(11-06-2014 10:44 AM)cleburneslim Wrote:  Bamas football team is one of the few that profits every year.

But...........but.....................but....................the money is better spent elsewhere.

(11-06-2014 10:42 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 10:40 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 10:36 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 10:10 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 10:08 AM)Niner National Wrote:  If every school that lost money on football dropped it, D1 college football would have fewer teams than the NFL.

So what?

In this context it's money better spent elsewhere.

Exactly how much taxpayer dollars are spent on UAB Football?

How much tuition money (not athletics fees)?

Is UAB diverting money meant for education to football?

If the answer to these questions is negligible, than the Board of Trustees for UA (who's really is the University at Tuscaloosa BoT) should STFU and quit messing in other people's business. They look more and more like a pack of rich spoiled brats and back door slimy dealers who will stop at nothing to hurt another school just for spite. They're making the whole state of Alabama look bad with this constant attack on UAB Athletics when no one can deny they are themselves are one of the the poster children for all that's wrong in college athletics today.

UAB's business is the Board's business. The money is better spent elsewhere.

So is the money spent on Bama Football. Lead by example, shut that down first.

Also, you didn't answer any of my questions.

The money will be returned to the system. UA's football makes money.

You answered your own questions. It starts and ends with the fact that UAB does not have its own board, it can never.

What you have here is an attempt to breathe life into an automaton. It will always be that. That isn't because anybody is being awful or keeping others down. The reality is the reality.

What money are you talking about? The money the football team profited.

Again:

Exactly how much taxpayer dollars are spent on UAB Football?

How much tuition money (not athletics fees)?

Is UAB diverting money meant for education to football?

(11-06-2014 10:43 AM)Love and Honor Wrote:  If I'm not mistaken, the Alabama BoT has also made life difficult for the UAH hockey team as well.

I'm far from familiar with the whole situation, but it seems like the objective here is to cut systemwide expenses without harming the Tuscaloosa campus at all. God forbid they stop pouring money into Crimson Tide athletics (116 million in overall athletic expenses for Bama vs. 27 million for UAB, Saban's salary of 7.3 million vs. Clark's of 600k). I know that one athletic program makes a lot of money and the other bleeds it, but if they want to cut expenses overall they could probably spread it around the system instead of one huge cut in addition to shrinking UAB's undergrad presence.

The problem is in the idea that there is a "Tuscaloosa campus."

That's not how it is set up, as per the Constitution. There is only UA in the Bot's mind. UAH and UAB serve a specialized role pursuant to UA's mandate to educate the people of the state. That is the limit of their standing.

(11-06-2014 10:50 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  Again:

Exactly how much taxpayer dollars are spent on UAB Football?

How much tuition money (not athletics fees)?

Is UAB diverting money meant for education to football?

Irrelevant. Money in UAB's coffers is UA's money. There is no difference as far as the Board is concerned.

If UAB football could support itself we wouldn't have a problem here. As is, it drains the resources of UAB and thus the system.

(11-06-2014 10:53 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 10:50 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  Again:

Exactly how much taxpayer dollars are spent on UAB Football?

How much tuition money (not athletics fees)?

Is UAB diverting money meant for education to football?

Irrelevant. Money in UAB's coffers is UA's money. There is no difference as far as the Board is concerned.

If UAB football could support itself we wouldn't have a problem here. As is, it drains the resources of UAB and thus the system.

You have shown no proof of any of this.

I will go on record and say that if UAB feels their football program benefits the University then the board shouldn't be so quick to dismiss it.

There has been a growing level of fraction within the system. But UAB is akin to an automaton. It serves a limited purpose, and very well. If football is valuable to that then the board should consider it an investment in the context of that role.

So, does football attract health science students to UAB?

There is no doubt that at Cincinnati since the resurgence of the football program that fundraising is up, quality of incoming freshmen students are up, and in general the campus seems happier.

(11-06-2014 10:56 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 10:53 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 10:50 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  Again:

Exactly how much taxpayer dollars are spent on UAB Football?

How much tuition money (not athletics fees)?

Is UAB diverting money meant for education to football?

Irrelevant. Money in UAB's coffers is UA's money. There is no difference as far as the Board is concerned.

If UAB football could support itself we wouldn't have a problem here. As is, it drains the resources of UAB and thus the system.

You have shown no proof of any of this.

Then I'd encourage you to look into it.

The system is complex, as is our constitution on which it is based. The proof you seek can be found there but I don't have the time to outline it and drill down to satisfy you.

Still, if you are interested I'd encrourage you to look for yourself and Id be happy to clarify it for you at that point.

(11-06-2014 10:50 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  Again:

Exactly how much taxpayer dollars are spent on UAB Football?

How much tuition money (not athletics fees)?

Is UAB diverting money meant for education to football?

The great majority of schools find ways to subsidize their athletic departments, yours and mine included. The link below is an eye opener if you have not seen it before.

college athletic funding

(11-06-2014 10:57 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I will go on record and say that if UAB feels their football program benefits the University then the board shouldn't be so quick to dismiss it.

There has been a growing level of fraction within the system. But UAB is akin to an automaton. It serves a limited purpose, and very well. If football is valuable to that then the board should consider it an investment in the context of that role.

So, does football attract health science students to UAB?

Limited purpose? It is the biggest economic contributor in your state.

(11-06-2014 10:08 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 10:01 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 09:58 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 09:45 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  You have to wonder, if UAB does drop football if they lead the charge to others in the G5 to do so also...or go FCS. Nobody wants to be the first, but once its done, then I'm sure others will strongly consider it and go FCS or drop it completely.

I'm sure there would be a few others- but also- from what I've seen on this board the last few years- UAB is also kind of a strange situation.

UAB has the worst situation in D1. The fact that they've accomplished anything notable in any sports with the UA BoT trying their best to keep them down is astonishing.

Understandable, but still regardless of how it came about, they'll still be the first which I think will lead to few others as they won't be consider the first to drop football or down to the FCS level.

With the full cost of attendance coming down the road now may be a good time to pull the plug on a few FBS programs.

Rice has always been in a tough spot as an elite university in a region without elite universities. Very small enrollment and almost zero chance at getting into the B12. I could see where they would want to bow out but the question is where do they go? This is where I could see the SBC stepping in and offering a home for any southern programs that consider dropping.

Imagine if the SBC could get Rice/UAB non-FB to join while cutting the cord on Idaho and NMSU. I definitely think it would make the SBC more appealing for a school like James Madison to join. Rice could play in the Pioneer League non-scholarship ball if it wanted.

The only MAC school that has considered a move down in recent years was Bowling Green. They have struggled with enrollment and cut full time faculty. The hockey program couldn't get into the NCHC when the CCHA broke up. That said they do have a nice donor base and a good football team so the MAC is happy with them.

ULM and EMU are a couple of schools from an institutional perspective don't belong at the FBS level. Will the full cost of attendance make it past their BOT? Will an event like ULL moving to CUSA convince ULM to drop out of the SBC?

Rice and UAB leave CUSA in advance of a TV contract negotiation what does it mean for the future of the conference? Does the MWC look at the situation and think they can pull in UTEP/UTSA?

(11-06-2014 11:00 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 10:50 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  Again:

Exactly how much taxpayer dollars are spent on UAB Football?

How much tuition money (not athletics fees)?

Is UAB diverting money meant for education to football?

The great majority of schools find ways to subsidize their athletic departments, yours and mine included. The link below is an eye opener if you have not seen it before.

college athletic funding

Thanks but that doesn't answer the simple questions I asked.

I have seen no PROOF that UAB Football costs Alabama taxpayers any significant funds yet.

I have seen no PROOF that UAT Football DOESN'T cost Alabama taxpayers significant funds yet.

I have seen no PROOF they are diverting taxpayer funds to UAB Football.

I have seen no PROOF they are NOT diverting taxpayer funds to UAT Football.

I want to see PROOF UAB is compromising its academic mission with football and I also want to see PROOF UAT is NOT compromising its academic mission with football. Till then this is one University abusing another, and don't pretend the UA Board isn't UAT's organ exclusively. Old Boy System at its best. We have the same crap in NC. We have seen it in action but never this overt.

(11-06-2014 10:51 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 10:43 AM)Love and Honor Wrote:  If I'm not mistaken, the Alabama BoT has also made life difficult for the UAH hockey team as well.

I'm far from familiar with the whole situation, but it seems like the objective here is to cut systemwide expenses without harming the Tuscaloosa campus at all. God forbid they stop pouring money into Crimson Tide athletics (116 million in overall athletic expenses for Bama vs. 27 million for UAB, Saban's salary of 7.3 million vs. Clark's of 600k). I know that one athletic program makes a lot of money and the other bleeds it, but if they want to cut expenses overall they could probably spread it around the system instead of one huge cut in addition to shrinking UAB's undergrad presence.

The problem is in the idea that there is a "Tuscaloosa campus."

That's not how it is set up, as per the Constitution. There is only UA in the Bot's mind. UAH and UAB serve a specialized role pursuant to UA's mandate to educate the people of the state. That is the limit of their standing.

The Univ. System of Alabama has 3 units, one Birmingham, Tuscaloosa and Huntsville. Why would they want to shutter one of states top research facilities?

(11-06-2014 11:05 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  With the full cost of attendance coming down the road now may be a good time to pull the plug on a few FBS programs.

Rice has always been in a tough spot as an elite university in a region without elite universities. Very small enrollment and almost zero chance at getting into the B12. I could see where they would want to bow out but the question is where do they go? This is where I could see the SBC stepping in and offering a home for any southern programs that consider dropping.

Imagine if the SBC could get Rice/UAB non-FB to join while cutting the cord on Idaho and NMSU. I definitely think it would make the SBC more appealing for a school like James Madison to join. Rice could play in the Pioneer League non-scholarship ball if it wanted.

The only MAC school that has considered a move down in recent years was Bowling Green. They have struggled with enrollment and cut full time faculty. The hockey program couldn't get into the NCHC when the CCHA broke up. That said they do have a nice donor base and a good football team so the MAC is happy with them.

