+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: AACbbs (/forum-460.html)
+---- Forum: Members (/forum-401.html)
+----- Forum: UAB (/forum-448.html)
+------ Forum: UAB Blazers (/forum-384.html)
+------- Forum: The Gene Bartow Memorial Forum (/forum-388.html)
+------- Thread: Message to the Boosters from Mark Ingram (/thread-742063.html)
Message to the Boosters from Mark Ingram - CajunBlazer - 07-08-2015 01:55 PM
This was included in the just issued UAB Booster Bulletin:
Message from Director of Athletics Mark Ingram
Blazer AD updates recent football announcement
June 25, 2015
Dear Blazer Family:
We are very pleased with the growing excitement about plans to reinstate football, rifle and bowling at UAB. As you'll recall, we announced on June 1 that we would once again be sponsoring these sports and would be taking the necessary steps toward reinstatement.
We continue to be overwhelmed at the positive commentary and interest we have seen both nationally and in the region. The response we're getting from our community has been tremendous. We continue to receive gifts and intend to report more detail on where we stand in the near future. Also, the negotiation process with our Head Football Coach Bill Clark began on June 1, the same day as our announcement, and continues to move steadily forward in a positive fashion.
I can personally say that we've both been working hard together along with our leadership team in Athletics to present a formal plan to the NCAA and to C-USA which has also been progressing nicely. This plan will ensure that we have the players' safety at the forefront, and that we have the proper amount of staff in place to coach and train them. It will also give us an opportunity to design a facility that meets our needs.
We thank everyone for giving us a championship effort during this process; we couldn't be in this position without you. I will provide further updates as information becomes available.
Go Blazers!!
Mark T. Ingram
Director of Athletics
University of Alabama at Birmingham
I thought this was a sad update so I wrote back saying:
Mark is going to have to do better than this. Even though I have absolutely no insight into the developing situation, I could have written a very similar update since it says virtually mothing.. If this was meant to appease the growing hunger among the boosters for updated information the situation, this isn’t going to fly. The natives are restless.
RE: Message to the Boosters from Mark Ingram - ATTALLABLAZE - 07-08-2015 02:11 PM
cough cough cough
I'm am biting my tongue.
RE: Message to the Boosters from Mark Ingram - blzrclub80 - 07-08-2015 02:24 PM
They haven't sent the plan to the NCAA yet!!! THAT IS U N B E L I E V A B L E !!!
RE: Message to the Boosters from Mark Ingram - WesternBlazer - 07-08-2015 02:25 PM
(07-08-2015 02:24 PM)blzrclub80 Wrote: They haven't sent the plan to the NCAA yet!!! THAT IS U N B E L I E V A B L E !!!
No telling since its the same message as before...
RE: Message to the Boosters from Mark Ingram - Memphis Blazer - 07-08-2015 02:28 PM
(07-08-2015 02:24 PM)blzrclub80 Wrote: They haven't sent the plan to the NCAA yet!!! THAT IS U N B E L I E V A B L E !!!
That is the same message from 6/25, which was 13 days ago and was discussed extensively in another thread. Don't know why it is being reposted.
RE: Message to the Boosters from Mark Ingram - ATTALLABLAZE - 07-08-2015 02:29 PM
Because the message was sent to all the Blazer Boosters TODAY at lunch. All "Blazer Booster" donors should have received it. Did you not get it?
RE: Message to the Boosters from Mark Ingram - Memphis Blazer - 07-08-2015 02:42 PM
(07-08-2015 02:29 PM)ATTALLABLAZE Wrote: Because the message was sent to all the Blazer Boosters TODAY at lunch. All "Blazer Booster" donors should have received it. Did you not get it?
Yes, I did get it. But as I said, it is the same message from 6/25. Don't know why it was repeated.
