WSU's finances...

[Coug95man2]

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?

Hard question. I'm not one to mess with stuff too much. The whole "Unintended Consequences" thing. If WSU were in a different location, would it still be the school I know? Nope. Would it be the place I would pick to go to school? Don't know. If in Tri-cities, I doubt it. Spokane, I don't know… A school like that would certainly change the face of Spokane but how much would Spokane change WSU? While an interesting concept question, I'd probably leave it right where it is. All the worts and problems WSU has, I love Pullman.

 

[wazzucougs96]

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?

I'd put a federal interstate splitting from 90 at the river, passing through Pullman, and then continuing south to Boise before I would move the school to another city.

 

[wazzucougs96]

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

uh, what?

 

[BiggsCoug]

uh, what?

Miami 6-7, 3-5 in league last year, Texas 6-7, 5-4 in league last year, Michigan 5-7, 3-5 in league last year. Three schools that should probably do pretty well considering their location and talent base. They're struggling.

Wisconsin, Oregon, Missouri, should all be terrible. They're not.

I've seen too many teams with an incredible amount of something going for them suck. And I've seen too many teams with zero location and zero local talent go to Rose Bowl.

It comes down to money and how much your school spends on football. Location, is irrelevant. If you build it they will come. To Eugene, OR or Madison, WI or Lincoln, NE...

 

[wazzucougs96]

Miami 6-7, 3-5 in league last year, Texas 6-7, 5-4 in league last year, Michigan 5-7, 3-5 in league last year. Three schools that should probably do pretty well considering their location and talent base. They're struggling.

Wisconsin, Oregon, Missouri, should all be terrible. They're not.

I've seen too many teams with an incredible amount of something going for them suck. And I've seen too many teams with zero location and zero local talent go to Rose Bowl.

It comes down to money and how much your school spends on football. Location, is irrelevant. If you build it they will come. To Eugene, OR or Madison, WI or Lincoln, NE...

I won't disagree on that last point, but to directly correlate that to stadium size is silly. In fact, you contradict your entire premise without even realizing it.

 

[Coug95man2]

Miami 6-7, 3-5 in league last year, Texas 6-7, 5-4 in league last year, Michigan 5-7, 3-5 in league last year. Three schools that should probably do pretty well considering their location and talent base. They're struggling.

Wisconsin, Oregon, Missouri, should all be terrible. They're not.

I've seen too many teams with an incredible amount of something going for them suck. And I've seen too many teams with zero location and zero local talent go to Rose Bowl.

It comes down to money and how much your school spends on football. Location, is irrelevant. If you build it they will come. To Eugene, OR or Madison, WI or Lincoln, NE...

To a certain extent, and I think the point that 96 is making is exactly YOUR point that you state. It's about the money.

But to continue with what 96 and Chip are talking about… Biggs, how do you believe we should be getting money? I hate the idea of "Spend millions then have a dry spell. Spend millions then have a dry spell." Rinse, repeat.

 

[425cougfan]

Biggs, why would Wisconsin be "terrible?" Madison is a city of 250,000 in the middle of the most densely populated area of the state. Missouri is a pretty big state (I've heard it compared to Washington pretty frequently, for what it's worth), and Columbia is right between two fairly large cities (Kansas City and St. Louis) that are both less than two hours away by interstate highway. We all know about Oregon's special circumstances. Missouri and Wisconsin also don't have any BCS-level football competition in their states.

You're on point with a good amount of things on here, but whenever the topic of expanding the stadium comes up, you're way off base with these fantasies about a 70,000-seat stadium in Pullman. Not only would it never happen for a myriad of financial and practical reasons, but in a hypoethetical universe where the university spent $250m on that, the 30,000-60,000 empty seats (the latter for those Thursday night games on ESPN) would be tremendously embarrassing to the program. It would be ridiculous.

As far as 4-star recruits choosing schools with big stadiums, there's a fine, yet critical, distinction between causation and correlation. USC might lose some recruiting battles to Michigan or Texas if it had Martin Stadium in LA, but putting an empty LA Colosseum in Pullman wouldn't cause the 4-star recruits choosing USC to instead attend WSU.

