|
Post by Judge Smails on Mar 26, 2019 10:43:08 GMT -8
Which is exactly why Ames, Stillwater, Mercury, Waco, or other comparable-sized cities people bring up and say, "If they can be successful there, why not here" are apples to oranges with Corvallis. You mostly recruit against your peer group. And the colleges in our peer group are not in Big 12-type cities. I think we're talking the same thing here. OSU competes against schools in 9 big cities, WSU and uo. The big cities have an inherent advantage. It can be argued that the California schools and Arizona schools have a weather advantage over all of the other league schools. Certain teams have a big money advantage over others. OSU and WSU have essentially none of those advantages. We don't recruit against those other guys, and just because they are in smaller towns doesn't mean they have the exact same issues we have. Iowa State is a big school, has been bigger than OSU for a long time. Baylor is a Christian school, totally different deal. Stillwater has T Boone among other things. Anyways, just because the towns are small doesn't mean comparing we're comparing apples with apples. I think you are trying to say that, I am. In addition to Okie st. having T Boone, Baylor has huge oil money behind them.
|
|
|
Post by albanianbeav on Mar 26, 2019 11:05:52 GMT -8
I think we're talking the same thing here. OSU competes against schools in 9 big cities, WSU and uo. The big cities have an inherent advantage. It can be argued that the California schools and Arizona schools have a weather advantage over all of the other league schools. Certain teams have a big money advantage over others. OSU and WSU have essentially none of those advantages. We don't recruit against those other guys, and just because they are in smaller towns doesn't mean they have the exact same issues we have. Iowa State is a big school, has been bigger than OSU for a long time. Baylor is a Christian school, totally different deal. Stillwater has T Boone among other things. Anyways, just because the towns are small doesn't mean comparing we're comparing apples with apples. I think you are trying to say that, I am. In addition to Okie st. having T Boone, Baylor has huge oil money behind them. As you are suggesting, money is a factor, and I believe the biggest one. Money to pay more for coaches, facilities and marketing (see duck success). It is not an absolute, sure there are other ways to be successful, but money buys you a lot of latitude for other mistakes. The ducks have become successful primarily through money/marketing. Sure there may be more going on behind the scenes that leads to conspiracy theories, but it is no secret nike endorses espn sportscasters, for example. Think there is not a wink/nod there to give the ducks some air time during broadcasts? How many commercials on espn do not include the duck mascot? The cool factor/exposure does a lot to attract recruits and from there, sound coaching leads to wins. Airports and city sizes are down the list a ways in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Mar 31, 2019 9:14:01 GMT -8
I think we're talking the same thing here. OSU competes against schools in 9 big cities, WSU and uo. The big cities have an inherent advantage. It can be argued that the California schools and Arizona schools have a weather advantage over all of the other league schools. Certain teams have a big money advantage over others. OSU and WSU have essentially none of those advantages. We don't recruit against those other guys, and just because they are in smaller towns doesn't mean they have the exact same issues we have. Iowa State is a big school, has been bigger than OSU for a long time. Baylor is a Christian school, totally different deal. Stillwater has T Boone among other things. Anyways, just because the towns are small doesn't mean comparing we're comparing apples with apples. I think you are trying to say that, I am. In addition to Okie st. having T Boone, Baylor has huge oil money behind them. Dont forget people willing to murder and rape too!
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Mar 31, 2019 16:55:42 GMT -8
In addition to Okie st. having T Boone, Baylor has huge oil money behind them. Dont forget people willing to murder and rape too!
|
|
|
Post by OSUprof on Mar 31, 2019 18:26:18 GMT -8
In addition to Okie st. having T Boone, Baylor has huge oil money behind them. As you are suggesting, money is a factor, and I believe the biggest one. Money to pay more for coaches, facilities and marketing (see duck success). It is not an absolute, sure there are other ways to be successful, but money buys you a lot of latitude for other mistakes. The ducks have become successful primarily through money/marketing. Sure there may be more going on behind the scenes that leads to conspiracy theories, but it is no secret nike endorses espn sportscasters, for example. Think there is not a wink/nod there to give the ducks some air time during broadcasts? How many commercials on espn do not include the duck mascot? The cool factor/exposure does a lot to attract recruits and from there, sound coaching leads to wins. Airports and city sizes are down the list a ways in my opinion. Money is important, but you have to spend the money on the important things like you've mentioned - coaches, facilities and marketing.
Oklahoma State and Iowa State spent $84.7 million and $71.8 million, respectively on their athletic programs last year. On the other hand, OSU spent $88.6 million on athletic programs. OSU has more money to spend on sports but Oklahoma State and Iowa State spent more money on football and men's basketball than OSU.
