Fundamentally, a team with a small arena like Autry/Tudor has little chance of making back and leveraging their investment unless they create a demand for their tickets and make the NCAA tournament on a regular basis.

If you take out student seats, Autry/Tudor holds about 4,500 fans. Multiply the number of seats by the optimal number of home games Rice can play gives you the opportunity to sell about 81,000 tickets a year (18 home games x 4,500 seats, assumes 9 away games conference and 5 road games out of conference). At an average of $25 a ticket (the current price on average), you generate $2.02 million in revenue if you sell all the seats except students. Assume two major P5 payouts for away games between $50k and $100k and the remainder away games provide revenue of $30k to $40k. Optimistically your away game payment revenue before sponsorship's and TV Revenues are close to $250k. That is a total revenue before Conference TV $$ of approximately $2.2 million.

Assuming Pera's Salary is in line with other CUSA coaches, he likely makes between $350k and $500k. Assume assistant coaching salaries are between $50 and $80k for 3 assistants (total about $225k). Other office/admin staff about $100k (basketball ops, video coordinator and administrative support). You have to guarantee certain payouts some schools to come to Rice to play the home schedule (I do not know if this applies to conference games or not), but payments in the $10k range are not unusual. Cost of scholarships for up to 13 players at Rice is about $63.7k each (attendance and room & board) is $828k. At minimum, your expenses are in the range of $1.6 million, (without travel costs) and that is a conservative budget.

An appearance in the NCAA tournament is worth about $1.6 million for each school. split over 6 years, or between $260k and $290k a year. Each win in the tournament earns an additional unit for the school. There are adjustments for how well each conference does in the tournament over time so the payments are varied as well. Rice would need to string together several tournament appearances a year to really make a difference in revenues to the program. There is a great article in the Washington Post explaining how schools get paid from the tournament (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/...a-money/).

In Houston, the decision to hire Mike Davis by TSU payed strong dividends, as their four NCAA tournament appearances (and one NIT) during his 6 year tenure provided TSU with about $6.5 million in the athletic department coffers. TSU also funded much of his salary and investment in the program by playing a series of guarantee games on the road that paid big bucks (between $50 and $250k). They took their lumps in many of them, won a couple and prepared them to be in the top echelon of SWAC basketball teams. (He would have gone to 5 NCAA tournaments except TSU was on probation during his first year at the program).

To make real $$ in the basketball program, Rice needs to succeed for multiple years and get to the tournament, occasionally get to a 2nd or 3rd round, and create enough demand to allow the school to raise ticket prices to an average price of $50 a ticket, instead of $25, adding more than an additional $2+ million in ticket revenue and a regular NCAA payout for multiple appearances that could reach $1mm if they have multiple appearances and win a game or two. This level of success will also generate the major network TV games that being in strong payouts as well.

(01-15-2019 06:37 PM)Bay Area Owl Wrote:  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.

I like Bay Area Owl. He has vision.

ASU and UA were pretty much ruling the WAC before going to the Pac 8. BYU took off in the WAC after they left.
Those of us who see opportunity don't suffer from delusions and actually understand Rice's plight. We also understand how the Pac 12 operates and what their wishes are. Money and market share were important but not as much now. Yes I have read some of the PAC articles. With streaming, the consumer will have more flexibility with watching games on an individual basis instead of a conference package deal. The playoffs and conference championship games will likely be bid on in the future. The revenue cash cow from TV is changing. What the Pac wants is equality among the power conferences. They feel that the SEC and ACC are gaming the system by playing 8 conference games and FCS games before rivalry week. This creates inequality and gives the SEC and ACC an advantage in the CFP qualification and selection. Additionally, the PAC 12 is considered a deep conference with many good teams and lacking that one truly elite team. They don't need more depth. So, a UT/Rice combo would be great for them (an elite team and one that won't keep them from reaching the CFP). The PAC 12 wants 9 conference games and non conference games versus FBS schools. They want 16 team conferences for 4 power conferences. They want to gain equal access to the CFP selection. One a side note, the Big 10 has 9 conference games too and it cost them this year (an average Purdue beat up on Ohio St and cost them a spot in the CFP). The PAC isn't going to fall apart. College football needs the PAC for the western US. The PAC 12 does see that things need to change. They think that things need to be more equitable between conferences from a schedule standpoint and this will fix the revenue inequity between the conferences by equaling access to the CFP and thus make their championship game more meaningful on a yearly basis.