RE: Message to the Boosters from Mark Ingram - blzrclub80 - 07-08-2015 02:46 PM
I just got it in an e-mail today from UAB Booster in the Booster bulletin July 8, 2015 - July 21, 2015. Maybe they posted the wrong AD Ingram message. Don't hold your breath. They probably think just a message is enough to calm the restless boosters.
RE: Message to the Boosters from Mark Ingram - CajunBlazer - 07-08-2015 03:20 PM
Me thinks it's time to bombard Mr. Ingram with emails. If this guy wants to make it in Blazerland after Pumpkin Head is gone, he had better step it up several notches. I doubt that he is savvy enough to read this board, and if he does, he probably does not understand how many boosters (the people who pay most of his salary) post here. He probably just thinks we are a bunch of vocal fans - probably among the "vocal few".
Speaking of Watts, I hope I'm wrong, but I am concerned like several others that his is the hands which are pulling Ingram's strings and it his voice we hear behind the curtain when Ingram's mouth moves. Ingram has certainly adopted communications patterns. After all, Watts didn't pick the nominating committee's fourth choice without thinking he could control him.
RE: Message to the Boosters from Mark Ingram - braish - 07-09-2015 09:49 AM
(07-08-2015 03:20 PM)CajunBlazer Wrote: Me thinks it's time to bombard Mr. Ingram with emails. If this guy wants to make it in Blazerland after Pumpkin Head is gone, he had better step it up several notches. I doubt that he is savvy enough to read this board, and if he does, he probably does not understand how many boosters (the people who pay most of his salary) post here. He probably just thinks we are a bunch of vocal fans - probably among the "vocal few".
Speaking of Watts, I hope I'm wrong, but I am concerned like several others that his is the hands which are pulling Ingram's strings and it his voice we hear behind the curtain when Ingram's mouth moves. Ingram has certainly adopted communications patterns. After all, Watts didn't pick the nominating committee's fourth choice without thinking he could control him.
He was the fourth choice? Can't say I'm surprised. UAB always operates by appointing a meaningless committee that makes a recommendation which is generously ignored by the administration for a predetermined candidate. Doesn't matter if we're talking academics, student life, or athletics. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
RE: Message to the Boosters from Mark Ingram - uabbean - 07-09-2015 10:08 AM
(07-08-2015 03:20 PM)CajunBlazer Wrote: After all, Watts didn't pick the nominating committee's fourth choice without thinking he could control him.
I am a little confused by this statement of "fourth". First at UAB on the nominating committees I was on and at other universities, the candidates are usually never officially ranked. The appointing authority receives the finalist list of qualified names to interview. Written Comments are often furnished to appointing authority. The chairmen sometimes informally orally briefs the AA
If I remember correctly the three finalists were released or leaked on this board. How did he finish fourth out of three?
RE: Message to the Boosters from Mark Ingram - blzrclub80 - 07-09-2015 10:11 AM
(07-09-2015 10:08 AM)uabbean Wrote:(07-08-2015 03:20 PM)CajunBlazer Wrote: After all, Watts didn't pick the nominating committee's fourth choice without thinking he could control him.
I am a little confused by this statement of "fourth". First at UAB on the nominating committees I was on and at other universities, the candidates are usually never officially ranked. The appointing authority receives the finalist list of qualified names to interview. Comments are often furnished to appointing authority. The chairmen informally orally briefs the AA
If I remember correctly the three finalists were released or leaked on this board. How did he finish fourth out of three?
AD Ingram was my 1st choice out of the three finalist "leaked". If we can get him out of the handcuffs of Watts, I believe he will be a great AD for UaB.
RE: Message to the Boosters from Mark Ingram - notnow - 07-09-2015 10:39 AM
None of the above makes 4 choices.
RE: Message to the Boosters from Mark Ingram - BlazerHam - 07-09-2015 11:27 AM
Dear Boosters,
This letter has many words in it. I am proud to say that everyone knows all of these words & we expect bigger & better words in the near future.
I can say that the continued correct syntax of these words are of the utmost importance to us.
