(11-06-2014 09:58 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 09:45 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  You have to wonder, if UAB does drop football if they lead the charge to others in the G5 to do so also...or go FCS. Nobody wants to be the first, but once its done, then I'm sure others will strongly consider it and go FCS or drop it completely.

I'm sure there would be a few others- but also- from what I've seen on this board the last few years- UAB is also kind of a strange situation.

UAB has the worst situation in D1. The fact that they've accomplished anything notable in any sports with the UA BoT trying their best to keep them down is astonishing.

(11-06-2014 09:58 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 09:46 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 09:43 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 09:30 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 09:09 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I can't say I'm surprised. It's a waste of resources anyways.

UAB needs to be refocused on their original mission. There isn't enough money to support these types of things that merely drain the resources of the whole system.

It sucks for the fans though. But, such is the life of an extension school.

The BOT has been slowly moving much of the teaching in the medical school, which is the UA School of Medicine, back to Tuscaloosa. Without that UAB is largely without purpose.

That's pretty ridiculous. As had been said above, the state's largest city without a university?

But they don't necessarily need to play FBS football.

This

If it can't support itself the Board must shut it down. After all, the Board is bound to look out for the interests of UA.

So by that logic, all women's sports and any men's sports other than football and basketball should just shut down, too right? They're not self-supporting.

Try to keep it within the context of the UAB situation.

As far as the Board is concerned UAB isn't a 'real boy.' You can make an argument that sports contribute to the education experience, hence all manner of small sports, but football is hugely expensive and offers no return.

Therefore, it is a drain on resources and the Board is not there to weigh the interests of the different people but to take action on behalf of UA and the system at large.

(11-06-2014 10:04 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 09:58 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 09:46 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 09:43 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 09:30 AM)bullet Wrote:  That's pretty ridiculous. As had been said above, the state's largest city without a university?

But they don't necessarily need to play FBS football.

This

If it can't support itself the Board must shut it down. After all, the Board is bound to look out for the interests of UA.

So by that logic, all women's sports and any men's sports other than football and basketball should just shut down, too right? They're not self-supporting.

Try to keep it within the context of the UAB situation.

As far as the Board is concerned UAB isn't a 'real boy.' You can make an argument that sports contribute to the education experience, hence all manner of small sports, but football is hugely expensive and offers no return.

Therefore, it is a drain on resources and the Board is not there to weigh the interests of the different people but to take action on behalf of UA and the system at large.

If every school that lost money on football dropped it, D1 college football would have fewer teams than the NFL.

(11-06-2014 10:01 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 09:58 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 09:45 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  You have to wonder, if UAB does drop football if they lead the charge to others in the G5 to do so also...or go FCS. Nobody wants to be the first, but once its done, then I'm sure others will strongly consider it and go FCS or drop it completely.

I'm sure there would be a few others- but also- from what I've seen on this board the last few years- UAB is also kind of a strange situation.

UAB has the worst situation in D1. The fact that they've accomplished anything notable in any sports with the UA BoT trying their best to keep them down is astonishing.

Understandable, but still regardless of how it came about, they'll still be the first which I think will lead to few others as they won't be consider the first to drop football or down to the FCS level.

(11-06-2014 10:01 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 09:58 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 09:45 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  You have to wonder, if UAB does drop football if they lead the charge to others in the G5 to do so also...or go FCS. Nobody wants to be the first, but once its done, then I'm sure others will strongly consider it and go FCS or drop it completely.

I'm sure there would be a few others- but also- from what I've seen on this board the last few years- UAB is also kind of a strange situation.

UAB has the worst situation in D1. The fact that they've accomplished anything notable in any sports with the UA BoT trying their best to keep them down is astonishing.

That's a gross mischaracterization. The Board exists to see to UA's interest. It wouldn't be doing its job if it didn't take a look at programs that were merely costing money.

It has nothing to do with keeping UAB down. The Board has done everything possible to expand UAB's position within the system and the confines of their duty. You can never lose sight of the fact that UAB is an extension. As such, it never can take center stage in the Board's eyes. If it has a program that is bleeding cash that's money out of the system'so pocket, and UAB's.

UAB serves a purpose, a valuable purpose, but there are limitations. There always have been and there all ways will be. If people didn't like it they should have picked a different school.

(11-06-2014 09:22 AM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  You couldn't logistically get rid of ALL undergrad programs and still run a medical school, I don't think. Just that the leadership would strongly favor the medical side of campus.

