WSU commits to balanced Athletics Dept. budget by 2023

[ScottHood]

WSU Athletics announced Thur. that it will submit for approval a deficit-reduction plan to the Board of Regents on June 8 that should balance the dept. budget by 2023.

AD Pat Chun and WSU Chief Budget Officer Joan King are scheduled to hold a teleconference with reporters at 11 a.m. PT to talk about the plan.

Press Release: https://news.wsu.edu/2018/05/31/wsu-athletics-commits-balanced-budget-2023/

 

[Loyal Coug]

WSU Athletics announced Thur. that it will submit for approval a deficit-reduction plan to the Board of Regents on June 8 that should balance the dept. budget by 2023.

AD Pat Chun and WSU Chief Budget Officer Joan King are scheduled to hold a teleconference with reporters at 11 a.m. PT to talk about the plan.

Press Release: https://news.wsu.edu/2018/05/31/wsu-athletics-commits-balanced-budget-2023/

Thanks Scott:

I have linked the Regent's agenda item below. A big read, which I don't have time for now but will later. Projected revenue and expense streams are of particular interest. This should make for some good conversation.

I will make one comment after a quick look. Donations were 8.1 last year. Expected to hit 8.2 this year. Projected at 7.7 next year, with subsequent increases getting us to 10.7 by 2023. Not really sure that this is the kind of improvement that warranted that $650,000, 5 year contract for the AD.......

Another comment - Student fee income is expected to double by 2023.

One more comment - the above-mentioned WSU AVP for Budget, Joan King, has presided over the overall WSU budget since just after Elson Floyd showed up. Meaning she was minding the till while WSU and Athletics ran into deficit spending. But she is still there (huge raises later, I might add), telling everyone how they are going to fix the problem that she was complicit in creating.

https://regents.wsu.edu/meeting-dates/June 2018 Retreat/AI3 - Athletics Budget 5-24-18.pdf

 

[CougEd]

Thanks Scott:

I have linked the Regent's agenda item below. A big read, which I don't have time for now but will later. Projected revenue and expense streams are of particular interest. This should make for some good conversation.

I will make one comment after a quick look. Donations were 8.1 last year. Expected to hit 8.2 this year. Projected at 7.7 next year, with subsequent increases getting us to 10.7 by 2023. Not really sure that this is the kind of improvement that warranted that $650,000, 5 year contract for the AD.......

Another comment - Student fee income is expected to double by 2023.

One more comment - the above-mentioned WSU AVP for Budget, Joan King, has presided over the overall WSU budget since just after Elson Floyd showed up. Meaning she was minding the till while WSU and Athletics ran into deficit spending. But she is still there (huge raises later, I might add), telling everyone how they are going to fix the problem that she was complicit in creating.

https://regents.wsu.edu/meeting-dates/June 2018 Retreat/AI3 - Athletics Budget 5-24-18.pdf

Oh...can I brand her the King of Debt? Truly, what was she going to say?

 

[SaveFerris]

One more comment - the above-mentioned WSU AVP for Budget, Joan King, has presided over the overall WSU budget since just after Elson Floyd showed up. Meaning she was minding the till while WSU and Athletics ran into deficit spending. But she is still there (huge raises later, I might add), telling everyone how they are going to fix the problem that she was complicit in creating.

https://regents.wsu.edu/meeting-dates/June 2018 Retreat/AI3 - Athletics Budget 5-24-18.pdf

This reads like Floyd, Moos, and King committed a crime. I think it's a bit more nuanced than how you see things.

 

[ElComanche]

The new AD has only been aboard for a short while. it is better to underestimate than project record donations which may potentially never materialize.Pat Chun has been around the track more than once and appears to know what he is doing.

 

[Loyal Coug]

This reads like Floyd, Moos, and King committed a crime. I think it's a bit more nuanced than how you see things.

Well not meaning to string anyone up, just a commentary on how things work in government in general and Higher Ed in specific.

If you owned/ran a business and you woke up one day and you realized that - surprise - your equity had evaporated to the tune of $100 million or so, ya think you might look at your CFO and other financial people a little critically? You sure wouldn't give them nice raises. And I'm speaking of the non-athletic part of the picture more than Athletics.

 

[dgibbons]

The new AD has only been aboard for a short while. it is better to underestimate than project record donations which may potentially never materialize.Pat Chun has been around the track more than once and appears to know what he is doing.

