(01-15-2019 10:48 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(01-15-2019 05:00 AM)Bay Area Owl Wrote:  With Rice and UT, the new PAC-14 conference would represent the nation's top D1 universities west of the Mississippi, and presidents and boards sincerely go after this level of distinction. The Big Ten and the SEC would seem antiquated in comparison.

We keep saying/thinking this.. but what evidence do we have to support this claim? Despite our lofty academic ranking and distinction, we have been jettisoned from the SWC posse, left behind by the WAC, abandoned by CUSA 1.0 and are now in the Sunbelt doing-business-as CUSA.

Our academic standing has done nothing for us to overcome our putrid athletic performances. Nobody has wanted us before, not even the MWC or AAC, let alone the SEC or PAC 12. Why do we think THIS time it will be different?

Spot on. We've been kicked to the curb since the 90s. Nothing has changed which would alter that status. In fact, things have been worse since then.

(01-15-2019 11:43 AM)Hou_Lawyer Wrote:  

(01-15-2019 10:48 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(01-15-2019 05:00 AM)Bay Area Owl Wrote:  With Rice and UT, the new PAC-14 conference would represent the nation's top D1 universities west of the Mississippi, and presidents and boards sincerely go after this level of distinction. The Big Ten and the SEC would seem antiquated in comparison.

We keep saying/thinking this.. but what evidence do we have to support this claim? Despite our lofty academic ranking and distinction, we have been jettisoned from the SWC posse, left behind by the WAC, abandoned by CUSA 1.0 and are now in the Sunbelt doing-business-as CUSA.

Our academic standing has done nothing for us to overcome our putrid athletic performances. Nobody has wanted us before, not even the MWC or AAC, let alone the SEC or PAC 12. Why do we think THIS time it will be different?

Spot on. We've been kicked to the curb since the 90s. Nothing has changed which would alter that status. In fact, things have been worse since then.

I know there are some here who hate this idea, but one thing we need to do is win. Not the only thing, for sure, but we need to win, and win often, and win big, if we are to have more than a glimmer of hope in 2024.

If we get a chance, we need to be able to compete.

(01-15-2019 11:43 AM)Hou_Lawyer Wrote:  

(01-15-2019 10:48 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(01-15-2019 05:00 AM)Bay Area Owl Wrote:  With Rice and UT, the new PAC-14 conference would represent the nation's top D1 universities west of the Mississippi, and presidents and boards sincerely go after this level of distinction. The Big Ten and the SEC would seem antiquated in comparison.

We keep saying/thinking this.. but what evidence do we have to support this claim? Despite our lofty academic ranking and distinction, we have been jettisoned from the SWC posse, left behind by the WAC, abandoned by CUSA 1.0 and are now in the Sunbelt doing-business-as CUSA.

Our academic standing has done nothing for us to overcome our putrid athletic performances. Nobody has wanted us before, not even the MWC or AAC, let alone the SEC or PAC 12. Why do we think THIS time it will be different?

Spot on. We've been kicked to the curb since the 90s. Nothing has changed which would alter that status. In fact, things have been worse since then.

We haven't been kicked to the curb. We've chosen to sit on the curb repeatedly while doing nothing to improve our lot thinking it was the safest spot. Eventually all of the leading players decided we didn't care because we didn't even try. We've done this to ourselves.

(01-15-2019 05:00 AM)Bay Area Owl Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 09:01 PM)Ourland Wrote:  The BIG12 is financially healthier right now than the PAC12, with each school making significantly more money. Times are good. They may decide to go after Arizona and Arizona State to get back to twelve to improve their inventory for TV negotiations in 2023. The PAC12 network has been a failure. They're last in revenue among the P5. I don't think they've made the CFP for a couple years. They may not be in a position of power. The two conferences may just decide merge instead of raiding one another. Anything could happen, but the PAC 12 doesn't have the upper hand right now in my opinion

LOL! No school is leaving the PAC-12, just as no school will leave the Big Ten or the SEC. These three conferences are the ultra-stable ones where every program is happy to be there. The Big 12 is a ticking time-bomb until UT decides to make a move. Then, Oklahoma's moving somewhere, and it will be mad scramble with the rest.

UT has always shown the most interest in the PAC-12, and UT would fit in culturally. My point is that the PAC-12 seems very committed to its travel partner system (just look how the entire PAC-12 is geographically constructed in pairs). It's not about the cheap fares; it's about the convenience of getting all those different teams to games. Houston is easy to get to/from most PAC-12 schools, and getting between Austin and Houston is also easy.

