In a perfect world, Boise, SDSU and others like Houston, etc. would migrate to the WMC and make it a solely based western league. It would be advantageous on many fronts.
Likewise it would be best to keep the CUSA schools for the most part as a southeastern based league. Possibly welcome back ECU, UCF, Memphis, etc. or form a new league since the BE name is pretty much dead and whats left consolidates with the Sun Belt. Thus you'd have two eastern based leagues on pretty much equal footing.

Cincy and UConn are obviously lobbying hard for the ACC. USF and Temple seem to be the lame ducks in this and looking for a home.

Boise in a western based league should happen - make too much sense.

Navy doesn't need to be in a league, they can command the dollars and exposure just as they are. jmo.

Somebody bring back those huge banners of the new BE teams. Those would look pretty awesome now, LOL.

(12-26-2012 04:06 PM)GoGold Wrote:  Somebody bring back those huge banners of the new BE teams. Those would look pretty awesome now, LOL.

Did Tulane or ECU ever get their Times Square banner?

(12-26-2012 03:02 PM)OwlFamily Wrote:  

(12-26-2012 02:58 PM)blazr Wrote:  Trust me (and other UAB posters)...UAB's bane is not now, nor has it ever been, financial. If I won the Powerball lottery, I still - for now at least - would not be able to give that money to UAB and see an OCS from it, nor would I be successful in navigating Alabama politics to gain approval to build one myself that just happens to be near UAB's campus. I'm not suggesting that the situation will remain that way, but that's what it is right now.

I just dont understand why 'Bama board is SO against UAB having an OCS. Why did the board even allow UAB to have sports at all if they wanted to hold them back like this.

Thank goodness Florida doesnt have this issue. I dont think I could take it.

It's not the entire board. But, as you would expect, the "old-school boys' club" is fully represented and - strangely - happens to dominate any committees that remotely touch athletics. In Alabama's case, that club's membership is essentially "those who knew, worshiped, and covered the ass (politically...well, maybe literally, too, considering his drinking habits) of one Paul "Bear" Bryant and his spawn, Paul Bryant, Jr. Gene Bartow stormed into Birmingham in the late-70s and yanked a solid core of movers, shakers, and deep pockets out from under Tuscaloosa's nose before they knew what happened. Essentially, he gathered up people who lived, worked, mixed, etc. only in Birmingham but were being steamrolled by forces in Montgomery (state capital) and Tuscaloosa. He just happened to have the personality and strength of character to, even today, command the respect and admiration of those folks.

By the time it became clear that UAB must add football to keep up with our basketball peers - and the larger D1 universities in the South - Bartow had too much clout for the idea to be stopped. About the same time (well, in the mid-80s really), Bartow - known as "Clean Gene" for a reason - had lost too many Birmingham recruits to Tuscaloosa (where they were just getting serious about basketball) from "underhanded" tactics. He wrote a letter of complaint to the NCAA, that letter (of course) got leaked to the public, and Alabama fans now hated UAB. So there are private scores those in Tuscaloosa still hold as not settled (too many to list here) and they also dictate public opinion about UAB athletics (that is not exaggeration, btw...people in Birmingham hear opinions spouted off in private company that are distinctly "BOT" in nature, only to later find those opinions expressed near verbatim by newspaper columnists, TV news bobbleheads, and sports radio hate merchants).

THAT is what this is all about...not money, vindication. And, as we all know far too well, if there is anything people in the South excel at it's keeping old grudges alive as if they happened just yesterday...and that is orders of magnitude more true for those in power.

(12-26-2012 02:58 PM)blazr Wrote:  

(12-22-2012 12:03 PM)PEO16 Wrote:  

(12-22-2012 10:50 AM)ICB Wrote:  UAB has more control today over its future than it has ever had. UAB's hire of its football coach and basketball were UAB hires, not BOT. They may not turn out to be great hires, but that happens with every school, ask ECU. We will never be from under UA BOT control, but enough stink has been made recently to give us control of our own destiny. Should McGee be successful, our attendance will improve and the stadium will come. Contrary to what some, even UAB posters, believe... We have some allies on the BOT. We will be a viable football program real soon. It takes time, but we are on our way.

