WSU's finances...

[CPtheCoug]

Are you going to win the PAC 12 North by being "just enough?" Cause that's what that sounds like to me.

Welp, I guess I asked my self if a 16/17/18 year old kid could eye-ball the number of seats in a stadium simply by standing in the middle of the field, and I determined they probably can't without help/prior knowledge.

So, in an effort to appease your argument, I figured "big" stadiums have more to do with the structure/architecture of the stadium and LESS to do with the number of seats. I believe you can make a 45K seat stadium look big as hell by building vertically. Our south side press box looks HUGE, why though? Mainly because of three things: 1st: The press box rests on top of a hill, while the rest of the stadium sits "below" it. 2nd: Our north/west/east grandstands are not very large or "deep". 3rd: The rest of the buildings on campus near the stadium are not very large, visual comparisons are skewed.

I believe WSU can make a VERY IMPRESSIVE (read: "not just enough") huge looking stadium and recruits will have no idea the official seat count is "only" 45K.

Plus, you didn't answer my question, if a 45K seat stadium can accommodate 51K fans (comfortably), how big is that stadium really?

 

[BiggsCoug]

Welp, I guess I asked my self if a 16/17/18 year old kid could eye-ball the number of seats in a stadium simply by standing in the middle of the field, and I determined they probably can't without help/prior knowledge.

So, in an effort to appease your argument, I figured "big" stadiums have more to do with the structure/architecture of the stadium and LESS to do with the number of seats. I believe you can make a 45K seat stadium look big as hell by building vertically. Our south side press box looks HUGE, why though? Mainly because of three things: 1st: The press box rests on top of a hill, while the rest of the stadium sits "below" it. 2nd: Our north/west/east grandstands are not very large or "deep". 3rd: The rest of the buildings on campus near the stadium are not very large, visual comparisons are skewed.

I believe WSU can make a VERY IMPRESSIVE (read: "not just enough") huge looking stadium and recruits will have no idea the official seat count is "only" 45K.

Plus, you didn't answer my question, if a 45K seat stadium can accommodate 51K fans (comfortably), how big is that stadium really?

You're not taking into account what other coaches recruiting that player tell them about the WSU facilities.

"If WSU were really committed to having a winning team, don't you think they'd have a Varsity stadium and not a Junior Varsity stadium?"

Until WSU can stop that question from being asked by other coaches recruiting the same kid(s), build the stadium as big as it needs to be. So no, 51,000 probably isn't enough.

 

[CPtheCoug]

You're not taking into account what other coaches recruiting that player tell them about the WSU facilities.

"If WSU were really committed to having a winning team, don't you think they'd have a Varsity stadium and not a Junior Varsity stadium?"

Until WSU can stop that question from being asked by other coaches recruiting the same kid(s), build the stadium as big as it needs to be. So no, 51,000 probably isn't enough.

I still think you are weighing number of seats too heavily. I could probably design a stadium the size of The Big House, but have it hold a quarter the number of fans by simply giving everyone lazy boy recliners instead of bench seating... Feel me...

 

[wazzucougs96]

I think WSU is in a great position with regards to stadium size personally. Attendance numbers across the country are declining, it wouldn't surprise me at all if teams start downsizing their stadiums. The Redskins have already done it several times.

 

[BiggsCoug]

I still think you are weighing number of seats too heavily. I could probably design a stadium the size of The Big House, but have it hold a quarter the number of fans by simply giving everyone lazy boy recliners instead of bench seating... Feel me...

I understand what you're saying. There is limited space to work with. I think you have to maximize the space you have while making it as posh and fan friendly as possible. Build a tower opposite the FOB building with a rooftop bar and grill.... Something, anything to create more seats and interest...

 

[Flatlandcoug]

For clarity, I don't see the need (ever) for 60k in our stadium. I'd like us to be able to just in case, but I don't believe it should be on any serious planning horizon other than pie in the sky. 40-45k really should happen as soon as we can reasonably accomplish it. 45k with a nice pressbox over the north stands could end up being as impressive (more impressive?) than UO's 54k stadium. 50k is a nice planning target for us and it's hard to argue with the facts that Biggs put out. Of course, teams that have bigger stadiums usually have them because they've won in the past which in itself brings in recruits. Size alone doesn't matter. (I tell that to all the ladies!).

For the comments about tarps over seats, are the Sounders somehow inferior because the upper deck is tarped? As someone else said, USC tarps some of their seats. Getting a cover with a huge Coug logo might be kind of cool to see on the days when the cheap seats aren't full.

