(11-07-2018 06:37 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Army - you got me there. At the moment they aren't looking for a football home. But, then again, scheduling and budget aren't something Army has to worry about.

Here's a very interesting discussion of why Army has chosen the independence path for their football team. One thing they've got going for them - their football-related revenues (from media rights and away games) is near the top of all G5 teams.

https://army.rivals.com/news/free-celebr...ball-style

(11-07-2018 05:32 PM)Pimpa Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 05:22 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 05:15 PM)Pimpa Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 04:13 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 01:46 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Not all that many every year, and not enough to pay the bills, and not enough to fill the seats.

Scheduling considerations for successful teams, the kind of opponents needed to make independence work, are
1) Money
2) Money
3) Money
...
57) Padding the schedule to get enough wins to get to a good bowl, in order to make more money.

Rice helps with the last item on that list.

The current schedule doesn't make much money and doesn't fill many seats. I fail to see how going independent makes the situation any worse. Does it really matter if Rice is playing NMSU or UMASS instead of WKU or ODU from a money standpoint? No. But if going independent allows Rice to schedule 1-2 additional games against interesting opponents, that could allow Rice to attract some additional fans or make some additional money. Or at least be just as broke but trying something new for a change.

Also, I'm just shy of advocating that Rice go independent. I do think Rice should spend some good money/time/effort analyzing the possibility.

This is where I am at right now. I'm not all in on Rice as an independent, but I do think a current study should be made to see if it could help our current lot. I don't know if this was covered by the McKinsey study or not.

No, it was not covered by the McKinsey study, which is now long obsolete as the NCAA landscape has changed so much over the last 15 years. Any study would need to not only look into the viability and potential benefits of going independent in football, but also look at the likely impact on all the other sports (including the viability of finding an accepting conference affiliation). Personally, I don't think it's doable, but I'd be amenable for the undertaking of a study.

+1.

As for placing the Olympic sports, along with the MVC, Summit and Horizon, there is also the Southland Conference, but I don't know if that is too far down the hierarchy for this exercise. It would definitely be a Texas-Lousiana-centric league. Lamar, HBU, Sam and SFA would all be conference mates, and that could work out really well for baseball.

When I threw those other options out there, it was looking at Division 1 conferences that didn't have football members. Easy to look up.

Looking at other conferences to see if football seemed to be required was harder. Southland could work (11 of the 13 members play football), but get back to one of the key concerns - playing against teams that aren't close to academic peers (brand dilution). Does that really address that part of the equation?

There's likely a tradeoff needed between these competing concerns, should football independence ever be considered, because there really isn't any conference option that addresses everything (outside of P5).

(11-07-2018 10:35 PM)gsloth Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 05:32 PM)Pimpa Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 05:22 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 05:15 PM)Pimpa Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 04:13 PM)mrbig Wrote:  The current schedule doesn't make much money and doesn't fill many seats. I fail to see how going independent makes the situation any worse. Does it really matter if Rice is playing NMSU or UMASS instead of WKU or ODU from a money standpoint? No. But if going independent allows Rice to schedule 1-2 additional games against interesting opponents, that could allow Rice to attract some additional fans or make some additional money. Or at least be just as broke but trying something new for a change.

Also, I'm just shy of advocating that Rice go independent. I do think Rice should spend some good money/time/effort analyzing the possibility.

This is where I am at right now. I'm not all in on Rice as an independent, but I do think a current study should be made to see if it could help our current lot. I don't know if this was covered by the McKinsey study or not.

No, it was not covered by the McKinsey study, which is now long obsolete as the NCAA landscape has changed so much over the last 15 years. Any study would need to not only look into the viability and potential benefits of going independent in football, but also look at the likely impact on all the other sports (including the viability of finding an accepting conference affiliation). Personally, I don't think it's doable, but I'd be amenable for the undertaking of a study.

+1.

As for placing the Olympic sports, along with the MVC, Summit and Horizon, there is also the Southland Conference, but I don't know if that is too far down the hierarchy for this exercise. It would definitely be a Texas-Lousiana-centric league. Lamar, HBU, Sam and SFA would all be conference mates, and that could work out really well for baseball.

When I threw those other options out there, it was looking at Division 1 conferences that didn't have football members. Easy to look up.

Looking at other conferences to see if football seemed to be required was harder. Southland could work (11 of the 13 members play football), but get back to one of the key concerns - playing against teams that aren't close to academic peers (brand dilution). Does that really address that part of the equation?

There's likely a tradeoff needed between these competing concerns, should football independence ever be considered, because there really isn't any conference option that addresses everything (outside of P5).

In my opinion, the idea of "brand dilution" by not playing academic peers matters more in football than in any other sport. If we are playing directional Florida-U in football, unless we have a winning record, that won't matter much in terms of attendance and butts in seats at HRS. I think those impacts are minimized in the Olympic sports, and aren't felt as much as they are in football when talking about the basketball and baseball teams. Of course, winning is the great panacea. It is easier to fill Tudor or Reckling if the team is winning consistently, regardless of who we are playing (not saying that is always the case, just looking at it from a basic numbers standpoint and assuming more wins = increased attendance). Football, on the other hand requires a bit more. I recall someone posting this point on the Parliament at some point in the past, but I think it bears repeating: even when we were the absolute dregs of the SWC, there was increased student interest in football because we were playing teams that those of us who went to school in Texas had classmates/relatives who either attended or were alums. Bragging rights were on the line, and, thus, interest was higher. Those friends/classmates/relatives may have even come into town to watch the game and hang out for the weekend. Don't really get that effect when playing Western Kentucky or UAB. Can't tell me that at least half of the SWC that we played towards the end of the conference's existence were "academic peers". I think the academic peers argument is a good one, but I also think geographic proximity plays a large role as well. Since it is looking less and less likely that we will be able to get into a conference with those other schools, that is why some would consider independence the means to that end. I don't know, given all of the variables that are out there (other teams' conference requirements, television obligations, etc.) that it can be done. That's why I think a new study looking into that would be needed. It would be unconventional thinking, to be sure.

