(12-24-2014 08:34 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 01:42 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The UAB folk's real enemy isn't UA, or the BOT. It's the medical school, which is embarrassed to be associated with the rest of that school. Why wouldn't they? They are a world class school medical institution connected to a third rate university.

If Birmingham was supposed to be analogous to UC San Francisco in the UC system, then why was a complete university - let alone a complete university with athletics -- let alone a complete university with Division I athletics --- established at the site??

The school was established during the era of college expansion. With the college bubble about to pop, university systems are bracing for the shock via contraction. UAB is but the first in a long line of casualties.

Watts got wwhat he wanted. He won. It sucks balls but it is over. All these articles are just an autopsy about a death that has already occurred.

(12-25-2014 11:04 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  The school was established during the era of college expansion. With the college bubble about to pop, university systems are bracing for the shock via contraction. UAB is but the first in a long line of casualties.

Voice of God.

(12-24-2014 01:42 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The UAB folk's real enemy isn't UA, or the BOT. It's the medical school, which is embarrassed to be associated with the rest of that school. Why wouldn't they? They are a world class school medical institution connected to a third rate university.

UAB is not a third rate school. That just simply isn't accurate.

(12-24-2014 08:42 PM)panama Wrote:  You're thinking logically and trying to talk to the same people who call into Finebaum.

It's logical to think that Alabama is taking revenge on UAB for something Bartow said in 1991?

(12-25-2014 12:53 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 08:42 PM)panama Wrote:  You're thinking logically and trying to talk to the same people who call into Finebaum.

It's logical to think that Alabama is taking revenge on UAB for something Bartow said in 1991?

It's not logical. But there are enough people in the know compounded with numbers not adding up, secrecy and lies to employ Ockham's razor. The Carr Report is horribly laughable. Read it. Then read dome of the interviews with Bill Clark and donors and city officials. Either elements of the BOT set this in motion or President Watts inexplicably had a personal vendetta on his own against his own university.

Watts may also be the victim of what is known in politics as a double lockout - notice how the BOT has been silent since the decision was made to drop football? Watts may be unemployed after the next Board meeting. Of course, with Dr. Judy Bonner resigning as President of the Tuscaloosa campus, Watts may be in line for a promotion if the double lockout is not in effect.

(12-25-2014 01:17 PM)panama Wrote:  

(12-25-2014 12:53 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 08:42 PM)panama Wrote:  You're thinking logically and trying to talk to the same people who call into Finebaum.

It's logical to think that Alabama is taking revenge on UAB for something Bartow said in 1991?

It's not logical. But there are enough people in the know compounded with numbers not adding up, secrecy and lies to employ Ockham's razor. The Carr Report is horribly laughable. Read it. Then read dome of the interviews with Bill Clark and donors and city officials. Either elements of the BOT set this in motion or President Watts inexplicably had a personal vendetta on his own against his own university.

Of course The UA Board set this motion. UAB's undergrad population would look a lot better on the Tuscaloosa campus in BOT opinion. Make no mistake, UAT is trying to chase down schools like UGA and UF. The loss of the football program is small piece of much larger machinations.

(12-25-2014 11:47 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 01:42 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The UAB folk's real enemy isn't UA, or the BOT. It's the medical school, which is embarrassed to be associated with the rest of that school. Why wouldn't they? They are a world class school medical institution connected to a third rate university.

UAB is not a third rate school. That just simply isn't accurate.

And its rural universities that are most at risk, not commuter type schools in urban areas.

I look at it like this. For better or for worse, the UA system BoT saw no reason to pay for UAB's football program. They are part of the University of Alabama system. The UA system already has a rather successful football program- why pay for two? Is the UA system responsible for infusing the Birmingham economy with money and societal outlets? It would be generous of them to do so, but I won't fault them for not doing it.

The argument is brought up many times that the Troys, USA's and GSU's of the world also run their football programs at deficits and/or with heavy subsidy, but this misses the point. They are paying for the football program so their school HAS a football program, for the advertisement the program brings to THEIR school and THEIR city. It's an investment.

The UA-system, more likely than not, views the UAB football program as pointless once you put it in that perspective. The UAT football team is their advertisement, societal outlet, etc. Why pay for an extra one? The UAT team can be "the football program" for the UAB students.


I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the decision or support UAB's shuttering of doors, I'm just trying to put the BoT's decision in perspective other than "Bryant Smash, Bryant hate other football program"

I hate it for their fans and their city, but without true independence, I don't see how there's much to say about it, really. Just a bad situation.

(12-25-2014 02:17 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  Watts may also be the victim of what is known in politics as a double lockout - notice how the BOT has been silent since the decision was made to drop football? Watts may be unemployed after the next Board meeting. Of course, with Dr. Judy Bonner resigning as President of the Tuscaloosa campus, Watts may be in line for a promotion if the double lockout is not in effect.

Look for Jo Bonner to be tossed around as the name for the replacement

(12-25-2014 04:05 PM)Tiguar Wrote:  The UA-system, more likely than not, views the UAB football program as pointless once you put it in that perspective.

I believe I have corrected your post.

(12-25-2014 05:21 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-25-2014 04:05 PM)Tiguar Wrote:  The UA-system, more likely than not, views the UAB football program as pointless once you put it in that perspective.

I believe I have corrected your post.

in some sense you are correct, I did hear where the possibility of UAB's undergrad population being moved over to UA is being discussed and just leaving medical academic facilities open in Birmingham. either way, the concept is the same.

