Grade the athletic dept this year
- Thread starter CougPatrol
- Start date
We are sugnificantly in debt, our overhead is the highest in the conference in proportion to our revenues, and we were in the Pac-12 lower division or worse every sport, but Women's soccer, and that coached bailed after 1 season. We spent a ton on the FOB simply hoping that if we build it, "they will come," they didn't. If this current recruiting class is any good, it will be Leach's first, and the result of the evaluation talent.
We are consistently, and remain, the worst athletic department, competitively, among major colleges base on Sear Cup (and its progeny) scores. Our track team did not qualify a single athlete, male or female, to the recent NCAA indoors.
While their is a gleamer of hope with Ernie's hire, and Women's basketball had if first winning season in 20 years, if we (Moos, 5 years in) don't deserve an F, no major conference school does.
We are consistently, and remain, the worst athletic department, competitively, among major colleges base on Sear Cup (and its progeny) scores. Our track team did not qualify a single athlete, male or female, to the recent NCAA indoors.
While their is a gleamer of hope with Ernie's hire, and Women's basketball had if first winning season in 20 years, if we (Moos, 5 years in) don't deserve an F, no major conference school does.
Since you are inviting opinions...
If you mean for the past calendar year, such that spring sports from last season are included in the analysis, then our men's meh track & cross country program was about where it was expected to be, or perhaps a smidge better. Baseball and football were disappointments. Basketball was better than expected. Golf has actually been doing pretty well this year; I don't remember last year. Overall, that is closer to a C- than a D-.
On the women's side, the only sport that I thought was a bit below expectations given a semi-healthy season was volleyball. Basketball was on track for a very good season until Shalie got hurt, and having only one real center that was ready to play showed our major weakness. Our guards were our punch, but our consistency relied on Shalie. That let Louise emerge, but she is a 4, not a 5. Cooks also got a bigger role and was looking more comfortable in it toward the end of the season. The center situation is still unsettled headed into next season. All in all, though, without Shalie, the lack of consistency led to a disappointing finish. Soccer had a very solid season. Crew was good. Tennis is like men's golf; looked good so far this year but I don't remember last year. That isn't everything, but it is what I've watched. For me, closer to a C than a C-, and compared historically it might even be a C+.
Bear in mind that most grading systems are scored vs. expectations. Perhaps our expectations are slowly increasing, and as a result our grading scale reflects that. I don't think that is a bad thing.
If you mean for the past calendar year, such that spring sports from last season are included in the analysis, then our men's meh track & cross country program was about where it was expected to be, or perhaps a smidge better. Baseball and football were disappointments. Basketball was better than expected. Golf has actually been doing pretty well this year; I don't remember last year. Overall, that is closer to a C- than a D-.
On the women's side, the only sport that I thought was a bit below expectations given a semi-healthy season was volleyball. Basketball was on track for a very good season until Shalie got hurt, and having only one real center that was ready to play showed our major weakness. Our guards were our punch, but our consistency relied on Shalie. That let Louise emerge, but she is a 4, not a 5. Cooks also got a bigger role and was looking more comfortable in it toward the end of the season. The center situation is still unsettled headed into next season. All in all, though, without Shalie, the lack of consistency led to a disappointing finish. Soccer had a very solid season. Crew was good. Tennis is like men's golf; looked good so far this year but I don't remember last year. That isn't everything, but it is what I've watched. For me, closer to a C than a C-, and compared historically it might even be a C+.
Bear in mind that most grading systems are scored vs. expectations. Perhaps our expectations are slowly increasing, and as a result our grading scale reflects that. I don't think that is a bad thing.
The NCAA directors cup is the easiest way to grade this.
Through January, we were ranked 149th, dead last in the Pac-12.
The bottom line is, we aren't winning on the field.
Eastern's men's and women's basketball teams are better than us. Idaho, beat us in basketball.
The numbers don't lie and we need to do a better job. I for one don't think it's a "facilities" issue, rather its a holding coaches accountable for results issue. With both Bone and Wulff, you could argue Moos waited to long to pull the trigger.
NCAA directors cup
Through January, we were ranked 149th, dead last in the Pac-12.
The bottom line is, we aren't winning on the field.
Eastern's men's and women's basketball teams are better than us. Idaho, beat us in basketball.
The numbers don't lie and we need to do a better job. I for one don't think it's a "facilities" issue, rather its a holding coaches accountable for results issue. With both Bone and Wulff, you could argue Moos waited to long to pull the trigger.
NCAA directors cup
OK Edgibbons, let's call them "progress reports" instead.
Yes, I'm adding considerable weight to the men's sports, as they butter the bread. I posted this last night because it seems like every time I log onto WSUcougars.com, the rolling ticker says.....Coug Tennis loses 6-0, Women's hoops loses to Eastern, Mens golf last in XYZ classic, Beaver pitcher from Spokane throws perfect game.
I'm used to tough years, but this calendar year has been especially bad. The women have had a better go, but even their soccer and basketball seasons ended with a thud.
Stop overselling the Cougs. We are tied for dead last in all of D1. As for Dick Dickson, II, he has only been on the job 4 years, 11 months and 1 week, what do you expect -- an miracle overnight? Give the poor man a little time for god sake.
Repeat after me -- Bill needs to go.
Here's my thing about a new AD or a new coach, for that matter.
If I had faith that we'd find/GET someone of equal OR HIGHER intelligence, moxie, vision, etc., I'd be all over getting a new AD, and if CML doesn't deliver in the next 9 months, I'd consider him gone, as well.
