Roster Revenue sharing is here....

[M-I-Coug]

WSU AD Anne McCoy issues statement following House settlement​

Greg Woods
June 7, 2025
The Spokesman-Review

PULLMAN — At Washington State and everywhere else in the college athletics landscape, a new era is upon us.

The House vs. NCAA settlement was granted final approval on Friday, paving the way for athletic departments to begin directly paying athletes via an annual revenue-sharing pool, which will be capped at $20.5 million in the first year. It begins on July 1, the same start date as WSU’s fiscal year 2026.

“WSU has been preparing for this moment and will operationalize a budget structure for each of our programs to put the scholarships, academic stipends, and name, image, and likeness (NIL) payments to use where they will be most impactful,” McCoy said in a statement published Saturday. “This programmatic autonomy will ensure that each of our head coaches can maximize the resources available to continue leading as we transition into the new Pac-12 Conference.”

The biggest spenders across the country will fund the full $20.5M and much more, which will be made possible by payments from boosters and NIL collectives, perhaps furthering the gap between top programs and those who can’t spend as much.

WSU will allocate $4.5M for football revenue-sharing, McCoy said in January, indicating that number also includes scholarships. It’s unclear what kind of money that leaves over for true revenue-sharing — and how many spots the school plans to fund, which included the full 85 last season, McCoy said. The Spokesman-Review is attempting to reach McCoy for an interview for next week.

While the Cougars’ $4.5M figure might be a fraction of what the bigger spenders across the country are paying out to their rosters, the number figures to be competitive within the new Pac-12 Conference, which launches beginning with the 2026-27 season. New members include Gonzaga (which, without a football program, will enjoy the benefit of being able to allocate more funds for men’s basketball), Colorado State, Boise State, Fresno State and Utah State.

As of Saturday, the Cougars’ football team is slated to have 114 players for the upcoming season, nine over the roster limits of 105, which are part of the House settlement. That includes 75 players listed on the summer roster, 26 incoming freshmen and 13 transfer players — forcing head coach Jimmy Rogers and Co. to make decisions on how to get to 105 players or fewer.

WSU’s athletics budget for fiscal year 2026 will be $74.4 million, university regents announced on Thursday. That’s about the same as WSU’s fiscal year 2025 budget, but it’s down significantly from the 2024 budget, which was $85M. The Cougars had to pare down their spending in the wake of the traditional Pac-12’s collapse, which took place in August 2023.

When it comes to revenue-sharing distribution on WSU’s football team, much of the decision-making will fall to general manager Ricky Ciccone, who came over from a similar role at Louisiana last season.

“All you’re doing is assigning a dollar amount,” Ciccone said in an interview with the Spokesman-Review. “It used to just be, he’s a one (scholarship), and you had 85 of them. Now you have a dollar amount. So you’re assigning a dollar amount to player X, player Z.”

Greg Woods: Washington State beat writer for The Spokesman-Review

 

[Loyal Coug1]

WSU AD Anne McCoy issues statement following House settlement​

Greg Woods
June 7, 2025
The Spokesman-Review

PULLMAN — At Washington State and everywhere else in the college athletics landscape, a new era is upon us.

The House vs. NCAA settlement was granted final approval on Friday, paving the way for athletic departments to begin directly paying athletes via an annual revenue-sharing pool, which will be capped at $20.5 million in the first year. It begins on July 1, the same start date as WSU’s fiscal year 2026.

“WSU has been preparing for this moment and will operationalize a budget structure for each of our programs to put the scholarships, academic stipends, and name, image, and likeness (NIL) payments to use where they will be most impactful,” McCoy said in a statement published Saturday. “This programmatic autonomy will ensure that each of our head coaches can maximize the resources available to continue leading as we transition into the new Pac-12 Conference.”

The biggest spenders across the country will fund the full $20.5M and much more, which will be made possible by payments from boosters and NIL collectives, perhaps furthering the gap between top programs and those who can’t spend as much.

WSU will allocate $4.5M for football revenue-sharing, McCoy said in January, indicating that number also includes scholarships. It’s unclear what kind of money that leaves over for true revenue-sharing — and how many spots the school plans to fund, which included the full 85 last season, McCoy said. The Spokesman-Review is attempting to reach McCoy for an interview for next week.

While the Cougars’ $4.5M figure might be a fraction of what the bigger spenders across the country are paying out to their rosters, the number figures to be competitive within the new Pac-12 Conference, which launches beginning with the 2026-27 season. New members include Gonzaga (which, without a football program, will enjoy the benefit of being able to allocate more funds for men’s basketball), Colorado State, Boise State, Fresno State and Utah State.

