At first, the University of Alabama-Birmingham's decision to terminate its football team was supposedly about costs. The sport was simply too expensive, claimed UAB president Ray Watts, who pointed to a report from the consulting firm CarrSports that predicted the school would lose millions of dollars annually if it kept football.

Last month, I examined the CarrSports report and discovered a series of dubious assumptions that made UAB football look like it was losing millions, even though the actual numbers seemed to indicate that the sport was, at worst, a break-even proposition for the school. In response to challenges raised by me and others, UAB administrators changed their tune. Confronted by reporters, they offered a new story, claiming that cutting football was less about saving money than repurposing funds for better uses.

https://sports.vice.com/article/uabs-tan...snt-add-up

Someone has been lying..................I wonder who?

Good job, TD88.

i don't think anyone really believed UAB was hurting Bama when it came to money

(01-05-2015 08:17 PM)techdawg88 Wrote:  i don't think anyone really believed UAB was hurting Bama when it came to money

It's not about money at all. IMO, it is about control. UAB offers no real threat to Alabama football right now. I believe not only do some of the board members just have an obvious disdain for UAB, but for obvious reasons they don't want UAB to reach a TCU or Baylor status, however unlikely it may be. If UAB built up to 25-30k student enrollment, was having decently consistent football success, and ended up in somewhere like the AAC or higher (no offense meant to CUSA, I love CUSA but am trying to look at it from their POV) that would be their worst case scenario, especially in basketball. I also believe they don't want UAB basketball ever eclipsing Alabama again. They don't want some other school taking away from them in any way, especially one as close of a drive as UAB. A decade ago Alabama wasn't exactly doing very hot in football and UAB was looking pretty decent.

And even though I said it isn't about money... in many ways it still is, just not in the sense of budget concerns. Money is power, etc. Look at some of these UAB donors who were trying to give $ to our football program just this year and were being turned down. If they kill the UAB program, there is just more reason for future UAB grads to end up donating to Alabama football instead of some other program. What is even worse is how football in this state can even drive politics. If UA didn't have a football team, would there still be so many politicians in the state of Alabama who lobby so hard for the Tuscaloosa campus in the state legislature? I'm going to say hell no. Same thing applies to UAB. Without football and an athletic program, alumni just do not care as much about their University. Without a football program, UAB is going to lose what little political power it currently has as those middle age and older alums die off. Their children will eventually pull for some other school. Athletics draws people back. Lose your football program and you lose a lot of your alumni for years to come.

(01-05-2015 08:35 PM)Shrack Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 08:17 PM)techdawg88 Wrote:  i don't think anyone really believed UAB was hurting Bama when it came to money

It's not about money at all. IMO, it is about control. UAB offers no real threat to Alabama football right now. I believe not only do some of the board members just have an obvious disdain for UAB, but for obvious reasons they don't want UAB to reach a TCU or Baylor status, however unlikely it may be. If UAB built up to 25-30k student enrollment, was having decently consistent football success, and ended up in somewhere like the AAC or higher (no offense meant to CUSA, I love CUSA but am trying to look at it from their POV) that would be their worst case scenario, especially in basketball. I also believe they don't want UAB basketball ever eclipsing Alabama again. They don't want some other school taking away from them in any way, especially one as close of a drive as UAB. A decade ago Alabama wasn't exactly doing very hot in football and UAB was looking pretty decent.

And even though I said it isn't about money... in many ways it still is, just not in the sense of budget concerns. Money is power, etc. Look at some of these UAB donors who were trying to give $ to our football program just this year and were being turned down. If they kill the UAB program, there is just more reason for future UAB grads to end up donating to Alabama football instead of some other program. What is even worse is how football in this state can even drive politics. If UA didn't have a football team, would there still be so many politicians in the state of Alabama who lobby so hard for the Tuscaloosa campus in the state legislature? I'm going to say hell no. Same thing applies to UAB. Without football and an athletic program, alumni just do not care as much about their University. Without a football program, UAB is going to lose what little political power it currently has as those middle age and older alums die off. Their children will eventually pull for some other school. Athletics draws people back. Lose your football program and you lose a lot of your alumni for years to come.

