Hey, they're putting us on the TV again!  That's right folks, FSN has picked up the WSU games vs the LA schools, 9/25 in Pullman vs. SC and 10/2 at UCLA.  If you are scoring at home, that's now FOUR of the first FIVE that will be on TV, at least somewhere (Oklahoma State will be on FSN on 9/4, while SMU will be on something called CBS College Sports).  Cool.  But that's not all - remember that as the season goes on, FSN, ABC and Versus will select Pac-10 games about a week-10 days in advance for broadcast.  So, it's possible we could see a lot of Cougar football on the TV in '10!

Other stuff today:

• Howie Stalwick chatted up Bill Moos on Cougfan, live from Pullman yesterday.  Moos weighs in on a lot of things, including the athletic budget for the new year, improvements needed to Beasley, and of course, prioritizing Phase III vs. facilitites:
  
  

  Bill Moos, who as alluded to this thinking before, expressed doubt that the Martin Stadium luxury seats expansion project should be the No. 1 priority among athletic facility improvements.
  
  “In my opinion, at first brush, I would say no,” Moos said. The AD cited his concern that the Cougars haven’t been able to fill the current stadium during the football program’s extended tailspin. “There’s no supply and demand in terms of not being able to have a seat to watch Cougar football.”
  
  New or improved projects on Moos’ wish list -- besides, in time, the Martin Stadium luxury seats -- include a basketball scoreboard, football locker room, baseball clubhouse, soccer stadium lights, auxiliary weight room, indoor golf facility, meeting rooms and a Hall of Fame. “If we’re not paying attention to our facilities in comparison to our rivals, we’re going to lose recruits,” Moos said.

  
  
  
• The summer football previews are all on the newsstands, and most of you have picked one (or more) up by now.  Here's a link to what Phil Steele, Sporting News and Athlon's all say about the Pac-10.  Most encouraging thing from all of this, above and beyond the last-place predictions?  From the Sporting News:  "Washington State will win a conference game." Hooray.  Not included in this are magazines like Lindy's, as well as Blue Ribbon's College Preview (remember we're having a contest and giving away a free copy of Blue Ribbon!  A $22.99 value, yours absolutely free!  Simply send in your best Coug game-day story to This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , and good luck!) 
  
  Moving on....
  
  
  Tweet
  Read more

  Add comment (21)

A Happy Humpday to you all in Coug Nation.  Some good things surfacing this week, so let's get to it.

First, Cougfan has a new write-up on the QB situation for this fall, in a continuing series of "Good, Bad and Questions" for WSU in a position-by-position analysis.  The story does a good job explaining the positives of Tuel, but it also doesn't hold back on where Tuel needs to get better:

The Good
Tuel has a multi-faceted skills set – accuracy, mobility, the ability to read defenses and beyond. And he has really, really great feet. For 2010, Tuel is also a year older, a year wiser and battle tested.


And the other side?:

The Bad
Tuel gave up on the o-line protection too early as the season went on. It’s hard to blame him, the ‘09 line at times resembled a greased-up turnstile. Nevertheless, the bottom line remains, his eye level shifted down too early, too often -- and when a QB is looking at the oncoming pressure instead of downfield, the only thing that likely ensures is he’ll get rocked.

Hard to disagree with any of it, really.  Tuel CAN in fact move, and while not in the same class as Montlake's #10, still he has shown the ability to roll away from pressure.  There is Youtube evidence going back to high school that shows he has excellent feet where he can get away when it looks kinda/sorta bleak. 

That is, as long as the pressure is somewhat reasonable??  Anyone who saw that ASU debacle last year can tell you that Tuel had like, what, "one Mississippi" as a count before he had to get the hell outta Dodge!?  While Cougfan points out in the "bad" portion that Tuel's eye level shifted down too early, too often, can you really blame him when said offensive line resembled that greased-up turnstile?? 

Eye level is a big deal when people analyze QB's.  Does the QB stop looking down the field, instead focusing on the oncoming pass rush?  It's not an easy thing to do when you have a 280-lb defensive end bearing down on you from the outside, with very little help by the offensive tackle to impede the opposing force!  But the great ones, somehow they are able to deal with it.  They used to talk about how John Elway had some ultra-sixth-sense or something, where he could literally "feel" the pass rush coming without directly looking at it. 

One of the biggest things that made the Pac-12/16/whatever expansion idea look so good was the reality of not just more money for the conference, but all conference schools would experience a nice uptick in revenue.  Namely TV revenue, with the Pac-10/12 TV contract set to expire after the 2011-2012 sports year.  There were a lot of stories about the projected revenues, once the dust settled on the new Pac-12, and what it could mean for each member institution.  Just the thought of seeing WSU's TV money take a huge leap up the chart, from a low to around $3-4 million today to maybe $15 million or more, PER YEAR, well, it's Christmas in July baby!