The increased student fees will be interesting.

 

[How_did_this_happen?]

I've committed to losing 10 pounds by next month. We'll see how that works out.

 

[Loyal Coug]

The new AD has only been aboard for a short while. it is better to underestimate than project record donations which may potentially never materialize.Pat Chun has been around the track more than once and appears to know what he is doing.

My copy and paste below is kind of messy. FY 18 to FY 23 projected. And I'm not throwing stones, just commenting.
FY 17 numbers aren't shown below - are in the report.

Ticket sales: 7.7M actual in 2017, projected 8.5 in 2018, 11.5 in 2023? a 50% increase in 6 years. Maybe that includes basketball sellouts!
Student Fees - doubles in 6 years. (actually goes up 400% compared to FY 16 low water mark)
Contributions - 8.2 to 10.7 in 5 years - 30%. That is only 6% per year, OK.
Media Rights - up 5.6 million over 5 years? Still waiting for the Directv announcement......
Royalties/Advert. 2.9 to 4.6 over 5 years. So is this where our naming rights come in? Must be if we think it is going up 1.2 million next year alone. If so, I'm underwhelmed. Colorado State's deal is 37M over 15 years - 2.5M/year. Not counting the 20M for Sonny Lubick Field.

( $ M) Estimated
FY18 Y-end FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23
REVENUES:
01 - Ticket Sales 8.5 9.5 8.6 10.3 10.4 11.5
02 - Direct State/Gov Support - - - - - -
03 - Student Fees 1.6 1.5 2.3 2.3 3.2 3.2
04 - Direct Inst. Support 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8
05 - Less Xfer to Inst. - - - - - -
06 - Indirect Inst. Support 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5
06A - Debt Service, Lease, Rentals - - - - - -
07 - Guarantee Revenue 0.0 0.3 - 0.2 - 0.3
08 - Contributions 8.2 7.7 8.7 9.6 9.9 10.7
09 - In-Kind 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6
10 - 3rd Party Compensation - - - - - -
11 - Media Rights 19.6 20.6 21.6 22.8 23.9 25.2
12 - NCAA Distribution 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.5
13 - Conference Distribution 11.9 12.1 12.8 12.5 13.0 12.9
14 - Program/Concessions etc. 0.9 1.0 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5
15 - Royalties/Advert. etc. 2.9 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.6
16 - Sport Camp Revenue 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
17 - Endowments 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7
18 - Other Revenue 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.9
19 - Bowl Revenue 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9
Total Revenue 65.6 68.6 71.7 75.9 79.1 83.0

Expense side:

Check this out - from '15 to '17 our admin salaries rose more than our coaches salaries. Admin salaries is the biggest line item in the whole budget.
FY 15,16,17 actual:
22 - Coaches Comp: WSU 10.7 11.7 11.8
23 - Coaches Comp: 3rd Party - - -
24 - Admin Comp: WSU 12.1 12.8 13.4

In the next five years admin salaries only go up 1.2M, coaches up 3.2 million. That's better but Yikes!
Note no severance expense after 2018.........and they can't spell it either.

Edit: I got to thinking - what is the $1M severance expense for FY 18? June was 360+ large, hubby probably half that. Couple of other assistants. I guess if contracts ran through June 30, June got more like 15 months and some vacation payout, so that pushes $500K. Plus hubby, etc., yeah, $1M I guess. Moosey Moos and Marlow probably cashed out some vacation as well.

EXPENSES:
20 - Athletic Aid 10.5 11.4 11.6 11.9 12.2 12.5
21 - Guarantee Expense 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.3 1.8 1.4
22 - Coaches Comp: WSU 12.7 13.3 13.8 14.9 15.4 15.9
23 - Coaches Comp: 3rd Party - - - - - -
24 - Admin Comp: WSU 13.8 14.0 14.1 14.3 14.6 15.0
25 - Admin Comp: 3rd Party - - - - - -
26 - Severence 1.0 - - - - -
27 - Recruiting 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6
28 - Team Travel 4.1 4.3 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.8
29 - Equipment 2.3 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.2
30 - Game Expenses 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.7
31 - Fund Raising/Marketing 2.2 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.3
32 - Sport Camp Expense 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
33 - Spirit Groups 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
34 - Facilities: Debt/Lease/Rental 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2
35 - Direct Admin Expense 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.0
36 - Indirect Inst. Support 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5
37 - Medical/Insurance 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0
38 - Dues & Memberships 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.4
39 - Student-Athlete meals 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
40 - Other Expense 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.8
41 - Bowl Expenses 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9
Total Expenses 74.7 75.3 77.0 78.8 81.1 82.9

 

[Loyal Coug]

My copy and paste below is kind of messy. FY 18 to FY 23 projected. And I'm not throwing stones, just commenting.
FY 17 numbers aren't shown below - are in the report.

