What is an reasonable subsidary for WSU to provide to Athletics...
- Thread starter ttowncoug
- Start date
So, Moos doesn't get credit for hiring Leach, but gets the blame for hiring Kent?
I've said it before and I'll say it again, his maneuvering to get the Pac12 to evenly distribute the Pac12 Networks money was massive. There is no way to gauge how big that was for WSU. Without that, we certainly wouldn't have built anything. AND we'd still be in debt because our program would be on fire... literally on fire. Dumpster style. We wouldn't be able to afford the free cleaning crews that come through the stadium after the game. Let alone the hit we'd have right now in the CAF dept. Let alone the "haves" would have a lot more, right now. USC and the like would literally have double the money, while we'd have a fraction.
Moos was no Messiah. But he did a lot of good for WSU athletics. A LOT. Stuff that is seemingly being taken for granted right now... Like the Pac12 even distribution among schools. That alone could be his legacy and a good one. Memories are short.
Moos was no Messiah. But he did a lot of good for WSU athletics. A LOT. Stuff that is seemingly being taken for granted right now... Like the Pac12 even distribution among schools. That alone could be his legacy and a good one. Memories are short.
Good point 95, I had forgotten about that. Although, per this article below, going to 12 teams helped overturn the status quo unfairness that had been perpetuated by USC, UCLA and (guess who?) uw. Subsequent, post-revenue sharing articles stated that equal share acceptance was unanimous. So while I am not saying that Moos did not have an impact on this, is isn't like he personally got it changed. Sounds like 7 of 10 schools had wanted a change for years. Going to 12 teams (75% was required for a change) meant USC/UCLA/uw no longer had veto power.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...ignment-revenue-sharing-amp-host-site-debates
This Moos sucked vs Moos was the messiah is starting to sound like a national political debate. IMHO, no he does not deserve an A. Only modest fundraising success (keep in mind he had the luxury seats to sell to help boost giving) and hiring EK knock him down a bit. He does not deserve an F. Whether we spent too much or not on improvements, we did need improvements. Hiring CML was a major score. So maybe he deserves a B or B-.
I agree with you as far as the equal sharing of P12 revenues. I do not think that happens without Moos, at least from reports at the time.
My biggest question is what did he/we have to give up in return? The large market schools wanting a bigger share of the pot, lead by USC, didn't just do it out of the goodness of their hearts.
What I fear may have happened is that there was a change in the mechanism for any eventual realignment of the conference. As it stood, realignment required unanimous approval. This ensured that a school, like WSU, couldn't get left out in the cold. I.e. - we couldn't be "voted out" because we wouldn't vote to eject ourselves unless we chose to leave of our own volition.
I have a sneaking suspicion that was changed, at the time of the P12 deal and the revenue sharing provisions, and any move to realign the conference could now leave us out in the cold. It happened once before, in the "olden days". And the UW was one of the schools voting us out at the time. So don't think they would automatically give us support these days, either.
I have no evidence of all this being the case. Just a strong suspicion. P12 realignment is a whole different kettle of fish and a totally different story than the one being discussed in this thread.
But, even though Moos was a pretty influential figure in the P12, I don't think he got "something for nothing" when it came to the revenue sharing deal.
Edited to say - I just now read Loyal's contribution to the matter and he brings up some interesting and valid points, too. I still think Moos had more to do with leading the move towards equal sharing of revenue than otherwise.
I don't think Bill was "without warts". But I think he did do some good things, too. Like most, his "ledger" has some things on the plus side and some things on the minus side. Only time will tell what the final analysis will be for his "legacy" at WSU.
Last edited:
I never said that.
The problem is Moos didn't allow for a means to terminate either relative to performance. See also: Fiscal Management.
The North-South divisions, with the the scheduling arrangement that all the Cali schools play each other every year was something WSU (along with uw, Oregon and OSU) gave up. As I understand it, the Cali schools have much better attendance for those games versus games against the Northwest or Arizona schools. It keeps the NW schools out of SoCal every year, which may impact us in recruiting. We get one game at UCLA or USC every other year.
I'm not sure that the zipper model for division alignment was ever seriously considered, but that would have been the fairest way to create divisions with a schedule that ensured the instate rival was played every year. Not sure anything was really given up there, but it would have given every school the chance to play in SoCal during the season.
The solution was/is not to roll over the contract every year if things go south.
In no way am I saying they don't remodel. I love the way the stadium looks with the FOB on the west side. And I am also glad Moos used the Pac 12 money to hire a name coach. Without Moos there is no Leach. If you think hiring leach was a good move, Moos deserves that credit. What is unfortunate for WSU is that the( pie in the sky revenues predicted never materialized. And it is also unfortunate that there is a certain segment of the fan base that cannot get the Pac 12 network because they don't have direct TV. And to add insult to injury, the younger generation because of the phone may not be the fanatics needed to sustain the level of fan base we currently have.