As we get more words, we will repeat those words to you, including the words also printed in this letter.
Take care & GO BLAZERS!
Mark Ingram's Wordsmith
RE: Message to the Boosters from Mark Ingram - USAFBlazerFan - 07-09-2015 12:20 PM
(07-09-2015 11:27 AM)BlazerHam Wrote: Dear Boosters,
This letter has many words in it. I am proud to say that everyone knows all of these words & we expect bigger & better words in the near future.
I can say that the continued correct syntax of these words are of the utmost importance to us.
As we get more words, we will repeat those words to you, including the words also printed in this letter.
Take care & GO BLAZERS!
Mark Ingram's Wordsmith
RE: Message to the Boosters from Mark Ingram - CajunBlazer - 07-09-2015 01:32 PM
(07-09-2015 10:08 AM)uabbean Wrote:(07-08-2015 03:20 PM)CajunBlazer Wrote: After all, Watts didn't pick the nominating committee's fourth choice without thinking he could control him.
I am a little confused by this statement of "fourth". First at UAB on the nominating committees I was on and at other universities, the candidates are usually never officially ranked. The appointing authority receives the finalist list of qualified names to interview. Written Comments are often furnished to appointing authority. The chairmen sometimes informally orally briefs the AA
If I remember correctly the three finalists were released or leaked on this board. How did he finish fourth out of three?
Okay, here is the explanation. The nominating committee picked their top three choices among all of the candidates they interviewed to recommend to Watts. (By the way those top three choices were ranked one, two and three by the committee, but I am not sure Watts was ever told that. You're right in that the committee's ranking of the top three is not usually passed on.) However, when the top three candidates were told they were still among those in the running and that they would be called in for additional interviews, the candidate who was nominating committee's first choice decided that he didn't want the job after all and took his name out of the running.
At that point the nominating committee went back and included their fourth choice, Ingram, in the three that they presented to Watts. So when Watts then chose Ingram, he chose the committee's fourth choice.
Does that make sense now?
RE: Message to the Boosters from Mark Ingram - kdblazer - 07-09-2015 01:48 PM
It gives me so much comfort to know the level of knowledge we have inside our fan base. This may specific to UAB due to how the University was chartered and the forces lined against it. But for a message board, the Blazaertalk family has been on point for most university related issues whether sports related or academics.
RE: Message to the Boosters from Mark Ingram - uabbean - 07-09-2015 05:14 PM
(07-09-2015 01:32 PM)CajunBlazer Wrote:Yes it does make sense. It is not unusual for a person to withdraw when notified they are finalist for various reasons, I even withdrew once myself when I found out the final job interview was a joke the internal candidate was getting it.(07-09-2015 10:08 AM)uabbean Wrote:(07-08-2015 03:20 PM)CajunBlazer Wrote: After all, Watts didn't pick the nominating committee's fourth choice without thinking he could control him.
I am a little confused by this statement of "fourth". First at UAB on the nominating committees I was on and at other universities, the candidates are usually never officially ranked. The appointing authority receives the finalist list of qualified names to interview. Written Comments are often furnished to appointing authority. The chairmen sometimes informally orally briefs the AA
If I remember correctly the three finalists were released or leaked on this board. How did he finish fourth out of three?
Okay, here is the explanation. The nominating committee picked their top three choices among all of the candidates they interviewed to recommend to Watts. (By the way those top three choices were ranked one, two and three by the committee, but I am not sure Watts was ever told that. You're right in that the committee's ranking of the top three is not usually passed on.) However, when the top three candidates were told they were still among those in the running and that they would be called in for additional interviews, the candidate who was nominating committee's first choice decided that he didn't want the job after all and took his name out of the running.
At that point the nominating committee went back and included their fourth choice, Ingram, in the three that they presented to Watts. So when Watts then chose Ingram, he chose the committee's fourth choice.
Does that make sense now?