But see, reality has a way of stepping on dreams, you know what I mean?  Reality and, well, greed tends to muck things up.  Today, Bud Withers rolled out a fantastic read over at the Times, and it details the "elephant in the room", which is the plan of equal sharing among the Pac-12 teams.  And per Withers, things are getting set to really heat up:

On July 30 in Pasadena, Pac-10 athletic directors are due to get about the business of how to place the two new members. To play a moneymaking league-championship football game, you need divisions, and that's an apt term in this discussion.

However they slice it, it's going to lead the conference fathers into another debate. And though it might not take place right away, it's probably going to be more explosive than the talks about divisions.

It's revenue sharing, and it might be the only subject that gets USC as fired up as the NCAA infractions committee.

"That'll be a great drama to watch unfold," said Washington State athletic director Bill Moos.

"It's the elephant in the room," Washington AD Scott Woodward said.

I know we don't always take things seriously around here (really?).  We don't try to dictate to you what you should or shouldn't think, and we won't call you a dope if you don't agree with what we have to say.  But if you want to understand what this whole thing is about, and why it could mean so much to the "have-nots", we can definitely say this article should be required reading.

At least on the surface, one can understand why a USC wouldn't want to share money with a WSU.  Think about it - you own a vast majority of one of the biggest TV markets in the country.  Probation or not, SC football is a big flippin' deal.  They have carried the Pac-10 torch on the national scale for many years, that much is undeniable.  So why should they care about what happens to WSU, or Oregon State, or even newbies like Utah and Colorado?  SC makes a ton of money simply being SC in LA-LA land, shouldn't they reap whatever it is they sow?  Isn't the very idea of venturing out and making as much money as humanly possible the very foundation of these United States of America!??

But all you have to do is look around at the best of the BCS conferences, and you can also understand why equal sharing would be a pretty damn good idea at the end of the day.  You know that conference that keeps winning national championships?  That monster called the SEC?  They share the TV pie equally.  Meaning Vanderbilt gets the same TV revenue check that Florida, Alabama, Tennessee, LSU, etc all get from their superduper TV deal.  Is there any argument that Florida and Alabama produce more money for the conference compared to a Vandy?  Of course not.  But has that sharing hurt the conference?  Have Florida and Alabama "suffered" because they have had to watch Vandy and Mississippi State get the same chunk of change that they get, even though everyone knows Florida and 'Bama are the very definition of football superpower? 

You tell me.  Look at the records of the BCS Championship participants, and you decide if it's a bad idea.

SEC:  6-0 in BCS title games, never losing a BCS championship.  Florida and LSU have won it twice, while Tennessee and Alabama both have one.
Big 12:  2-5 in BCS title games, with Oklahoma and Texas both winning it once.  Nebraska, Texas, and Oklahoma have each lost (Oklahoma losing three times).
ACC:  1-2 in BCS title games, with Florida State making all three appearances.
Big East:  1-2 in BCS title games, with Miami going 1-1 while Va-Tech went 0-1.
Big Ten:  1-2 in BCS title games, all three appearances by Ohio State.
Finally....
Pac-10:  1-1 in BCS title games, both appearances by SC.

Hmmm.

The most tired cliche' rolled out during the Pac-12 expansion talk was the "rising tide lifts all boats" theory.   From commentators and callers to sports radio, bloggers and message board honks alike, they all used that at some point or another.  But you know what?  The evidence is out there, black and white, plain as day - equal sharing can work.  The conference being strong, top to bottom, can benefit everyone. 

Imagine it for the team that is likely to scream the loudest against it, none other than the men of Troy.  Let's say in five years, the BCS is still here and we are still not closer to a playoff.  SC recovers from probation and are sitting with, oh, let's say an 11-1 record, their lone loss coming to a conference opponent on the road.  But let's also say that because of equal sharing of the money, WSU and others have used the uptick in cash to improve their facilities, therefore they are recruiting better, faster, stronger talent.  These programs naturally improve on the football field, and suddenly the Pac-12 teams outside of the traditional powers start really laying the wood on their out-of-conference opponents. 

In that rising-tide-lifting-boats idea, wouldn't a WSU beating their out-of-conference opponents only strengthen the argument for SC when they are stumping to be in the BCS title game?  Instead of the national perspective of USC and the eleven dwarfs, the pundits could look at the top-to-bottom quality of the Pac-12 and say that "Hey now, SC just went 11-1 playing in one of the best conferences in the country.  They deserve to be there over Texas/Oklahoma/Florida State!" 

And that argument, folks, is exactly the same argument that they use today for a Florida or Alabama.  It's OK for them to lose a game during the season, and still be right there for BCS title game discussion, because they play in such an elite conference.  For the Pac-12 to change the perception of the conference, they have to allow those at the bottom to improve.  And to do that, they have to share the TV money - PERIOD.  At the end of the day, a better Pac-12 will ensure that everyone wins!  The gap between the "Haves" and Have Nots" in the new conference alignment has to get smaller.  And winning titles, isn't that what the so-called Conference of Champions is supposed to be about?? 

Other stuff out there today: