Pac-12 Expansion

[Loyal Coug1]

F- the bowl game. We sucked. Cam Ward needs to transfer, we need a new offensive scheme. Watched North Dakota State on Friday. Let's get that scheme. Or the Buffalo Bills. Bad ass running QB's knocking DB's on their asses.

So - San Diego State and UNLV. Right? Almost R-1 and R-1. Location, location. Why is this not a no-brainer?

Differing opinions welcome - except stupid ones. Two or more of you know who I'm talking to.........

 

[Glad Cougar]

My only comment is that North Dakota State's QB was 1-12 for 5 yards in the IWU game the other night. As good as the Bison are at running the ball, how do you think that kind of passing attack is going to do in the Pac-12?

It all starts up front. If you don't have a solid offensive line, it doesn't matter what kind of offensive scheme you employ.

Glad Cougar

 

[M-I-Coug]

F- the bowl game. We sucked. Cam Ward needs to transfer, we need a new offensive scheme. Watched North Dakota State on Friday. Let's get that scheme. Or the Buffalo Bills. Bad ass running QB's knocking DB's on their asses.

So - San Diego State and UNLV. Right? Almost R-1 and R-1. Location, location. Why is this not a no-brainer?

Differing opinions welcome - except stupid ones. Two or more of you know who I'm talking to.........

I'll bite. Why is this not a no-brainer?

Because two big brand names are gone and we're replacing them with two non big brand names.

It's their name and image. Nothing else. SDSU and UNLV are both good schools with good facilities.

But....using retail names as an example for the image in peoples minds:

USC = Neiman Marcus

UCLA = Nordstrom

SDSU = Sears

UNLV = Kmart

If you don't like that example then:

Tiffany & Co vs. Kay Jewelers, or Rolex vs. Timex.

Nothing wrong with Kay Jewelers and Timex, but you get my point.

We are disappointed there's no Big Name school replacing USC and UCLA. Nothing to get excited for and it does't strengthen the image of the Pac-12 Conference.

That's why.

Again, SDSU and UNLV are good schools. Just not a Big Name replacement. And we have no other school options.

It weakens the image of the Pac-12.

That's why.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

I'll bite. Why is this not a no-brainer?

Because two big brand names are gone and we're replacing them with two non big brand names.

It's their name and image. Nothing else. SDSU and UNLV are both good schools with good facilities.

But....using retail names as an example for the image in peoples minds:

USC = Neiman Marcus

UCLA = Nordstrom

SDSU = Sears

UNLV = Kmart

If you don't like that example then:

Tiffany & Co vs. Kay Jewelers, or Rolex vs. Timex.

Nothing wrong with Kay Jewelers and Timex, but you get my point.

We are disappointed there's no Big Name school replacing USC and UCLA. Nothing to get excited for and it does't strengthen the image of the Pac-12 Conference.

That's why.

Again, SDSU and UNLV are good schools. Just not a Big Name replacement. And we have no other school options.

It weakens the image of the Pac-12.

That's why.

And UCF and Cincinatti to the Big-12 adequately replace Texas and Oklahoma's brand names?

There are no available schools out there that will replace USC and UCLA. Take what we can get.

 

[M-I-Coug]

And UCF and Cincinatti to the Big-12 adequately replace Texas and Oklahoma's brand names?

There are no available schools out there that will replace USC and UCLA. Take what we can get.

I know, but we'll all be victims of it weakening the image of the Pac-12 Conference.

 

[ttowncoug]

You have to evolve. And we need to assume UW, Oregon and others follow USC and UCLA to the Big10.

I think SMU, UNLV and SDSU are schools in good markets, that given additional resources, could be very solid programs.

 

[CougPatrol]

I know, but we'll all be victims of it weakening the image of the Pac-12 Conference.

Well, for starters, we're now the P10 conference. It's also important to recognize that even with USC and UCLA, the P12 had no image West of the Rockies. The only option now, and this should have always been our focus, is to build the strongest conference of West coast programs we can assemble. Las Vegas, San Diego State, Fresno, Colorado State, Gonzaga as a hoops only school. Even Boise State.

The historical rules are out the window at this point. Form a large West coast super conference and sell recruits on the benefit of staying regional. Form a scheduling partnership with the other leagues not named the SEC and B1G.

 

[425cougfan]

There are strategic aspects at play here, too. The brand names metaphor is relevant but doesn't tell the whole story.

