A winning football program under Coach Bill Clark. That is exactly the trend UAB football was on. That is what UAB is being denied the opportunity to achieve with its first-year extraordinary coach. Attendance changes. Giving changes, even to the University as a whole, UAB being in the deep south. Student involvement changes. Sponsorship changes. Other revenue source changes. Donors appear for proven facility needs. Everything changes. Athletic administrators know it. Winning is most often the difference maker. And most any administrator would conclude building a tradition of football winning at a southern university when a program already exist is always worth trying when FINALLY the right coach is in place.
Of course, when you have a delusional disorder like Mr. Watts, sensing what could be is almost impossible.
Premeditated? Yes.
FAU just got a $16 million dollar donation for athletic facilities. Their new President went to a contributor of the university that never gave to athletics previously.
Imagine where we could be with a president that had a vision that includes athletics.
Watts didn't attempt to come up with a plan to improve things, even with the newly formed football foundation doing the work. He made his decision with no vision on solving the problem. That's how hatchet men work.
To me, the numbers in the report are quite misleading. I believe the report could be reworked or expanded to explain a lot more. For the amount of time it supposedly took, nine pages doesn't even make sense to begin with. That, and the trajectory of the program was on a sharp increase.
The most telling thing about all of this, though, is that Dr. Watt's or the Board of Trustees didn't come forward to say anything. If these people cared, they could have told us. They could have at least told the teams. The truth is that they didn't want us to raise money. That's why the time table was so short, and that's why the criteria in the study is so skewed.
People are starting to see this for what it really is, though. It's just a matter of time now.
The numbers in this report are a joke. The loss projected for next year includes a 22% increase in scholarship cost. How is that possible without a tuition increase? The projected loss also includes $1.3 million increase in coaching salaries. If facing the possibility of no job, I doubt they would have required such an increase.
The loss for next year also includes an estimated decrease in ticket revenue. Who believes this would happen? I know the report was in process before the successful season we had but this further shows just how flawed the numbers are.
No doubt in my mind this report was commissioned to provide support to kill the program. True leadership would have used it to determine what was needed to succeed, not to try and justify a failure.
(12-04-2014 09:59 AM)R-6 Wrote: [ -> ]The numbers in this report are a joke. The loss projected for next year includes a 22% increase in scholarship cost. How is that possible without a tuition increase? The projected loss also includes $1.3 million increase in coaching salaries. If facing the possibility of no job, I doubt they would have required such an increase.
The loss for next year also includes an estimated decrease in ticket revenue. Who believes this would happen? I know the report was in process before the successful season we had but this further shows just how flawed the numbers are.
No doubt in my mind this report was commissioned to provide support to kill the program. True leadership would have used it to determine what was needed to succeed, not to try and justify a failure.
I agree with everything you said, but my understanding is that the increase in scholarship cost probably relflected the new NCAA decision that athletes should be offered a stipend.
Not that it makes the report any more credible, but I imagine that's where they grabbed the increase though.
I would have loved to see a plan put together that showed what the return on investment would be for a successful team in an on campus stadium. Without paying rent and bringing in parking and concession revenue. Do it with the trajectory that we are on. 6-6 season would have sold out three games in our projected stadium.
This study that's been forced upon us is lacking any meaningful detail.
The study is meaningless.
The fix was in.
(12-04-2014 11:14 AM)Smaug Wrote: [ -> ]The study is meaningless.
The fix was in.
Unfortunately, you're spot on (as usual).