This is what Kirk Schulz is talking about when. . .
- Thread starter ScottHood
- Start date
Needs to stop pussy footing around and put a number or numbers out there.
Our membership is stagnant, and I'd be curious to know how $$/donor are trending for us.
Historically we and Stanford have the highest % alums giving contributions. ASU is historically last, and by a long way. Where we have typically trailed is in $/contributor, and we also have fewer alums than the bigger schools. Hello WSU was effective in getting recent grads started with contributing. Recent AD's have let that drop, and from what I've seen, follow up with existing contributors is minimal. Nobody who understood fund raising has worked in the athletic department for a long time.
For those people that think Moos didn’t do anything
“In 2011, the CAF raised just $2.6 million. By 2012, that had nearly doubled to $4.7 million, and in 2013 the Cougars set a record by raising $5.7 million in membership gifts.”
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/may/04/meticulous-moos-has-made-sweeping-changes/
The CAF Annual Fund grew 10 percent in FY17, from $5.8 million to $6.43 million, surpassing the year's goal of $6.25 million.
https://wsucougars.com/news/2017/7/...nd-continues-upward-growth.aspx?path=football
Just 8 years ago our annual giving was just 2 million dollars.
Now it sits at 8 million per year. So let’s see what Chun can do, but the fact Moos quadrupled our annual giving is pretty significant, obviously we need more, but there is no denying the fact that Moos got our athletic program out of a grave.
“In 2011, the CAF raised just $2.6 million. By 2012, that had nearly doubled to $4.7 million, and in 2013 the Cougars set a record by raising $5.7 million in membership gifts.”
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/may/04/meticulous-moos-has-made-sweeping-changes/
The CAF Annual Fund grew 10 percent in FY17, from $5.8 million to $6.43 million, surpassing the year's goal of $6.25 million.
https://wsucougars.com/news/2017/7/...nd-continues-upward-growth.aspx?path=football
Just 8 years ago our annual giving was just 2 million dollars.
Now it sits at 8 million per year. So let’s see what Chun can do, but the fact Moos quadrupled our annual giving is pretty significant, obviously we need more, but there is no denying the fact that Moos got our athletic program out of a grave.
Last edited by a moderator:
And Moos was responsible for hiring Leach and making sure that the Suites were built. Yah, I know, we probably over spent on the suites.
Yeah. I'm pretty sure Moos just passed gas in his office during his time as AD.
I fully intend to up my annual giving this year. After buying a house last year and having to dump a little cash into the new place, I should be ready to start giving more within the next few months. My goal is to at least double what I already give.
Moos was brought in to duplicate the success that he'd been a part of at Oregon.
Let's check the boxes, shall we?
- Land "whale" donor(s) - NO
- Grow donor base - yes, but not to expectations
- Increase overall giving - yes, but not to expectations
- Improve facilities - yes, but let's be honest; this was more EFlo than Moos
- Energize the donor base - I'm going to say NO. See above numbers
- Improve the "Cougar Club" - he ripped off CAF from Oregon, other than that it's still a disjointed, exclusive (to the point of being exclusionary) mess. The university refuses to invest capital in fundraising and rely on volunteers who are treated like part time labor. So, NO
- Naming rights - NO and NO
- "There's no way we could ever get worse than Paul Graham". Moos -" hold my beer"
Just what came to mind, I'm sure I missed something. And while I get wanting to lionize him for the Leach hire, let's not forget that with Wulff and Kent he's had his hand in two of the worst hires in school history.
How is exceeding fundraising goals, not meeting expectations? Also, if the University refuses to invest capital in fundraising, I'm not sure how that is Moos' failing.
Sure, Kent is bad. From the few minutes I've watched this season, the players look like they've quit. There is a long list of failed MBB coaches at WSU. WSU basketball has been historically terrible. WSU has six NCAA appearances in school history. Failure is the norm. Not sure how that is some kind of indictment for Moos.
He had prior experience with Kent as well as prior failure. He should have known what he was getting into and especially should have known he wasn't worth a 5-year guarantee.
There's that pesky extension he granted his buddy....
The only two absolute failures in WSU basketball history to date are Paul Graham and Bob Greenwood. Ernie Kent is fast approaching.
Stevens and Eastman were remarkably m'eh- but Eastman got to the tourney. Bone even won at about a .500 pace.
Friel, Bohler, Harshman, Raveling, Sampson, Bennett - not failures. Not even close.
Failure is far from the norm in Cougar basketball.
Len Stevens remarkably me'h? Maybe for the GSL.