 

[Geoduck12]

More money may be coming our way but, that won't change the municipal bond market for stadium financing.

Many of the the recent facility improvements throughout the country have exclusively used private donors, there has been no need to access the municipal bond markets.

 

[BiggsCoug]

For clarity, I don't see the need (ever) for 60k in our stadium. I'd like us to be able to just in case, but I don't believe it should be on any serious planning horizon other than pie in the sky. 40-45k really should happen as soon as we can reasonably accomplish it. 45k with a nice pressbox over the north stands could end up being as impressive (more impressive?) than UO's 54k stadium. 50k is a nice planning target for us and it's hard to argue with the facts that Biggs put out. Of course, teams that have bigger stadiums usually have them because they've won in the past which in itself brings in recruits. Size alone doesn't matter. (I tell that to all the ladies!).

For the comments about tarps over seats, are the Sounders somehow inferior because the upper deck is tarped? As someone else said, USC tarps some of their seats. Getting a cover with a huge Coug logo might be kind of cool to see on the days when the cheap seats aren't full.

It's not just the size of the stadium that matters. It's body language. It's being congruent.

You tell recruits that you wanna win games, then they show up and you have the smallest stadium in the conference and the worst facilities. Is your school really committed to winning? If they are, where's your facilities? You can't leave your coaches twisting in the wind.

Coaches at Oregon or SC don't have to say anything about their facilities. It's already known that they have great stuff. When they talk about being committed to winning their university backs them up. They have the tools they need to be successful.

If you want to land high end talent, then you have to be a high end school. That means everything from top to bottom needs to be high end. Kids know their market value. Nobody wants to be a bargain.

 

[wazzucougs96]

For clarity, I don't see the need (ever) for 60k in our stadium. I'd like us to be able to just in case, but I don't believe it should be on any serious planning horizon other than pie in the sky. 40-45k really should happen as soon as we can reasonably accomplish it. 45k with a nice pressbox over the north stands could end up being as impressive (more impressive?) than UO's 54k stadium. 50k is a nice planning target for us and it's hard to argue with the facts that Biggs put out. Of course, teams that have bigger stadiums usually have them because they've won in the past which in itself brings in recruits. Size alone doesn't matter. (I tell that to all the ladies!).

For the comments about tarps over seats, are the Sounders somehow inferior because the upper deck is tarped? As someone else said, USC tarps some of their seats. Getting a cover with a huge Coug logo might be kind of cool to see on the days when the cheap seats aren't full.

There are a number of reasons why the tarp scenario works for the Sounders and wouldn't for the Cougs. But I will leave you with the most obvious one: The Sounder obliterate the rest of MLS in attendance every single game. They double the league average for attendance.

 

[wazzucougs96]

It's not just the size of the stadium that matters. It's body language. It's being congruent.

You tell recruits that you wanna win games, then they show up and you have the smallest stadium in the conference and the worst facilities. Is your school really committed to winning? If they are, where's your facilities? You can't leave your coaches twisting in the wind.

Coaches at Oregon or SC don't have to say anything about their facilities. It's already known that they have great stuff. When they talk about being committed to winning their university backs them up. They have the tools they need to be successful.

If you want to land high end talent, then you have to be a high end school. That means everything from top to bottom needs to be high end. Kids know their market value. Nobody wants to be a bargain.

Where are the facilities??? Are you completely unaware of our FOB that rivals anything west of the Mississippi that isn't in Eugene?

 

[BiggsCoug]

Where are the facilities??? Are you completely unaware of our FOB that rivals anything west of the Mississippi that isn't in Eugene?

No, Im plenty aware. It's an entire package, not just a couple buildings.

 

[kayak15]

This "tarps" discussion falls into the apples vs. oranges section. 96 hinted at it. USC and the Sounders use tarps for unused seats. True, but they both play in stadiums that were not designed exclusively for their use. Memorial in L.A. has been pretty multiuse- football, soccer, Olympics, etc. Even the Dodgers played there for a year prior to O'Malley getting his own place. The Clink was designed for both- true- but no one expected the Sounders to sell 63,000 tickets when they started. The highest attended teams at that time were getting about 20,000 max. No big surprise when they had empty seats, ergo no embarrassment. Tarping sections made perfect sense. On our own case, if we build a stadium exclusively for WSU's football team and still have to hide the empty seats.... Now, that will bring a few laughs and giggles from our peers. Less than a full house versus Portland State or a similar opponent wouldn't be a cause of mirth. But, building a huge stadium- in excess of 45,000 or so- and then have to cover sections during the Apple Cup or other conference games and hope that no one noticed would indeed be humiliating and a fount of ridicule.