OSU spent 50% of its money on administration and couldn't be bothered to spend enough money on football and men's basketball to be competitive. Meanwhile, OSU fans argue about town size and its importance in athletic competitiveness.
|
|
|
Post by blackbug on Mar 31, 2019 18:39:27 GMT -8
As you are suggesting, money is a factor, and I believe the biggest one. Money to pay more for coaches, facilities and marketing (see duck success). It is not an absolute, sure there are other ways to be successful, but money buys you a lot of latitude for other mistakes. The ducks have become successful primarily through money/marketing. Sure there may be more going on behind the scenes that leads to conspiracy theories, but it is no secret nike endorses espn sportscasters, for example. Think there is not a wink/nod there to give the ducks some air time during broadcasts? How many commercials on espn do not include the duck mascot? The cool factor/exposure does a lot to attract recruits and from there, sound coaching leads to wins. Airports and city sizes are down the list a ways in my opinion. Money is important, but you have to spend the money on the important things like you've mentioned - coaches, facilities and marketing.
Oklahoma State and Iowa State spent $84.7 million and $71.8 million, respectively on their athletic programs last year. On the other hand, OSU spent $88.6 million on athletic programs. OSU has more money to spend on sports but Oklahoma State and Iowa State spent more money on football and men's basketball than OSU.
OSU spent 50% of its money on administration and couldn't be bothered to spend enough money on football and men's basketball to be competitive. Meanwhile, OSU fans argue about town size and its importance in athletic competitiveness.
Agree with you. You have stated it several times. I don't have very many good ideas on how to fix it. What do you think? How do we get rid of the excess admin? Barnes is the highest paid AD in the PAC (I recently heard he may be second now). What can we do about that? How much of this 50 percent is overpaying the AD?
|
|
|
Post by OSUprof on Mar 31, 2019 19:35:41 GMT -8
Money is important, but you have to spend the money on the important things like you've mentioned - coaches, facilities and marketing.
Oklahoma State and Iowa State spent $84.7 million and $71.8 million, respectively on their athletic programs last year. On the other hand, OSU spent $88.6 million on athletic programs. OSU has more money to spend on sports but Oklahoma State and Iowa State spent more money on football and men's basketball than OSU.
OSU spent 50% of its money on administration and couldn't be bothered to spend enough money on football and men's basketball to be competitive. Meanwhile, OSU fans argue about town size and its importance in athletic competitiveness.
Agree with you. You have stated it several times. I don't have very many good ideas on how to fix it. What do you think? How do we get rid of the excess admin? Barnes is the highest paid AD in the PAC (I recently heard he may be second now). What can we do about that? How much of this 50 percent is overpaying the AD? We start by recognizing that this is our program, not the AD's program. We need to stop making excuses for the lack of success - we're not too small, too poor, too whatever to compete. We need to hold the AD accountable for poor performance and for the lack of financial support for the two most important sports.
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Mar 31, 2019 22:30:48 GMT -8
OSUprof’s point should be well taken. HOW OSU spends it’s athletic $$ plays a huge role in the success of our two major programs.
Back to the title of the thread, bLOwcheese made somewhat of a prophetic statement back in August....
“Demanding the Beavs get to the NCAA again this year is skipping a significant Rung on the ladder.
Oregon State Basketball has not had a winning conference record (+.500) in 29 years.
That's a lot of horse apples to sweep up so first things first. Big Wayne gets us over that hump i say that's a step in the right direction.”
I think several posters here lose track of the reality our program is in.
|
|
|
Post by blastingsand on Apr 1, 2019 1:31:48 GMT -8
As you are suggesting, money is a factor, and I believe the biggest one. Money to pay more for coaches, facilities and marketing (see duck success). It is not an absolute, sure there are other ways to be successful, but money buys you a lot of latitude for other mistakes. The ducks have become successful primarily through money/marketing. Sure there may be more going on behind the scenes that leads to conspiracy theories, but it is no secret nike endorses espn sportscasters, for example. Think there is not a wink/nod there to give the ducks some air time during broadcasts? How many commercials on espn do not include the duck mascot? The cool factor/exposure does a lot to attract recruits and from there, sound coaching leads to wins. Airports and city sizes are down the list a ways in my opinion. Money is important, but you have to spend the money on the important things like you've mentioned - coaches, facilities and marketing.
Oklahoma State and Iowa State spent $84.7 million and $71.8 million, respectively on their athletic programs last year. On the other hand, OSU spent $88.6 million on athletic programs. OSU has more money to spend on sports but Oklahoma State and Iowa State spent more money on football and men's basketball than OSU.
OSU spent 50% of its money on administration and couldn't be bothered to spend enough money on football and men's basketball to be competitive. Meanwhile, OSU fans argue about town size and its importance in athletic competitiveness.
This is a great take on the issue. How much money really is being wasted on that side. For example I've noticed the creation and growth of that new Ideation team. I mean as nice as it is seeing our teams in a cinematic slomo drama movie feel after every game, road trip, and season, and on top of it have a behind the scenes reality show vibe with the interviews, and top of that have the actual day in the life beyond the court/road, I feel like it's almost overblown. And then we take a look at a lot of other teams with bigger budgets, a bigger named school, more competitive, and sure they have some good content but it's during a big event, a big win, it's not only a few moments long, everything else is simple and to the point. And it works.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2019 6:15:51 GMT -8
This thread is an epic mess. From Tinkle, to airports, to duck conspiracy theories, to apples/oranges. I know we have not been successful in basketball for a while, but this whole season just shows how far behind the fan base really is in college basketball IQ. 14 pages deep and not only are the ties not cut, they are even stronger. After watching game after game of something that only vaguely resembles beaver basketball i like Wayne more and more. What he has been able to do without having either the coaching acumen or the players or the cheater infrastructure is akin to black magic!
