I get that the UA BOT has kept UAB under it's thumb for awhile and them trying to shut down the program falls in line with convention; it makes sense. But, perhaps there is something more "sinister" at play. Consider, what real point does this have? UAB doesn't really hurt UA, why do this now? Why 2016?

It makes me wonder if the UA BOT doesn't know something the rest of us don't about the future of division 1 football and the Go5. Is something going to happen to make D1 football extremely difficult to sustain for the average school?

Consider Clemson is considering instituting an athletic fee for students "against an expected rise in the costs to remain competitive in intercollegiate sports" (LINK)

It could all just be normal UA saber-rattling against UAB, but I'd be wary of something else going on.

Little Bear isn't that smart or forward thinking,

He is at the Hulk Crush level

I don't know that UAB will drop football but I think you are going to see some shake ups.

Nationally enrollment is expected to be flat or decline, so many schools relying on student fees for their athletic program are going to see fee income be flat or decline.

The real worry is student loans. There is a lot of belief that the default rate on student loans nationally may eventually crash the system and if so loans will be more difficult to obtain and for lower amounts, making students and their parents more price sensitive to things like fees.

We've had these cycles before. There were schools that shut down or dropped football to save money in the 50's when they ran out of GI Bill students. The same happened in the 70's when a weak economy met the end of the college age baby boomers.

California had a rash of drops when their property tax reform law slashed government revenues.

One thing that happened in the 70's that is less likely to happen to day is state takeovers. Arkansas took over Little Rock University and put it in the UA System. Louisville was taken over by the state and made an independent state school. While recently Memphis took over Lambuth the mood in state government today is different. In the 70's legislatures were still dominanted by WWII/Depression era people who were huge on state supported education.

Today higher ed is almost always seen as an easy cut to make that won't cost you votes and probably gain you votes for fiscal responsibility. Schools that get in trouble aren't as likely to get saved by the state.

In addition to flat or declining student fees, the drops in state higher ed funding (and drops in tuition and room/board revenue) are going to mean less money in auxillary accounts that can be transferred to support athletics.

Now most FBS are likely keep their enrollment intact by gaining market share from other similar but smaller state schools so it may not have a big impact on FBS but I won't be surprised if some schools don't drop football or move FCS and expect some DI schools to cut back athletics and go DII or DIII.

(11-13-2014 11:33 AM)Tiguar Wrote:  I get that the UA BOT has kept UAB under it's thumb for awhile and them trying to shut down the program falls in line with convention; it makes sense. But, perhaps there is something more "sinister" at play. Consider, what real point does this have? UAB doesn't really hurt UA, why do this now? Why 2016?

It makes me wonder if the UA BOT doesn't know something the rest of us don't about the future of division 1 football and the Go5. Is something going to happen to make D1 football extremely difficult to sustain for the average school?

Consider Clemson is considering instituting an athletic fee for students "against an expected rise in the costs to remain competitive in intercollegiate sports" (LINK)

It could all just be normal UA saber-rattling against UAB, but I'd be wary of something else going on.

You just may be on to something, Tig. I have thought that there was more to UAB being forced to curtail their football program than meets the eye.

As far as the comment made by another poster concerning "Little Bear", well, everyone has a right to an opinion, I guess.

All G5 should support keeping UAB football.IF ua succeeds it will be easier for similar actions in any G5 conference.

(11-13-2014 12:07 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The real worry is student loans. There is a lot of belief that the default rate on student loans nationally may eventually crash the system and if so loans will be more difficult to obtain and for lower amounts, making students and their parents more price sensitive to things like fees.

Despite our Athletic fees, this would be a bonanza for GSU. We consistently rank near the top of "best value" schools.

(11-13-2014 12:22 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  All G5 should support keeping UAB football.IF ua succeeds it will be easier for similar actions in any G5 conference.

I don't follow your logic here. UAB doesn't have their own BoT, they literally do not control their own destiny.

UAB will somehow survive this scare in spite of the implications that the UABOT will force them to.

My understanding is that the study everyone is worried about was requested by the UAB president.

(11-13-2014 02:06 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  My understanding is that the study everyone is worried about was requested by the UAB president.

Yes, he was made an offer he couldn't refuse.

(11-13-2014 02:10 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(11-13-2014 02:06 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  My understanding is that the study everyone is worried about was requested by the UAB president.

Yes, he was made an offer he couldn't refuse.

Normally you would expect a study requested by the president to come back with sage advice like "the stadium you want to build is essential to a viable athletic program."