(11-07-2018 08:30 AM)ESE84 Wrote:  

(11-06-2018 02:40 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  Rice must bring back the former fan base, and attract the casual fan - and playing teams from this conference will not do the trick. It may take a few years of 4-5 home games (1 of which would be at NRG), but I don't think there is any realistic alternative.

I think C-USA is a secondary problem. The main problem is that Rice is once again losing, no matter who the opponent is.

Fix winning first, and then tackle the schedule.

Rice may only get one more shot... If that's to make a substantial change to increase competitiveness and to go independent in the process, I think there's a good case to be made. I don't think it has the luxury of waiting 4-5 more years, then try to make a move.

(11-07-2018 06:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  When NMSU and Liberty are playing each other twice this year to fill out a schedule, that speaks volumes about scheduling as an independent.

The biggest thing it says to me is that no-one wants to fly to Las Cruces to play on the road if they aren't bound to do it by conference affiliation. I believe that Texas Tech also has historically had trouble attracting quality opponents to play in Lubbock, and it is a much more attractive opponent.

Houston is an easier ask for opponents, but games at Rice Stadium may become very scarce if Rice plays as an independent.

(11-08-2018 11:41 AM)Pimpa Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 10:35 PM)gsloth Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 05:32 PM)Pimpa Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 05:22 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 05:15 PM)Pimpa Wrote:  This is where I am at right now. I'm not all in on Rice as an independent, but I do think a current study should be made to see if it could help our current lot. I don't know if this was covered by the McKinsey study or not.

No, it was not covered by the McKinsey study, which is now long obsolete as the NCAA landscape has changed so much over the last 15 years. Any study would need to not only look into the viability and potential benefits of going independent in football, but also look at the likely impact on all the other sports (including the viability of finding an accepting conference affiliation). Personally, I don't think it's doable, but I'd be amenable for the undertaking of a study.

+1.

As for placing the Olympic sports, along with the MVC, Summit and Horizon, there is also the Southland Conference, but I don't know if that is too far down the hierarchy for this exercise. It would definitely be a Texas-Lousiana-centric league. Lamar, HBU, Sam and SFA would all be conference mates, and that could work out really well for baseball.

When I threw those other options out there, it was looking at Division 1 conferences that didn't have football members. Easy to look up.

Looking at other conferences to see if football seemed to be required was harder. Southland could work (11 of the 13 members play football), but get back to one of the key concerns - playing against teams that aren't close to academic peers (brand dilution). Does that really address that part of the equation?

There's likely a tradeoff needed between these competing concerns, should football independence ever be considered, because there really isn't any conference option that addresses everything (outside of P5).

In my opinion, the idea of "brand dilution" by not playing academic peers matters more in football than in any other sport. If we are playing directional Florida-U in football, unless we have a winning record, that won't matter much in terms of attendance and butts in seats at HRS. I think those impacts are minimized in the Olympic sports, and aren't felt as much as they are in football when talking about the basketball and baseball teams. Of course, winning is the great panacea. It is easier to fill Tudor or Reckling if the team is winning consistently, regardless of who we are playing (not saying that is always the case, just looking at it from a basic numbers standpoint and assuming more wins = increased attendance). Football, on the other hand requires a bit more. I recall someone posting this point on the Parliament at some point in the past, but I think it bears repeating: even when we were the absolute dregs of the SWC, there was increased student interest in football because we were playing teams that those of us who went to school in Texas had classmates/relatives who either attended or were alums. Bragging rights were on the line, and, thus, interest was higher. Those friends/classmates/relatives may have even come into town to watch the game and hang out for the weekend. Don't really get that effect when playing Western Kentucky or UAB. Can't tell me that at least half of the SWC that we played towards the end of the conference's existence were "academic peers". I think the academic peers argument is a good one, but I also think geographic proximity plays a large role as well. Since it is looking less and less likely that we will be able to get into a conference with those other schools, that is why some would consider independence the means to that end. I don't know, given all of the variables that are out there (other teams' conference requirements, television obligations, etc.) that it can be done. That's why I think a new study looking into that would be needed. It would be unconventional thinking, to be sure.

+1

We're in a bad conference right now, but I it doesn't mean we need to be independent. The MWC has plenty of nationally recognizable names. If not that, we may need to form a small regional conference, one that's small enough to play a round-robin schedule, while also leaving plenty of space for attractive OOC opponents. Both can be done. Independence is very difficult.

(11-06-2018 10:14 AM)fortheplayers Wrote:  The only way the admin will listen is if demand some real data from JK and get 100 or so ex players that matter to come together and make it a priority.

That is my objective.

As I understand it, a group, including some or perhaps many former players, of about 25(0) or so arguably helped to worsen our position very recently in football.

What that group might better consider doing is using their clout to convince a very wealthy alum or two who has heretofore not deigned to do so to do a Boone Pickens here at Rice. That might well then allow either your scenario a fighting chance, or help us move out to a better conference.

(11-08-2018 11:41 AM)Pimpa Wrote:  In my opinion, the idea of "brand dilution" by not playing academic peers matters more in football than in any other sport.

But playing academic peers is not simply a matter of us deciding whom we want to play. They have to want to play us too.

If being independent meant a schedule of Army, Navy, Air Force, Stanford, Northwestern, Duke, Vandy, Wake, TexasU, aTm, Baylor, and SMU, then that would be one thing. If means playing NMSU and Liberty twice each to get 12 games, then that is something else. And I think it way more likely means the latter than the former.

(11-09-2018 08:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 11:41 AM)Pimpa Wrote:  In my opinion, the idea of "brand dilution" by not playing academic peers matters more in football than in any other sport.