AAC? Higher? How so? I could see the MWC, but what did the AAC do that was all world?

I brought this up the minute I saw the carr report was published. The report was probably done by a first year accounting student, how this report was admitted was beyond me.

(01-07-2015 12:39 AM)shyminer Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 08:35 PM)Shrack Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 08:17 PM)techdawg88 Wrote:  i don't think anyone really believed UAB was hurting Bama when it came to money

It's not about money at all. IMO, it is about control. UAB offers no real threat to Alabama football right now. I believe not only do some of the board members just have an obvious disdain for UAB, but for obvious reasons they don't want UAB to reach a TCU or Baylor status, however unlikely it may be. If UAB built up to 25-30k student enrollment, was having decently consistent football success, and ended up in somewhere like the AAC or higher (no offense meant to CUSA, I love CUSA but am trying to look at it from their POV) that would be their worst case scenario, especially in basketball. I also believe they don't want UAB basketball ever eclipsing Alabama again. They don't want some other school taking away from them in any way, especially one as close of a drive as UAB. A decade ago Alabama wasn't exactly doing very hot in football and UAB was looking pretty decent.

And even though I said it isn't about money... in many ways it still is, just not in the sense of budget concerns. Money is power, etc. Look at some of these UAB donors who were trying to give $ to our football program just this year and were being turned down. If they kill the UAB program, there is just more reason for future UAB grads to end up donating to Alabama football instead of some other program. What is even worse is how football in this state can even drive politics. If UA didn't have a football team, would there still be so many politicians in the state of Alabama who lobby so hard for the Tuscaloosa campus in the state legislature? I'm going to say hell no. Same thing applies to UAB. Without football and an athletic program, alumni just do not care as much about their University. Without a football program, UAB is going to lose what little political power it currently has as those middle age and older alums die off. Their children will eventually pull for some other school. Athletics draws people back. Lose your football program and you lose a lot of your alumni for years to come.

AAC? Higher? How so? I could see the MWC, but what did the AAC do that was all world?

Was referring mainly to AAC in basketball. The AAC is not necessarily a better football league this year in terms of play on the field, but overall in terms of football + basketball the league is better. Can't really debate that too much. Sorry, had been a long day when I wrote that . And let's be honest here, regardless of whether we like it or not, the AAC is perceived as being a better league. It's about the money spent. AAC athletic budgets as a whole are much larger than CUSA's.

Some of our own fans even fall for the "perception" gig...the perception that the SEC was the best conference in the land was quickly squashed when play on the field came into reality.

So if Watts now has to travel with security all of the time, that sounds like an extra expense. Since the BOT is so worried about UAB wasting money, it only seems logical that Watts needs to go!

(01-05-2015 08:17 PM)techdawg88 Wrote:  i don't think anyone really believed UAB was hurting Bama when it came to money

It's not that Bama's actively damaged in any way. It's the idea that every dollar spent in Birmingham is a dollar that could be spent in Tuscaloosa instead. I mean, geez, what if Alabama needs to upgrade the gold-plated fixtures in the recruits' bathroom to solid gold ones and they can't because UAB needs something stupid like shoulder pads or a goal post or something?

(01-07-2015 12:46 AM)randaddyminer Wrote:  I brought this up the minute I saw the carr report was published. The report was probably done by a first year accounting student, how this report was admitted was beyond me.

I think the basic expectation among Watts and the other anti-UAB elements was that this would blow up in local media for a few days but then die down over the Christmas/New Year holiday. I don't think they ever really expected the report would be scrutinized too closely, and so they didn't really care if it made perfect sense, or not. JMHO.

The President already admitted that he had planned to break the news over Christmas holidays, but the football foundation/media forced him to do it earlier. He also said that unfortunately he is the face of this decision since UAB AD Mackin decided to step down. The stuff he keeps saying is just amazing. He is still trying to put the blame on people who cannot be held accountable such as Mackin and the VP of Affairs who hasn't worked at UAB in months.