Schulz on Athletics in WSU Mag
- Thread starter CougSinceBirth
- Start date
My idiocy, huh? More insults, no content from you. You didn't read the document, you were and are WRONG on the NCAA BB distribution thing.
So, smarmy lawyer, just say "hey I was wrong on that" and move on. Just can't do it can you? Cuz you F-ing lawyers are always right.
You brought basketball into a football discussion. And I'm not wrong on the NCAA distribution thing. The NCAA will rules on distributions don't trump conference bylaws. Why would they? The NCAA doesn't dictate how conferences distribute money.
Air Force will also semi sometimes, semi consistently beat WSU. They've got an established program with built in recruiting advantages. From 1957 - 2023, Air Force's record is 426-336-12. They have 29 bowl game appearances and have finished ranked in the AP top-10 twice. They have (7) 10-win plus seasons since 1983 with another one on track this year. Air Force is easily one of the most underrated, if not THE most underrated program in college football. Their system is disciplined and their players are tough.
As to your other point on us being a doormat, you have to remember that the memory of WSU being a P12 program is going to fade quickly and a new normal is going to set in. Oregon State, Air Force, Boise, SDSU, Fresno, Utah State, UNLV, and Colorado State are going to have recruiting pitches and NIL offerings that equal or exceed what we have to offer. The will beat WSU more than once in a super great while if we don't significantly step up our game on the NIL front.
Agree. Even without accounting for NIL or unfettered transfers, there's no rational reason to think WSU would be an upper-level team in any conference (other than, say, the Big Sky, maybe, due to legacy facilities for a while) over time. The school is in Pullman. Why would recruits choose WSU over playing in any other areas in which Mountain West schools are located, and why would coaches or their spouses want to stay there? Huge disadvantages in travel, too, compared to most other MWC schools. Now you add NIL (with transfers with immediate eligibility) in the mix and you have to really ask why recruits would choose to play at WSU over just about all of the MWC schools. Some are in legitimately desirable areas (e.g., San Diego or Las Vegas) and the rest at least are big enough to be, well, actual cities, and they all (other than Laramie) are closer to civilization and where most recruits actually are from.
Trying to think about counterarguments, maybe WSU starts pulling a lot more kids from the Puget Sound region who aren't P4 material but they still can be developed. I'm not even sure about that, and as we know, there's a lot more talent in California and elsewhere, but that's the only potential counterargument to any of this I can think of. This implies WSU would lower its expectations due to reduced status, recruiting more regionally, and hoping that pays off when there is a bumper crop of talent in the state and that this talent can be convinced to stay at home, with it less likely than recruiting, say, Texas kids (which WSU no longer will have much money to do anyway, BTW) that transfers will be as impactful. I probably don't even need to go into the reasons why counting on this is hilarious, given the past 20 years, and I won't blame anyone for dismissing it as ridiculous. But I could at least see it. Still almost certainly not dominating anyone, though, even if it works.
Take away P5 status and WSU is going to be in the same place in the MWC as it was in P5, broadly speaking. Maybe even worse, which will surprise some people. It won't be quite as disadvantaged, and not a doormat in the league if it hires solid coaches and they stick around, but it sure as hell isn't going to be a consistent winner in the league in football (or basketball).
We have gone through this several times. Think the last time I did, I came up with describing WSU's place as a hybrid between Wyoming and Utah State, and DGib tossed Nevada in the mix. Nevada makes sense in terms of investment but Reno is an actual Spokane-sized city with things to do and reasons people want to go there and live there. Good outdoor stuff close, too. Are these types of schools (other than Nevada) consistently shitty? Not really, but there definitely are some nadirs mixed in. Anyone ever talk about Wyoming or Utah State nationally except for a few hours on a Saturday if they beat a P5 team, or if they get a rare stretch where an exceptional coach has them unusually good and ranked in the lower end of the top 25 off and on for a while, until that coach leaves? No. Any notion of these types of schools "dominating" anything or being consistent top-level players in the conference? No. Why would there be? That's WSU's likely future.
Oh smarmy. I never said you were wrong about the conference controlling distributions. I did say that it would be a short conversation for the Pac-2.
