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

http://www.scribd.com/doc/248979169/Carr...-Athletics

Adding track and cross country for men's team.

That is how we are staying D-1

Holy cow this is so thin.
There is ZERO consideration for brand recognition, alumni ties, student applications, revenue generation from future successes with investment, etc...

Basically, it is designed to fail football. I write more in-depth articles in my spare time.

(12-02-2014 06:44 PM)GreenMississippi Wrote:  Holy cow this is so thin.
There is ZERO consideration for brand recognition, alumni ties, student applications, revenue generation from future successes with investment, etc...

Basically, it is designed to fail football. I write more in-depth articles in my spare time.

They did foresee donations going down, but not as much as they will likely.

This is designed to break up UAB Sports.

So how much did we pay for this spoon fed report. This is a horrible study with no real basis and data driven findings. It was written to provide data to eliminate football. This is ridiculous.

Wow that was pretty thin. How much did UAB pay them?



#hatchetjob

(12-02-2014 06:44 PM)GreenMississippi Wrote:  Holy cow this is so thin.
There is ZERO consideration for brand recognition, alumni ties, student applications, revenue generation from future successes with investment, etc...

Basically, it is designed to fail football. I write more in-depth articles in my spare time.

100% agree.

They did say they were trying to accelerate the report...

Wonder if Carr would stand behind this as comprehensive and legitimate.

"While UAB has improved its Intercollegiate Athletics facilities over the last several years, they have not kept pace with NCAA Division I peers; deficiencies in practice and competition facilities are most notable. Contemporary NCAA Division I facilities are essential to accommodating student-athlete well-being, Title IX compliance, year-round training, recruiting appeal, modern fan amenities and revenue generation. UAB Athletics’ challenges are further complicated by Blazer teams' sharing on-campus facilities with Campus Recreation, Intramurals, academic units and the marching band. Additionally, the separation of on and off-campus practice, competition, locker rooms, offices and student-athlete support units inhibits the effectiveness of all UAB sports."

Gee. And I wonder why the facilities are in the shape they're in now!? Wow. This isn't a report. It's a hit job.

When was this commissioned? I bet we could write a report with more evidence to support Football in a night. It's so biased against that this firm is not independent.

It's thin because it's an excuse. Never meant to be comprehensive. I wouldn't be surprised if it was initiated after the plan was outed.

We have clients with revenues in the hundreds of millions. If I was charged with making a recommendation that would significantly impact their bottom line, and I turned something like this report in... I'd be laughed out of the room. Talk about fluff!

Wonder if the UAB Football Foundation could commission a study to compete with the conclusions of this "study." It's especially concerning that Watts and co. essentially said we don't trust the UAB Football Foundation to deliver on their promise of more money and therefore we will stick with the ~$2 million/year a philanthropic giving. Total disregard by the leadership.

The outcome of the study was never in question, they just needed the data to support it and this is all they could come up with.

I'm digging through it and already see so many holes, particularly they assume declining revenues over the next two years from ticket sales. Given the high correlation between on field success and sales this is a faulty assumption.

Further, this report comes across as studying the effects of keeping football or not having it. It doesn't come across as comprehensive where multiple scenarios are looked at, dropping football being one of them. The aim of this report was to clearly study football, not athletics.

It also doesn't account for facilities being paid for by donors. It also doesn't consider the collateral effects / damage as it relates to football (e.g. - enrollment, branding, general donations).

However, the report does not recommend either way to keep or drop football.

Kyle Whitmire: Reading Carr report, it's clear the question put to them was not 'should we' but 'how do we' cut football.

Almost the entire increase in projected expenses is in "Scholarship Costs"

This is a fake inter-departmental transfer - not a true COST. Although I realize there are real costs included there, the budgeted number is based on comparable PRICE of tuition, fees, books and board. The actual COSTS would be significantly less than what is accounted for.

I 100% agree that the exclusion of any analysis regarding lost revenue from the impact of implicit marketing impacts is not only disappointing, but a glaring error of analysis.

Holy crap! they expect philanthropy to stay the same without FOOTBALL. Do they %^$*ing realize we are in the $^*%ING FOOTBALL CAPITAL OF THE SOUTH! THIS IS SO GOD %&$* Paper thin. This is Bull*%&$.