Last year the January meetings ended on the 23rd. Not sure about the dates this year but I'm wondering if anything of interest will be addressed and/or accomplished. I'm sure UAB's situation will be discussed at length but will there be any resolution at this point? Will the possibility of a replacement and who that might be, be discussed?

Also, the conference football schedule was announced soon after that meeting, early Feb, so we have that to look forward to.

(01-08-2015 11:21 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  Last year the January meetings ended on the 23rd. Not sure about the dates this year but I'm wondering if anything of interest will be addressed and/or accomplished. I'm sure UAB's situation will be discussed at length but will there be any resolution at this point? Will the possibility of a replacement and who that might be, be discussed?

Also, the conference football schedule was announced soon after that meeting, early Feb, so we have that to look forward to.

Absolutely the UAB situation as well as some possible replacements will be discussed. No doubt about that.

If some UAB people (that are in favor of reinstating football) showed up on an unofficial basis and wanted to address the other members, would there be any interest?

(01-08-2015 11:34 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  If some UAB people (that are in favor of reinstating football) showed up on an unofficial basis and wanted to address the other members, would there be any interest?

imo there would have to be some officials from UAB that wanted to make that case, maybe accompanied by various boosters, etc.

I hope as long as UAB is fighting and there is an opportunity to reinstate football in the next 2-3 years, the conference would keep UAB.

(01-09-2015 03:59 PM)galojah Wrote:  I hope as long as UAB is fighting and there is an opportunity to reinstate football in the next 2-3 years, the conference would keep UAB.

What a lousy blow to UAB. Here they already had all sports and now the president is "thinking" of reinstating it. It will set them back badly. He should be fired along with all the BOTs.

IMO, as an observer (albeit not particularly impartial), this whole thing has been an unmitigated disaster brought on by the incompetence of this particular President. He certainly appears to be doing the will of a few BOT members and the supposed independent report was anything but. He has not listened to the University at large and to boosters who offered help. His handling of the communications before the final decision was almost laughable (except that its not) in its incompetence. His handling of the personnel matters in the hiring of the Clark was dishonest in letting him believe a turnaround would have some impact on the decision. And now his backpedaling, while welcomed, is a sign of a tremendously weak leader. Who in his right mind could not have anticipated this reaction? Some visionary!

All in all, the guy should be fired and banished from Birmingham. Given this history, he should not be managing any University.

(01-09-2015 04:27 PM)Cnelson203 Wrote:  IMO, as an observer (albeit not particularly impartial), this whole thing has been an unmitigated disaster brought on by the incompetence of this particular President. He certainly appears to be doing the will of a few BOT members and the supposed independent report was anything but. He has not listened to the University at large and to boosters who offered help. His handling of the communications before the final decision was almost laughable (except that its not) in its incompetence. His handling of the personnel matters in the hiring of the Clark was dishonest in letting him believe a turnaround would have some impact on the decision. And now his backpedaling, while welcomed, is a sign of a tremendously weak leader. Who in his right mind could not have anticipated this reaction? Some visionary!

All in all, the guy should be fired and banished from Birmingham. Given this history, he should not be managing any University.

Amen! That pretty much sums it up.

(01-09-2015 03:59 PM)galojah Wrote:  I hope as long as UAB is fighting and there is an opportunity to reinstate football in the next 2-3 years, the conference would keep UAB.

CUSA would have to DEMAND that Watts be FIRED first! We don't need irresponsible clowns like him anywhere near CUSA.

Watts will be appearing before his peers (well, the other presidents, beings slightly less repulsive than the rest of us - Ray Watts has NO peer) fresh off a No Confidence vote.

He is not studying football's return: his only backpedal was to say that UAB would not play football in 2015 because of the logistics involved rather than repeating his usual flat denial that football would ever return. He's appointed a committee to hire a firm to re-check the Carr Report. That's it. He has not offered compromise, he even said he believes the Carr numbers are accurate. He certainly has not apologized to the football players he insulted face-to-face or the women's athletes he fired by text message, or the donors he's repeatedly called liars, or ... well, you get the picture. Wattsolini Is Always Right (he even sort of looks like Benito).

This is one of a blizzard of task forces and committees he's formed in the past weeks to stave off No Confidence. That and hiring a pricey PR firm, as well as his own lobbyist, apparently to fend off attempts to reform the Board via the state legislature, and to prepare for the hammering about to come from SACS (UAB's regular re-accreditation review starts this month, something the Genius of West End might have considered before embarking on this insane quest).

Ray Watts must go. He must go now.

It has been mentioned there will be an open discussion at the winter meetings to amend the bylaws with a special provision for an exemption. This provision would allow UAB to continue to compete in all conference sponsored sports but football. Obviously this amendment is predicated on the fact that UAB for many years has been a highly regarded and valued member. Unfortunately It has been reported from a few insiders that there is very little support from the Presidents, and the majority would vote NO. The greatest fear from the membership is it would set a bad precedence going forward. You have to admit; once that horse is let out of the barn there is no going back.

However with UAB's new development, is it possible the other members of the conference would vote to give UAB an extension. That would give them time to complete the new study while they continue to compete in all other sports for the 2015-16 season. I hope the membership will give them more time before any action is voted on for expulsion.

Even if the vote is the later, I believe the conference will give UAB, at their option a year to review and find a suitable home for their teams in the future.

As an esteemed and admired member of CUSA we sincerely desire The University of Alabama Birmingham will continue to be a member of CUSA. You have earned our utmost respect and support.