And for the 50th F-ing time, I did not bring Basketball per se into the discussion. What I did mention was the approx. $50 million in future NCAA distributions from the 6 year rolling average, mainly Big Dance revenues. That's a sizable part of the money we are fighting over.
But F ya smarmy. I'm done with this topic.
Allright, last post on this. No I did not bring basketball into this, just the NCAA revenue distribution. Here is what I said to start this pissing match, smarmy.
"If true then it is all about the money. Would WSU get the $30 million/year if they were to jump (if offered)? What about the Pac-12 future BB and Rose Bowl distributions if the Pac-2 folds? Does that just go away, or does it become a 12-way split for the next 2-6 years?"
"Ehh, it's more than just the FB Playoff. More research needed, but my dog needs to go out."
My dog needs to go out. Now I'm done.
If Dickert finds a way to lose out the rest of the way, paying him a million a year is too much.
I guess we will see what the courts decide, and how much money is actually left, but we are most likely looking at total reset of all programs, which is coaches, assistants, admin, and players, as well as expenses, which I brought up months ago when we got shut out of realignment. When you lose 60 and maybe 70 percent of your revenue, nothing stays the same. My only hope is that somewhere in the Pac 12 ledger there is a lot of money sitting somewhere that no one knew about, which falls in our lap after the legal rulings, and that is like hoping to win a lotto ticket.
If a total reset happens it would be the equivalent to the death sentence, you can't convince me otherwise.
The implications of conference realignment for the Cougs are becoming more dire by the day. At least OSU has a wealthy benefactor willing to keep the athletic department afloat (I'm assuming that will happen.)
OSU is in tough spot due to the stadium remodel just being completed. $162 million.
'Worst possible news at the worst possible time': Oregon State athletics faces uncertain future, growing debt including stadium remodel
Oregon State just completed a $162 million remodel of Reser Stadium, increasing capacity to more than 43,000. That's partly why the Pac-12 shakeup is such bad news.
www.kgw.com
In reality, getting relegated out of a power 5 conference is similar to the death penalty, but we can still play football next year, so more like 40 years without parole. I was thinking this the other day. SMU received the death penalty in 1987, and what they did wrong then, is now legal. And it took them 36 years to buy their way back into a power 5 conference. Even with all that money it took 36 years.
One of the longer term effects of all this, is the impact on WSU as a university. Many professors and Deans had issues with the money being spent on sports, some vocal and many lobbied against issues within the athletic department. IMO overtime, having less money to spend on athletics, will have a negative impact on the various colleges within the University. And I hope they are working on a plan to negate the issues, rather than celebrating the athletic department taking a blow. Many will soon realize that money spent on the athletic programs was beneficial to the entire university.
So where do get that figure? That is nowhere near reality.
And to your subsequent posts, equating a potential slide into G5 bears no resemblance to SMU's death penalty. Respectfully, chill out! Much as I want decisions to be made, we will still be P5 as the Pac-2 next year. From there who the F knows. Idaho seems to have recovered from their slide into the FCS ranks.
Edit: speaking of ways to save money. here is stop 1: That chubby bastard makes $850,000 now? (Article is 2 years old) He made more that Moos on his original contract.
WSU extends athletic director’s contract
President Kirk Schulz announced he has extended the contract of Athletic Director Pat Chun through 2026. Chun was hired as the university's 14th athletic director in February 2018.
news.wsu.edu
Here is some simple math for you, the current TV contract for football pays each pac 12 school about 21 million a year, the current MWC pays each team about 4 million per year. So 4/21=19%, or an 80%+ reduction in football revenue.So where do get that figure? That is nowhere near reality.
And to your subsequent posts, equating a potential slide into G5 bears no resemblance to SMU's death penalty. Respectfully, chill out! Much as I want decisions to be made, we will still be P5 as the Pac-2 next year. From there who the F knows. Idaho seems to have recovered from their slide into the FCS ranks.
Edit: speaking of ways to save money. here is stop 1: That chubby bastard makes $850,000 now? (Article is 2 years old) He made more that Moos on his original contract.
MoneyWSU extends athletic director’s contract
President Kirk Schulz announced he has extended the contract of Athletic Director Pat Chun through 2026. Chun was hired as the university's 14th athletic director in February 2018.
