So if Bill Moos doesn't shove every last chip into the middle of the table ...

[PeteTheChop]

and bet WSU's house on football success with the hiring of CML and the massive facilities upgrades, where, realistically, is Cougar Athletics right now?

As a diehard Coug and supporter of Washington State University, are you glad BM went all in back in 2011?

 

[BraindeadCoug]

Yes

 

[95coug]

Hiring of Leach, yes. Press box and club seating, probably. FOB, not really.

I'm not convinced that the FOB was worth putting the university in the hole it's in. I'm sure it's nice for recruits to see, but I seriously doubt it's been a major factor for many of them. Winning gets the attention of recruits far more than meeting rooms, offices, and locker rooms.

Leach was the biggest name available and was worth a big splash. That announcement was quickly followed by a spike in season tickets and donors. The stadium upgrades probably make an impact on selling to sponsors and bigger donors, although I'm not sure that those increases have really offset the cost of the project...at least not yet.

I'm a bit conflicted even on these responses. As a WSU employee, I do have some concern that we seem to have lost sight of the university's mission to a degree, and allowed athletics expenses to jeopardize education.

 

[Loyal Coug]

Hiring of Leach, yes. Press box and club seating, probably. FOB, not really.

I'm not convinced that the FOB was worth putting the university in the hole it's in. I'm sure it's nice for recruits to see, but I seriously doubt it's been a major factor for many of them. Winning gets the attention of recruits far more than meeting rooms, offices, and locker rooms.

Leach was the biggest name available and was worth a big splash. That announcement was quickly followed by a spike in season tickets and donors. The stadium upgrades probably make an impact on selling to sponsors and bigger donors, although I'm not sure that those increases have really offset the cost of the project...at least not yet.

I'm a bit conflicted even on these responses. As a WSU employee, I do have some concern that we seem to have lost sight of the university's mission to a degree, and allowed athletics expenses to jeopardize education.

I'm pretty much in the same camp. And I think (no, I know) we need to segregate the CML hiring (Grand slam HR) from the facilities upgrades. I have little doubt that Moos shared his facility plans in general with CML. It is possible that CML would not have come if there were -0- plans in the immediate horizon. But we don't know that and we don't know what the decision point would have been if it was a hiring factor.

So yes the pressbox/luxury boxes were needed. Did we need $80 million worth? I don't know and if we knew the Pac-12 TV deal was going to fall soooo short of promises I suspect that Moos would have come up with a scaled-down plan. Maybe something that left room for expansions. I don't know about the FOB either.

Oh and as for your conflicts, WSU is no different than every other D-1 institution in the country. Our $ dilemma may seem a bit larger, and maybe it is, but the nation lost sight of what is important a looonnggg time ago. On the collegiate and professional sports levels.

And Higher Ed has lost its way in non-athletic ways, specifically with regard to administrative and executive salaries and bloat. Particularly WSU. But then you know that part, '95.

 

[ttowncoug]

We needed a football operations building. I like the space and think it's a great selling tool to recruits.

I think the Pac-12 needs to be held accountable for not producing more revenue as promised. I am not convinced "building our own" network is/was the best strategy. I think a JV with ESPN makes more sense (like the SEC did). Our cost structure is going to be higher because we had to create our own infrastructure. You could maintain the same revenue model and licencing deals, but pay ESPN to produce and cross promote the PAC-12 brand. Scott won't do this, which is why he should be held responsible.

 

[fingerdisco]

Hiring of Leach, yes. Press box and club seating, probably. FOB, not really.

I'm not convinced that the FOB was worth putting the university in the hole it's in. I'm sure it's nice for recruits to see, but I seriously doubt it's been a major factor for many of them. Winning gets the attention of recruits far more than meeting rooms, offices, and locker rooms.

Leach was the biggest name available and was worth a big splash. That announcement was quickly followed by a spike in season tickets and donors. The stadium upgrades probably make an impact on selling to sponsors and bigger donors, although I'm not sure that those increases have really offset the cost of the project...at least not yet.

I'm a bit conflicted even on these responses. As a WSU employee, I do have some concern that we seem to have lost sight of the university's mission to a degree, and allowed athletics expenses to jeopardize education.

I’d say there’s a good chance Leach doesn’t take the job without a firm commitment to the FOB being built, so in that respect it was necessary.

 

[kayak15]

I’d say there’s a good chance Leach doesn’t take the job without a firm commitment to the FOB being built, so in that respect it was necessary.

Agreed. Wazzu was in last place in the conference in terms of facilities at the time that Leach was hired. We badly needed to make a statement to both CML and any prospective recruit that we intended to be competitive. It was either that or resigning ourselves to the position of the conference doormat.

 

[Cougsocal]

First of all, WSU was not last place in facilities at the time Leach was hired. Anybody who knows the Pac-12 know that is local myth base on an assumption that because we lose consistently, our facilities must be crap. My daughters were going to UCLA and Cal at that time, and USC was still working out of the basement of heritage hall. Cal facilities were a complete joke, their weight room was a former motorpool shed, the stadium had been condemned and the locker room was a 1/4 mile away from the weight room. WSU has alway done a good job of keep facilities up to date. no frills but always very functional and athlete friendly. Yes, we were well behind Oregon, but it was well ahead of everybody. The keeping up with Oregon building boom and updating, conference wide, started with the new TV contract.