As far as recruiting success and large stadiums are concerned: Big time programs have big time stadiums built to accommodate them. Do kids matriculate at these schools because of the size of the stadium or the prior success of the program? Both correlate but the primary causation falls on the latter.

It is too bad, really, but I think that the era of huge stadia is over. With the advent of cable, wireless, etc. with their hundreds of channels showing on fancy-schmancy wide screen televisions I suspect that physical attendance at events can be expected to decline in the future. Not disappear entirely but be deemphasized to a degree. The viewing media has changed considerably since the advent of television in the late 40's/early 50's. We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto.

 

[chinookpirate]

Many of the the recent facility improvements throughout the country have exclusively used private donors, there has been no need to access the municipal bond markets.

Who is funding projects without issuing debt?

Who are the deep pocket donors sitting on their wallets in Pullman? What are they waiting for?

 

[BiggsCoug]

This "tarps" discussion falls into the apples vs. oranges section. 96 hinted at it. USC and the Sounders use tarps for unused seats. True, but they both play in stadiums that were not designed exclusively for their use. Memorial in L.A. has been pretty multiuse- football, soccer, Olympics, etc. Even the Dodgers played there for a year prior to O'Malley getting his own place. The Clink was designed for both- true- but no one expected the Sounders to sell 63,000 tickets when they started. The highest attended teams at that time were getting about 20,000 max. No big surprise when they had empty seats, ergo no embarrassment. Tarping sections made perfect sense. On our own case, if we build a stadium exclusively for WSU's football team and still have to hide the empty seats.... Now, that will bring a few laughs and giggles from our peers. Less than a full house versus Portland State or a similar opponent wouldn't be a cause of mirth. But, building a huge stadium- in excess of 45,000 or so- and then have to cover sections during the Apple Cup or other conference games and hope that no one noticed would indeed be humiliating and a fount of ridicule.

As far as recruiting success and large stadiums are concerned: Big time programs have big time stadiums built to accommodate them. Do kids matriculate at these schools because of the size of the stadium or the prior success of the program? Both correlate but the primary causation falls on the latter.

It is too bad, really, but I think that the era of huge stadia is over. With the advent of cable, wireless, etc. with their hundreds of channels showing on fancy-schmancy wide screen televisions I suspect that physical attendance at events can be expected to decline in the future. Not disappear entirely but be deemphasized to a degree. The viewing media has changed considerably since the advent of television in the late 40's/early 50's. We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto.

So your peers laugh at you because you have tarps over empty seats or they laugh at you because you have a stadium that seats 35,000. Either way they're laughing at you. If given the choice I'd take the tarps and the larger stadium. I'd also have more seats to sell if there was an occasional big game that people wanted to see.

Im curious to see how the era of the big stadium effects college football. I don't see the Seahawks struggling to sell out any time soon. Or most SEC schools.

 

[wazzucougs96]

So your peers laugh at you because you have tarps over empty seats or they laugh at you because you have a stadium that seats 35,000. Either way they're laughing at you. If given the choice I'd take the tarps and the larger stadium. I'd also have more seats to sell if there was an occasional big game that people wanted to see.

Im curious to see how the era of the big stadium effects college football. I don't see the Seahawks struggling to sell out any time soon. Or most SEC schools.

WSU, and by extension most of the Pac 12, hardly fall into the same category as an NFL team or an SEC team.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

So your peers laugh at you because you have tarps over empty seats or they laugh at you because you have a stadium that seats 35,000. Either way they're laughing at you. If given the choice I'd take the tarps and the larger stadium. I'd also have more seats to sell if there was an occasional big game that people wanted to see.

Im curious to see how the era of the big stadium effects college football. I don't see the Seahawks struggling to sell out any time soon. Or most SEC schools.

I think the discussion about the impact on increased TV coverage on attendance is a valid one that needs to be factored into expansion plans. The issue about tarping is explained pretty well above. It doesn't make sense to build to the point where seats are NEVER filled. You could make the argument that using tarps to cover seats 50% of the time wouldn't be a big deal. I could see a situation where we get filled up a couple times per year, 50% attendance in the cheap seats at a 1-2 games and 3-4 games where you might as well tarp it up. At some point, if Leach is the coach that we hope he is, we will see high attendance 75% of the time. Even with TV coverage getting better, nothing beats a stadium experience when you are winning.