An excellent coach can navigate through an administrative minefield.
But the proof of administrative support is the money -will they put it up?
And for UAB, that means the new stadium.
SMU did it with massive salaries for coaches in their 2 major sports. Tulane put it up with a $20 Mill basketball practice facility and OCS. Both probably put more money into more latent areas (like overall budget increases).

You couldn't be further off the mark if you tried. I'll give BJ a little credit (a very, very little bit) in that he recognizes UAB is not a school that made it into FBS and is just coasting/glad to be here. I don't know how well he understands our situation with UAT's BOT, but it's too complicated to explain from scratch so I'll say this:

Trust me (and other UAB posters)...UAB's bane is not now, nor has it ever been, financial. If I won the Powerball lottery, I still - for now at least - would not be able to give that money to UAB and see an OCS from it, nor would I be successful in navigating Alabama politics to gain approval to build one myself that just happens to be near UAB's campus. I'm not suggesting that the situation will remain that way, but that's what it is right now.

You're telling me that UAB has the money - cash in hand raised from supporters or athletic operations - for a new stadium? Even the plan that the Board rejected wasn't cash in hand.
Per the link, UAB operational expenses were subsidized $14 million in 2010, or 59% of the budget, the highest in C-USA. That is what gives the board the cover to reject things like new stadiums. It's the never-ending circle. Revenues lag because of the attendance which is a result of losing. You can't correct the losing without either a) a miracle coach or b)a big investment into facilities and budgets.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/co...able_n.htm

(12-26-2012 05:43 PM)Big Dub Wrote:  

(12-26-2012 04:06 PM)GoGold Wrote:  Somebody bring back those huge banners of the new BE teams. Those would look pretty awesome now, LOL.

Did Tulane or ECU ever get their Times Square banner?

The BE is most likely waiting to see if two more Time Square banners are in their budget. Have to wait for the TV deal to come through before spending money on advertising.

(12-22-2012 12:02 PM)rook360 Wrote:  

(12-22-2012 10:40 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(12-22-2012 10:27 AM)Blazer88 Wrote:  

(12-22-2012 10:21 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(12-22-2012 10:16 AM)Big Dub Wrote:  At the same time you can expect some of the Big East invitees to do the same. They have little to none of the restrictions UAB has, but choose to remain at roughly the same level regardless.

Tulane though has committed the money to build an OCS. SMU did the same and then spent 2 million to hire a coach and a lot to hire Larry Brown. Memphis isn't doing as much but at least brings a brand name basketball program to the table. When can I ever expect UAB to be able to build an OCS? To be able to hire whoever they want as a coach without the BOT making a stink?

Garrick McGee is his name

You mean the guy who lead you guys to losing 46-9 to Memphis at home?

Like ECU never had a bad year...may I point out 2003 and 2004.
2003 ECU 1-11
2004 ECU 2-9
both under John Thompson...so whats your excuse for that bondsjonson?

That may all be true, but what was their attendance?

That's the stat that really matters.

I still don't see Boise going back. The NBE in the end will likely form an all sports west division. Bottom line even with the new changes in MWC contract, they are very limited up side wise in $$$. The NBE is still the only product on the market, and NBC needs it. Do I expect 100 mil per year?? No. I also don't buy the 30 to 40 Mil. If, and it is a big if, the NBE can bring in 60 to 80 mil per year, With 14 or 16 members and another western school/s, They can limit crossover games and the travel problem is greatly Muted.


80 mil would get all sports schools 5 to 5.7 mil depending on 14 or 16. Even at 60 mil, you get 3.1 to 4.2 mil. Along with what is likely better bowls, and a very good BB league. I just don't see how the MWC wins that fight.

(12-27-2012 08:35 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  I still don't see Boise going back. The NBE in the end will likely form an all sports west division. Bottom line even with the new changes in MWC contract, they are very limited up side wise in $$$. The NBE is still the only product on the market, and NBC needs it. Do I expect 100 mil per year?? No. I also don't buy the 30 to 40 Mil. If, and it is a big if, the NBE can bring in 60 to 80 mil per year, With 14 or 16 members and another western school/s, They can limit crossover games and the travel problem is greatly Muted.