And I am holding out hope, as long as Magoo is driving the buggy anything is possible.
I actually think the opposite is going to happen. WSU is going to shift to a more "normal" and sustainable focus on athletics, and as a result, our academic prestige is going to rise.
So our entire Revenue stream for Football aka Athletics is $21 million? Um, yeah. Our budget is currently north of $69 million. Using your numbers, if we lose 17 (21-4) million in revenue, that is a 25% hit on revenue.
Need to nitpick your wording and math a bit. In that scenario (Mtn West) you laid out WSU would be losing ~80% of one source of Athletic Department revenue. TV income is not the only source. There are alumni donations, concessions, tickets, seatback donations, parking, advertisers, etc. Today TV revenue is indeed the largest source, but not the only source.
Lots of examples of building a strong, nationally prominent athletics program improving academic prestige, including some in the Northwest that readily leap to mind, and that implies there are many more across the country. E.g., Gonzaga (probably the best example, which went from a mediocre private school to what now is perceived as a very good regional private school), Oregon, and even Boise State. Yes, the latter still is an abjectly terrible school academically, but it was much worse before the school gained some notoriety for consistently good and nationally relevant football.
Any examples of this phenomenon you mention, where a school steps things down in terms of a focus on athletics, and that somehow enables it to increase its academic prestige? I'm not aware of any.
I strongly doubt you'll find any, since the most accessible and widely-cited markers of prestige are functions of selectivity, which largely is a function of the number of applications they get.
SMU remained a top-tier academic institution after their football death penalty. My Dad's alma mater, Boston University, gave up on football completely and has risen to one of the top-5 academic schools in the Nation. Locally, Idaho has remained the top school in the state despite being geographically and football challenged. Army and Navy used to rule college football, and now they're in the G5.
Those are insignificant examples though, and I'm not going to argue your point. Truth is, what WSU and OSU are going through right now is unique in my lifetime. It's also important to note that while we're dropping from the P5 ranks, we're still going to be competing at a high D1 level.
My sentiment is based on Washington High School student priorities and what I consider to be an opportunity for WSU to recalibrate. Football doesn't matter to most high school kids in WA state. Hell, the UW / Oregon game this year in Seattle didn't sell out until a couple of days for kickoff. WSU has every opportunity to maintain and grow it's status as the 2nd best academic institution in WA. I don't see that changing.
That's a facially solid response, but it isn't getting at the point. It mainly is about schools staying where they are and, unfortunately, all those examples can be distinguished to the extent they have any validity at all. The SMU example is probably the best one, but I'm not sure you have year-by-year tracking of its academic standing by conventional metrics, if we even could have such things (e.g., USNWR rankings from the '80s). My understanding is that it always was a pretty solid school in a wealthy area for rich kids and stayed that way. Perhaps the death penalty really hurt it for a while until it recovered. Maybe not. I acknowledge that's a pretty decent comp, but I think it's distinguishable due to the school being a private school for rich kids in a relatively wealthy, highly populous area, and in any case, we don't have data that I'm aware of, at least, regarding the hit it took.
Army and Navy are more about a large-scale shifting of the tides from the picture something like 80-100 years ago. Those have no relevance, and we both know it.
Idaho has been small-time in athletics for a long time. Did it suffer a major drop-off when it lost PCC status almost 70 years ago? I don't know. But that isn't really relevant either.
As for BU, it's not a top-5 university. More like top-40 or top-50. With that in mind, it's hard to even trust whatever the point is supposed to be regarding that private liberal arts school in a huge city in the Northeast, a region where all they really care about in college is basketball (and to a lesser extent, hockey) anyway.
