WSU Rowing is ranked in the Top -10 Nationally!!!! Way to go Lady Cougs!!!!
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Top 10!!!!
- Thread starter Coug95man2
- Start date
Moos deserves some credit
Actually 11th. As one who has been critical of Moos, I have to admit that he deserves credit on this one. He has completely stopped throwing money down this drain. Looking at the DOE numbers, he has cut the rowing budget by more than 30% since 2011 with zero decline in "performance." Performance is in quotes because Oregon State, hand down the worst women's rowing program in the P-12, is ranked 17th. Now that Moos rightly ended the rowing experiment, it is time to bring softball to the Palouse.
Why was rowing an experiment? When the NCAA began to offer rowing scholarships, WSU (Sterk, I believe) had the choice of bring in softball or going all in on rowing, he went all in on rowing, in an effort to get a jump on the competition as the first NCAA school to offer a fully funded scholarship rowing program. As late as 2006 we were spending a million a year (we didn't have) on this program. Last year we spent less than 250K, without significant impact on the water.
.
Actually 11th. As one who has been critical of Moos, I have to admit that he deserves credit on this one. He has completely stopped throwing money down this drain. Looking at the DOE numbers, he has cut the rowing budget by more than 30% since 2011 with zero decline in "performance." Performance is in quotes because Oregon State, hand down the worst women's rowing program in the P-12, is ranked 17th. Now that Moos rightly ended the rowing experiment, it is time to bring softball to the Palouse.
Why was rowing an experiment? When the NCAA began to offer rowing scholarships, WSU (Sterk, I believe) had the choice of bring in softball or going all in on rowing, he went all in on rowing, in an effort to get a jump on the competition as the first NCAA school to offer a fully funded scholarship rowing program. As late as 2006 we were spending a million a year (we didn't have) on this program. Last year we spent less than 250K, without significant impact on the water.
.
Re: Moos deserves some credit
Odd. WSU is releasing pages, tweets, etc. etc. to congratulation rowers for being Top 10 but you are right. 11th, they are. Still won't complain especially if our overhead is $250K a year wow that's basically a non-existent budget. Even more Kudo's to them!
Odd. WSU is releasing pages, tweets, etc. etc. to congratulation rowers for being Top 10 but you are right. 11th, they are. Still won't complain especially if our overhead is $250K a year wow that's basically a non-existent budget. Even more Kudo's to them!
Re: Moos deserves some credit
By the way, the reason why Sterk chose rowing was he would be able to offer a lot more scholarships in rowing and thus be in compliance with Title IX or Title X or whatever Title it was. Rowing offered around twice as many scholarships and the overall cost of the program was a lot less.
I don't want to presume anything. Are you congratulating Moos or are you being sarcastic?
By the way, the reason why Sterk chose rowing was he would be able to offer a lot more scholarships in rowing and thus be in compliance with Title IX or Title X or whatever Title it was. Rowing offered around twice as many scholarships and the overall cost of the program was a lot less.
Re: Moos deserves some credit
Don't get me wrong, I would spend money to keep any WSU athletic program successful, rowing, golf, VB, BB, Track, I love the non-revenue sports. When I was in school, track and baseball gave the university a sense of pride, because they were the big kids on the athletic block. We need to get some of that pride back and the non-revenue sports is a cheap way of doing it. But it needs to be done the right way.
The reality is for most kids and most schools, you go to the school because of the coach, not the school or the facilities, that's icing. Rowing and the millions we wasted on it, is a prime example. Chaplin/Sloan is a another. Chaplin had/has gravitas in the track world, Sloan has/had none. Look at what happened. That is why we hired Leach, hoping that his gravitas would turn the program around. That is why I'm on record as saying that the best decision Moos has made was hiring him. Moos' next best decision was to end the rowing experiment. If you aren't willing to hire a coach with gravitas, don't throw money at a sport until it is successful, then reward that coach and the program to keep it successful (historically the biggest failing of WSU athletics).
