WSU's finances...
- Thread starter Coug95man2
- Start date
That you have no clue what you are talking about. Recruits aren't impressed or drawn to half empty stadiums. You are correlating success to stadium size, but anyone who actually finished college can tell you that correlation does not equal causation.
I am correlating where 4 star recruits on the West Coast go to school and the size of the stadium those schools have. I think there's a trend.
I finished college and can read for comprehension. You clearly cannot.
You are making an elementary correlation based on one of about 3 dozen different factors. Clearly you do not understand comprehensive analysis.
5 of 60 four star high school players went to schools with stadiums under 50,000. How many years in a row would this have to happen before there's a connection?
Unless the bond fairy sprinkles cash on Pullman, we're about done with expansion for quite some time.
I'd probably agree with you with one exception. If the merger with Directv happens and it softens the head-banging with the P12N, maybe, just maybe Directv might start carrying P12N. If that's so, more money will be coming our way. Won't happen within 2015 but who knows beyond that.
More money may be coming our way but, that won't change the municipal bond market for stadium financing.
Jackson State, Memphis, Tulane, Penn, Hawaii, UTEP, Colorado, Yale and Rice all play in 50,000+ seat stadiums.
I love that in the comments on that article, "SpectreCoug" (why does that sound familiar?) is preemptively crapping on WSU fans for not donating sufficiently.
Honest to God, call it the abused wives school of thought. Why is WSU dead last? Could it be because our team has been a black hole of failure for most of its history, has sub-.500 years for decades on end, and loses most of its important rivalry games?
Nope, has to be that the chicken came before the egg, and WSU is in a rut because the fans don't donate enough. We just can't stop blaming ourselves; like a wife who keeps getting back together with her heavy-handed husband because he made some "good points," after all.
Stockholm Syndrome?
Honest to God, call it the abused wives school of thought. Why is WSU dead last? Could it be because our team has been a black hole of failure for most of its history, has sub-.500 years for decades on end, and loses most of its important rivalry games?
Nope, has to be that the chicken came before the egg, and WSU is in a rut because the fans don't donate enough. We just can't stop blaming ourselves; like a wife who keeps getting back together with her heavy-handed husband because he made some "good points," after all.
Stockholm Syndrome?
So we expand Martin Stadium to an "official" capacity of 45K, but the expansion utilizes only bleacher seating, enabling WSU to pack-in an additional 6K fans on big game days. Our stadium can now hold 51K if we need it to. WHAT SAY YOU NOW? Is it a 45K stadium or 51K stadium? Is there a direct correlation to stadium visual/atmospheric intimidation and the number of seats? I think not.
We can expand to 45K AND make the stadium visually intimidating to play in (think vertically baby). Expand/remodel the north side stands to get some HEIGHT, and with the south side press box already in place, suddenly you are playing within a canyon of angry/drunk/noisy fans. Not fun.
Expanding vertically is a good concept, but finishing the bowl in the endzone is the most cost effective upgrade we can do. Those seats aren't the best, but the price point is good, and for big games, they sell out before the reserved seats do.
In college athletics, money must always come before wins. It is the inverse of pro sports.
Which of those schools are on the West Coast?
How many 4 star recruits on the West Coast went to non BCS schools?
Not sure if serious... but in either case, clearly not true.
Unless you have a T Boone or a Phil Knight to swoop in and bankroll your mediocre team, the wins are going to have to come before the football money - and sometimes the money never comes. Just ask Boise State, NDSU, K-State or (likely) Stanford. That's one of the big ideas behind the spread - compensate for un-closeable talent gaps with smoke-and-mirrors. Fake it til you make it.
Imagine WSU Football as a widget.
Business Model A (Current)
- Release your widget in very poor, buggy, beta form and hope fellow Cougs buy it simply because they are fellow Cougs
- Expect your revenues to look something like WSU Football's win column over the last decade.
Business Model B (Proposed)
- Strive to find your niche
- Make the best widget of its kind on the market
- Begin to generate interest with early sales
- Re-invest in the marketing machine
- Enjoy success - you won't need people to buy in just because they're fellow Cougs
Yes, fans stayed away in droves for the Oregon game. That nookie is on top of his game.
Your premise? Losses to Rutgers and Nevada scared fans away. You bring stupidity to every thread... just because HWGC can't help himself. Nice work as always! Run along now.
There have been some doozies of posts in this thread, but this one takes the cake.
Why don't you elaborate as to why you disagree? Or just bring more BS posts hating on those that offer an opinion while you hide like a chickenchit behind your keyboard not committing to anything.
Ok internet tough guy, just calm down.
The post is too stupid and misguided to respond to.
No one wins with inferior players. You attract superior players with superior facilities and coaches. Those things require vast amounts of money. That post used a widget as an example, which isn't comparable. Investment requires capital before you can expect returns.