As of Saturday, the Cougars’ football team is slated to have 114 players for the upcoming season, nine over the roster limits of 105, which are part of the House settlement. That includes 75 players listed on the summer roster, 26 incoming freshmen and 13 transfer players — forcing head coach Jimmy Rogers and Co. to make decisions on how to get to 105 players or fewer.

WSU’s athletics budget for fiscal year 2026 will be $74.4 million, university regents announced on Thursday. That’s about the same as WSU’s fiscal year 2025 budget, but it’s down significantly from the 2024 budget, which was $85M. The Cougars had to pare down their spending in the wake of the traditional Pac-12’s collapse, which took place in August 2023.

When it comes to revenue-sharing distribution on WSU’s football team, much of the decision-making will fall to general manager Ricky Ciccone, who came over from a similar role at Louisiana last season.

“All you’re doing is assigning a dollar amount,” Ciccone said in an interview with the Spokesman-Review. “It used to just be, he’s a one (scholarship), and you had 85 of them. Now you have a dollar amount. So you’re assigning a dollar amount to player X, player Z.”

Greg Woods: Washington State beat writer for The Spokesman-Review

Wow. I call complete BS on this entire article. First, McCoy gives a complete blah blah statement. "will operationalize a budget structure for each of our programs" . WTF does that even mean? Operationalize? Is that even a word?

Then it goes to McCoy's January statement, that "WSU will allocate $4.5M for football revenue-sharing, McCoy said in January, indicating that number also includes scholarships."

OK, so how does that jive with the Athletics budget that I presented in the other thread? Scholarships are budgeted to go up $.7M. So in other words, the $4.5M number from January translates into basically $-0- for FY 25-26.

Thank Gawd the Omnipotent and Mighty Loyal One is also a Zeus-like accountant so that he can shower his knowledge and BS meter on the huddled masses here on WW.

Oh, also, as of today, we are 9 players above the 105 player limit? $5 sez the 9 will all be (Pre-CJR) Cougs. WTF. School starts in 2+ months.

"As of Saturday, the Cougars’ football team is slated to have 114 players for the upcoming season, nine over the roster limits of 105, which are part of the House settlement. That includes 75 players listed on the summer roster, 26 incoming freshmen and 13 transfer players"

 

[UberCougars]

Grok says the annual value of an in-state athletic scholarship is about $30k + “a small stipend to help cover expenses”
A out-of-state is worth about $46k + stipend.

McCoy says, we’re now going to just flip the lingo and call it good?

Fun with numbers:

50 players @ $30k (in-state) +stipend plus 55 players at $46k (out of state) + stipend =

$1.5 mm + 2.53 mm = $4.03 million

4.5 million - 4.03 million = $497k to pay stipends.

$497,000 / 105 =$4,733.33 available for each stipend.

Sounds like some of the players now receiving stipends will have their stipends eliminated so that the “stars” can be paid something.

 

[ttowncoug]

The $4.5M is not acceptable. We are truly going to revert back to Paul Wulff era type of recruiting very soon. If this truly is basically a re-bucketing of scholarship money, and calling it revenue sharing, with no direct payment of additional money to athletes, we need to start over.

We need an AD that can go pound the pavement and get the resources for WSU to compete. McCoy isn't that person. And for everyone who blindly supports these results, you are enabling the problem.

 

[dgibbons]

The $4.5M is not acceptable. We are truly going to revert back to Paul Wulff era type of recruiting very soon. If this truly is basically a re-bucketing of scholarship money, and calling it revenue sharing, with no direct payment of additional money to athletes, we need to start over.

We need an AD that can go pound the pavement and get the resources for WSU to compete. McCoy isn't that person. And for everyone who blindly supports these results, you are enabling the problem.

McCoy was hired to be a caretaker and get the AD through the transition to a new conference. Complaining doesn't provide a solution. Who is the person you want to hire and why? And why would that person take on a difficult job, with small chance of success, for that pay the WSU could afford?

I don't have anything for or against McCoy. The questions above need answers before a change is made. Change for the sake of change doesn't move the ball forward, and may put WSU in a worse position.

 

[ttowncoug]

McCoy was hired to be a caretaker and get the AD through the transition to a new conference. Complaining doesn't provide a solution. Who is the person you want to hire and why? And why would that person take on a difficult job, with small chance of success, for that pay the WSU could afford?

I don't have anything for or against McCoy. The questions above need answers before a change is made. Change for the sake of change doesn't move the ball forward, and may put WSU in a worse position.

Our next move needs to be the Big-12. Not tinkering around with the Pac-12.

We need to hire someone like Bill Moos and someone who is connected with WSU alums. Someone who wants to reboot the engagements efforts necessary to get WSU competitive again.