(01-10-2015 12:03 AM)58-56 Wrote:  He has not offered compromise, he even said he believes the Carr numbers are accurate.

What would a "compromise" look like in this circumstance? UAB either has FBS-level football or it doesn't.

But while I agree that Watts hasn't yielded in his position, the uproar over his actions has now forced him to set in motion a train of events that could plausibly result in the restoration of football, whether Watts likes it or not. To that extent, what was said yesterday could be construed as a compromise. Watts obviously WANTS it to be construed as a compromise, even though he does not sincerely mean it that way.

(01-09-2015 11:39 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(01-09-2015 03:59 PM)galojah Wrote:  I hope as long as UAB is fighting and there is an opportunity to reinstate football in the next 2-3 years, the conference would keep UAB.

CUSA would have to DEMAND that Watts be FIRED first! We don't need irresponsible clowns like him anywhere near CUSA.

Highly unlikely CUSA allows UAB to stay beyond June 2015. However, I can see the possibility of commissioners allowing them to remain for one more year provided they forfeit all revenue that would otherwise be paid to UAB from 2014 football bowl subdivision proceeds. We are now a Football Conference. As much as I like UAB, we are not going to set the precedent of having a permanent non-football member.

(01-10-2015 10:26 AM)BlueRaiderBoy Wrote:  Highly unlikely CUSA allows UAB to stay beyond June 2015. However, I can see the possibility of commissioners allowing them to remain for one more year provided they forfeit all revenue that would otherwise be paid to UAB from 2014 football bowl subdivision proceeds.

Do you mean revenues generated from the 2014 football season? UAB participated in that.

(01-10-2015 10:26 AM)BlueRaiderBoy Wrote:  

(01-09-2015 11:39 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(01-09-2015 03:59 PM)galojah Wrote:  I hope as long as UAB is fighting and there is an opportunity to reinstate football in the next 2-3 years, the conference would keep UAB.

CUSA would have to DEMAND that Watts be FIRED first! We don't need irresponsible clowns like him anywhere near CUSA.

Highly unlikely CUSA allows UAB to stay beyond June 2015. However, I can see the possibility of commissioners allowing them to remain for one more year provided they forfeit all revenue that would otherwise be paid to UAB from 2014 football bowl subdivision proceeds. We are now a Football Conference. As much as I like UAB, we are not going to set the precedent of having a permanent non-football member.

Maybe C-USA can put some pressure on UAB by offering to keep them in the conference if they commit to bringing the football program back with a reasonable timeline. UAB could be given until June of this year to say yay or nay. If nay then they will have one last year to compete in all other sports and can use that year to find another conference.

(01-10-2015 11:31 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(01-10-2015 10:26 AM)BlueRaiderBoy Wrote:  

(01-09-2015 11:39 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(01-09-2015 03:59 PM)galojah Wrote:  I hope as long as UAB is fighting and there is an opportunity to reinstate football in the next 2-3 years, the conference would keep UAB.

CUSA would have to DEMAND that Watts be FIRED first! We don't need irresponsible clowns like him anywhere near CUSA.

Highly unlikely CUSA allows UAB to stay beyond June 2015. However, I can see the possibility of commissioners allowing them to remain for one more year provided they forfeit all revenue that would otherwise be paid to UAB from 2014 football bowl subdivision proceeds. We are now a Football Conference. As much as I like UAB, we are not going to set the precedent of having a permanent non-football member.

Maybe C-USA can put some pressure on UAB by offering to keep them in the conference if they commit to bringing the football program back with a reasonable timeline. UAB could be given until June of this year to say yay or nay. If nay then they will have one last year to compete in all other sports and can use that year to find another conference.

That's my thought.

(01-10-2015 11:47 AM)galojah Wrote:  

(01-10-2015 11:31 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(01-10-2015 10:26 AM)BlueRaiderBoy Wrote:  

(01-09-2015 03:59 PM)galojah Wrote:  I hope as long as UAB is fighting and there is an opportunity to reinstate football in the next 2-3 years, the conference would keep UAB.

Highly unlikely C-USA allows UAB to stay beyond June 2015. However, I can see the possibility of commissioners allowing them to remain for one more year provided they forfeit all revenue that would otherwise be paid to UAB from 2014 football bowl subdivision proceeds.

Maybe C-USA can put some pressure on UAB by offering to keep them in the conference if they commit to bringing the football program back with a reasonable timeline. UAB could be given until June of this year to say yay or nay.

That's my thought.

Mine, too.

The whole thing is clearly a pile of crap, but I believe UAB is toast in C-USA. I don't believe the presidents will back off the standards that they have all agreed to.

(01-10-2015 12:07 PM)ODU AGGIE Wrote:  The whole thing is clearly a pile of crap, but I believe UAB is toast in C-USA. I don't believe the presidents will back off the standards that they have all agreed to.

I couldn't blame them if that's the decision the made. I'm hoping they are willing to give us a year to get our **** together though. A lot is being worked on right now, and I feel like there will be more to come. None of this can be fixed overnight though.

I think once you lost your fb program it will take a LOT of work to even bring it back. You have no coaches or players. Look at odu and charlotte, it's taken them years just to elevate to the D1 level. I don't think cusa can go that route seeing how the BOT is adamant about removing sports. This would be like those marriages where the spouses can't make up their mind to stay married or get divorced and they marry each other over and over again. Cusa can't work like that.