Ticket sales: 7.7M actual in 2017, projected 8.5 in 2018, 11.5 in 2023? a 50% increase in 6 years. Maybe that includes basketball sellouts!
Student Fees - doubles in 6 years. (actually goes up 400% compared to FY 16 low water mark)
Contributions - 8.2 to 10.7 in 5 years - 30%. That is only 6% per year, OK.
Media Rights - up 5.6 million over 5 years? Still waiting for the Directv announcement......
Royalties/Advert. 2.9 to 4.6 over 5 years. So is this where our naming rights come in? Must be if we think it is going up 1.2 million next year alone. If so, I'm underwhelmed. Colorado State's deal is 37M over 15 years - 2.5M/year. Not counting the 20M for Sonny Lubick Field.

( $ M) Estimated
FY18 Y-end FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23
REVENUES:
01 - Ticket Sales 8.5 9.5 8.6 10.3 10.4 11.5
02 - Direct State/Gov Support - - - - - -
03 - Student Fees 1.6 1.5 2.3 2.3 3.2 3.2
04 - Direct Inst. Support 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8
05 - Less Xfer to Inst. - - - - - -
06 - Indirect Inst. Support 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5
06A - Debt Service, Lease, Rentals - - - - - -
07 - Guarantee Revenue 0.0 0.3 - 0.2 - 0.3
08 - Contributions 8.2 7.7 8.7 9.6 9.9 10.7
09 - In-Kind 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6
10 - 3rd Party Compensation - - - - - -
11 - Media Rights 19.6 20.6 21.6 22.8 23.9 25.2
12 - NCAA Distribution 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.5
13 - Conference Distribution 11.9 12.1 12.8 12.5 13.0 12.9
14 - Program/Concessions etc. 0.9 1.0 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5
15 - Royalties/Advert. etc. 2.9 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.6
16 - Sport Camp Revenue 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
17 - Endowments 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7
18 - Other Revenue 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.9
19 - Bowl Revenue 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9
Total Revenue 65.6 68.6 71.7 75.9 79.1 83.0

Expense side:

Check this out - from '15 to '17 our admin salaries rose more than our coaches salaries. Admin salaries is the biggest line item in the whole budget.
FY 15,16,17 actual:
22 - Coaches Comp: WSU 10.7 11.7 11.8
23 - Coaches Comp: 3rd Party - - -
24 - Admin Comp: WSU 12.1 12.8 13.4

In the next five years admin salaries only go up 1.2M, coaches up 3.2 million. That's better but Yikes!
Note no severance expense after 2018.........and they can't spell it either.

Edit: I got to thinking - what is the $1M severance expense for FY 18? June was 360+ large, hubby probably half that. Couple of other assistants. I guess if contracts ran through June 30, June got more like 15 months and some vacation payout, so that pushes $500K. Plus hubby, etc., yeah, $1M I guess. Moosey Moos and Marlow probably cashed out some vacation as well.

EXPENSES:
20 - Athletic Aid 10.5 11.4 11.6 11.9 12.2 12.5
21 - Guarantee Expense 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.3 1.8 1.4
22 - Coaches Comp: WSU 12.7 13.3 13.8 14.9 15.4 15.9
23 - Coaches Comp: 3rd Party - - - - - -
24 - Admin Comp: WSU 13.8 14.0 14.1 14.3 14.6 15.0
25 - Admin Comp: 3rd Party - - - - - -
26 - Severence 1.0 - - - - -
27 - Recruiting 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6
28 - Team Travel 4.1 4.3 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.8
29 - Equipment 2.3 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.2
30 - Game Expenses 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.7
31 - Fund Raising/Marketing 2.2 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.3
32 - Sport Camp Expense 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
33 - Spirit Groups 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
34 - Facilities: Debt/Lease/Rental 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2
35 - Direct Admin Expense 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.0
36 - Indirect Inst. Support 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5
37 - Medical/Insurance 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0
38 - Dues & Memberships 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.4
39 - Student-Athlete meals 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
40 - Other Expense 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.8
41 - Bowl Expenses 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9
Total Expenses 74.7 75.3 77.0 78.8 81.1 82.9

Read another article on the Budget balancing. They are assuming that the students will vote to double their contribution to Athletics, and the increased ticket sales does indeed include improvements in men's and women's basketball.