What we need is a a "mighty by many" campaign, and McCoy and this staff isn't going to get us there.

We need to start getting very aggressive to build out a revenue sharing pool. This isn't coming from media dollars. This has to come through new funding.

And how are we going to get more donor/sponsorship dollars? We need more of a westside presence. We have had one westside engagement event this year (In Bellevue). We used to have golf tournaments. They used to do a tailgate/BBQ in the Tri-Cities. I don't care if these events only make a hundred dollars. Getting out and being engaged is extremely important.

I understand the McCoy hire and why, but the longer we wait to enact change, the longer we make excuses and play the victim card, the longer it's going to take to dig out of the hole we put ourselves in.

 

[UberCougars]

The guud news is that we finally have a ruthless experienced executive negotiating NIL deals now.

 

[COUGinNCW]

The $4.5M is not acceptable. We are truly going to revert back to Paul Wulff era type of recruiting very soon. If this truly is basically a re-bucketing of scholarship money, and calling it revenue sharing, with no direct payment of additional money to athletes, we need to start over.

We need an AD that can go pound the pavement and get the resources for WSU to compete. McCoy isn't that person. And for everyone who blindly supports these results, you are enabling the problem.

Our tv contract is going to be $20M less then the Big12 and ACC and $40M behind the B2. Where’s the money going to come from?

 

[PeteTheChop]

The $4.5M is not acceptable. We are truly going to revert back to Paul Wulff era type of recruiting very soon

Those Big XII/SEC/Big Ten schools maxing out their rev share at $20.5M for 2025-26 school year are expected to funnel about $14M to their football players.

T-town, do you know if the nine-figure Pac-12 nest egg is off limits for revenue sharing?

Our next move needs to be the Big-12. Not tinkering around with the Pac-12.

Reports suggest Oregon State is making an institutional push for the Big 12. Is it safe assume Ann McCoy and the lady who replaced Dr. Schultz are doing the same for WSU?

We need to hire someone like Bill Moos

Spokesman-Review article from last spring:

"By 2012, WSU moved forward on $165 million worth of upgrades to football-only facilities. More spending upgraded the baseball clubhouse, training facilities, practice facilities for men’s and women’s basketball, and a new soccer complex. That same model, upgrading facilities to attract recruits, had worked everywhere Bill Moos had been.

“That arms race of it, I was in the middle of it,” Moos said. “I’m probably the poster boy.”

But as a result, current WSU President Kirk Schulz now faces an uncertain revenue situation after the breakup of the Pac-12, and $100 million in debt from Moos and Floyd’s spending.

“There was debt service that I will take full responsibility there,” Moos said. “But, it was money well spent. To get our facilities up to par and to hire a coach like Mike Leach. Look what came of it.”

 

[95coug]

Our next move needs to be the Big-12. Not tinkering around with the Pac-12.

We need to hire someone like Bill Moos and someone who is connected with WSU alums. Someone who wants to reboot the engagements efforts necessary to get WSU competitive again.

What we need is a a "mighty by many" campaign, and McCoy and this staff isn't going to get us there.

We need to start getting very aggressive to build out a revenue sharing pool. This isn't coming from media dollars. This has to come through new funding.

And how are we going to get more donor/sponsorship dollars? We need more of a westside presence. We have had one westside engagement event this year (In Bellevue). We used to have golf tournaments. They used to do a tailgate/BBQ in the Tri-Cities. I don't care if these events only make a hundred dollars. Getting out and being engaged is extremely important.

I understand the McCoy hire and why, but the longer we wait to enact change, the longer we make excuses and play the victim card, the longer it's going to take to dig out of the hole we put ourselves in.

I don't necessarily disagree, but rather than agreeing that "we need more of a westside presence," I think someone should be taking a really close look at events we've had in the past and what they've brought in. If the westside events historically give us the best ROI, then sure....we need more of a presence there. But if those events didn't make any money, we shouldn't waste the time.

I'm skeptical of the west side, because while I know we have a lot of alums there, they couldn't keep the Seattle games alive (which doesn't disappoint me) and couldn't keep WSU West open. So, I don't really believe that they're going to show up with their checkbooks.

It'll take more time and probably more staff to support westside events, and prices are higher, so they're going to cost more. If the revenue doesn't more than offset the additional expenses, it's not worth it. If we have to spend an extra 100K to get 50K more....then have another event in Spokane or Tri-Cities.

Of course, the real problem is that WSU historically doesn't do that....they'll just crow about how much money an event brings in, and not mention that it cost more than they made.

 

[95coug]

Those Big XII/SEC/Big Ten schools maxing out their rev share at $20.5M for 2025-26 school year are expected to funnel about $14M to their football players.