I don't think you'll find any larger public research universities with mediocre academics, with little else going on other than big-time college sports -- or, most likely, any more generally -- step things down in major sports, lose a lot of money coming in, go smaller scale on athletics, and see some kind of beneficial shift in academic prestige, especially if there is a concomitant drop in applications. What's the logic there? That you'll see a more serious student choose WSU because the athletics are smaller time and WSU is playing Colorado State instead of UCLA? That less money coming in from sports will help money go to academic efforts? Maybe that people won't donate to the AD any longer, and will direct those to academics? That it will necessitate some kind of greater focus on academics since they are playing in the small(er) time? All this stuff will help offset the loss of applications that is reasonable to expect and that has a direct impact on selectivity and prestige? I doubt it. I'm not even getting into the unquantifiable hit from being lumped in with schools with largely mediocre or bad academics instead of the prior Pac-12 peer institutions, since that isn't all that quantifiable and since I'd be fine with being part of the Big 12.
All that said, I do buy that this is less significant than it might have been in the past, when athletics were more important to students. With you on that. I disagree wholeheartedly that this is going to help from a prestige standpoint, though. Final point from me: WSU's academic prestige already is lousy enough that I don't expect this to cause it to crater. It just won't help and it will help limit whatever improvements someone like V. Lane Rawlins might have dreamt of, which largely was a pipe dream anyway.
Last edited:
If WSU was the WSU of the 60's, 70's, or if WSU had joined either G5, MIDMAJOR, or Big Sky, back in 1967, etc, then you guys would be completely right about going 4-8, 5-7, 6-6, in G5, MWC, etc.
WSU is NOT the POOR OLE LITTLE OLE AW SHUCKS LOVABLE LOSERS, ETC, WSU of 1960 to 1980.
If WSU wins 2 more games, then that's 8, EIGHT STRAIGHT BOWL GAMES. And WSU now is a bigger brand, name, and the GAMEDAY DARLING.
If Nebraska with it's SMALL OMAHA, decided to go to MWC, and SPENT LESS ON ATHLETICS, would they only go 3-9, 4-8, 5-7, etc?
Heck no. Why? Because of their name, brand, tradition.
Recruits, coaches want to go places that are WINNERS.
And right now WSU is a WINNER PROGRAM.
A WINNER PROGRAM that joins the MWC, Spends less on athletics, is STILL going to get good ENOUGH coaches, players, recruits, etc, because a WINNER PROGRAM like WSU still has effective things a GOOD SALESMAN COACH, AD, CAN SELL ABOUT PULLMAN, WSU, TO COACHES, RECRUITS.
As long as WSU goes 6-6 and goes to another bowl game, then if WSU goes to MWC, WSU would be 5-7, 6-6 AT WORST, 1 out of 5 to 7 to 9 years, and 7-5 at below average to average. 8-4 at average to above average. 9-3 at above average to good, 10-2 at good to semi great, 11-1 at great to AWESOME.
In a 30 year, season period, WSU can, would easily go Year 1: 6-6. Year 2: 7-5, year 3: 8-4, Year 5:9-3, year 6: 10-2, year 7: 11-1, year 8: 10-2, year 9: 9-3, year 10: 8-4, year 11: 7-5, year 12: 6-6, year 13; 5-7, year 14: 6-6, year 15: 7-5, year 16: 8-4, year 17: 9-3, year 18: 10-2, year 19: 11-1, year 20: 12-0, year 21: 11-1, year 22: 10-2, year 23: 9-3, year 24: 8-4, year 25: 7-5, Year 26; 6-6, Year 27; 5-7, year 28: 6-6, year 29: 7-5, year 30: 8-4.
Now to do that WSU would have to have good WSU Presidents, AD's, coaches, and those coaches getting Good ENOUGH 3, THREE STAR recruits, and would have to CONTINUE using the Transfer Portal Well to get good ENOUGH players from FCS(South Dakotah State, NDSU, etc) MAAC, SUN BELT, C-USA, weaker MWC, AAC ranks(not BSU, SDSU, Fresno St, etc types, but from Wyoming, New Mexico, Hawaii type), JC ranks, and then develop, coach up those players, and then lose those players to NIL, TRANSFER PORTAL, and then Replace them again with Good ENOUGH players again from the same sources as before.
Also the WSU cougar COLLECTIVE NIL program fund, is growing(There are now O Lineman now getting 7k to 150k, 50k trucks, etc,) and President Schultz, and Chun, and Dickert, and WSU radio announcers, and WSU marketing, etc, is asking, telling WSU fans to increase their donations to WSU's NIL Collective.