The PAC-12 is not concerned about Rice's share of the Houston media market, but they would like to cement Houston as a PAC-12 town with the additional exposure it would naturally bring to the conference. With Austin and Houston in the fold for the PAC-12, the conference becomes THE dominant conference west of the Mississippi. The PAC-12 would also fully represent several of the most dynamic state economies in the nation. That's the sort of (growing) market share they seek.

With Rice and UT, the new PAC-14 conference would represent the nation's top D1 universities west of the Mississippi, and presidents and boards sincerely go after this level of distinction. The Big Ten and the SEC would seem antiquated in comparison. Despite just hosting the national championship game, the Bay Area populace was largely disinterested in Clemson and Alabama. They would never, ever send their kids there. It's simply alien to them. UT and Rice, on the other hand... are viable destinations for California kids.

The SWC was ultra stable for over 80 years until money entered the equation. That's what you're trying to forget for Rice's sake, and I don't blame you. We so desperately want realignment to be about like-mindedness, academics, travel partners, location, and culture. I've even heard folks here pedal Rice's inability to compete athletically as a valid selling point. It's sad.

This is all about money, and right now the PAC12's status as the poorest power conference puts it at a competitive disadvantage, and it's beginning to show. They're football champion had four losses and ended the season ranked #10. They're hurting financially and competitively right now, and it's a source of embarrassment. Google some of the latest articles concerning the P12 and you'll see what's going on right now. Long gone are the days of making a power play for half of the BIG12, like they did eight years ago. They aren't the big kid on the block anymore, and financial problems will break a conference apart in no time, whether perceived or real.

The PAC12'S problems aren't solved by adding Rice or any other G5 bottom feeder. The BIG12 found that out in 2015. The truth is that none of those programs add value, and being forced to add one would be a calamity of monumental proportions for any conference forced to do so.

We've got to stop this. The sense of grandiosity and entitlement here really gets out of control sometimes. We are Rice. There will be no P5 invitation ever extended. It's over. We're in the same athletics family as Tulane, SMU, and Tulsa, not Stanford, Duke, and Northwestern. As long as realignment is driven by money, Rice will never be a candidate.

Obviously by my handle I'm a UH fan, because that's where I did my undergrad, but I do have a graduate degree in engineering from Rice, so I do pull for Rice after UH.

I think watching what has happened to UH basketball in the past 4 years, I have to wonder if Rice were to ever try and make a run at a major conference, their path has to be through great basketball and acceptable football, right?

The blueprint is there, since there are so many smaller schools have had traditionally good basketball teams with bad or no football, not to mention that Rice is in Houston which is one of the most talent rich areas.

I'll throw this hypothetical out there. If instead of spending $60 million on an endzone facility for football, Rice had spent $25 Million on an elite basketball practice facility, and $10-15 Million over 5 years for an elite basketball coaching staff (more than UH pays right now), could Rice have gotten a higher return on a smaller investment, through ticket sales and elevating the profile of the school through winning (aka the Doug Flutie effect)?

Why hasn't Rice historically been better at basketball anyway?

I'm not asking why Rice can't get Zion Williamson like Duke, but why can't Rice have the basketball program that Wichita State has, or some of the Big East schools have?

(01-15-2019 11:15 AM)ruowls Wrote:  It has been a stated reason by the PAC 12 schools. It is the reason San Diego State has not and never will be added.

The second sentence is why the first is stated. It's why clubs have silly dress codes- not to ensure that everyone complies, just to keep the ones you dont want out.

High academic standards are why SDSU or Texas Tech will NOT make it, but it doesnt mean that they have any interest in taking Rice at all.

(01-15-2019 01:10 PM)Ourland Wrote:  There will be no P5 invitation ever extended. It's over. We're in the same athletics family as Tulane, SMU, and Tulsa, not Stanford, Duke, and Northwestern.

The first point is my bet as well. The second point - no. We are a decided level below any of those schools. We are more peers with the UTSA, UTEP, Marshall and Middle Tennessee types.

And at our current departmental trajectory, soon it wont even be UTSA etc. But UTRGV and PV aTm.