80 mil would get all sports schools 5 to 5.7 mil depending on 14 or 16. Even at 60 mil, you get 3.1 to 4.2 mil. Along with what is likely better bowls, and a very good BB league. I just don't see how the MWC wins that fight.

Every west member has said NO. I don't see that changing. UNLV said No, Fresno has said No, BYU has said No, Col St has said No, Air Force has said No. Im sure feelers have probably been sent to Nevada, New Mexico and others. No one wants to do that.

NBC does not need the BUBE. They still have the only contract they need right now. They are the Notre Dame Channel. What incentitive do the western schools have to join UCF, USF, ECU, Temple, Memphis and Tulane. No way do those 6 schools rake in 60-80 million a year. You realize that Cincy and UConn will not be there. And it will be much easier once that happens to get SMU and Houston to go west.

(12-26-2012 10:45 PM)PEO16 Wrote:  You're telling me that UAB has the money - cash in hand raised from supporters or athletic operations - for a new stadium? Even the plan that the Board rejected wasn't cash in hand.
Per the link, UAB operational expenses were subsidized $14 million in 2010, or 59% of the budget, the highest in C-USA. That is what gives the board the cover to reject things like new stadiums. It's the never-ending circle. Revenues lag because of the attendance which is a result of losing. You can't correct the losing without either a) a miracle coach or b)a big investment into facilities and budgets.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/co...able_n.htm

Hrmmm...not sure a) how old you are, and b) what you do for a living, but here goes: The Powerball scenario was a strawman, built solely for the purposes of knocking it down to prove my larger point which is (and I'm trying not to bore the rest of the conference so I'll be as brief as possible):

- All but just over a dozen FBS athletics programs are subsidized. Alabama, in fact, receives a $5 million subsidy from the University every year. The size of our subsidy is definitely large compared to our conference brethren, but as our "money sport" has suffered so much that is to be expected.

- Here, though, is your problem: Do you remember Sony's Playstation 2? And then the Playstation 3? How about Microsoft's Xbox? There were almost innumerable articles written in the early days of the Console War about Microsoft hemorrhaging money in it's console division (an important distinction). They continued being written as Microsoft continued to lose money on the Xbox and then Xbox 360. Then, suddenly - like it was a strategy or something - Sony fell back. Their developer base was stale and incremental advances in Microsoft's product made it simply better. The critical point is that although the console division was losing massive amounts of cash, Microsoft as a whole just happened to have a whole lot of that on hand. Like, enough to slowly bury Sony's Playstation one bit of dirt at a time.

Sure, UAB gets money from the University...although it's not the $14 million you stated (that number includes the costs of Grants in Aid - Schollys - which are not, by GAAP standards, included in the athletics operating budget). Still, let's act as if it is. UAB, the institution that chooses to fund athletics for some reason (we'll get to that), has net assets as of FY2011 of $2.34 billion. Also, in FY11, the University had Operational Expenses of $2.48 billion against Operational Revenues of $2.25 billion plus Non-Operational Revenues (Federal Grants, Endowment, Capital appreciation, etc.) of $328.8 million...for a Net Increase in Assets of $102.3 million. If you don't have a calculator handy, your $14 million is 0.056% of the University's Operating Expenses.

2) Now, why throw even 0.056% of the budget into a black hole every year? Clearly someone must have asked that question. The obvious, stupidly obvious but still missed by many news people who cover sports (wait, that was kind of redundant), answer is that it has to be seen as some kind of investment. Microsoft didn't see money come back from their Console operations for all those many years...BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T EXPECT TO!. It was a strategic decision based on Microsoft's vision of the future of their industry and their strengths and weaknesses against their main competitors. Likewise, the University INVESTS 0.056% of its budget in an FBS athletics program...spending that, since 1996 when football started play at this level, seems very proportional to a sudden and persistent rise in size of Freshman classes, # of students living on campus, % of out-of-state students enrolled...FBS football, in short, is a marketing tool that raises the profile of the University in this uniquely American industry. Could UAB choose to spend that money elsewhere? Sure. They could do that tomorrow. It's driven by the Vision outlined by our Administration. If they decided to spend that money on teachers and eliminate football, fine...but we went down that path and were forced to make a strategic change when market dynamics changed. The money has been successful in producing the results expected. Yeah, I really don't see UAB re-thinking that line in the budget.