The Pac-12 was too good for schools like Houston previously. It shouldn't make that mistake again, especially with the Big 12 now having an aggressive commish. I don't like the brand name of SDSU or SMU either (the tie to a single moderately sized city of San Diego isn't amazing, nor is the largely historical but still extant religious affiliation of SMU), but there's nothing wrong with UNLV's brand other than having had a lot of shitty football and lack of interest when Vegas was more of a backwater. It was obvious years ago Vegas was going to become a more important city and that's going to continue to play out.

Three of the four schools the Big 12 just added have mediocre brands at best, yet those moves stabilized that conference and put it on a relatively equal footing with the Pac-12. Texas and Oklahoma were responsible for half of the value of its TV deal. Even with those teams gone, it's probably getting the same money as the "elite" Pac-12 is with USC and UCLA gone.

The point I made earlier about TV inventory is a big one. Let the Big 12 into the Pacific time zone with two teams and you then give media outlets even less of a reason to want to pay up for Pac-12 football. And let's be real ... if the Pac-12 doesn't expand soon and UW and Oregon bail, the Pac-12 probably is done at that point. It's risky having a point of failure like that.

I can't claim I'm excited about schools like SMU, SDSU, or UNLV, but the Pac-12 is heavily constrained by geography and a lack of candidates in the west. The brand of the Pac-12 already doesn't mean much. The standard-bearers now are UW and Oregon. The former is something like Wisconsin. Respectable and some history there, sure, but nobody cares nationally. Oregon is known nationally, but mainly for uniforms, money, and losing a title game a decade ago. It's not an elite or huge university and Oregon is a piss-ant state in the scheme of things.

 

[COUGinNCW]

Another positive with adding SMU is that if there are future defections in the Big12 like a Kansas to ACC or BIG the remaining Texas schools may be more willing to look at the PAC as an option again if they feel things are unstable.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

Unfortunately, I think the further east we continue to go, we end up losing the name "Pacific" from our conference. Wouldn't make much sense, and honestly the brand of "Pac XX" doesn't seem to hold much value anyway.

The end of an era...

 

[Chucksizzle1]

Barry Odom named as UNLV head coach with Bobby Petrino as OC is very interesting. Petrino at one time was an outstanding offensive mind. I’m guessing Odom being dc at Arkansas and then having Missouri State coached Petrino team give them a scare this year impressed him.

i think UNLV is going to be a program on the rise. That’s a good coaching staff.

 

[wazzucougs96]

I know, but we'll all be victims of it weakening the image of the Pac-12 Conference.

That already happened when USC and UCLA bounced. The only thing we can do now is try as best we can to replace their TV and recruiting markets. That is what SDSU and UNLV bring to the table that no one else can.

 

[425cougfan]

Unfortunately, I think the further east we continue to go, we end up losing the name "Pacific" from our conference. Wouldn't make much sense, and honestly the brand of "Pac XX" doesn't seem to hold much value anyway.

The end of an era...

Yeah, but my view is that these soft considerations like worrying (excessively) about brand names and what the conference is called pale in comparison to the existential crisis the Pac-12 faces. (By the way, WSU, as the school most likely to be screwed by the Pac-12 going away, is incentivized to try to maintain some current version of it more than anyone.)

You know what would really suck in terms of branding and what the conference is called? The "Pac-12" being a mix of WSU, Oregon State, and the MWC, perhaps with Cal and Stanford. That's happening if they don't get their shit together, and it may happen anyway.

BTW, people don't seem to get that you want to do this stuff while you have at least some semblance of leverage. It sure would have been nice to poach a couple legit Power 5 or borderline schools a few years ago, including BYU. People didn't like that then for cultural reasons, but that would have made the Pac-12 in a much better spot now, that's for sure. Same thing now. Probably can get UNLV and SDSU with reduced shares. I'd also like two Texas schools if we could. It won't be fun to scramble if and when another shoe drops and the Big 12 grabs the Arizona and mountain schools to try to build a bit of a second-tier superconference, relegating the leftovers to the Mountain West, even if it adopts a "Pac" name. It will be a horrible mix of amusing and sad to look back and remember when people didn't want to do what it took to bring in Baylor and TCU (or, in 2011, Oklahoma, Texas, OK State, and a second Texas team).