Not being sarcastic at all. Sterk was throwing $1m a year at this dog at a time when we were not getting $20m a year in TV revenue. Moos is only spending $247K, and did you notice that we are still title IX complaint and getting the same results. Here is the thing, partial scholarship athletes count just as much for IX complaince purposes. It would have been easy for Moos, and politically correct, to have kept throwing money at rowing. The sad fact for WSU was that we were offering girls full scholarships and still couldn't out recruit schools like the UW, Cal or many others who were only offering partials or just the opportunity to row. Where Sterk screwed the pouch was he wasn't willing to spend the money on a name coach, first.
Don't get me wrong, I would spend money to keep any WSU athletic program successful, rowing, golf, VB, BB, Track, I love the non-revenue sports. When I was in school, track and baseball gave the university a sense of pride, because they were the big kids on the athletic block. We need to get some of that pride back and the non-revenue sports is a cheap way of doing it. But it needs to be done the right way.
The reality is for most kids and most schools, you go to the school because of the coach, not the school or the facilities, that's icing. Rowing and the millions we wasted on it, is a prime example. Chaplin/Sloan is a another. Chaplin had/has gravitas in the track world, Sloan has/had none. Look at what happened. That is why we hired Leach, hoping that his gravitas would turn the program around. That is why I'm on record as saying that the best decision Moos has made was hiring him. Moos' next best decision was to end the rowing experiment. If you aren't willing to hire a coach with gravitas, don't throw money at a sport until it is successful, then reward that coach and the program to keep it successful (historically the biggest failing of WSU athletics).
Re: Moos deserves some credit
http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/rowing/d1
According to the above link.....we are #10.
As far as throwing money in a hole, I agree with the idea that we should be smart about how to spend our money but there's a good chance that some of that "wasted" money paid for equipment and facilities that are benefitting the squad today. I'm glad to see a tighter budget but I hope we are spending enough to keep us relevant somewhere. God knows that it isn't happening in football or basketball right now.
http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/rowing/d1
According to the above link.....we are #10.
As far as throwing money in a hole, I agree with the idea that we should be smart about how to spend our money but there's a good chance that some of that "wasted" money paid for equipment and facilities that are benefitting the squad today. I'm glad to see a tighter budget but I hope we are spending enough to keep us relevant somewhere. God knows that it isn't happening in football or basketball right now.
Re: Moos deserves some credit
From everything I've heard in Pullman, our numbers are just about perfect when it comes to compliance with Title IX. If we bring in any other sport for one gender, then we'd have to find another sport for the other gender. More scholarships we can't pay for. So that ain't happening any time soon. And I don't think scrapping one program to start up another is a wise financial decision, either. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars, to start a program we WILL suck at, at first (because we would just be starting it, as all start ups suck at first).
The difference between Flat and SoCal's comments are a razor's edge, if I'm reading accurately. But I tend to lean towards Flat. I don't want to cut the budget so much that the program suffers. Period. We aren't getting any new programs any time soon, until we get a serious influx of money (donors)… And not Pac 12 Network money. So we better make the programs we have shine as bright as we can. I don't care if it's Bad Mitten, Fencing, Squash, basket weaving or Rowing. Give them whatever they need to succeed but do so with budget as a primary concern. And from this point forward, I think this goes for everything, football, soccer, baseball, all of it. We have money coming in. Use it but use it wisely. Quit borrowing against the mortgage, sort of speak, with the Pac12 Network money.
This post was edited on 4/16 9:14 AM by Coug95man2
From everything I've heard in Pullman, our numbers are just about perfect when it comes to compliance with Title IX. If we bring in any other sport for one gender, then we'd have to find another sport for the other gender. More scholarships we can't pay for. So that ain't happening any time soon. And I don't think scrapping one program to start up another is a wise financial decision, either. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars, to start a program we WILL suck at, at first (because we would just be starting it, as all start ups suck at first).