T-town, do you know if the nine-figure Pac-12 nest egg is off limits for revenue sharing?



Reports suggest Oregon State is making an institutional push for the Big 12. Is it safe assume Ann McCoy and the lady who replaced Dr. Schultz are doing the same for WSU?



Spokesman-Review article from last spring:

"By 2012, WSU moved forward on $165 million worth of upgrades to football-only facilities. More spending upgraded the baseball clubhouse, training facilities, practice facilities for men’s and women’s basketball, and a new soccer complex. That same model, upgrading facilities to attract recruits, had worked everywhere Bill Moos had been.

“That arms race of it, I was in the middle of it,” Moos said. “I’m probably the poster boy.”

But as a result, current WSU President Kirk Schulz now faces an uncertain revenue situation after the breakup of the Pac-12, and $100 million in debt from Moos and Floyd’s spending.

“There was debt service that I will take full responsibility there,” Moos said. “But, it was money well spent. To get our facilities up to par and to hire a coach like Mike Leach. Look what came of it.”

CAn't really blame Moos...at the time, it was the right move. He couldn't have known that the Pac-12 would implode a few years later. In fact, if it hadn't been for Larry Scott's mismanagement of the conference and the Pac-12 Network, the situation might be completely different.

As for the new president...I kind of doubt she's worrying deeply about what conference we're in right now. She's more concerned about the programs, operations, and people that are going to be cut in the next 3 weeks.

 

[ttowncoug]

There is money on the west side, not tapped into.

This boat was parked in Gig Harbor, over the weekend, with a WSU flag and an Auburn flag. It's a 164 feet.

https://www.superyachttimes.com/yachts/seanash/overview

I suspect the guy might be buddies with Beckel - who I think still has a house on the water - but the point is, we have cash over here, and if we have alums with cash to have Super Yachts coming over, with a WSU flag repping, we need to do more stuff closer to them.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

McCoy was hired to be a caretaker and get the AD through the transition to a new conference. Complaining doesn't provide a solution. Who is the person you want to hire and why? And why would that person take on a difficult job, with small chance of success, for that pay the WSU could afford?

I don't have anything for or against McCoy. The questions above need answers before a change is made. Change for the sake of change doesn't move the ball forward, and may put WSU in a worse position.

Its not complaining, its stating the obvious. It doen't matter who is in the driver's seat, WSU is financially inferior by far to 90% of the P4 teams. Maybe even 95%. We are barely competitive with the good G5 teams financially.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

The $4.5M is not acceptable. We are truly going to revert back to Paul Wulff era type of recruiting very soon. If this truly is basically a re-bucketing of scholarship money, and calling it revenue sharing, with no direct payment of additional money to athletes, we need to start over.

T-town, do you know if the nine-figure Pac-12 nest egg is off limits for revenue sharing?
”

CAn't really blame Moos...at the time, it was the right move. He couldn't have known that the Pac-12 would implode a few years later. In fact, if it hadn't been for Larry Scott's mismanagement of the conference and the Pac-12 Network, the situation might be completely different.

As for the new president...I kind of doubt she's worrying deeply about what conference we're in right now. She's more concerned about the programs, operations, and people that are going to be cut in the next 3 weeks.

Ok, in order:

We know that the $4.5M figure that McCoy threw out in January is BS, because the FY 25-26 budget, just approved by the Regents. has no such line item or increase to other line items in it. Fact. So while she may have thought her statement was true in January, it has been proved to be BS.

And Pete, once again - there is not a 9 figure (9 figures means over $100M) waiting. As I meticulously pointed out previously, the Pac-2 has or will have spent $170M of the windfall simply to cover operations by the end of FY26. So that takes us down to $80M right there. Not counting poaching fees (still TBD), or the millions in legal fees that we have or will have incurred this year and next, or costs (unknown) of helping with Traitor exit fees and getting the 8th member. And $30M of the dwindling pot doesn't come until post-FY 26.

Finally, the Moos decision was the correct one at the time, although one could argue that it was too spendy. And of course the complete BS revenue projections for the Pac-12 network. Which are what prodded Moos to blow as big of a wad as he did. A wad we never got.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

I don't necessarily disagree, but rather than agreeing that "we need more of a westside presence," I think someone should be taking a really close look at events we've had in the past and what they've brought in. If the westside events historically give us the best ROI, then sure....we need more of a presence there. But if those events didn't make any money, we shouldn't waste the time.

I'm skeptical of the west side, because while I know we have a lot of alums there, they couldn't keep the Seattle games alive (which doesn't disappoint me) and couldn't keep WSU West open. So, I don't really believe that they're going to show up with their checkbooks.

