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

So what's the intent of forcing us into FCS? Do they really believe CUSA would keep us?! That would only screw us into the SoCon or OVC. And as for campus riots, I think there needs to be at least one during the last week of February.

Is the NCAA going to allow UAB to play football for several years at the FCS level while trying to keep its basketball and other sports at D1? They did not permit that in the 1990s, so why would anyone believe they would permit it in 2015? Football is the "keystone" of the athletic department "arch" at nearly all American public universities - not just in Alabama. That is why the BOT took football out first, figuring the rest will fall later. We still await the rest of the process to be worked out from C-USA.

The time when BSC informed Coach Shoop that his team was being demoted to D3, he left for UAB. Why would he (or the other major sports coaches) stay if the same kind of thing happened at UAB?

(02-15-2015 10:51 AM)ATTALLABLAZE Wrote:  Jack has not given up in the reorganization of the BOT. Bean your information is incorrect on what you heard. I'll leave it at that since this site is heavily monitored.

Thanks. For the record the only information from the lobbyist was that few legislatures were jumping out front as cosponsors. The rest was simply my mistaken opinion based on early posts in this thread. I am glad that I and my friend were wrong.

The resistance against the reorganization by AU goes deeper than AUM, and the resistance is also is much more widespread among the higher education community than just Auburn. The fear is that if the legislature begins meddling with the UA BOT, it will meddle in other Trustee Boards as well. As it stands now there is really no significant oversight (depending on how aggressive the sitting Governor chooses to be) on a statewide basis into how various public Universities (AU, UA, USA, Troy, UNA, UWA, JSU, ASU, AA&M, etc) are governed. The fear among University Administrators is that this will lead to a lot of questions and a possible "University System of Alabama" which none of them want. Right now, the University Presidents are running pretty much their own fiefdoms, and have autonomy they are NOT interested in giving up.

ATTALABLAZE, all I can say about my source is that he is a full time lobbyist who gets paid way too much money to know what is going on in Montgomery. I'm more confident in what I'm hearing from him that anything else I've heard and passed on. Again, you can believe it or not, and I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I think maybe I shouldn't pass anything along, because it causes dissension and anger sometimes. I personally wish they'd tear the entire thing down Tuesday morning, but that is not what I'm told is likely to happen.

FNblazer, the idea of FCS is that it is much less expensive than FBS. There are also a'holes on the board who still believe UAB needs to "prove" it deserves football at all. Again, this is a vocal but minority group on the BOT. The other point is that it is a "compromise" position with those who say they can't justify the cost, and those who want it all (OCS, Watts gone, BOT realignment, etc.). This group wants to tie two major football issues (return to FBS and OCS) to season ticket sales, paid attendance, and outside (UAB and City) funding. All of this is why I am concerned but hopeful there are real conversations going on with the UAB FF group and the Committee. That's what I'm hearing from my contact.

Hope this is helpful. Again, I might just stay quiet from now on. I'm not sure this is helpful, and just stirs up anger. I don't want that.

(02-15-2015 12:58 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  Is the NCAA going to allow UAB to play football for several years at the FCS level while trying to keep its basketball and other sports at D1? They did not permit that in the 1990s, so why would anyone believe they would permit it in 2015? Football is the "keystone" of the athletic department "arch" at nearly all American public universities - not just in Alabama. That is why the BOT took football out first, figuring the rest will fall later.

The time when BSC informed Coach Shoop that his team was being demoted to D3, he left for UAB. Why would he (or the other major sports coaches) stay if the same kind of thing happened at UAB?

I don't believe the NCAA will, which is why CUSA is our best leverage in the entire situation. We need the City and Foundation to take the financial question off the table by a show of real dollar support.

(02-15-2015 12:58 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  Is the NCAA going to allow UAB to play football for several years at the FCS level while trying to keep its basketball and other sports at D1? They did not permit that in the 1990s, so why would anyone believe they would permit it in 2015? Football is the "keystone" of the athletic department "arch" at nearly all American public universities - not just in Alabama. That is why the BOT took football out first, figuring the rest will fall later. We still await the rest of the process to be worked out from C-USA.

The time when BSC informed Coach Shoop that his team was being demoted to D3, he left for UAB. Why would he (or the other major sports coaches) stay if the same kind of thing happened at UAB?

Yes, it was permitted, no matter how many times you say otherwise. In the 1990’s and any other time, you could play D1 basketball and D1aa football. Ask Georgetown.