(11-13-2014 02:30 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(11-13-2014 02:10 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(11-13-2014 02:06 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  My understanding is that the study everyone is worried about was requested by the UAB president.

Yes, he was made an offer he couldn't refuse.

Normally you would expect a study requested by the president to come back with sage advice like "the stadium you want to build is essential to a viable athletic program."

Indeed. Or it could be something like "shut that sucker down or you're going to be in a world of hurt".

Seriously, I have no clue what's going on there other than what I've read over the last year or so. And it seems uab has few friends on the bot. Personally, I think the decision has been made to not only shut down uab athletics but to change the function of the institution completely.

(11-13-2014 11:33 AM)Tiguar Wrote:  Consider Clemson is considering instituting an athletic fee for students "against an expected rise in the costs to remain competitive in intercollegiate sports" (LINK)

Uh... wait. So because student athletes are going to be allowed to get stipends, they are going to piggy back that cost on non-student athletes? Along with the financial crisis ALL students are facing in loans and decreased enrollments? LOL.

(11-13-2014 02:52 PM)TrueBlueAlum Wrote:  

(11-13-2014 11:33 AM)Tiguar Wrote:  Consider Clemson is considering instituting an athletic fee for students "against an expected rise in the costs to remain competitive in intercollegiate sports" (LINK)

Uh... wait. So because student athletes are going to be allowed to get stipends, they are going to piggy back that cost on non-student athletes? Along with the financial crisis ALL students are facing in loans and decreased enrollments? LOL.

That is EXACTLY what is going to happen. The smaller G5 schools (most of them) will not be able to absorb the costs of the stipends because Title IX will require stipends to be given to ALL athletes...male and female...and therefore will not be able to compete any longer with the P5.

The schism is only going to get bigger...

(11-13-2014 12:07 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I don't know that UAB will drop football but I think you are going to see some shake ups.

Nationally enrollment is expected to be flat or decline, so many schools relying on student fees for their athletic program are going to see fee income be flat or decline.

The real worry is student loans. There is a lot of belief that the default rate on student loans nationally may eventually crash the system and if so loans will be more difficult to obtain and for lower amounts, making students and their parents more price sensitive to things like fees.

We've had these cycles before. There were schools that shut down or dropped football to save money in the 50's when they ran out of GI Bill students. The same happened in the 70's when a weak economy met the end of the college age baby boomers.

California had a rash of drops when their property tax reform law slashed government revenues.

One thing that happened in the 70's that is less likely to happen to day is state takeovers. Arkansas took over Little Rock University and put it in the UA System. Louisville was taken over by the state and made an independent state school. While recently Memphis took over Lambuth the mood in state government today is different. In the 70's legislatures were still dominanted by WWII/Depression era people who were huge on state supported education.

Today higher ed is almost always seen as an easy cut to make that won't cost you votes and probably gain you votes for fiscal responsibility. Schools that get in trouble aren't as likely to get saved by the state.

In addition to flat or declining student fees, the drops in state higher ed funding (and drops in tuition and room/board revenue) are going to mean less money in auxillary accounts that can be transferred to support athletics.

Now most FBS are likely keep their enrollment intact by gaining market share from other similar but smaller state schools so it may not have a big impact on FBS but I won't be surprised if some schools don't drop football or move FCS and expect some DI schools to cut back athletics and go DII or DIII.

Very informative post, thanks for the read.

(11-13-2014 12:07 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I don't know that UAB will drop football but I think you are going to see some shake ups.

Nationally enrollment is expected to be flat or decline, so many schools relying on student fees for their athletic program are going to see fee income be flat or decline.

The real worry is student loans. There is a lot of belief that the default rate on student loans nationally may eventually crash the system and if so loans will be more difficult to obtain and for lower amounts, making students and their parents more price sensitive to things like fees.

We've had these cycles before. There were schools that shut down or dropped football to save money in the 50's when they ran out of GI Bill students. The same happened in the 70's when a weak economy met the end of the college age baby boomers.

California had a rash of drops when their property tax reform law slashed government revenues.

One thing that happened in the 70's that is less likely to happen to day is state takeovers. Arkansas took over Little Rock University and put it in the UA System. Louisville was taken over by the state and made an independent state school. While recently Memphis took over Lambuth the mood in state government today is different. In the 70's legislatures were still dominanted by WWII/Depression era people who were huge on state supported education.

Today higher ed is almost always seen as an easy cut to make that won't cost you votes and probably gain you votes for fiscal responsibility. Schools that get in trouble aren't as likely to get saved by the state.

