The unofficial online home for fans of the UAB Blazers. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

In case you haven't been paying attention, the entire college football universe has been in upheval. It was inevitable that conference alignment would eventually affect us.

Did we see it hit us early?

A major realignment downward (New Sun Belt), or a shift upward (New Big East, Big 12) could affect the plans drastically, and cause a retreat from the current plans. Donor backing, conference funding availability, stadium size requirements, TV visibility, etc, would all affect the logistics of building the stadium in both financing and size requirements.

Moving to the New Sun Belt (presumably with others like USM and Tulane) would mean smaller stadium size needed and fewer donors willing to back us (not to mention a major adjustment to the stadium naming rights).

Far more unlikely, but positive discussion from a conference like the Big 12 or ACC would mean a shift in the opposite direction, with more funding availability and need for a larger stadium in planning.

Either huge change would require Garrison and Mackin to pull the OCS from the agenda. So while I'm not really confident this is it (we're trained as UAB fans to expect the worst), this is a serious consideration that must be made when building for UAB's future.

I wish that were the case, but I think it's well founded that Garrison and Mackin didn't pull the item; rather, it was cockblocked by PBJ. It appears UAB administration is extremely caught off guard (and rightfully so) and is working furiously behind the scenes. This will truly test Garrison's mettle. Let's see how our administration responds.

(10-31-2011 10:06 PM)GreenMississippi Wrote:  In case you haven't been paying attention, the entire college football universe has been in upheval. It was inevitable that conference alignment would eventually affect us.

Did we see it hit us early?

A major realignment downward (New Sun Belt), or a shift upward (New Big East, Big 12) could affect the plans drastically, and cause a retreat from the current plans. Donor backing, conference funding availability, stadium size requirements, TV visibility, etc, would all affect the logistics of building the stadium in both financing and size requirements.

Moving to the New Sun Belt (presumably with others like USM and Tulane) would mean smaller stadium size needed and fewer donors willing to back us (not to mention a major adjustment to the stadium naming rights).

Far more unlikely, but positive discussion from a conference like the Big 12 or ACC would mean a shift in the opposite direction, with more funding availability and need for a larger stadium in planning.

Either huge change would require Garrison and Mackin to pull the OCS from the agenda. So while I'm not really confident this is it (we're trained as UAB fans to expect the worst), this is a serious consideration that must be made when building for UAB's future.

I think this would come under the heading of "polishing a turd". Would be nice but the signs don't point that way

I'll tell you what my gut response is:

[middle finger UP] BoT [/middle finger Up]

(And YES, I know this isn't politically correct, but I'm tired of UAB getting butt-raped by the BoT...)

Even if it's not on the agenda, can someone bring it up for a vote or at least discussion with the BOT?

I'm not sure.

We do need supporters visible at the meeting though.

(10-31-2011 10:06 PM)GreenMississippi Wrote:  In case you haven't been paying attention, the entire college football universe has been in upheval. It was inevitable that conference alignment would eventually affect us.

Did we see it hit us early?

A major realignment downward (New Sun Belt), or a shift upward (New Big East, Big 12) could affect the plans drastically, and cause a retreat from the current plans. Donor backing, conference funding availability, stadium size requirements, TV visibility, etc, would all affect the logistics of building the stadium in both financing and size requirements.

Moving to the New Sun Belt (presumably with others like USM and Tulane) would mean smaller stadium size needed and fewer donors willing to back us (not to mention a major adjustment to the stadium naming rights).

Far more unlikely, but positive discussion from a conference like the Big 12 or ACC would mean a shift in the opposite direction, with more funding availability and need for a larger stadium in planning.

Either huge change would require Garrison and Mackin to pull the OCS from the agenda. So while I'm not really confident this is it (we're trained as UAB fans to expect the worst), this is a serious consideration that must be made when building for UAB's future.

+1
It is nice to see a voice of reason. You are correct there could be a million reason to pull an item from the BOT agenda- that may not have anything at all to do with a plot to stop the OCS. The paper work does not usually get to the BOT staff until just about now. In my old job at UAB - it was fairly common to see paperwork pulled from the agenda because it literally did not add or was incomplete(UAT projects or thehospital were very bad about this). Here it could be stuff like the crazy bond market or the naming rights not finalized or estimate not complete.

However, it is so much more fun to be paranoid. But remember the old saying - just because your paranoid does not mean someone is not after you. We should find out at least part of the facts soon.

Maybe but surely Mackin, et al. are hearing our noise....Why the hell don't they come out and give us the facts?

The words included by the student government president were "delayed indefinitely".

I interpret that to mean that it would not be on the agenda in the foreseeable future.

Not on agenda in foreseeable future = stadium not built = nowhere to play = SOL.

(11-01-2011 10:47 AM)Uncle BLAZER Wrote:  Maybe but surely Mackin, et al. are hearing our noise....Why the hell don't they come out and give us the facts?