Len Stevens & Bob Greenwood were the Paul Wulff prototypes.
Only two WSU men's basketball coaches have ever won a Pac 12 tournament game.
Someone is living in a mythical and nostalgic state. Eastman never got to "the tourney."
My mistake - he did get to the NIT twice.
Which is hardly a 'failure'.
Extending Ernie -absolute failure.
To be completely objective, Eastman's 2 NIT bids were with Kelvin Sampson's kids, and he subsequently went downhill after that.
Show me where he exceeded fundraising goals. Was the goal to simply increase? Because if so, well I guess a parade is in order.
Like I stated earlier - outside of the first couple of years Moos was here I've never seen any "goals" communicated to me. It's been part of the failure of the CAF, imho.
I get your point, but you might be guilty of reaching. FWIW, Eastman got WSU to the NIT.....not the NCAA tournament. The trajectory of the team under Eastman was drastically downward and he was definitely a failure as a head coach.
Sampson is harder to judge. He coached teams that were very exciting and he got us into the tournament one time and he set the table for Eastman to have early success, but at the end of the day, our teams were never in danger of finishing near the top of the league. His best finish was in 1993-94 at 20-11 (10-8) for 4th in the conference. He had an exciting brand of basketball, but everyone knew that he was flirting with the edge of the rules when he was at WSU.
Stevens' teams went 19-35 in conference play. That's worse than meh. We had a 2-13 stretch in his final season. That's flat-out bad.
Given that almost 100 teams make the NCAA or NIT tournament every year nowadays, and we haven't made either in going on eight years, and that WSU has only been to one or the other of those only 10 times since 1979....it's safe to say that WSU isn't known for it's basketball excellence.
Post above in this thread:
"The CAF Annual Fund grew 10 percent in FY17, from $5.8 million to $6.43 million, surpassing the year's goal of $6.25 million."
Focusing on the here & now, it wouldn't take that much more to move us out of the Pac 12 basement in athletic donations.
So from 2013 to 2017, giving increased $0.1M. Four years of zilch. Yes I know he wasn't here all four.
Also, anyone with a heartbeat could have doubled giving from 2011; the donor program was so badly broken, with zero leadership or direction, there was no where to go but up.
It's ironic that you are making the "but Wulff doubled his wins from 2 to 4!!" argument.
"The Cougars still rank in the bottom half of their conference in donations." From your linked 2014 article.
So the link at the top of this thread says WSU is now last in the conference. So we lost ground under Moos? I dunno - just reading what is in front of me....
The "Moos sucked" narrative doesn't hold water. You don't have to accept that, but you know it's true.
Moos is exactly who WSU needed at a time when he was desperately needed.
Gib, I agree with your Moos statement.
None the less, the athletic department was disappointing in terms of getting the right people focused on fund raising. You can be the right guy in many respects and still be far less than ideal in other areas.
None the less, the athletic department was disappointing in terms of getting the right people focused on fund raising. You can be the right guy in many respects and still be far less than ideal in other areas.
I'll buy that if you'll buy that Moos is exactly who needed to LEAVE when it was desperately needed.
Nope.
Because there's this interim period between when Moos was desperately needed per your assertion and his actions thereafter prior to his departure.
Take what you can get.
I'm not in the position where I need to take what I can get. You may wish to re-evaluate since you're backtracking on the "Moos sucked" narrative.
You wish. I offered and you countered. I accepted the offer with a contingency. Apparently you don't accept the contingency and are trying to rewrite the offer.
It's really quite simple. You don't like the deal, walk away.
Who gets billed for that pithy analysis? Go ahead and lay it out in a brief if you can monetize that on someone else.
Pretty clear what transpired as per usual. Get hung up on legal syntax if you wish. Same as your naming rights denials.
Your Perry Mason impressions are tiresome. Almost as tiresome as your irrational hatred of Moos.
As per usual, Dr. Fake Psychiatrist, you're in no position to judge how others feel or what they think. Loyal Coug has taken you to task on that prior.
I've stated before there is no hate toward Bill Moos the person. He's probably a fine father and husband. His job performance is awful but life is too short to hate.
But apparently someone's feelers got hurt and that comment was deleted.
Still irrational. One one hand you're ready to concede Moos was what WSU needed at at time he was desperately needed. On the other you're still clinging to "His job performance is awful".
My guess is it was your feelers.
Hey don't suck me into this argument. I can cause enough trouble all on my own!
Hey don't suck me into this argument. I can cause enough trouble all on my own!
That's true.