(01-15-2019 01:17 PM)sacoog06 Wrote:  Obviously by my handle I'm a UH fan, because that's where I did my undergrad, but I do have a graduate degree in engineering from Rice, so I do pull for Rice after UH.
I think watching what has happened to UH basketball in the past 4 years, I have to wonder if Rice were to ever try and make a run at a major conference, their path has to be through great basketball and acceptable football, right?
The blueprint is there, since there are so many smaller schools have had traditionally good basketball teams with bad or no football, not to mention that Rice is in Houston which is one of the most talent rich areas.
I'll throw this hypothetical out there. If instead of spending $60 million on an endzone facility for football, Rice had spent $25 Million on an elite basketball practice facility, and $10-15 Million over 5 years for an elite basketball coaching staff (more than UH pays right now), could Rice have gotten a higher return on a smaller investment, through ticket sales and elevating the profile of the school through winning (aka the Doug Flutie effect)?
Why hasn't Rice historically been better at basketball anyway?
I'm not asking why Rice can't get Zion Williamson like Duke, but why can't Rice have the basketball program that Wichita State has, or some of the Big East schools have?

Rice has historically almost ignored basketball. I know of one former Rice basketball coach who claims that he was once told, "The job is yours as long as you don't win more games than the football team."

I wouldn't say that the attitude has always been that hostile to basketball, but I could tell many stories that don't stray far from that. I think the attitude toward basketball has been incredibly stupid for an incredibly long time.

(01-15-2019 12:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I know there are some here who hate this idea, but one thing we need to do is win.

No one here fits this description. Its asinine and grossly disingenuous to keep repeating this fabricated assertion.

(01-15-2019 02:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-15-2019 01:17 PM)sacoog06 Wrote:  Obviously by my handle I'm a UH fan, because that's where I did my undergrad, but I do have a graduate degree in engineering from Rice, so I do pull for Rice after UH.
I think watching what has happened to UH basketball in the past 4 years, I have to wonder if Rice were to ever try and make a run at a major conference, their path has to be through great basketball and acceptable football, right?
The blueprint is there, since there are so many smaller schools have had traditionally good basketball teams with bad or no football, not to mention that Rice is in Houston which is one of the most talent rich areas.
I'll throw this hypothetical out there. If instead of spending $60 million on an endzone facility for football, Rice had spent $25 Million on an elite basketball practice facility, and $10-15 Million over 5 years for an elite basketball coaching staff (more than UH pays right now), could Rice have gotten a higher return on a smaller investment, through ticket sales and elevating the profile of the school through winning (aka the Doug Flutie effect)?
Why hasn't Rice historically been better at basketball anyway?
I'm not asking why Rice can't get Zion Williamson like Duke, but why can't Rice have the basketball program that Wichita State has, or some of the Big East schools have?

Rice has historically almost ignored basketball. I know of one former Rice basketball coach who claims that he was once told, "The job is yours as long as you don't win more games than the football team."

I wouldn't say that the attitude has always been that hostile to basketball, but I could tell many stories that don't stray far from that. I think the attitude toward basketball has been incredibly stupid for an incredibly long time.

Very good points being made here about basketball.

(01-15-2019 02:51 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(01-15-2019 01:10 PM)Ourland Wrote:  There will be no P5 invitation ever extended. It's over. We're in the same athletics family as Tulane, SMU, and Tulsa, not Stanford, Duke, and Northwestern.

The first point is my bet as well. The second point - no. We are a decided level below any of those schools. We are more peers with the UTSA, UTEP, Marshall and Middle Tennessee types.

And at our current departmental trajectory, soon it wont even be UTSA etc. But UTRGV and PV aTm.

You said it, not me.

Even though Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC, and Washington had been in some sort of confederation since the 1920s, the official PAC-8 didn't emerge until 1968, making it a relatively young conference. When the PAC-8 admitted two WAC programs (Arizona and Arizona State) in 1978, I don't believe Arizona or ASU were notable for their academics or athletics at the time, but Arizona was a very fast-growing state. The PAC-8 made the correct calculation that Arizona and ASU would grow into their roles as members of the PAC-10. Now, some might say ASU has never quite realized its academic potential, but it is in Phoenix, a rapidly growing city: a smaller, drier version of Houston. The additions of Colorado and Utah brought fast-growing Denver and Salt Lake City, respectively.