But playing academic peers is not simply a matter of us deciding whom we want to play. They have to want to play us too.

If being independent meant a schedule of Army, Navy, Air Force, Stanford, Northwestern, Duke, Vandy, Wake, TexasU, aTm, Baylor, and SMU, then that would be one thing. If means playing NMSU and Liberty twice each to get 12 games, then that is something else. And I think it way more likely means the latter than the former.

Let's also not forget that OOC football schedules are set a minimum of 2 - 3 years in advance; sometimes even longer than that. Should we suddenly decide to go independent, one can only imagine the level of competition we'd be facing those first several years (outside the 4 OOC games already locked in)....and that could further accelerate the downward spiral.

(11-09-2018 08:18 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-09-2018 08:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 11:41 AM)Pimpa Wrote:  In my opinion, the idea of "brand dilution" by not playing academic peers matters more in football than in any other sport.

But playing academic peers is not simply a matter of us deciding whom we want to play. They have to want to play us too.
If being independent meant a schedule of Army, Navy, Air Force, Stanford, Northwestern, Duke, Vandy, Wake, TexasU, aTm, Baylor, and SMU, then that would be one thing. If means playing NMSU and Liberty twice each to get 12 games, then that is something else. And I think it way more likely means the latter than the former.

Let's also not forget that OOC football schedules are set a minimum of 2 - 3 years in advance; sometimes even longer than that. Should we suddenly decide to go independent, one can only imagine the level of competition we'd be facing those first several years (outside the 4 OOC games already locked in)....and that could further accelerate the downward spiral.

Not to mention the difficulty scheduling non-football sports.

The problem is very simple--right now, we have NO academic and athletic peers. We have athletic peers--CUSA--who are not academic peers, and academic peers--Stanford, Duke, Vandy, Northwestern--who are not athletic peers. And we are located in a geographic area where there are no good candidates with which to align. If we were in Vermont, the Ivy League would make sense. But we aren't.

Going independent doesn't change that. Staying in CUSA doesn't change that. Trying to find another conference that is a better fit doesn't work because geography means there isn't one.

Lots to reply to. Sorry for the format

(11-06-2018 10:39 AM)fortheplayers Wrote:  We are heading that direction regardless......Lets not sit back and watch it happen

This.

Our history is littered with indecisiveness and a lack of vision... while others made bold moves that we've often scoffed at.

CUSA is not getting better and if it does, those better teams will hit the first bid they get to leave. There is little to no history or rivalries in CUSA to keep people here

(11-06-2018 10:35 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(11-06-2018 10:25 AM)Middle Ages Wrote:  I’m in. It just simply can’t be worse, and while there is risk, there is also significant upside, which I don’t see in our current situation

If we go independent we’ll be D3 in 5 years. The administration doesn’t support athletics and this would just be a convenient way to kill it for good.

Leebron’s lip service really shows through when he can shamelessly post congratulatory pics at an empty stadium when we get thrashed by directional schools.

[/quote]

Agree with MA.... And while I won't debate your point, cr... all you seem to be saying is that going independent makes the inevitable happen sooner....

I think if we controlled our marketing and media, that the university would see value there. d3 really isn't an option though... scholarship costs given Rice's charter and recent decisions are a wash... and while you save on some overhead, you probably lose that much in many other ways.

(11-06-2018 05:10 PM)Baylorbears11 Wrote:  

(11-06-2018 03:44 PM)gsloth Wrote:  For those curious about what conferences might be possible, there really aren't any tightly clustered conferences with teams in Texas. This Wikipedia page does a good job of also showing the geographic footprint of each non-football conference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NC...onferences

I'm ignoring the WAC, as the footprint is very wide, but comes to Texas. Schools in it don't jump out at you.

There's the Summit League - tight, upper midwest/Plains footprint, though Oral Roberts in Oklahoma is also a member.
There's the Horizon League - tight, upper midwest/Great Lakes footprint, with nothing close to Texas.
There's the Missouri Valley League - tight, upper midwest (between the other two), with nothing bordering Texas. Dallas Baptist baseball plays here.

That's probably it. (The Big East isn't going to be accepting Rice, between the nearly all-Catholic affiliation and the distances involved.) Those 3 have developed a decent rep in basketball, and maybe in some other sports. (UDenver, illiniowls possible model, is in the Summit.)

Rice would do well as an independent. I believe if New Mexico State, UMass, and Liberty can achieve it then Rice can also do so. The biggest obstacle, as demonstrated above, is finding a home for your Olympic sports. Unfortunately, there isn't a good solution for that in this area of the country. However, C-USA may find itself amenable to keeping Rice on in a non-football capacity as Rice's brand is, in my opinion, the strongest by far of the conference.

Rather than independence, Rice might consider weighing the option for creating a new conference. This might be the time to start laying the groundwork for a Magnolia Conference 2.0. This was attempted in the past by Tulane with the goal of establishing a "Southern Ivy" league of peer minded institutions. Schools like Baylor, TCU, SMU, Rice, Tulane, and Tulsa could create a solid core of programs for a smaller conference. With two more members, the schools would have plenty of teams for a round robin and aggressive non-conference scheduling with traditional rivals like Texas, TAMU, Houston, Arkansas, Tech, LSU, and the Oklahomas. It seems unlikely that Vanderbilt, Wake Forest, or Duke would wish to come along, but they might consider the option. Rice could start fostering stronger bonds with its fellow Texas privates by scheduling more marquee sports matchups in Football, Basketball, and Baseball (although this already does well enough). I'm surprised to see a lack of SWC teams on Rice's basketball schedule outside of Houston. Rice is a regionally interesting opponent. One idea that I've always thought would be fun would be a Southwest conference tournament in the non-con schedule where the old SWC could have an early tournament between the teams. That seems far more interesting for the average fan that watching a Bahamas based tournament of Baylor against Marquette and South Alabama.

