Surprising to me that UAB had to make these cuts. I thought things were going well there. Thats the second CUSA school to make athletic budget cuts in the last few months (W Kentucky was the other). I would have thought things were looking up a bit there as TV income actually increased from $200K a year to $400K a year with the latest CUSA TV deals. Also--they eliminated 12 people and only saved $400K? Thats doesnt sound right. That would mean the average salary of those positions (including all benefits) is just a bit over $33K a year.

The ever-widening gulf between the haves and have-nots of modern day college athletics hit UAB like a punch in the gut last month.

The athletic department was forced to cut or eliminate 12 positions before the start of its new fiscal year in July. The estimated savings are about $400,000. Caught in the middle of the sudden layoffs was Zac Schrieber.


https://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2018...b_for.html

Well they have been transferring a lot of state funds to keep going. $1m in TV contract is not decisive.

Institutional transfers:

2017-18: ... $11,081,728
2016-17: ... $14,651,654
2015-16: ... $14,106,645
2014-15: ... $15,111,516

The transfers are down slightly due to a pickup in donations to restart football. Also some savings from dropping football started to kick in, with the non-football budget at $24,795,218 compared to the prior year with $32,453,663. Football appears to have accounted for $2m of the donations, and except for 2015-16 surge, almost nothing from gate (numbers are pretty flat, with or without football for ticket sales). However rights and licensing is down about $2m, and other (road games for revenue) seems to be about $1.8m. Overall football adds a net deficit of maybe $2-3m it looks like.

Donations:
2017-18: ... $5,552,809
2016-17: ... $5,852,142
2015-16: ... $3,327,715
2014-15: ... $3,205,602

The financials seem to argue for cutting about $2m off the athletic budget to fund football (probably more, as the head coach was retained on salary and not everything shut down, since it was restarted so quickly).

There really isn't a single healthy G5 program. They all lose money, some lose considerable money (as in >$20m).

https://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2018...ignal.html

Didn't remember hearing about this. UAB will have a new stadium in downtown Birmingham in 2020-2021.

(07-10-2018 11:51 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Surprising to me that UAB had to make these cuts. I thought things were going well there. Thats the second CUSA school to make athletic budget cuts in the last few months (W Kentucky was the other). I would have thought things were looking up a bit there as TV income actually increased from $200K a year to $400K a year with the latest CUSA TV deals. Also--they eliminated 12 people and only saved $400K? Thats doesnt sound right. That would mean the average salary of those positions (including all benefits) is just a bit over $33K a year.

The ever-widening gulf between the haves and have-nots of modern day college athletics hit UAB like a punch in the gut last month.

The athletic department was forced to cut or eliminate 12 positions before the start of its new fiscal year in July. The estimated savings are about $400,000. Caught in the middle of the sudden layoffs was Zac Schrieber.


https://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2018...b_for.html

One money game would more than make up for the $400,000 in savings from the layoffs. UAB did not play a money game in 2017 and will not in 2018. In 2019, they play at Tennessee and will be paid $1.55 million. They will probably add some positions back in the future.

I haven't followed too closely but I believe the rumblings from the UAB faithful feel that this was more political under the guise of budget savings. As mentioned it's not a lot of money in the grand scheme.

This is the narrative they're peddling, about it being based on fiscal responsibility, but, if you'll notice, all/most of the names let go are associated with the Bartow administration, or were part of the vocal pro-football group that came out against UAB and the administration. There's a good thread on the UAB board about what's happening. UAB is the largest revenue generator in the state of Alabama, their CAFR shows revenue of $3.1B for FYE 2017, $20M in contributions is a drop in the bucket that should have been maintained.

I smell Tuscaloosa people behind this budget cuts. They are trying to find ways to get UAB out of D1 if they get their way. UAB should have their own board, and rename themselves as University of Birmingham or call them Birmingham State University. UCA aka University of Central Alabama could be another one. That way, they will not have to listen to The Greedy Tuscaloosa thieves.