How has the building boom helped the conference in terms of competitiveness? 1-8, the worst ever, despite a crappy overall bowl tie in package, 4-11 over the last two seasons. Traditionally with low end facilities, we cleaned up in bowls, our bowl record was always up there with the SEC.

The building boom has been a huge bust, conference wide, because as a conference we lost focus on what you need to win intersectionally (better coaching). The big thing that Bill Moos did for WSU, that most school forgot during the building frenzy, that you may need spend as much as you can to hire a high end coach, rather than cross your fingers that you get lucky in the coaching lotto. While many schools were spending a fortune building like us, they cheaped out, relatively, on the coach hiring front. Bill on the other hand spent more than 3 times more than we had ever done, giving Leach our longest most employee friendly contract ever too.

Now imagine had Bill bucked the conference wide trend and followed our traditional functional, but no frills upgrade building approach, and used, the considerable increase in TV revenue, and associated savings, to stock a "hiring and retention fund" for football and other sports, as well as keep us in the black? We'd have been far better off. Facilities are the salt and pepper, the coach is a program's meat and potatos.

Hiring Leach was one of the great moves in WSU athletics history. Bill deserves praise for that. Ballsy move, considering Leach's reputation. It could have gone so wrong, one off hand comment in frustration early on, and you'd have a guying suing and investigating our arse forever, without a program turnaround. Unfortunately, Bill mismanagement of athletics thereafter can't be ignore either. A great opportunity to put Cougar athletics back on the map, program wide, was lost.

 

[Observer11]

First of all, WSU was not last place in facilities at the time Leach was hired. Anybody who knows the Pac-12 know that is local myth base on an assumption that because we lose consistently, our facilities must be crap. My daughters were going to UCLA and Cal at that time, and USC was still working out of the basement of heritage hall. Cal facilities were a complete joke, their weight room was a former motorpool shed, the stadium had been condemned and the locker room was a 1/4 mile away from the weight room. WSU has alway done a good job of keep facilities up to date. no frills but always very functional and athlete friendly. Yes, we were well behind Oregon, but it was well ahead of everybody. The keeping up with Oregon building boom and updating, conference wide, started with the new TV contract.

How has the building boom helped the conference in terms of competitiveness? 1-8, the worst ever, despite a crappy overall bowl tie in package, 4-11 over the last two seasons. Traditionally with low end facilities, we cleaned up in bowls, our bowl record was always up there with the SEC.

The building boom has been a huge bust, conference wide, because as a conference we lost focus on what you need to win intersectionally (better coaching). The big thing that Bill Moos did for WSU, that most school forgot during the building frenzy, that you may need spend as much as you can to hire a high end coach, rather than cross your fingers that you get lucky in the coaching lotto. While many schools were spending a fortune building like us, they cheaped out, relatively, on the coach hiring front. Bill on the other hand spent more than 3 times more than we had ever done, giving Leach our longest most employee friendly contract ever too.

Now imagine had Bill bucked the conference wide trend and followed our traditional functional, but no frills upgrade building approach, and used, the considerable increase in TV revenue, and associated savings, to stock a "hiring and retention fund" for football and other sports, as well as keep us in the black? We'd have been far better off. Facilities are the salt and pepper, the coach is a program's meat and potatos.

Hiring Leach was one of the great moves in WSU athletics history. Bill deserves praise for that. Ballsy move, considering Leach's reputation. It could have gone so wrong, one off hand comment in frustration early on, and you'd have a guying suing and investigating our arse forever, without a program turnaround. Unfortunately, Bill mismanagement of athletics thereafter can't be ignore either. A great opportunity to put Cougar athletics back on the map, program wide, was lost.

BLASPHEMY, you blasphemer, you!!!!

Take three gulps of the koolaid and do a dozen Hail Moos' as penance.

 

[Coug95man2]

Couple points.

One thing that is being forgotten is the booster pressure. As I recall, Moos was prioritizing the FOB for the kids. The boosters had been promised and promised the upgraded suites and they wanted their Suites... So much so that Moos made the decision to build the suites first, FOB second. It was supposed to be the opposite.

Now I say all of that because, we are all sitting here analyzing the situation without recognizing all the pressures of the time.

Isn't it about the kids? So what if they were built in the opposite order? Then we were fiscally responsible and held off on the luxury suites... But then we recognized the monies from the Network weren't coming, so then we just held off our boosters for another decade or 2 or 3 or 4... Think of the money lost.

So we can all think inside our own little bubble but the "what if" game is silly as hell. We spent the money on the Luxury suites and the FOB. We are financially hurting. We've hired a financial "hawk", from what I've heard. We'll be OK.

To me, I think it was all required building. I'm glad we did all the projects. Could we have downscaled? Sure but looking back is always handy... the whole 20/20 thing. But it's also unrealistic.

