Should your state legislature guarantee
- Thread starter 12375CAT
- Start date
In Washington's, and WSU's case, SINCE STATE PUBLIC TAX DOLLARS go-to both colleges or at least into HELPING TO BUILD, MAINTAIN THEIR STADIUMS, ETC, that because of that the GOVT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON ABSOLUTELY HAS THE RIGHT TO TELL THE UW HUSKIES THAT THEY STILL HAVE TO PLAY THE APPLE CUP WITH WSU EACH YEAR OR ELSE THEY FORFEIT ALL CURRENT, AND FUTURE STATE OF WA PUBLIC TAX DOLLARS.
No they would mess things up further. Our governor and state legislature are not the sharpest knives in the draw.
Two things. 1. Our State legislature has much more pressing concerns than a football game. 2. The rivalry will end because UW will try and make a power play (ie 2 out of 3 will be played in Seattle, UW deserves more $$ for the game, etc). Arrogant institutions like UW and Gonzaga can’t help themselves - projecting superiority>what’s best for fans and alumni.
I’d rather see the Pac be rebuilt with teams focused on equal footing than see WSU conference hop from bad deal to another.
If the schools wanna leave WSU and OSU behind, let WSU and OSU shape the conference in their vision.
If the UW elects to go to another conference and WSU is left behind, so be it, but screw the Apple Cup, it's over.
What everyone keeps forgetting is that these are non-profit, tax free institutions that were built and are subsidized by tax payer dollars. It would be absolutely stupid for the state legislature to allow WSU to be damaged in the manner that is being discussed. Even a damaged Pac-10 results in $30 million a year per school in media rights compared to $4 million in the Mountain West.
Unless the State legislature wants to bail out WSU, they are absolutely correct in linking UW and WSU together as should the state legislatures of Oregon and Arizona. The state of Virginia did this years ago to force Virginia to advocate for Virginia Tech joining the ACC. California was moronic to let UCLA bolt without tying up Berkley.
If the colleges had to pay taxes and if donations weren't tax deductible, the athletic budgets of every program would be at least 50% to 75% less. Keep in mind, they also are hamstrung by Title IX in terms of the number of programs they have to support.
Public Universities and Colleges and even private colleges due to the tax code are quasi-governmental agencies.
The Pac-12 has little to nothing in common with the Big 12 and the only Big 12 schools that would remotely be appealing are Houston, Oklahoma State and maybe TCU / SMU (AAC school) to build a Dallas base. If you expand beyond that maybe Iowa State, Kansas State and Kansas but they bring little (just like WSU) in terms of media footprint.
What stinks is this is all driven by football while the Olympic student athletes travel all over the country and its not sustainable.
The best option is probably some type of ACC / Pac-12 alliance / merger because the ACC is going to lose 4 teams to the SEC in all likelihood. The ultimate model is probably some type of English soccer system with relegation in play between two tiers at least in football.
The West is severely disadvantaged in terms of football both in number of schools, passion for the sport and interest of the fans. It's a quasi religion in the Southeast and the ACC (absent Clemson) pales in comparison as does the Pac-8/10/12. 9 of the ACC schools average less than 50,000 fans in attendance and 3 average less than WSU. Even UNC in the 9th largest state in the country situated between Charlotte and Raleigh (two top 20 media markets) averages less than 48,000 a game. Admittedly, part of this is dilution, as North Carolina has 7 D1 football schools....4 ACC, 2 AAC and 1 Sunbelt and numerous D1-AA schools.
Unless the State legislature wants to bail out WSU, they are absolutely correct in linking UW and WSU together as should the state legislatures of Oregon and Arizona. The state of Virginia did this years ago to force Virginia to advocate for Virginia Tech joining the ACC. California was moronic to let UCLA bolt without tying up Berkley.
If the colleges had to pay taxes and if donations weren't tax deductible, the athletic budgets of every program would be at least 50% to 75% less. Keep in mind, they also are hamstrung by Title IX in terms of the number of programs they have to support.
Public Universities and Colleges and even private colleges due to the tax code are quasi-governmental agencies.