The post insinuated that we should wait for returns before we invest. It is backwards logic.
By superior facilities, you mean having a stadium that seats 45,000 or less right?
Are you going to win the PAC 12 North by being "just enough?" Cause that's what that sounds like to me.
Adding supply when you can't sell the existing supply is bad management.
And in addition to money for facilities, you need money to cover scholarships and operating expenses, so that TV and ticket revenues can be used to pay for coaches and the latest must needs.
I understand that adding more supply is not a good idea. I also know that getting the talent you need means adding supply when you don't need it. So what do you do???
If someday someone decides that Leach isn't working out, you use that money to outspend everyone on the next coach. In the mean time you make sure every single recruitment facility aside from stadium size is 100% competitive in the marketplace.
I look at what Oregon has done. They didn't set out to be competitive. They set out to be over competitive. They one upped or two upped everyone. That's what they had to do to get people talking about their school. It's difficult to argue with their results.
If WSU moves away from Leach and is going to pay top dollar, guess what? Top dollar coaches go to schools with top dollar stadiums. Do you think Nick Saban is leaving Bama for WSU? How about Jim Harbaugh? Les Miles? Bill Parcells?
It isn't just a stadium that attracts high end recruits. It's also a stadium that attracts high end staff.
WSU would have to put out $15M per year to get Saban or a high end coach. And when push came to shove, they'd prob be outbid.
If WSU moves away from Leach and is going to pay top dollar, guess what? Top dollar coaches go to schools with top dollar stadiums. Do you think Nick Saban is leaving Bama for WSU? How about Jim Harbaugh? Les Miles? Bill Parcells?
It isn't just a stadium that attracts high end recruits. It's also a stadium that attracts high end staff.
WSU would have to put out $15M per year to get Saban or a high end coach. And when push came to shove, they'd prob be outbid.
Exactly my point, Biggs. But they didn't "one up or two up" anyone regarding their stadium size. Everything else was improved… except their stadium size. Which is what I agree with.
I love the "other opinions are too stupid to respond to" tack - it's the refuge of people with nothing to say and no way to say it.
To summarize my POV as "wait for returns before investing" and describe that as "backwards" is silly and hypocritical - just as it's silly to try to divorce WSU Football / Athletics from an economy of goods and services.
Though you clearly don't realize it, you're actually describing your own philosophy - you're waiting for returns in the form of green rectangles from fans before you invest in making your product worthy of green rectangles, thus putting the merchant first and the buyer second. This is a godawful formula for building a program, and WSU's perennially atrocious W/L record and pathetic revenues are an annual reminder of that.
I forget - what do they call it when you keep doing the same thing and expecting different results?
Like it or not, WSU Football is a product. You have some built-in loyalists who will give you money no matter how bad your product is, but that's just enough to put you dead last in conference budgets. Is that good enough for you? It's not good enough for me.
Right now the product stinks. But it doesn't have to. You can pull out all the stops. Stop scheduling bodybag games and walk away from the ones already on the schedule. Stop agreeing to one-off road games. Quit playing 'neutral' site games (e.g., Clink) you are more likely to lose just to draw in fans. Schedule as many home games against as the most pathetic patsies the NCAA will allow. And if you want to get really ugly, overlook minor legal offenses and work with GPA 'bubble' kids to stay in the program. When we become Baylor North, we can get those items back on/off the docket - but right now we're trading short-term money for long-term program atrophy, and it's because your dumb philosophy has pervaded the program for decades.
Just to add some detail to what you're proposing, I'm including some figures to show how much incremental money (i.e., on top of what they might already be donating) all WSU alums would have to donate to reach different levels of athletic revenue. Note that this would have to replicated, and increased, every year going forward.
Now what do you think is more likely: we start getting butts in seats (and money in coffers, and recruits on campus) with a couple extra wins per season, or is it more likely that we get all 150,000+ alumni to donate $400+ more than whatever they're already giving to see the same crappy product they've been watching (or, more likely, not watching) for the past few decades?
If you still think it's the latter, we need to get you into a battered women's shelter because you're showing some of the same thinking processes.
They already had the size they needed to be in the mix. WSU does not. That's why I say it has to build.
In regards to sell out crowds... There are 2 schools of thought. 1, just keep selling out and raise ticket prices.... 2, add more seats to get more people in the door.
I am of the latter. If I were an AD and had a sell out season, I'd be adding as many seats as possible for the following year. A sell out crowd is great. But are you leaving money on the table by not having more seats to sell???
To this point, the holistic effect of winning at football is a rising tide that lifts all boats within the university. They call this the Flutie Effect, and you see it with Oregon - the applications start rolling in, more butts in seats, more donations, more merch sales, more media love, more/better facilities and so on.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/hbswork...athletic-success-boosts-college-applications/
WSU does not have a monster donor like Phil Knight to kickstart the program, and as I pointed out earlier, getting 150k alumni to increase giving by $250-$400 a pop is not going to happen, so it has to build its program organically by finding every way to win on a meager budget that it can.