(01-16-2019 01:44 PM)ruowls Wrote:  

(01-15-2019 06:37 PM)Bay Area Owl Wrote:  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.

I like Bay Area Owl. He has vision.

ASU and UA were pretty much ruling the WAC before going to the Pac 8. BYU took off in the WAC after they left.
Those of us who see opportunity don't suffer from delusions and actually understand Rice's plight. We also understand how the Pac 12 operates and what their wishes are. Money and market share were important but not as much now. Yes I have read some of the PAC articles. With streaming, the consumer will have more flexibility with watching games on an individual basis instead of a conference package deal. The playoffs and conference championship games will likely be bid on in the future. The revenue cash cow from TV is changing. What the Pac wants is equality among the power conferences. They feel that the SEC and ACC are gaming the system by playing 8 conference games and FCS games before rivalry week. This creates inequality and gives the SEC and ACC an advantage in the CFP qualification and selection. Additionally, the PAC 12 is considered a deep conference with many good teams and lacking that one truly elite team. They don't need more depth. So, a UT/Rice combo would be great for them (an elite team and one that won't keep them from reaching the CFP). The PAC 12 wants 9 conference games and non conference games versus FBS schools. They want 16 team conferences for 4 power conferences. They want to gain equal access to the CFP selection. One a side note, the Big 10 has 9 conference games too and it cost them this year (an average Purdue beat up on Ohio St and cost them a spot in the CFP). The PAC isn't going to fall apart. College football needs the PAC for the western US. The PAC 12 does see that things need to change. They think that things need to be more equitable between conferences from a schedule standpoint and this will fix the revenue inequity between the conferences by equaling access to the CFP and thus make their championship game more meaningful on a yearly basis.

Our best shots are the PAC 12 and Mountain West. With either, it would seem we need a credible, transparent plan to improve athletics. Still waiting.

(01-16-2019 10:34 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 10:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Reality check question: Tudor is a massive improvement over Autry, but can we build a Gonzaga-type program in Tudor?

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 ...

FTR, the capacity of Gonzaga's McCarthey Center gym is 6,000 ... and it's been sold out since it opened in 2004.

Even Gonzaga's Athletic Director agreed with a statement in the linked article that "You can't get a seat to the game unless you're a student or a season-ticket holder. Or, you have some really good friends."

"That is pretty much correct," said Gonzaga Athletic Director Mike Roth. "Unless you have a friend or a relative or a neighbor that is a season ticket holder, it's hard to get to see a men's basketball game, that's for sure."

(Gonzaga's enrollment is 7,566 ... 5,320 of them undergraduates. Distance from campus to the nearest NBA cities: 280 miles (Seattle, Wash.) & 350 miles (Portland, Ore.).)

(01-16-2019 01:44 PM)ruowls Wrote:  

(01-15-2019 06:37 PM)Bay Area Owl Wrote:  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.

I like Bay Area Owl. He has vision.

ASU and UA were pretty much ruling the WAC before going to the Pac 8. BYU took off in the WAC after they left.
Those of us who see opportunity don't suffer from delusions and actually understand Rice's plight. We also understand how the Pac 12 operates and what their wishes are. Money and market share were important but not as much now. Yes I have read some of the PAC articles. With streaming, the consumer will have more flexibility with watching games on an individual basis instead of a conference package deal. The playoffs and conference championship games will likely be bid on in the future. The revenue cash cow from TV is changing. What the Pac wants is equality among the power conferences. They feel that the SEC and ACC are gaming the system by playing 8 conference games and FCS games before rivalry week. This creates inequality and gives the SEC and ACC an advantage in the CFP qualification and selection. Additionally, the PAC 12 is considered a deep conference with many good teams and lacking that one truly elite team. They don't need more depth. So, a UT/Rice combo would be great for them (an elite team and one that won't keep them from reaching the CFP). The PAC 12 wants 9 conference games and non conference games versus FBS schools. They want 16 team conferences for 4 power conferences. They want to gain equal access to the CFP selection. One a side note, the Big 10 has 9 conference games too and it cost them this year (an average Purdue beat up on Ohio St and cost them a spot in the CFP). The PAC isn't going to fall apart. College football needs the PAC for the western US. The PAC 12 does see that things need to change. They think that things need to be more equitable between conferences from a schedule standpoint and this will fix the revenue inequity between the conferences by equaling access to the CFP and thus make their championship game more meaningful on a yearly basis.