Why not? Southern Illinois' med school is located in Springfield, entirely separate from both the Carbondale and Edwardsville campuses. First year students reside at, and take courses at, the Carbondale campus before moving to Springfield. UAB's status in the Alabama higher education hierarchy is pretty similar to that of SIU. It's also very comparable to that of East Carolina, though ECU's medical school is part of their Greenville campus.

A nursing school would be more problematic, since that is an undergraduate degree.

(11-06-2014 10:08 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 10:04 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 09:58 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 09:46 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 09:43 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  But they don't necessarily need to play FBS football.

This

If it can't support itself the Board must shut it down. After all, the Board is bound to look out for the interests of UA.

So by that logic, all women's sports and any men's sports other than football and basketball should just shut down, too right? They're not self-supporting.

Try to keep it within the context of the UAB situation.

As far as the Board is concerned UAB isn't a 'real boy.' You can make an argument that sports contribute to the education experience, hence all manner of small sports, but football is hugely expensive and offers no return.

Therefore, it is a drain on resources and the Board is not there to weigh the interests of the different people but to take action on behalf of UA and the system at large.

If every school that lost money on football dropped it, D1 college football would have fewer teams than the NFL.

So what?

In this context it's money better spent elsewhere.

(11-06-2014 09:04 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Looking at FBS Schedule site, UAB has not games scheduled past 2016. Guess the question will be does CUSA stay at 13 or look to replace. If they raid, seems like GSo, USA, GST and Troy would be the best candidates. I think GA Southern would be the best football choice but Georgia State might be the best market choice.

UAB leaving would leave a big hole in CUSA geographically.

Its hard to say who they could turn to filling it. There are 2 more Alabama G5 schools and 2 Georgia schools. There is also the idea of going after Ark State or ULL to balance out the West division better. Its possible CUSA goes to 16 in response to keep everyone happy with the choices.

Another thought is if CUSA added South Alabama would UAB be a slam dunk to return to the Sun Belt? UAB would remain a G5 in the SBC a conference with a decent national name. Its a better deal than the OVC or ASun. CUSA and SBC commissioners could work out a deal to trade the two schools.

So I guess if you think UAB will be toast athletically without CUSA you are forgetting the SBC is out there as a solid fall back option.

(11-06-2014 10:04 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 09:58 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 09:46 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 09:43 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 09:30 AM)bullet Wrote:  That's pretty ridiculous. As had been said above, the state's largest city without a university?

But they don't necessarily need to play FBS football.

This

If it can't support itself the Board must shut it down. After all, the Board is bound to look out for the interests of UA.

So by that logic, all women's sports and any men's sports other than football and basketball should just shut down, too right? They're not self-supporting.

Try to keep it within the context of the UAB situation.

As far as the Board is concerned UAB isn't a 'real boy.' You can make an argument that sports contribute to the education experience, hence all manner of small sports, but football is hugely expensive and offers no return.

Therefore, it is a drain on resources and the Board is not there to weigh the interests of the different people but to take action on behalf of UA and the system at large.

you do realize only 23 or so schools make money on football?

Football is a symptom. The issues at UAB have nothing to do with football per se.

(11-06-2014 10:26 AM)DragonLair Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 10:04 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 09:58 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 09:46 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 09:43 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  But they don't necessarily need to play FBS football.

This

If it can't support itself the Board must shut it down. After all, the Board is bound to look out for the interests of UA.

So by that logic, all women's sports and any men's sports other than football and basketball should just shut down, too right? They're not self-supporting.

Try to keep it within the context of the UAB situation.

As far as the Board is concerned UAB isn't a 'real boy.' You can make an argument that sports contribute to the education experience, hence all manner of small sports, but football is hugely expensive and offers no return.

Therefore, it is a drain on resources and the Board is not there to weigh the interests of the different people but to take action on behalf of UA and the system at large.

you do realize only 23 or so schools make money on football?

You do realize that is irrelevant? Other schools can do as they wish. We are talking about the UA system.

The UA system is the one footing the bill. Why should it spend money on UAB football?

(11-06-2014 10:09 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 10:01 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 09:58 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 09:45 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  You have to wonder, if UAB does drop football if they lead the charge to others in the G5 to do so also...or go FCS. Nobody wants to be the first, but once its done, then I'm sure others will strongly consider it and go FCS or drop it completely.

I'm sure there would be a few others- but also- from what I've seen on this board the last few years- UAB is also kind of a strange situation.

