Opinions on if thing went “worst case” and we were relegated to MWC w/ OSU. Travel destinations of Oahu, San Jose, SDSU (assuming they don’t joint Pac), Boise, Logan (basically Salt Lake), Tahoe, Vegas. This is probably a .1% chance that things devolve drastically and we end up that SOL. But in my opinion, I would actually enjoy that travel schedule. What’s your opinion on the very small chance we end up in that position? As an adult those destination seems pretty pleasing.
Drunk in an airport MWC opinion
- Thread starter chugspig
- Start date
I think the conference would be pretty competitive and the Cougs and Beavs would be in a position to win every year.
The downside is lost revenue. Would require Cougar fans to donate a lot more, or decrease sports, likely both, to sustain things.
The downside is lost revenue. Would require Cougar fans to donate a lot more, or decrease sports, likely both, to sustain things.
If the Pac 2 needs teams, offer every school with a Tier 1 profile in the Western US. All of those locations work great! Sell a road game season ticket package if you can. Create a travel club on campus for students so they can go too.
Huge financial problem. The bonds rely on Pac-12 TV revenue for repayment. WSU gets about 5x what MWC schools are getting.
New Mountain West TV Contract: More Money, Less ESPN For Boise State
The Mountain West Athletic Conference Thursday announced a new six-year television contract with FOX Sports and CBS Sports for its biggest football and…
www.boisestatepublicradio.org
WSU has a good chance for the Big 12 if the Pac-12 collapses, but would not Dr. Schulz have the WSU administration step in to pay any debts while Chun gets the athletic department back to speed?
Plus whatever payments UW was forced to make as compensation for deserting the Pac-12 (like the UCLA-Cal situation) would help as well.
Last edited:
WSU doesn’t have any debt.
https://www.bigcountrynewsconnectio...cle_956f5290-cd75-11ec-aec5-33eab057e058.html
https://www.bigcountrynewsconnectio...cle_956f5290-cd75-11ec-aec5-33eab057e058.html
CP, you are conflating one year of actually not incurring more debt from that year’s expenses with “no debt.” Read the article you linked to.
This really kind of validates my notion of staying out west. Our "debt" is an issue. But it is sort of like the US debt. We owe so GD much (US and Athletics). In WSU's case, when has our last fundraising campaign happened? I have never been a Chun fan, and have been roasted over it. I'm still not a fan. How about an "eliminate the debt" campaign? Get out from that albatross.
And Choppy, your lovefest with "Dr." Shulz and Chun annoys me. Do you work for them or what? Neither has been impressive over the years.
Last edited:
We'd make a similar drop as Idaho made when they dropped to the FCS level. We'd be an under resourced G5 school instead of an under resourced P5 school.
Chug, I forgot to thank you for one of the most honest string titles that I've seen in quite a while. Made me smile!
I don't necessarily agree with that. All of the conferences with automatic NCAA Football playoff bids, including the MWC, are going to see an uptick in their revenue.
A program like WSU would enter the new Pac-whatever or revised MWC with some advantages that 85% of the other member programs don't have. Better facilities, scheduling benefits, "alimony" paid by UW for leaving, etc. Top coaches in the Mountain West Conference are paid around $1.5M/year. WSU will be able to top that.
Comparing the drop Idaho made when they went back to the FCS isn't accurate at all. The top MWC schools routinely field better programs than middling P5 schools, and not only do I expect that to continue, I feel it's going to increase. The kings of the MWC, whoever it is that emerges, are going to have the opportunity to be the Gonzaga's of West coast football. Routinely playing for bids to the NCAA tournament. Fresno State is a better program than Cal. I'd argue that SDSU is a better football program than UCLA and Arizona. Boise State has been better than 1/2 the P12 schools for 15+ years now. Same with BYU. How much worse has Colorado State been than Colorado?
The revenue loss will be an initial hit, but then it'll level off. As has been the case for WSU historically, we won't be able to compete on coaches salaries with Super Conference programs; UW, Oregon, UCLA, USC, etc., but we'll still be one of the top jobs on the West coast.
A move to the only West Coast conference with an automatic bid to the NCAA tournament isn't the Big Sky.