But here's where the rubber meets the road I DON'T HAVE THAT FAITH. WSU has historically been the school to find out how to do more, with less. We were/are happy with WSU being used as a stepping stone. And that sucked big time. a couple years of incredible basketball and a decade or two, while we fish through the sludge to find the next "good deal" in a coach. WHY? Last paragraph money.
I think Floyd has done an EXCEPTIONAL job with not only WSU, but supporting the athletics.
I think Moos is as high up WSU's ceiling as I can imagine, right now.
I think CML is a coach that WSU is awful lucky to have, right now. I think he gives us the best possible chance to win, right now.
But if Moos was fired, we'd find a guy that we'd all go, "WHO?!" and wonder how he'll parse out the measly budget between the programs. I think we'd be in a worse situation, no doubt.
And by no means am I saying the all get carte blanche just because "we wont' get better". But I do believe when there is promise, we might want to hold onto them to see if we can get out of this hole. Because make no mistake about it the hole we are in is financial. We can complain about this or that but we are also last in budget in the PAC (I think). Until we can all start giving more, until we can start getting our fellow Cougs down the street to "buy in", nothing will change. We could get anyone of our liking into any position but they'll have the same issues, the same budget, Moos is dealing with. Just my 2 cents worth.
If I had faith that we'd find/GET someone of equal OR HIGHER intelligence, moxie, vision, etc., I'd be all over getting a new AD, and if CML doesn't deliver in the next 9 months, I'd consider him gone, as well.
But here's where the rubber meets the road I DON'T HAVE THAT FAITH. WSU has historically been the school to find out how to do more, with less. We were/are happy with WSU being used as a stepping stone. And that sucked big time. a couple years of incredible basketball and a decade or two, while we fish through the sludge to find the next "good deal" in a coach. WHY? Last paragraph money.
I think Floyd has done an EXCEPTIONAL job with not only WSU, but supporting the athletics.
I think Moos is as high up WSU's ceiling as I can imagine, right now.
I think CML is a coach that WSU is awful lucky to have, right now. I think he gives us the best possible chance to win, right now.
But if Moos was fired, we'd find a guy that we'd all go, "WHO?!" and wonder how he'll parse out the measly budget between the programs. I think we'd be in a worse situation, no doubt.
And by no means am I saying the all get carte blanche just because "we wont' get better". But I do believe when there is promise, we might want to hold onto them to see if we can get out of this hole. Because make no mistake about it the hole we are in is financial. We can complain about this or that but we are also last in budget in the PAC (I think). Until we can all start giving more, until we can start getting our fellow Cougs down the street to "buy in", nothing will change. We could get anyone of our liking into any position but they'll have the same issues, the same budget, Moos is dealing with. Just my 2 cents worth.
While the results may say 'needs to go', the provisions of his contract say 'not gonna happen.'
Same conundrum as the never ending rollovers for Leach.
Good agents, those guy have.
It took 100 years to get here. And by here I mean, WSU has had bad leadership, poor vision and no commitment from the university to be successful. You want to argue with me? Show me how many times WSU has had back to back winning seasons in football, or even 3 winning seasons in a row in 100 years. Tell me how long the press box that was built for one season ended up being used.
The problems WSU has just aren't going to be fixed in 5 years. WSU football isn't going to go from atrocious to amazing in 4 seasons.
It isn't the responsibility of the fans/alums to wake up and just send checks to the university. The university needs to create a culture of donating. They have a captive audience for 4 or 5 years. How they haven't figured out a way to farm students into donors in that time is amazing to me.
It starts with software (people) and ends with hardware (buildings). You can have all the shiny stuff in the world and still not do well. Ask the uw and their new stadium.
The problems WSU has just aren't going to be fixed in 5 years. WSU football isn't going to go from atrocious to amazing in 4 seasons.
It isn't the responsibility of the fans/alums to wake up and just send checks to the university. The university needs to create a culture of donating. They have a captive audience for 4 or 5 years. How they haven't figured out a way to farm students into donors in that time is amazing to me.
It starts with software (people) and ends with hardware (buildings). You can have all the shiny stuff in the world and still not do well. Ask the uw and their new stadium.
Moos has made one very good call in his five years, He signed Mike Leach (even if he ultimately flops) We don't know about Ernie, yet. But the guy took over a top heavy athletic program that was hands down the worst in the conference. 5 years in we are now in debt, still top heavy and remain the worst program in the conference by far. The big difference is that he has had far more money to work with than any previous AD.
This isn't all about football. Accepting that it will take a decade to turn the football program around, what is the excuse for the other programs with the exception of soccer? Rowing? Unlike every other P-12 school, it is a full scholarship program for us to balance out football. We are getting beaten every year by schools that spend far less and offer far fewer scholarships. Despite all the money we finished 7th out of 8 schools at the conference meet.
Want people to contribute? You have to give them a reason. Fielding teams that consistently lose does jack to motivate the base. And let's not forget, ultimately, Moos is the guy who is supposed to develop streams of revenue. It is his job #1. What streams has he developed?
Like it or not, so far Bill Moos has proven to be a waste of space as an AD. If anyone disagrees, please explain.
He's had more money to work with and had some facilities go up. Other schools have chosen not to build and I think WSU is gonna gain ground on them quickly.
I don't agree with calling Moos a waste of space. I think WSU finally has a president, AD and football coach all pulling in the same direction. I just don't think it's gonna happen as quickly as some want it to.
I don't agree with calling Moos a waste of space. I think WSU finally has a president, AD and football coach all pulling in the same direction. I just don't think it's gonna happen as quickly as some want it to.