 

[Chucksizzle1]

when they go to a 12 team playoff, if that’s the end goal, I’m not so sure conference realignment will hurt as bad as it would seem to. Look at TCU in the big 12. An ascendant program in a weakened pac 12 might be in a good position to make the 12 team playoff. There seems to be an effort to spread the seeds around beyond just sec and big ten teams.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

Yeah, but my view is that these soft considerations like worrying (excessively) about brand names and what the conference is called pale in comparison to the existential crisis the Pac-12 faces. (By the way, WSU, as the school most likely to be screwed by the Pac-12 going away, is incentivized to try to maintain some current version of it more than anyone.)

You know what would really suck in terms of branding and what the conference is called? The "Pac-12" being a mix of WSU, Oregon State, and the MWC, perhaps with Cal and Stanford. That's happening if they don't get their shit together, and it may happen anyway.

BTW, people don't seem to get that you want to do this stuff while you have at least some semblance of leverage. It sure would have been nice to poach a couple legit Power 5 or borderline schools a few years ago, including BYU. People didn't like that then for cultural reasons, but that would have made the Pac-12 in a much better spot now, that's for sure. Same thing now. Probably can get UNLV and SDSU with reduced shares. I'd also like two Texas schools if we could. It won't be fun to scramble if and when another shoe drops and the Big 12 grabs the Arizona and mountain schools to try to build a bit of a second-tier superconference, relegating the leftovers to the Mountain West, even if it adopts a "Pac" name. It will be a horrible mix of amusing and sad to look back and remember when people didn't want to do what it took to bring in Baylor and TCU (or, in 2011, Oklahoma, Texas, OK State, and a second Texas team).

Much like WSU, the P12 has the deck stacked against them vis a vis battling the media and TV. The entire rest of the country is convinced that football only exists east of the Rockies, including those with money and TV power.

I agree that you have to think outside of the box and redefine or create a new paradigm that will at least create interest in what you're selling.

Still sucks that "Pacific" will be gone, but oh well.

 

[M-I-Coug]

Much like WSU, the P12 has the deck stacked against them vis a vis battling the media and TV. The entire rest of the country is convinced that football only exists east of the Rockies, including those with money and TV power.

I agree that you have to think outside of the box and redefine or create a new paradigm that will at least create interest in what you're selling.

Still sucks that "Pacific" will be gone, but oh well.

Right. And with life, as you know, change is constant.

Presidents come and go.

Politicians come and go.

Retail stores come and go.

Genesis to Maps is constant change.

It's part of life.

 

[CougPatrol]

when they go to a 12 team playoff, if that’s the end goal, I’m not so sure conference realignment will hurt as bad as it would seem to. Look at TCU in the big 12. An ascendant program in a weakened pac 12 might be in a good position to make the 12 team playoff. There seems to be an effort to spread the seeds around beyond just sec and big ten teams.

I feel the same way. There is an overstated sense of panic that the B1G and SEC are going to take over the world, but frankly, that already happened. The biggest programs attract the top recruits and pay their coaches and players the most money.

Recruiting rankings matter, but a look around the NFL shows that many of the top players didn't come from the top programs. I won't list them all, but:

Pat Mahommes - Texas Tech
Josh Allen - Wyoming
Lamar Jackson - Louisville
Geno Smith - West Virginia
Cooper Kupp - Eastern WA
Aaron Rogers - Cal
Davante Adams - Fresno State
Aaron Donald - Pitt
Travis Kelce - Cincinnati
George Kittle - Iowa
Tyreek Hill - West Alabama
Fred Warner - BYU
AJ Brown - Ole Miss
Stefon Diggs - Maryland
Khalil Mack - Buffalo

I think that regionality is always going to be a key selling point with regard to football recruiting. The biggest recruits will go for the money grab, and the portal will give the bigger programs an additional advantage, but I read an article today from a Georgia Bulldog outlet commenting on how the SEC is getting brutalized by the portal as well.

The NCAA is going to eventually put some guardrails in place with the portal, NIL, and possible scholarship caps. There will always be a market for a large West Coast D1 football conference, and there will always be 25 solid players available for programs like WSU, Oregon State, Fresno State, SDSU, Colorado, Utah, etc. There is absolutely NO EXCUSE for a program like WSU not to have an elite QB and solid offensive line. I know nothing about how to manage a football program, but I genuinely feel that I could recruit 5-7 offensive linemen and a great QB every year and design a strength and conditioning program to ensure that my o-line was a gauntlet. That was the building block of Mike Leach's system, and it illustrated how he was able to win 7-8 games every year. Good QB play, big linemen, and 3-star WRs.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

I feel the same way. There is an overstated sense of panic that the B1G and SEC are going to take over the world, but frankly, that already happened. The biggest programs attract the top recruits and pay their coaches and players the most money.