Much of this is reasonable, but the revenue loss is more than an initial hit. It would be something like $20m less each year, even if we charitably assume WSU would get something like $12m a year from what you describe (e.g., $8m a year for an improved media rights deal, and $4m a year in alimony from UW), neither of which is certain at all. Neither even is likely, in my view. Cal is going to get between $2m to $10m a year from UCLA, with the initial range recommended at $2m-$5m, depending on how the Pac-12 deal shakes out. They're both part of the same UC system with the same regents. No guarantees at all that WSU would get anything, let alone anything material, from UW. There probably would be something but it wouldn't be all that much.
Regardless of what number you want to use, the link you shared earlier notes that the WSU AD still has $75m in debt, even with $36m refinanced, and hasn't formulated a plan to pay it back yet. It has a slight deficit projected for this coming year, even with the current Pac-12 distributions. So there's a debt overhang that will always be there. Combine reduced revenues with still needing to pay all that money back, and it's pretty grim, especially in terms of any kind of new facilities or maintaining the current ones.
Being in some kind of revised Pac-12 / MWC hybrid would let WSU spend less on coaches and it could cut some off-field staff and other things, but not by much. The department already runs pretty leanly compared to other P5 schools.
For a short period, WSU would likely do OK, but not incredibly well, in the conference. As you noted, the MWC programs aren't pushovers. Over time, it likely would settle in as a mid-tier kind of program in that conference. It would have pretty good facilities, but the better MWC teams all have pretty good facilities, too. WSU would be positioned decently to recruit against many MWC schools, but even places like Albuquerque, Reno, and others would be more appealing to most recruits, let alone Vegas, San Diego, San Jose, Honolulu (for some), and Boise. There's no escaping how remote Pullman is. The only real things WSU would have going for it vis-a-vis every school other than Wyoming in the longer term are being in a relatively sizeable state with a relatively high amount of wealth -- although most of it isn't held by WSU alumni -- and whatever mileage it could get out of having a history of competition in P5, although even that isn't all that remarkable. Recruits aren't going to care about WSU having been in the Rose Bowl 20-30 years ago.
All that said, I agree it wouldn't be as terrible as Idaho going to the Big Sky. WSU would continue to field athletics teams that would be competitive, if not all that good, in the conference, and if everything went perfectly, they could be pretty good for a year or two before the coach was poached, but on the level of, e.g., what Fresno State did last year, going 10-4 and winning a low-tier bowl game nobody cares about. In a really, really good year, if the winner of the conference was among the highest-rated 6 conference champs, the champ would get in the playoff as the 12th seed and ge the privilege of losing by 35 to Georgia, Alabama, or whomever. And again, that's best case.
You guys all have some relevant viewpoints. The thing I keep coming back to in terms of how a MWC spot would play out from a funding & resources perspective is the relevant state population, spread over how many D1 schools. WA's population compares well to the MWC schools outside CA, and the state is going to continue to grow. I can't really picture WSU as an under-resourced member of MWC. Speaking of resources, they come in many forms. Just one that would not normally get much discussion on this board: the research funding and other academic-related aspects of WSU are generally stronger than the MWC schools, and that results in some "spin off" resources that would not otherwise be present on a campus. The same would be true for the school of Ag, which it appears to me would be by almost any measure the largest in the conference. The Ag school drags in a lot of resources that benefit the school overall. In just looking at the existing MWC, I can't see one of those schools having our sort of branch campus network (which will continue to grow), and those satellite campuses are huge political funding benefits at the state level (every location ties more state legislators to your cause). And Vet, Med & Nursing schools? Long story short, I can't believe we'd be under resourced compared to other MWC schools. Not that I'm pushing being in the MWC...far from it...but instead of the small fish in the big pond, it appears to me that we'd be one of the biggest fish in a smaller pond, and not just in the short term.
Why would WSU settle in and become a middle-tier MWC school? Comparatively speaking, WSU's academic network ranks at the top of all MWC schools. That's impacts recruiting. For the foreseeable future, WSU is going to be (by a landslide), the 2nd best public school in the state of WA and the entire Pacific NW. No current MWC schools is Tier 1. I don't believe any MWC programs have a Medical School.
Abuquerque, Reno, Hawaii, San Jose, Wyoming, etc. are not going to appeal to more recruits. I don't buy that at all. WSUs home football environment would be the best of any current MWC program. Our facilities blow the doors off of 75% of the MWC programs. Have you been to many of them? I have.