(07-10-2018 01:22 PM)Auburn_Blazer Wrote:  This is the narrative they're peddling, about it being based on fiscal responsibility, but, if you'll notice, all/most of the names let go are associated with the Bartow administration, or were part of the vocal pro-football group that came out against UAB and the administration. There's a good thread on the UAB board about what's happening. UAB is the largest revenue generator in the state of Alabama, their CAFR shows revenue of $3.1B for FYE 2017, $20M in contributions is a drop in the bucket that should have been maintained.

Honestly---that makes more sense than anything because $400K sounds more like the kind of budget shortfall you make up through natural job attrition rather than actually laying off people.

what is Alabama afraid of, they got UAB pinned to the ground

(07-10-2018 11:51 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Surprising to me that UAB had to make these cuts. I thought things were going well there. Thats the second CUSA school to make athletic budget cuts in the last few months (W Kentucky was the other). I would have thought things were looking up a bit there as TV income actually increased from $200K a year to $400K a year with the latest CUSA TV deals. Also--they eliminated 12 people and only saved $400K? Thats doesnt sound right. That would mean the average salary of those positions (including all benefits) is just a bit over $33K a year.

The ever-widening gulf between the haves and have-nots of modern day college athletics hit UAB like a punch in the gut last month.

The athletic department was forced to cut or eliminate 12 positions before the start of its new fiscal year in July. The estimated savings are about $400,000. Caught in the middle of the sudden layoffs was Zac Schrieber.


https://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2018...b_for.html

The part where they tell the new basketball SID that his job no longer exists two days before he started was a nice touch.

This is why the upcoming AAC deal is so crucial. All G5 football programs lose money and the drain can't go on forever.

(07-10-2018 01:42 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  I smell Tuscaloosa people behind this budget cuts. They are trying to find ways to get UAB out of D1 if they get their way. UAB should have their own board, and rename themselves as University of Birmingham or call them Birmingham State University. UCA aka University of Central Alabama could be another one. That way, they will not have to listen to The Greedy Tuscaloosa thieves.

...nobody is this stupid...right?

Anyways, the program is now set to rely entirely on football ticket sales and donations; the lack of which is precisely why the program died before.

(07-10-2018 05:31 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  This is why the upcoming AAC deal is so crucial. All G5 football programs lose money and the drain can't go on forever.

Unless the AAC gets a >$10m per school contract, it wont change a thing about their situation. If it comes in, as those of us not AAC fans think, below $4m per school, even perhaps below $3m, then it will cover only 10% of the increase in the cost of doing business over the last seven years.

The only way I can see the AAC getting a very large payout is to convince somebody like Facebook (they just spent some dime to carry La Liga in India) to pay for their content. ESPN/Fox are overloaded with excess content -- and they are paying everything and then some of their war chest on the P5, leaving just some lunch money for everyone else --, and NBC's strategy has nothing to do with college football, while CBS is not concerned with filling up space (they like the academies for their CBSSN, which is lightly watched). That really says the only option for real money is in the new media. But is the new media willing to pay an excess premium without any clear signal they'd get much of an audience? And is the American willing to go that route?

My guess is the American tries to hedge, giving some content to new media and some to ESPN. They want the visibility, but they also want money. How much of each do they give up?

(07-10-2018 08:20 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 05:31 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  This is why the upcoming AAC deal is so crucial. All G5 football programs lose money and the drain can't go on forever.

Unless the AAC gets a >$10m per school contract, it wont change a thing about their situation. If it comes in, as those of us not AAC fans think, below $4m per school, even perhaps below $3m, then it will cover only 10% of the increase in the cost of doing business over the last seven years.

The only way I can see the AAC getting a very large payout is to convince somebody like Facebook (they just spent some dime to carry La Liga in India) to pay for their content. ESPN/Fox are overloaded with excess content -- and they are paying everything and then some of their war chest on the P5, leaving just some lunch money for everyone else --, and NBC's strategy has nothing to do with college football, while CBS is not concerned with filling up space (they like the academies for their CBSSN, which is lightly watched). That really says the only option for real money is in the new media. But is the new media willing to pay an excess premium without any clear signal they'd get much of an audience? And is the American willing to go that route?