In addition to flat or declining student fees, the drops in state higher ed funding (and drops in tuition and room/board revenue) are going to mean less money in auxillary accounts that can be transferred to support athletics.

Now most FBS are likely keep their enrollment intact by gaining market share from other similar but smaller state schools so it may not have a big impact on FBS but I won't be surprised if some schools don't drop football or move FCS and expect some DI schools to cut back athletics and go DII or DIII.

That could happen, but the revenue from the playoff will continue to grow and offset student losses. I could see a backlash against schools that rely heavily on fees, yet nobody attends the games.

(11-13-2014 02:06 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  My understanding is that the study everyone is worried about was requested by the UAB president.

That was the original read. Since then it has been stated that the BOT asked for these studies to be run for every department at UAB, including athletics.

This issue goes beyond football even though that is where the focus is on. When you a term like "Bama is threaten by UAB Football" it's not that Bama is literally scared to play UAB in football or even that UAB would poise a threat to recruiting. The reason the University of Alabama would fear UAB Football is that football is the sport that can ignite a passion for the student body to rally behind. That hasn't happen yet because for the most part, football has been pretty sorry. Part of the reason football has been sorry is because of the lack of resources that has been put behind the program. Most that has been purposedly done by the Bama BOT and some due to the lack of vision by the UAB Athletic Dept.

The bigger picture is Bama wants to increase enrollment to eventually 50,000 students. Part of the way to get to that is to eliminate a majority of the undergraduate program and move it to Tuscaloosa strictly making UAB an extension school for medicine; the purpose of the extension in the first place back in the last 60's.

There is so much to this than just UAB Football but the fact remains the reason why UAB Football exist is because the BOT allowed it to exist. If you want something to grow you have to invest in it. And it's more to it than just saying put butts in the seats and win.

(11-13-2014 04:03 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(11-13-2014 12:07 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I don't know that UAB will drop football but I think you are going to see some shake ups.

Nationally enrollment is expected to be flat or decline, so many schools relying on student fees for their athletic program are going to see fee income be flat or decline.

The real worry is student loans. There is a lot of belief that the default rate on student loans nationally may eventually crash the system and if so loans will be more difficult to obtain and for lower amounts, making students and their parents more price sensitive to things like fees.

We've had these cycles before. There were schools that shut down or dropped football to save money in the 50's when they ran out of GI Bill students. The same happened in the 70's when a weak economy met the end of the college age baby boomers.

California had a rash of drops when their property tax reform law slashed government revenues.

One thing that happened in the 70's that is less likely to happen to day is state takeovers. Arkansas took over Little Rock University and put it in the UA System. Louisville was taken over by the state and made an independent state school. While recently Memphis took over Lambuth the mood in state government today is different. In the 70's legislatures were still dominanted by WWII/Depression era people who were huge on state supported education.

Today higher ed is almost always seen as an easy cut to make that won't cost you votes and probably gain you votes for fiscal responsibility. Schools that get in trouble aren't as likely to get saved by the state.

In addition to flat or declining student fees, the drops in state higher ed funding (and drops in tuition and room/board revenue) are going to mean less money in auxillary accounts that can be transferred to support athletics.

Now most FBS are likely keep their enrollment intact by gaining market share from other similar but smaller state schools so it may not have a big impact on FBS but I won't be surprised if some schools don't drop football or move FCS and expect some DI schools to cut back athletics and go DII or DIII.

That could happen, but the revenue from the playoff will continue to grow and offset student losses. I could see a backlash against schools that rely heavily on fees, yet nobody attends the games.

Playoff revenue will be great for FBS schools. We can basically take that money, pay stipend and have a few dollars left over. But only 128 of 351 Division I schools get that money.

Right now TXST doesn't really have to worry about Sam Houston in football recruiting but in theory could have some recruiting battles in other sports where a good hoops player who could contribute doesn't see much difference in Southland vs. Sun Belt. But if TXST is offering a stipend subsidized by the playoff SHSU is going to lose that recruiting battle and they have no pot of gold to dip into to match it. They either have to raise fees, transfer more auxillary income, lump it and do without, or move to a level more consistent with how competitive they are likely to be.

That's a big economic strain.

If TXST enrollment gains and those gains are at the expense of SHSU then the economic squeeze is even greater.

The most interesting rumor I have read mentioned UAB cutting all undergrad and focusing on the Med School so that the undergrad kids would go to UA-Tuscaloosa (which has over expanded and needs enrollment to pay for it all). Eliminating UAB athletics would just by a bonus for the UA-BOT.