I want to give Ingram a chance, but it's not easy watching him. He has done a ton of interviews which is a great idea- get face time on TV, introduce yourself to the community. However, dodging every meaningful question doesn't help much. Plus, saying 2017 is a better target than 2016 is VERY short-sighted. Why not just say "we're waiting to see what recommendations the NCAA and CUSA have before determining a date." OR he can wait for Coach Clark to address the issue when the decision is made.
Maye it's not fair to Ingram, but I don't really want to hear the new guy poo poo on 2016. If Bill Clark says it's better to wait until 2017, then I'm all in for 2017. But it should come from Clark.
I'm trying to give him a chance, but so far, I'm not a fan.
Doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in me yet, either
None of us was very good in our first couple of weeks on a job.
2017? We are never playing football again. We are getting played.
He's a Watts stool pigeon. Nothing more. Nothing less. He's also really bad at reading whatever the PR folks stick in front of him to read in front of the cameras.
Ingram hasnt set anything in stone. Im sure talking to the coach and the CUSA will be the basis for the decision. In 2016 you will only have 50 scholarship players unless waivers are granted. Thats basically an FCS team.
Heres what he actually said
"It's more ideal if we tried to do it in (2017), so we didn't do it so rushed," Ingram said. "Let's do it right rather than fast so that we keep all these things at the forefront – the safety (of players) and the respect of our peers. But if we found out through various channels that playing in (2016) was our only option, that's what we'll do.""
"If we tried to sign 50 players in the upcoming signing class, that's going to give heartburn to our peers in the league," Ingram said. "Whether it should or it shouldn't, the reality is it does and we respect that. They've been very generous to us and supportive of us as wanting us to stay in the league, so we want to do all this respectfully to them, too."
That doesnt sound like a stool pigeon, that sounds like an athletic director who is legitimately worried about the safety of his players and pissing off the other people in conference USA
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2015/...017_f.html
(06-04-2015 11:51 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote: [ -> ]None of us was very good in our first couple of weeks on a job.
Very few of us started a job as a director of anything. The kinks should be worked out by the time you get to that level.
(06-05-2015 06:15 AM)voss749 Wrote: [ -> ]Ingram hasnt set anything in stone. Im sure talking to the coach and the CUSA will be the basis for the decision. In 2016 you will only have 50 scholarship players unless waivers are granted. Thats basically an FCS team.
Heres what he actually said
"It's more ideal if we tried to do it in (2017), so we didn't do it so rushed," Ingram said. "Let's do it right rather than fast so that we keep all these things at the forefront – the safety (of players) and the respect of our peers. But if we found out through various channels that playing in (2016) was our only option, that's what we'll do.""
"If we tried to sign 50 players in the upcoming signing class, that's going to give heartburn to our peers in the league," Ingram said. "Whether it should or it shouldn't, the reality is it does and we respect that. They've been very generous to us and supportive of us as wanting us to stay in the league, so we want to do all this respectfully to them, too."
That doesnt sound like a stool pigeon, that sounds like an athletic director who is legitimately worried about the safety of his players and pissing off the other people in conference USA
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2015/...017_f.html
Well said. We need to sign actual football players, not people with a pulse.
Everyone step away from the climb, please. There is a difference between being legitimately concerned about something and simply being paranoid. Yes, it's understandable to be paranoid given everything we has fans have gone through, but why in the world would Ingram want to kill football? You think this guy was hired to kill football a second time? Do you know how ludicrous that sounds? The guy is an athletics director who also happened to play football in college at Tennessee. He wants football. He has been on the job for about three weeks, and walked into an unprecedented situation. If something were fishy, we'd know about it. There are whistleblowers everywhere now. This is a new day for UAB athletics, folks. Try and relax.
Ingram seem like watts , both are not very good to answers questions from the press or talking in public
it doesnt soon to good for potentially raise money
Not to impress by the guy so far
i am giving him a D grade so far
Give the guy a break. If he were stonewalling and not answering any questions people would be complaining that he didn't have a plan or know what he was doing or had a secret plan on Bryant Bank letterhead that he didn't want anyone to find out.
I take him at his word when he said he didn't know until 11am on Monday what Watts was going to decide. Give him some time to put together a plan. Now that we have the teams back, there's more to take into consideration than an angry mob in front of the admin building. He's got to do it in a way that the NCAA and Conference USA are OK with. He's got to do it in a way that sets up the team for the future, not just short term "let's get anything on the field".
(06-05-2015 06:15 AM)voss749 Wrote: [ -> ]legitimately worried about the safety of his players
What? Are we expecting some kind of technological breakthrough in player safety between 2016 and 2017?
I'm not saying Ingram is a stool pigeon or some Manchurian Candidate. But let's be honest, since when has the AD ad UAB really had any freedom to do what is best for UAB? Exhibit 1: Brian Mackin. I'm not worried about Ingram, but the people above him.
(06-05-2015 08:19 AM)BatesUAB Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2015 06:15 AM)voss749 Wrote: [ -> ]legitimately worried about the safety of his players
What? Are we expecting some kind of technological breakthrough in player safety between 2016 and 2017?