The difference between Flat and SoCal's comments are a razor's edge, if I'm reading accurately. But I tend to lean towards Flat. I don't want to cut the budget so much that the program suffers. Period. We aren't getting any new programs any time soon, until we get a serious influx of money (donors)… And not Pac 12 Network money. So we better make the programs we have shine as bright as we can. I don't care if it's Bad Mitten, Fencing, Squash, basket weaving or Rowing. Give them whatever they need to succeed but do so with budget as a primary concern. And from this point forward, I think this goes for everything, football, soccer, baseball, all of it. We have money coming in. Use it but use it wisely. Quit borrowing against the mortgage, sort of speak, with the Pac12 Network money.
This post was edited on 4/16 9:14 AM by Coug95man2
Re: Moos deserves some credit
Chaplain was great. I know the NCAA changed the rules regarding foreign eligibility and scholarships during his last few seasons. We all liked Sloan, but he was not cut out to be a winning head coach. I understand him being promoted to head coach, you are hoping he could sustain what Chaplain had built. The problem was keeping him as head coach for so long when it was clear he was not getting the job done.
I know that Moos has already improved the soccer field with plans to do more soon. Baseball has the worst facilities in the conference right now. I know there are plans to build a new clubhouse. But, the money is being raised privately. Coach Marbut has worked tirelessly trying to raise money. I have heard differing stories on how close it is to coming to fruition.
I want all sports to do well at WSU, even the minor sports. But, I do agree with Moos that football is the revenue generator for the entire athletic department. It needed the largest capital outlay from the start. If/when football gets fixed, everything else will fall into place.
I have not looked at the numbers, but I was going to make a point that Flatland made. It could be the reason why not Moos is not spending as much as Sterk was because of some expenditures got paid off. For example, if they needed several vans to transport the players, they bought a van. The van could be paid and off budget. I think I remember them buying new rowing shells and an indoor rowing machine or something a few years ago. Of course, it could be that Moos thought it better to spend the limited budget dollars somewhere else. I don't know. I am just throwing things out for discussion.
Chaplain was great. I know the NCAA changed the rules regarding foreign eligibility and scholarships during his last few seasons. We all liked Sloan, but he was not cut out to be a winning head coach. I understand him being promoted to head coach, you are hoping he could sustain what Chaplain had built. The problem was keeping him as head coach for so long when it was clear he was not getting the job done.
I know that Moos has already improved the soccer field with plans to do more soon. Baseball has the worst facilities in the conference right now. I know there are plans to build a new clubhouse. But, the money is being raised privately. Coach Marbut has worked tirelessly trying to raise money. I have heard differing stories on how close it is to coming to fruition.
I want all sports to do well at WSU, even the minor sports. But, I do agree with Moos that football is the revenue generator for the entire athletic department. It needed the largest capital outlay from the start. If/when football gets fixed, everything else will fall into place.
Re: Moos deserves some credit
The DOE numbers are base on operating budgets, I should have said that. Capital expenditures aren't include, Skulls purchased and building built in 2006, or before, would not be include, just like the $89m FOB isn't in the football's operating budget. In short, Moos cut rowing to the bone. We get 75 female participants for less that a 250K, when we used to spend $1m, that's good when rowing remains a Pac-12 "also ran."
As for IX "balance," it is a one way street, protecting women, it does not protect men. You can add as many women's sports as you like, but if add a men's sport/scholarships you must provide the same for women in proportion to the students attending the school.
If anyone interest, here is a link to DOE report on WSU. The 600Lbs gorilla for WSU remains its bloated non alocated expenses, which I interpret as "overhead." At nearly $25 million it is nearly as high as the UW, (which has $40 million more in revenue). If we want to find money to spend on non-revenue sports, here is where Moos can start. Arizona's non-alocated expenses are only $11 million, that is a tight ship. We could do a lot with an extra $14 millon spent on teams, not administration.
This is not a problem that Moos created, but he hasn't done much to stop the hogs feeding.