It'll take more time and probably more staff to support westside events, and prices are higher, so they're going to cost more. If the revenue doesn't more than offset the additional expenses, it's not worth it. If we have to spend an extra 100K to get 50K more....then have another event in Spokane or Tri-Cities.

Of course, the real problem is that WSU historically doesn't do that....they'll just crow about how much money an event brings in, and not mention that it cost more than they made.

They made money.

Did it move the needle? No. Portland at the biggest was barely eclipsed 6 figures. I'm sure Seattle was more (it was but I can't remember the numbers).

What it did do was make a couple of hundred WSU fans feel important and included, and more likely to open their pocket book throughout the year(s). The events were growing in attendance and revenue before they inexplicably shut them down. My gut feeling was the AD staff responsible simply didn't want to put in the effort for not a ton of revenue, while completely disregarding the goodwill and loyalty they were building within the fanbase. Not to mention (again) that they treated their volunteers like shit towards the end, but pissed and moaned about having too much work to do.

I'm a firm believer in the events. They can and should be volunteer driven, with swoop in appearances by the WSU folks to kiss babies and shake hands. Not only do you maximize profits this way, you increase the efficiency with which the event gets planned. We had a good thing rolling until WSU AD staff decided they needed to run all aspects of the events, mostly from Pullman by the way.

 

[95coug]

Ok, in order:

We know that the $4.5M figure that McCoy threw out in January is BS, because the FY 25-26 budget, just approved by the Regents. has no such line item or increase to other line items in it. Fact. So while she may have thought her statement was true in January, it has been proved to be BS.

And Pete, once again - there is not a 9 figure (9 figures means over $100M) waiting. As I meticulously pointed out previously, the Pac-2 has or will have spent $170M of the windfall simply to cover operations by the end of FY26. So that takes us down to $80M right there. Not counting poaching fees (still TBD), or the millions in legal fees that we have or will have incurred this year and next, or costs (unknown) of helping with Traitor exit fees and getting the 8th member. And $30M of the dwindling pot doesn't come until post-FY 26.

Finally, the Moos decision was the correct one at the time, although one could argue that it was too spendy. And of course the complete BS revenue projections for the Pac-12 network. Which are what prodded Moos to blow as big of a wad as he did. A wad we never got.

I agree with the last point, and I'm never really on board with the idea of spending based on speculative revenue, so wasn't really comfortable with the moves at the time. But, Moos and Floyd really wanted to believe what Larry Scott was selling, so they did...even if it all seemed a little too good to be true, and was.

Total tangent, but the same thing is happening where I live. The city has started a large development project, funded by what they call "tax increment financing." Basically, they're building infrastructure for a development, with the theory that they'll pay back the money using increased property tax revenues that will be realized once the property is developed. So not only are they spending money they don't have, but they're committing future revenues for an unknown duration...whether the development actually happens or not. Nothing can go wrong there, right?

 

[95coug]

They made money.

Did it move the needle? No. Portland at the biggest was barely eclipsed 6 figures. I'm sure Seattle was more (it was but I can't remember the numbers).

What it did do was make a couple of hundred WSU fans feel important and included, and more likely to open their pocket book throughout the year(s). The events were growing in attendance and revenue before they inexplicably shut them down. My gut feeling was the AD staff responsible simply didn't want to put in the effort for not a ton of revenue, while completely disregarding the goodwill and loyalty they were building within the fanbase. Not to mention (again) that they treated their volunteers like shit towards the end, but pissed and moaned about having too much work to do.

I'm a firm believer in the events. They can and should be volunteer driven, with swoop in appearances by the WSU folks to kiss babies and shake hands. Not only do you maximize profits this way, you increase the efficiency with which the event gets planned. We had a good thing rolling until WSU AD staff decided they needed to run all aspects of the events, mostly from Pullman by the way.

I'm willing to accept every word of that...but I'll point out that - at least from a development perspective - goodwill and loyalty are pretty useless unless they're accompanied by a check.

As for the 'mostly from Pullman' part....that has been the trend for several years. Schulz' "One WSU" model was a candy coated version of saying 'everything Pullman's way.' I've been hoping that would disappear with him, and it appears that the terminology has, but the sentiment remains...and there are conflicting indications from the new president on whether those things will get better or worse.

 

[PeteTheChop]

I agree with the last point, and I'm never really on board with the idea of spending based on speculative revenue, so wasn't really comfortable with the moves at the time. But, Moos and Floyd really wanted to believe what Larry Scott was selling, so they did...even if it all seemed a little too good to be true, and was.

@95coug ... But what does the recent past and current trajectory of WSU Football look like if Mr. Moos (with Dr. Floyd's blessing) doesn't max out the company credit card for that $165M-plus spending spree a decade ago?

