Big Ten, or SEC bringing in any commuter schools, because they can afford to be very choosy. The big conferences consider Rice as disorganized athletically, but if Rice can get its act together, Rice would offer some appeal, especially with the Houston market. It's the more iffy conferences like the AAC that have to micro-manage TV market-share, etc. The big boy conferences still think they can shape the TV market.

PS: I think Rice should focus its attention on getting into a P5 conference, where the big money is, rather than worrying about positioning itself with the AAC and MWC, etc. Rice should look for favorably match-ups within the non-P5 (ie, Texas schools and schools that are easy to travel to, even by flying), but the prize is definitely P5 admittance.

Then how in the world did Utah and Colorado get into the Pac-12?