I am guessing that they cannot come out openly & give you the facts because if they did their jobs would be in jeopardy.

There is only one reason why this is not on the agenda & it isn't that there timing is bad.


(Sorry, corrected a few typo)

I guarantee you that UAB would not have submitted the stadium to the agenda if they weren't COMPLETELY SURE they had crossed all the t's and dotted all the i's 10,000 times and made sure they had the votes. They did all of these things and one man is wielding his power to stop the project.

I can assure you this was not pulled by anyone at UAB. They were blindsided. They were proceeding with the project in good faith based on what had been said at previous meetings

Not that I anyhow am relating the two, but remember in the Revenge of the Nerds when the nerds weren't allowed to bring up anything for discussion before the council (or is that counsel)?

Same thing here.

I have no doubt that they were blindsided. Agreements had previously been made. Keep Callaway one more year = Get Stadium.

(11-01-2011 11:23 AM)the_blazerman Wrote:  Not that I anyhow am relating the two, but remember in the Revenge of the Nerds when the nerds weren't allowed to bring up anything for discussion before the council (or is that counsel)?

Same thing here.

I have no doubt that they were blindsided. Agreements had previously been made. Keep Callaway one more year = Get Stadium.

So where do we sign up for the drunken tricycle race to beat Tuscaloosa?

Well we first have to put icy hot in their jock straps.

(11-01-2011 10:45 AM)uabbean Wrote:  

(10-31-2011 10:06 PM)GreenMississippi Wrote:  In case you haven't been paying attention, the entire college football universe has been in upheval. It was inevitable that conference alignment would eventually affect us.

Did we see it hit us early?

A major realignment downward (New Sun Belt), or a shift upward (New Big East, Big 12) could affect the plans drastically, and cause a retreat from the current plans. Donor backing, conference funding availability, stadium size requirements, TV visibility, etc, would all affect the logistics of building the stadium in both financing and size requirements.

Moving to the New Sun Belt (presumably with others like USM and Tulane) would mean smaller stadium size needed and fewer donors willing to back us (not to mention a major adjustment to the stadium naming rights).

Far more unlikely, but positive discussion from a conference like the Big 12 or ACC would mean a shift in the opposite direction, with more funding availability and need for a larger stadium in planning.

Either huge change would require Garrison and Mackin to pull the OCS from the agenda. So while I'm not really confident this is it (we're trained as UAB fans to expect the worst), this is a serious consideration that must be made when building for UAB's future.

+1
It is nice to see a voice of reason. You are correct there could be a million reason to pull an item from the BOT agenda- that may not have anything at all to do with a plot to stop the OCS. The paper work does not usually get to the BOT staff until just about now. In my old job at UAB - it was fairly common to see paperwork pulled from the agenda because it literally did not add or was incomplete(UAT projects or thehospital were very bad about this). Here it could be stuff like the crazy bond market or the naming rights not finalized or estimate not complete.

However, it is so much more fun to be paranoid. But remember the old saying - just because your paranoid does not mean someone is not after you. We should find out at least part of the facts soon.

I talked to people. Unfortunately, we were right to be paranoid :-(

(11-01-2011 10:45 AM)uabbean Wrote:  

(10-31-2011 10:06 PM)GreenMississippi Wrote:  In case you haven't been paying attention, the entire college football universe has been in upheval. It was inevitable that conference alignment would eventually affect us.

Did we see it hit us early?

A major realignment downward (New Sun Belt), or a shift upward (New Big East, Big 12) could affect the plans drastically, and cause a retreat from the current plans. Donor backing, conference funding availability, stadium size requirements, TV visibility, etc, would all affect the logistics of building the stadium in both financing and size requirements.

Moving to the New Sun Belt (presumably with others like USM and Tulane) would mean smaller stadium size needed and fewer donors willing to back us (not to mention a major adjustment to the stadium naming rights).

Far more unlikely, but positive discussion from a conference like the Big 12 or ACC would mean a shift in the opposite direction, with more funding availability and need for a larger stadium in planning.

Either huge change would require Garrison and Mackin to pull the OCS from the agenda. So while I'm not really confident this is it (we're trained as UAB fans to expect the worst), this is a serious consideration that must be made when building for UAB's future.

+1
It is nice to see a voice of reason. You are correct there could be a million reason to pull an item from the BOT agenda- that may not have anything at all to do with a plot to stop the OCS. The paper work does not usually get to the BOT staff until just about now. In my old job at UAB - it was fairly common to see paperwork pulled from the agenda because it literally did not add or was incomplete(UAT projects or thehospital were very bad about this). Here it could be stuff like the crazy bond market or the naming rights not finalized or estimate not complete.

However, it is so much more fun to be paranoid. But remember the old saying - just because your paranoid does not mean someone is not after you. We should find out at least part of the facts soon.

Bean... what is your gut telling you on this one?