In Rice's current state, it is difficult to see anything but a continued slide toward irrelevancy and dissolution of the athletic programs. Rice has a strong brand but is a complete mismatch with its current conference mates.

Southern Ivy won't work because all of the schools mentioned in addition to us have engaged in vastly more aggressive moves now for decades. I like the SWC tournament ideas

The model is actually the reverse... You go independent in football and join 'the big boys' in Olympic sports where they need/want close competitors... Join Texas in sailing and WLAX, maybe swimming, softball or women's soccer... Join the AAC in men's soccer and track (just making up affiliations, but I looked into it at one time and there were a number of possibilities)... Some of the big boys have uneven schedules.

The best way to join a p5 conference (imo) would be for us to get into a p5 conference with ancillary sports and then get good enough in football to put up a fight. Since we're already meeting with their ADs, it's a much easier point to press.

(11-07-2018 05:15 PM)Pimpa Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 04:13 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 01:46 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Not all that many every year, and not enough to pay the bills, and not enough to fill the seats.

Scheduling considerations for successful teams, the kind of opponents needed to make independence work, are
1) Money
2) Money
3) Money
...
57) Padding the schedule to get enough wins to get to a good bowl, in order to make more money.

Rice helps with the last item on that list.

The current schedule doesn't make much money and doesn't fill many seats. I fail to see how going independent makes the situation any worse. Does it really matter if Rice is playing NMSU or UMASS instead of WKU or ODU from a money standpoint? No. But if going independent allows Rice to schedule 1-2 additional games against interesting opponents, that could allow Rice to attract some additional fans or make some additional money. Or at least be just as broke but trying something new for a change.

Also, I'm just shy of advocating that Rice go independent. I do think Rice should spend some good money/time/effort analyzing the possibility.

This is where I am at right now. I'm not all in on Rice as an independent, but I do think a current study should be made to see if it could help our current lot. I don't know if this was covered by the McKinsey study or not.

This. Obviously we're all guessing and making logical inferences... but 'where we are, as we are' is untenable and anyone who thinks otherwise hasn't been paying attention.

Independence is vastly more 'in our control' than CUSA is.

(11-07-2018 05:32 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  I don't see any realistic benefit to Rice by being independent, unless we're willing to resign ourselves to money-game defeats or contests with folks who make CUSA teams look like P5 powers.

We might make some money as a football independent if we can get P5 teams to play us here in recruit-dense Houston (ideally @HRS). Otherwise, we're looking at money games against name teams who will clobber us in their stadiums. If we ever get good enough to have a chance at beating them, they wouldn't schedule us at all, here or away. (Unless we got so good that beating us would improve their status. I wish!)

In basketball, our currently high RPI deters most good teams from scheduling us. When we get better, then we'd be a more attractive opponent ... as long as we're still not a real threat to win our games. Does anyone think we could schedule a full slate of quality, audience-attracting games -- especially during the large part of the season when most of the good teams are playing their own conference schedules?

BTW ... as the poster-folks for independents, aren't NMSU, UMass and Liberty all interested in joining a conference ... usually a better conference than has offered an invitation? Or is this year's NMSU-vs-Liberty home-and-home series the wished-for template for success as an 21st Century independent?

They obviously aren't the poster folks... Notre Dame is... but we are vastly more comparable today to them than to ND. They are the 'worst case scenario'.

(11-07-2018 06:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  When NMSU and Liberty are playing each other twice this year to fill out a schedule, that speaks volumes about scheduling as an independent.

No. It speaks volumes about scheduling to New Mexico. One of few states whose flagship universities aren't part of a p5 conference.

Liberty being in VA is a bit surprising as Va is a pretty solid hotbed, but given their rather stringent qualities, maybe that speaks to it. Maybe they have chosen to help support NMSU rather than to get hammered by Clemson or play James Madison.

It seems rather obvious that if we were independent, they would likely happily fill two of our games.

(11-09-2018 08:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If being independent meant a schedule of Army, Navy, Air Force, Stanford, Northwestern, Duke, Vandy, Wake, TexasU, aTm, Baylor, and SMU, then that would be one thing. If means playing NMSU and Liberty twice each to get 12 games, then that is something else. And I think it way more likely means the latter than the former.

So let's look into it and find out?

I think it rather obviously means playing PVA&M, Nicholl's State, Lamar and/or Tx State, all of which we're doing now...

and of course, UTEP, UTSA, UNT and La Tech will all have holes to fill.

An alternative would be a complete revamp of CUSA.... eliminate all cross-over games and put us in a 7 school division (or 6, moving UAB to the east) with 5-7 OOC games... and ELIMINATE conference control over brand marketing etc (without that, it's pointless). Just don't let them CONTROL our marketing as a lump-in with all these other schools.





As a final point.... to those of you who keep scoffing at the idea that Rice is different....

Take away sports for a moment. Which of our current CUSA schools would you rather attend and why? To downplay this is ridiculous.... especially in the context of sports, where as the worst team in football, we are STILL closer to Alabama in athletics than we are to the next best rated school in CUSA in academics. I'm not talking about individuals... every school has their leaders and mistakes.... but as a whole.

We make jokes about being 3-0 vs Alabama and many make jokes about the LSU score... Academically, that's where we are vs our conference peers.

This is not about being 'better' than they are..... it's about being different and attracting a different student and fan. By some measures it IS better, academically, but that isn't to say we're better people... which of course is what is implied when we talk about it and someone wants to put us down for it.

And Houston versus Lynchburg or Las Cruces matters. Having an empty 50,000 seat stadium matters. Being in a city where 'the big boys' have more alumni than some of our peers have ever graduated matters. Having easy access to I-45, I-10 and 2 airports matters. No, it isn't a deciding factor... lots of things come first... but it matters.

(11-09-2018 01:32 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Lots to reply to. Sorry for the format

(11-06-2018 10:39 AM)fortheplayers Wrote:  We are heading that direction regardless......Lets not sit back and watch it happen

This.