I think one of the primary and massive reasons that he is not a waste of space for WSU
It was said many, many times during the infancy of the Pac 12 Network, that Moos was the lynchpin in making sure that USC, UO, UCLA, etc. etc. got the same amount of revenue from the networks as WSU. Basically, the big boys didn't get more than us. Because of Moos, we actually have a MASSIVE revenue stream. Without Moos, who knows where we'd be. Maybe the same situation, maybe not. But I do know Moos is responsible for us having ANY kind of budget.
So really, he's built a stream that is directly responsible for the new press box, the FOB and the new soccer field. Going by memory, approximately $100 Million dollars in new construction
Yeah, waste of space...
It was said many, many times during the infancy of the Pac 12 Network, that Moos was the lynchpin in making sure that USC, UO, UCLA, etc. etc. got the same amount of revenue from the networks as WSU. Basically, the big boys didn't get more than us. Because of Moos, we actually have a MASSIVE revenue stream. Without Moos, who knows where we'd be. Maybe the same situation, maybe not. But I do know Moos is responsible for us having ANY kind of budget.
So really, he's built a stream that is directly responsible for the new press box, the FOB and the new soccer field. Going by memory, approximately $100 Million dollars in new construction
Yeah, waste of space...
Again, define 'quickly'.
4 more years of the same? 2? Should have some winning teams 2 years ago?
Let's just establish the baseline for expectations. And then actions and results should be targeted to meet that timeline.
I do not think it is such a black and white answer. Each program is in a different state. For example, women's soccer needed to continue what Coach Tobias was building. Football was in the same shape as a school like Colorado and started behind most schools in the conference.
It seems many are only looking at the win-loss records and not the infrastructure that has been slowing improving.
Exactly! I went to two games last year and was amazed at how awesome and gorgeous the stadium and facilities looked. This first game I ever went to was in 1995 when Chad effin Davis was our QB and I remember thinking to myself that Martin Stadium looked like one a High School would've built. We've come a long way since then and I believe with these pieces in place (E. Floyd, B. Moos and M. Leach), our program will continue move in a positive direction.
No one ever said Moos was pocketing the Pac-12 deal money like the president of an African country. But like no WSU AD before him, he was given a $200 million line of credit by way of the TV deal. So he, or anyone who can "fog a mirror," could have used that line of credit to upgraded football facilities. So if you are saying, look at all our shine new toys as proof he is doing a good job, I say before he arrived we sucked in every sport, but women's soccer. By "suck" I mean, consistent bottom division finishes. Five years on, we still suck in every sport but women's soccer, and we are looking for our 4th soccer coach in 5 years.
As for the facilities upgrades, they look pretty, but we still struggle to generate revenue and recruit. Could it be that facilities are the icing on the cake, not the reason kids sign with a program? Could we have wasted tons of money on facilities, when paying more for better football and other coaches would have given us a bigger bang for the buck? Was Grinch Leach's first and best choice, or was he the best he could afford? You don't build hoping for success, you build ON success.
For you, "it takes time" folks, it has already been 5 years. How many more years does Moos need to start orchestrating upper division finishes in something beyond women soccer a program he had no part creating? 8, 10, 15 years? How many years before you start saying he blew the $200 million gift? If you can't or won't answer that, you are nothing but a cheerleader, embrace it.
The "lynch pin" of the equity deal? The first I heard of that. Could someone provide a link? My understanding was that no one, even Pat Haden, wanted to make USC the Texas of the Pac-12.
Things Moos could/can do to change things? Besides streamlining WSU's bloated overhead, fire deadwood much quicker and spend money to hire other quality coaches beyond Leach. Offer Teri McKeever, Scott Rueck or Pat Casey a hefty raise to jump ship? Why not? They might turn him down, but it sends a message that WSU is tired of being the Pac-12 biggest loser, that he isn't just football first and only AD.
As for the facilities upgrades, they look pretty, but we still struggle to generate revenue and recruit. Could it be that facilities are the icing on the cake, not the reason kids sign with a program? Could we have wasted tons of money on facilities, when paying more for better football and other coaches would have given us a bigger bang for the buck? Was Grinch Leach's first and best choice, or was he the best he could afford? You don't build hoping for success, you build ON success.
For you, "it takes time" folks, it has already been 5 years. How many more years does Moos need to start orchestrating upper division finishes in something beyond women soccer a program he had no part creating? 8, 10, 15 years? How many years before you start saying he blew the $200 million gift? If you can't or won't answer that, you are nothing but a cheerleader, embrace it.
The "lynch pin" of the equity deal? The first I heard of that. Could someone provide a link? My understanding was that no one, even Pat Haden, wanted to make USC the Texas of the Pac-12.
Things Moos could/can do to change things? Besides streamlining WSU's bloated overhead, fire deadwood much quicker and spend money to hire other quality coaches beyond Leach. Offer Teri McKeever, Scott Rueck or Pat Casey a hefty raise to jump ship? Why not? They might turn him down, but it sends a message that WSU is tired of being the Pac-12 biggest loser, that he isn't just football first and only AD.
You can argue that "anyone" could have come in and done the exact same thing that Moos has. "Anyone can build 2 buildings"… That's crystal ball stuff because I believe that if Sterk were still here during this surge of funds, he'd have found a way to squander a good chunk of it, and done so in a heart beat. We've hired hundreds of people in the past 25-50 years that would have sucked having that kind of money at their disposal. Idiots are plentiful, my friend. They would have tried to "spiffy" up the singlewide-trailer that used to be the press box, or something completely ridiculous. So your basic premise there, I believe, is bunk.