I remember being in the old press box and literally having to use my hand to wipe away the pigeon sh!t. An industry that is built on image, and it was swiping pigeon sh!t away to put presser paperwork on the bench, so the talent could bulls!t the viewers about how awesome Martin Stadium was... Pulease. The jokes were prevalent. The press box/luxury suites were needed if we ever wanted national networks to ever come to WSU with any regularity. For them to not laugh on their way out of town. So the talent wouldn't tell the producers, they never want to come back to the "furthest outpost in the Pac 10" (at the time)...

Football is going to be the "front porch" of the school (for some it's basketball). Like it or not, the numbers don't lie. When a school does well and is on TV (getting good press) admissions goes up. You don't have to like it. But remaining and recognizing reality is always a positive. Think of it this way... Coming in and out of commercials, they go to scenics of the school, the surrounding area, etc. The schools aren't paying for that FREE advertising. If they did, it would cost millions of dollars, per game! Let alone the marketing aspect that the school logo is plastered on regional/national/international TV for 3-4 hours.

 

[Loyal Coug]

First of all, WSU was not last place in facilities at the time Leach was hired. Anybody who knows the Pac-12 know that is local myth base on an assumption that because we lose consistently, our facilities must be crap. My daughters were going to UCLA and Cal at that time, and USC was still working out of the basement of heritage hall. Cal facilities were a complete joke, their weight room was a former motorpool shed, the stadium had been condemned and the locker room was a 1/4 mile away from the weight room. WSU has alway done a good job of keep facilities up to date. no frills but always very functional and athlete friendly. Yes, we were well behind Oregon, but it was well ahead of everybody. The keeping up with Oregon building boom and updating, conference wide, started with the new TV contract.

How has the building boom helped the conference in terms of competitiveness? 1-8, the worst ever, despite a crappy overall bowl tie in package, 4-11 over the last two seasons. Traditionally with low end facilities, we cleaned up in bowls, our bowl record was always up there with the SEC.

The building boom has been a huge bust, conference wide, because as a conference we lost focus on what you need to win intersectionally (better coaching). The big thing that Bill Moos did for WSU, that most school forgot during the building frenzy, that you may need spend as much as you can to hire a high end coach, rather than cross your fingers that you get lucky in the coaching lotto. While many schools were spending a fortune building like us, they cheaped out, relatively, on the coach hiring front. Bill on the other hand spent more than 3 times more than we had ever done, giving Leach our longest most employee friendly contract ever too.

Now imagine had Bill bucked the conference wide trend and followed our traditional functional, but no frills upgrade building approach, and used, the considerable increase in TV revenue, and associated savings, to stock a "hiring and retention fund" for football and other sports, as well as keep us in the black? We'd have been far better off. Facilities are the salt and pepper, the coach is a program's meat and potatos.

Hiring Leach was one of the great moves in WSU athletics history. Bill deserves praise for that. Ballsy move, considering Leach's reputation. It could have gone so wrong, one off hand comment in frustration early on, and you'd have a guying suing and investigating our arse forever, without a program turnaround. Unfortunately, Bill mismanagement of athletics thereafter can't be ignore either. A great opportunity to put Cougar athletics back on the map, program wide, was lost.

Nice factual post, SoCal. You start talking about logistics, which makes me wonder how the rest of the Pac-12 matches up in that regard. At WSU, you walk out of any of the gyms and there is the practice field and stadium. You don't get that at USC and UCLA (the stadium part). Something to be said for everything being right there.

A bit of a digression, but our remoteness isn't so bad in terms of team travel either (Football that is). How many other teams can leave their locker room and step on to their plane within 10 minutes? And a complete aside - Alaska/Horizon recently announced that they are pulling completely out of Lewiston in August and plan to add more Pullman flights. Can't find much on the runway realignment project, but what I did find says that it will be in place in 2019. All of which will lessen the remoteness of WSU. Spokane also has plans to expand their airport.

 

[fingerdisco]

First of all, WSU was not last place in facilities at the time Leach was hired. Anybody who knows the Pac-12 know that is local myth base on an assumption that because we lose consistently, our facilities must be crap. My daughters were going to UCLA and Cal at that time, and USC was still working out of the basement of heritage hall. Cal facilities were a complete joke, their weight room was a former motorpool shed, the stadium had been condemned and the locker room was a 1/4 mile away from the weight room. WSU has alway done a good job of keep facilities up to date. no frills but always very functional and athlete friendly. Yes, we were well behind Oregon, but it was well ahead of everybody. The keeping up with Oregon building boom and updating, conference wide, started with the new TV contract.

How has the building boom helped the conference in terms of competitiveness? 1-8, the worst ever, despite a crappy overall bowl tie in package, 4-11 over the last two seasons. Traditionally with low end facilities, we cleaned up in bowls, our bowl record was always up there with the SEC.