Recruiting rankings matter, but a look around the NFL shows that many of the top players didn't come from the top programs. I won't list them all, but:

Pat Mahommes - Texas Tech
Josh Allen - Wyoming
Lamar Jackson - Louisville
Geno Smith - West Virginia
Cooper Kupp - Eastern WA
Aaron Rogers - Cal
Davante Adams - Fresno State
Aaron Donald - Pitt
Travis Kelce - Cincinnati
George Kittle - Iowa
Tyreek Hill - West Alabama
Fred Warner - BYU
AJ Brown - Ole Miss
Stefon Diggs - Maryland
Khalil Mack - Buffalo

I think that regionality is always going to be a key selling point with regard to football recruiting. The biggest recruits will go for the money grab, and the portal will give the bigger programs an additional advantage, but I read an article today from a Georgia Bulldog outlet commenting on how the SEC is getting brutalized by the portal as well.

The NCAA is going to eventually put some guardrails in place with the portal, NIL, and possible scholarship caps. There will always be a market for a large West Coast D1 football conference, and there will always be 25 solid players available for programs like WSU, Oregon State, Fresno State, SDSU, Colorado, Utah, etc. There is absolutely NO EXCUSE for a program like WSU not to have an elite QB and solid offensive line. I know nothing about how to manage a football program, but I genuinely feel that I could recruit 5-7 offensive linemen and a great QB every year and design a strength and conditioning program to ensure that my o-line was a gauntlet. That was the building block of Mike Leach's system, and it illustrated how he was able to win 7-8 games every year. Good QB play, big linemen, and 3-star WRs.

Who cares where the NFL players are drafted from? We're talking about the NCAA.

What were the records of those teams those players came from? Idgaf about putting marquee players in the league, I care about having a winning team that is competing for conference championships. MOST college players don't even get a sniff, so unless you're Bama/ tOSU/ Mich, why even dangle that carrot? (Unless you're Leach recruiting a qb.)

 

[CougSinceBirth]

I feel the same way. There is an overstated sense of panic that the B1G and SEC are going to take over the world, but frankly, that already happened. The biggest programs attract the top recruits and pay their coaches and players the most money.

Recruiting rankings matter, but a look around the NFL shows that many of the top players didn't come from the top programs. I won't list them all, but:

Pat Mahommes - Texas Tech
Josh Allen - Wyoming
Lamar Jackson - Louisville
Geno Smith - West Virginia
Cooper Kupp - Eastern WA
Aaron Rogers - Cal
Davante Adams - Fresno State
Aaron Donald - Pitt
Travis Kelce - Cincinnati
George Kittle - Iowa
Tyreek Hill - West Alabama
Fred Warner - BYU
AJ Brown - Ole Miss
Stefon Diggs - Maryland
Khalil Mack - Buffalo

I think that regionality is always going to be a key selling point with regard to football recruiting. The biggest recruits will go for the money grab, and the portal will give the bigger programs an additional advantage, but I read an article today from a Georgia Bulldog outlet commenting on how the SEC is getting brutalized by the portal as well.

The NCAA is going to eventually put some guardrails in place with the portal, NIL, and possible scholarship caps. There will always be a market for a large West Coast D1 football conference, and there will always be 25 solid players available for programs like WSU, Oregon State, Fresno State, SDSU, Colorado, Utah, etc. There is absolutely NO EXCUSE for a program like WSU not to have an elite QB and solid offensive line. I know nothing about how to manage a football program, but I genuinely feel that I could recruit 5-7 offensive linemen and a great QB every year and design a strength and conditioning program to ensure that my o-line was a gauntlet. That was the building block of Mike Leach's system, and it illustrated how he was able to win 7-8 games every year. Good QB play, big linemen, and 3-star WRs.

FWIW, Tyreek Hill went to Oklahoma State before he was dismissed from the team.