The Pac-12 has little to nothing in common with the Big 12 and the only Big 12 schools that would remotely be appealing are Houston, Oklahoma State and maybe TCU / SMU (AAC school) to build a Dallas base. If you expand beyond that maybe Iowa State, Kansas State and Kansas but they bring little (just like WSU) in terms of media footprint.
What stinks is this is all driven by football while the Olympic student athletes travel all over the country and its not sustainable.
The best option is probably some type of ACC / Pac-12 alliance / merger because the ACC is going to lose 4 teams to the SEC in all likelihood. The ultimate model is probably some type of English soccer system with relegation in play between two tiers at least in football.
The West is severely disadvantaged in terms of football both in number of schools, passion for the sport and interest of the fans. It's a quasi religion in the Southeast and the ACC (absent Clemson) pales in comparison as does the Pac-8/10/12. 9 of the ACC schools average less than 50,000 fans in attendance and 3 average less than WSU. Even UNC in the 9th largest state in the country situated between Charlotte and Raleigh (two top 20 media markets) averages less than 48,000 a game. Admittedly, part of this is dilution, as North Carolina has 7 D1 football schools....4 ACC, 2 AAC and 1 Sunbelt and numerous D1-AA schools.
Last edited:
$30M was pre-pandemic with USC/UCLA. The 2021 payout was $19.8M. The Big 12 paid $38M, but projections say they’ve lost half their value in Texas & Oklahoma. The ACC paid $32M.
Somehow, some media outlets are reporting a valuation of $30M per school for the new Pac-12 contract - without the LA schools. I’m not sure what that’s based on, but it’s a little tough to believe that we’ll pull the same value as we did in the old contract without our biggest market. Even if it’s true, it’s stagnation - our 2025 rights will be worth roughly what they were in 2019. If that’s the case, adding teams doesn’t really make sense…since there’s really none out there that are sure to raise our value. None of the remaining Big 12 schools are worth $30M. I seriously doubt SDSU is. The ACC media deal doesn’t pay much more than ours, and a lot of that value is in 3-4 teams who are also SEC/B10 targets. We might be better off standing at 10 teams….with the knowledge that UW and UO are gone if the Big 10 calls.
You’re correct that WSU is state funded (partially). But WSU athletics isn’t. The legislature doesn’t much care if media rights take a hit. And yes, there’s some level of prestige that comes from the PAC-12 designation, but that’s not really quantifiable. Reality is that most tuition-paying students don’t come to WSU because of football (that should be clear just looking at the stands). Neither do research faculty.
Also consider that the legislature is more concerned with net than with each line item. See, UW is also state funded. If UW moves to the Big 10 and WSU goes Mt.West, WSU probably takes a hit in media rights of $20-25M. But UW gains $20-25M. The overall delta is less than $5M, and could even be positive. Considering that they provide funding for those two campuses on the order of $1.1B, a $5M difference is nothing they’re going to blink at (and like I mentioned above, is in an area not funded by them, so they care even less).
The idea of legally tying the programs together is emotional, not practical. And there are a lot more husky fans in Olympia than there are Coug fans. If they get the chance to get UW a financial windfall and a boost in prestige & exposure - and it’s also revenue neutral for the state - they’re not going to throw WSU a rope, unless that rope has one end tied to our neck and the other to an anchor.
Let's assume for a moment....the $30 million per school being bantered around in the media is correct.
$1.1 billion is a massive subsidy. I believe it would be extremely damaging for WSU to move to a lower conference and many states have tied schools together for this reason.
All that being said....it is unlikely that the Big-10 goes after UW because they aren't accretive to their media rights contract and that holds for Oregon. It also is unlikely that USC / UCLA wants competition on the West Coast. If ND goes Big-10, their likely target would be Stanford but Stanford would be challenged with their massive Olympic sports program. UW in the Big-12 is a huge cultural mess.
Oregon, UW and Stanford are the new lynchpins of the Pac-10 and there are no other schools that are accretive....maybe San Diego State but doubtful and possibly Gonzaga for basketball.
So the Pac-10 is going to have to get creative and ESPN needs content so possibly ESPN / Disney overpay for a formalized structure between the Pac-10 / ACC to booster the ACC Network and get rid of the failed Pac-12 Network and move on. I think that is WSU's best hope. A Pac-10 or even parts of the Pac-10 / Big-12 deal does little to nothing to boost value or standing.