If Rice and UT joined to create the PAC-14, it would be understood that Rice is already academically well-developed, and further development of athletics would be assumed over time. UT is the prize in terms of athletics, but Rice adds the Houston venue/access and the academic punch. The PAC-14 would have the top private university and the top public university in Texas, and that's real value to the reputation of a conference. Remember the "Ivy League" is nothing but an athletic conference, but we ascribe so much more to being a member of the "Ivy League". Cornell and Brown benefit enormously from being part of the "Ivy League", yet one could argue several other private colleges in the Northeast are actually better academically. The PAC wants to be a club of academic heavyweights as well, and Rice helps in that endeavor. UH, Tech, etc don't...

What Rice needs is a plan for where it wants to go with athletics, and that requires leadership. Having CDC at UT has strategic value if the contact is used properly. I don't believe Leebron is capable of effective leadership (why is he still around at his exorbitant salary???), and Leebron was central to the hiring of Greenspan as AD, a disastrous decision. Rice needs to improve its athletic performance, but it's more important that Rice has a strategic vision for where it is going. I think angling to get into the PAC-12 is the best strategy/vision, and it's not a crazy idea. Rice just doesn't play its cards properly.

(01-15-2019 03:12 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(01-15-2019 02:51 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(01-15-2019 01:10 PM)Ourland Wrote:  There will be no P5 invitation ever extended. It's over. We're in the same athletics family as Tulane, SMU, and Tulsa, not Stanford, Duke, and Northwestern.

The first point is my bet as well. The second point - no. We are a decided level below any of those schools. We are more peers with the UTSA, UTEP, Marshall and Middle Tennessee types.

And at our current departmental trajectory, soon it wont even be UTSA etc. But UTRGV and PV aTm.

You said it, not me.

While I don't disagree with Ant's dire assessment, I thought Ourland might have been limiting his choices to private schools. Are there any D-1 privates in our football neighborhood? Even Liberty went 6-6 in 2018.

(01-15-2019 02:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-15-2019 01:17 PM)sacoog06 Wrote:  Obviously by my handle I'm a UH fan, because that's where I did my undergrad, but I do have a graduate degree in engineering from Rice, so I do pull for Rice after UH.
I think watching what has happened to UH basketball in the past 4 years, I have to wonder if Rice were to ever try and make a run at a major conference, their path has to be through great basketball and acceptable football, right?
The blueprint is there, since there are so many smaller schools have had traditionally good basketball teams with bad or no football, not to mention that Rice is in Houston which is one of the most talent rich areas.
I'll throw this hypothetical out there. If instead of spending $60 million on an endzone facility for football, Rice had spent $25 Million on an elite basketball practice facility, and $10-15 Million over 5 years for an elite basketball coaching staff (more than UH pays right now), could Rice have gotten a higher return on a smaller investment, through ticket sales and elevating the profile of the school through winning (aka the Doug Flutie effect)?
Why hasn't Rice historically been better at basketball anyway?
I'm not asking why Rice can't get Zion Williamson like Duke, but why can't Rice have the basketball program that Wichita State has, or some of the Big East schools have?

Rice has historically almost ignored basketball. I know of one former Rice basketball coach who claims that he was once told, "The job is yours as long as you don't win more games than the football team."

I wouldn't say that the attitude has always been that hostile to basketball, but I could tell many stories that don't stray far from that. I think the attitude toward basketball has been incredibly stupid for an incredibly long time.

Did we not just conduct a brief experiment on basketball that flopped? Part of Bailiff's last extension with no additional resources was because Rhoades got added budget. He leaves, the team collapses, and suddenly there's more operating cash as soon as we hire Bloomgren (not just hiring him but also his assistants compared to under Bailiff). One or more of these is true:

• Bloomgren or the football program has better donor backing than basketball.
• Karlgaard thinks Bloomgren is a better coach and will make better use of the money than Pera.
• Karlgaard thinks basketball cannot improve sufficiently under Pera in the short term due to industry trends (e.g. transfers), but football somehow has better opportunity.
• Karlgaard thinks he is more culpable for the performance of football since there are fewer extenuating circumstances that he could point to as reasons for failure (Bailiff extension was while JK was new to the school and right after a conference title; Pera hiring was supported by current players who mislead him to believe that they would stay. Bloomgren, though, cannot be attributed to anything outside of Karlgaard), so he pivots resources there.
  

Not a coach but Brian Mann, Senior Associate AD / Chief Development Officer, is heading to Cal.

