Point being that other schools, despite the fact that it doesn't increase athletic revenue still pay their coaches so that their schools stay competitive in track and field. I think that T&F should get a lot more attention. Hell, it's given LSU just about ALL of its NCAA titles--an overwhelming majority at least. Plus, T&F is one of the only sports where we can see athletes compete on the world scale. Plus, it's a sport that is surprisingly relatively free of doping/ steroid problems. Before I get attacked for saying that, you have to acknowledge that at least the officials are serious about testing the athletes. MLB, NFL, NBA, cycling--not so much. I don't know about you guys, but I love seeing guys like Xavier being able to tear it up on the world scale. What if one day and LSU athlete would win a gold metal for the USA. How bad ass what that be? I think it would be comparable (if not even more important) than all of our baseball titles and maybe even the football titles. Women's basketball, I'm sorry to say, is just not nearly as exciting (to me at least,) but yet the coaches get paid more. LSU should be doing all that it can to remain competitive in T&F. :geauxtige
Red55, The point I'm making is that 40 years ago when the powers-that-be decided that they were willing to make the financial commitment to turn LSU into a track & field powerhouse, track was a non-revenue producing sport. Today, 29 national championships and many Olympic medals later, it's still a non-revenue producing sport. What's your point?
Perhaps I should have said ALMOST nobody, as proven by Red: And it's not like their costs should be all that high. It's simply an activity that very few people genuinely care about. Sorta like the chess team, but with a more Euro and less Ruskie following. No, I've never said that. I've said people SHOULDN'T care about either, but since our world is far from perfect, some people still do. Not many, mind you, but some. It's analogous to people that collect tin foil or rubber bands and make them into huge balls.
The point is that LSU only has so much money to spend on coaches and choices have to be made. We have highly paid football, basketball, womens basketball, and baseball coaches. We have very highly paid football coordinators. Skip made a business decision based on the sports that people actually attend. Track is not a draw. Yes, there are other more highly-paid track coaches, but many others are paid less than Shaver. If he's underpaid, he'll leave and take a higher-paying job. If not, he'll sign the contract. Skip is not lowballing Shaver, it's a negotiation. When Shaver wins like Henry did, he'll be able to ask for a higher salary. But track is not generating enough funds to enable Skip to pour money on him.
Two questions for you Red55: 1) In the three years that Henry coached under Bertman, he went from being the highest paid coach in the country under Joe Dean, to not even one of the top five highest paid coaches under Bertman despite the fact that he won six women's and men's national championships in those three years. Why was Bertman unwilling to pay Henry? 2) How do you justify paying the women's basketball coach $600,000 when women's basketball is, and has been, the biggest financial liability to LSU's athletic department for the last 20 years and lost $1.5 million last year?
Jay, Have you ever WATCHED an LSU Women's basketball game? You should try it this coming season. We have something very special and it makes me very sad that a lot of "footballcentric" folks don't even appreciate what we have going here.