In my 40 years of closely following WSU athletics and being an alumnus, WSU has never carried more cache than it does now. I could go into any kids living room and sell against every MWC program convincingly. I don't see that changing. Better degree, better campus, better football environment.
As far as us entering the college football playoff and getting trucked by Georgia, Alabama, or whoever, you've got me there. Outside of our very best 1997 program, no WSU would be able to compete with the top-5 programs in the Nation. If we gained entry into the B1G or SEC, the scheduling upgrade would far exceed any potential recruiting uptick we'd see, and it's not even close.
For decades now, WSU has greatly benefited from playing in the P10/12 conference where maybe there are 5 "good" teams in our league in any given year. For all of the doom and gloom surrounding our move the MWC, I would argue strongly that a move to a super conference would forever relegate us to the ranks of Vanderbilt or Indiana. Who is going to flock to WSU to play a schedule against primarily programs located in the Midwest or Southeast? UW is going to find that out as well if they leave. Programs like Wisconsin, Purdue, Nebraska, etc. not to mention the blue bloods, will compete for recruits with the message "have you looked at a map? Why would you play for UW when you can come over here and play in the heart of the conference?" It's the same reason why Seattle professional sports teams will never be able to sustain greatness. Top Free Agents don't want to play in Seattle. It's too damn remote. This is compounded in the college football world where next to no D1 high school talent is in the NW region.
Abuquerque, Reno, Hawaii, San Jose, Wyoming, etc. are not going to appeal to more recruits. I don't buy that at all. WSUs home football environment would be the best of any current MWC program. Our facilities blow the doors off of 75% of the MWC programs. Have you been to many of them? I have.
In my 40 years of closely following WSU athletics and being an alumnus, WSU has never carried more cache than it does now. I could go into any kids living room and sell against every MWC program convincingly. I don't see that changing. Better degree, better campus, better football environment.
As far as us entering the college football playoff and getting trucked by Georgia, Alabama, or whoever, you've got me there. Outside of our very best 1997 program, no WSU would be able to compete with the top-5 programs in the Nation. If we gained entry into the B1G or SEC, the scheduling upgrade would far exceed any potential recruiting uptick we'd see, and it's not even close.
For decades now, WSU has greatly benefited from playing in the P10/12 conference where maybe there are 5 "good" teams in our league in any given year. For all of the doom and gloom surrounding our move the MWC, I would argue strongly that a move to a super conference would forever relegate us to the ranks of Vanderbilt or Indiana. Who is going to flock to WSU to play a schedule against primarily programs located in the Midwest or Southeast? UW is going to find that out as well if they leave. Programs like Wisconsin, Purdue, Nebraska, etc. not to mention the blue bloods, will compete for recruits with the message "have you looked at a map? Why would you play for UW when you can come over here and play in the heart of the conference?" It's the same reason why Seattle professional sports teams will never be able to sustain greatness. Top Free Agents don't want to play in Seattle. It's too damn remote. This is compounded in the college football world where next to no D1 high school talent is in the NW region.
Currently, the revenue loss would be about $20 million per year. That's a major kick in the groin.
Will the MWC's uptick actually close the gap over what the Pac would receive? Really doubt it. The MWC doesn't have the footprint that even a Pac-10 would have, Bay Area, Phoenix, Seattle, Denver, etc. versus Boise, Santa Fe, Fresno, Vegas, etc.
Keep the Pac 10,12, or 14 name, add some tier one schools from the west, and you would have an interesting regional conference, which was the original intent of conferences to begin with. MW schools that are tier one UNLV, Nevada, Colorado St, Utah St, UTEP, New Mexico, and Hawaii, looks like SD State will already be in.
I do think there would be some recruiting advantages, no you won't end up with the 5 star athlete, but there would be a few 4's and many 3's that would like to stay closer to home. a 1-3 hour flight and you would reach most schools, many you could drive to. I do believe parents would be for this, my kid gets a good education, and I can make many of his or her games. All though funding and a TV deal becomes an issue.
The Cougs are not going be invited to the Big 10, maybe the Big 12, if Whoregon and the puppies go big 10, the big 12 could take the other 8 teams and have a Western Division, along with a Central and East division. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out, but I do believe the days of the Apple Cup, will be over within 5 years or less. I think College football and basketball is missing the boat by eliminating many regional rivalries. If I want to watch the best 32 teams play each week, I'll tune into the NFL.