(01-15-2019 09:40 PM)dragon2owl Wrote:  Not a coach but Brian Mann, Senior Associate AD / Chief Development Officer, is heading to Cal.

And with him, a fun bit of Rice athletics history.

(01-15-2019 09:28 PM)franklyconfused Wrote:  

(01-15-2019 02:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-15-2019 01:17 PM)sacoog06 Wrote:  Obviously by my handle I'm a UH fan, because that's where I did my undergrad, but I do have a graduate degree in engineering from Rice, so I do pull for Rice after UH.
I think watching what has happened to UH basketball in the past 4 years, I have to wonder if Rice were to ever try and make a run at a major conference, their path has to be through great basketball and acceptable football, right?
The blueprint is there, since there are so many smaller schools have had traditionally good basketball teams with bad or no football, not to mention that Rice is in Houston which is one of the most talent rich areas.
I'll throw this hypothetical out there. If instead of spending $60 million on an endzone facility for football, Rice had spent $25 Million on an elite basketball practice facility, and $10-15 Million over 5 years for an elite basketball coaching staff (more than UH pays right now), could Rice have gotten a higher return on a smaller investment, through ticket sales and elevating the profile of the school through winning (aka the Doug Flutie effect)?
Why hasn't Rice historically been better at basketball anyway?
I'm not asking why Rice can't get Zion Williamson like Duke, but why can't Rice have the basketball program that Wichita State has, or some of the Big East schools have?

Rice has historically almost ignored basketball. I know of one former Rice basketball coach who claims that he was once told, "The job is yours as long as you don't win more games than the football team."

I wouldn't say that the attitude has always been that hostile to basketball, but I could tell many stories that don't stray far from that. I think the attitude toward basketball has been incredibly stupid for an incredibly long time.

Did we not just conduct a brief experiment on basketball that flopped? Part of Bailiff's last extension with no additional resources was because Rhoades got added budget. He leaves, the team collapses, and suddenly there's more operating cash as soon as we hire Bloomgren (not just hiring him but also his assistants compared to under Bailiff). One or more of these is true:

• Bloomgren or the football program has better donor backing than basketball.
• Karlgaard thinks Bloomgren is a better coach and will make better use of the money than Pera.
• Karlgaard thinks basketball cannot improve sufficiently under Pera in the short term due to industry trends (e.g. transfers), but football somehow has better opportunity.
• Karlgaard thinks he is more culpable for the performance of football since there are fewer extenuating circumstances that he could point to as reasons for failure (Bailiff extension was while JK was new to the school and right after a conference title; Pera hiring was supported by current players who mislead him to believe that they would stay. Bloomgren, though, cannot be attributed to anything outside of Karlgaard), so he pivots resources there.
  

Probably another: even though Rhoades leaves, leaving MBB in a lurch, Karlgaard realizes FB is a *huge* dumpster fire that cannot be ignored. Especially with the upcoming Graham ouster. Timing requires attention on football.

I think Karlgaard realizes that the current major focus of rehabing Rice Athletics with the fans and alumni is football -- that is king in Texas.

I personally think the road to Rice 'rehab' goes through basketball. The Bailiff crash forced attention elsewhere -- I think Karlgaard could have easily preferrred a 'football on life support' while upping basketball. But Bailiff pulled a Code Blue on the program that forced a different action.

(01-16-2019 10:00 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Probably another: even though Rhoades leaves, leaving MBB in a lurch, Karlgaard realizes FB is a *huge* dumpster fire that cannot be ignored. Especially with the upcoming Graham ouster. Timing requires attention on football.
I think Karlgaard realizes that the current major focus of rehabing Rice Athletics with the fans and alumni is football -- that is king in Texas.
I personally think the road to Rice 'rehab' goes through basketball. The Bailiff crash forced attention elsewhere -- I think Karlgaard could have easily preferrred a 'football on life support' while upping basketball. But Bailiff pulled a Code Blue on the program that forced a different action.

I agree, and have agreed for a long time. The overall financial health of the program depends on turning basketball into a money maker. Football has greater upside financial potential, but basketball's potential is easier to reach. To make money, you have to get on TV. For football, that means being in a major conference or having a national following. For basketball, that can be done by the Gonzagas and other schools that do not meet those criteria. Two simple questions, how many schools play big-time football but not basketball? And how many schools play big-time basketball but not football. Reality check question: Tudor is a massive improvement over Autry, but can we build a Gonzaga-type program in Tudor? I don't know.