I don't believe the PAC12 will fall apart either, but it's hurting. Eight years ago, they knew they needed to expand their territory and inventory, but they couldn't pull it off. I don't see how they do it now as the least rich power conference.

Texas can see all this. Meanwhile, it's own income is going up, as is the income of every other conference member. Texas runs the B12 and it has it's own network. It's not giving it up.

In my opinion, the two conferences should form a scheduling and media alliance. They could pool their inventory and renegotiate a TV deal as one entity. Create some interesting matchups in football and basketball, while allowing each conference to keep it's name and membership. A conglomerate like that would control bigtime college athletics from the mid south to the west coast.

But I hope you're right, and I'm wrong. I hope the PAC12 can see how adding just Texas and Rice benefits them more than doing anything else.

(01-16-2019 02:55 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 01:44 PM)ruowls Wrote:  

(01-15-2019 06:37 PM)Bay Area Owl Wrote:  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.

I like Bay Area Owl. He has vision.

ASU and UA were pretty much ruling the WAC before going to the Pac 8. BYU took off in the WAC after they left.
Those of us who see opportunity don't suffer from delusions and actually understand Rice's plight. We also understand how the Pac 12 operates and what their wishes are. Money and market share were important but not as much now. Yes I have read some of the PAC articles. With streaming, the consumer will have more flexibility with watching games on an individual basis instead of a conference package deal. The playoffs and conference championship games will likely be bid on in the future. The revenue cash cow from TV is changing. What the Pac wants is equality among the power conferences. They feel that the SEC and ACC are gaming the system by playing 8 conference games and FCS games before rivalry week. This creates inequality and gives the SEC and ACC an advantage in the CFP qualification and selection. Additionally, the PAC 12 is considered a deep conference with many good teams and lacking that one truly elite team. They don't need more depth. So, a UT/Rice combo would be great for them (an elite team and one that won't keep them from reaching the CFP). The PAC 12 wants 9 conference games and non conference games versus FBS schools. They want 16 team conferences for 4 power conferences. They want to gain equal access to the CFP selection. One a side note, the Big 10 has 9 conference games too and it cost them this year (an average Purdue beat up on Ohio St and cost them a spot in the CFP). The PAC isn't going to fall apart. College football needs the PAC for the western US. The PAC 12 does see that things need to change. They think that things need to be more equitable between conferences from a schedule standpoint and this will fix the revenue inequity between the conferences by equaling access to the CFP and thus make their championship game more meaningful on a yearly basis.

I don't believe the PAC12 will fall apart either, but it's hurting. Eight years ago, they knew they needed to expand their territory and inventory, but they couldn't pull it off. I don't see how they do it now as the least rich power conference.

Texas can see all this. Meanwhile, it's own income is going up, as is the income of every other conference member. Texas runs the B12 and it has it's own network. It's not giving it up.

In my opinion, the two conferences should form a scheduling and media alliance. They could pool their inventory and renegotiate a TV deal as one entity. Create some interesting matchups in football and basketball, while allowing each conference to keep it's name and membership. A conglomerate like that would control bigtime college athletics from the mid south to the west coast.

But I hope you're right, and I'm wrong. I hope the PAC12 can see how adding just Texas and Rice benefits them more than doing anything else.