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on Apr 1, 2019 12:24:21 GMT -8
As you are suggesting, money is a factor, and I believe the biggest one. Money to pay more for coaches, facilities and marketing (see duck success). It is not an absolute, sure there are other ways to be successful, but money buys you a lot of latitude for other mistakes. The ducks have become successful primarily through money/marketing. Sure there may be more going on behind the scenes that leads to conspiracy theories, but it is no secret nike endorses espn sportscasters, for example. Think there is not a wink/nod there to give the ducks some air time during broadcasts? How many commercials on espn do not include the duck mascot? The cool factor/exposure does a lot to attract recruits and from there, sound coaching leads to wins. Airports and city sizes are down the list a ways in my opinion. Money is important, but you have to spend the money on the important things like you've mentioned - coaches, facilities and marketing.
Oklahoma State and Iowa State spent $84.7 million and $71.8 million, respectively on their athletic programs last year. On the other hand, OSU spent $88.6 million on athletic programs. OSU has more money to spend on sports but Oklahoma State and Iowa State spent more money on football and men's basketball than OSU.
OSU spent 50% of its money on administration and couldn't be bothered to spend enough money on football and men's basketball to be competitive. Meanwhile, OSU fans argue about town size and its importance in athletic competitiveness.
Where do you get your data? Is it compiled on a website?
|
|
|
Post by giantkillers83 on Apr 1, 2019 18:37:57 GMT -8
Wow..... 15 pages.... I’m impressed. I’ll read one word at a time each day... like snoopy reading war and peace.... Can’t go wrong with snoopy.....
|
|
|
Post by OSUprof on Apr 1, 2019 19:07:55 GMT -8
Money is important, but you have to spend the money on the important things like you've mentioned - coaches, facilities and marketing.
Oklahoma State and Iowa State spent $84.7 million and $71.8 million, respectively on their athletic programs last year. On the other hand, OSU spent $88.6 million on athletic programs. OSU has more money to spend on sports but Oklahoma State and Iowa State spent more money on football and men's basketball than OSU.
OSU spent 50% of its money on administration and couldn't be bothered to spend enough money on football and men's basketball to be competitive. Meanwhile, OSU fans argue about town size and its importance in athletic competitiveness.
Where do you get your data? Is it compiled on a website? The source of the data is the web site on Equity in Athletics run by the US Department of Education. This site has the best compilation of financial data for college athletics anywhere and its available without a public records request. This site has the information on both public and the private schools. Each school is compelled annually to submit data on their programs to the US Dept. of Education because they all receive federal funds. This is better than the USA Today financial database because you can find the data or USC, Notre Dame, Stanford and all the rest of the public schools.
The web page for each school reports data for the expenses and revenues for the athletic department, men's and women's basketball, and for football. But if one downloads the spreadsheets like I've done you can find information on the expenses and revenues for every sport at every school.
|
|
|
Post by nabeav on Apr 2, 2019 15:06:36 GMT -8
Follow-up question - Do Oklahoma State and Iowa State provide the same number of opportunities for student athletes? Does the Big 12 have different requirements for amounts spent on Olympic Sports, does it have a different requirement for number of Division I sponsored sports?
One thing I do know - Oklahoma State has more than 7,000 members in their "POSSE." Iowa State has over 6,000 annual donors in their Cyclone Club. Oregon State has less than 4,000 in Our Beaver Nation. It's not just the athletic department that isn't supporting the program at a level consistent with other schools across the country.....we as fans aren't pulling our weight either.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Apr 2, 2019 16:23:25 GMT -8
Follow-up question - Do Oklahoma State and Iowa State provide the same number of opportunities for student athletes? Does the Big 12 have different requirements for amounts spent on Olympic Sports, does it have a different requirement for number of Division I sponsored sports? One thing I do know - Oklahoma State has more than 7,000 members in their "POSSE." Iowa State has over 6,000 annual donors in their Cyclone Club. Oregon State has less than 4,000 in Our Beaver Nation. It's not just the athletic department that isn't supporting the program at a level consistent with other schools across the country.....we as fans aren't pulling our weight either. 2016-17 money earned from contributions and ticket sales: Oklahoma State: $35,252,488 Iowa State: $31,811417 Oregon State: $23,132,081
And just for comparison: Oregon: $82,205,872 Washington: $61,847,874 UCLA: $40,424,681 California: $34,013,478 Arizona: $33,660,313 Arizona State: $29,835,975 Colorado: $29,788,476 Utah: $26,128,703 Oregon State: $23,132,081 Washington State: $15,869,147
The fact that Oregon State went 10-8 this year is all the more impressive, when you really start to dig into it............
|
|