The building boom has been a huge bust, conference wide, because as a conference we lost focus on what you need to win intersectionally (better coaching). The big thing that Bill Moos did for WSU, that most school forgot during the building frenzy, that you may need spend as much as you can to hire a high end coach, rather than cross your fingers that you get lucky in the coaching lotto. While many schools were spending a fortune building like us, they cheaped out, relatively, on the coach hiring front. Bill on the other hand spent more than 3 times more than we had ever done, giving Leach our longest most employee friendly contract ever too.

Now imagine had Bill bucked the conference wide trend and followed our traditional functional, but no frills upgrade building approach, and used, the considerable increase in TV revenue, and associated savings, to stock a "hiring and retention fund" for football and other sports, as well as keep us in the black? We'd have been far better off. Facilities are the salt and pepper, the coach is a program's meat and potatos.

Hiring Leach was one of the great moves in WSU athletics history. Bill deserves praise for that. Ballsy move, considering Leach's reputation. It could have gone so wrong, one off hand comment in frustration early on, and you'd have a guying suing and investigating our arse forever, without a program turnaround. Unfortunately, Bill mismanagement of athletics thereafter can't be ignore either. A great opportunity to put Cougar athletics back on the map, program wide, was lost.

Not sure how you factor in things like proximity to home/family, fun places to hang out for 18-22 year-olds, 80 degree weather year-round, and other things that come with southern California, but even if our buildings weren't the absolute worst in the conference, we certainly had/have a disadvantage in recruiting against the schools you mention in terms of these other "facilities", for lack of a better term...and that doesn't even go into the winning tradition of those schools compared to WSU's history. So yeah, I'd say it was fairly important that we glitz up the place to get kids to decide to spend their 4-5 years of college in a place where a lot of urban kids wouldn't otherwise go to as their first option. Secondly, regardless of how our facilities compared, you're assuming that we draw in name-brand coaches by just proffering up more money, but I'm not convinced we get somebody like Leach on campus if we don't have a shiny trinket like the FOB that gives them what they feel is the tool they need--whether it truly sways kids or is just a notion held by the coach--to bring to Pullman the players they need to be competitive.

 

[cr8zyncalif]

First of all, WSU was not last place in facilities at the time Leach was hired. Anybody who knows the Pac-12 know that is local myth base on an assumption that because we lose consistently, our facilities must be crap. My daughters were going to UCLA and Cal at that time, and USC was still working out of the basement of heritage hall. Cal facilities were a complete joke, their weight room was a former motorpool shed, the stadium had been condemned and the locker room was a 1/4 mile away from the weight room. WSU has alway done a good job of keep facilities up to date. no frills but always very functional and athlete friendly. Yes, we were well behind Oregon, but it was well ahead of everybody. The keeping up with Oregon building boom and updating, conference wide, started with the new TV contract.

How has the building boom helped the conference in terms of competitiveness? 1-8, the worst ever, despite a crappy overall bowl tie in package, 4-11 over the last two seasons. Traditionally with low end facilities, we cleaned up in bowls, our bowl record was always up there with the SEC.

The building boom has been a huge bust, conference wide, because as a conference we lost focus on what you need to win intersectionally (better coaching). The big thing that Bill Moos did for WSU, that most school forgot during the building frenzy, that you may need spend as much as you can to hire a high end coach, rather than cross your fingers that you get lucky in the coaching lotto. While many schools were spending a fortune building like us, they cheaped out, relatively, on the coach hiring front. Bill on the other hand spent more than 3 times more than we had ever done, giving Leach our longest most employee friendly contract ever too.

Now imagine had Bill bucked the conference wide trend and followed our traditional functional, but no frills upgrade building approach, and used, the considerable increase in TV revenue, and associated savings, to stock a "hiring and retention fund" for football and other sports, as well as keep us in the black? We'd have been far better off. Facilities are the salt and pepper, the coach is a program's meat and potatos.

Hiring Leach was one of the great moves in WSU athletics history. Bill deserves praise for that. Ballsy move, considering Leach's reputation. It could have gone so wrong, one off hand comment in frustration early on, and you'd have a guying suing and investigating our arse forever, without a program turnaround. Unfortunately, Bill mismanagement of athletics thereafter can't be ignore either. A great opportunity to put Cougar athletics back on the map, program wide, was lost.

Fair points. But that facility at SC was and is nice. Heritage Hall was completely remodeled, top to bottom, and the connecting area along with it. It was a b**tch of a project to do (my company did it), and it shows well.

 

[kayak15]

First of all, WSU was not last place in facilities at the time Leach was hired. Anybody who knows the Pac-12 know that is local myth base on an assumption that because we lose consistently, our facilities must be crap. My daughters were going to UCLA and Cal at that time, and USC was still working out of the basement of heritage hall. Cal facilities were a complete joke, their weight room was a former motorpool shed, the stadium had been condemned and the locker room was a 1/4 mile away from the weight room. WSU has alway done a good job of keep facilities up to date. no frills but always very functional and athlete friendly. Yes, we were well behind Oregon, but it was well ahead of everybody. The keeping up with Oregon building boom and updating, conference wide, started with the new TV contract.