There are multiple paths everyone can take. The conglomeration has merit. The one thing is doesn't address is increasing access to the CFP. In fact, it would dilute it. The Pac 12 and Big 12 both play 9 conference games. Throw in some guaranteed Pac/Big matchups and you increase the risk of knocking off the CFP contender. The matchups may be better but they would further the inequality in conference schedules and decrease the likelihood of both the Pac and Big qualifying for the CFP. The LHN was losing money for ESPN and that won't last forever. UT wants to run that out but then improve their position if it goes away.
I don't know how this will all shake out. But the general thinking is 4 16 team leagues with standardized scheduling between them. It would make it easier to compare the teams. Another option is to increase the CFP to 8 teams and do 5 conference champions, 2 at large and highest ranked G5. Who knows where this goes. I do know Rice needs to start winning some games and leverage it's assets.

(01-16-2019 03:58 PM)ruowls Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 02:55 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 01:44 PM)ruowls Wrote:  

(01-15-2019 06:37 PM)Bay Area Owl Wrote:  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.

I like Bay Area Owl. He has vision.

ASU and UA were pretty much ruling the WAC before going to the Pac 8. BYU took off in the WAC after they left.
Those of us who see opportunity don't suffer from delusions and actually understand Rice's plight. We also understand how the Pac 12 operates and what their wishes are. Money and market share were important but not as much now. Yes I have read some of the PAC articles. With streaming, the consumer will have more flexibility with watching games on an individual basis instead of a conference package deal. The playoffs and conference championship games will likely be bid on in the future. The revenue cash cow from TV is changing. What the Pac wants is equality among the power conferences. They feel that the SEC and ACC are gaming the system by playing 8 conference games and FCS games before rivalry week. This creates inequality and gives the SEC and ACC an advantage in the CFP qualification and selection. Additionally, the PAC 12 is considered a deep conference with many good teams and lacking that one truly elite team. They don't need more depth. So, a UT/Rice combo would be great for them (an elite team and one that won't keep them from reaching the CFP). The PAC 12 wants 9 conference games and non conference games versus FBS schools. They want 16 team conferences for 4 power conferences. They want to gain equal access to the CFP selection. One a side note, the Big 10 has 9 conference games too and it cost them this year (an average Purdue beat up on Ohio St and cost them a spot in the CFP). The PAC isn't going to fall apart. College football needs the PAC for the western US. The PAC 12 does see that things need to change. They think that things need to be more equitable between conferences from a schedule standpoint and this will fix the revenue inequity between the conferences by equaling access to the CFP and thus make their championship game more meaningful on a yearly basis.

I don't believe the PAC12 will fall apart either, but it's hurting. Eight years ago, they knew they needed to expand their territory and inventory, but they couldn't pull it off. I don't see how they do it now as the least rich power conference.

Texas can see all this. Meanwhile, it's own income is going up, as is the income of every other conference member. Texas runs the B12 and it has it's own network. It's not giving it up.

In my opinion, the two conferences should form a scheduling and media alliance. They could pool their inventory and renegotiate a TV deal as one entity. Create some interesting matchups in football and basketball, while allowing each conference to keep it's name and membership. A conglomerate like that would control bigtime college athletics from the mid south to the west coast.

But I hope you're right, and I'm wrong. I hope the PAC12 can see how adding just Texas and Rice benefits them more than doing anything else.

There are multiple paths everyone can take. The conglomeration has merit. The one thing is doesn't address is increasing access to the CFP. In fact, it would dilute it. The Pac 12 and Big 12 both play 9 conference games. Throw in some guaranteed Pac/Big matchups and you increase the risk of knocking off the CFP contender. The matchups may be better but they would further the inequality in conference schedules and decrease the likelihood of both the Pac and Big qualifying for the CFP. The LHN was losing money for ESPN and that won't last forever. UT wants to run that out but then improve their position if it goes away.
I don't know how this will all shake out. But the general thinking is 4 16 team leagues with standardized scheduling between them. It would make it easier to compare the teams. Another option is to increase the CFP to 8 teams and do 5 conference champions, 2 at large and highest ranked G5. Who knows where this goes. I do know Rice needs to start winning some games and leverage it's assets.