This reminds me of when the students were first asked to approve the $25 (per semester or year, I forget) fee to help finance Phase I or II or whatever of the Martin Stadium upgrades. Now understand that maybe 20% of students vote on anything, including their ASWSU officers. So to get enough signatures to put it on the ballot, Athletics employees were in Beasley during a game canvassing the ZZU crew sections to get the petitions signed. I can't remember the vote, but I doubt that it was a landslide, and certainly a small "Yes" number relative to the whole student body. And if I remember correctly, the Grad students voted it down soundly, and Athletics punished them by jacking up the price for their sports passes.

While I'm thinking about this, in reference to some other thread jabbing Sterk - in hindsight I thought his overall Martin plan was somewhat sound, although I don;t understand why his plan had the luxury boxes on the student side when they were able to put them on the reserved side. At the time I think the reason was that the reserved side couldn't handle the infrastructure.

Anyway, the re-do of the restrooms, end zone and concessions turned out pretty well. And don't forget the footings are in place for the second deck in the bowl. So too little, too late, whatever the knock on Sterk, he wasn't completely asleep at the wheel on this one. We needed a major facilities campaign launched in about, say, 2002 or 2003 to help pay for what we ended up building 15 years later. Or even when the Bennett's were here and we were still winning some FB games.

 

[Cougzz]

From the Spokane paper tweet: “Washington State is to fiscal gymnastics what Alabama is to football. If only they handed out national championships for that sort of thing.”

 

[Loyal Coug]

From the Spokane paper tweet: “Washington State is to fiscal gymnastics what Alabama is to football. If only they handed out national championships for that sort of thing.”

That refers to Blanchette's weekly hatchet job (link below). Although this time he basically made the same points that I made earlier in this thread. In fact I bet he read my analysis and stole it!

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2018/may/31/john-blanchette-washington-states-plan-for-balance/#/1

While not a deal-breaker money-wise, the idea that the students will, after rejecting all recent Athletics overtures, will vote to double their Athletic fee is pretty wishful thinking and apparently news to the students. Thing is, Phase I/II improved restrooms and facilities on the student side. And the students voted to support that with a fee. They got no such benefit from the luxury boxes. And lost seats in the endzone. The FOB, yeah, benefits all around.

 

[AlwaysSpokanesFault]

From the Spokane paper tweet: “Washington State is to fiscal gymnastics what Alabama is to football. If only they handed out national championships for that sort of thing.”

Considering the source, let's keep that quote in perspective.

 

[CougPatrol]

The students don't have to accept the increased fees, but there are other ways we can stick it to them. For starters, move the student section for football and basketball into the endzones.

 

[Loyal Coug]

The students don't have to accept the increased fees, but there are other ways we can stick it to them. For starters, move the student section for football and basketball into the endzones.

Yeah let's stick it to those ungrateful little brats. They don't even watch the games anyway, they are staring at their phones. After all, we paid our dues as students!

Oh wait - tuition was $336/semester when I started at WSU. ~$11,000 now? Uh, and I guess the games were free to students. All sports. And you could bring in any container as long as it wasn't glass. I vividly remember our 5 gallon gas can full of spodie-odie. And we had to go refill it at halftime. On the back of my motorcycle.

Oh where was I...dreaming.....let's stick it to them!!!!

 

[dgibbons]

Yeah let's stick it to those ungrateful little brats. They don't even watch the games anyway, they are staring at their phones. After all, we paid our dues as students!

Oh wait - tuition was $336/semester when I started at WSU. ~$11,000 now? Uh, and I guess the games were free to students. All sports. And you could bring in any container as long as it wasn't glass. I vividly remember our 5 gallon gas can full of spodie-odie. And we had to go refill it at halftime. On the back of my motorcycle.

Oh where was I...dreaming.....let's stick it to them!!!!

The students are sitting on prime real estate, but paying clearance prices. Moving the student section is overdue. For football anyway.