How has the building boom helped the conference in terms of competitiveness? 1-8, the worst ever, despite a crappy overall bowl tie in package, 4-11 over the last two seasons. Traditionally with low end facilities, we cleaned up in bowls, our bowl record was always up there with the SEC.

The building boom has been a huge bust, conference wide, because as a conference we lost focus on what you need to win intersectionally (better coaching). The big thing that Bill Moos did for WSU, that most school forgot during the building frenzy, that you may need spend as much as you can to hire a high end coach, rather than cross your fingers that you get lucky in the coaching lotto. While many schools were spending a fortune building like us, they cheaped out, relatively, on the coach hiring front. Bill on the other hand spent more than 3 times more than we had ever done, giving Leach our longest most employee friendly contract ever too.

Now imagine had Bill bucked the conference wide trend and followed our traditional functional, but no frills upgrade building approach, and used, the considerable increase in TV revenue, and associated savings, to stock a "hiring and retention fund" for football and other sports, as well as keep us in the black? We'd have been far better off. Facilities are the salt and pepper, the coach is a program's meat and potatos.

Hiring Leach was one of the great moves in WSU athletics history. Bill deserves praise for that. Ballsy move, considering Leach's reputation. It could have gone so wrong, one off hand comment in frustration early on, and you'd have a guying suing and investigating our arse forever, without a program turnaround. Unfortunately, Bill mismanagement of athletics thereafter can't be ignore either. A great opportunity to put Cougar athletics back on the map, program wide, was lost.

You obviously have more knowledge about the conference's facilities than I do, socal, so I will stand corrected (again). That said, having seen Martin prior to the upgrades and attended a Spring game in Albi, I have a hard time imagining many of the other programs were dealing with worse infrastructures. I still say that we needed infrastructure improvements to attract Leach and Leach to attract better players. The FOB and Martin upgrade were needed. Did they make financial sense? Maybe not but it was that or throw in the towel and apply for the Mountain West.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

The comments above about the failings of the Pac-12 network are the ones that ring the truest for me. We are missing out on around $3 million per year that was promised (but not guaranteed) when the network was created. That's the biggest factor in our revenue issues. Obviously, we need more fans to pony up real money to the CAF and we need to see some big ticket sponsors to come into the field. As far as whether or not Moos should have spent the money on the Suites and the FOB, I personally think we would have been crazy not to do it. If I had a criticism of the FOB, it's that we didn't do it right and sacrificed on that facility to allow practice fields to remain next to it. We could have added another 1,000 seats in that endzone and added other fan amenities in that area that I've seen at other places that could have given us another $500k+ per year. Frankly, although we've spent money we don't have, there's more money that could have (should have?) been spent to do things right instead of compromising. That's a complicated discussion in itself though.

Even though things might be a little painful in the short term, the facility improvements needed to be done and if Leach stays for another 10 years, I think you'll see revenue growth that will make everyone look back with at least some sense of satisfaction on the money spent by Moos. We will never be Texas or Alabama when it comes to revenue, but if we can get through the potential slump this year and still make a bowl game, I see us making waves in the near future.

 

[wazzubruce]

The upgrades to the stadium and the FOB being built HAD to happen. The stadium before the upgrade was just embarrassing.

 

[wazzucougs96]

I'm a bit conflicted even on these responses. As a WSU employee, I do have some concern that we seem to have lost sight of the university's mission to a degree, and allowed athletics expenses to jeopardize education.

Funny how we never hear these kinds of comments from schools that go all in on athletics which in turn reap massive benefits from them. Gonzaga is a prime example.

 

[wazzucougs96]

Anyone who doubts the tangible benefits of the FOB only needs to look across Stadium Way at the current state of the basketball program.

 

[wazzucougs96]

First of all, WSU was not last place in facilities at the time Leach was hired. Anybody who knows the Pac-12 know that is local myth base on an assumption that because we lose consistently, our facilities must be crap. My daughters were going to UCLA and Cal at that time, and USC was still working out of the basement of heritage hall. Cal facilities were a complete joke, their weight room was a former motorpool shed, the stadium had been condemned and the locker room was a 1/4 mile away from the weight room. WSU has alway done a good job of keep facilities up to date. no frills but always very functional and athlete friendly. Yes, we were well behind Oregon, but it was well ahead of everybody. The keeping up with Oregon building boom and updating, conference wide, started with the new TV contract.

How has the building boom helped the conference in terms of competitiveness? 1-8, the worst ever, despite a crappy overall bowl tie in package, 4-11 over the last two seasons. Traditionally with low end facilities, we cleaned up in bowls, our bowl record was always up there with the SEC.

The building boom has been a huge bust, conference wide, because as a conference we lost focus on what you need to win intersectionally (better coaching). The big thing that Bill Moos did for WSU, that most school forgot during the building frenzy, that you may need spend as much as you can to hire a high end coach, rather than cross your fingers that you get lucky in the coaching lotto. While many schools were spending a fortune building like us, they cheaped out, relatively, on the coach hiring front. Bill on the other hand spent more than 3 times more than we had ever done, giving Leach our longest most employee friendly contract ever too.