My guess is the American tries to hedge, giving some content to new media and some to ESPN. They want the visibility, but they also want money. How much of each do they give up?

Outside of the P5, only BYU and Boise State with Army, Navy and Air Force do get a little extra money from the networks. I think we might see the G5 go the way like Boise State. There are the likes that would spend extra money for the best teams to air on tv. Last i heard, Boise's contract to have their home games shown on ESPN is a lot more than the individual schools in the MWC. The other schools are jealous. Fresno State, San Diego State and Utah State have upped their on the field performance in the last few years. The other schools need to step up the pace and start beating P5 schools. This have to say that schools in the other conferences have to do the same. Tulsa needs to beat their instate rivals of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State instead of losing by more than 40 points. This also have to say that UAB and other schools in the C-USA need to do the same. If they do not beat a P5, and get blown out to the P5? The tv contracts will dry up.

(07-10-2018 08:36 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 08:20 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 05:31 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  This is why the upcoming AAC deal is so crucial. All G5 football programs lose money and the drain can't go on forever.

Unless the AAC gets a >$10m per school contract, it wont change a thing about their situation. If it comes in, as those of us not AAC fans think, below $4m per school, even perhaps below $3m, then it will cover only 10% of the increase in the cost of doing business over the last seven years.

The only way I can see the AAC getting a very large payout is to convince somebody like Facebook (they just spent some dime to carry La Liga in India) to pay for their content. ESPN/Fox are overloaded with excess content -- and they are paying everything and then some of their war chest on the P5, leaving just some lunch money for everyone else --, and NBC's strategy has nothing to do with college football, while CBS is not concerned with filling up space (they like the academies for their CBSSN, which is lightly watched). That really says the only option for real money is in the new media. But is the new media willing to pay an excess premium without any clear signal they'd get much of an audience? And is the American willing to go that route?

My guess is the American tries to hedge, giving some content to new media and some to ESPN. They want the visibility, but they also want money. How much of each do they give up?

Outside of the P5, only BYU and Boise State with Army, Navy and Air Force do get a little extra money from the networks. I think we might see the G5 go the way like Boise State. There are the likes that would spend extra money for the best teams to air on tv. Last i heard, Boise's contract to have their home games shown on ESPN is a lot more than the individual schools in the MWC. The other schools are jealous. Fresno State, San Diego State and Utah State have upped their on the field performance in the last few years. The other schools need to step up the pace and start beating P5 schools. This have to say that schools in the other conferences have to do the same. Tulsa needs to beat their instate rivals of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State instead of losing by more than 40 points. This also have to say that UAB and other schools in the C-USA need to do the same. If they do not beat a P5, and get blown out to the P5? The tv contracts will dry up.

I love when people talk about contracts and media deals with no clue.

Boise is part of the MWC media deal.

(07-10-2018 08:20 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 05:31 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  This is why the upcoming AAC deal is so crucial. All G5 football programs lose money and the drain can't go on forever.

Unless the AAC gets a >$10m per school contract, it wont change a thing about their situation. If it comes in, as those of us not AAC fans think, below $4m per school, even perhaps below $3m, then it will cover only 10% of the increase in the cost of doing business over the last seven years.

The only way I can see the AAC getting a very large payout is to convince somebody like Facebook (they just spent some dime to carry La Liga in India) to pay for their content. ESPN/Fox are overloaded with excess content -- and they are paying everything and then some of their war chest on the P5, leaving just some lunch money for everyone else --, and NBC's strategy has nothing to do with college football, while CBS is not concerned with filling up space (they like the academies for their CBSSN, which is lightly watched). That really says the only option for real money is in the new media. But is the new media willing to pay an excess premium without any clear signal they'd get much of an audience? And is the American willing to go that route?

My guess is the American tries to hedge, giving some content to new media and some to ESPN. They want the visibility, but they also want money. How much of each do they give up?

Lotta feelings and guessing in here. No substance and no fact to back it up.