The problem with that list above is most of those players were around during a different time of CFB. They stayed and developed at their respective programs (I'm guessing most of them did, that's a lot of names to check). They'll use smaller schools to go find a bigger schools now.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

Well, for starters, we're now the P10 conference. It's also important to recognize that even with USC and UCLA, the P12 had no image West of the Rockies. The only option now, and this should have always been our focus, is to build the strongest conference of West coast programs we can assemble. Las Vegas, San Diego State, Fresno, Colorado State, Gonzaga as a hoops only school. Even Boise State.

Hell no and F-no. Nothing school with a BB team and a second rate school with basically nothing in a nothing state where having 3 teeth get you registered to vote.

 

[425cougfan]

Cherry picking some NFL players from the G of 5 and lower-tier P5 programs means about as much as when people said WSU should be pretty good under Wulff because it had players like Tuel, Halliday, Wilson, Williams, Galvin, Myers, Barton, Hoffman-Ellis, etc. Doesn't mean anything. (It does have some interesting implications for anyone looking at our current WRs, though, but that's another topic.)

I have to push back on the notion that there always will be demand for a high-level west coast league. There always will be demand for a league that includes desirable west coast programs, but there's zero reason that couldn't consist of the Big Ten grabbing Oregon and UW and the Big 12 or others grabbing all or most of the better-situated leftover Pac-12 programs, with WSU and Oregon State out of that mix. The only good thing that has happened in that regard lately is the expanded playoff. That may help teams stick around if they don't want to become Nebraska. $ ultimately is what drives everything, though.

 

[CougPatrol]

There always will be demand for a league that includes desirable west coast programs, but there's zero reason that couldn't consist of the Big Ten grabbing Oregon and UW and the Big 12 or others grabbing all or most of the better-situated leftover Pac-12 programs, with WSU and Oregon State out of that mix. The only good thing that has happened in that regard lately is the expanded playoff. That may help teams stick around if they don't want to become Nebraska. $ ultimately is what drives everything, though.

If WSU and OSU get left out, there's nothing any of us can do about it. The MWC is still going to get a playoff bid, and that'll be our fate. Life moves on.

 

[CougPatrol]

Who cares where the NFL players are drafted from? We're talking about the NCAA.

What were the records of those teams those players came from? Idgaf about putting marquee players in the league, I care about having a winning team that is competing for conference championships. MOST college players don't even get a sniff, so unless you're Bama/ tOSU/ Mich, why even dangle that carrot? (Unless you're Leach recruiting a qb.)

We've had a lot of winning teams over the past 25 years, and a handful have competed for a conference championship. Only 1 team (2018) competed for a championship since 2002/2003.

I could argue that if the worst-case scenario unfolds, and WSU is relegated to the Mountain West Conference or a grossly reshuffled Pac-whatever league, we'll compete for playoff bids more often than we have P12 conference championships over the past 20, 40, 100 years.

 

[425cougfan]

If WSU and OSU get left out, there's nothing any of us can do about it. The MWC is still going to get a playoff bid, and that'll be our fate. Life moves on.

Accurate in the absolute sense, but as a WSU fan, I would like to do all I can to avoid that situation, and I certainly won't advocate stupid head-in-the-sand mentalities among those who actually do have some power to prevent that. Lots of reasons aside from just institutional prestige, having a shot at the playoff, and whatever else. All the bonds taken out for facilities improvements were not based on Mountain West TV deal checks. Take a gander at what those schools get and you will start to understand why this is a BFD.

 

[425cougfan]

CP, you're talking about shit like having some guys make the NFL and a shot at the playoff when there are numerous, and much more pressing, concerns.

 

[ttowncoug]

I agree with CP on this. When if the Pac-12 becomes a version of the MWC, Cougs are in a stronger position, maybe we get into the CFP....which...increases our exposure and program.

Currently we are seen as a mid-tier Pac-12 program and that isn't changing soon.

 

[425cougfan]

I agree with CP on this. When if the Pac-12 becomes a version of the MWC, Cougs are in a stronger position, maybe we get into the CFP....which...increases our exposure and program.

Currently we are seen as a mid-tier Pac-12 program and that isn't changing soon.

Mountain West TV deal: $4m annually per school (other than Boise and Hawaii, which get less than $2m more).

Was less than half that previously. It's chump change.

Anyone who says they don't care about getting left out, or tries to rationalize it by saying if WSU makes the playoff it will get exposure, or whatever other bullshit you want to come up with, has no clue what really matters, if I can channel my Biggs tone for a second. This is beyond debate, really.