Our history is littered with indecisiveness and a lack of vision... while others made bold moves that we've often scoffed at.

CUSA is not getting better and if it does, those better teams will hit the first bid they get to leave. There is little to no history or rivalries in CUSA to keep people here

(11-06-2018 10:35 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(11-06-2018 10:25 AM)Middle Ages Wrote:  I’m in. It just simply can’t be worse, and while there is risk, there is also significant upside, which I don’t see in our current situation

If we go independent we’ll be D3 in 5 years. The administration doesn’t support athletics and this would just be a convenient way to kill it for good.

Leebron’s lip service really shows through when he can shamelessly post congratulatory pics at an empty stadium when we get thrashed by directional schools.

Agree with MA.... And while I won't debate your point, cr... all you seem to be saying is that going independent makes the inevitable happen sooner....

I think if we controlled our marketing and media, that the university would see value there. d3 really isn't an option though... scholarship costs given Rice's charter and recent decisions are a wash... and while you save on some overhead, you probably lose that much in many other ways.

(11-06-2018 05:10 PM)Baylorbears11 Wrote:  

(11-06-2018 03:44 PM)gsloth Wrote:  For those curious about what conferences might be possible, there really aren't any tightly clustered conferences with teams in Texas. This Wikipedia page does a good job of also showing the geographic footprint of each non-football conference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NC...onferences

I'm ignoring the WAC, as the footprint is very wide, but comes to Texas. Schools in it don't jump out at you.

There's the Summit League - tight, upper midwest/Plains footprint, though Oral Roberts in Oklahoma is also a member.
There's the Horizon League - tight, upper midwest/Great Lakes footprint, with nothing close to Texas.
There's the Missouri Valley League - tight, upper midwest (between the other two), with nothing bordering Texas. Dallas Baptist baseball plays here.

That's probably it. (The Big East isn't going to be accepting Rice, between the nearly all-Catholic affiliation and the distances involved.) Those 3 have developed a decent rep in basketball, and maybe in some other sports. (UDenver, illiniowls possible model, is in the Summit.)

Rice would do well as an independent. I believe if New Mexico State, UMass, and Liberty can achieve it then Rice can also do so. The biggest obstacle, as demonstrated above, is finding a home for your Olympic sports. Unfortunately, there isn't a good solution for that in this area of the country. However, C-USA may find itself amenable to keeping Rice on in a non-football capacity as Rice's brand is, in my opinion, the strongest by far of the conference.

Rather than independence, Rice might consider weighing the option for creating a new conference. This might be the time to start laying the groundwork for a Magnolia Conference 2.0. This was attempted in the past by Tulane with the goal of establishing a "Southern Ivy" league of peer minded institutions. Schools like Baylor, TCU, SMU, Rice, Tulane, and Tulsa could create a solid core of programs for a smaller conference. With two more members, the schools would have plenty of teams for a round robin and aggressive non-conference scheduling with traditional rivals like Texas, TAMU, Houston, Arkansas, Tech, LSU, and the Oklahomas. It seems unlikely that Vanderbilt, Wake Forest, or Duke would wish to come along, but they might consider the option. Rice could start fostering stronger bonds with its fellow Texas privates by scheduling more marquee sports matchups in Football, Basketball, and Baseball (although this already does well enough). I'm surprised to see a lack of SWC teams on Rice's basketball schedule outside of Houston. Rice is a regionally interesting opponent. One idea that I've always thought would be fun would be a Southwest conference tournament in the non-con schedule where the old SWC could have an early tournament between the teams. That seems far more interesting for the average fan that watching a Bahamas based tournament of Baylor against Marquette and South Alabama.

In Rice's current state, it is difficult to see anything but a continued slide toward irrelevancy and dissolution of the athletic programs. Rice has a strong brand but is a complete mismatch with its current conference mates.

Southern Ivy won't work because all of the schools mentioned in addition to us have engaged in vastly more aggressive moves now for decades. I like the SWC tournament ideas

The model is actually the reverse... You go independent in football and join 'the big boys' in Olympic sports where they need/want close competitors... Join Texas in sailing and WLAX, maybe swimming, softball or women's soccer... Join the AAC in men's soccer and track (just making up affiliations, but I looked into it at one time and there were a number of possibilities)... Some of the big boys have uneven schedules.

The best way to join a p5 conference (imo) would be for us to get into a p5 conference with ancillary sports and then get good enough in football to put up a fight. Since we're already meeting with their ADs, it's a much easier point to press.

(11-07-2018 05:15 PM)Pimpa Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 04:13 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 01:46 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Not all that many every year, and not enough to pay the bills, and not enough to fill the seats.

Scheduling considerations for successful teams, the kind of opponents needed to make independence work, are
1) Money
2) Money
3) Money
...
57) Padding the schedule to get enough wins to get to a good bowl, in order to make more money.

Rice helps with the last item on that list.

The current schedule doesn't make much money and doesn't fill many seats. I fail to see how going independent makes the situation any worse. Does it really matter if Rice is playing NMSU or UMASS instead of WKU or ODU from a money standpoint? No. But if going independent allows Rice to schedule 1-2 additional games against interesting opponents, that could allow Rice to attract some additional fans or make some additional money. Or at least be just as broke but trying something new for a change.

Also, I'm just shy of advocating that Rice go independent. I do think Rice should spend some good money/time/effort analyzing the possibility.

This is where I am at right now. I'm not all in on Rice as an independent, but I do think a current study should be made to see if it could help our current lot. I don't know if this was covered by the McKinsey study or not.

This. Obviously we're all guessing and making logical inferences... but 'where we are, as we are' is untenable and anyone who thinks otherwise hasn't been paying attention.

Independence is vastly more 'in our control' than CUSA is.