3) Now this will really burn your biscuits. Ready? Name for me one, just one, capital project (um, that means "very expensive") related to athletics facilities that was funded 100% by cash on hand. Any conference, anywhere, anytime...I'll wait.

*wow, pr0n sure has gotten strange over the years*

Alright, so what did you come up with? Nothing? Not one project? But isn't it smarter to pay cash than use credit cards? Here's where you're just going to have to trust me: in this instance? No. Quite the opposite, in fact. So, when UAB is going to build an OCS (and this is plainly stated in the plan you say you saw...it is, I'm just joshing, I know you saw it) they will issue bonds. But if UAB is paying 0.056% of its budget on stupid football, they must be drowning in red ink!! No way they could take on more debt service (i.e., interest on the bonds)! Um, nope. The ratio of Expendable Resources to Debt for the University is a healthy 1.58. In fact, if you remove the hospital the University alone is at an astonishingly healthy 2.35 ratio.

So, today we've learned that Operating Expenses and Revenues do not exist in a vacuum, that organizations many times decide to spend money for strategic purposes with returns evident either in other seemingly unrelated areas or years down the line, and that no University - including UAB - gathers up cash and writes the Stadium Fairy a check, with a little tip on the side, to get to work.

Well, then...the UA BOT must have plainly seen that the financial plan - incorporating all I said above - for the OCS was horribly flawed, doomed to failure, and could not responsibly approve the proposal. First, if they did see that it was in private - an illegal act according to Alabama's "Sunshine Laws" - as the proposal was never discussed publicly. Second, in all my years of doing what it is that I do (very well, I might add), the financial plan for the OCS was one of the most conservatively solid funding and revenue models I have ever seen. The revenue-neutral point as pegged at an average of 16,500 people per game. Since turnstile counts began in 2001, UAB has averaged just under 20,000.

Well the timing must be horrible right now for floating bonds and construction costs sky high!! Ok, you're a farmer, right? I guessed it didn't I? Bond rates are ridunkulously low right now...but who knows how long that will last. Construction costs were even more ridunkulously low - relatively speaking - but have begun trending upward. If you wonder whether the BOT was aware of all this, at the same meeting where they unofficially-officially disapproved the officially submitted OCS proposal (definitely not in any side meeting/conversations that the public had no access to) they approved floating bonds for a $15 million fraternity house to replace an existing, functioning, less than 20-year-old house because they found a better location.

4) We're almost done...hang in there, Farmer Joe! Well, of course the Tuscaloosa campus can float bonds when it wants...it's the flagship university of the system! Um... I mean, look at football! Tuscaloosa probably keeps UAB's light bill paid. Actually...I mentioned back a ways (you can go look, I'll wait) Back? So, I mentioned that UAB's Operational Revenues were $2.24 billion. From the same year's (2011) fiscal report out of Tuscaloosa, UAT reported Operational Revenues of $544.8...wait for it...Million. What? Crazy, right? I know! UAB generates 76.6% of the Operational Revenue for the UA System.

Wowee!!! 76.6%?!? Well, if the OCS was kneecapped, it must be that UAB is using up their ratio of revenues on existing debt service. Let's take a look: again, from FY2011:

UAT:
- Invested in capital assets, net of related debt: $598.4 million
- Total capital assets, net (i.e., minus depreciation): $1.127 billion

UAB:
- Invested in capital assets, net of related debt: $754.0 million
- Total capital assets, net (i.e., minus depreciation): $2.14 billion

So, UAB contributes 76.6% of system revenue, but is only leveraging 55.7% of the debt service. BUT, UAB does have 65.5% of the Total capital assets. Yeah, not so fast...UAB includes the Hospital and it's related properties. I'll let you guess how much capital must be invested in a world-renowned research institution as opposed to, you know, a dorm, parking deck, or $65 million OCS.