 

[ttowncoug]

it's not a scenario I am routing for. But if you are trying to look for positives if that happens - that's one. I also think the payout gets better than $4M per school.

 

[CougPatrol]

Accurate in the absolute sense, but as a WSU fan, I would like to do all I can to avoid that situation, and I certainly won't advocate stupid head-in-the-sand mentalities among those who actually do have some power to prevent that. Lots of reasons aside from just institutional prestige, having a shot at the playoff, and whatever else. All the bonds taken out for facilities improvements were not based on Mountain West TV deal checks. Take a gander at what those schools get and you will start to understand why this is a BFD.

I hear ya, and I've been doing all I can on my end for a couple of decades now. I carry 4 season tickets, I'm a lot 1 RV pass holder, and I'm recently into Cougar Collective for $50/mo. Not a power booster by any means, but that's as far as I can take it.

Long term, it's going to be tough for WSU to survive in the current P5 NIL super-conference era. I've come to terms with that.

 

[425cougfan]

it's not a scenario I am routing for. But if you are trying to look for positives if that happens - that's one. I also think the payout gets better than $4M per school.

OK ... I hate to be so negative, really, and I'll stop after this. But apparently this stuff needs to be written. I thought most of our fans knew all this, at least at some level.

The school still has a lot of debt for the stadium improvement and FOB, even though it refinanced some of it. The university took out more debt to help bridge the COVID gap. Those were to be repaid with Pac-12 media rights and bowl distributions.

Pac-12 schools are set to get something like $30-35m a year in the expected media rights deal in 2024.

So let's say the Mountain West doubles its deal in 2026. Let's go even more than that -- a 250% increase. Probably won't happen, but sure, why not. That's ... $10m/year. So $10m a year instead of $30-35m for a school that already was broke and paying off debt when it had $22m a year rolling in from Larry's lousy deal. The implications are pretty obvious and, while I won't play it out, that is some serious shit.

Also, WSU wouldn't be expected to be some kind of dominant force, even in the Mountain West. It's not like you take its current players / recruiting and just compete with Mountain West have-nots. The only reason WSU even recruits at its current level is the Pac-12 affiliation. WSU would settle into a lower- to middle-tier position in that conference in view of its location. It could probably still land some Washington kids who aren't P5 caliber, but California and Texas recruits aren't choosing WSU over places like San Jose, Las Vegas, San Diego, Honolulu, and some others, even if WSU could hang in there with some of the other places like Laramie, Logan, and Fort Collins.

Meanwhile, WSU not only would have to adjust to the Mountain West revenues but would have that debt overhang from its attempts to keep up in P5, which would really cramp spending, even in that conference. It would have a pretty nice FOB, but that's it. Attendance would be really bad, even if the team is good, and horrible if it wasn't. Donations would crater, etc. WSU could field a team and play in the conference, but man, the adjustment would be insane. And I write all this as someone who otherwise wouldn't mind the matchups in the Mountain West or the opportunity to compete. The financial and practical aspects are overwhelming, though.

So, there you go. If you take all that, there is no way in hell to not be appalled at the prospect. Looking at something like "there are some guys in G of 5 who played in the NFL," or "if we got in the playoff, we'd get exposure" are just so beyond missing the point it's hard to know how to respond.

 

[CougSinceBirth]

OK ... I hate to be so negative, really, and I'll stop after this. But apparently this stuff needs to be written. I thought most of our fans knew all this, at least at some level.

The school still has a lot of debt for the stadium improvement and FOB, even though it refinanced some of it. The university took out more debt to help bridge the COVID gap. Those were to be repaid with Pac-12 media rights and bowl distributions.

Pac-12 schools are set to get something like $30-35m a year in the expected media rights deal in 2024.

So let's say the Mountain West doubles its deal in 2026. Let's go even more than that -- a 250% increase. Probably won't happen, but sure, why not. That's ... $10m/year. So $10m a year instead of $30-35m for a school that already was broke and paying off debt when it had $22m a year rolling in from Larry's lousy deal. The implications are pretty obvious and, while I won't play it out, that is some serious shit.