WSU finances
The DOE numbers are base on operating budgets, I should have said that. Capital expenditures aren't include, Skulls purchased and building built in 2006, or before, would not be include, just like the $89m FOB isn't in the football's operating budget. In short, Moos cut rowing to the bone. We get 75 female participants for less that a 250K, when we used to spend $1m, that's good when rowing remains a Pac-12 "also ran."
As for IX "balance," it is a one way street, protecting women, it does not protect men. You can add as many women's sports as you like, but if add a men's sport/scholarships you must provide the same for women in proportion to the students attending the school.
If anyone interest, here is a link to DOE report on WSU. The 600Lbs gorilla for WSU remains its bloated non alocated expenses, which I interpret as "overhead." At nearly $25 million it is nearly as high as the UW, (which has $40 million more in revenue). If we want to find money to spend on non-revenue sports, here is where Moos can start. Arizona's non-alocated expenses are only $11 million, that is a tight ship. We could do a lot with an extra $14 millon spent on teams, not administration.
This is not a problem that Moos created, but he hasn't done much to stop the hogs feeding.
WSU finances
Re: Moos deserves some credit
There are 3 different ways a school can be "compliant" to Title IX. I've always assumed it is a "proportional" numbers thing for WSU. Below is the link from the National Women's Law Center and the first portion outlines this. We have to have a proportional number of women and men schollies in comparison to the school population. Like I said, all I've heard is we are good here.
Regarding our overhead, I'm in COMPLETE agreement there. This is enough to make me question quite a bit. Especially it being in a generic "slush fund" style tab in the budget This needs to be questioned to Mr. Moos so if there is a way to clarify, he can. If he can't clarify, this number needs to change quickly.
Title IX "numbers"
There are 3 different ways a school can be "compliant" to Title IX. I've always assumed it is a "proportional" numbers thing for WSU. Below is the link from the National Women's Law Center and the first portion outlines this. We have to have a proportional number of women and men schollies in comparison to the school population. Like I said, all I've heard is we are good here.
Regarding our overhead, I'm in COMPLETE agreement there. This is enough to make me question quite a bit. Especially it being in a generic "slush fund" style tab in the budget This needs to be questioned to Mr. Moos so if there is a way to clarify, he can. If he can't clarify, this number needs to change quickly.
Title IX "numbers"
Re: Rowing Expenses
I don't think the rowing budget has been cut very much at all. The $250k shown as "operating expenses" in the data base is actually defined as game day expenses (travel, lodging, uniforms etc) but that's a small part of the overall program cost. I believe the total rowing team budget is around $1.4 million per year - probably about half of that goes to covering the cost of 20 full ride scholarships (which are split up among 30 to 40 athletes). In addition, the coaching salaries are at least $200k.
As was mentioned, rowing was added because of the need to add more scholarships to meet title IX requirements and softball only brings 12 scholarships. Also the initial cost to build a Pac-12 caliber softball facility would probably be in the $4 to $5 million range.
The rowing team is still using the boathouse built by the men's club team in the mid 80's (although I'm sure with some improvements). They did spend about $1 million to convert the old Bohler gym pool to a rowing tank a few years back - I believe about a quarter of the cost was picked up by a sizable donation.
I don't think the rowing budget has been cut very much at all. The $250k shown as "operating expenses" in the data base is actually defined as game day expenses (travel, lodging, uniforms etc) but that's a small part of the overall program cost. I believe the total rowing team budget is around $1.4 million per year - probably about half of that goes to covering the cost of 20 full ride scholarships (which are split up among 30 to 40 athletes). In addition, the coaching salaries are at least $200k.
As was mentioned, rowing was added because of the need to add more scholarships to meet title IX requirements and softball only brings 12 scholarships. Also the initial cost to build a Pac-12 caliber softball facility would probably be in the $4 to $5 million range.
The rowing team is still using the boathouse built by the men's club team in the mid 80's (although I'm sure with some improvements). They did spend about $1 million to convert the old Bohler gym pool to a rowing tank a few years back - I believe about a quarter of the cost was picked up by a sizable donation.
