Realignment Carousel Spins Up again (USC and UCLA to Big 10)

[Kung Wu]

Could be a flounder or two, maybe a turbot or halibut.

Or ...

[Aargh]

I've always assumed that on the day you were born your mom handed you an OU football. Now that Lew Perkins is dead, there can't be a sole on Earth that hates the idea of WSU football more than you. It's honestly impressive.

I was there when the fans went from 30,000 when Cessna was built to 6,000 at the end of football.

My degree is in accounting. My specialty was running financial projections. I did the research and ran the numbers using a sold out Cessna for every home game and that road games for payouts would dominate the non-conference schedule. It came out that $100 million would be needed to start the program and sustain it for 10 years. The assumption was that after 10 years TV revenues would offset the annual losses.

Bardo did his research and concluded that $40 million would be needed just for startup costs. If my projection is reasonable, then it would assume losses of $6 million a year for 10 years, which is a realistic number if you want to build a program that goes from startup to being attractive to the networks in 10 years.

The other option is to go low ball and not rack up massive losses every year. Then we'd be playing the likes of Illinois State, Murray State, Southern Illinois. You're not going to put 30,000 butts in seats for those games and you will NEVER get to a better conference than the Missouri Valley Football Conference.

Do some research and look at some facts and it's obvious the football glass is empty. I don't hate the idea of bringing football back. I just don't support insane fiscal stupidity. I would love to go to WSU football games if there were any. I'd also love to date Kaley Cuoco. Unless someone is willing to throw $100 mill at the athletic department the chances of either happening are about the same. The Kaley Cuoco glass is definitely empty under any and every circumstance.

[Kel Varnsen]

I was there when the fans went from 30,000 when Cessna was built to 6,000 at the end of football.

My degree is in accounting. My specialty was running financial projections. I did the research and ran the numbers using a sold out Cessna for every home game and that road games for payouts would dominate the non-conference schedule. It came out that $100 million would be needed to start the program and sustain it for 10 years. The assumption was that after 10 years TV revenues would offset the annual losses.

Bardo did his research and concluded that $40 million would be needed just for startup costs. If my projection is reasonable, then it would assume losses of $6 million a year for 10 years, which is a realistic number if you want to build a program that goes from startup to being attractive to the networks in 10 years.

The other option is to go low ball and not rack up massive losses every year. Then we'd be playing the likes of Illinois State, Murray State, Southern Illinois. You're not going to put 30,000 butts in seats for those games and you will NEVER get to a better conference than the Missouri Valley Football Conference.

Do some research and look at some facts and it's obvious the football glass is empty. I don't hate the idea of bringing football back. I just don't support insane fiscal stupidity. I would love to go to WSU football games if there were any. I'd also love to date Kaley Cuoco. Unless someone is willing to throw $100 mill at the athletic department the chances of either happening are about the same. The Kaley Cuoco glass is definitely empty under any and every circumstance.

Spot on.

[Shoxing Me Softly]

I was there when the fans went from 30,000 when Cessna was built to 6,000 at the end of football.

My degree is in accounting. My specialty was running financial projections. I did the research and ran the numbers using a sold out Cessna for every home game and that road games for payouts would dominate the non-conference schedule. It came out that $100 million would be needed to start the program and sustain it for 10 years. The assumption was that after 10 years TV revenues would offset the annual losses.

Bardo did his research and concluded that $40 million would be needed just for startup costs. If my projection is reasonable, then it would assume losses of $6 million a year for 10 years, which is a realistic number if you want to build a program that goes from startup to being attractive to the networks in 10 years.

The other option is to go low ball and not rack up massive losses every year. Then we'd be playing the likes of Illinois State, Murray State, Southern Illinois. You're not going to put 30,000 butts in seats for those games and you will NEVER get to a better conference than the Missouri Valley Football Conference.

Do some research and look at some facts and it's obvious the football glass is empty. I don't hate the idea of bringing football back. I just don't support insane fiscal stupidity. I would love to go to WSU football games if there were any. I'd also love to date Kaley Cuoco. Unless someone is willing to throw $100 mill at the athletic department the chances of either happening are about the same. The Kaley Cuoco glass is definitely empty under any and every circumstance.

