after all, their attendance did average 3,458 (announced) per game in 2012. This money is almost as well spent as their $15,000,000 frat house, that does not allow minorities in.
(09-17-2013 01:18 PM)Bham Blazer Wrote: [ -> ]after all, their attendance did average 3,458 (announced) per game in 2012. This money is almost as well spent as their $15,000,000 frat house, that does not allow minorities in.
The UA BOT doesn't care about perception from outsiders.
(09-17-2013 01:18 PM)Bham Blazer Wrote: [ -> ]after all, their attendance did average 3,458 (announced) per game in 2012. This money is almost as well spent as their $15,000,000 frat house, that does not allow minorities in.
Woah woah woah...Frat's let minorities in...it's the sororities that don't.
PBJ wanted the construction job.
As I've said before, I'm impressed they recognize the existence of a sport other than football.
(09-17-2013 01:58 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote: [ -> ]As I've said before, I'm impressed they recognize the existence of a sport other than football.
Yet their excuse for not doing something for UAB doesn't apply when it comes to doing something for UAT. No surprise.
(09-17-2013 02:08 PM)the Dragon Wrote: [ -> ] (09-17-2013 01:58 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote: [ -> ]As I've said before, I'm impressed they recognize the existence of a sport other than football.
Yet their excuse for not doing something for UAB doesn't apply when it comes to doing something for UAT. No surprise.
Agreed. They've made it well known where their allegiance and loyalties lie, and it is not with UAB athletics. I just hope this fundraising campaign is a swift and successful endeavor, for the sake of Blazer Sports and its' future...
On a side note, I think USM's new AD is interested in upgrading their arena & football field to be able to "compete with others".
30 million in bonds credit we will never be allowed to use.
(09-17-2013 01:18 PM)Bham Blazer Wrote: [ -> ]after all, their attendance did average 3,458 (announced) per game in 2012. This money is almost as well spent as their $15,000,000 frat house, that does not allow minorities in.
(09-17-2013 02:17 PM)the_blazerman Wrote: [ -> ]On a side note, I think USM's new AD is interested in upgrading their arena & football field to be able to "compete with others".
When UAB has a booster base like Southern Miss, we'll be upgrading our facilities.
(09-17-2013 01:41 PM)demiveeman Wrote: [ -> ] (09-17-2013 01:18 PM)Bham Blazer Wrote: [ -> ]after all, their attendance did average 3,458 (announced) per game in 2012. This money is almost as well spent as their $15,000,000 frat house, that does not allow minorities in.
Woah woah woah...Frat's let minorities in...it's the sororities that don't.
Yep you are correct..........and can't blame the current sororities either, as they were OK with it (but their adviser over-ruled them).
(09-17-2013 02:26 PM)demiveeman Wrote: [ -> ] (09-17-2013 02:17 PM)the_blazerman Wrote: [ -> ]On a side note, I think USM's new AD is interested in upgrading their arena & football field to be able to "compete with others".
When UAB has a booster base like Southern Miss, we'll be upgrading our facilities.
They are not as well off as some mid-majors........they had a heck of a hard time scraping up the money to buy Ellis Johnson out. To their credit, they did cough up the money though.
(09-17-2013 02:26 PM)demiveeman Wrote: [ -> ] (09-17-2013 02:17 PM)the_blazerman Wrote: [ -> ]On a side note, I think USM's new AD is interested in upgrading their arena & football field to be able to "compete with others".
When UAB has a booster base like Southern Miss, we'll be upgrading our facilities.
You don't need a booster base to justify a stadium that will pay for itself.
Just like you don't need a booster base to pay for frat houses that pay for themselves.
The only difference between the UAT baseball stadium upgrade and the UAB football stadium proposal is that UAT's got approved, while UAB's didn't. Both programs need the upgrade. Both projects will ultimately pay off, even though there's a large initial cost. Both are beneficial to the student body and the respective universities.
Yet, UAT athletics gets a yes. UAB athletics gets a no.
(09-17-2013 03:04 PM)the Dragon Wrote: [ -> ]The only difference between the UAT baseball stadium upgrade and the UAB football stadium proposal is that UAT's got approved, while UAB's didn't. Both programs need the upgrade. Both projects will ultimately pay off, even though there's a large initial cost. Both are beneficial to the student body and the respective universities.
Yet, UAT athletics gets a yes. UAB athletics gets a no.
+1
(This does gives us more ammunition to fight them with though. Everything you said is 100% correct).
(09-17-2013 03:04 PM)the Dragon Wrote: [ -> ]The only difference between the UAT baseball stadium upgrade and the UAB football stadium proposal is that UAT's got approved, while UAB's didn't. Both programs need the upgrade. Both projects will ultimately pay off, even though there's a large initial cost. Both are beneficial to the student body and the respective universities.
Yet, UAT athletics gets a yes. UAB athletics gets a no.
This
+2
The almighty Board of Trustees. The almighty Crimsion Tide. Makes me sick.
(09-17-2013 02:33 PM)Bham Blazer Wrote: [ -> ] (09-17-2013 02:26 PM)demiveeman Wrote: [ -> ] (09-17-2013 02:17 PM)the_blazerman Wrote: [ -> ]On a side note, I think USM's new AD is interested in upgrading their arena & football field to be able to "compete with others".
When UAB has a booster base like Southern Miss, we'll be upgrading our facilities.
They are not as well off as some mid-majors........they had a heck of a hard time scraping up the money to buy Ellis Johnson out. To their credit, they did cough up the money though.
Are they not off the hook for the $$$ due to him coaching at Aub or what is the diff between what his USM salary was vs what Aub is paying as I assume they would cover this diff if on the hook?