UAB has the worst situation in D1. The fact that they've accomplished anything notable in any sports with the UA BoT trying their best to keep them down is astonishing.

That's a gross mischaracterization. The Board exists to see to UA's interest. It wouldn't be doing its job if it didn't take a look at programs that were merely costing money.

It has nothing to do with keeping UAB down. The Board has done everything possible to expand UAB's position within the system and the confines of their duty. You can never lose sight of the fact that UAB is an extension. As such, it never can take center stage in the Board's eyes. If it has a program that is bleeding cash that's money out of the system'so pocket, and UAB's.

UAB serves a purpose, a valuable purpose, but there are limitations. There always have been and there all ways will be. If people didn't like it they should have picked a different school.

In the spin room you make very logical argument but you are grossly ignorant in this subject.

UAB and UAH are separate Universities that are governed by the same board of trustees. The BOT is suppose to value each campus equally. When UAB make a majority of the money that goes into the UA system and gets very little in return something seems off.

Why does UAT deserve the right to a football team but UAB doesn't. Are its student athletes not as worthy as UAT student athletes.

If we follow your logic that a football program must support itself then only 23 teams would be left in the country.

Athletics do more than attempt to bring money into the system. They bring in quality students who want that experience of having a team to root for at there college. Athletics extend the name of your university much more than academics can. Because we live in a society that has determined athletics are important and that will always be a factor when a student is choosing a college.

It is very shortsighted by the BOT to shut down the football program.

No only does it bring in students to your school it also fosters loyalty to a program and with loyalty come donations which can help offset those loses.

(11-06-2014 10:10 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 10:08 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 10:04 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 09:58 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 09:46 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  This

If it can't support itself the Board must shut it down. After all, the Board is bound to look out for the interests of UA.

So by that logic, all women's sports and any men's sports other than football and basketball should just shut down, too right? They're not self-supporting.

Try to keep it within the context of the UAB situation.

As far as the Board is concerned UAB isn't a 'real boy.' You can make an argument that sports contribute to the education experience, hence all manner of small sports, but football is hugely expensive and offers no return.

Therefore, it is a drain on resources and the Board is not there to weigh the interests of the different people but to take action on behalf of UA and the system at large.

If every school that lost money on football dropped it, D1 college football would have fewer teams than the NFL.

So what?

In this context it's money better spent elsewhere.

Exactly how much taxpayer dollars are spent on UAB Football?

How much tuition money (not athletics fees)?

Is UAB diverting money meant for education to football?

If the answer to these questions is negligible, than the Board of Trustees for UA (who really is the University at Tuscaloosa's BoT) should STFU and quit messing in other people's business. They look more and more like a pack of rich spoiled brats and back door slimy dealers who will stop at nothing to hurt another school just for spite. They're making the whole state of Alabama look bad with this constant attack on UAB Athletics when no one can deny they are themselves one of the the poster children for all that's wrong in college athletics today. Pure Greed and Spite, plain and simple!

(11-06-2014 10:35 AM)DragonLair Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 10:09 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 10:01 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 09:58 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 09:45 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  You have to wonder, if UAB does drop football if they lead the charge to others in the G5 to do so also...or go FCS. Nobody wants to be the first, but once its done, then I'm sure others will strongly consider it and go FCS or drop it completely.

I'm sure there would be a few others- but also- from what I've seen on this board the last few years- UAB is also kind of a strange situation.

UAB has the worst situation in D1. The fact that they've accomplished anything notable in any sports with the UA BoT trying their best to keep them down is astonishing.

That's a gross mischaracterization. The Board exists to see to UA's interest. It wouldn't be doing its job if it didn't take a look at programs that were merely costing money.

It has nothing to do with keeping UAB down. The Board has done everything possible to expand UAB's position within the system and the confines of their duty. You can never lose sight of the fact that UAB is an extension. As such, it never can take center stage in the Board's eyes. If it has a program that is bleeding cash that's money out of the system'so pocket, and UAB's.

UAB serves a purpose, a valuable purpose, but there are limitations. There always have been and there all ways will be. If people didn't like it they should have picked a different school.

In the spin room you make very logical argument but you are grossly ignorant in this subject.

UAB and UAH are separate Universities that are governed by the same board of trustees. The BOT is suppose to value each campus equally. When UAB make a majority of the money that goes into the UA system and gets very little in return something seems off.

Why does UAT deserve the right to a football team but UAB doesn't. Are its student athletes not as worthy as UAT student athletes.