Now imagine had Bill bucked the conference wide trend and followed our traditional functional, but no frills upgrade building approach, and used, the considerable increase in TV revenue, and associated savings, to stock a "hiring and retention fund" for football and other sports, as well as keep us in the black? We'd have been far better off. Facilities are the salt and pepper, the coach is a program's meat and potatos.

Hiring Leach was one of the great moves in WSU athletics history. Bill deserves praise for that. Ballsy move, considering Leach's reputation. It could have gone so wrong, one off hand comment in frustration early on, and you'd have a guying suing and investigating our arse forever, without a program turnaround. Unfortunately, Bill mismanagement of athletics thereafter can't be ignore either. A great opportunity to put Cougar athletics back on the map, program wide, was lost.

I love how you completely discount how important facilities and investment are for WSU to overcome location disadvantages. USC could have crap facilities forever, but they are USC so they will always pull coaching and playing talent.

Oregon remains the best example of what facility investment can do for off the beaten path programs, so much so that even the blue bloods have copied them. Take a look at Alabama has and tell me facilities don't matter.

 

[Loyal Coug]

Funny how we never hear these kinds of comments from schools that go all in on athletics which in turn reap massive benefits from them. Gonzaga is a prime example.

Anyone who doubts the tangible benefits of the FOB only needs to look across Stadium Way at the current state of the basketball program.

I love how you completely discount how important facilities and investment are for WSU to overcome location disadvantages. USC could have crap facilities forever, but they are USC so they will always pull coaching and playing talent.

Oregon remains the best example of what facility investment can do for off the beaten path programs, so much so that even the blue bloods have copied them. Take a look at Alabama has and tell me facilities don't matter.

Just FYI, this isn't twitter. You can write more than 2 sentences per post.

So in order of your comments above:
I don't think that a basketball program can really be compared to a Power 5 program. And I see Gonzaga as an example of 95's conflict. Aside from the law school (I don't know if it is even any good), Gonzaga was and is nothing special as an educational institution. The fact their entire identity and claim to anything is their basketball team is kind of ridiculous in my opinion. And the fact that kids flock to go to school in downtown Spokane simply because of the basketball team is laughable. But, they are a private school so fine with me.

I don't think that anyone doubts the tangible benefits of the FOB. That doesn't mean we can't lament the cost, or wonder if we needed "that much". Same with the luxury seats. We all know something significant had to be done. But the basketball program's problems are not due to the lack of facilities. Now that Football is out of Bohler, there should be plenty of room for Basketball and the other programs to stretch out.

And Oregon - haven't we beaten them 3 times in a row now? Just sayin'.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

Funny how we never hear these kinds of comments from schools that go all in on athletics which in turn reap massive benefits from them. Gonzaga is a prime example.

Anyone who doubts the tangible benefits of the FOB only needs to look across Stadium Way at the current state of the basketball program.



Just FYI, this isn't twitter. You can write more than 2 sentences per post.

So in order of your comments above:
I don't think that a basketball program can really be compared to a Power 5 program. And I see Gonzaga as an example of 95's conflict. Aside from the law school (I don't know if it is even any good), Gonzaga was and is nothing special as an educational institution. The fact their entire identity and claim to anything is their basketball team is kind of ridiculous in my opinion. And the fact that kids flock to go to school in downtown Spokane simply because of the basketball team is laughable. But, they are a private school so fine with me.

I don't think that anyone doubts the tangible benefits of the FOB. That doesn't mean we can't lament the cost, or wonder if we needed "that much". Same with the luxury seats. We all know something significant had to be done. But the basketball program's problems are not due to the lack of facilities. Now that Football is out of Bohler, there should be plenty of room for Basketball and the other programs to stretch out.

And Oregon - haven't we beaten them 3 times in a row now? Just sayin'.

As to Gonzaga's law school - USNR has them as the 113 law school. They're not even the best in the NW. Not sure where their prestige seems to come from other than being an extremely expensive Jesuit school, so "they must be good." I'm sure that some time they were ok, but that time has long since passed.

 

[Loyal Coug]

As to Gonzaga's law school - USNR has them as the 113 law school. They're not even the best in the NW. Not sure where their prestige seems to come from other than being an extremely expensive Jesuit school, so "they must be good." I'm sure that some time they were ok, but that time has long since passed.

Thanks for the research. Confirms my opinion - their "prestige" comes from their basketball team. That's it. Nothing else. Not their academics, sure as hell not their research, not their campus, not their location.

 

[425cougfan]

As to Gonzaga's law school - USNR has them as the 113 law school. They're not even the best in the NW. Not sure where their prestige seems to come from other than being an extremely expensive Jesuit school, so "they must be good." I'm sure that some time they were ok, but that time has long since passed.

Gonzaga's law school has never been good. It always has been in the third or fourth tier of schools as long as I've paid attention (the past 20 years or so). Law is an extremely status-obsessed profession where if you go anywhere outside the top 14 schools (yes, 14 ... I know it's weird, but the same 14 schools, pretty much, have been at the top for the past 20 years or so), you have a hard time getting a job at a big firm unless you have truly stellar grades.