Also, WSU wouldn't be expected to be some kind of dominant force, even in the Mountain West. It's not like you take its current players / recruiting and just compete with Mountain West have-nots. The only reason WSU even recruits at its current level is the Pac-12 affiliation. WSU would settle into a lower- to middle-tier position in that conference in view of its location. It could probably still land some Washington kids who aren't P5 caliber, but California and Texas recruits aren't choosing WSU over places like San Jose, Las Vegas, San Diego, Honolulu, and some others, even if WSU could hang in there with some of the other places like Laramie, Logan, and Fort Collins.

Meanwhile, WSU not only would have to adjust to the Mountain West revenues but would have that debt overhang from its attempts to keep up in P5, which would really cramp spending, even in that conference. It would have a pretty nice FOB, but that's it. Attendance would be really bad, even if the team is good, and horrible if it wasn't. Donations would crater, etc. WSU could field a team and play in the conference, but man, the adjustment would be insane. And I write all this as someone who otherwise wouldn't mind the matchups in the Mountain West or the opportunity to compete. The financial and practical aspects are overwhelming, though.

So, there you go. If you take all that, there is no way in hell to not be appalled at the prospect. Looking at something like "there are some guys in G of 5 who played in the NFL," or "if we got in the playoff, we'd get exposure" are just so beyond missing the point it's hard to know how to respond.

And enrollment will drop because of not being in a P5, impacting the whole university. It's can easily spiral.

 

[CougSinceBirth]

If WSU and OSU get left out, there's nothing any of us can do about it. The MWC is still going to get a playoff bid, and that'll be our fate. Life moves on.

Fans and donors can quit caring. And I think a lot of that will happen.

 

[Chucksizzle1]

Television revenue sharing is the money factor. There may be an argument that being buried in a super conference like UCLA will be, lessens the chance of them ever having a shot at a 12 team playoff than if they had stayed in a weaker pac 12.

everything is relative, the mid to lower tier sec schools are getting buried too, and their rosters are getting picked off by the richer schools.

i don’t look at the g5 guys as cherry picking, it’s more like shi* rolls down hill. P5 developmental schools are getting their rosters raided, so they are raiding the g5 schools.

it is a good strategy that Leach was using, pulling top players off g5 schools, he Tried to pull 3 o lineman from western Kentucky and middle tenn state. All three were studs who would be quality Starters in the sec. Many of the receivers he was looking at were polished 4th and 5th year g5 guys. It’s a smart strategy. These are players who weren’t necessarily P5 out of hs but developed into P5 starters at the g 5 level.

 

[How_did_this_happen?]

And enrollment will drop because of not being in a P5, impacting the whole university. It's can easily spiral.

We and most schools that don't have big brand names are going to struggle with enrollment issues anyway. The GenZ demographic is much smaller in numbers than the Millenials. Declining birthrates are going to continue to be a big issue in the next 10-15 years.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

We and most schools that don't have big brand names are going to struggle with enrollment issues anyway. The GenZ demographic is much smaller in numbers than the Millenials. Declining birthrates are going to continue to be a big issue in the next 10-15 years.

Um, enrollment is already dropping (link below)

WSU’s Enrollment Crisis

On Nov. 17 and 18, WSU’s Board of Regents met to decide on new plans for the university such as renovating campus, planning on sizing for staff and renaming locations on campus. Looking back at the budgetary impacts the pandemic has heavily affected enrollment as it declined in 2022 and revenue...

dailyevergreen.com

Edit - I remember back in my day when enrollment was lagging and apartments were taking a big hit. Since then there has been nothing but build build build. Pullman has become one big apartment complex. And the BS Freshman live on campus rule has kept the overpriced dorms and dining halls alive.

Morbidly curious to observe the next few years. Not that I wish developers ill, but it is a bit sad to see the surrounding fields become apartment developments. If the article is true and enrollment is really down 5,000 (not sure how the numbers play out in Vancouver, etc) that could be devastasting.

 

[How_did_this_happen?]

Um, enrollment is already dropping (link below)

WSU’s Enrollment Crisis

On Nov. 17 and 18, WSU’s Board of Regents met to decide on new plans for the university such as renovating campus, planning on sizing for staff and renaming locations on campus. Looking back at the budgetary impacts the pandemic has heavily affected enrollment as it declined in 2022 and revenue...

dailyevergreen.com

Exactly. Gen Z demographic <<< Millenial demographic

Edit: There are more Gen Z than I thought, but their numbers are ~4M less than Millenials. Clearly, other factors are at play as well. The loss of value of a college education being a big part of it.