WSU cracked the Top 20 in 7 of the past 10 seasons during that span. The majority of FBS schools would be proud to have that sort of gridiron legacy

 

[PeteTheChop]

More from ESPN today re: revenue sharing with players:

• "ACC commissioner Jim Phillips, who spoke Monday on a Zoom news conference (about the House Settlement) with fellow commissioners Greg Sankey (SEC), Tony Petitti (Big Ten), Brett Yormark (Big 12) and Teresa Gould (Pac-12)." Encouraging to see the big boys are including Mrs. Gould at the table.
• "The annual cap is expected to start at $20.5 million per school in 2025-26 and increase every year during the decade-long deal. Those payments will be in addition to scholarships and other benefits the athletes already receive." How much (if any) will that impact Ann McCoy's budgeting process?

 

[ttowncoug]

I agree with the last point, and I'm never really on board with the idea of spending based on speculative revenue, so wasn't really comfortable with the moves at the time. But, Moos and Floyd really wanted to believe what Larry Scott was selling, so they did...even if it all seemed a little too good to be true, and was.

Total tangent, but the same thing is happening where I live. The city has started a large development project, funded by what they call "tax increment financing." Basically, they're building infrastructure for a development, with the theory that they'll pay back the money using increased property tax revenues that will be realized once the property is developed. So not only are they spending money they don't have, but they're committing future revenues for an unknown duration...whether the development actually happens or not. Nothing can go wrong there, right?

All that was on Larry Scott and overpromising and underdelivering. WSU was so far behind back then in terms of facilities.

We will be, in about 2 weeks, so far behind so many schools from a revenue sharing, paying your football players perspective.

How many good players are going to pass over a free school plus say, $8k per month in a stipend to play football, to go to WSU and receive nothing in terms of cash compensation? The kid getting $8K, can also earn whatever they earn in additional NIL money. Now it has to be "legit" and pass through the clearinghouse.

Basic math, I'm suggesting WSU needs a min of $10M in football revenue sharing to even stay close. That would put around $100K on the table to around 100 players. Some get more, some get less.

I also put the basketball number at $4M. Let's say we want to rev share $1M to women's sports, so let's say we need $15M in new money to WSU for revenue sharing. That is the task: get $15M of new money into WSU. No excuses, figure it out.

Again, where is McCoy at?

Where is the rally call?

Where is the vision?

We are simply being complacent and saying, "she's a care taker, give her a break T-Town." That's BS.

She took the job, she knows the hole we are in, she needs to lead us out of this mess. There isn't any other choice then leading us out of the mess. If she's not willing to lead us to where we need to go, resign or retire.

 

[Observer11]

There is money on the west side, not tapped into.

This boat was parked in Gig Harbor, over the weekend, with a WSU flag and an Auburn flag. It's a 164 feet.

View embedded media

https://www.superyachttimes.com/yachts/seanash/overview

I suspect the guy might be buddies with Beckel - who I think still has a house on the water - but the point is, we have cash over here, and if we have alums with cash to have Super Yachts coming over, with a WSU flag repping, we need to do more stuff closer to them.

Need to go all Somali pirate and tell him who is the captain now until he writes a fat check to WSU.

 

[95coug]

@95coug ... But what does the recent past and current trajectory of WSU Football look like if Mr. Moos (with Dr. Floyd's blessing) doesn't max out the company credit card for that $165M-plus spending spree a decade ago?

WSU cracked the Top 20 in 7 of the past 10 seasons during that span. The majority of FBS schools would be proud to have that sort of gridiron legacy

Well, we got left behind even with the facilities, so if we didn't have them...no change. For performance and recruiting...hard to say. The impact of landing Mike Leach probably had a more visible impact on both...but having the facilities certainly also helped close the deal with some recruits.

In the moment, it was probably the right move. But we got burned on it because of Larry Scott's incompetence.

 

[UberCougars]

WSU has some very deep pocket, capable alums but Moos/Chun/McCoy couldn’t make the business case for those alums to write the check we would all like to see.

 

[Stretch 74]

Wow. I call complete BS on this entire article. First, McCoy gives a complete blah blah statement. "will operationalize a budget structure for each of our programs" . WTF does that even mean? Operationalize? Is that even a word?

Then it goes to McCoy's January statement, that "WSU will allocate $4.5M for football revenue-sharing, McCoy said in January, indicating that number also includes scholarships."

OK, so how does that jive with the Athletics budget that I presented in the other thread? Scholarships are budgeted to go up $.7M. So in other words, the $4.5M number from January translates into basically $-0- for FY 25-26.