NBC comes with Note Dame and was the primary bidder against ESPN for the brand new not even sure it will survive AAC. As we approach the end of this contract NBC has moved properties around and left a space for the AAC deal.

Don't let that stop your little fantasy though. It's a great bedtime story for the g4, makes them feel all warm inside.

(07-10-2018 08:12 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 01:42 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  I smell Tuscaloosa people behind this budget cuts. They are trying to find ways to get UAB out of D1 if they get their way. UAB should have their own board, and rename themselves as University of Birmingham or call them Birmingham State University. UCA aka University of Central Alabama could be another one. That way, they will not have to listen to The Greedy Tuscaloosa thieves.

...nobody is this stupid...right?

Anyways, the program is now set to rely entirely on football ticket sales and donations; the lack of which is precisely why the program died before.

Apparently, you are. Do some research. The reasoning the program "died" previously was debunked by 2 separate independent companies that performed their own research. This is all crap coming from Tuscaloosa.

(07-10-2018 01:12 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2018...ignal.html

Didn't remember hearing about this. UAB will have a new stadium in downtown Birmingham in 2020-2021.

Another boondoggle for the taxpayers of Alabama. Legion Field, appropriately called "Lesion Field" was leased by UAB at exorbitant annual rates from the City of Birmingham (one of the most corrupt and inefficiently run entities in the state of Alabama). To me the concept of paying millions of dollars for a stadium to subsidize the City of Birmingham in order to provide them a one time a year boost from bowl revenue is insane. And to do it so that a State school will have to pay rent to use it is just as inconceivable since they do lose between 15 to 17 million a year by having football.

Why is this so bad? The state of Alabama works on proration. If the state budget loses money in one endeavor it is made up off of all the rest either in revenue, or cut backs. So providing this school with football, which they don't support, is costing other state projects much needed money. It is the height of selfishness on the part of UAB and the height of irresponsibility to the taxpayers.

Just go to the USAToday list of total revenue for the schools and look at the % of subsidy that UAB has and that Troy has. Troy was once an annual contender for championships in the NAIA. But the gravy train of getting into the FBS years later apparently looked alluring enough to start spending in the red with little chance for those championships. Now enough schools have taken the same track with their thinking and the pursuit of what they think is big money, that many states are footing the bills for these unrealistic dreams. In short, it's nuts! And UAB is far from the worst case, but all too typical of the majority of them.

If the City of Birmingham had not filed for bankruptcy a few years back I might not be so critical. But some bondholder, or the state is about to get hosed on this new stadium, because the city is no better run today than it was 10 years ago.

(07-11-2018 10:45 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 01:12 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2018...ignal.html

Didn't remember hearing about this. UAB will have a new stadium in downtown Birmingham in 2020-2021.

Another boondoggle for the taxpayers of Alabama. Legion Field, appropriately called "Lesion Field" was leased by UAB at exorbitant annual rates from the City of Birmingham (one of the most corrupt and inefficiently run entities in the state of Alabama). To me the concept of paying millions of dollars for a stadium to subsidize the City of Birmingham in order to provide them a one time a year boost from bowl revenue is insane. And to do it so that a State school will have to pay rent to use it is just as inconceivable since they do lose between 15 to 17 million a year by having football.

Why is this so bad? The state of Alabama works on proration. If the state budget loses money in one endeavor it is made up off of all the rest either in revenue, or cut backs. So providing this school with football, which they don't support, is costing other state projects much needed money. It is the height of selfishness on the part of UAB and the height of irresponsibility to the taxpayers.

Just go to the USAToday list of total revenue for the schools and look at the % of subsidy that UAB has and that Troy has. Troy was once an annual contender for championships in the NAIA. But the gravy train of getting into the FBS years later apparently looked alluring enough to start spending in the red with little chance for those championships. Now enough schools have taken the same track with their thinking and the pursuit of what they think is big money, that many states are footing the bills for these unrealistic dreams. In short, it's nuts! And UAB is far from the worst case, but all too typical of the majority of them.