Certainly not arguing money or if football is possible at all.

Just want ask why would you need to average 30k a game at FCS level? 15K a game would put you in top 10 attendance wise.

[Aargh]

Certainly not arguing money or if football is possible at all.

Just want ask why would you need to average 30k a game at FCS level? 15K a game would put you in top 10 attendance wise.

At half full the losses and the amount to sustain the program for 10 years would both have been much larger. I used what I thought were the most optimistic assumptions I could use to avoid the criticism that I rigged the projection by underestimating revenue and overestimating expenses.

If you want to go the FCS route, 15K would work if you were hiring coaching staffs at the bottom end of the D1 range and were investing nothing in facilities. The resulting recruiting and coaching would put a team on the field that would not put 15K butts in seats. At the time I did the projection the consensus was that WSU would have to go FBS in order to sell football in Wichita, so I used what I thought were reasonable numbers if the goal was to get to FBS in a decade. With 15K in seats, you STAY in FCS.

WSU would have had to go for facilities upgrades and top-notch coaching staffs. The competition for butts within reasonable driving distance is KU, KSU, OU, OSU, and UN. Gotta put a winner on the field to compete with that.

Last time I was in Cessna the men's restrooms still had trough urinals. I imagine those are still there.

[Veritas]

At half full the losses and the amount to sustain the program for 10 years would both have been much larger. I used what I thought were the most optimistic assumptions I could use to avoid the criticism that I rigged the projection by underestimating revenue and overestimating expenses.

If you want to go the FCS route, 15K would work if you were hiring coaching staffs at the bottom end of the D1 range and were investing nothing in facilities. The resulting recruiting and coaching would put a team on the field that would not put 15K butts in seats. At the time I did the projection the consensus was that WSU would have to go FBS in order to sell football in Wichita, so I used what I thought were reasonable numbers if the goal was to get to FBS in a decade. With 15K in seats, you STAY in FCS.

WSU would have had to go for facilities upgrades and top-notch coaching staffs. The competition for butts within reasonable driving distance is KU, KSU, OU, OSU, and UN. Gotta put a winner on the field to compete with that.

Last time I was in Cessna the men's restrooms still had trough urinals. I imagine those are still there.

Throw out the costs for a new stadium with this question, but what were your figures / analysis for ticket purchases, corporate sponsorships, endorsements, licensing fees, television contracts, alumni donations, capital campaigns, and student athletic fees or did you do any revenue projections?

[Shoxing Me Softly]

At half full the losses and the amount to sustain the program for 10 years would both have been much larger. I used what I thought were the most optimistic assumptions I could use to avoid the criticism that I rigged the projection by underestimating revenue and overestimating expenses.

If you want to go the FCS route, 15K would work if you were hiring coaching staffs at the bottom end of the D1 range and were investing nothing in facilities. The resulting recruiting and coaching would put a team on the field that would not put 15K butts in seats. At the time I did the projection the consensus was that WSU would have to go FBS in order to sell football in Wichita, so I used what I thought were reasonable numbers if the goal was to get to FBS in a decade. With 15K in seats, you STAY in FCS.

WSU would have had to go for facilities upgrades and top-notch coaching staffs. The competition for butts within reasonable driving distance is KU, KSU, OU, OSU, and UN. Gotta put a winner on the field to compete with that.

Last time I was in Cessna the men's restrooms still had trough urinals. I imagine those are still there.

I just didn’t understand your 30k FCS comment.

Cessna will soon cease to exist so not sure what that comment had to do with anything.

[1972Shocker]

Stanford and Cal reportedly exploring the possibility of joining the Big 12

https://www.si.com/college/stanford/football/stanford-and-cal-reportedly-exploring-the-possibility-of-joining-the-big-12

On Saturday, we learned via a report from the San Francisco Chroniclethat Stanford and Cal have begun looking into the possibility of joining the Big 12. The conference has already taken in four other Pac-12 programs, and has been one of the main aggressors in this latest realignment wave.

The report indicated that if Stanford and Cal aren't invited to the ACC invites by the middle of next week, that their discussions with the Big 12 will get that much more serious. If they do end up heading towards the Big 12 option, Michael Silver of the SF Chronicle also reported that Oregon State and Washington State would also be joining them as well.