TV coverage is going to make more of an impact over time for teams that aren't consistently successful. Even the mighty SEC stadiums often average thousands of seats below their capacity and that will get worse over time for some. Auburn, Florida, Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee and Vanderbilt all averaged at least 3,000 empty seats in the last couple years. The Wall Street Journal had an article about nationwide student attendance problems that focused on Georgia that pointed out that their student section was 39% empty on average. ESPN had an article in February 2014 talking about attendance issues in the B1G.

We have room to grow our stadium but we should be smart with our money. I don't mind empty seats at the edges on minor games but I don't want acres of empty seats.

 

[chinookpirate]

Unless you're going to pay for it, Flat, we're done expanding Martin Stadium for awhile.

 

[BiggsCoug]

Im not advocating for empty seats. Im saying I think there is a relationship between stadium size and where the West Coast 4 star high school talent chooses to go to school. The size of your stadium is non verbal communication. It tells kids how important football is to your school. If football isn't that important to your school, why would a high end prospect where football means absolutely everything to him go to your school? He wouldn't.

Bill Parcels said that at the combine interviews he'd ask kids "what are the 3 most important things in your life?" If football wasn't one of them he wasn't drafting them.

Until Bill Moos got to WSU, what were the 3 most important things to the WSU athletic department?

 

[Coug95man2]

Im not advocating for empty seats. Im saying I think there is a relationship between stadium size and where the West Coast 4 star high school talent chooses to go to school. The size of your stadium is non verbal communication. It tells kids how important football is to your school. If football isn't that important to your school, why would a high end prospect where football means absolutely everything to him go to your school? He wouldn't.

Bill Parcels said that at the combine interviews he'd ask kids "what are the 3 most important things in your life?" If football wasn't one of them he wasn't drafting them.

Until Bill Moos got to WSU, what were the 3 most important things to the WSU athletic department?

I think that's the crux of the debate. Biggs, what do you perceive our "ceiling" of attendance over the next 20 years? Lets give our program the kinda realistic future of "We'll be running around 7 wins every season. Sometimes less, sometimes more." Do you see us filling a stadium of 55K during the good seasons?

 

[BiggsCoug]

I think that's the crux of the debate. Biggs, what do you perceive our "ceiling" of attendance over the next 20 years? Lets give our program the kinda realistic future of "We'll be running around 7 wins every season. Sometimes less, sometimes more." Do you see us filling a stadium of 55K during the good seasons?

Consistently? No.

I posted earlier there are 2 schools of thought on stadiums... If you sell out every week some AD's would expand the stadium. Some other AD's would leave seating alone and raise ticket prices. Both options are solid business choices. For me, I'd expand the stadium. A sell out is great cause you maximized your seating. You also may have left chips on the table. I would never want to sell out and leave much needed funds on the table.

In regards to filling the stadium with people... I think there are enough students and people in the area to fill 25,000 seats. I think you can get 10,000 from Spokane. I think you can get another 10,000 between Yakima/Tri Cities/Wenatchee/Lewiston/etc. That's 45,000 people. That hasn't touched the Puget Sound or PDX Metro.

There are enough people to get a stadium filled or mostly filled. Is there the staff on campus to build what those people need to see that makes them come? If there were ever a school that should be capable of throwing a good party, it's WSU. They haven't figured it out yet.

 

[wazzucougs96]

Consistently? No.

I posted earlier there are 2 schools of thought on stadiums... If you sell out every week some AD's would expand the stadium. Some other AD's would leave seating alone and raise ticket prices. Both options are solid business choices. For me, I'd expand the stadium. A sell out is great cause you maximized your seating. You also may have left chips on the table. I would never want to sell out and leave much needed funds on the table.

In regards to filling the stadium with people... I think there are enough students and people in the area to fill 25,000 seats. I think you can get 10,000 from Spokane. I think you can get another 10,000 between Yakima/Tri Cities/Wenatchee/Lewiston/etc. That's 45,000 people. That hasn't touched the Puget Sound or PDX Metro.

There are enough people to get a stadium filled or mostly filled. Is there the staff on campus to build what those people need to see that makes them come? If there were ever a school that should be capable of throwing a good party, it's WSU. They haven't figured it out yet.

Any realistic shot consistently boosting attendance is going to have come from people who don't require a hotel room to see a game. That means a radius of Spokane to Tri Cities, and inward.

 

[Coug95man2]

Consistently? No.

I posted earlier there are 2 schools of thought on stadiums... If you sell out every week some AD's would expand the stadium. Some other AD's would leave seating alone and raise ticket prices. Both options are solid business choices. For me, I'd expand the stadium. A sell out is great cause you maximized your seating. You also may have left chips on the table. I would never want to sell out and leave much needed funds on the table.

In regards to filling the stadium with people... I think there are enough students and people in the area to fill 25,000 seats. I think you can get 10,000 from Spokane. I think you can get another 10,000 between Yakima/Tri Cities/Wenatchee/Lewiston/etc. That's 45,000 people. That hasn't touched the Puget Sound or PDX Metro.

There are enough people to get a stadium filled or mostly filled. Is there the staff on campus to build what those people need to see that makes them come? If there were ever a school that should be capable of throwing a good party, it's WSU. They haven't figured it out yet.

And see, I think that's where your belief in getting 45K in some sort of consistent way, is off. I think on the big games, on up seasons, we'll max out at 45K… maybe 50K. EDIT: But I will also say, if we go as big as 50K, we will have empty seats at each and every game. We'll never sell out 50K. I'm guessing that's where there's the disconnect between you and others. If you build a stadium more than 50K-55K, you are building seats KNOWING they will never… ever… have a butt in them. That makes very little business sense.

 

[BiggsCoug]

And see, I think that's where your belief in getting 45K in some sort of consistent way, is off. I think on the big games, on up seasons, we'll max out at 45K… maybe 50K. EDIT: But I will also say, if we go as big as 50K, we will have empty seats at each and every game. We'll never sell out 50K. I'm guessing that's where there's the disconnect between you and others. If you build a stadium more than 50K-55K, you are building seats KNOWING they will never… ever… have a butt in them. That makes very little business sense.

It's not about business sense. At all. Ever. It's about building what is needed to attract high end talent and coaches to your program. What 18 year old kid from LA cares about your "business sense?" None.

I get it. I understand and know that filling 50,000 seats or more could be a tough effort for WSU. What you simply fail to see is what I've been writing over and over and over again.

It doesn't matter what you or I think. It matters what the high end talent thinks. They are the customers. You sell them what they want or you don't sell them at all.

If you want 4 star talent you give them what they want. Not what they don't want. 55 of 60 four star kids went to schools with stadiums of 50,000 seats or more. Fact.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Unless you're going to pay for it, Flat, we're done expanding Martin Stadium for awhile.

In an earlier post, I said that we need to do it as soon as we can make it happen. If Moos is the AD that I think he is, there are preliminary plans for the endzone upgrade ready to be finalized and put into motion when the time is right. That has nothing to do with winning games and more to do with being able to finance it. A 6,500 seat upgrade in the endzone would put us close to 40,000 seats. If things start to go well, we get the plans for an upper deck over the north stands in motion before the endzone construction is even complete. Roll into that construction as soon as feasible. That could put us at 45,000 seats. It gets tricky from there because the pressbox and FOB were built without regards for future expansion. The biggest hurdle for WSU when it comes to going past that is whether or not there is the desire (and cash) to make dramatic changes to things that aren't even paid for yet. Personally, I think 45k is the best number even though I could buy into 50,000 seats. The one thing that I think any future changes have to consider is future growth. If we can do an expansion that allows us to grow without ripping out what we just put in...that would obviously be preferred. I don't have any idea if it's feasible.

Moos will find a way to pay for stadium improvements if things change to justify it. He knows that football success and support drive everything else in the long run.

 

[Loyal Coug]

Moved to new thread.......

 

[chipdouglas]

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.

The last time I saw this kind of butt-hurt, the guy (girl? thing?) was telling the world to leave Britney alone.

You're a dinosaur; a relic. You're from the 90s of Internet debate. Paragraphs of frantic fulminating and vintage ad hominems... what everyone else says is some combination of: stupid / misguided / incredibly ignorant / a laugher etc. But not you, right? You're special. And you were sent here to rescue us from our ignorance, and for that we are all, I'm sure, grateful.

Let's get to brass tacks. What's a better way to rebuild WSU?