Thank Gawd the Omnipotent and Mighty Loyal One is also a Zeus-like accountant so that he can shower his knowledge and BS meter on the huddled masses here on WW.

Oh, also, as of today, we are 9 players above the 105 player limit? $5 sez the 9 will all be (Pre-CJR) Cougs. WTF. School starts in 2+ months.

"As of Saturday, the Cougars’ football team is slated to have 114 players for the upcoming season, nine over the roster limits of 105, which are part of the House settlement. That includes 75 players listed on the summer roster, 26 incoming freshmen and 13 transfer players"

Exactly what I thought when I read that article. Along with programmatic autonomy. I hate it when people pull out a word from deep in the Oxford dictionary in order to try to make people think they are smart. We ain't falling for that shit! Listen up, folks-you don't need to write at a second grade level but you can be a more effective communicator using basic words in common usage, and not throwing in words that 99.99% of people have never heard before. All it does is make you look like you are trying too hard.

Kind of a funny story from Boeing days. Back before our buildings were on computers, they were on big gridded mylar sheets showing walls, stairs, furniture, etc at 1/8" scale. All organizations paid monthly Use and Occupancy fees (essentially rent) that we had to track and recalculate any time an organization grew, shrunk, or relocated. It was a pain in the butt to do and long ago somebody made an 8.5x11 gridded transparent sheet that you could overlay onto a building's master and use to immediately find out the square footage of a room. It was quite handy to use and the guy submitted his idea through the company Suggestion System to get rewarded for the time saved by all the project administrators doing their work. He called the sheet a Totalizer, since it quickly showed the total area of a room. Makes good sense, right? Nope! They turned the idea down, no award for him. So he waited a while and submitted the idea again, this time calling it a Totalizationizerator! I kid you not. And guess what? This time he did receive an award for the idea, as he should have.

I often think of this when I see one of those off the wall words or phrases being used, thinking the author is trying to come up with their own version of Totalizationizerator. It doesn't impress me when they do that.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

Exactly what I thought when I read that article. Along with programmatic autonomy. I hate it when people pull out a word from deep in the Oxford dictionary in order to try to make people think they are smart. We ain't falling for that shit! Listen up, folks-you don't need to write at a second grade level but you can be a more effective communicator using basic words in common usage, and not throwing in words that 99.99% of people have never heard before. All it does is make you look like you are trying too hard.

t.

Heh. I try to use words of one syllable or less so that I can understand them. Note that the two big words are syllable and understand. Some linguist want to explain that to me?

Anyway, I worked with a SA VP at one of my schools. Good guy, we disagreed frequently but respected and sorta liked each other. But he had a PhD and would, I swear, write single sentences with at least three 6 syllable words. I had to look all of them up.

 

[BiggsCoug]

All that was on Larry Scott and overpromising and underdelivering. WSU was so far behind back then in terms of facilities.

We will be, in about 2 weeks, so far behind so many schools from a revenue sharing, paying your football players perspective.

How many good players are going to pass over a free school plus say, $8k per month in a stipend to play football, to go to WSU and receive nothing in terms of cash compensation? The kid getting $8K, can also earn whatever they earn in additional NIL money. Now it has to be "legit" and pass through the clearinghouse.

Basic math, I'm suggesting WSU needs a min of $10M in football revenue sharing to even stay close. That would put around $100K on the table to around 100 players. Some get more, some get less.

I also put the basketball number at $4M. Let's say we want to rev share $1M to women's sports, so let's say we need $15M in new money to WSU for revenue sharing. That is the task: get $15M of new money into WSU. No excuses, figure it out.

Again, where is McCoy at?

Where is the rally call?

Where is the vision?

We are simply being complacent and saying, "she's a care taker, give her a break T-Town." That's BS.

She took the job, she knows the hole we are in, she needs to lead us out of this mess. There isn't any other choice then leading us out of the mess. If she's not willing to lead us to where we need to go, resign or retire.

I would wager you would need to double your estimate of $10m to be anywhere near what it will take to be competitive.

WSU is done as we have known it.

 

[PeteTheChop]

I would wager you would need to double your estimate of $10m to be anywhere near what it will take to be competitive.

WSU is done as we have known it.

Not if Ann McCoy and the new lady president can maneuver the Cougs into the Big 12 and WSU can distribute the full $20.5M (and rising) athlete rev share each year.

Ideally they're working in tandem with the OSU athletic director Scott Barnes to create a package deal

 

[BiggsCoug]

Not if Ann McCoy and the new lady president can maneuver the Cougs into the Big 12 and WSU can distribute the full $20.5M (and rising) athlete rev share each year.