Something that many didn't think would happen due to the fact that the Big 12 was reportedly no longer interested in pursuing the remaining programs.

However, this move makes a ton of sense for all three parties. Stanford and Cal would be much closer to their Big 12 opponents and will get a nice chunk of the media rights deal, the Big 12 can continue to raise their brand, and Oregon State and Washington State would remain at the Power 5 level.

[Kung Wu]

Makes more sense than everything else discussed.

[1972Shocker]

Makes more sense than everything else discussed.

I thought so as well. Probably guarantees it won't happen.

[Aargh]

Does the BXII want to return Houston, Cincy, and UCF to the AAC?

It seems "conferences" have become a collection of teams for the purpose of sharing TV revenues. A 20-team conference is more like two conferences that agree that the winner of each sub-conference play each other at the end of the season.

[1972Shocker]

Does the BXII want to return Houston, Cincy, and UCF to the AAC?

It seems "conferences" have become a collection of teams for the purpose of sharing TV revenues. A 20-team conference is more like two conferences that agree that the winner of each sub-conference play each other at the end of the season.

That pretty much applies to any conference with more than 12 teams.

[jcdshocker]

I was there when the fans went from 30,000 when Cessna was built to 6,000 at the end of football.

My degree is in accounting. My specialty was running financial projections. I did the research and ran the numbers using a sold out Cessna for every home game and that road games for payouts would dominate the non-conference schedule. It came out that $100 million would be needed to start the program and sustain it for 10 years. The assumption was that after 10 years TV revenues would offset the annual losses.

Bardo did his research and concluded that $40 million would be needed just for startup costs. If my projection is reasonable, then it would assume losses of $6 million a year for 10 years, which is a realistic number if you want to build a program that goes from startup to being attractive to the networks in 10 years.

The other option is to go low ball and not rack up massive losses every year. Then we'd be playing the likes of Illinois State, Murray State, Southern Illinois. You're not going to put 30,000 butts in seats for those games and you will NEVER get to a better conference than the Missouri Valley Football Conference.

Do some research and look at some facts and it's obvious the football glass is empty. I don't hate the idea of bringing football back. I just don't support insane fiscal stupidity. I would love to go to WSU football games if there were any. I'd also love to date Kaley Cuoco. Unless someone is willing to throw $100 mill at the athletic department the chances of either happening are about the same. The Kaley Cuoco glass is definitely empty under any and every circumstance.

You seem to be missing some costs.
Cost to upgrade or replace Cessna Stadium
Cost of additional Title IX scholarships
Cost to add new women’s sports
Cost of new weight rooms and training facilities
Lack of major company interest to provide sponsorships

That is why it is estimated (last two ADs agree) that it will take $200 MM just to start up a football program. This excludes annual operating budget for a football team and additional women’s sports. It is simply a non-starter unless a big time donor steps up. As much as I would love to see football back, it just is not feasible.

[Signman]

Many years ago, the CEO of a fortune 500 company called me in to have a talk. At that time, I was a product manager and we were discussing a major change in our key product. I was worried because the accountants and lawyers were against the idea. The CEO told me accountants "are always looking backward and down at the pitfalls and traps you fell into." The lawyers were there also "looking down and ahead to warn you about the traps and pitfalls that we might encounter". "However, someone has to have an eye on the horizon and find out where it is we want to go and who we could become."

This was one of the best pieces of advice that I've ever had.

Bring it Back.

[Aargh]

You seem to be missing some costs.
Cost to upgrade or replace Cessna Stadium
Cost of additional Title IX scholarships
Cost to add new women’s sports
Cost of new weight rooms and training facilities
Lack of major company interest to provide sponsorships

That is why it is estimated (last two ADs agree) that it will take $200 MM just to start up a football program. This excludes annual operating budget for a football team and additional women’s sports. It is simply a non-starter unless a big time donor steps up. As much as I would love to see football back, it just is not feasible.

Can we drop this subject. It is a very dead horse.

I did the projection over a decade ago. The only thing that's changed is that costs have gone up and the stadium has gone down.

I included women's sports, coaches for those sports, and a lowball "guesstimate" for facilities.

I tried to use numbers most favorable to bringing football back.