Regarding a link, you're asking a lot since that was several years ago, but this article does reference it. Link below but here's the excerpt from it that references it. Bill Moos was/is the head chairperson for the Pac 12 AD's.
It is the first conference network owned entirely by its members, and the revenue from the deal is equally distributed among the universities, an initiative led by Moos.
If this link isn't enough for you, I can continue to look for another link but I do have actual work to do. Might take some time.
Regarding your comments, overall. SoCal, you are very "immediate". I'm not. I see promise in our program and I'm behind the AD, the coaches, the president of WSU. But you've brought this up many, many times. I believe year 3 in CML's tenure, you were bringing up this exact argument. You're angst seems to always be pointed towards Track and Field. "We used to be prestigious, now we aren't squat". And now you're saying/insinuating, we shouldn't be a "football first" program. I'm sorry you've hitched your wagon to Track. I hope we can do well, I hope we can do better as years go on but one path to making Track relevant again is getting football successful. Money fixes sooooo many issues. I'm sure there are other paths but this is the one most of us believe (I'm guessing) and the one that Bill Moos seems to believe, as well. BTW, did you see the results for the UCLA invitational, yesterday? You might want to bite your tongue. Here's the link: WSU Performances Top-Notch at UCLA Triangular Meet.
Don't' even want to start typing all the stats and how well WSU did yesterday.
You seem to be the epitome of the "NOW" generation. If it doesn't happen in a blink of an eye, it's trash. Sorry, we'll agree to disagree. An athletic department's gears are massive and slow moving. A positive tradition takes time. I believe we are building it, you apparently don't.
This post was edited on 3/25 11:14 AM by Coug95man2
Moos led the initiative
Regarding a link, you're asking a lot since that was several years ago, but this article does reference it. Link below but here's the excerpt from it that references it. Bill Moos was/is the head chairperson for the Pac 12 AD's.
It is the first conference network owned entirely by its members, and the revenue from the deal is equally distributed among the universities, an initiative led by Moos.
If this link isn't enough for you, I can continue to look for another link but I do have actual work to do. Might take some time.
Regarding your comments, overall. SoCal, you are very "immediate". I'm not. I see promise in our program and I'm behind the AD, the coaches, the president of WSU. But you've brought this up many, many times. I believe year 3 in CML's tenure, you were bringing up this exact argument. You're angst seems to always be pointed towards Track and Field. "We used to be prestigious, now we aren't squat". And now you're saying/insinuating, we shouldn't be a "football first" program. I'm sorry you've hitched your wagon to Track. I hope we can do well, I hope we can do better as years go on but one path to making Track relevant again is getting football successful. Money fixes sooooo many issues. I'm sure there are other paths but this is the one most of us believe (I'm guessing) and the one that Bill Moos seems to believe, as well. BTW, did you see the results for the UCLA invitational, yesterday? You might want to bite your tongue. Here's the link: WSU Performances Top-Notch at UCLA Triangular Meet.
Don't' even want to start typing all the stats and how well WSU did yesterday.
You seem to be the epitome of the "NOW" generation. If it doesn't happen in a blink of an eye, it's trash. Sorry, we'll agree to disagree. An athletic department's gears are massive and slow moving. A positive tradition takes time. I believe we are building it, you apparently don't.
This post was edited on 3/25 11:14 AM by Coug95man2
Moos led the initiative
Two years out from the 1995 high school stadium experience, WSU was sitting with a Pac-10 championship. 1995-96 also had the basketball team in the NIT. The baseball team in 1995 won the Norpac.
If you can, with a straight face, tell me that two years from now, the Cougars will be knocking on the door of a Pac-12 football title, I'm in. Let's start the clock ticking starting now at 2 years, shall we?
Nobody wants to quantify or benchmark things. But going another 2 or 4 or 5 years with status quo in on-field performance is just not going to feed the bulldog.
This post was edited on 3/25 11:15 AM by Observer11
Personally, I like Moos and I think his football at all costs mentality is what WSU needs to have in an AD. Without football, without our Pac-12 membership, our University suffers. That's a fact. Moos and Floyd seem to understand that.
With that said, understanding the issue is one thing, but being able to pull everything together is a completely different challenge. Our new facilities are impressive, but it can be (and is) argued that Moos has done nothing more than spend money we don't have. I don't agree with that sentiment, but I'm capable of entertaining that point of view. I could transform my home with a $400K remodel and leverage myself to death, but hey, so what? Look how great my facilities are, right?
At some point, we have to start winning. Moos knows that.
With that said, understanding the issue is one thing, but being able to pull everything together is a completely different challenge. Our new facilities are impressive, but it can be (and is) argued that Moos has done nothing more than spend money we don't have. I don't agree with that sentiment, but I'm capable of entertaining that point of view. I could transform my home with a $400K remodel and leverage myself to death, but hey, so what? Look how great my facilities are, right?
At some point, we have to start winning. Moos knows that.
I only have 2 "things" to debate with you on.
1. 1995, or more directly 1993, is over 2 decades in the past. And while back then, we may not have had a sterling football field or FOB and it not affect our recruiting as much, there is no way that could hold water now. We couldn't package the old stadium as "gritty" or "blue collar" in today's world. These recruits go to other schools, see the glitz, the strippers (whoops, I mean "co-eds"), the flash and all we'd look like is trash. So Moos' management, his vision has brought us to the correct decade in regards to the facilities, in order to battle with football recruiting. We have the other sports on the docket for improvement. IMHO, this "management" and "vision" is a big deal, but also something that can easily be overlooked.