$1.1 billion is a massive subsidy. I believe it would be extremely damaging for WSU to move to a lower conference and many states have tied schools together for this reason.
All that being said....it is unlikely that the Big-10 goes after UW because they aren't accretive to their media rights contract and that holds for Oregon. It also is unlikely that USC / UCLA wants competition on the West Coast. If ND goes Big-10, their likely target would be Stanford but Stanford would be challenged with their massive Olympic sports program. UW in the Big-12 is a huge cultural mess.
Oregon, UW and Stanford are the new lynchpins of the Pac-10 and there are no other schools that are accretive....maybe San Diego State but doubtful and possibly Gonzaga for basketball.
So the Pac-10 is going to have to get creative and ESPN needs content so possibly ESPN / Disney overpay for a formalized structure between the Pac-10 / ACC to booster the ACC Network and get rid of the failed Pac-12 Network and move on. I think that is WSU's best hope. A Pac-10 or even parts of the Pac-10 / Big-12 deal does little to nothing to boost value or standing.
What people don't get is that WA Govt funds both UW, and WSU with PUBLIC TAX PAYER TAXES, and that the State govt has INVESTED HEAVILY in UW, WSU via PUBLIC TAX PAYER DOLLARS, and that State govt gets a HUGE RETURN, ECONOMIC IMPACT, etc, from the APPLE CUP, UW/WSU medical center/Nursing School, etc.
What people don't get is that if the state lets UW leave WSU behind, then WSU's enrollment goes down, hurts WSU to the point where WSU won't be able to provide the opportunity for IN STATE STUDENTS to go-to, take advantage of what WSU has now, because of what WSU would lose.
The ECONOMIC DOWNTURN, IMPACT, ETC, WOULD BE ENORMOUS IF WSU Left behind. And TAX PAYER DOLLARS WOULD BE LOST, ETC.
If UW wants to leave WSU behind then they can do it with NO MONEY FROM the state, and can do it on their OWN dime, but oh that's right they UW, can't do that because without state money they would not be able to function and would have to CLOSE, SHUT DOWN.
What people don't get is that this is ABSOLUTELY the state of WA govt's business, and absolutely should tie UW/WSU together, and that they don't have more important things to do.
If the state does have more important things to do, then the state should just take away all money from UW and WSU both.
Colleges and education is important, which would be threatened by UW leaving WSU behind. ECONOMIC IMPACT OF UW/WSU is important. Students not losing what WSU is now is important. UW/WSU medical centers, nursing schools, and their life saving impact is important.
WSU not getting left behind is important. And while not as important as 1,2 things, are more important then a lot of things, and no reason why the state can't, shouldn't make sure that WSU isn't left behind by UW.
And if going to allow UW to leave WSU behind, etc, then fine let UW do it, leave WSU behind, WITHOUT MONEY FROM THE STATE OF WA.
THIS IS ABSOLUTELY THE BUSINESS OF THE STATE GOVT TO STOP UW A PUBLIC COLLEGE THAT GETS TAXPAYER DOLLARS FROM LEAVING WSU BEHIND.
I DO NOT WANT MY AND OTHERS TAX PAYER DOLLARS GOING TO HELP UW TO LEAVE WSU BEHIND.
THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE, INTOLERABLE. ETC
Yes, but - the 1.1 billion (WSU got $565M this year, so this is probably more like $1.3B) has very little to do with conference affiliation. It’s operating funds for the university included in the legislative budget. It’s not for athletics, and isn’t going to be reduced significantly whether we’re in the Pac-12, Mt. west, GSL, or NFC West. It also doesn’t even cover campus operating expenses, which is part of why tuition keeps going up.
The Big 10 probably won’t go after UO/UW this year. But if ND joins, I agree they probably tap Stanford. I don’t think they’d stay at 18 though. If they could pull from the ACC, that would be option #1. After that, UW/UO probably make the most sense. The numbers I’ve seen value the two of them together at about $60M (which is another reason the PAC-12’s $30M/team valuation seems high), so they may be a bit of a drag on the Big 10. The Big 10 already pays an average of about $50M per school (but doesn’t distribute equally, which could be significant). Adding 4 would still mean $35M under their existing contract, which currently almost doubles the Pac-12 payout and even beats the future estimate. But if the Big 12 adds ND, estimates run as high as $100M per team. There’s no scenario that puts the PAC-12 close to that.