(11-07-2018 05:32 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  I don't see any realistic benefit to Rice by being independent, unless we're willing to resign ourselves to money-game defeats or contests with folks who make CUSA teams look like P5 powers.

We might make some money as a football independent if we can get P5 teams to play us here in recruit-dense Houston (ideally @HRS). Otherwise, we're looking at money games against name teams who will clobber us in their stadiums. If we ever get good enough to have a chance at beating them, they wouldn't schedule us at all, here or away. (Unless we got so good that beating us would improve their status. I wish!)

In basketball, our currently high RPI deters most good teams from scheduling us. When we get better, then we'd be a more attractive opponent ... as long as we're still not a real threat to win our games. Does anyone think we could schedule a full slate of quality, audience-attracting games -- especially during the large part of the season when most of the good teams are playing their own conference schedules?

BTW ... as the poster-folks for independents, aren't NMSU, UMass and Liberty all interested in joining a conference ... usually a better conference than has offered an invitation? Or is this year's NMSU-vs-Liberty home-and-home series the wished-for template for success as an 21st Century independent?

They obviously aren't the poster folks... Notre Dame is... but we are vastly more comparable today to them than to ND. They are the 'worst case scenario'.

(11-07-2018 06:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  When NMSU and Liberty are playing each other twice this year to fill out a schedule, that speaks volumes about scheduling as an independent.

No. It speaks volumes about scheduling to New Mexico. One of few states whose flagship universities aren't part of a p5 conference.

Liberty being in VA is a bit surprising as Va is a pretty solid hotbed, but given their rather stringent qualities, maybe that speaks to it. Maybe they have chosen to help support NMSU rather than to get hammered by Clemson or play James Madison.

It seems rather obvious that if we were independent, they would likely happily fill two of our games.

(11-09-2018 08:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If being independent meant a schedule of Army, Navy, Air Force, Stanford, Northwestern, Duke, Vandy, Wake, TexasU, aTm, Baylor, and SMU, then that would be one thing. If means playing NMSU and Liberty twice each to get 12 games, then that is something else. And I think it way more likely means the latter than the former.

So let's look into it and find out?

I think it rather obviously means playing PVA&M, Nicholl's State, Lamar and/or Tx State, all of which we're doing now...

and of course, UTEP, UTSA, UNT and La Tech will all have holes to fill.

An alternative would be a complete revamp of CUSA.... eliminate all cross-over games and put us in a 7 school division (or 6, moving UAB to the east) with 5-7 OOC games... and ELIMINATE conference control over brand marketing etc (without that, it's pointless). Just don't let them CONTROL our marketing as a lump-in with all these other schools.





As a final point.... to those of you who keep scoffing at the idea that Rice is different....

Take away sports for a moment. Which of our current CUSA schools would you rather attend and why? To downplay this is ridiculous.... especially in the context of sports, where as the worst team in football, we are STILL closer to Alabama in athletics than we are to the next best rated school in CUSA in academics. I'm not talking about individuals... every school has their leaders and mistakes.... but as a whole.

We make jokes about being 3-0 vs Alabama and many make jokes about the LSU score... Academically, that's where we are vs our conference peers.

This is not about being 'better' than they are..... it's about being different and attracting a different student and fan. By some measures it IS better, academically, but that isn't to say we're better people... which of course is what is implied when we talk about it and someone wants to put us down for it.

And Houston versus Lynchburg or Las Cruces matters. Having an empty 50,000 seat stadium matters. Being in a city where 'the big boys' have more alumni than some of our peers have ever graduated matters. Having easy access to I-45, I-10 and 2 airports matters. No, it isn't a deciding factor... lots of things come first... but it matters.
[/quote]

UAB, FAU, FIU and Marshall all have a med school and we don't. So, any of those.

(11-09-2018 01:32 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  No. It speaks volumes about scheduling to New Mexico. One of few states whose flagship universities aren't part of a p5 conference.

Not central to your argument at all, but interestingly, by my mental count, there are 30% of the states (15 overall) that don't have a flagship school in a P5 conference. Just not in Rice's area - upper midwest and northeast in particular. I know it seems like there are so few states that aren't, but in reality, there are quite a few out there.

Alaska
Hawaii
Nevada
New Mexico
Idaho
Wyoming
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Vermont
New Hampshire
Maine
Rhode Island
Connecticut
Delaware

And I could argue New York and Massachusetts belong on the list, because Syracuse and Boston College are private schools. But maybe you're talking about flagship schools in the context of the academic variety. But it's interesting, isn't it, about how many of those flagship schools that are p5 and have good enough academic reputations.

(11-09-2018 01:53 PM)ruowls Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 05:32 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  BTW ... as the poster-folks for independents, aren't NMSU, UMass and Liberty all interested in joining a conference ... usually a better conference than has offered an invitation? Or is this year's NMSU-vs-Liberty home-and-home series the wished-for template for success as an 21st Century independent?

They obviously aren't the poster folks... Notre Dame is... but we are vastly more comparable today to them than to ND. They are the 'worst case scenario'.

RU, I should have been more clear in stating that I consider NMSU, UMass and Liberty to be the poster folks for today's recent no-conference independents.

I agree that they are also the "worst case scenario" ... because they epitomize the only realistic independent scenario in today's on-the-field and television environment for a school like Rice.

Notre Dame is a unique exception, not a poster child/person that any other school -- especially a small private school -- could deign to imitate. ND has its long history of epic football excellence, a nationwide religion-based audience and, since 1950, its own exclusive television contract ... with NBC since 1991, the current deal running through 2025. The Irish are in a totally separate universe from what's possible for us.

(BYU also has a nationwide religion-based audience, but while its recent history is good, it's not Notre Dame epic ... and it doesn't have a TV deal with a major network. FTR, BYU is also, of course, much larger (30.7K undergrads/33.5K total enrollment) than both Notre Dame (8.5K/12/4K) and Rice (4K/7K).)