None of that tuition money goes to the AD, and yet you want the AD to giveaway prime seats for discounted prices. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

 

[Loyal Coug]

The students are sitting on prime real estate, but paying clearance prices. Moving the student section is overdue. For football anyway.

None of that tuition money goes to the AD, and yet you want the AD to giveaway prime seats for discounted prices. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Actually, I have suggested MANY TIMES on this board that we move some of the student seats into the end zone upper deck so that we can get more money out of their prime seats. Thus in effect we can pay for the upper end zone with premium seat money.

And my post was simply teasing Patrol about wanting to stick it to today's kids, who are paying something for sports passes and stadium student fees and high tuition - when back in our (or at least my) day we got it for free. So lighten up!

 

[AlwaysSpokanesFault]

The students don't have to accept the increased fees, but there are other ways we can stick it to them. For starters, move the student section for football and basketball into the endzones.

I would suggest that for every market-discounted student football ticket they purchase, they are required to attend four FREE Thursday night men's basketball games.

Either Beasley is going to look a lot more happening or student's will quit buying football tickets (allowing the university to sell them to affluent adults).

Win-win.

 

[Cougatron]

2023? I think it will happen much much sooner than that.

1st of all the Pac - 12 media rights will be renegotiated in fall of 2022

The Pac-12 is actually going to be sitting in a tremendously good position at 2022 for a massive payout yet again. (Remember the SEC/BigXII/B!G contracts came AFTER the Pac-12 set the bar, now the bar will be set.

Also Kent will be long gone saving us from paying for his under performing contract.

Student fees are just a stupid band aid and not conducive to generating real money and it punishes the poorest people sitting in the stadium.

The way to generate more money is to provide a better means for people to get / stay for the game and also improve tailgating to draw more people in and also get alcohol sales.

Tons of places already do it including the #1 athletic program money maker Texas
https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-football/beer-map-shows-trend-stadiums-selling-beer/

 

[Flatlandcoug]

2023? I think it will happen much much sooner than that.

1st of all the Pac - 12 media rights will be renegotiated in fall of 2022

The Pac-12 is actually going to be sitting in a tremendously good position at 2022 for a massive payout yet again. (Remember the SEC/BigXII/B!G contracts came AFTER the Pac-12 set the bar, now the bar will be set.

Also Kent will be long gone saving us from paying for his under performing contract.

Student fees are just a stupid band aid and not conducive to generating real money and it punishes the poorest people sitting in the stadium.

The way to generate more money is to provide a better means for people to get / stay for the game and also improve tailgating to draw more people in and also get alcohol sales.

Tons of places already do it including the #1 athletic program money maker Texas
https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-football/beer-map-shows-trend-stadiums-selling-beer/

I hope your right about the TV money. Lots of talk that people cutting the cord are going to end up limiting the money that can be paid out in future contracts. Of course, I remember when we were going to run out of oil and coal or that we were going to deforest the entire northwestern US because of paper use. Now, oil companies have to worry about electric vehicles taking them out, coal isn't profitable to mine anymore and print media is rapidly disappearing. So, odds are we will see a nice bump in revenue when the contract is renewed.

 

[random soul]

Yeah I'm not sure how much longer the TV revenue will be a gold mine, but I do think there's room for growth for the Pac 12 just from a resolution of the DirectTV issue and an adjustment to 'market value' from whatever other leagues get. I wouldn't expect anything beyond that though, and I suspect the conference will make some changes to the way the network operates and its content structure either right before the new tv rights are negotiated or are part of the negotiations.

 

[BiggsCoug]

Yeah let's stick it to those ungrateful little brats. They don't even watch the games anyway, they are staring at their phones. After all, we paid our dues as students!

Oh wait - tuition was $336/semester when I started at WSU. ~$11,000 now? Uh, and I guess the games were free to students. All sports. And you could bring in any container as long as it wasn't glass. I vividly remember our 5 gallon gas can full of spodie-odie. And we had to go refill it at halftime. On the back of my motorcycle.

Oh where was I...dreaming.....let's stick it to them!!!!

You pushed your motorcycle right? Cause drinking and driving is wrong.

 

[BiggsCoug]

Yeah I'm not sure how much longer the TV revenue will be a gold mine, but I do think there's room for growth for the Pac 12 just from a resolution of the DirectTV issue and an adjustment to 'market value' from whatever other leagues get. I wouldn't expect anything beyond that though, and I suspect the conference will make some changes to the way the network operates and its content structure either right before the new tv rights are negotiated or are part of the negotiations.