I don't. There's too much alumni demand, but more importantly, the programs will want to play an annual in-state game for ease of scheduling. Why would UW want to end it? They already beat us 70% of the time, and their talent advantage is only going to grow. Why would WSU want to end it? Who are we going to replace them with on our schedule? An every other year guaranteed home sellout is something that the other programs in the MWC don't have.
At some point the Western US schools have to choose to be better at football. Or not and they can keep middling their way along.
If the Pac 10 wants to be a tier 1 conference only, Im fine with it. Offer every tier 1 school and let’s play ball.
The Apple cup as we know will be over if the U goes to another conference. With 2-3 non conference games a year depending on playoff game, there isn’t a lot of room for out of conference opponents. Plus it is now about money and UW will insist on playing the game in Seattle, Husky stadium or Seahawks place. I seriously doubt The Apple Cup is played annually.
That's why I don't see this as the end of all things for WSU. Even if we were extended an invitation to the B!G or SEC, how would we compete with 30K fans/game, the lowest budget in the conference, isolated geography from 85% of the league, and on the west coast where high school football is slowly dying.
If UW gets invited into the B!G, do you see them being anything more than just a middling program? I don't. Instead of competing against 2 programs (USC & Oregon) that have bigger budgets than they do, they'll now be chasing 3; Ohio State, Penn State, and Michigan. All of those programs have built in recruiting advantages over UW, and they play in the same relative geography that 85% of their league does. How often does UW win that conference? They won the P10/12 fairly frequently.
The budget hit with dropping down to the MWC is going to hurt for a few years, but candidly, it's a league that better suits WSU (and most west coast programs). Not enough fans out West care. The quote below from Rich Rodriguez sums it up pretty well:
"We always thought, at Arizona, [in general] they like football, but I don't know if they really love it," Rodriguez said. "So, once [the players] leave our football building, they're not hearing people talk about football a lot. We had to make it really, really important moreso than maybe we really have should have. We wanted them to feel how important it was to our players. "When you come out here to the Southeast, you don't have to worry about that."
I'm not attempting to gloss over the financial impact. It's of course going to be felt. I'm just not of the opinion that WSU sliding into the new super conference model would be good for us. If we wind up in the B12, I think it'll suck, to be honest.
Last edited:
CP, I don't get why you keep presenting this as a dichotomy between WSU going to the B1G or the SEC and being in the Mountain West. WSU isn't going to the B1G or SEC. The relevant issue is whether the Pac-12 will survive in something like its current form or if, likely due to UW and Oregon bailing, it would fall apart, leaving WSU in a conference comprised of the current MWC, Oregon State, and possibly Cal and Stanford.
Also, just saying the budget hit would hurt for a little bit and then would be fine just is a head-in-the-sand mentality. The school already loses money with its current revenues, and it hasn't started reducing the $75m in debt. So what happens when you have $20m less every year? You had $32m, now you have $12m. What disappears that formerly was procured with that $20m? You can pay coaches less, but that is about 1/4 of $20m at best, assuming MWC-level salaries for coaches in the revenue sports. The non-revenue sports already don't pay shit. And that's without even getting into less money coming in via attendance, donations, etc. Oh, and then you have to repay $75m, too. Sure, you can just say it would be fine, but there's no rational basis for it unless we just assume WSU, as an institution, would just eat all the debt and allow the athletic department to function as a severe money loser for years.
You can keep saying it's fine -- and, to be clear, I think WSU likely would still field teams and be competitive, but not upper-tier in the conference, as I wrote -- but it would be a very tough situation to operate within, and WSU would have extreme pressures on its budget. WSU already can't beat Fresno State, Boise State, and others, even with P5 recruits and its current revenues.
So your argument is that Seattle sports teams can't be sustainably dominant due to Seattle being too remote, but a Pullman-based athletic department is going to kick ass in the MWC due to some legacy facilities and touting WSU's 180th-ranked academics, when WSU with P5 recruits, P5-level facilities, and a P5 coaching staff already isn't good enough to be at the top of the MWC a few years after the best- or second-best coach in modern history had the team having one of its best runs in history? So it's going to go into California and outrecruit SDSU, SJSU, and Fresno with the argument that kids will want to stay local? None of this makes sense. The only good news is that WSU would probably, somewhat ironically in view of Leach's recruiting, do well in Washington in that situation. That is a limited pool, though, as we all know.