Rice has none of these attributes. A long football history, yes ... but not epic in its success. We have neither an inherent national audience nor the size (enrollment/alumni/fanbase) to command a lucrative exclusive TV contract.

C-USA may well be perceived as a lousy deal for us ... but we're talking about athletics, not academics ... and I suspect that being a football independent would be worse. Perhaps MUCH worse.

I don't really understand how going 1-11 as an independent is better than going 1-11 as a member of CUSA.

That's the real problem. We've got to get better--and a lot better--on the field before any of this matters.

(11-09-2018 02:45 PM)gsloth Wrote:  

(11-09-2018 01:32 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  No. It speaks volumes about scheduling to New Mexico. One of few states whose flagship universities aren't part of a p5 conference.

Not central to your argument at all, but interestingly, by my mental count, there are 30% of the states (15 overall) that don't have a flagship school in a P5 conference. Just not in Rice's area - upper midwest and northeast in particular. I know it seems like there are so few states that aren't, but in reality, there are quite a few out there.

Alaska
Hawaii
Nevada
New Mexico
Idaho
Wyoming
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Vermont
New Hampshire
Maine
Rhode Island
Connecticut
Delaware

And I could argue New York and Massachusetts belong on the list, because Syracuse and Boston College are private schools. But maybe you're talking about flagship schools in the context of the academic variety. But it's interesting, isn't it, about how many of those flagship schools that are p5 and have good enough academic reputations.

I was using the term loosely... I know you're not really going here... but in my mind, 70% is a lot which makes 30% a few... I know we're not debating that..... but especially when you start talking about sizes of those states and the fact that most of those 70% have two representatives and many have even more... New Mexico, despite being nearby, is not a good comparison to Texas.

(11-09-2018 03:34 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  

(11-09-2018 01:53 PM)ruowls Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 05:32 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  BTW ... as the poster-folks for independents, aren't NMSU, UMass and Liberty all interested in joining a conference ... usually a better conference than has offered an invitation? Or is this year's NMSU-vs-Liberty home-and-home series the wished-for template for success as an 21st Century independent?

They obviously aren't the poster folks... Notre Dame is... but we are vastly more comparable today to them than to ND. They are the 'worst case scenario'.

RU, I should have been more clear in stating that I consider NMSU, UMass and Liberty to be the poster folks for today's recent no-conference independents.

I agree that they are also the "worst case scenario" ... because they epitomize the only realistic independent scenario in today's on-the-field and television environment for a school like Rice.

Notre Dame is a unique exception, not a poster child/person that any other school -- especially a small private school -- could deign to imitate. ND has its long history of epic football excellence, a nationwide religion-based audience and, since 1950, its own exclusive television contract ... with NBC since 1991, the current deal running through 2025. The Irish are in a totally separate universe from what's possible for us.

(BYU also has a nationwide religion-based audience, but while its recent history is good, it's not Notre Dame epic ... and it doesn't have a TV deal with a major network. FTR, BYU is also, of course, much larger (30.7K undergrads/33.5K total enrollment) than both Notre Dame (8.5K/12/4K) and Rice (4K/7K).)

Rice has none of these attributes. A long football history, yes ... but not epic in its success. We have neither an inherent national audience nor the size (enrollment/alumni/fanbase) to command a lucrative exclusive TV contract.

C-USA may well be perceived as a lousy deal for us ... but we're talking about athletics, not academics ... and I suspect that being a football independent would be worse. Perhaps MUCH worse.

The quote was mine...
and I fully admitted that ND was out of our league... but the term 'poster child' implies that it is something to aspire to or the norm. We do not aspire to be NMSU or Liberty and while we are not ND, we also aren't NMSU. You can't just ignore data in a small data space and then call the balance 'the norm'. Liberty may be the median, but the average IMO looks a lot more like us.

Saying 'they epitomize the only realistic independent scenario in today's on-the-field and television environment for a school like Rice.' is your opinion, offered without support, offered without addressing the clear differences between Texas and New Mexico... the number of schools nearby... the size of the market in which they operate etc etc etc

I think ND is independent because their history gives them the power to write their own p5 ticket. We clearly don't have that situation. NMSU is independent because nobody else wants them for a number of reasons, only a very small number of which apply to Rice. Liberty is a unique animal for a variety of reasons, but still is very different from Rice. I think they are the left and the right... and we would be somewhere in the middle... as far as football is concerned, certainly farther to the left than I want to be, but we are not NMSU.

We have a dozen or more p5 schools within a fairly short drive for non-rev sports. NMSU doesn't have that. We have a dozen FCS and another dozen g5 schools in that same drive. NMSU doesn't have that... not even close... We have a 50k+ stadium in a city of millions... we have two major airports etc etc etc

(11-09-2018 04:41 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-09-2018 02:45 PM)gsloth Wrote:  

(11-09-2018 01:32 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  No. It speaks volumes about scheduling to New Mexico. One of few states whose flagship universities aren't part of a p5 conference.

Not central to your argument at all, but interestingly, by my mental count, there are 30% of the states (15 overall) that don't have a flagship school in a P5 conference. Just not in Rice's area - upper midwest and northeast in particular. I know it seems like there are so few states that aren't, but in reality, there are quite a few out there.

Alaska
Hawaii
Nevada
New Mexico
Idaho
Wyoming
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Vermont
New Hampshire
Maine
Rhode Island
Connecticut
Delaware

And I could argue New York and Massachusetts belong on the list, because Syracuse and Boston College are private schools. But maybe you're talking about flagship schools in the context of the academic variety. But it's interesting, isn't it, about how many of those flagship schools that are p5 and have good enough academic reputations.

I was using the term loosely... I know you're not really going here... but in my mind, 70% is a lot which makes 30% a few... I know we're not debating that..... but especially when you start talking about sizes of those states and the fact that most of those 70% have two representatives and many have even more... New Mexico, despite being nearby, is not a good comparison to Texas.