Why not use the com department to develop your own production and sell it online?

TV may be going the way of the rotary phone. Figure out a way to get the content online and go forward.

 

[random soul]

You pushed your motorcycle right? Cause drinking and driving is wrong.

Now I'm just thinking of an old Bill Hicks riff from the '80s on how the attitude shifted on drunk driving "Remember 10 years ago if you got pulled over drunk driving? 'Son, you been drinkin'?' 'Yeah.' 'Sorry to bother ya. Get back in the car, Tommy, it's just a drunk guy behind the wheel of an automobile. Didn't mean to bring your buzz down, get on outta here and have a good time!" Times have changed, for the better in that respect.

 

[random soul]

Why not use the com department to develop your own production and sell it online?

TV may be going the way of the rotary phone. Figure out a way to get the content online and go forward.

That's actually a good idea. I think the athletic dept should retain streaming rights to every single thing with a TV camera in front of it. Let people pay for what they want to see, in a subscription or per view format. Hell I'd use that.

 

[Observer11]

The reality is, the five year plan is simply a means to comply with the new state law requiring 'transparency'.

Expecting such revenue increases reliant on the actions of others (ie - students approving additional fees upon themselves, expectation of increasing media revenue in an environment where broadcast rights fees are shrinking) isn't realistic.

It's a spreadsheet exercise to take the heat off for now.

 

[YakiCoug]

You pushed your motorcycle right? Cause drinking and driving is wrong.

Loil had a Gary Busey, helmet-less moment. This explains many things...

 

[Coug95man2]

That's actually a good idea. I think the athletic dept should retain streaming rights to every single thing with a TV camera in front of it. Let people pay for what they want to see, in a subscription or per view format. Hell I'd use that.

This is already on it's way, in regards to the com department involved. Pac12 Networks has many, many students working for them. I don't see why they wouldn't increase this in the future.

Regarding "rights" to streaming... Good luck. They are a part of a conference, which is a part of the NCAA. Who actually holds the rights to it? After the 1984 ruling, I'm not sure anymore. Whom has to have permission from whom to do what? But either way, the school (or it's athletic dept) isn't going to get a hold of any rights, that I can promise you. At the bare minimum, the conference will hold onto as much content as it can. "Content is King, son." And content is the lifeblood of the Pac12 Network. They actually need MORE they are just unable to do anything during the summer months. They aren't going to give rights to content away.

 

[dgibbons]

Why not use the com department to develop your own production and sell it online?

TV may be going the way of the rotary phone. Figure out a way to get the content online and go forward.

Because IMG and the PAC-12 Networks already do that. And do you think a bunch of students and comm professors would actually produce a better return?

 

[Coug95man2]

Because IMG and the PAC-12 Networks already do that. And do you think a bunch of students and comm professors would actually produce a better return?

Yes, they can.

Because of certain things, I can't talk too much about this but yes... not in quality but certainly in cost. How much does a professional camera guy make compared to what a student would take? Nuff said on that one.

I create content on a national basis. The battle in quality is incredible. The number of viewers of content that are using mobile devices is incredible. And the growth of that, is staggering. Thus the picture is VERY small on that little phone. So quality is being downgraded because it just won't be seen (too small a screen to even see the flaws), thus costs are cut in many ways. We call it the "YouTube affect". People don't care about a steady shot. They don't care if the video has been color corrected. They don't care if the camera is broadcast quality. They don't care if it's be up-rezed or down-rezed. It could be a $200 Sony cam from Best Buy for all they care. And production companies and content producers are recognizing that. Cripes. Look at the interviews being done on this site. If they are using an actual video camera, I'd be surprised. Their phones are what's being used. No microphone (which is why their audio is so sucky... always), no actual video camera. nada. Shoot it and upload it asap. Quick writeup and done. You'd be SHOCKED at what is being used for national broadcasts, on a technical side. And it's continually being downgraded to alleviate costs. It's what the general public is willing to accept. Funny thing, it's always being billed as "edgy". Naw. It's just shitty cameras and cheap camera ops that don't know how to hold a camera steady.

 

[CougEd]

Because IMG and the PAC-12 Networks already do that. And do you think a bunch of students and comm professors would actually produce a better return?