Your flat out WRONG.
1. UW/Oregon aren't going to Big 10, Big 10 not interested, and the only possible maybe way would be if ND goto Big 10, and even then Big 10 might not take UW/WSU after that, and ND not going to Big 10 so moot point.
2. If the Pac 12 merges with ACC, and then that new merged conference gets a media deal that media deal would pay out 60 million per team. By itself the ACC is only worth 32 mill, and by itself Pac 12 is only worth 30 mill. But if Pac 12, ACC, combine to form VOLTRON then they get 60+ mill.
3. And if they then absorb big 12 after that, go-to 36+ teams, then that's worth 90+ million per team.
4. If UW leaves WSU behind then they can do so WITHOUT TAX PAYER MONEY.
I DONT WANT MY AN OR OTHERS TAX PAYER DOLLAR SUBSIDIZING UW LEAVING WSU BEHIND
5. State Govt absolutely has the right to tie UW/WSU together.
6. LEGISLATORS DREW STOKESBARY and Michael Baumgartner have said, and are FAST TRACKING LEGISLATION THAT TIES UW/WSU TOGETHER
7. Those Legislators have contacted UW President, AD, Board of Regents, informed them of the fast tracked legislation.
8. The legislators have contacted other conferences, ESPN to inform them that UW/WSU is going to be a packaged deal, and that if UW leaves WSU behind, tries to circumvent that, that the State govt will DEFUND UW.
9. Because of that where UW goes, WSU goes, and where WSU goes UW goes.
Your flat out WRONG.
There's no scenario where the Pac-10 comes close to the SEC or Big-10 in terms of football dollars which is really what this is all about. The passion and culture and density of population isn't there. Maybe my perspective is skewed, since I've been based on the East Coast since undergrad, but WSU moving to a lessor conference would likely have dramatic impacts on the budget and enrollment for the entire organization. WSU has a cache nationally from the flag on GameDay to the occasional upset to the overall quickness of being a large university in a tiny town which is probably why our viewership outranks 4 other schools in the Pac-12 currently. I've lived and traveled all over the country and world and Go Cougs comes up far more than you would ever think.
My point in all of this is it is absolutely important for the State of Washington to take this seriously and tying the two programs together accomplishes that.
My point in all of this is it is absolutely important for the State of Washington to take this seriously and tying the two programs together accomplishes that.
You just don't get it. Your saying the athletics don't matter.
Your wrong.
If WSU gets left behind here is what happens.
1. They lose out on MILLIONS. That's money that the State would have to replace with TAX PAYER DOLLARS.
you may think the 30 to 60+ million that WSU would get by not being left behind would only go to athletics, but some portion of that however small goes to the college and all it's programs, even things like academics, nursing school, etc.
2. Athletics is the front porch of the college. If WSU gets left behind, eventually WSU would lose research grants, and would lose enrollment, and would downsize, might have to close extension campuses, nursing school in Spokane, would become like Whitworth College, EWU, Idaho, NIC, Idaho State, LCST college, CWU, etc. It's services, impact would be greatly lessened, it's economic impact return, etc, would be greatly lessened.
If WSU gets left behind the state will feel the loss of that, will lose a lot of money, more money then the state currently subsidizes to WSU, etc.
One only has to look at other states that have had a public college like a WSU get left behind. Those STATES SUFFERED GREATLY.
The State of WA simply CANT AFFORD FOR WSU TO GET LEFT BEHIND, ESPECIALLY WHEN ITS PREVENTABLE BY TYING UW/WSU together.
Last edited:
ND is not going to join Big 12, that's even less likely then ND joining Big 10, ACC.
Nope. It’ll be catastrophic to the athletics budget. Negligible direct impact to the institutional budget.
Maybe, might even probably in the Short Term.
But in the mid term to long term to semi extreme long term, it would eventually impact WSU's budget, and not just athletics, and would have a negative impact to not only WSU but to the Community, City, County, State, and a negative impact on economy, increased cost to the State in terms of Tax Payer dollars funding WSU.