(11-09-2018 03:34 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  

(11-09-2018 01:53 PM)ruowls Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 05:32 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  BTW ... as the poster-folks for independents, aren't NMSU, UMass and Liberty all interested in joining a conference ... usually a better conference than has offered an invitation? Or is this year's NMSU-vs-Liberty home-and-home series the wished-for template for success as an 21st Century independent?

They obviously aren't the poster folks... Notre Dame is... but we are vastly more comparable today to them than to ND. They are the 'worst case scenario'.

RU, I should have been more clear in stating that I consider NMSU, UMass and Liberty to be the poster folks for today's recent no-conference independents.

I agree that they are also the "worst case scenario" ... because they epitomize the only realistic independent scenario in today's on-the-field and television environment for a school like Rice.

Notre Dame is a unique exception, not a poster child/person that any other school -- especially a small private school -- could deign to imitate. ND has its long history of epic football excellence, a nationwide religion-based audience and, since 1950, its own exclusive television contract ... with NBC since 1991, the current deal running through 2025. The Irish are in a totally separate universe from what's possible for us.

(BYU also has a nationwide religion-based audience, but while its recent history is good, it's not Notre Dame epic ... and it doesn't have a TV deal with a major network. FTR, BYU is also, of course, much larger (30.7K undergrads/33.5K total enrollment) than both Notre Dame (8.5K/12/4K) and Rice (4K/7K).)

Rice has none of these attributes. A long football history, yes ... but not epic in its success. We have neither an inherent national audience nor the size (enrollment/alumni/fanbase) to command a lucrative exclusive TV contract.

C-USA may well be perceived as a lousy deal for us ... but we're talking about athletics, not academics ... and I suspect that being a football independent would be worse. Perhaps MUCH worse.

The quote was mine...
and I fully admitted that ND was out of our league... but the term 'poster child' implies that it is something to aspire to or the norm. We do not aspire to be NMSU or Liberty and while we are not ND, we also aren't NMSU. You can't just ignore data in a small data space and then call the balance 'the norm'. Liberty may be the median, but the average IMO looks a lot more like us.

Saying 'they epitomize the only realistic independent scenario in today's on-the-field and television environment for a school like Rice.' is your opinion, offered without support, offered without addressing the clear differences between Texas and New Mexico... the number of schools nearby... the size of the market in which they operate etc etc etc

I think ND is independent because their history gives them the power to write their own p5 ticket. We clearly don't have that situation. NMSU is independent because nobody else wants them for a number of reasons, only a very small number of which apply to Rice. Liberty is a unique animal for a variety of reasons, but still is very different from Rice. I think they are the left and the right... and we would be somewhere in the middle... as far as football is concerned, certainly farther to the left than I want to be, but we are not NMSU.

We have a dozen or more p5 schools within a fairly short drive for non-rev sports. NMSU doesn't have that. We have a dozen FCS and another dozen g5 schools in that same drive. NMSU doesn't have that... not even close... We have a 50k+ stadium in a city of millions... we have two major airports etc etc etc

Um... Notre Dame isn't completely independent. They have a scheduling agreement with the ACC and are contractually obligated to join the ACC as a full member if they decide to give up their remaining semblance of independence. The NBC TV agreement and limited conference scheduling requirement are all that keep Notre Dame considered an independent.

https://www.newsobserver.com/sports/coll...60542.html

There are good insights here, lots of thoughtful responses, and a consensus that this idea should at least be studied.
Alot of these posted insights/ideas need to not be wasted -- JK and BOT need to have access to them.
I know some of you that read this have alittle influence....

There is another scenario/scenarios that I have not seen mentioned so far this time through this discussion...wait until the Big XII/ACC brakes up/is broken up and seek to affiliate with the leftovers. By far this is superior to Independence or dropping down to a Horizon/Summit/DIII. Problem is, we stink worse than ever almost across the board (WBB not withstanding currently) and really hurting our consideration for even this possibility.

The other option is AAC, to re-affiliate with the likes of UH/SMU/Tulane/Tulsa...who left us and don't have much compelling reason to look back at us.

That SEC bid/non-bid along with Arkansas back in the day is the thing I always think of during these threads and it really disappoints me and colors my view of the school as a whole, academics notwithstanding, and even then.

(11-09-2018 08:43 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  There is another scenario/scenarios that I have not seen mentioned so far this time through this discussion...wait until the Big XII/ACC brakes up/is broken up and seek to affiliate with the leftovers. By far this is superior to Independence or dropping down to a Horizon/Summit/DIII. Problem is, we stink worse than ever almost across the board (WBB not withstanding currently) and really hurting our consideration for even this possibility.

The other option is AAC, to re-affiliate with the likes of UH/SMU/Tulane/Tulsa...who left us and don't have much compelling reason to look back at us.

That SEC bid/non-bid along with Arkansas back in the day is the thing I always think of during these threads and it really disappoints me and colors my view of the school as a whole, academics notwithstanding, and even then.

My only problem with this is that we'd once again be at the mercy of others. I think we need to be proactive, not reactive. Make a good guess as to the losers in the Big12/ACC break-up and start playing them in every sport... even if we lose... even if it costs us money... Pay the money it takes to be competitive with them in Olympic sports and develop ties. The value of a Rice education for non-rev sports with little or no path to the pros should REALLY set us apart from g5... and this is really where I am disappointed in JK and company... including the BOT.

With the relative value of a Rice scholarship vis a vis CUSA and g5, we should be able to get GREAT players in every non-rev sport. If we aren't, it's because we aren't casting a broad enough net and/or aren't selling our product very well. No, we won't get EVERY great player, but we should be getting much more than 'our fair share'. I don't care if it costs us $1mm more to do this.... I think the value of having our name mentioned at the NCAAs or in the Olympics 1/5th as often as Stanford and Oregon are would be worth it.