You could not play D2 or d3, but those aren't FCS.

I can see the justification for that PT, which is why we need CUSA to help us out and give us an ultimatum: FBS football in 2016 or GTFO. Please continue to share your info, as it is valuable and provides insight as to which levers to pull.

Seeing how many feel BOT reform would eventually lead to a Board of Regents (which would be great for our state which is why they don't like it) our best bet may be proposing a bill to make UAB Football return at the FBS level.

FCS doesn't save a lot of money, though. While there are about 20 fewer scholarships there is no FCS Playoff money or TV money which totaled $2.5 million last year. In addition, the TV contract is up for renegotiation this year. CUSA is about to begin TV contract renegotiations and they are not gonna wait for 4 years on UAB when there are others anxiously waiting, especially if there is no appreciable difference between UAB and another potential member. I'm afraid any FCS level of play will be permanent as it puts trust in the hands of the BOT and Watts, the most untrustworthy group in the whole process. Temporary becomes permanent real quick...

(02-15-2015 01:21 PM)PTBlazer Wrote:  The resistance against the reorganization by AU goes deeper than AUM, and the resistance is also is much more widespread among the higher education community than just Auburn. The fear is that if the legislature begins meddling with the UA BOT, it will meddle in other Trustee Boards as well. As it stands now there is really no significant oversight (depending on how aggressive the sitting Governor chooses to be) on a statewide basis into how various public Universities (AU, UA, USA, Troy, UNA, UWA, JSU, ASU, AA&M, etc) are governed. The fear among University Administrators is that this will lead to a lot of questions and a possible "University System of Alabama" which none of them want. Right now, the University Presidents are running pretty much their own fiefdoms, and have autonomy they are NOT interested in giving up.

ATTALABLAZE, all I can say about my source is that he is a full time lobbyist who gets paid way too much money to know what is going on in Montgomery. I'm more confident in what I'm hearing from him that anything else I've heard and passed on. Again, you can believe it or not, and I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I think maybe I shouldn't pass anything along, because it causes dissension and anger sometimes. I personally wish they'd tear the entire thing down Tuesday morning, but that is not what I'm told is likely to happen.

FNblazer, the idea of FCS is that it is much less expensive than FBS. There are also a'holes on the board who still believe UAB needs to "prove" it deserves football at all. Again, this is a vocal but minority group on the BOT. The other point is that it is a "compromise" position with those who say they can't justify the cost, and those who want it all (OCS, Watts gone, BOT realignment, etc.). This group wants to tie two major football issues (return to FBS and OCS) to season ticket sales, paid attendance, and outside (UAB and City) funding. All of this is why I am concerned but hopeful there are real conversations going on with the UAB FF group and the Committee. That's what I'm hearing from my contact.

Hope this is helpful. Again, I might just stay quiet from now on. I'm not sure this is helpful, and just stirs up anger. I don't want that.

In Hamlet's "To be or not to be" soliloquy, he speaks of humans tolerating "the evils we know" rather than make changes and find evils "we know not". The fiefdom mentality engendered by Alabama's political culture is based on this primordial fear of "evils we know not". It has caused Alabama voters to sustain practices for many decades in the past that are anathema to the American ideals. They even vote against their present self interests by protecting a state tax and services pattern that favors powerful interests, both instate and out of state. Groups like the UA BOT have learned to play these citizens like a harp. They pluck th strings and get just the tune they want for their benefit.

(02-15-2015 12:30 PM)FNblazer Wrote:  So what's the intent of forcing us into FCS? Do they really believe CUSA would keep us?! That would only screw us into the SoCon or OVC. And as for campus riots, I think there needs to be at least one during the last week of February.

Fess & the BOT needs to be roughed up. **** needs to be thrown. Bentley needs to be forced to get off of his ass & take notice.

(02-15-2015 01:53 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  Groups like the UA BOT have learned to play these citizens like a harp. They pluck th strings and get just the tune they want for their benefit.

No, that's not exactly true, and this is a crucial point: Their fathers developed that skill. Our enemies - and make no mistake, they are enemies - grew up in privilege and have never had to fight for anything. Everything has been handed to them from the moment they entered their private kindergarten through high school and The Machine and on to their Board seat. They are reliant on mercenaries, some of whom post on this board, as they lack the skill and experience themselves. But mercenaries will only take you so far; no one cares about your business as much as you do.