50 scholarship players, with a large proportion of freshmen, to play in 2016 has a high potential for injury over the course of the season.
Now, if the NCAA lets us sign extra players and we throw D1 transfers into the mix (if they don't towards a signing limit) and can get 60+ legitimate scholarship players on the roster, then I think it's very doable. It probably means losing some close games that we'd otherwise win and harder to keep up in the bodybag games, but I don't think there's the same legit concern for injury risk.
(06-05-2015 06:15 AM)voss749 Wrote: [ -> ]Ingram hasnt set anything in stone. Im sure talking to the coach and the CUSA will be the basis for the decision. In 2016 you will only have 50 scholarship players unless waivers are granted. Thats basically an FCS team.
Heres what he actually said
"It's more ideal if we tried to do it in (2017), so we didn't do it so rushed," Ingram said. "Let's do it right rather than fast so that we keep all these things at the forefront – the safety (of players) and the respect of our peers. But if we found out through various channels that playing in (2016) was our only option, that's what we'll do.""
"If we tried to sign 50 players in the upcoming signing class, that's going to give heartburn to our peers in the league," Ingram said. "Whether it should or it shouldn't, the reality is it does and we respect that. They've been very generous to us and supportive of us as wanting us to stay in the league, so we want to do all this respectfully to them, too."
That doesnt sound like a stool pigeon, that sounds like an athletic director who is legitimately worried about the safety of his players and pissing off the other people in conference USA
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2015/...017_f.html
I don't have a problem with most of what he said. I guess he just doesn't have a great read on our fan base. He shouldn't give preference to 2017 publicly. Also, when he was asked about Clark's contract negotiations, he was tight-lipped as he should be, but he needs to understand that Clark is our conquering hero right now, so bland comments on him are hard for us to watch.
It may all work out, and I'm not totally down on Ingram. He may end up as a great AD for us. But he and Watts had better do right by Clark in his contract, and then he needs to let Clark tell us how and when football will go at UAB.
(06-05-2015 08:44 AM)TMcCarty Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2015 08:19 AM)BatesUAB Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2015 06:15 AM)voss749 Wrote: [ -> ]legitimately worried about the safety of his players
What? Are we expecting some kind of technological breakthrough in player safety between 2016 and 2017?
50 scholarship players, with a large proportion of freshmen, to play in 2016 has a high potential for injury over the course of the season.
That's the dumbest sh*t I've ever heard. Alabama can play Charleston Southern (Charleston Southern!) who they outweigh on average 20 lbs everywhere but the line, and 40 pounds on the line, and no one says a word about "potential injuries," but a new UAB can't line up against Alabama State? Please!
(06-05-2015 09:49 AM)PTBlazer Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2015 08:44 AM)TMcCarty Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2015 08:19 AM)BatesUAB Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2015 06:15 AM)voss749 Wrote: [ -> ]legitimately worried about the safety of his players
What? Are we expecting some kind of technological breakthrough in player safety between 2016 and 2017?
50 scholarship players, with a large proportion of freshmen, to play in 2016 has a high potential for injury over the course of the season.
That's the dumbest sh*t I've ever heard. Alabama can play Charleston Southern (Charleston Southern!) who they outweigh on average 20 lbs everywhere but the line, and 40 pounds on the line, and no one says a word about "potential injuries," but a new UAB can't line up against Alabama State? Please!
It's not about 1 game, it's about the entirety of the season. Most games for FCS teams will be against like schools with the same scholarship numbers. They aren't playing Alabama (or any other FBS program) week in and week out.
Ingram in his interviews is highly complimentary of Watts, evasive on Clark, and spouting potential dates without having all the facts. As far as the feelings of other schools... how were they feeling when they sent their vultures in to take their pick of players from UAB?
(06-05-2015 10:01 AM)TMcCarty Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2015 09:49 AM)PTBlazer Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2015 08:44 AM)TMcCarty Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2015 08:19 AM)BatesUAB Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2015 06:15 AM)voss749 Wrote: [ -> ]legitimately worried about the safety of his players
What? Are we expecting some kind of technological breakthrough in player safety between 2016 and 2017?
50 scholarship players, with a large proportion of freshmen, to play in 2016 has a high potential for injury over the course of the season.
That's the dumbest sh*t I've ever heard. Alabama can play Charleston Southern (Charleston Southern!) who they outweigh on average 20 lbs everywhere but the line, and 40 pounds on the line, and no one says a word about "potential injuries," but a new UAB can't line up against Alabama State? Please!
It's not about 1 game, it's about the entirety of the season. Most games for FCS teams will be against like schools with the same scholarship numbers. They aren't playing Alabama (or any other FBS program) week in and week out.
SEC <> C-USA
Again it doesnt matter if we start back in 2016, 2017, or 2018 we will still take our lumps. Therefore why not get them out of the way early while capitalizing on the community's momentum while it's still fresh. If we start back in 2016 I have no doubts that we will average 25k+. If we push that on into later years it becomes problematic unless an OCS is announced and our first game back will be played there. I doubt that will happen because the NCAA will not allow us to wait that long and start back as a FBS member. 2016 is the year of the Dragon!