We'll definitely see an eight-team playoff in the future, and the only fair way to do it is to take the five conference champions, the G5 representative, and two at-large, just like you mention. Four superconferences aren't needed anymore, particularly when the playoff expands to eight. There will be conferences sending multiple members, and the rich will get richer. It will water down the playoff, but the G5 would have a spot. As a Rice fan, that's all that matters to me.

(01-16-2019 03:58 PM)ruowls Wrote:  I do know Rice needs to start winning some games and leverage it's assets.

I don't know if it is Step 1, but it is a required step.

(01-16-2019 05:18 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 03:58 PM)ruowls Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 02:55 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 01:44 PM)ruowls Wrote:  

(01-15-2019 06:37 PM)Bay Area Owl Wrote:  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.

I like Bay Area Owl. He has vision.

ASU and UA were pretty much ruling the WAC before going to the Pac 8. BYU took off in the WAC after they left.
Those of us who see opportunity don't suffer from delusions and actually understand Rice's plight. We also understand how the Pac 12 operates and what their wishes are. Money and market share were important but not as much now. Yes I have read some of the PAC articles. With streaming, the consumer will have more flexibility with watching games on an individual basis instead of a conference package deal. The playoffs and conference championship games will likely be bid on in the future. The revenue cash cow from TV is changing. What the Pac wants is equality among the power conferences. They feel that the SEC and ACC are gaming the system by playing 8 conference games and FCS games before rivalry week. This creates inequality and gives the SEC and ACC an advantage in the CFP qualification and selection. Additionally, the PAC 12 is considered a deep conference with many good teams and lacking that one truly elite team. They don't need more depth. So, a UT/Rice combo would be great for them (an elite team and one that won't keep them from reaching the CFP). The PAC 12 wants 9 conference games and non conference games versus FBS schools. They want 16 team conferences for 4 power conferences. They want to gain equal access to the CFP selection. One a side note, the Big 10 has 9 conference games too and it cost them this year (an average Purdue beat up on Ohio St and cost them a spot in the CFP). The PAC isn't going to fall apart. College football needs the PAC for the western US. The PAC 12 does see that things need to change. They think that things need to be more equitable between conferences from a schedule standpoint and this will fix the revenue inequity between the conferences by equaling access to the CFP and thus make their championship game more meaningful on a yearly basis.

I don't believe the PAC12 will fall apart either, but it's hurting. Eight years ago, they knew they needed to expand their territory and inventory, but they couldn't pull it off. I don't see how they do it now as the least rich power conference.

Texas can see all this. Meanwhile, it's own income is going up, as is the income of every other conference member. Texas runs the B12 and it has it's own network. It's not giving it up.

In my opinion, the two conferences should form a scheduling and media alliance. They could pool their inventory and renegotiate a TV deal as one entity. Create some interesting matchups in football and basketball, while allowing each conference to keep it's name and membership. A conglomerate like that would control bigtime college athletics from the mid south to the west coast.

But I hope you're right, and I'm wrong. I hope the PAC12 can see how adding just Texas and Rice benefits them more than doing anything else.

There are multiple paths everyone can take. The conglomeration has merit. The one thing is doesn't address is increasing access to the CFP. In fact, it would dilute it. The Pac 12 and Big 12 both play 9 conference games. Throw in some guaranteed Pac/Big matchups and you increase the risk of knocking off the CFP contender. The matchups may be better but they would further the inequality in conference schedules and decrease the likelihood of both the Pac and Big qualifying for the CFP. The LHN was losing money for ESPN and that won't last forever. UT wants to run that out but then improve their position if it goes away.
I don't know how this will all shake out. But the general thinking is 4 16 team leagues with standardized scheduling between them. It would make it easier to compare the teams. Another option is to increase the CFP to 8 teams and do 5 conference champions, 2 at large and highest ranked G5. Who knows where this goes. I do know Rice needs to start winning some games and leverage it's assets.

We'll definitely see an eight-team playoff in the future, and the only fair way to do it is to take the five conference champions, the G5 representative, and two at-large, just like you mention. Four superconferences aren't needed anymore, particularly when the playoff expands to eight. There will be conferences sending multiple members, and the rich will get richer. It will water down the playoff, but the G5 would have a spot. As a Rice fan, that's all that matters to me.

