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

Any thoughts on litigation against Carr Sports Consulting?

I am an auditor and we issue opinions on financial reports. If a bank relies on the opinion to loan them funds and the company fails, we may very well be sued.
Could the same thing apply to Carr? I know CPAs are held to a higher standard for attest work, but it does seem similar. I imagine it would be difficult to substantiate damages since the coaches will be paid and scholarships honored.

I would love for that guy to be deposed.

I am sure we all agree that the report is crap, but I have reviewed the numbers and there are serious questions-

-Under the assumption that we keep FB, coaches salaries go up $1.2m from 14-15 to 15-16. What would this be for? I don't think the whole staff makes $1.2m now.

-Under the assumption that we drop FB, Scholarship expenses are flat (from 14-15 to 15-16) probably due to honoring players scholarships. But under the assumption that we keep FB, scholarship expenses increase by $1.9m. Which would work out to about $20,000 per eliminated scholarship.

(12-07-2014 02:14 AM)blazer-J Wrote:  Any thoughts on litigation against Carr Sports Consulting?

I am an auditor and we issue opinions on financial reports. If a bank relies on the opinion to loan them funds and the company fails, we may very well be sued.
Could the same thing apply to Carr? I know CPAs are held to a higher standard for attest work, but it does seem similar. I imagine it would be difficult to substantiate damages since the coaches will be paid and scholarships honored.

I would love for that guy to be deposed.

I am sure we all agree that the report is crap, but I have reviewed the numbers and there are serious questions-

-Under the assumption that we keep FB, coaches salaries go up $1.2m from 14-15 to 15-16. What would this be for? I don't think the whole staff makes $1.2m now.

-Under the assumption that we drop FB, Scholarship expenses are flat (from 14-15 to 15-16) probably due to honoring players scholarships. But under the assumption that we keep FB, scholarship expenses increase by $1.9m. Which would work out to about $20,000 per eliminated scholarship.

The whole Carr report was fabrication to began with. He inflated all the expense numbers to get to a total he thought would be eye popping.

His 5 year cost of attendance schlorship calculation is a farse most group of 5 schools and conferences will not adopt that measure and it is not mandatory for them to do so. His 5 year projection adds $15,551,000 in expenses that was never going to happen anyway.

The coaches salary calculation adds $6,044,000 that was never going to happen. Combined those two fabrications total $21,595,000 of his projected $25.3m 5 year loss.

Also, whats even more rediculous is that the cost of attendance schorlarship calculation escalates for no apparent reason for football players only:

15-16 $32074
16-17 $41778
17-18 $47096
18-19 $51954

If its going to cost me $52,000 to send my daughter to college i am going to start looking a some Ivy League schools. The school website has its on cost of attendance calculator which I believe is $23k-$24k for this academic year.

It's very apparent to me the whole thing was a fraud.

(12-07-2014 02:14 AM)blazer-J Wrote:  Any thoughts on litigation against Carr Sports Consulting?

I am an auditor and we issue opinions on financial reports. If a bank relies on the opinion to loan them funds and the company fails, we may very well be sued.
Could the same thing apply to Carr? I know CPAs are held to a higher standard for attest work, but it does seem similar. I imagine it would be difficult to substantiate damages since the coaches will be paid and scholarships honored.

I would love for that guy to be deposed.

I am sure we all agree that the report is crap, but I have reviewed the numbers and there are serious questions-

-Under the assumption that we keep FB, coaches salaries go up $1.2m from 14-15 to 15-16. What would this be for? I don't think the whole staff makes $1.2m now.

-Under the assumption that we drop FB, Scholarship expenses are flat (from 14-15 to 15-16) probably due to honoring players scholarships. But under the assumption that we keep FB, scholarship expenses increase by $1.9m. Which would work out to about $20,000 per eliminated scholarship.

They add a swimming and diving team to the numbers if we keep football.

Why? Our Title nine was in balance, right?

edit - Or was that sarcasm?

Why add swimming and diving? Rifle and bowling were added to keep Title IX in check because they eliminated Synchronized Swimming.

And we didn't get a swimming & diving team because ...?

because UaT and Auburn have one ?

(12-07-2014 11:10 AM)BlazerPhil Wrote:  And we didn't get a swimming & diving team because ...?

because UaT and Auburn have one ?

Probably because we didn't have the facilities for it. Taking a trip to the bowling alley on 280 is cheaper than building Olympic diving and swimming facilities.

(12-07-2014 11:13 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 11:10 AM)BlazerPhil Wrote:  And we didn't get a swimming & diving team because ...?

because UaT and Auburn have one ?

