Sure, they don't all practice at one time. But that's 1 sport. And furthermore, I bet that there's a time that they are all NOT practicing, where they could have a group meal, at least once a day.

I think for the most part you can get group dinner on trips by the track team. At the minimum, you can hand out the allowed "postgame meal" to the athletes.

You simply are NOT allowed give out any cash when you're competing at home...how does the track team handle home meets, el aggie? Why can't they do that on the road?

I don't know how home meets are taken care of currently; I thought I remembered being given a small per diem (like enough for one meal), but it's been a while.

I am a former student athlete, and restaurants happened then, happen now, and continue to happen, just not as much as they used to. Restaurants happened with coaches and without; again, compliance was very clear about what could and couldn't happen.

I am very in favor of group meals as a way to cut down costs - the sandwich thing is a good idea, and it's been done. However, at out-of-town track meets that last 2-3 days, when coaches are constantly at the track, there's just no way around giving the athletes per diems.

I didn't benefit from this nearly as much as my faster / better performing teammates, but one of the downsides of the per diem was expecting 18-23 year olds to be responsible with a sometimes large amount of cash. On more than one occasion, an athlete decided Playstation games were more important than eating, and showed up to practice hungry and not able to perform well. That was obviously that athlete's fault, but it can affect the team.

The administration of money has only been improving as far as I have seen - I never saw anything money-wise I disagreed with, but then again, I didn't know the athletic department had taken out a huge loan.

I'll be out of town for a few days, but will gladly respond more when I get back.

I am all for doing whatever we can do to support the athletes. If we are not doing the maximum allowed by the NCAA then shame on us. I know that was used against some of our teams in recruiting during the 90's.

My big beef on this thread is Byrne. If he took a big raise while firing those other employees to cover expenses from financial oversights that were ultimately his responsibility then he is an ass. There is no nice way to say it. I have heard from another source that he received a bonus for the volleyball team making the tournament and that it was a mid five figure bonus. If that is true that is criminal. I don't know where to research this but if true that is a huge abuse of his position. I can see him receiving bonuses for the Final Four and even the Elite Eight. To receive bonuses for anything outside the top ten nationally or a conference title is shenanigans.

We talk of building champions and raising our expectations but giving a bonuses for being one of 64 or even 32 is paying for what should be considered acceptable but not outstanding performance. I know we don't support volleyball in the same way we support track, basketball, baseball, etc. but I don't think making the tourney is bonus worthy. As an Athletic Director you should not be given rewards for average performance.

was the bonus for simply making the tourny? Or was it a cumulative effect, like it was the 15th team to make the tourny in his tenure, or something? That seems like a steep reward for just making it.

And agreed. Whether he's paying back the loan and got things back on track or not, it's heinous for him to take bonuses, and then to cut out SID's and such.

I have a way to cut back costs. STOP TAKING FAT BONUSES!

I cannot say whether the bonus was cumulative or not and I cannot even confirm with certainty that it was received. I have heard from two seperate people close to the athletic dept. that this was the case. I was hoping someone could confirm or refute it with some documentation. The secrecy surrounding his compensation is worthy of the federal government.

2011 - Long-time, hardworking, loyal employees who were good at what they did had their livelihoods stolen away from them. To many of those people, those weren't simply jobs to them. It was their passion. The budget being fixed now is irrelevant to them. While those folks are probably glad a handful of teams have better facilities, I would imagine they don't enjoy being the martyrs for them. That is what I'm talking about.

You can take shots at me and compare me to other posters all you want, but unlike them, I knew almost all those people. At least two of them still haven't found jobs. I choose to speak up for them because they were unquestionably wronged for many of the reasons the posters above this post are saying.

[This message has been edited by Look Out Below (edited 12/21/2009 11:38p).]

quote:

---

I don't know how home meets are taken care of currently; I thought I remembered being given a small per diem (like enough for one meal), but it's been a while.

---

Home meets better be taken care of by them handing out not a penny of money. I'd rather follow NCAA rules.

quote:

---

I am a former student athlete, and restaurants happened then, happen now, and continue to happen, just not as much as they used to. Restaurants happened with coaches and without; again, compliance was very clear about what could and couldn't happen.

---

Of course they happen, but no honest compliance officer would have said they're legal for over 15 years.

quote:

---

2011 - Long-time, hardworking, loyal employees who were good at what they did had their livelihoods stolen away from them. To many of those people, those weren't simply jobs to them. It was their passion. The budget being fixed now is irrelevant to them. While those folks are probably glad a handful of teams have better facilities, I would imagine they don't enjoy being the martyrs for them. That is what I'm talking about.

You can take shots at me and compare me to other posters all you want, but unlike them, I knew almost all those people. At least two of them still haven't found jobs. I choose to speak up for them because they were unquestionably wronged for many of the reasons the posters above this post are saying.

---

You think A&M is the only place that has had to let people go?

It's not. From Stanford on down to tiny colleges on the other coast, athletic departments have had to let people go. Some have had to shut down entire sports.

Now, I'm sorry that some of them were your friends. I'm sorry that they got cut away from their passion. But that's the nature of this business. As someone whose life has been intertwined with college athletics since birth, I know that very well and I bet deep down you know that too.

Big times college athletics is a runaway train and it just might dump your passions for the passions of another. That's no fun but that's the way it is.

At any rate, this loan and "war" on facilities that has played a part in rising utility costs and what not happened well before the layoffs. I think they were much more a result of the saame shat that has hit athletic departments across the country and not something special that's been cooked up in Bill Byrne's office.

That's only the nature of the business for people living high off the hog (coaches and AD's) that aren't getting the job done (and those people are insulated because of the obscene amount of money they are paid).

Stanford has 30+ sports. A&M has 20. As far as the small schools go they don't have the budget A&M does (nor do most schools anywhere that have undergone layoffs regardless of size).

I want A&M to have great facilities as much as the next person but if you can't afford them, you can't afford them. To say screw it and get them anyway (especially in sports that won't make you money) knowing at some point you're going to have to tear lives apart is inexplicably reckless.

One of my other big issues with the whole mess is the fact that bonuses were paid while these folks were laid off weeks later. A bonus is just that, something extra when you have money at the end of the day to reward those for a job well done, not blood money.

[This message has been edited by Look Out Below (edited 12/22/2009 1:45p).]

No, that's the nature of it all. Its all about putting a winning product on the gamefield and everyone is at the mercy of that simple philosophy of "just win, baby". When a money crunch comes, they're not going to tear down facilities, they're not going to fire coaches and bring in cheaper ones...they're going to cut what isn't needed to win. And with all due respect to anyone you know, most of those jobs had no effect on the on the field product.

Again, I think you're overplaying the connection between our facilities and these layoffs. The athletic department was prepared to deal with all of that before they had to cut a single job. They had been dealing with it for over three years. It was when the economy crapped out on everyone that athletic departments really felt the crunch and you saw layoffs and programs shutting down from coast to coast.

Is it unfortunate? Certainly. Am I sorry it happened? Certainly. But its just the way it is, has been and will be.

[This message has been edited by TXAggie2011 (edited 12/22/2009 4:20p).]

quote:

---

The university is better off when most of our athletic teams - not just the big revenue producers - fare well.

---

dead wrong. revenue producers are no. 1 so the department can sustain itself. without the revenue, those other sports eventually lose their coaches, recruits, etc.

Where'd that come from, Sloan?

All he said was its better for any given sport to win, not lose. I think that's pretty irrefutable. Or do you think we have some sports that it would be best if they lost?

[This message has been edited by TXAggie2011 (edited 12/23/2009 1:18p).]