Not sure an 8-team playoff like you described matters when you can have a four team playoff with superconference CCGs as de factor quarterfinals.

(01-16-2019 06:18 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 05:18 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 03:58 PM)ruowls Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 02:55 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 01:44 PM)ruowls Wrote:  I like Bay Area Owl. He has vision.

ASU and UA were pretty much ruling the WAC before going to the Pac 8. BYU took off in the WAC after they left.
Those of us who see opportunity don't suffer from delusions and actually understand Rice's plight. We also understand how the Pac 12 operates and what their wishes are. Money and market share were important but not as much now. Yes I have read some of the PAC articles. With streaming, the consumer will have more flexibility with watching games on an individual basis instead of a conference package deal. The playoffs and conference championship games will likely be bid on in the future. The revenue cash cow from TV is changing. What the Pac wants is equality among the power conferences. They feel that the SEC and ACC are gaming the system by playing 8 conference games and FCS games before rivalry week. This creates inequality and gives the SEC and ACC an advantage in the CFP qualification and selection. Additionally, the PAC 12 is considered a deep conference with many good teams and lacking that one truly elite team. They don't need more depth. So, a UT/Rice combo would be great for them (an elite team and one that won't keep them from reaching the CFP). The PAC 12 wants 9 conference games and non conference games versus FBS schools. They want 16 team conferences for 4 power conferences. They want to gain equal access to the CFP selection. One a side note, the Big 10 has 9 conference games too and it cost them this year (an average Purdue beat up on Ohio St and cost them a spot in the CFP). The PAC isn't going to fall apart. College football needs the PAC for the western US. The PAC 12 does see that things need to change. They think that things need to be more equitable between conferences from a schedule standpoint and this will fix the revenue inequity between the conferences by equaling access to the CFP and thus make their championship game more meaningful on a yearly basis.

I don't believe the PAC12 will fall apart either, but it's hurting. Eight years ago, they knew they needed to expand their territory and inventory, but they couldn't pull it off. I don't see how they do it now as the least rich power conference.

Texas can see all this. Meanwhile, it's own income is going up, as is the income of every other conference member. Texas runs the B12 and it has it's own network. It's not giving it up.

In my opinion, the two conferences should form a scheduling and media alliance. They could pool their inventory and renegotiate a TV deal as one entity. Create some interesting matchups in football and basketball, while allowing each conference to keep it's name and membership. A conglomerate like that would control bigtime college athletics from the mid south to the west coast.

But I hope you're right, and I'm wrong. I hope the PAC12 can see how adding just Texas and Rice benefits them more than doing anything else.

There are multiple paths everyone can take. The conglomeration has merit. The one thing is doesn't address is increasing access to the CFP. In fact, it would dilute it. The Pac 12 and Big 12 both play 9 conference games. Throw in some guaranteed Pac/Big matchups and you increase the risk of knocking off the CFP contender. The matchups may be better but they would further the inequality in conference schedules and decrease the likelihood of both the Pac and Big qualifying for the CFP. The LHN was losing money for ESPN and that won't last forever. UT wants to run that out but then improve their position if it goes away.
I don't know how this will all shake out. But the general thinking is 4 16 team leagues with standardized scheduling between them. It would make it easier to compare the teams. Another option is to increase the CFP to 8 teams and do 5 conference champions, 2 at large and highest ranked G5. Who knows where this goes. I do know Rice needs to start winning some games and leverage it's assets.

We'll definitely see an eight-team playoff in the future, and the only fair way to do it is to take the five conference champions, the G5 representative, and two at-large, just like you mention. Four superconferences aren't needed anymore, particularly when the playoff expands to eight. There will be conferences sending multiple members, and the rich will get richer. It will water down the playoff, but the G5 would have a spot. As a Rice fan, that's all that matters to me.

Not sure an 8-team playoff like you described matters when you can have a four team playoff with superconference CCGs as de factor quarterfinals.

You are correct. It would essentially be an 8 team playoff with the CCG being the quarterfinals. The only bad part of that is that it locks out the G5 and it limits each conference to 2 teams. The 5 conference, 2 at large and G5 scenario for an 8 team playoff guarantees each conference champion and includes G5 but can allocate the 2 at large from the same conference so that it is possible for a conference to get 3 teams in per year. Chance for the confident to get greedy.

(01-16-2019 06:29 PM)ruowls Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 06:18 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 05:18 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 03:58 PM)ruowls Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 02:55 PM)Ourland Wrote:  I don't believe the PAC12 will fall apart either, but it's hurting. Eight years ago, they knew they needed to expand their territory and inventory, but they couldn't pull it off. I don't see how they do it now as the least rich power conference.

Texas can see all this. Meanwhile, it's own income is going up, as is the income of every other conference member. Texas runs the B12 and it has it's own network. It's not giving it up.

In my opinion, the two conferences should form a scheduling and media alliance. They could pool their inventory and renegotiate a TV deal as one entity. Create some interesting matchups in football and basketball, while allowing each conference to keep it's name and membership. A conglomerate like that would control bigtime college athletics from the mid south to the west coast.

But I hope you're right, and I'm wrong. I hope the PAC12 can see how adding just Texas and Rice benefits them more than doing anything else.

There are multiple paths everyone can take. The conglomeration has merit. The one thing is doesn't address is increasing access to the CFP. In fact, it would dilute it. The Pac 12 and Big 12 both play 9 conference games. Throw in some guaranteed Pac/Big matchups and you increase the risk of knocking off the CFP contender. The matchups may be better but they would further the inequality in conference schedules and decrease the likelihood of both the Pac and Big qualifying for the CFP. The LHN was losing money for ESPN and that won't last forever. UT wants to run that out but then improve their position if it goes away.
I don't know how this will all shake out. But the general thinking is 4 16 team leagues with standardized scheduling between them. It would make it easier to compare the teams. Another option is to increase the CFP to 8 teams and do 5 conference champions, 2 at large and highest ranked G5. Who knows where this goes. I do know Rice needs to start winning some games and leverage it's assets.

We'll definitely see an eight-team playoff in the future, and the only fair way to do it is to take the five conference champions, the G5 representative, and two at-large, just like you mention. Four superconferences aren't needed anymore, particularly when the playoff expands to eight. There will be conferences sending multiple members, and the rich will get richer. It will water down the playoff, but the G5 would have a spot. As a Rice fan, that's all that matters to me.

Not sure an 8-team playoff like you described matters when you can have a four team playoff with superconference CCGs as de factor quarterfinals.

You are correct. It would essentially be an 8 team playoff with the CCG being the quarterfinals. The only bad part of that is that it locks out the G5 and it limits each conference to 2 teams. The 5 conference, 2 at large and G5 scenario for an 8 team playoff guarantees each conference champion and includes G5 but can allocate the 2 at large from the same conference so that it is possible for a conference to get 3 teams in per year. Chance for the confident to get greedy.

Solution to that is 5 P5 champions + 3 at large. Now the confident can get even more greedy.

(01-16-2019 06:35 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 06:29 PM)ruowls Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 06:18 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 05:18 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 03:58 PM)ruowls Wrote:  There are multiple paths everyone can take. The conglomeration has merit. The one thing is doesn't address is increasing access to the CFP. In fact, it would dilute it. The Pac 12 and Big 12 both play 9 conference games. Throw in some guaranteed Pac/Big matchups and you increase the risk of knocking off the CFP contender. The matchups may be better but they would further the inequality in conference schedules and decrease the likelihood of both the Pac and Big qualifying for the CFP. The LHN was losing money for ESPN and that won't last forever. UT wants to run that out but then improve their position if it goes away.
I don't know how this will all shake out. But the general thinking is 4 16 team leagues with standardized scheduling between them. It would make it easier to compare the teams. Another option is to increase the CFP to 8 teams and do 5 conference champions, 2 at large and highest ranked G5. Who knows where this goes. I do know Rice needs to start winning some games and leverage it's assets.

