Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 25 to 27 of 27

Thread: the future

  1. Default Re: the future

    Quote Originally Posted by Just1More View Post
    _ The extension has no downside. It was appropriate following the decision not to fire. Not only does it lock in state funding and adjust Bustle's buyout, the recruiting and current player attitude is a factor beyond Bustle himself. Bustle's staff is a very important factor in recruiting and current player attitudes. The extension provides a real and imaginery positive outlook on the program. It simply was a smart thing to do. Despite my criticisms of when and where our admin does not apply common sense... this application has little room for criticism. _
    Can someone explain this oft repeated "locks in State funding" phrase?

    It is my understanding that even if the State were to reduce overall athletic funding it would still be up to the school how they divvy up the money.

    Unrelated but I would also appreciate clarification on this; If LSU uses no State funding for athletics how does the State imposed coaching minimum ever come into play? If it does (I hear it mentioned so often) is the no state funds claim a myth?

  2. #26

    Default Re: the future

    Quote Originally Posted by Turbine View Post
    _ Can someone explain this oft repeated "locks in State funding" phrase?

    It is my understanding that even if the State were to reduce overall athletic funding it would still be up to the school how they divvy up the money.

    Unrelated but I would also appreciate clarification on this; If LSU uses no State funding for athletics how does the State imposed coaching minimum ever come into play? If it does (I hear it mentioned so often) is the no state funds claim a myth? _
    If I'm not mistaken they use the minimum state funding to pay coaches salaries to get them into the state retirement system. I think the "no state funds used for athletics" applies to the operations aspects of State's athletic department outside of coaches salaries.

  3. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hammer58 View Post
    If I'm not mistaken they use the minimum state funding to pay coaches salaries to get them into the state retirement system. I think the "no state funds used for athletics" applies to the operations aspects of State's athletic department outside of coaches salaries.
    Interesting.

    Does that mean coaches base pay is separate from the $3+ mil UL gets from the State?

    igeaux.mobi

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: September 13th, 2013, 09:58 pm
  2. Looking to the future...
    By cajunhawk in forum Baseball
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: March 7th, 2012, 11:53 am
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 21st, 2011, 02:18 am

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •