TAMU inks Kennedy

[Hards Alumni]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=6553151

Hardly a slam dunk hire...

Did they really think they had a shot at Buzz from the outset?

I don't mean to sound condescending... if I do. 

[GGGG]

For a second, I thought the Aggies hired Pat Kennedy.

[brewcity77]

TAMU says Buzz was interested, but I don't buy it. If he really was, why didn't they just buy out the contract? They have a total athletic budget of nearly $70M per year. One $2.5M buyout wouldn't break them.

My guess is they never really had a shot with Buzz. Far too many people turned them down for me to believe they could have stolen our coach.

[GGGG]

And a lot of TAMU fans have been saying that they would have landed him if this would have happened when the OU job opened up, but I am not sure that is the case either.

[brewcity77]

In the current economy, being private may have really helped us here. Texas is taking flack because they gave Rick Barnes a raise of $200K, and the perception in Texas is that taxpayer dollars are picking up the tab. What if A&M had matched Buzz's $2.5M? Taxpayers would have been up in arms. In the end, they made the cheap choice, possibly because they knew they couldn't afford the public backlash.

As a private school, MU doesn't have to be accountable to taxpayers, and the Alumni that support the Blue & Gold won't be complaining. The current economic downturn could end up really benefitting private schools in the coming years, because 90% of taxpayers simply don't want to fund the coach of a program they have no interest in.

[BCHoopster]

To make money you have to spend money, MU can afford Buzz because they made $3 to 5M last year.  Wisky probably makes even more as they
sell out every game at the Kohl Center.  To improve any given program, you need a top coach.  Does Kennedy excite the fans  as a new hire?
I doubt it.  Buzz is hot, they should have gone all out.  Who knows if this was the pinnacle for Buzz or not, time will tell.

[Pakuni]

And a lot of TAMU fans have been saying that they would have landed him if this would have happened when the OU job opened up, but I am not sure that is the case either.

They kind of contradict themselves there.
On the one hand, they say they'd have landed Buzz if this occurred back in March before he signed his new deal with the big buyout. But if reports are true, Buzz's buyout back in March was quite a bit higher than it is today ($3.8 million vs $2.5 million). So if the buyout was a big stumbling block now, it would have been an even bigger stumbling block two months ago.

I don't doubt the buyout and Buzz's contract gave TAMU pause. I also don't doubt that if there was strong mutual interest on both sides, they'd have found a way to make it happen.

[NYWarrior]

I don't doubt the buyout and Buzz's contract gave TAMU pause. I also don't doubt that if there was strong mutual interest on both sides, they'd have found a way to make it happen.

A&M would have loved to take Buzz but their athletic department right now is not flowing cash as it once did plus it is (was?) saddled with debt....perhaps this was a factor.  At the very least the Aggie athletic dept seems to have less freedom of action in these instances than MU does.  There are details below. While the debt burden first surfaced a few years ago, they've also had a rough time recovering from the hit due to a sub-par football program (until last season), a shortfall on donations and increased expenses for non-revenue sports.  Also, A&M 'tin cups it' to pay off buyouts for coaches they either fire (Fran, RC) or hire which creates a further drain on supporter resources. All factors in the coaching search?  Could have been, who knows.

http://www.theeagle.com/am/A-amp-amp-M-athletics-reworks-budget-to-pay-loan

[Hards Alumni]

In the current economy, being private may have really helped us here. Texas is taking flack because they gave Rick Barnes a raise of $200K, and the perception in Texas is that taxpayer dollars are picking up the tab. What if A&M had matched Buzz's $2.5M? Taxpayers would have been up in arms. In the end, they made the cheap choice, possibly because they knew they couldn't afford the public backlash.

As a private school, MU doesn't have to be accountable to taxpayers, and the Alumni that support the Blue & Gold won't be complaining. The current economic downturn could end up really benefitting private schools in the coming years, because 90% of taxpayers simply don't want to fund the coach of a program they have no interest in.

I really think this is a stupid argument for Texas fans.

The amount of money that Rick Barnes pulls in for Texas greatly outweighs how much his salary increased.

[ATWizJr]

I really think this is a stupid argument for Texas fans.

The amount of money that Rick Barnes pulls in for Texas greatly outweighs how much his salary increased.

Isn't the Texas athletic department self sustaining and doesn't Barnes' salary come out of that, not out of taxpayer funds?

[brewcity77]

I really think this is a stupid argument for Texas fans.

The amount of money that Rick Barnes pulls in for Texas greatly outweighs how much his salary increased.

Well, that's the difference between Texas taxpayers and Texas fans. A taxpayer sees what they consider to be a civic employee get a $200K raise, and they wonder what else the government might have done with the money. And while he may bring in more than that for UT, the average taxpayer doesn't see the benefit.

That's why the current economy could make things a lot tougher on public universities than private ones.

[avid1010]

Well, that's the difference between Texas taxpayers and Texas fans. A taxpayer sees what they consider to be a civic employee get a $200K raise, and they wonder what else the government might have done with the money. And while he may bring in more than that for UT, the average taxpayer doesn't see the benefit.

That's why the current economy could make things a lot tougher on public universities than private ones.

Yet they vote to raise taxes to pay for a $60 MILLION high school football stadium??? 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/sports/30allen.html

[Brewtown Andy]

Yet they vote to raise taxes to pay for a $60 MILLION high school football stadium??? 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/sports/30allen.html

Time to reread Friday Night Lights.

[Litehouse]

  Isn't the Texas athletic department self sustaining and doesn't Barnes' salary come out of that, not out of taxpayer funds?

I never agreed with that argument that the athletic department was a some independent financial entity.  The ath. dept. is an asset of the university, and if they have an asset that makes money, they should use it to offset the costs of running other parts of the university and lessen the burden on taxpayers.
You could argue that paying Rick Barnes is a good investment by the university to keep the program running at a high level to continue making more money, but that's a different argument.  I don't think coaches salaries are immune from criticism just because just because the ath. dept. is financially self sustaining.

[GGGG]

Litehouse, if you think there will *ever* be a day when Athletic Department revenue is used to off-set costs outside of athletics, you are kidding yourself.  It never has happened and never will happen.