The Pac 10 and now the Pac 12 has always been equitable. What you describe- sort of an Apocalypse is what WSU had faced ever since I stepped on campus. So I won't make someone go bonkers I will not mention the coaches name that saw us through that tome period. But the crisis scenario you described WSU has already gone through. Selling off body bag games, not having USC, UCLA or their cross state rivals come to Pullman were just some of the obstacles. Selling a home game to BYU back to BYU to make another 800k. Competing with the LA schools that could recruit 140 kids if they wanted to (before reducing the scholies to 95) to a remodel that consisted of the coaches getting paint and painting their offices in July were things WSU faced in my day. Couple that with a season that was either a 1/4 or a 1/3 over before the students ever got to campus and if they wanted to see some games they had to drive to Spokane, coaches have seen worse than what was taking place in 2005 to 2018...and beyond. So we have seen this play out before. Price had similar obstacles and somehow they still made it through.
The Pac 12 had no choice but to distribute the money. The big three back in the 70's and early 80's were close to booting WSU and OSU out of the conference because the financial drain on the conference. But unless USC or UCLA wanted to go to the Big 12, WSU, ASU, UA, CU, UW, Oregon, OSU and the two bay area schools knew they had those two schools by the balls and they had to share the money evenly. With that said, good for Moos to see that through.
Oh I don't know. Let's see:
Ray Nagel - Don't know
Sam Jankovich - A- ? Responsible for Martin Stadium expansion and hiring Raveling and some people's favorite FB coach.
Dick Young - No idea. Did he hire Erickson or was it Livengood?
Livengood - B or B-? Hired Price.
Slick DIckson - F just because he was such a sleaze
Sterk - I have a better opinion of Sterk than most, maybe because I interacted with him. B-. He hired Dick Bennett.
Moos. I'll settle on a B.
Just out of curiosity, what choice did USC and UCLA really have? I know Moos made a strong case as to why they should share, but what was USC or UCLA prepared to do? Would they have left for another conference? The Pac 12 could have said we will go down to the Pac 8 and look for two more schools and get their market share and let UCLA and USC go to other conferences. And that prospect wasn't appealing to either LA school.
"Equitable" is not the same as "equal". How the new TV money was going to be distributed was a big deal being negotiated in 2011-12. USC and UCLA were getting a bigger piece of the pie than WSU, OSU, etc. under the former TV contract, and the money going to the conference was going way up in 2011-12. How the pie was going to be divided was certainly up for debate again in 2011-12. Texas getting a bigger share than other Big XII schools is one of the reasons that old Big XII fell apart.
I won't say Moos was the reason that Pac-12 TV money is equally distributed. But, I feel confident that other ADs would have sold WSU out for a few peanuts and WSU would be getting hosed long-term.
Sam....strictly on the business side of the ledger, he had to have been the best. Sherrill, Powers, then Walden. Walden wasn't even a coordinator. George raveling the first African American head coach at a major conference, then overseeing a successful baseball team and track program. Those are three good hires.
Dick Young hired Erickson. And Len Stevens, and handled the Kelvin Sampson fiasco. Pretty non descript. I would give him a C
Livengood....did some really good things. Fought through Kelvin's problems and stuck with Price. The problem is he was loose with the rules and very few people know this but we were pretty close to getting heavily sanctioned.
Dickson...I rate him higher for two reasons. He is Schultz but in a different way. he was hired by Smith for one reason. So the school that Smith serves as President stops having the athletic department embarrass him for their violations. second and most important, Dickson made critical changes to the 1997 schedule that greatly aided to the team getting to the Rose Bowl. That act alone, moving UCLA to the season opener was a stroke of genius, even if it wasn't meant to be
Sterk too is milk toast. I would give him a C
Moos-B
Insist on getting a bigger piece of the pie, like Texas did/has. Refuse to play games in Pullman, Corvalis or Tucson (which you have repeatedly given Walden credit for rectifying) since those cities are not traditional recruiting hotbeds. Leave the conference and the join the Big XII or some newly formed super-conference. Insist they get more ESPN or Fox national games than other schools. Get a bigger piece of other revenue streams. Or any other manner of jumping up and down like a spoiled toddler until they got their way.
How were they going to get sold out. OSU, Arizona, ASU, the Bay schools and even UW (powerless at that point) had no bargaining position on their own. They all had to stay together.
Last edited:
Their ONLY leverage was to leave the conference. They could stomp their feet to 2020. Didn't matter. Unless they were willing to jump to another conference, the remaining 10 teams had all the chips. The remaining 10 schools ad interests that aligned, and thus they aligned. USC and UCLA came to a gun fight with steak knives...and the conference knew it.