Good grief who is going to buy it ? We have people who won’t oay 10.00 for premium content.

 

[YakiCoug]

Good grief who is going to buy it ? We have people who won’t oay 10.00 for premium content.

Careful now. You might upset your fellow $600,000 Club members...

 

[dgibbons]

Yes, they can.

Because of certain things, I can't talk too much about this but yes... not in quality but certainly in cost. How much does a professional camera guy make compared to what a student would take? Nuff said on that one.

I create content on a national basis. The battle in quality is incredible. The number of viewers of content that are using mobile devices is incredible. And the growth of that, is staggering. Thus the picture is VERY small on that little phone. So quality is being downgraded because it just won't be seen (too small a screen to even see the flaws), thus costs are cut in many ways. We call it the "YouTube affect". People don't care about a steady shot. They don't care if the video has been color corrected. They don't care if the camera is broadcast quality. They don't care if it's be up-rezed or down-rezed. It could be a $200 Sony cam from Best Buy for all they care. And production companies and content producers are recognizing that. Cripes. Look at the interviews being done on this site. If they are using an actual video camera, I'd be surprised. Their phones are what's being used. No microphone (which is why their audio is so sucky... always), no actual video camera. nada. Shoot it and upload it asap. Quick writeup and done. You'd be SHOCKED at what is being used for national broadcasts, on a technical side. And it's continually being downgraded to alleviate costs. It's what the general public is willing to accept. Funny thing, it's always being billed as "edgy". Naw. It's just shitty cameras and cheap camera ops that don't know how to hold a camera steady.

Ok. How about the revenue side? Who is going to sell the ads? Who is going to sell subscription? Who is going to get the sponsors?

 

[Coug95man2]

Ok. How about the revenue side? Who is going to sell the ads? Who is going to sell subscription? Who is going to get the sponsors?

You said "produce" which I thought was literal. My bad. But to that pivot, yes, those in San Fran sitting in the cubicles are professionals and are selling (Albeit many of them are very young, fresh out of college). In context of this conversation, do you think the sales/marketing department is how the Pac12 is going to get streaming going (which by the way, they are already heavily invested in. Don't know what else they could do), allow schools to have more control over the content, or somehow gain rights to said content? Not sure what sales would have to do with the direction of this thread.

 

[dgibbons]

You said "produce" which I thought was literal. My bad. But to that pivot, yes, those in San Fran sitting in the cubicles are professionals and are selling (Albeit many of them are very young, fresh out of college). In context of this conversation, do you think the sales/marketing department is how the Pac12 is going to get streaming going (which by the way, they are already heavily invested in. Don't know what else they could do), allow schools to have more control over the content, or somehow gain rights to said content? Not sure what sales would have to do with the direction of this thread.

I thought that the text you highlighted "And do you think a bunch of students and comm professors would actually produce a better return?" made pretty clear that it was more than just the cost of production. And Biggs' post was about selling it on line.

Since the conference has the rights, I assume that WSU would have to buy them back from the Pac-12 Networks or wait for a contract to expire. WSU seems to have spoken clearly by signing deal(s) with IMG for the radio broadcasts. The lack of any other member institution trying to make a go of it also speaks to me about the viability of WSU attempting to do it on its own.

 

[Coug95man2]

I thought that the text you highlighted "And do you think a bunch of students and comm professors would actually produce a better return?" made pretty clear that it was more than just the cost of production. And Biggs' post was about selling it on line.

Since the conference has the rights, I assume that WSU would have to buy them back from the Pac-12 Networks or wait for a contract to expire. WSU seems to have spoken clearly by signing deal(s) with IMG for the radio broadcasts. The lack of any other member institution trying to make a go of it also speaks to me about the viability of WSU attempting to do it on its own.

Agreed. That's what happens when I scan read due to being at work. Again, my bad.

Part of the issue is also, WSU doesn't play against itself. So when WSU plays Stanford, WSU would get sole rights? The quagmire, while I'm certain there are lawyers that would be willing and eager to wade into it, of rights would be pretty deep. I think that's actually the beauty of the conference (I'm assuming) retaining rights. Then they can distribute the earnings between all parties. That's again part of the beauty of what Moos did, (not trying to be a cheerleader for him, nor bring up him as a topic, in general) and how he was a part of that movement to insure the smaller schools got equal money distribution.