2. You state the above, as if the Pac 10 championship was our norm. I'd probably say baseball is the one sport you've mentioned that actually has "tradition". But from an arm's length away, with no crimson lenses (as if some random semi-intelligent sports dude from LA), when we have a major sport conference championship, it's the exception, not the rule. So the framing of the argument that it's either "status quo" or a football Pac-12 Title is pretty disingenuous, IMHO. Can't we start battling the North, first? Can't basketball keep a successful coach for longer than 4 years, with 10-15 years of complete trash while we search for the next "diamond in the rough" coach? You are looking at it from the extreme of the spectrum, and expect one or the other There is a middle ground and that would be improvement. It would be a step we have to take in order to take the next
Just my 2 cents worth.
So make some benchmarks, but make them anchored in reality. Lets battle for the north first or something. I don't know what benchmark you wanna use (there's probably a million to choose from) but winning the PAC without the intermediate steps between is pretty unrealistic IMHO.
1. 1995, or more directly 1993, is over 2 decades in the past. And while back then, we may not have had a sterling football field or FOB and it not affect our recruiting as much, there is no way that could hold water now. We couldn't package the old stadium as "gritty" or "blue collar" in today's world. These recruits go to other schools, see the glitz, the strippers (whoops, I mean "co-eds"), the flash and all we'd look like is trash. So Moos' management, his vision has brought us to the correct decade in regards to the facilities, in order to battle with football recruiting. We have the other sports on the docket for improvement. IMHO, this "management" and "vision" is a big deal, but also something that can easily be overlooked.
2. You state the above, as if the Pac 10 championship was our norm. I'd probably say baseball is the one sport you've mentioned that actually has "tradition". But from an arm's length away, with no crimson lenses (as if some random semi-intelligent sports dude from LA), when we have a major sport conference championship, it's the exception, not the rule. So the framing of the argument that it's either "status quo" or a football Pac-12 Title is pretty disingenuous, IMHO. Can't we start battling the North, first? Can't basketball keep a successful coach for longer than 4 years, with 10-15 years of complete trash while we search for the next "diamond in the rough" coach? You are looking at it from the extreme of the spectrum, and expect one or the other There is a middle ground and that would be improvement. It would be a step we have to take in order to take the next
Just my 2 cents worth.
So make some benchmarks, but make them anchored in reality. Lets battle for the north first or something. I don't know what benchmark you wanna use (there's probably a million to choose from) but winning the PAC without the intermediate steps between is pretty unrealistic IMHO.
I am not debating anything. Simply trying to establish when on-field performance can be expected to improve.
The points referenced show what one poster referred to as a dreadful time in Cougar athletics in a high school-type stadium (clearly not true given the performance of the mens teams in that and subsequent years).
In which case, since that high school sized stadium has since been built into a magnificent palace with adjoining state-of-the-art operations facilities, isn't it reasonable to begin the clock ticking? After all, if the high school sized stadium athletic department could compete with seemingly every obstacle against them, is it not reasonable to also desire something other than bottom of the barrel finishes fairly soon?
At what point does the 'you have no idea how bad it was" statute of limitations run out?
Nobody seems to want to address that point. Except socalcoug and he wants change NOW. I just want to know if not now, when?
Sterk couldn't fog a mirror. HTH.
How do you build on success, when success has been fleeting? Yes, WSU should have capitalized on the 2001-2003 run, but it didn't. That's the hole that Moos, Floyd and Leach are trying to crawl out of.
I guess I'm wondering what your benchmark is, then?
EDIT: I don't ask with any insinuation or expectation here… Truly just curious if you have one, and if you do, what it is.
This post was edited on 3/25 2:29 PM by Coug95man2
EDIT: I don't ask with any insinuation or expectation here… Truly just curious if you have one, and if you do, what it is.
This post was edited on 3/25 2:29 PM by Coug95man2
Since nobody else is willing to put a timeframe on anything, that is a fair question. I don't think it is unreasonable to have expectations of MINIMUM .500 finishes for multiple years on the following timetable beginning in the following seasons.. I'm not talking winning the Pac-12 but just being, well, average with a chance to win every damned game and at least appearing somewhat prepared and excited to be on a Division 1 field/court:Originally posted by Coug95man2:
I guess I'm wondering what your benchmark is, then?
EDIT: I don't ask with any insinuation or expectation here Truly just curious if you have one, and if you do, what it is.
This post was edited on 3/25 2:29 PM by Coug95man2
Football: 2016 (though arguably it should be 2015 but I'm in a good mood today)
Basketball: 2017
Women's basketball: NOW
No longer can the excuse be made for not paying market value for head coaches - both Kent and Leach are well compensated. For the incremental 1 maybe 2 wins Leach provides vs. a guy making 1/2 to 2/3, it's not worth it if he doesn't produce. I have less concern about Kent simply because he showed me in his first year he knows what the heck he is doing and works with what he's got at hand.
The department also needs to show some semblance of fiscal responsibility. Multiple year $10+ million deficits is unfathomable. You may bitch and moan all you want about Sterk but that guy could run a budget. The only part of 'budget' Moos seems to get is the "bud" part as the host of the weekly radio show.
And yours?
I don't know that I have specific expectations or benchmarks
Not right now, anyways. I'm one of those people where, I have a fuse that can circumference the earth. But once I'm done, I'm done. I've always dictated my life about numbers, compare/contrast, etc. etc. But on this, I just can't find a good, honest way to frame it. IMHO, the W/L column isn't the only thing to consider
So, generically speaking, I'm probably with you on your numbers/benchmarks.