USC and UCLA are viable candidates for another conference. Tell Cal and/or Stanford to leave too or hold out to create a voting bloc. It's pretty easy if you use your thinking cap.
And you're screwing up the timeline- Colorado and Utah were not invited in before the Pac-10 schools decided how to divide the money.
You're just off in space now. What prevented USC and UCLA from getting Cal and/or Stanford on board with holding out for a bigger piece of the pie or bolting for another conference? Taking the SoCal and Bay Area TV markets in their pockets is kind of a big deal.
Well......it's probably all poppycock, but a number of their fans still insist they would be better served not being tied to the P12 and its horrible financial deal.
I make absolutely no claim on having any "inside scoop" as far as how the real "powers that be" at USC feel? But, according to these fans, some of whom claim to be "true insiders" (internet is full of empty boasting poseurs, huh?), leaving the P12 is still something USC sees as a possibility. They feel they could be better served financially as an independent.
Or, as an alternative, they see a day in the not too distant future, where a huge realignment comes about, with the "haves" joining up with other "haves" and leaving the country cousins in the dust.
I'm not convinced that's realistic/feasible at all. But I think something along that line could be a possibility, no matter how remote?
I know, what I have said is so far fetched. Stanford's and Cal's interests have never been aligned. Cal and even Stanford athletically in terms of football have been aligned with the have nots. Both those schools knew and know the Pac 10/12 works better with everyone as financially healthy as they can be. The reason USC didn't hold out for more money is there were enough votes to equally (not equitable) share the money. If ity came to hard ball they would lose this time around.
Does USC really want to be in a conference with Alabama, Florida, LSU? And conversely, does Alabama want to be in a conference that adds USC and say Texas (goes to show you money doesn't mean what it use to
) and drops Vanderbilt, South Carolina and Mississippi State?Plus they are going to find out ESPN and the like will probably be cutting back in the future.
So, why wouldn't spitting in their palms and shaking hands with USC and UCLA have been something Cal and/or Stanford would have done?
Your posts on this topic are a self fulfilling prophecy. You're starting with the presumption that USC and UCLA could not have held out or taken any action to build a voting bloc, then concluding that they had no other choice but to go with what other schools wanted.
And yes, I saw that you were dropping some 30+ year old insider knowledge that no one would ever be able to verify or disprove. Cool. Insider tip- put your life savings into typewriters. This computer thing is just a fad.
USC did hold out. You believe they went to the table and said hey, we have this great idea. Our school is in the largest market and we want to equally share our money, lets get the lawyers to draw up the contracts.
Insider tip...really? Someday you will have to tell me about my insider tips that I am not aware of.
Does USC really want to be in a conference with Alabama, Florida, LSU? And conversely, does Alabama want to be in a conference that adds USC and say Texas (goes to show you money doesn't mean what it use to
Plus they are going to find out ESPN and the like will probably be cutting back in the future.
I don't know. Why not, if you want to line the AD's coffers. Add Colorado, UCLA and Cal to that group and you've got a giant TV market that would command a lot of TV revenue. That's what you continue to not understand. The TV market that the school brings to the table is a big deal. LA is the number 2 TV market in the country- what conference doesn't want in on that. the B1G added Rutgers to get a foothold in the NYC market, the number 1 TV market in the country. Rutgers is a football joke. Consider Texas A&M- a Big XII title in 1998 and a Big XII South division title in 2010. That's it for the past 25 years. Why would the mighty SEC want to add a middling program? Because the Dallas and Houston TV markets are both in the top 10. Missouri doesn't have much of anything, but does drag in the Kansas City and St. Louis TV markets- both top 30 or so. Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana basically have no population. New Orleans isn't even a top 50 TV market.
Ehhhh - not so sure about that timeline. Read my article http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...ignment-revenue-sharing-amp-host-site-debates
No, my point is, per the article, that Colorado and Utah were invited in before the Pac 10/12 changed its revenue sharing agreement. In direct contrast to what you posted.
Did you read the article?
So your point is a blind squirrel found a nut.
Anything relevant to the main discussion?
Yes, there has been little improvement. While it hasn't a Wulff situation, where 12th meant 90-100 national classes, pre FOB - absolutely dreadful for a power conference school - Leach's recruiting has recruiting been in the top 50- 60 only, with the exception of the last class at 46 (56th, 53rd, 69th, 55th, 52nd). This is not to say that Leach & co can't evaluate talent, he is excellent at finding (little interest) kids that can actually play (kids available anyway), but the FOB has done little to get "high interest" talent (4 and 5 star kids) to sign with WSU. Since 2001 and prior to the Wulff recruiting disaster, our recruiting rankings were as follows: 28th (Price's last), 96th (Doba first), 25th, 52th, 45th and 63rd. So coaches who weren't a complete disaster, were able to recruit at the same level or better Pre-FOB. The difference being that Leach is a great technical coach, Price and Doba not so much. Therefore, they needed more talent to be successful, i.e. top 30 classes, and frequently did not get it.
Price's last class, pre Rose Bowl, included one 5 star recruit in Jermaine Green and four 4 star kids. Leach has signed only 7 four star kids in 6 years and not a single 5 star kid.
So if the FOB has helped recruiting, its primary purpose, how about giving me some evidence that shows it. Otherwise, how about a little less incredulity and a little more recognition that we have a $67 million recruiting flop on our hands. We could have half that money and built a FOB on par with UCLA and USC and be in the same recruiting position.
,
The website evaluations and star ranking system has evolved quite a bit since the early 2000s. Back then JC guys were either 4 star or no star. Comparing the Price-Doba era to the Leach era is apples and oranges.
Do you not (emphasis on the not) believe that the FOB contributed to three straight bowl games for the second time in school history? What should the money have been spent on instead? When would a $34 million FOB need to be remodeled to keep up with the other Pac-12 schools?
Doba's top recruits never made it into school. Also, the bottom half of Leach's classes were light years better than Doba and Prices classes. Signing days used to consist of a handful of uber athletes athletes with shady grades and a bunch of fringe PAC-12 talent. Now we get pretty solid classes with the majority of players having other P5 offers.
Sometimes Prices gambles paid off, but realistically we are were looking at a team which constantly had holes because of uneven recruiting. Leach has been consistent. Even with the 2014 class being, as a whole, a flop, the team is poised for great things going forward because of much better 2015 and 2016 classes (plus a few JC's to plug holes).
In recent years, I can think of more than a few commits where the facilities played a major factor in getting them to sign: Jamire Calvin, Halid Djibril, Max Borghi, Drue Jackson, Derek Moore (USC offered late), and Cade Beresford all wouldnt have signed without the FOB. That's just the obvious ones. Hard to know how many relatively easy recruiting wins would have been more difficult had we not built it.
4 and 5 star kids don't go to college football also rans in the middle of nowhere coming off a historic stretch of sucking because a new FOB was built. If that is what you thought was going to happen, or is the only reason to build a FOB, then you are indeed out of your mind.
I sure wish i could comprehend these "complex" issues like you can. Yes, TV markets are important. If I may say "DUH". However, to use THAT leverage USC would have to be willing to walk away from the Pac 10. Cal, Stanford have been on the have not list a lot longer than they have been on the have list. You believe they would form an alliance with USC? They have much difference issues and agendas.
Those two schools understood the Pac 10 and now the Pac 12 works better as a unit, socialized football if you will. UCLA also got the importance of staying in the conference and were fine with the EQUAL revenue sharing. In order for USC to use their leverage they had to be willing to walk away, or they didn't have any leverage, which we found out to be the case.
Does the FOB at some point payoff getting the upper echelon kid in your mind? I think WSU will always have to recruit to a system, and that they just have to be better at evaluating talent then most of the Pac 12
Just being a dick this week gibbons?
The point about Colorado and Utah begin admitted BEFORE the revenue agreement was changed is totally relevant to the main discussion. With the Pac-10/12, it took/takes 75% to change policies (again, per the article). USC, UCLA and uw were able to keep the revenue agreement from changing. Once Colorado and Utah came in, those 3 only represented 25% of the votes, thus the conference had the votes to change things. The change ended up (apparently) being unanimous, possibly because the three knew they would be outvoted? Don't know.
My post was simply correcting your erroneous post about the Colorado/Utah timing. That's it, and that timing was relevant. Your "blind squirrel" reply is just.....I don't know...dumb? And is of no relevance to the topic at hand. Since you made that point.
Not sure how this got detoured to recruiting, but I'll still stick to my original statement that a proven winner isn't going to come to Pullman without decent facilities--the Leach's, Sumlin's, etc., just have no reason to coach here--even with a good salary--when they can go to another school and make just a much, with easier recruiting and nicer facilities.
A comment about the FOB. Some of you seem to think that it's only purpose is for recruiting top players and you're kind of missing the point. The FOB provides modern facilities to our players that we have to allow them the opportunity to be the best that they can be. It gives us a locker room that directly accesses the field instead of walking from another building and through a tunnel. It gives Mike Leach the kind of office where we never have to worry about our coach running off to Alabama and being excited about having his own place to take a dump. While we hope it helps on recruiting, it's just as important as a tool for developing our team and maybe more so.
Do the math, and follow the discussion. If USC, UCLA, Cal and Stanford hold out, that's enough to veto with or without two more schools joining the conference.