Option #1: pull out all the stops possible - cancel/avoid bodybags, cancel/avoid neutral sites, schedule insane cupcakes, work with GPA bubblers, build everything we can build, buy the best coaches we can get, and otherwise win at all legal costs.

-OR-

Option #2: sit around and wait for WSU alums (consumers) to suddenly be so impressed with our 3rd-worst-team-in-the-2nd-or-3rd-best-conference performances that they pony up the $400 a year *EXTRA* it will take to get us into the top 1/2 of conference budgets. Then take to message boards to blame the fans when your team keeps losing and your facilities are a joke.

It's almost impossible for me to believe that there is even one person out there who thinks the fans are to blame for WSU's legendary mediocrity. As someone who works as an analyst for the world's most profitable CPG company, the idea that the consumer (which WSU fans fundamentally are) is to blame for not buying my product (which WSU football fundamentally is) is appalling, but perhaps sadly much more pervasive than I would like to think.

 

[wazzucougs96]

The last time I saw this kind of butt-hurt, the guy (girl? thing?) was telling the world to leave Britney alone.

You're a dinosaur; a relic. You're from the 90s of Internet debate. Paragraphs of frantic fulminating and vintage ad hominems... what everyone else says is some combination of: stupid / misguided / incredibly ignorant / a laugher etc. But not you, right? You're special. And you were sent here to rescue us from our ignorance, and for that we are all, I'm sure, grateful.

Let's get to brass tacks. What's a better way to rebuild WSU?

Option #1: pull out all the stops possible - cancel/avoid bodybags, cancel/avoid neutral sites, schedule insane cupcakes, work with GPA bubblers, build everything we can build, buy the best coaches we can get, and otherwise win at all legal costs.

-OR-

Option #2: sit around and wait for WSU alums (consumers) to suddenly be so impressed with our 3rd-worst-team-in-the-2nd-or-3rd-best-conference performances that they pony up the $400 a year *EXTRA* it will take to get us into the top 1/2 of conference budgets. Then take to message boards to blame the fans when your team keeps losing and your facilities are a joke.

It's almost impossible for me to believe that there is even one person out there who thinks the fans are to blame for WSU's legendary mediocrity. As someone who works as an analyst for the world's most profitable CPG company, the idea that the consumer (which WSU fans fundamentally are) is to blame for not buying my product (which WSU football fundamentally is) is appalling, but perhaps sadly much more pervasive than I would like to think.

So your solution to the money problems at the smallest budget school in the conference is the further hamstring the budget.

Got it.

 

[BiggsCoug]

Are you really that surprised that there are athletic departments that live beyond their means?

 

[wazzucougs96]

Well, here we are. Moos is now on the record publicly that fundraising for the new IPF and baseball clubhouses is not even close to where it needs to be.

But keep withholding your money, because that will surely get us the help we need to build facilities.

 

[chipdouglas]

So your solution to the money problems at the smallest budget school in the conference is the further hamstring the budget.

Got it.

Judging from your single-sentence response to a substantive argument, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say it's not that you're dumb, it's that you know your argument is indefensible and therefore not worth elaborating on.

CAF memberships and WSUAA memberships (like mine) went through the roof when CML came on board, but somehow we still lose 7-9 games a year. Hmm, guess your idea sucks.

Are you really that daft that you don't understand it is possible to take action internally to generate interest in the program, or does it all have to be "browbeat the fans into paying double for a worst-in-class product"? Something tells me you're a "tax our way out of our problems" guy...

I don't blame you. You didn't work for the alumni fundraising arm of WSU like I did so you don't understand how WSU alums and football fans tick, and you clearly aren't faced with customer-centric marketing decisions - it's not your fault. The rest of us will figure it out for you.

 

[wazzucougs96]

Judging from your single-sentence response to a substantive argument, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say it's not that you're dumb, it's that you know your argument is indefensible and therefore not worth elaborating on.

CAF memberships and WSUAA memberships (like mine) went through the roof when CML came on board, but somehow we still lose 7-9 games a year. Hmm, guess your idea sucks.

Are you really that daft that you don't understand it is possible to take action internally to generate interest in the program, or does it all have to be "browbeat the fans into paying double for a worst-in-class product"? Something tells me you're a "tax our way out of our problems" guy...

I don't blame you. You didn't work for the alumni fundraising arm of WSU like I did so you don't understand how WSU alums and football fans tick, and you clearly aren't faced with customer-centric marketing decisions - it's not your fault. The rest of us will figure it out for you.