But here's where I place myself on a slippery slope. What if 2016, we have a mature, great team. Half way through, our QB lacerates his liver or breaks his leg/ankle and we have to field a freshman. You and me know that's disaster. That's potentially a year or two of "a step back". So to me, that's an exception. That isn't on CML in any way. So there are considerations. And it sure seems like, on this board, if I say XXXX date, it's chiseled into some stone somewhere to be recorded forever and brought up when I've done the dreaded "changed my mind".
So I'm still a little shy on that one.
Specifically on basketball, though This year was more improvement than I ever thought would happen. I wouldn't be surprised if Kent isn't able to pull a rabbit out of his hat and do something pretty special by 2016.
But here's where I place myself on a slippery slope. What if 2016, we have a mature, great team. Half way through, our QB lacerates his liver or breaks his leg/ankle and we have to field a freshman. You and me know that's disaster. That's potentially a year or two of "a step back". So to me, that's an exception. That isn't on CML in any way. So there are considerations. And it sure seems like, on this board, if I say XXXX date, it's chiseled into some stone somewhere to be recorded forever and brought up when I've done the dreaded "changed my mind".
Specifically on basketball, though This year was more improvement than I ever thought would happen. I wouldn't be surprised if Kent isn't able to pull a rabbit out of his hat and do something pretty special by 2016.
I think it takes 8 years to build WSU football into a back to back bowl type of team.
How many years will it take Moos? No idea. But he's done more in the last 5 than anyone else has done in the last 100.
Look at Oregon State. They get the same money, they payed bills and lost their coach to Nebraska. WSU is going to pass them up because they sat on their hands while WSU built.
As for your comment about facilities being the icing on the cake... 4 star kids go to 4 star schools. No one worth a chit is gonna go to a school that looks like it's not committed financially to their program. Facilities, head coach, coaching salaries etc all play a part in the non verbal communication to recruits about how serious you are about football. WSU has pushed the bar forward.
My guess is that you're just unhappy to be unhappy.
How many years will it take Moos? No idea. But he's done more in the last 5 than anyone else has done in the last 100.
Look at Oregon State. They get the same money, they payed bills and lost their coach to Nebraska. WSU is going to pass them up because they sat on their hands while WSU built.
As for your comment about facilities being the icing on the cake... 4 star kids go to 4 star schools. No one worth a chit is gonna go to a school that looks like it's not committed financially to their program. Facilities, head coach, coaching salaries etc all play a part in the non verbal communication to recruits about how serious you are about football. WSU has pushed the bar forward.
My guess is that you're just unhappy to be unhappy.
Let's get back to reality here, Bill Moos wasn't a lynch pin. The lynch pins were Scott and Haden, and to a lesser extent Guerrero. Before Moos stepped on campus revenue sharing was a necessary principle for Scott and why we aren't the Pac-16 right now. Here is a business article on the subject, not a puff piece. As you see, Moos' involvement was basically holding his hand out for the check.
You do realize that "dean of Pac-12 ADs," referenced in his Bio is not a real position.
I was impressed with Phipps from a coaching stand point. He has lit a fire under the track team. They competed well. But like Leach, Kent, and every other coach (less June), there is only so much you can do riding "bobtail nag" talent. Li (AKA James) Li, was the first and most logical choice to replaced the program "terminator," but we didn't get him because Moos would only offer low end $$$. He got Phipps cheap, let's hope it is shrewed move, and not "pennywise pound foolish." We will know pretty quick if Phipps is a difference maker with his first real recruiting class. The great thing about track is that performance is measured objectively. You can't really pretend that a 22 foot long jumper, a 49 second 400m runner will be a champion someday.
5 years isn't "very immediate," unless you are talking geology, especially when you have a $200 million line of credit to work with.
Facts
I'm not entirely certain what your complaint above is. Moos' vision is pretty simple, and it's correct. Invest in football. The reason is that football is the only program that can generate a return on investment. Investing in any other sport (even mens basketball) does nothing for the department as a whole. If football can get off the mat, the entire AD will benefit.
1. I remember reading it a couple times back then
I look into researching it a bit heavier.
2. So now your "impressed"? You are confusing me. At one point in this thread, WSU is neglecting the smaller sports like soccer or track, and now Phipps might be a shrewd hire Oooookay. So the jury is still out but you want to complain about it? Even when the immediate results are good?
3. 5 years obviously is a matter of definition. To me, I watched the BYU game and saw the Bassett hounds and zombies roaming the sidelines and I was blown away the culture that had taken hold and that CML had inherited. They just expected that because CML was hired, that hard work, both physical AND mental, wasn't required. I couldn't believe it. "It's just supposed to happen, right!? We have CML!!!" Is CML responsible for getting rid of that? Yep. And no one can say that he hasn't tried. He's been tough, tough, though. And this sport is a tough sport. Don't like it, get the hell out. And that's what's happened. As he see's that old culture, he's getting rid of it.
Then lets talk about the physical development of 18 year olds, and how long THAT takes . come on, SoCal. It's called puberty and I don't know that we want to get TOO much into it here but you do realize even after graduation, these young'uns are still going through it, right? Scientifically speaking, I wanna say 26 is when boys are supposedly done with puberty?! Of course 5 years to start amping up our physical development is something that takes time. I'd wager there is never a class, even at 'Bama or LSU or OSU that the coach didn't wish for more. So we have to battle that, as well. Example: Right now, Oregon gets their pick of the litter regarding the linemen (O and D) and you think we should be able to battle them after 5 years? Just right away, we should bypass UW, Furd, UCLA? CML's first recruiting class, now that they are 5 years in, should bypass all of them?