Or you can just wait for 150k alums to forgo this month's grocery budget, which is what wcfields96 is waiting for.
I love the "other opinions are too stupid to respond to" tack - it's the refuge of people with nothing to say and no way to say it.
To summarize my POV as "wait for returns before investing" and describe that as "backwards" is silly and hypocritical - just as it's silly to try to divorce WSU Football / Athletics from an economy of goods and services.
Though you clearly don't realize it, you're actually describing your own philosophy - you're waiting for returns in the form of green rectangles from fans before you invest in making your product worthy of green rectangles, thus putting the merchant first and the buyer second. This is a godawful formula for building a program, and WSU's perennially atrocious W/L record and pathetic revenues are an annual reminder of that.
I forget - what do they call it when you keep doing the same thing and expecting different results?
Like it or not, WSU Football is a product. You have some built-in loyalists who will give you money no matter how bad your product is, but that's just enough to put you dead last in conference budgets. Is that good enough for you? It's not good enough for me.
Right now the product stinks. But it doesn't have to. You can pull out all the stops. Stop scheduling bodybag games and walk away from the ones already on the schedule. Stop agreeing to one-off road games. Quit playing 'neutral' site games (e.g., Clink) you are more likely to lose just to draw in fans. Schedule as many home games against as the most pathetic patsies the NCAA will allow. And if you want to get really ugly, overlook minor legal offenses and work with GPA 'bubble' kids to stay in the program. When we become Baylor North, we can get those items back on/off the docket - but right now we're trading short-term money for long-term program atrophy, and it's because your dumb philosophy has pervaded the program for decades.
Just to add some detail to what you're proposing, I'm including some figures to show how much incremental money (i.e., on top of what they might already be donating) all WSU alums would have to donate to reach different levels of athletic revenue. Note that this would have to replicated, and increased, every year going forward.
Now what do you think is more likely: we start getting butts in seats (and money in coffers, and recruits on campus) with a couple extra wins per season, or is it more likely that we get all 150,000+ alumni to donate $400+ more than whatever they're already giving to see the same crappy product they've been watching (or, more likely, not watching) for the past few decades?
If you still think it's the latter, we need to get you into a battered women's shelter because you're showing some of the same thinking processes.
It's about winning. If scheduling body bag games for money was the best approach to building a consistently winning, bowl bound football program, wouldn't WSU have done it by now? Show me 15 schools at ANY level of college football that have moved their program forward to consistent winning by playing these body bag games...
WSU should be following the SEC model... Schedule as many non league games at home as you can, preferably against much lesser opponents. Run out your schedule to 3-0, win 3 league games, go bowling... Shout it from the mountain tops that the PAC 12 is the best conference in the land because they have the most teams in post season.
I really don't want to weigh in on this debate, but for some reason I'm doing it anyway.
You're both wrong. You're also both right. The thing is, there's no right answer, there's no single answer, and there's no solution that's going to reach every fan or every recruit.
Here's how I see it:
You're both wrong. You're also both right. The thing is, there's no right answer, there's no single answer, and there's no solution that's going to reach every fan or every recruit.
Here's how I see it:
- To a certain degree, Biggs is right about the stadium size. A recruit walking into a 35,000 seat stadium a couple weeks after he walks into UO's 54,000 isn't going to be impressed, he's going to be a bit let down. But that's not the whole story, because if we expand to 50K and the same recruit walks into a half-empty stadium, he's still not going to be impressed. If we had 40K seats, and every one of them was consistently full with an engaged, raucous crowd, it wouldn't matter so much that it was only 40K. And, if they were consistently full, it would be time to talk about going to 45K, raising ticket prices (and revenue) or both.
- The stadium is important, but a plush, 50K seat stadium is useless if you have crap for training facilities. UO seems to be the popular example on both sides, so let's remember that their locker room upgrade was one of the first things they did. Recruits know where they're going to spend their time - they'll be in a full stadium 5-7 times per year. They'll be in the locker room and weight room every day. You have to spend money there - and keep spending it. Your practice facilities - including the indoor one - have to be the next priority behind those.
- #1 and #2 are pretty much about recruiting, with an element of fan-based ticket revenue. But, here's the real truth - butts in the seats are irrelevant today. Season ticket sales bring some cash, but the TV deals have made attendance a small part of the pie. Sure, you'd like the stadium to be full, but we've seen proven time and again that given the choice between TV and attendance, they'll take the TV every time.. We've also seen proven that it's far more important to the AD that we donate money than it is that we buy tickets or show up for games.
- Chipdouglas is right, CFB is a product. And like, any product, people aren't going to pay more to get the same thing they've been getting. If you want more money for it, you have to give them something better. In this case, that means you have to win, or at least be entertaining. Since WSU is so isolated, that probably means more than the product on the field, that means you have to make a gameday event...which is a separate topic we've discussed at length before.. And, since WSU fans are so fickle, winning isn't really enough. WSU fans want to see decent games, so you can't load up on cupcakes. This year's OOC is about as soft as we can get away with, I think.
I love the "other opinions are too stupid to respond to" tack - it's the refuge of people with nothing to say and no way to say it.
To summarize my POV as "wait for returns before investing" and describe that as "backwards" is silly and hypocritical - just as it's silly to try to divorce WSU Football / Athletics from an economy of goods and services.
Though you clearly don't realize it, you're actually describing your own philosophy - you're waiting for returns in the form of green rectangles from fans before you invest in making your product worthy of green rectangles, thus putting the merchant first and the buyer second. This is a godawful formula for building a program, and WSU's perennially atrocious W/L record and pathetic revenues are an annual reminder of that.
I forget - what do they call it when you keep doing the same thing and expecting different results?
Like it or not, WSU Football is a product. You have some built-in loyalists who will give you money no matter how bad your product is, but that's just enough to put you dead last in conference budgets. Is that good enough for you? It's not good enough for me.
Right now the product stinks. But it doesn't have to. You can pull out all the stops. Stop scheduling bodybag games and walk away from the ones already on the schedule. Stop agreeing to one-off road games. Quit playing 'neutral' site games (e.g., Clink) you are more likely to lose just to draw in fans. Schedule as many home games against as the most pathetic patsies the NCAA will allow. And if you want to get really ugly, overlook minor legal offenses and work with GPA 'bubble' kids to stay in the program. When we become Baylor North, we can get those items back on/off the docket - but right now we're trading short-term money for long-term program atrophy, and it's because your dumb philosophy has pervaded the program for decades.
Just to add some detail to what you're proposing, I'm including some figures to show how much incremental money (i.e., on top of what they might already be donating) all WSU alums would have to donate to reach different levels of athletic revenue. Note that this would have to replicated, and increased, every year going forward.
Now what do you think is more likely: we start getting butts in seats (and money in coffers, and recruits on campus) with a couple extra wins per season, or is it more likely that we get all 150,000+ alumni to donate $400+ more than whatever they're already giving to see the same crappy product they've been watching (or, more likely, not watching) for the past few decades?
If you still think it's the latter, we need to get you into a battered women's shelter because you're showing some of the same thinking processes.
Your first sentence is a laugher. You post an incredibly ignorant view of college athletics and get annoyed when someone else tells you how ignorant it is.
So now you have moved the goal posts to talking about body bag games or whatever else you babbled about, a subject that was never brought up in your original ignorant diatribe. FWIW, I have always been against body bag games and the Seattle game. Both are a waste of time and money. But that is not the same thing as expecting our alumni base to actually, you know, buy tickets and donate to the program. Tickets and donations are the lifeblood of a college sports program.
The bottom line is this: fans pulling support of poor college programs does not help said college program improve. This is not pro sports where some billionaire owner can shell out more dough in hopes of winning fans back. The fans are the owners in this scenario. We get out of it what we put into it. If you want to pull your donations and not go to games, that is prerogative, but don't bitch to us about the team sucking when you are doing nothing to help the program stay competitive with its peers.
I don't disagree that pulling donations doesn't help the program. However, can you really say that WSU has pushed its own chips into the middle of the table? Maybe recently. But not in the last 100 years.
If you spend 100 years not investing in something, athletics or academics or campus, it isn't going to be fixed overnight. And it might ring hollow on alums when you ask for money while having not been willing to chip in yourself.
I believe WSU still has the largest percentage of it's seats reserved for student seating. From a pure revenue standpoint (and ignoring Biggs recruiting theory), why expand the stadium, while you're still practically giving away 30% of the seats?
I just looked it up and a sports pass is $129 a year. If a student buys a sports pass and uses it for nothing but football games, that's $18-$21 per ticket (depending on how may home games there are). Figure the average student uses their sports pass for football games, plus a handful of other events and WSU is darn near giving away football tickets.
The student section includes some prime seats too. If WSU wants more ticket revenue, and has the demand, they could take away some of that 50 yard line seating it gives to students for almost nothing, and sell those seats to alumni for $100 a pop.
I don't disagree with this at all. I have been critical of Moos, but one area where I am not is that he is all in on football.
This is probably the first time in WSU history where the president, athletic director and head football coach have all been on the same page, pulling in the same direction. It's also come at a time when the conference has more money then ever as a whole. Much more competitive landscape than when some other schools were able to build their tradition and success.