To be clear, you're right about a point that I think you're trying to make ... WSU needs to have outstanding facilities and venues to recruit to (and by "outstanding," I mean they ideally should be much better than average in the Pac-12 in ways that can be articulated and demonstrated to recruits). A huge, empty stadium with tarped off areas would become a running joke, though.

 

[BiggsCoug]

I won't disagree on that last point, but to directly correlate that to stadium size is silly. In fact, you contradict your entire premise without even realizing it.

No Im not. You're reaching. Again.

 

[BiggsCoug]

Biggs, why would Wisconsin be "terrible?" Madison is a city of 250,000 in the middle of the most densely populated area of the state. Missouri is a pretty big state (I've heard it compared to Washington pretty frequently, for what it's worth), and Columbia is right between two fairly large cities (Kansas City and St. Louis) that are both less than two hours away by interstate highway. We all know about Oregon's special circumstances. Missouri and Wisconsin also don't have any BCS-level football competition in their states.

You're on point with a good amount of things on here, but whenever the topic of expanding the stadium comes up, you're way off base with these fantasies about a 70,000-seat stadium in Pullman. Not only would it never happen for a myriad of financial and practical reasons, but in a hypoethetical universe where the university spent $250m on that, the 30,000-60,000 empty seats (the latter for those Thursday night games on ESPN) would be tremendously embarrassing to the program. It would be ridiculous.

As far as 4-star recruits choosing schools with big stadiums, there's a fine, yet critical, distinction between causation and correlation. USC might lose some recruiting battles to Michigan or Texas if it had Martin Stadium in LA, but putting an empty LA Colosseum in Pullman wouldn't cause the 4-star recruits choosing USC to instead attend WSU.

To be clear, you're right about a point that I think you're trying to make ... WSU needs to have outstanding facilities and venues to recruit to (and by "outstanding," I mean they ideally should be much better than average in the Pac-12 in ways that can be articulated and demonstrated to recruits). A huge, empty stadium with tarped off areas would become a running joke, though.

How much local talent is in Wisconsin? When was the last time 75 BCS programs all flew their coaches into Wisconsin or Missouri to scour the entire state for its wealth of talent?

WSU needs to build its stadium as big as it possibly can. However many seats it is, it is. What hasn't worked is going small. 11 bowls in 100 years with a small stadium, 5 of 60 four star high school kids choosing programs with 50,000 seats or more should tell you something.

A huge tarped off area isn't a running joke for other schools? And even if it was, it's not like UCLA or SC don't have the same people dressed like empty seats so they have no leg to stand on.

 

[BiggsCoug]

To a certain extent, and I think the point that 96 is making is exactly YOUR point that you state. It's about the money.

But to continue with what 96 and Chip are talking about… Biggs, how do you believe we should be getting money? I hate the idea of "Spend millions then have a dry spell. Spend millions then have a dry spell." Rinse, repeat.

WSU has to do a better job of growing its donor base while it has a captive audience. You've got kids for 4 or 5 years on your campus. You have to do something, anything to create a culture of giving once they've graduated. You start there for the future.

WSU needs to try and bring as many past alums into the fold as possible. Find out who is willing to give and who isn't, move forward from there. Essentially cut people loose or find a way to reconnect.

Offer incentives to donate. WSU fans love gear and license plates. Come up with some kind of deal. Donate X amount of dollars, get this limited edition shirt/hat/lithograph/etc.

Create their own online presence. For $10 per month you get access to interviews, videos, deals on gear, deals on tickets, deals on hotels, deals on food, even a message board. Find a way to grow that market to the tune of 5,000 members per month. Take your $50,000 per month and then farm that membership for donors.

The reality is that WSU is ridiculously behind other schools in giving to its athletics department. They have to start somewhere. Digging thru their alums to find out whose interested and whose not and creating a culture of giving with those on campus currently is a good place to start.