I had high expectations with CML's hire. HIGH expectations. But that first year brought me to reality. WSU is truly a second home to me. I met my wife there, I've stayed in the region for a reason and I work at WSU on a regular basis, mostly because I love WSU certainly not for the cash (or lack thereof). But what WSU's football program was, is nothing to be proud of, man. And I REAAAALLY don't want any backlash from that statement from the Wulff supporters please not wanting to get into that. But seeing what I see, in a realistic frame without my Crimson Prism of Expectations, to get out of this hole is going to take some time. And I'm OK with my expectations moving! It seems like some here have/had expectations and are unwilling to move them due to some inner battle that, "expectations should be unwavering. That's what expectations are." CML's first year, I was thinking 3rd year "We'll be rocking'!" Then I watched the first year I don't care if Urban was our coach, Saban, or even if we got Kelley to come out of the NFL YOU PICK! This is just going to take time. Wish is didn't. I'm with you on that one.
2. So now your "impressed"? You are confusing me. At one point in this thread, WSU is neglecting the smaller sports like soccer or track, and now Phipps might be a shrewd hire Oooookay. So the jury is still out but you want to complain about it? Even when the immediate results are good?
3. 5 years obviously is a matter of definition. To me, I watched the BYU game and saw the Bassett hounds and zombies roaming the sidelines and I was blown away the culture that had taken hold and that CML had inherited. They just expected that because CML was hired, that hard work, both physical AND mental, wasn't required. I couldn't believe it. "It's just supposed to happen, right!? We have CML!!!" Is CML responsible for getting rid of that? Yep. And no one can say that he hasn't tried. He's been tough, tough, though. And this sport is a tough sport. Don't like it, get the hell out. And that's what's happened. As he see's that old culture, he's getting rid of it.
Then lets talk about the physical development of 18 year olds, and how long THAT takes . come on, SoCal. It's called puberty and I don't know that we want to get TOO much into it here but you do realize even after graduation, these young'uns are still going through it, right? Scientifically speaking, I wanna say 26 is when boys are supposedly done with puberty?! Of course 5 years to start amping up our physical development is something that takes time. I'd wager there is never a class, even at 'Bama or LSU or OSU that the coach didn't wish for more. So we have to battle that, as well. Example: Right now, Oregon gets their pick of the litter regarding the linemen (O and D) and you think we should be able to battle them after 5 years? Just right away, we should bypass UW, Furd, UCLA? CML's first recruiting class, now that they are 5 years in, should bypass all of them?
I had high expectations with CML's hire. HIGH expectations. But that first year brought me to reality. WSU is truly a second home to me. I met my wife there, I've stayed in the region for a reason and I work at WSU on a regular basis, mostly because I love WSU certainly not for the cash (or lack thereof). But what WSU's football program was, is nothing to be proud of, man. And I REAAAALLY don't want any backlash from that statement from the Wulff supporters please not wanting to get into that. But seeing what I see, in a realistic frame without my Crimson Prism of Expectations, to get out of this hole is going to take some time. And I'm OK with my expectations moving! It seems like some here have/had expectations and are unwilling to move them due to some inner battle that, "expectations should be unwavering. That's what expectations are." CML's first year, I was thinking 3rd year "We'll be rocking'!" Then I watched the first year I don't care if Urban was our coach, Saban, or even if we got Kelley to come out of the NFL YOU PICK! This is just going to take time. Wish is didn't. I'm with you on that one.
Here ya go, SoCal
Here's a copy/paste of an interview with Bill back in 2012. Linked below. This is obviously a biased website, but if you don't think this is enough, I can once again look for more… But I can tell you, I will find another reference. I just have a life beyond looking for references that are 2-4 years old. Anyways, here ya go. But make no mistake, without Bill Moos, WSU wouldn't have squat, right now. He's worth his weight in gold.
Moos: [/B]So we started building this plan and it got expensive. To build facilities, rebrand, expand the staff, improve infrastructure with the existing department and grow it, so I realized early on that I had to try and take advantage of the conference's - the Pac-10 at the time - pursuit of expansion and route to a lucrative new television contract. I saw that as the source we need, and the revenue stream that is imperative to offset the expenses of the blue print. I, at that point, put all my focus in to getting the support to establish for the first time in our conference history, an equal revenue sharing formula that indeed then would enable us do the things that I had discussed. [/I]
BK:[/B] What was your role in that? What opposition did you face?
Moos: [/B] Well, I am the dean of the Pac-12 ADs. I've been around a long time and I've seen the haves and the have-nots and I've witnessed first hand the inequities of the, what was at the time, the current revenue-sharing plan that was in place. We never had enough votes to change it. You needed - with 10 member institutions - you needed 8. And we could max out at 7 and never get there. But in my line of thinking as I was piecing this together, to form a coalition of member institutions to join me in establishing a new plan because with 12 institutions we needed 9 votes and I felt that if I could get the 7 that I had, in previous votes, and get the two new schools, we had the 9 necessary to get it done. So, I took it upon myself to build that group together and bond us to go to the table and to have enough votes to negate USC and UCLA and it was very - it was tense times. [/I]
[/I][/B]When we sat down in August, of 2010, and I'd just been on the job since mid-April, and the consultants were there and all that and we were going to decide at that meeting, start to have discussions on how we were going to divide the conference so we could have an NCAA-approved football championship game. And so, at that meeting, the discussions came up and I raised my hand, it was about 10 minutes in to it, and said "I think it's ridiculous to establish how we're going to divide the conference until we establish how we are going to divide the money." In the spirit of compromise, we were willing to give USC and UCLA $2 million a piece off the top for five years or until we hit the benchmark of $180 million. And they were happy with that, thinking we couldn't even hit $180 million until year five, and lo and behold, Larry Scott, our commissioner and our team right out of the shoot exceeded $180 million in the first year with an unprecedented TV package that is the most lucrative in the history of college sports. [/I]
This post was edited on 4/3 5:00 PM by Coug95man2
Pirates of the Palouse
Here's a copy/paste of an interview with Bill back in 2012. Linked below. This is obviously a biased website, but if you don't think this is enough, I can once again look for more… But I can tell you, I will find another reference. I just have a life beyond looking for references that are 2-4 years old. Anyways, here ya go. But make no mistake, without Bill Moos, WSU wouldn't have squat, right now. He's worth his weight in gold.