We can fight them, and we can defeat them. We fight.

You are correct 58-56. Don't buy the propaganda. We have never been in a better position politically than right now.

(02-15-2015 01:21 PM)PTBlazer Wrote:  The resistance against the reorganization by AU goes deeper than AUM, and the resistance is also is much more widespread among the higher education community than just Auburn. The fear is that if the legislature begins meddling with the UA BOT, it will meddle in other Trustee Boards as well. As it stands now there is really no significant oversight (depending on how aggressive the sitting Governor chooses to be) on a statewide basis into how various public Universities (AU, UA, USA, Troy, UNA, UWA, JSU, ASU, AA&M, etc) are governed. The fear among University Administrators is that this will lead to a lot of questions and a possible "University System of Alabama" which none of them want. Right now, the University Presidents are running pretty much their own fiefdoms, and have autonomy they are NOT interested in giving up.

ATTALABLAZE, all I can say about my source is that he is a full time lobbyist who gets paid way too much money to know what is going on in Montgomery. I'm more confident in what I'm hearing from him that anything else I've heard and passed on. Again, you can believe it or not, and I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I think maybe I shouldn't pass anything along, because it causes dissension and anger sometimes. I personally wish they'd tear the entire thing down Tuesday morning, but that is not what I'm told is likely to happen.

FNblazer, the idea of FCS is that it is much less expensive than FBS. There are also a'holes on the board who still believe UAB needs to "prove" it deserves football at all. Again, this is a vocal but minority group on the BOT. The other point is that it is a "compromise" position with those who say they can't justify the cost, and those who want it all (OCS, Watts gone, BOT realignment, etc.). This group wants to tie two major football issues (return to FBS and OCS) to season ticket sales, paid attendance, and outside (UAB and City) funding. All of this is why I am concerned but hopeful there are real conversations going on with the UAB FF group and the Committee. That's what I'm hearing from my contact.

Hope this is helpful. Again, I might just stay quiet from now on. I'm not sure this is helpful, and just stirs up anger. I don't want that.

Bentley already meddled with ASU, Auburn has its history with SACS and Lowder, so this meddling they are afraid of has already happened and warranted. What else has your lobbyist friend said.

FCS is a sub-division of Division 1, existing within football only. You can't move other sports to FCS because that doesn't exist. Division 1 includes both FBS & FCS football-playing schools. No difference in any other sports as far as the NCAA is concerned.

(02-14-2015 11:34 PM)58-56 Wrote:  

(02-14-2015 11:19 PM)uabrsc3 Wrote:  If memory serves the legislature never passed a bill mandating Al vs Auburn/API game. The threat prompted the scheduling.

Apparently not mandating, but calling for it:

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2010/...rn_di.html

Look closely at the 1948 pic. The UAT Machine president holding the hatchet is none other than our beloved Trustee Johnny-Johnny's uncle Willie (brother of Johnny's dad, J.D.).

LOL picture proof that change in the power structure of this state is non existent

A return at the FCS level isn't acceptable. If that's how we return, we can kiss Coach Clark goodbye. We shouldn't have to prove anything to anybody.

Attendance and wins on the field proved enough.

The problem is tangible funds. Our opposition is playing the "well we didn't have a check in our hand so it didn't count." How can we get corporate/private donors to place real, meaningful funds? If only there were a Foundation that could accept such funds...

No to FCS
No to Watts staying
No to BOT current structure

We will no longer sit contently on the Group W bench, because this is a full fledged movement. Junior can take the half a ton of garbage and stick it up his a$$. You can get anything you want.

I think PTBlazer is on to something with the other schools being scared about the legislature becoming involved. Yes they have private fiefdoms, but more so, I think they are scared that the nitwits in the legislature who are busy exposing their own ignorance everytime they open their mouths, will begin to tinker in the governance of universities with the same effectiveness they have tinkered in K-12.

Could you imagine some of these guys trying to pass laws about how science is supposed to be taught in the university system? Or passing bills eliminating programs they don't like i.e. Black studies, Womens studies,

I've heard that donation can't go or be made directly to individual sports, but just recently a donation was made specificly to soccer and its been proven and verified that donations were made specificly to basketball toward recruiting and team improvements. So why can't the football foundation be used for the football team?

I'm not trying to get off subject, just trying to see if there is anything in this to help our cause.