The reputation of Gonzaga's undergrad still isn't that great, but it's miles better now than it was back in the 90s. There really is something to that "front door to the university" thing.

 

[PeteTheChop]

So can we all agree that Leach + elite facilities + WSU financial crater >>> budget CPW replacement + Big Sky Conference facilities + budget-conscious spending?

Not sure in this day and age the latter approach locks WSU into the upper-tier of the Pac-12 as CML has done, but I’ll defer to the CZ experts on that matter.

 

[Coug90]

I’d say there’s a good chance Leach doesn’t take the job without a firm commitment to the FOB being built, so in that respect it was necessary.

Plus you have to at least attempt to keep up with the arms race, or you have no chance. Instead of battling Utah, Colorado or Boise State for recruits, we’d be battling San Jose State, Eastern, or Idaho State. While CPW cleaned up on those epic recruiting battles, that’s not a place you want to go back to. Absolutely had to go in the hole and get the FOB done.

 

[Cougsocal]

I’d say there’s a good chance Leach doesn’t take the job without a firm commitment to the FOB being built, so in that respect it was necessary.

What do you base this on? Maryland reported that Leach actively contacting them expressing interest. This is not a sign of a coach that was a hot commodity, who could make construction demands. Let's not forget, while Mike Leach is one of the great coaching minds, he is also a flake and is still seeking a pound of flesh from TT. As this off season proved, the latter tempers schools' interest in the man. (I was pleasantly shocked there was so little interest in him, considering what he has accomplished for us.) All indications are that had he not signed with us in 2011, he would have been unemployed for another year. It wasn't like we were bidding against a host of other schools for his services. It was more like a desperate school hired an equally desperate pariah coach, and a married in heaven was made.

What am I missing?

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

What do you base this on? Maryland reported that Leach actively contacting them expressing interest. This is not a sign of a coach that was a hot commodity, who could make construction demands. Let's not forget, while Mike Leach is one of the great coaching minds, he is also a flake and is still seeking a pound of flesh from TT. As this off season proved, the latter tempers schools' interest in the man. (I was pleasantly shocked there was so little interest in him, considering what he has accomplished for us.) All indications are that had he not signed with us in 2011, he would have been unemployed for another year. It wasn't like we were bidding against a host of other schools for his services. It was more like a desperate school hired an equally desperate pariah coach, and a married in heaven was made.

What am I missing?

Care to elaborate on the highlighted text?

 

[AlwaysSpokanesFault]

Any commentary on Gonadzaga and "prestige" is downright hillarious.

It's a rinky-dinky, podunk, Cafeteria-Catholic school in a fairly crappy part of town. Not quite Hillyard, but shares some abiance (bums, urine, dirt roads).

And as far as educational facilities go, the new strip malls in the vicinity are larger than their engineering building (and could be possibly better equiped, sans all the freebies from SEL). Chipotle and Sonic may have more square footage...

Why you would pay $25K/year for that experience, save a full-ride dealio, is beyond me. But then again, my kid is going to Whitworth this fall...so what do I know?

 

[Observer11]

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2018/apr/12/gonzaga-dedicates-game-changing-volkar-center-for-/#/0


Say what you will about Gonzaga - but their AD was able to convince a non-alum to fund a state of the art athletic facility. Their AD didn't have to push in chips he didn't have, nor a taxpayer safety net at his disposal.

 

[AlwaysSpokanesFault]

Imagine if we had an AD that could work similar mental voodoo on a certain former E.E. prof named Monty Schweitzer. That would be "Excellent."

Alas, we can't even get rich old farts with actual ties to Wazzu to do much of anything. On a sidenote, EMP is looking a bit dowdy these days...

 

[displacedak]

With all the comparisons to the zags and their basketball program, it might be a good idea to remember that it is WAY cheaper to go all in on/maintain a basketball program than a football program.
That's why there are ~3x as many D1 basketball programs.

 

[fingerdisco]

What do you base this on? Maryland reported that Leach actively contacting them expressing interest. This is not a sign of a coach that was a hot commodity, who could make construction demands. Let's not forget, while Mike Leach is one of the great coaching minds, he is also a flake and is still seeking a pound of flesh from TT. As this off season proved, the latter tempers schools' interest in the man. (I was pleasantly shocked there was so little interest in him, considering what he has accomplished for us.) All indications are that had he not signed with us in 2011, he would have been unemployed for another year. It wasn't like we were bidding against a host of other schools for his services. It was more like a desperate school hired an equally desperate pariah coach, and a married in heaven was made.

What am I missing?

Back when he was hired, Moos emphasized that he had assured CML that the FOB was a 100% certainty--that and a hefty chunk of change brought him to Pullman. You mention Maryland, but again, even if Leach was actively seeking that job out, Maryland isn't Pullman, just like southern Cal isn't. The fact that we ended up paying him whatever it was--3 million?--tells me he wasn't desperate and begging Moos for a job.