 

[wazzucougs96]

Exactly. Gen Z demographic <<< Millenial demographic

Edit: There are more Gen Z than I thought, but their numbers are ~4M less than Millenials. Clearly, other factors are at play as well. The loss of value of a college education being a big part of it.

This is a myth.

Also it might take a dip as Gen Z works their way through, but there are going to be a lot of children of Millennials going to college before too long.

 

[PeteTheChop]

Hell no and F-no. Nothing school with a BB team and a second rate school with basically nothing in a nothing state where having 3 teeth get you registered to vote.

Haven't heard much about about Boise's academics, but ya gotta think WSU-BSU would sell a lot of tickets at Martin Stadium and Potato Bowl Field.

It could be a 4th rival on WSU's conference schedule to go with UO, OSU and UW

 

[CougPatrol]

I wish public universities would think outside the box and expand their degree offerings to include some trade school degrees.

Get ahead of the curve and work with tech companies to offer 2-year or 4-year degree programs. Offer traditional trade degrees to kids who would enjoy the college experience, but who aren't academically inclined. Spashing in some entry level business, social sciences, and public speaking training to kids who want to pursue traditional blue collar trades would dramatically help them out.

 

[PeteTheChop]

OK ... I hate to be so negative, really, and I'll stop after this. But apparently this stuff needs to be written. I thought most of our fans knew all this, at least at some level.

The school still has a lot of debt for the stadium improvement and FOB, even though it refinanced some of it. The university took out more debt to help bridge the COVID gap. Those were to be repaid with Pac-12 media rights and bowl distributions.

Pac-12 schools are set to get something like $30-35m a year in the expected media rights deal in 2024.

So let's say the Mountain West doubles its deal in 2026. Let's go even more than that -- a 250% increase. Probably won't happen, but sure, why not. That's ... $10m/year. So $10m a year instead of $30-35m for a school that already was broke and paying off debt when it had $22m a year rolling in from Larry's lousy deal. The implications are pretty obvious and, while I won't play it out, that is some serious shit.

Also, WSU wouldn't be expected to be some kind of dominant force, even in the Mountain West. It's not like you take its current players / recruiting and just compete with Mountain West have-nots. The only reason WSU even recruits at its current level is the Pac-12 affiliation. WSU would settle into a lower- to middle-tier position in that conference in view of its location. It could probably still land some Washington kids who aren't P5 caliber, but California and Texas recruits aren't choosing WSU over places like San Jose, Las Vegas, San Diego, Honolulu, and some others, even if WSU could hang in there with some of the other places like Laramie, Logan, and Fort Collins.

Meanwhile, WSU not only would have to adjust to the Mountain West revenues but would have that debt overhang from its attempts to keep up in P5, which would really cramp spending, even in that conference. It would have a pretty nice FOB, but that's it. Attendance would be really bad, even if the team is good, and horrible if it wasn't. Donations would crater, etc. WSU could field a team and play in the conference, but man, the adjustment would be insane. And I write all this as someone who otherwise wouldn't mind the matchups in the Mountain West or the opportunity to compete. The financial and practical aspects are overwhelming, though.

So, there you go. If you take all that, there is no way in hell to not be appalled at the prospect. Looking at something like "there are some guys in G of 5 who played in the NFL," or "if we got in the playoff, we'd get exposure" are just so beyond missing the point it's hard to know how to respond.

Superbly written as usual 425.

But, with all due respect, maybe the future doesn't have to be as bleak as laid out.

If, as mentioned earlier in the thread, Cal, Oregon, Stanford and Washington, are invited to the Big Ten at some point ... well, no need for it to be the end of the world.

IMO, no good reason WSU and OSU can't tag along with the Four Corners 4 to the Big XII. Two flagship universities in vibrant, growing states — the PNW ain't Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, etc. The Beavs could be a Top 10 team in the final rankings next month; the Cougs did the same just a few years ago. Winning at the P5 level in revenue sports has been and remains in reach.

IMHO, one thing WSU can't do is take its foot off the gas pedal in the facilities race. To paraphrase Biggs: Nothing says commitment to being big-time quite like top-flight facilties. OSU's administration will be able to sell their remodeled stadium to the Big XII bigwigs. WSU can do the same once the shovels hit the ground on the new IPF and the stadium enhancements Biggs and others have discussed are underway.

Definitely no time to sit still