ULM and EMU are a couple of schools from an institutional perspective don't belong at the FBS level. Will the full cost of attendance make it past their BOT? Will an event like ULL moving to CUSA convince ULM to drop out of the SBC?

Rice and UAB leave CUSA in advance of a TV contract negotiation what does it mean for the future of the conference? Does the MWC look at the situation and think they can pull in UTEP/UTSA?

I'm not following your logic. Rice has no problem funding their football program, and they've been quite successful recently. They are a private school with no say by the state. I'd say they are in a better position than most of the schools around them. As far as academic peers: Tulane is right next door, and they can always try to schedule Texas for big payday games where fans actually care due to the historic ties.

(11-06-2014 10:51 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 10:43 AM)Love and Honor Wrote:  If I'm not mistaken, the Alabama BoT has also made life difficult for the UAH hockey team as well.

I'm far from familiar with the whole situation, but it seems like the objective here is to cut systemwide expenses without harming the Tuscaloosa campus at all. God forbid they stop pouring money into Crimson Tide athletics (116 million in overall athletic expenses for Bama vs. 27 million for UAB, Saban's salary of 7.3 million vs. Clark's of 600k). I know that one athletic program makes a lot of money and the other bleeds it, but if they want to cut expenses overall they could probably spread it around the system instead of one huge cut in addition to shrinking UAB's undergrad presence.

The problem is in the idea that there is a "Tuscaloosa campus."

That's not how it is set up, as per the Constitution. There is only UA in the Bot's mind. UAH and UAB serve a specialized role pursuant to UA's mandate to educate the people of the state. That is the limit of their standing.

From what I can tell from public sources, UA (located in Tuscaloosa) is one of three autonomous universities within the University of Alabama System. Each of the three is is headed by a President, who is appointed by and reports to The Chancellor of The University of Alabama. That chancellor is the Chairman of the Board of Trustees, a 15 member body located in Tuscaloosa. Three of its members must come from the congressional district that includes Tuscaloosa, and two members from each of the other Alabama congressional districts.

UA does not have its own BOT. A single BOT governs all three schools. A precursor to the current rumors about UAB's football program occurred in 2011, when the BOT refused to consider a proposal to build a new, on campus football stadium for UAB to replace a dilapidated and outdated Legion Field. No vote was taken on the proposal. It was simply tabled.

As far as Alabama's Constitution, good luck discerning any coherent intent from that document, which is the longest constitution in the world, thanks to roughly 900 amendments.

I'm very glad that Tulane isn't under LSU's rule, otherwise we'd have been shut down after Katrina (there was a nine-figure campus repair bill that really put a damper on growth until about 2010).

I feel bad for UAB. They'd be a strong football school if Alabama let them go on and do it.

UAB loses money because they aren't allowed to compete in the marketplace and earn their own money. It's just that simple. It's not a lack of will - it's a lack of intrastate cooperation.

FBS has about 129 teams and it sounds like its reaching the tipping point where a few programs are going to have to move down.

The old arguement for an FCS program not wanting to move to FBS was the savings of 65 scholarships vs. 85 scholarships. Now there is also full cost of attendance and lifetime scholarships involved. The amount of programs interested in moving up to FBS will come to a trickle again.

SBC (Rice, UAB)
CUSA (ULL, Ark St)
SBC (NMSU, Liberty)

Idaho will wait around until a Coast 2 Coast AAC takes Boise St. UMass will wait around until UConn finds its way into a P5 conference. Both are above average for G5s academically.

Liberty is the only school out there that will definitely want to still move up to FBS. The SBC won't have a choice but to cave into adding them.

(11-06-2014 10:19 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 09:04 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Looking at FBS Schedule site, UAB has not games scheduled past 2016. Guess the question will be does CUSA stay at 13 or look to replace. If they raid, seems like GSo, USA, GST and Troy would be the best candidates. I think GA Southern would be the best football choice but Georgia State might be the best market choice.

UAB leaving would leave a big hole in CUSA geographically.

Its hard to say who they could turn to filling it. There are 2 more Alabama G5 schools and 2 Georgia schools. There is also the idea of going after Ark State or ULL to balance out the West division better. Its possible CUSA goes to 16 in response to keep everyone happy with the choices.

Another thought is if CUSA added South Alabama would UAB be a slam dunk to return to the Sun Belt? UAB would remain a G5 in the SBC a conference with a decent national name. Its a better deal than the OVC or ASun. CUSA and SBC commissioners could work out a deal to trade the two schools.

So I guess if you think UAB will be toast athletically without CUSA you are forgetting the SBC is out there as a solid fall back option.

UAB would not have the votes to get into the SBC without football. Presidents are trying to move away from the non football school motto. UALR is a historic member and keeps its spot for that reason, and UTA balances things out. No one else will get consideration.

I don't think Arkansas State would accept a CUSA invite. Not in its current structure. ULL would. USA might.

The best solution to all of this is for UAB alums to put pressure on the legislature to allow them to separate from Tuscaloosa. Join another system, or become their own school.