I'll give you credit, you try really hard to be condescending while saying exactly nothing at all. The mere fact that you think the crater that WSU football was in can be dug out of in a year or two tells me all I need to know about your level of intelligence here.

With people like you working the fundraising arm for WSU, it's no wonder we have no major donors and the smallest per donor amount by a country mile in the conference.

But yeah, we should totally keep paying for nice stuff with money we don't have. And thinking of it as a tax is completely misguided. You have to invest in the future for returns.

 

[chinookpirate]

zero chance we are building to 45,000 within a decade. Even lower chance we EVER expand to 50,000... For obvious reasons.

 

[SCglory]

USA Today, via Thorpe, has issued the yearly athletic finances… shock, we're last. With Oregon State, Colorado and Utah close by. 54th in the nation. Click on the individual school to see their specific stats.

http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/sportslink/2015/may/26/wsu-ranks-last-2014-pac-12-athletic-revenues/

If you could wave a magic baton (or, if you're into Bewitched, twitch your nose) and move WSU to ANY city or location in the state--lock, stock, and barrel, (a) would you? and (b) if so, where? Spokane is the obvious choice, in that it keeps the E of the mtns feel but it has an urban area. Tri-Cities has better weather and a larger urban area now....or close to it...than Spokane.....(and it's close to Yakima on I-82, etc.). Thoughts?

 

[SCglory]

Think small, be small. Guess what? You're small.

biggs, your repetitive insanity about expanding an empty house to be a larger empty house shows an absolutely amazing ignorance of what makes stadium expansion possible and the real world of finance. It's about the dumbest thing I've heard on any board. The ONLY thing that could be leveraged to expand Martin would be some sort of "psychological argument" that we need a 40K stadium because we're a Pac12 school and there is a certain appropriateness to that. That, and the fact that a small expansion would not cost an arm and a leg. But to even float the idea of the most remote school in the conference, the one furthest from any meaningful population base and metropolitan area, the least populated county....for THAT school to expand something to "60-70K" for which there is obviously no demand....just dumb. As in "head in the sand, stubborn, first-grader" type of ignorance. Grow up.

 

[SCglory]

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?

post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. Yeah, sleeping through critical thinking didn't hurt you at all.

 

[SCglory]

And what has that done? It's not enough to match other schools. You have to beat them. Oregon laid out the blueprint on how to lure 4 star kids to rural schools. It didn't include being "just enough." It included Brazilian hardwood floors and lavish facilities.

So WSU has a fancy small stadium tomorrow, what changes? What lures kids out of LA? What gets kids from Washington to come? WSU struck out of the top ten players in state last year.

Being like everyone else or just enough isn't going to push WSU into bowl games and top ten talent. This is the most competitive era ever in the PAC 12. Everyone has a celebrity coach, everyone has more money then ever, 9 league games to boot! What is going to push WSU over the top? Going small? No way.

You think Eugene is a "rural area?" Now....I'll go real slow for you....Open this link Go down to Area #3...what do you see? See, Eugene-Springfield is a Metropolitan Area.....not a rural area. Now....do you see the same thing for "Pullman-Colfax?" What a dummy.

 

[Snoopcoug]

Until we truly recruit nationally, 45k is plenty big enough of a stadium to recruit to. West coast college stadiums rarely fill up, and recruits will see that. If we're battling for a recruit from Florida, it'll be a problem, but a Cali, Arizona, or Washington kid may very well be as impressed with a full 45k seat Martin stadium as they are with 30k empty seats somewhere else. I think location as big a factor, and there is nothing we can do about that.

 

[BiggsCoug]

Empty seats don't matter. At all. See most of the teams on the West Coast.

If 4 star talent were impressed with small stadiums WSU would be rolling in them. They're not.

 

[wazzucougs96]

Empty seats don't matter. At all. See most of the teams on the West Coast.

If 4 star talent were impressed with small stadiums WSU would be rolling in them. They're not.

This has far less to do about stadium size and more to do about location and history. WSU is a no name brand in a population deprived region. There is no local talent to pad your base with.

4 and 5 stars aren't coming to Pullman because there are far more appealing locations for them to go instead.

 

[BiggsCoug]

This has far less to do about stadium size and more to do about location and history. WSU is a no name brand in a population deprived region. There is no local talent to pad your base with.

4 and 5 stars aren't coming to Pullman because there are far more appealing locations for them to go instead.

Location doesn't matter. Neither does local talent base.