We'll definitely see an eight-team playoff in the future, and the only fair way to do it is to take the five conference champions, the G5 representative, and two at-large, just like you mention. Four superconferences aren't needed anymore, particularly when the playoff expands to eight. There will be conferences sending multiple members, and the rich will get richer. It will water down the playoff, but the G5 would have a spot. As a Rice fan, that's all that matters to me.

Not sure an 8-team playoff like you described matters when you can have a four team playoff with superconference CCGs as de factor quarterfinals.

You are correct. It would essentially be an 8 team playoff with the CCG being the quarterfinals. The only bad part of that is that it locks out the G5 and it limits each conference to 2 teams. The 5 conference, 2 at large and G5 scenario for an 8 team playoff guarantees each conference champion and includes G5 but can allocate the 2 at large from the same conference so that it is possible for a conference to get 3 teams in per year. Chance for the confident to get greedy.

Solution to that is 5 P5 champions + 3 at large. Now the confident can get even more greedy.

But then they open themselves up to anti-trust litigation

(01-16-2019 06:52 PM)ruowls Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 06:35 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Solution to that is 5 P5 champions + 3 at large. Now the confident can get even more greedy.

But then they open themselves up to anti-trust litigation i have not forgotten about you

Solution to the "5 P5 champions + 3 at-large" antitrust threat is to include a G5 if that team fits a particular criterion, such as being among the top 10. Then, the P5 schools continue to control the committee, and never include a G5 team among the top 10.

"Dang, Boise State finished 11th again this year! Oh, well, too bad."

Ex Rice OC Reagan now OC at Maryland

https://www.thedp.com/article/2019/01/jo...oordinator

(01-17-2019 09:41 AM)owl40 Wrote:  Ex Rice OC Reagan now OC at Maryland

https://www.thedp.com/article/2019/01/jo...oordinator

Sorry..typo OL coach not OC

Four of the coaches who have been announced as being on DB's staff at A&M-Commerce have Rice connections:

Quote:Offensive coordinator Billy Riebock was the offensive coordinator at Bridgewater (Va.) College in 2018. Riebock coached for Bailiff at Rice in 2017 after spending the previous three seasons as the wide receivers coach at Elon.

Defensive coordinator Xavier Adibi was a defensive analyst at Arkansas in the 2018 season and previously worked as a scout and analyst on Baliff's staff at Rice.

(Safeties coach) Jaylon Finner joins the Lion staff after serving as a graduate assistant at Ball State in 2018 and at Rice from 2016-18. He played defensive back for Rice from 2011-15 and helped the Owls win the 2013 Conference USA championship, marking the team's first league title in 54 years. He played on three consecutive bowl teams (2012, 2013, 2014) under head coach David Bailiff.

(Senior director of sports performance) Joey Caldwell was most recently the co-lead assistant strength and conditioning coach at Rice University. He began at Rice as an intern under Kevin Yoxall in 2014, and has also worked under Ryan Tedford. He also interned under Yoxall at Auburn from 2012-13 following a four-year playing career for the Tigers, where he was a linebacker on the 2010 BCS National Championship team.

Sounds like desperation for a new coaching gig.

(01-17-2019 09:41 AM)owl40 Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 09:41 AM)owl40 Wrote:  Ex Rice OC Reagan now OC at Maryland

https://www.thedp.com/article/2019/01/jo...oordinator

Sorry..typo OL coach not OC

(01-19-2019 05:57 PM)OldOwl Wrote:  Sounds like desperation for a new coaching gig.

(01-17-2019 09:41 AM)owl40 Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 09:41 AM)owl40 Wrote:  Ex Rice OC Reagan now OC at Maryland

https://www.thedp.com/article/2019/01/jo...oordinator

Sorry..typo OL coach not OC

Seriously? That's what you got out of that article? A guy gets a Big Ten job and you portray it that way?

SMH

I find it interesting that former Rice OC Don Dobes (Berndt era) is now the DC at Dartmouth.

Small piece of news re: our staff...

"Source tells FootballScoop Mike Bloomgren is adding Catholic High (Baton Rouge, LA) offensive line coach Sanders Davis to the staff as an offensive grad assistant."