If we follow your logic that a football program must support itself then only 23 teams would be left in the country.

Athletics do more than attempt to bring money into the system. They bring in quality students who want that experience of having a team to root for at there college. Athletics extend the name of your university much more than academics can. Because we live in a society that has determined athletics are important and that will always be a factor when a student is choosing a college.

It is very shortsighted by the BOT to shut down the football program.

No only does it bring in students to your school it also fosters loyalty to a program and with loyalty come donations which can help offset those loses.

I'm sorry but you are wrong.

The Board is bound by a Constitutional duty to UA. They are seperate Universities based on an expansive reading of the constitutional mandate. They are not equals and the Board cannot, and does not, consider them equals. It is constitutionally prohibited from doing so.

(11-06-2014 10:36 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 10:10 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 10:08 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 10:04 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 09:58 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  So by that logic, all women's sports and any men's sports other than football and basketball should just shut down, too right? They're not self-supporting.

Try to keep it within the context of the UAB situation.

As far as the Board is concerned UAB isn't a 'real boy.' You can make an argument that sports contribute to the education experience, hence all manner of small sports, but football is hugely expensive and offers no return.

Therefore, it is a drain on resources and the Board is not there to weigh the interests of the different people but to take action on behalf of UA and the system at large.

If every school that lost money on football dropped it, D1 college football would have fewer teams than the NFL.

So what?

In this context it's money better spent elsewhere.

Exactly how much taxpayer dollars are spent on UAB Football?

How much tuition money (not athletics fees)?

Is UAB diverting money meant for education to football?

If the answer to these questions is negligible, than the Board of Trustees for UA (who's really is the University at Tuscaloosa BoT) should STFU and quit messing in other people's business. They look more and more like a pack of rich spoiled brats and back door slimy dealers who will stop at nothing to hurt another school just for spite. They're making the whole state of Alabama look bad with this constant attack on UAB Athletics when no one can deny they are themselves are one of the the poster children for all that's wrong in college athletics today.

UAB's business is the Board's business. The money is better spent elsewhere.

(11-06-2014 08:55 AM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  The immediate threat is to football but the boosters seem to be worried about the entire undergraduate side of campus. The new President hired by the BOT is from the medical school. There is still a school of thought that UAB would be better off just focusing on the medical school and de-emphasizing all undergrad activities.

There are people at Ohio State who would gladly do this to the University of Cincinnati if they could.

Uab is the Ua bot business.

(11-06-2014 10:40 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 10:36 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 10:10 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 10:08 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 10:04 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Try to keep it within the context of the UAB situation.

As far as the Board is concerned UAB isn't a 'real boy.' You can make an argument that sports contribute to the education experience, hence all manner of small sports, but football is hugely expensive and offers no return.

Therefore, it is a drain on resources and the Board is not there to weigh the interests of the different people but to take action on behalf of UA and the system at large.

If every school that lost money on football dropped it, D1 college football would have fewer teams than the NFL.

So what?

In this context it's money better spent elsewhere.

Exactly how much taxpayer dollars are spent on UAB Football?

How much tuition money (not athletics fees)?

Is UAB diverting money meant for education to football?

If the answer to these questions is negligible, than the Board of Trustees for UA (who's really is the University at Tuscaloosa BoT) should STFU and quit messing in other people's business. They look more and more like a pack of rich spoiled brats and back door slimy dealers who will stop at nothing to hurt another school just for spite. They're making the whole state of Alabama look bad with this constant attack on UAB Athletics when no one can deny they are themselves are one of the the poster children for all that's wrong in college athletics today.

UAB's business is the Board's business. The money is better spent elsewhere.

So is the money spent on Bama Football. Lead by example, shut that down first.

Also, you didn't answer any of my questions.

If I'm not mistaken, the Alabama BoT has also made life difficult for the UAH hockey team as well.

I'm far from familiar with the whole situation, but it seems like the objective here is to cut systemwide expenses without harming the Tuscaloosa campus at all. God forbid they stop pouring money into Crimson Tide athletics (116 million in overall athletic expenses for Bama vs. 27 million for UAB, Saban's salary of 7.3 million vs. Clark's of 600k). I know that one athletic program makes a lot of money and the other bleeds it, but if they want to cut expenses overall they could probably spread it around the system instead of one huge cut in addition to shrinking UAB's undergrad presence.

Bamas football team is one of the few that profits every year.