Locked in uses for new stadium:

1. Magic City Classic
2. 6 UAB Games per year
3. Birmingham Bowl
4. 2021 World Games
5. Birmingham Alliance Team
   

The new stadium will open up Birmingham to larger concerts, neutral site football games, and friendly soccer matches, at a minimum. Not to mention that the overall improvements to the BJCC will help Birmingham much larger conferences and events, including hosting the NCAA Tournament. The hope of the Legion is that they'll eventually migrate there as well. What you're saying is nonsensical. The stadium won't even be paid for by Birmingham residents, it's funding is derived primarily from taxes on car rentals.

As for your thoughts on the state funded budget, UAB generated operating revenues of $3.1B, and had an increase in net position of over $200M last year. How dare they allocate $11M in school funds to further the brand of the school. I don't see you causing a stir over Alabama allocating $3M to athletics, or Auburn allocating $3.6M. The USA Today figures you're talking about are unfairly misrepresented because UAB didn't even have football revenues to generate that year.

(07-11-2018 10:57 AM)Auburn_Blazer Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 10:45 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 01:12 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2018...ignal.html

Didn't remember hearing about this. UAB will have a new stadium in downtown Birmingham in 2020-2021.

Another boondoggle for the taxpayers of Alabama. Legion Field, appropriately called "Lesion Field" was leased by UAB at exorbitant annual rates from the City of Birmingham (one of the most corrupt and inefficiently run entities in the state of Alabama). To me the concept of paying millions of dollars for a stadium to subsidize the City of Birmingham in order to provide them a one time a year boost from bowl revenue is insane. And to do it so that a State school will have to pay rent to use it is just as inconceivable since they do lose between 15 to 17 million a year by having football.

Why is this so bad? The state of Alabama works on proration. If the state budget loses money in one endeavor it is made up off of all the rest either in revenue, or cut backs. So providing this school with football, which they don't support, is costing other state projects much needed money. It is the height of selfishness on the part of UAB and the height of irresponsibility to the taxpayers.

Just go to the USAToday list of total revenue for the schools and look at the % of subsidy that UAB has and that Troy has. Troy was once an annual contender for championships in the NAIA. But the gravy train of getting into the FBS years later apparently looked alluring enough to start spending in the red with little chance for those championships. Now enough schools have taken the same track with their thinking and the pursuit of what they think is big money, that many states are footing the bills for these unrealistic dreams. In short, it's nuts! And UAB is far from the worst case, but all too typical of the majority of them.

Locked in uses for new stadium:

1. Magic City Classic
2. 6 UAB Games per year
3. Birmingham Bowl
4. 2021 World Games
5. Birmingham Alliance Team
   

The new stadium will open up Birmingham to larger concerts, neutral site football games, and friendly soccer matches, at a minimum. Not to mention that the overall improvements to the BJCC will help Birmingham much larger conferences and events, including hosting the NCAA Tournament. The hope of the Legion is that they'll eventually migrate there as well. What you're saying is nonsensical. The stadium won't even be paid for by Birmingham residents, it's funding is derived primarily from taxes on car rentals.

As for your thoughts on the state funded budget, UAB is far and away the largest financial impact creator in the state of Alabama, generating operating revenues of $3.1B, and an increase in net position of over $200M last year. How dare they allocate $11M in school funds to further the brand of the school. I don't see you causing a stir over Alabama allocating $3M to athletics, or Auburn allocating $3.6M. The USA Today figures you're talking about are unfairly misrepresented because UAB didn't even have football revenues to generate that year.

The money UAB generates isn't in athletics. Those funds don't go to cover the deficits of the athletic program. Subsidy is subsidy and if the two entities (UAB Medical & UAB athletics) are separate, and they are, then the revenue generating capacity of the one is unrelated to the money losing of the other. The taxpayers still pick up the tab.

As for the subsidies that go to the student ticket pricing at Auburn and Alabama that should long ago have been done away with. Neither of those two programs, both of which earned over 140 million in revenue last year, need any subsidy whatsoever. That one is on the State and it needs to end as well.