Bottom line is that it WSU has to do all it can to maintain the Pac. It's not getting into a superconference. If the Pac-12 survives and WSU gets $32m a year, it will be fine, even if there are B1G and SEC teams getting $75m a year. WSU isn't beating them anyway. But if that turns into the MWC, with the numbers I speculated about, WSU is in deep shit in various ways.
Also, just saying the budget hit would hurt for a little bit and then would be fine just is a head-in-the-sand mentality. The school already loses money with its current revenues, and it hasn't started reducing the $75m in debt. So what happens when you have $20m less every year? You had $32m, now you have $12m. What disappears that formerly was procured with that $20m? You can pay coaches less, but that is about 1/4 of $20m at best, assuming MWC-level salaries for coaches in the revenue sports. The non-revenue sports already don't pay shit. And that's without even getting into less money coming in via attendance, donations, etc. Oh, and then you have to repay $75m, too. Sure, you can just say it would be fine, but there's no rational basis for it unless we just assume WSU, as an institution, would just eat all the debt and allow the athletic department to function as a severe money loser for years.
You can keep saying it's fine -- and, to be clear, I think WSU likely would still field teams and be competitive, but not upper-tier in the conference, as I wrote -- but it would be a very tough situation to operate within, and WSU would have extreme pressures on its budget. WSU already can't beat Fresno State, Boise State, and others, even with P5 recruits and its current revenues.
So your argument is that Seattle sports teams can't be sustainably dominant due to Seattle being too remote, but a Pullman-based athletic department is going to kick ass in the MWC due to some legacy facilities and touting WSU's 180th-ranked academics, when WSU with P5 recruits, P5-level facilities, and a P5 coaching staff already isn't good enough to be at the top of the MWC a few years after the best- or second-best coach in modern history had the team having one of its best runs in history? So it's going to go into California and outrecruit SDSU, SJSU, and Fresno with the argument that kids will want to stay local? None of this makes sense. The only good news is that WSU would probably, somewhat ironically in view of Leach's recruiting, do well in Washington in that situation. That is a limited pool, though, as we all know.
Bottom line is that it WSU has to do all it can to maintain the Pac. It's not getting into a superconference. If the Pac-12 survives and WSU gets $32m a year, it will be fine, even if there are B1G and SEC teams getting $75m a year. WSU isn't beating them anyway. But if that turns into the MWC, with the numbers I speculated about, WSU is in deep shit in various ways.
Last edited:
Interesting thread, but no, no and no. It is so simple. Go get San Diego State (soCal market, big market in itself, almost R1), and UNLV (R1, big market, it's f-ing Vegas for Gawdsakes!). Go f-ing from there. Get off your ass Kliatkoff and Pac-10 presidents.
This reminds me of the urban legend about the semi that was stuck under an overpass. A kid in a passing car sez "why don't you let some air out of the tires?
This reminds me of the urban legend about the semi that was stuck under an overpass. A kid in a passing car sez "why don't you let some air out of the tires?
Of course we have to do all we can to maintain the Pac, but we have absolutely no audible voice whatsoever. The dichotomy I'm presenting is that IF the Pac10 folds and programs scramble to find superconference homes, WSU would be better off in the MWC than we would in the B!G or the Big12. Yes, WSU would be in deep chit financially, but we'd find our footing and downsize.
That's the only thing I'm presenting:
1) Remain in a cohesive P12 conference
2) Join the MWC or whatever the new west coast conference is called
Playing in a superconference 2-3 time zones removed will not work for WSU, so take that option off the table completely.
Last edited:
The irony is that WSU & Pullman lose either way. If the Pac-12 is saved and expands, in all likelihood it means better viewing options, so more people will stay home and watch on TV. Average attendance probably falls. If the Pac-12 collapses and WSU ends up in the MWC (or similar) viewing options either stay the same or deteriorate a bit...but there's less interest, and average attendance falls.
There's no doubt that financially, the MWC option means a larger short term loss. But either way, WSU's gate receipts and gameday income are likely to fall.