Of course all this is the worst case scenario, if WSU has to join the MWC conference, and spend less.
It's more likely that WSU, OSU either wins their court case, or settles, gets control of PAC 2, and PAC 2 75 Mil to 150 mil to 300 mil money, does a schedule alliance for 12-18 month, rebuild PAC with either a reverse merger of MWC joining PAC 14, or taking the BEST G5's from MWC, AAC.
WSU is NOT the POOR OLE LITTLE OLE AW SHUCKS LOVABLE LOSERS, ETC, WSU of 1960 to 1980.
If WSU wins 2 more games, then that's 8, EIGHT STRAIGHT BOWL GAMES. And WSU now is a bigger brand, name, and the GAMEDAY DARLING.
If Nebraska with it's SMALL OMAHA, decided to go to MWC, and SPENT LESS ON ATHLETICS, would they only go 3-9, 4-8, 5-7, etc?
Heck no. Why? Because of their name, brand, tradition.
Recruits, coaches want to go places that are WINNERS.
And right now WSU is a WINNER PROGRAM.
A WINNER PROGRAM that joins the MWC, Spends less on athletics, is STILL going to get good ENOUGH coaches, players, recruits, etc, because a WINNER PROGRAM like WSU still has effective things a GOOD SALESMAN COACH, AD, CAN SELL ABOUT PULLMAN, WSU, TO COACHES, RECRUITS.
As long as WSU goes 6-6 and goes to another bowl game, then if WSU goes to MWC, WSU would be 5-7, 6-6 AT WORST, 1 out of 5 to 7 to 9 years, and 7-5 at below average to average. 8-4 at average to above average. 9-3 at above average to good, 10-2 at good to semi great, 11-1 at great to AWESOME.
In a 30 year, season period, WSU can, would easily go Year 1: 6-6. Year 2: 7-5, year 3: 8-4, Year 5:9-3, year 6: 10-2, year 7: 11-1, year 8: 10-2, year 9: 9-3, year 10: 8-4, year 11: 7-5, year 12: 6-6, year 13; 5-7, year 14: 6-6, year 15: 7-5, year 16: 8-4, year 17: 9-3, year 18: 10-2, year 19: 11-1, year 20: 12-0, year 21: 11-1, year 22: 10-2, year 23: 9-3, year 24: 8-4, year 25: 7-5, Year 26; 6-6, Year 27; 5-7, year 28: 6-6, year 29: 7-5, year 30: 8-4.
Now to do that WSU would have to have good WSU Presidents, AD's, coaches, and those coaches getting Good ENOUGH 3, THREE STAR recruits, and would have to CONTINUE using the Transfer Portal Well to get good ENOUGH players from FCS(South Dakotah State, NDSU, etc) MAAC, SUN BELT, C-USA, weaker MWC, AAC ranks(not BSU, SDSU, Fresno St, etc types, but from Wyoming, New Mexico, Hawaii type), JC ranks, and then develop, coach up those players, and then lose those players to NIL, TRANSFER PORTAL, and then Replace them again with Good ENOUGH players again from the same sources as before.
Also the WSU cougar COLLECTIVE NIL program fund, is growing(There are now O Lineman now getting 7k to 150k, 50k trucks, etc,) and President Schultz, and Chun, and Dickert, and WSU radio announcers, and WSU marketing, etc, is asking, telling WSU fans to increase their donations to WSU's NIL Collective.
Of course all this is the worst case scenario, if WSU has to join the MWC conference, and spend less.
It's more likely that WSU, OSU either wins their court case, or settles, gets control of PAC 2, and PAC 2 75 Mil to 150 mil to 300 mil money, does a schedule alliance for 12-18 month, rebuild PAC with either a reverse merger of MWC joining PAC 14, or taking the BEST G5's from MWC, AAC.
Private schools with money, show me a public institution where it worked. WSU does have the ability to grow its status as an academic institution, but it has been slipping the past decade, according to rankings, a trend that needs to be reversed.
This is unchartered territory as far as I can tell. We're dropping down in conference, but not out of D1 and maybe not out of a power league. The short term hit is going to be felt, but could the regionality of the new conference wind up being better for us? I think it will, actually. Competing in the B12 would suck.