Ideally they're working in tandem with the OSU athletic director Scott Barnes to create a package deal

If the Big 12 wanted WSU, they’d have WSU.

Best WSU can hope for is a huge roster limit in place that spreads the talent.

 

[PeteTheChop]

If the Big 12 wanted WSU, they’d have WSU

You might be right ... but the pundits like John Wellner repeatedly said the same thing about the Big Ten and UO/UW.

Maybe WSU/OSU come into the Big 12 at a discount and work their way up to a full share over time

 

[UberCougars]

Neuheisel’s on KJR right now talking about how this deal is untenable long-term because roughly 80% of revenue are going to men’s sports and they will be clearly in violation of federal title nine law

He also said that if college football can clean itself up, there’s an extra $2 billion in media money available

He also just said at the end of the day this is about kids and their education

 

[dgibbons]

Neuheisel’s on KJR right now talking about how this deal is untenable long-term because roughly 80% of revenue are going to men’s sports and they will be clearly in violation of federal title nine law

He also said that if college football can clean itself up, there’s an extra $2 billion in media money available

He also just said at the end of the day this is about kids and their education

Is the Department of Education still in the Title IX enforcement business?

 

[ttowncoug]

Is the Department of Education still in the Title IX enforcement business?

The Feds will introduce language to make sure any revenue sharing is not in violation of Title IX is my bet. It's primarily about access to scholarships and education that Title IX is about. I don't think it ever contemplated paying athletes and how to equally divide the pot.

 

[longtimecoug]

I would wager you would need to double your estimate of $10m to be anywhere near what it will take to be competitive.

WSU is done as we have known it.

this revenue sharing is just another nail in the coffin, anothr wedge between the haves and have nots. we wont even be able to fund the full amount of scholarships much less kick in anothr 20 million

 

[longtimecoug]

Neuheisel’s on KJR right now talking about how this deal is untenable long-term because roughly 80% of revenue are going to men’s sports and they will be clearly in violation of federal title nine law

He also said that if college football can clean itself up, there’s an extra $2 billion in media money available

He also just said at the end of the day this is about kids and their education

not anymore

 

[95coug]

Neuheisel’s on KJR right now talking about how this deal is untenable long-term because roughly 80% of revenue are going to men’s sports and they will be clearly in violation of federal title nine law

He also said that if college football can clean itself up, there’s an extra $2 billion in media money available

He also just said at the end of the day this is about kids and their education

Title IX is about opportunity. Making a Title IX claim from NIL is not what it was ever intended for.

 

[dgibbons]

Title IX is about opportunity. Making a Title IX claim from NIL is not what it was ever intended for.

It wasn't intended to allow a university to discipline a student for getting into a fight in Mexico during spring break either, but we got there. Some things may be addressed by dismantling the DOE's Office for Civil Rights, but I'm not sure what is happening there.

 

[cr8zyncalif]

They made money.

Did it move the needle? No. Portland at the biggest was barely eclipsed 6 figures. I'm sure Seattle was more (it was but I can't remember the numbers).

What it did do was make a couple of hundred WSU fans feel important and included, and more likely to open their pocket book throughout the year(s). The events were growing in attendance and revenue before they inexplicably shut them down. My gut feeling was the AD staff responsible simply didn't want to put in the effort for not a ton of revenue, while completely disregarding the goodwill and loyalty they were building within the fanbase. Not to mention (again) that they treated their volunteers like shit towards the end, but pissed and moaned about having too much work to do.

I'm a firm believer in the events. They can and should be volunteer driven, with swoop in appearances by the WSU folks to kiss babies and shake hands. Not only do you maximize profits this way, you increase the efficiency with which the event gets planned. We had a good thing rolling until WSU AD staff decided they needed to run all aspects of the events, mostly from Pullman by the way.

100%. The events lead to a longer term revenue stream. The fact that they made a little money on their own is gravy. People who understand organizational fundraising all know this. It is fundraising 101 for organizations. The fact that the events fell by the wayside suggests strongly that sufficient resources (as well as thank you's to the volunteers that made them work) were not allocated, because those making the decisions did not understand fundraising. Period.

 

[cr8zyncalif]

The Feds will introduce language to make sure any revenue sharing is not in violation of Title IX is my bet. It's primarily about access to scholarships and education that Title IX is about. I don't think it ever contemplated paying athletes and how to equally divide the pot.

You can count on some version of this being in the legislation.

 

[UberCougars]

Neuhausal also claimed the attorneys were awarded ~$450,000,000 in fees by the court. No doubt, they love the kids too

 

[ttowncoug]

I read that in addition to the fees awarded from the settlement, the attorneys were asking for a percentage of future payments to athletes. Their fees could be significantly higher over the 10 year period of the settlement.