As for the Bailiff crash, I think that was inevitable. He crashed terribly in 2009-11 after 2008, so why would we not expect a similar crash after 2012-14? I'm still worry that Bloomgren is more of the same square pegs into round holes approach that got us into trouble with Bailiff. When your recruiting classes are going to be ranked around #100, you're not going to get to the top 50, or even top 75, by lining up and doing the same things everybody else does.

(01-16-2019 10:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 10:00 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Probably another: even though Rhoades leaves, leaving MBB in a lurch, Karlgaard realizes FB is a *huge* dumpster fire that cannot be ignored. Especially with the upcoming Graham ouster. Timing requires attention on football.
I think Karlgaard realizes that the current major focus of rehabing Rice Athletics with the fans and alumni is football -- that is king in Texas.
I personally think the road to Rice 'rehab' goes through basketball. The Bailiff crash forced attention elsewhere -- I think Karlgaard could have easily preferrred a 'football on life support' while upping basketball. But Bailiff pulled a Code Blue on the program that forced a different action.

I agree, and have agreed for a long time. The overall financial health of the program depends on turning basketball into a money maker. Football has greater upside financial potential, but basketball's potential is easier to reach. To make money, you have to get on TV. For football, that means being in a major conference or having a national following. For basketball, that can be done by the Gonzagas and other schools that do not meet those criteria. Two simple questions, how many schools play big-time football but not basketball? And how many schools play big-time basketball but not football. Reality check question: Tudor is a massive improvement over Autry, but can we build a Gonzaga-type program in Tudor? I don't know.

As for the Bailiff crash, I think that was inevitable. He crashed terribly in 2009-11 after 2008, so why would we not expect a similar crash after 2012-14? I'm still worry that Bloomgren is more of the same square pegs into round holes approach that got us into trouble with Bailiff. When your recruiting classes are going to be ranked around #100, you're not going to get to the top 50, or even top 75, by lining up and doing the same things everybody else does.

I guess the argument that Bloomgren would make is that in modern-day CFB, he's not really doing what everybody else is doing. I can't think of another school in C-USA (besides UTEP actually) that appears to be running a similar offense to us... In broader CFB, there are very few... Michigan, Stanford, UGA, BC off the top of my head.

(01-16-2019 10:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 10:00 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Probably another: even though Rhoades leaves, leaving MBB in a lurch, Karlgaard realizes FB is a *huge* dumpster fire that cannot be ignored. Especially with the upcoming Graham ouster. Timing requires attention on football.
I think Karlgaard realizes that the current major focus of rehabing Rice Athletics with the fans and alumni is football -- that is king in Texas.
I personally think the road to Rice 'rehab' goes through basketball. The Bailiff crash forced attention elsewhere -- I think Karlgaard could have easily preferrred a 'football on life support' while upping basketball. But Bailiff pulled a Code Blue on the program that forced a different action.

I agree, and have agreed for a long time. The overall financial health of the program depends on turning basketball into a money maker. Football has greater upside financial potential, but basketball's potential is easier to reach. To make money, you have to get on TV. For football, that means being in a major conference or having a national following. For basketball, that can be done by the Gonzagas and other schools that do not meet those criteria. Two simple questions, how many schools play big-time football but not basketball? And how many schools play big-time basketball but not football. Reality check question: Tudor is a massive improvement over Autry, but can we build a Gonzaga-type program in Tudor? I don't know.

As for the Bailiff crash, I think that was inevitable. He crashed terribly in 2009-11 after 2008, so why would we not expect a similar crash after 2012-14? I'm still worry that Bloomgren is more of the same square pegs into round holes approach that got us into trouble with Bailiff. When your recruiting classes are going to be ranked around #100, you're not going to get to the top 50, or even top 75, by lining up and doing the same things everybody else does.

I don’t see anything wrong with Tudor. It’s not like Gonzaga has a much larger arena. The problem is when Rice wins 20+ games we still don’t fill half of Tudor with our schedule. That’s the issue with gameday atmosphere not the building itself. Rice alums don’t even show up, we won’t compete with the Rockets or UH for casual fans until we have multiple 20+ win seasons in a row (not sure even UH draws many casual fans).

Maybe we could add some extravagance to the locker room and practice areas. I’d say we lag behind other schools in that just like we did football until Patterson opened.