And the state might have to do a MASSIVE BAIL OUT of WSU eventually.
And not just Athletics.
Just look at what happened to the states when their P5 had to go MWC, Big Sky.
Their P5/WSU became like Whitworth, NIC, Idaho, Idaho St, LCST, EWU, CWU, etc, and had extremely bad impacts to those state economies, etc.
If WSU gets left behind, it will be a disaster to this state.
Athletics, especially P5 level athletics is the front porch of the college.
It affects the image, prestige, power, budget(not just athletics), of the college. Without P5 status, etc, Colleges like WSU lose RESEARCH GRANTS, LOSE THE ABILITY TO DO PROJECTS in the state, around the world.
Remember those WSU ads that showcase not only academics, athletics, but all the amazing, wonderful things WSU does for the community, city, county, state, nation, international community, world, etc.
THOSE THINGS HAVE A HUGE IMPACT ON LIVES, ECONOMIES, the City, county, state, JOBS, ETC.
WSU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DO ALL THAT IF THEY GET, GOT LEFT BEHIND.
You JUST DONT GET IT, ARE WRONG.
What the hell are you talking about? What P5 school has gone MWC/Big sky? And what is this community, county and state that was devastated by it?
Power and prestige are not predicated on P5 status. There are a lot of R1 schools who are not P5. There are a some of them who don't even play football. Research grant applications do not ask what conference your school is in.
There would be some indirect impact, but it would not be devastating to the institution the way you describe. Pullman may take a hit due to decreased game attendance, but the region and the state won't even notice.
You are wrong. WSU is not the University of Chicago. Not even close. Numerous studies show that successful athletic programs attract both students and money to an institution. Even a 5% to 10% drop in enrollment would have devastating impacts to WSU. The University of Alabama which is a middling public institution that largely accepts everyone (pretty much like WSU) has had a tremendous surge in applicants, acceptances and academic ranking due to the success of their football program. UNC- Charlotte which goes now by University of Charlotte has grown from 14,000 students in 1990 to 34,000 students today. Charlotte also offered its first PhD program in 1992 and now has 24 and will quickly move from a R2 to a R1 university. Charlotte added a football program in 2008 as D1-AA, went D-1 in 2015 and is now a member of the AAC. Davidson College which is the 13th ranked liberal arts school in the country and the number 1 ranked small school in the Southeast has half their kids playing athletics and is incredibly protective of their athletic program. Davidson is one of the smallest schools with a D-1 program in the country with just under 2,000 students.
Quite frankly you sound like an academic but what you don't seem to realize is that undergrads pick their college for numerous reasons and athletics plays an important role for a large contingent of the applicant pool.
It would be asinine for the state legislature to not take every step to protect WSU. I'm not sure they will be successful but to stand back and not take every step to keep WSU tied to UW would be incredibly short sighted and ultimately incredibly damaging to WSU.
Quite frankly you sound like an academic but what you don't seem to realize is that undergrads pick their college for numerous reasons and athletics plays an important role for a large contingent of the applicant pool.
It would be asinine for the state legislature to not take every step to protect WSU. I'm not sure they will be successful but to stand back and not take every step to keep WSU tied to UW would be incredibly short sighted and ultimately incredibly damaging to WSU.
Last edited:
I’m quite aware of the myriad of reasons undergrads pick a school. Athletics provide a degree of exposure, but there are few who pick based on them. The bigger impact of exposure - including in all of the institutions you listed - is donor funds. If we go G5, cash donations are likely to fall.
There will not be a decrease in state funding, and the catastrophic effects to the state that Mik predicts based on examples that don’t exist won’t happen.
Not a lot of point in debating it, we’re reasonably likely to find out for sure in the not too distant future.
Football for a lot of kids is the social event they’re looking for. Even if they don’t go to all the games they at least have the option. For many, football also equals prestige or higher social status. To say that few choose a school based on athletics is foolish. At the time, the most applications WSU had ever received was after the ‘98 Rose Bowl. And you’re saying the success of the football team didn’t matter to the masses? No. You are wrong on the internet.
There was a study done on Saban’s impact at Alabama. The low end was $400,000,000. Tell me more about how kids don’t choose schools based on athletics they don’t compete in…