 

[425cougfan]

Back when he was hired, Moos emphasized that he had assured CML that the FOB was a 100% certainty--that and a hefty chunk of change brought him to Pullman. You mention Maryland, but again, even if Leach was actively seeking that job out, Maryland isn't Pullman, just like southern Cal isn't. The fact that we ended up paying him whatever it was--3 million?--tells me he wasn't desperate and begging Moos for a job.

I agree with the premise. I remember some discussion regarding him also potentially having some discussions with Kansas and Maryland, and there was a general sense he was going to get hired by someone soon given his level of success at Texas Tech and those allegations by Adam James having been refuted strongly in Swing your Sword and elsewhere. For the sake of the record, he was "only" guaranteed $2.25 million per year in his first deal signed in late 2011. See here: http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2011/dec/01/cougars-land-their-big-fish/. At the time, that salary ranked highly in the Pac-12.

 

[Loyal Coug]

I agree with the premise. I remember some discussion regarding him also potentially having some discussions with Kansas and Maryland, and there was a general sense he was going to get hired by someone soon given his level of success at Texas Tech and those allegations by Adam James having been refuted strongly in Swing your Sword and elsewhere. For the sake of the record, he was "only" guaranteed $2.25 million per year in his first deal signed in late 2011. See here: http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2011/dec/01/cougars-land-their-big-fish/. At the time, that salary ranked highly in the Pac-12.

CML interviewed with Maryland, and was seen as the favorite for the job - but they didn't like his interview. Link below, but google Maryland Leach Interview and you get a bunch of stories. Good for us, too bad for them. Some maryland fans are still upset that they didn't pick CML.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/...yland-football-mike-leach-20171214-story.html

 

[425cougfan]

CML interviewed with Maryland, and was seen as the favorite for the job - but they didn't like his interview. Link below, but google Maryland Leach Interview and you get a bunch of stories. Good for us, too bad for them. Some maryland fans are still upset that they didn't pick CML.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/...yland-football-mike-leach-20171214-story.html

Ah, yes -- that's right. More than just talk. Also, in that article I linked to, Moos claimed that "a lot of schools wanted [Leach]." Never sure how seriously to take those kinds of remarks from Bill, and perhaps that could just represent Leach's agent creating a false impression, but I wouldn't be surprised if more than a few schools were at least sniffing around Leach in late 2011.

 

[OrangeGravy]

Gonzaga's law school has never been good. It always has been in the third or fourth tier of schools as long as I've paid attention (the past 20 years or so). Law is an extremely status-obsessed profession where if you go anywhere outside the top 14 schools (yes, 14 ... I know it's weird, but the same 14 schools, pretty much, have been at the top for the past 20 years or so), you have a hard time getting a job at a big firm unless you have truly stellar grades.

The reputation of Gonzaga's undergrad still isn't that great, but it's miles better now than it was back in the 90s. There really is something to that "front door to the university" thing.

Their Law school was always the last case scenario fall back school for everyone I've known trying to get into law back in the 90's because you were basically guaranteed admission if you passed the LSAT.

 

[OrangeGravy]

What do you base this on? Maryland reported that Leach actively contacting them expressing interest. This is not a sign of a coach that was a hot commodity, who could make construction demands. Let's not forget, while Mike Leach is one of the great coaching minds, he is also a flake and is still seeking a pound of flesh from TT. As this off season proved, the latter tempers schools' interest in the man. (I was pleasantly shocked there was so little interest in him, considering what he has accomplished for us.) All indications are that had he not signed with us in 2011, he would have been unemployed for another year. It wasn't like we were bidding against a host of other schools for his services. It was more like a desperate school hired an equally desperate pariah coach, and a married in heaven was made.

What am I missing?

You're missing the fact that he still had the financial ability to hold out and do nothing but hang out in Key West until he got a situation he wanted. It's not like he was starving and a even in his situation he still had plenty of leverage against a school like WSU. I know we all love our school, but let's be real, most coaches with his resume would consider WSU lucky to have their services, not the other way around

 

[OrangeGravy]

Any commentary on Gonadzaga and "prestige" is downright hillarious.

It's a rinky-dinky, podunk, Cafeteria-Catholic school in a fairly crappy part of town. Not quite Hillyard, but shares some abiance (bums, urine, dirt roads).

And as far as educational facilities go, the new strip malls in the vicinity are larger than their engineering building (and could be possibly better equiped, sans all the freebies from SEL). Chipotle and Sonic may have more square footage...

Why you would pay $25K/year for that experience, save a full-ride dealio, is beyond me. But then again, my kid is going to Whitworth this fall...so what do I know?

This is true. The 2 best facilities on that campus is the NEW arena and the NEW baseball field. There are plenty of high school campuses that are as large or larger and just as nice

 

[BiggsCoug]

I love how you completely discount how important facilities and investment are for WSU to overcome location disadvantages. USC could have crap facilities forever, but they are USC so they will always pull coaching and playing talent.

Oregon remains the best example of what facility investment can do for off the beaten path programs, so much so that even the blue bloods have copied them. Take a look at Alabama has and tell me facilities don't matter.

High end talent selects from schools with high end investment. You could also make the same argument for academics.