(12-25-2014 04:05 PM)Tiguar Wrote:  I look at it like this. For better or for worse, the UA system BoT saw no reason to pay for UAB's football program. They are part of the University of Alabama system. The UA system already has a rather successful football program- why pay for two? Is the UA system responsible for infusing the Birmingham economy with money and societal outlets? It would be generous of them to do so, but I won't fault them for not doing it.

The argument is brought up many times that the Troys, USA's and GSU's of the world also run their football programs at deficits and/or with heavy subsidy, but this misses the point. They are paying for the football program so their school HAS a football program, for the advertisement the program brings to THEIR school and THEIR city. It's an investment.

The UA-system, more likely than not, views the UAB football program as pointless once you put it in that perspective. The UAT football team is their advertisement, societal outlet, etc. Why pay for an extra one? The UAT team can be "the football program" for the UAB students.


*************

One thing I don't get about some of this stuff in that study...
And I don't recall if it was addressed specifically in it but...

I am sure UAB knew CUSA bylaws about having a football program.
I can't fathom that revenue generation via media/tv deals from the conference contracts wasn't thought about in regards to disappearing. And to that end, any of these smaller conference they would move down to would have LESS of a tv deal to bring in revenues for the Athletic department.
IN other words, some of these financial projections are leaving out some of the reality.

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the decision or support UAB's shuttering of doors, I'm just trying to put the BoT's decision in perspective other than "Bryant Smash, Bryant hate other football program"

I hate it for their fans and their city, but without true independence, I don't see how there's much to say about it, really. Just a bad situation.

See, there is some circular reasoning here on that end though...

Why let UAB start football at all?

Why allow UAB to move up to 1A at all?

If you want a ROI that is high how do you NOT let them hire a coach yet your other school can magically roll in truck loads for Bama?

How do you allow/not allow UAB to keep playing in run down facility without any hope for a remodel?

IF UAB found the funds to do that OCS they wanted to do a few years ago internally, why shut down the project if they can cover it themselves?

For as long as I have know of UAB and their program via being conference brothers in CUSA they haven't really shown out in attendance for their program or won and any decent rate BUT, at every turn they got their stuff lined up to move their football program in a positive direction it got shut down. You can't deny someone the tools/resources to improve themselves then play the you can't win/won't support the program angle for shutting it down.

The aim of intercollegiate athletics is not to make a profit

(12-25-2014 04:05 PM)Tiguar Wrote:  I look at it like this. For better or for worse, the UA system BoT saw no reason to pay for UAB's football program. They are part of the University of Alabama system. The UA system already has a rather successful football program- why pay for two? Is the UA system responsible for infusing the Birmingham economy with money and societal outlets? It would be generous of them to do so, but I won't fault them for not doing it.

The argument is brought up many times that the Troys, USA's and GSU's of the world also run their football programs at deficits and/or with heavy subsidy, but this misses the point. They are paying for the football program so their school HAS a football program, for the advertisement the program brings to THEIR school and THEIR city. It's an investment.

The UA-system, more likely than not, views the UAB football program as pointless once you put it in that perspective. The UAT football team is their advertisement, societal outlet, etc. Why pay for an extra one? The UAT team can be "the football program" for the UAB students.


I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the decision or support UAB's shuttering of doors, I'm just trying to put the BoT's decision in perspective other than "Bryant Smash, Bryant hate other football program"

I hate it for their fans and their city, but without true independence, I don't see how there's much to say about it, really. Just a bad situation.

UAB is not extension campus to UAT.

(12-25-2014 04:05 PM)Tiguar Wrote:  I look at it like this. For better or for worse, the UA system BoT saw no reason to pay for UAB's football program. They are part of the University of Alabama system. The UA system already has a rather successful football program- why pay for two? Is the UA system responsible for infusing the Birmingham economy with money and societal outlets? It would be generous of them to do so, but I won't fault them for not doing it.

The argument is brought up many times that the Troys, USA's and GSU's of the world also run their football programs at deficits and/or with heavy subsidy, but this misses the point. They are paying for the football program so their school HAS a football program, for the advertisement the program brings to THEIR school and THEIR city. It's an investment.

The UA-system, more likely than not, views the UAB football program as pointless once you put it in that perspective. The UAT football team is their advertisement, societal outlet, etc. Why pay for an extra one? The UAT team can be "the football program" for the UAB students.


I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the decision or support UAB's shuttering of doors, I'm just trying to put the BoT's decision in perspective other than "Bryant Smash, Bryant hate other football program"

I hate it for their fans and their city, but without true independence, I don't see how there's much to say about it, really. Just a bad situation.

It wasn't the "system" paying for football. It was the school. The University of Texas system doesn't pay for UTSA, UTEP, UT at Austin's football programs or for the athletic programs at UTA, UT-Pan American, UTD, UTT or UTPB.

(12-25-2014 07:31 PM)panama Wrote:  UAB is not extension campus to UAT.

Does the Board know that?

(12-25-2014 07:31 PM)panama Wrote:  UAB is not extension campus to UAT.

But it is the end goal IMO. Take a look at this article Attallablaze found from 2011.
http://blog.al.com/breaking/2011/10/time...caloo.html

There is no logical reason for UAT to create a campus extension in Huntsville as UAH is supposed to be that presence. But unlike Auburn and GT who receive the credit for any military or space research established, Tuscaloosa does not get similar accolades or financing when UAH does the same. The UA Board realizes that as long as The Birmingham and Huntsville campuses exist as independent schools, that UAT academic reputation cannot grow.

(12-25-2014 08:32 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-25-2014 07:31 PM)panama Wrote:  UAB is not extension campus to UAT.

Does the Board know that?

Yes and they obviously don't like it. They want the genie back in the bottle.