Ah, OK -- now I've got you. In that case, I'd have a hard time not pushing to get in the Big 12, especially if Stanford, Cal, Oregon State, and/or the Arizona and Mountain schools did so, resulting in a second-tier superconference with a western division. The travel and cultural fit issues wouldn't be as big of a deal if other Pac-12 schools that didn't make the superconference cut were joining WSU, and the financial side is, to beat the horse firmly to death, really compelling. May not be WSU's choice, of course.
This brings up another category of possibilities: UW and Oregon bail, but some subset of the former Pac schools stays around, especially if that included Cal, Stanford, and/or the Arizona schools, and not just Oregon State. Cal and Stanford may want to use that opportunity to get off the train and to try to be bigger fish in a smaller pond without having to keep up with the joneses in superconferences and without having to be in a conference with Big 12 schools. The Arizona schools probably would go to the Big 12, but maybe they could be kept around.
I could see that group forming a P12/MWC hybrid that would be a step up from the baseline of WSU and OSU going to the MWC. In that case, that conference might actually be able to pull off something like an $18m/year media deal, although I'm pulling that figure out of my posterior based on the markets involved and the current MWC deal. That would still be a major hit for WSU but if that happened and UW ponied up $5m a year or something, it would be less dire than the baseline scenario of just going to the MWC, and it would let WSU have better travel and more of a west coast cultural fit.
Well, groundbreaking for the first-class IPF is just a few months away. That should be a game-changer for Cougar Athletics.
John Canzano from the Oregonian is pretty dialed in with the Pac-12 (seems like he might be buddies with the commissioner) and thinks Dr. Schulz could be a future president of the NCAA one day. That indicates WSU's president has a lot of respect from his peers around the country.
As far as Chan goes, he's responsible for CJD, Kyle Smith and the girls basketball coach. Those three hires right there seem to show he knows what he's doing.
Even that incident (can't remember the details) where he stood up to the guy who was harassing people at a off-campus party seemed to speak for his character.
These are obviously views from afar. You've shared urinals with some of the bigwigs at WSU, so you have a much better perspective about what these school administrators are like up close. What are the gripes about Dr. Schultz and Chun that insiders find unimpressive?
Last edited:
Iowa and Iowa State play every year and they're in different conferences.
Same with New Mexico and New Mexico State.
Wtf has Dick done to show that Chun knows what he is doing? He is 10-9. If you made a list of the best 5 head football coaches in WA…. he isnt on it.
Maybe he goes 12-0 next year and proves you right about Chun? Maybe he finishes in 7th place again? We will see.
And Colorado plays Colorado St each year, we can go on and on. The key factor here is the UW, my prediction is, if they switch leagues, they will try to negotiate a deal to where they don't have to go to Pullman every other year, that will be the problem. They will want a 2 for 1 deal, or a neutral site in Seattle, every other year, and Husky stadium every other year. It's the UW, it's the way the arrogance rolls that will be the problem. UW has always considered themselves above WSU, and if they join the Big 10 that attitude will only get worse.
I wouldn't be surprised by this. Consider also that they'll need to make sure they have 3-4 non-conference wins on their schedule.
God damn, you are such an idiot. Last year, when we were 4-4 and had lost 4 out of 5 games, you were talking smack about how terrible Dickert was. We win three in a row and get to 7-4 and you are silent. Lose a couple games and you are flapping your trap and throwing out insulting nicknames again.
When you look at the teams that we lost to last year, it was #15 Oregon, #12 USC, #17 Oregon State, #10 Utah, #8 UW and #24 Fresno State. It would have been nice to win some of those, but it's not like we are losing to scrubs. We had a tough schedule and everyone knows that Leach did a sh!tty job in recruiting in his last couple years.
Dickert hasn't done anything to suggest that he's a hall of fame coach, but he deserves way more credit than you give him.
I am not an idiot. I have forgotten more football than you know. He deserves little credit for being a 10-9 coach. He is white f’ing rice. He isn’t a play calling savant. He isn’t some guru of scheme. He is a guy that was in the right place at the right time to get bumped up by an AD choosing the easiest path possible.
If you wanna worship at the alter of 10-9, go ahead.
You’re a f’ing dope.
Edit to add:
“There are no moral victories.”
~ Jake Dickert
His loss to Fresno State is amazing. Build the statue! What is Chun waiting for????
“There are no moral victories.”
~ Jake Dickert