Probably because we didn't have the facilities for it. Taking a trip to the bowling alley on 280 is cheaper than building Olympic diving and swimming facilities.

We don't have to build anything now, the City of Birmingham has already done it for us. I think its called the Crossplex.

(12-07-2014 11:13 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 11:10 AM)BlazerPhil Wrote:  And we didn't get a swimming & diving team because ...?

because UaT and Auburn have one ?

Probably because we didn't have the facilities for it. Taking a trip to the bowling alley on 280 is cheaper than building Olympic diving and swimming facilities.

I completely agree. And that is the point. Bowling cost next to nothing, and Rifle cost next to nothing, because you won't have an on campus facility expenditure.

(12-07-2014 11:10 AM)BlazerPhil Wrote:  And we didn't get a swimming & diving team because ...?

because UaT and Auburn have one ?

UAB can't have a "swimming & diving team" with present facilities BECAUSE the BOT demanded the pool in the student center be less than Olympic size just so we COULDN"T have such teams. They would not allow the facility to be built until assured the pool would be too small for competitive uses.

(12-07-2014 11:33 AM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 11:10 AM)BlazerPhil Wrote:  And we didn't get a swimming & diving team because ...?

because UaT and Auburn have one ?

UAB can't have a "swimming & diving team" with present facilities BECAUSE the BOT demanded the pool in the student center be less than Olympic size just so we COULDN"T have such teams. They would not allow the facility to be built until assured the pool would be too small for competitive uses.

Do you have a source for that, because I've never heard that.

(12-07-2014 11:18 AM)BlazerPhil Wrote:  Bowling cost next to nothing,

Those shoe rentals add up and Watts' study decided that bowling was one of the sports that would not move to the next level of competition.

Or maybe he was told UAB was eligible to go bowling and in a hurry to end that possibility, got confused and axed the bowling team.

I've heard it before, but admittedly, it was probably here.

(12-07-2014 11:34 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 11:33 AM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 11:10 AM)BlazerPhil Wrote:  And we didn't get a swimming & diving team because ...?

because UaT and Auburn have one ?

UAB can't have a "swimming & diving team" with present facilities BECAUSE the BOT demanded the pool in the student center be less than Olympic size just so we COULDN"T have such teams. They would not allow the facility to be built until assured the pool would be too small for competitive uses.

Do you have a source for that, because I've never heard that.

The pool at Bell gym is too small, one foot too small, if I recall correctly. And this was known way before the internet. I don't know what facilities exist in the new recreation center, maybe the new swimming & diving team can perform there.

(12-07-2014 11:34 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 11:33 AM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 11:10 AM)BlazerPhil Wrote:  And we didn't get a swimming & diving team because ...?

because UaT and Auburn have one ?

UAB can't have a "swimming & diving team" with present facilities BECAUSE the BOT demanded the pool in the student center be less than Olympic size just so we COULDN"T have such teams. They would not allow the facility to be built until assured the pool would be too small for competitive uses.

Do you have a source for that, because I've never heard that.

I would guess that the builder of the rec center would know if that was true or not. I wonder if we could get in touch with him.

I was referring to the pool in the student health center on University Ave. (whatever the exact name) that the BOT held up until the pool specifications met their demands. As I recall, the issue was from press reports about delays in getting BOT approval for it. If the Bell pool is too small as well, that would make TWO too small pools.

Well, the Bell Gym is pretty old and wouldn't surprise me if it outdated the athletics department overall so I doubt we can blame Bryant for that one.

And I don't think they ever intended the Rec Center to host athletics competitions, but maybe they did, who knows. I think we might be getting a little paranoid at this point though.

I think that at this point it is well documented why UAB might be paranoid about the actions of the UA BoT.

(12-07-2014 11:13 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 11:10 AM)BlazerPhil Wrote:  And we didn't get a swimming & diving team because ...?

because UaT and Auburn have one ?

Probably because we didn't have the facilities for it. Taking a trip to the bowling alley on 280 is cheaper than building Olympic diving and swimming facilities.

Outside of softball and basketball, UAB has no adequate facilities for any of their other sports teams, right? The tennis team has to use Green Springs Park, the track team has to use the Crossplex way across team, as would the diving team, the baseball team on campus field seats only 1,000, and instead of expanding, they're compelled to share games at Regions, all the while, $30 million (correct me if I'm wrong) was spent by those ba***rds on expanding UA's baseball facilities..."Fiscal responsibility" my ***!!!

Most everyone thinks that sharing baseball with the Barons at Regions is a good thing, I thought.