Moos: [/B]So we started building this plan and it got expensive. To build facilities, rebrand, expand the staff, improve infrastructure with the existing department and grow it, so I realized early on that I had to try and take advantage of the conference's - the Pac-10 at the time - pursuit of expansion and route to a lucrative new television contract. I saw that as the source we need, and the revenue stream that is imperative to offset the expenses of the blue print. I, at that point, put all my focus in to getting the support to establish for the first time in our conference history, an equal revenue sharing formula that indeed then would enable us do the things that I had discussed. [/I]
BK:[/B] What was your role in that? What opposition did you face?
Moos: [/B] Well, I am the dean of the Pac-12 ADs. I've been around a long time and I've seen the haves and the have-nots and I've witnessed first hand the inequities of the, what was at the time, the current revenue-sharing plan that was in place. We never had enough votes to change it. You needed - with 10 member institutions - you needed 8. And we could max out at 7 and never get there. But in my line of thinking as I was piecing this together, to form a coalition of member institutions to join me in establishing a new plan because with 12 institutions we needed 9 votes and I felt that if I could get the 7 that I had, in previous votes, and get the two new schools, we had the 9 necessary to get it done. So, I took it upon myself to build that group together and bond us to go to the table and to have enough votes to negate USC and UCLA and it was very - it was tense times. [/I]
[/I][/B]When we sat down in August, of 2010, and I'd just been on the job since mid-April, and the consultants were there and all that and we were going to decide at that meeting, start to have discussions on how we were going to divide the conference so we could have an NCAA-approved football championship game. And so, at that meeting, the discussions came up and I raised my hand, it was about 10 minutes in to it, and said "I think it's ridiculous to establish how we're going to divide the conference until we establish how we are going to divide the money." In the spirit of compromise, we were willing to give USC and UCLA $2 million a piece off the top for five years or until we hit the benchmark of $180 million. And they were happy with that, thinking we couldn't even hit $180 million until year five, and lo and behold, Larry Scott, our commissioner and our team right out of the shoot exceeded $180 million in the first year with an unprecedented TV package that is the most lucrative in the history of college sports. [/I]
This post was edited on 4/3 5:00 PM by Coug95man2
Pirates of the Palouse
Well first, it's kind of hard to use the term "accurately", as SoCal is implying. Division I, in the Director's Cup, is based on 20 teams. 10 men's and 10 women's. So guess how many sports WSU has TOTAL. 6 for men and 9 for women.
Now I don't know ANYTHING about the Directors Cup, but just on a cursory look, that kinda puts us at a very distinct disadvantage. While UCLA or USC or whomever has the 20 sports to be judged, we don't. Kinda places us behind the 8 ball.
Here's more perspective on the prestigious "Directors Cup".
New Mexico is in the 20th spot, beating out Notre Dame, Alabama, Clemson, Nebraska, Arizona State (actually half of the PAC 12) and obviously since they are 20th, hundreds of other schools New Mexico.
Another gem regarding the Directors Cup, Illinois State and New Hampshire are respectively 41 and 42 (they have them tied, whatever) and are beating the likes of Michigan, Duke, Arizona and Ol' Miss, to name a few.
There are 206 schools on this list. WSU is a mind-numbing 168 (tied with about 20 or 30 other schools). But to say that this is the say-all, end-all of how to evaluate our athletic dept. is, well, odd. I don't know how they tally their points, but just looking at the standings, seems awful weird. I will put zero credence on this "cup" to evaluate how Bill Moos/WSU athletics, is doing.
Linked below are the standings, as of March 25th.
Director's Cup
Now I don't know ANYTHING about the Directors Cup, but just on a cursory look, that kinda puts us at a very distinct disadvantage. While UCLA or USC or whomever has the 20 sports to be judged, we don't. Kinda places us behind the 8 ball.
Here's more perspective on the prestigious "Directors Cup".
New Mexico is in the 20th spot, beating out Notre Dame, Alabama, Clemson, Nebraska, Arizona State (actually half of the PAC 12) and obviously since they are 20th, hundreds of other schools New Mexico.
Another gem regarding the Directors Cup, Illinois State and New Hampshire are respectively 41 and 42 (they have them tied, whatever) and are beating the likes of Michigan, Duke, Arizona and Ol' Miss, to name a few.
There are 206 schools on this list. WSU is a mind-numbing 168 (tied with about 20 or 30 other schools). But to say that this is the say-all, end-all of how to evaluate our athletic dept. is, well, odd. I don't know how they tally their points, but just looking at the standings, seems awful weird. I will put zero credence on this "cup" to evaluate how Bill Moos/WSU athletics, is doing.
Linked below are the standings, as of March 25th.
Director's Cup