Oh, and while you're at it, Tuscaloosa does NOT have a hospital with its related capital investment...what in blue hell could they own that has their debt service nearly equal that of an advanced, international research institution in the middle of a major urban city? I mean, something like that - or many projects like that - would have to take up a helluva lot of space so it would be VERY conspicuous. Hmmm...beats me, bro. I just post here.

The earlier post, PEO16, was not intended to be smack. Nor was it intended to be a smackDOWN. When and if it becomes necessary to deliver one, or both, of those I will notify you with enough forewarning to relocate your wife and kids to save them the emotional trauma..."No women, no kids. That's the rules."

What it was, in sum, was a systematic, point-by-point flogging, dissection, disembowelment, and impalement on prominent spikes - as reminders to others, nothing personal - of your seemingly intended to be, um, I guess...embarrassing? or funny? it wasn't really structured enough to serve as a counterpoint...or a point, for that matter, post.

Some advice: the Internet is a powerful tool. It can give you lots of numbers...many of them with that important money-symbol thing in front of them. But, like any powerful tool, it can be used for good...or for evil. Or, in your case, for a pathetic info scrape that you can post on a message board - making sure to include all the money-symbol thingies - to prove your erudite, labor-intensive data mining skills (you can even calculate some percentages...they look smart). But here, on the internet, if you spent 5 minutes grabbing some numbers from some link you have bookmarked for sports-related pissing contests such as this, you damn well better believe that someone out there has spent more time...which means they have more numbers...and they generally know a lot more than you...and they care about things they have spent a lot of time on and so will not show much mercy to a chump throwing numbers at the board like a monkey in a tree (only less numbers in that case...much less, actually).

I have, however, shown you mercy. I could have taken your post and publicly flagellated you so badly that scholars would some day discover that they misread the Mayan apocalypse as being the end of the world, when it actually foretold the epic, earth-shaking annihilation of a poor, common message board poster. But, with the new year approaching, let us join in cooperation and not ridicule:

You will never, ever, ever (EVAR!!!) attempt to denigrate UAB - actually, any program...yeah, that's smarter - with such pathetic and squishy "facts" and "numbers". Just say we don't have any fans and go about your day.

In exchange, I will leave you be for now. My scalpel hand is kind of crampy anyway.

If you DO bring that **** on any of these boards to mock UAB, I can't promise you will survive...because you won't...but, please, think of your family. I will hit you so hard and so throughly that your kids' kids' kids' kids' kids will someday - in the far future - report for neural mapping (to download their brains to indestructible bodies, duh) to find the letters "U-A-B" still faintly burned on their cerebral cortex...and "FART" branded on their brain stem, because that's just funny.

Just wanted to bump this with the news of Boise today......

(12-21-2012 09:47 PM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  Hey Memphis... Banowsky on line 1.

Man, that's cold. Memphis will have to convince BB season ticket holders that their future schedules will be worth the price of required seat license donation and tickets. A buddy of mine who gives them $5,000 annually and sits in the lower bowl of FedExForum is looking at Grizzlies tickets which are actually cheaper in total cost per seat.

(12-26-2012 03:02 PM)OwlFamily Wrote:  

(12-26-2012 02:58 PM)blazr Wrote:  Trust me (and other UAB posters)...UAB's bane is not now, nor has it ever been, financial. If I won the Powerball lottery, I still - for now at least - would not be able to give that money to UAB and see an OCS from it, nor would I be successful in navigating Alabama politics to gain approval to build one myself that just happens to be near UAB's campus. I'm not suggesting that the situation will remain that way, but that's what it is right now.

I just dont understand why 'Bama board is SO against UAB having an OCS. Why did the board even allow UAB to have sports at all if they wanted to hold them back like this.

Thank goodness Florida doesnt have this issue. I dont think I could take it.

Marshall knows all about this being in a tiny state with only MU & WVU being the only 2 schools in the state. WVU goes out of it way to block litteraly ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that Marshall does from adding Pharmacy School or Law School to funding to the color of a bridge in Charleston. (Its blue) Their fans are psycho and can't deal with anything Marshall and claim we are irrelevant yet talk about Marshall morning noon and night.