(04-23-2015 09:58 PM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  The majority of the study was paid for by UAB. The boosters only stepped in to pay slightly less than half after Watts fired the firm.

Actually the university still owes OSKR $22,400. They may have to sue the school to get it.

Actually Soloman up until recently has been anti-UAB. There are many threads on BlazerTalk cursing his name. He called for the program to drop to I-AA or go to the Sun Belt because he thought it would be more profitable. LOL It was not until recently that he has acted like he was pro-UAB. In reality he is not. It is college football news and he is reporting it.

There is also a LOT he is not privy to and we are hammering them the next couple of weeks. I can see and clearly understand why he would say that not knowing all what is coming next.

I hope they do sue.

(04-24-2015 10:22 AM)DwayneW1 Wrote:  Jon Solomon on the Brando Show just stated that he doesn't see anyway that UAB will be able to bring football back anytime soon (2016-2017) and if it is ever capable of bringing it back it will be well past the 2020 year with a total change in the management of the system...

And he is the one individual who has been in UAB's corner from the get go -

I think at minimum, it's a 3 year restart from the next signing day. So, they could be back in FBS by 2019 if they start now.

What a cluster F this whole situation is.

(04-24-2015 10:30 AM)ATTALLABLAZE Wrote:  Actually Soloman up until recently has been anti-UAB. There are many threads on BlazerTalk cursing his name. He called for the program to drop to I-AA or go to the Sun Belt because he thought it would be more profitable. LOL It was not until recently that he has acted like he was pro-UAB. In reality he is not. It is college football news and he is reporting it.

There is also a LOT he is not privy to and we are hammering them the next couple of weeks. I can see and clearly understand why he would say that not knowing all what is coming next.

Soloman has not been anti-UAB.

He just hasn't bent over backwards to pander to the FreeUAB crowd like another unnamed AL.com reporter who has since earned cult status on the UAB forum.

Soloman has been pretty even-handed, which in the FreeUAB universe means he must be receiving kick backs from Ray Watts PR firm and fishing on the weekends with Paul Bryant, Jr.

(04-24-2015 10:53 AM)usmgh Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 10:30 AM)ATTALLABLAZE Wrote:  Actually Soloman up until recently has been anti-UAB. There are many threads on BlazerTalk cursing his name. He called for the program to drop to I-AA or go to the Sun Belt because he thought it would be more profitable. LOL It was not until recently that he has acted like he was pro-UAB. In reality he is not. It is college football news and he is reporting it.

There is also a LOT he is not privy to and we are hammering them the next couple of weeks. I can see and clearly understand why he would say that not knowing all what is coming next.

Soloman has not been anti-UAB.

He just hasn't bent over backwards to pander to the FreeUAB crowd like another unnamed AL.com reporter who has since earned cult status on the UAB forum.

Soloman has been pretty even-handed, which in the FreeUAB universe means he must be receiving kick backs from Ray Watts PR firm and fishing on the weekends with Paul Bryant, Jr.

It is going to have to be news or findings of TIDAL WAVE proportion to stop the elephants.Short of a great event like Katrina hope looks very dim.I hate this.

This event represents what I despise in greed and sports all rolled into one sad story.Sickening vomit.

they should let the kids come back with no penalty

(04-24-2015 09:45 AM)ATTALLABLAZE Wrote:  http://www.forbes.com/sites/vincentfrank...y-solvent/

WOW! These guys on the BOT are really being exposed now. What a complete disaster. The Alabama State Legislature needs to address this, and in a decisive manner. Watts must be let go. Donors need to make pledges now, perhaps through the Alumni Organization, to show that they will fund the stadium.

My prediction: UAB reverses it's decision, but won't be able to field a team until 2019. They'll do it in a new stadium, but will have to start over in FCS, like UTSA, Charlotte, and ODU. CUSA finds another school to fill their spot, but brings them back with another school in 2019 to go to 16. Just my guess.

If I were CUSA, I'd pressure UAB by allowing them to stay as a basketball-only member, under the condition that they bring back football. Sweetin' the pot a little.

(04-23-2015 12:28 PM)usmgh Wrote:  So UAB's football boosters paid the consulting firm that everyone knew was already on the side of UAB football to produce a report saying UAB football was "profitable".

What else would you expect?

You get what you pay for.
Especially from a consulting firm that specializes in providing reports and expert witness testimony to whomever pays them the most money.

As opposed to the Carr Study that we know was contracted to prove that UAB football should be shut down. It was so inaccurate that it didn't even include millions in CUSA income in the report---meaning it was not only biased, but incompetent.

(04-24-2015 01:35 PM)jmusuperfan Wrote:  they should let the kids come back with no penalty

A member of the athletics task force has said they have had preliminary discussions with Indianapolis regarding that eventuality and that the NCAA had not dismissed the idea of letting former players with remaining eligibility return.

(04-24-2015 10:53 AM)usmgh Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 10:30 AM)ATTALLABLAZE Wrote:  Actually Soloman up until recently has been anti-UAB. There are many threads on BlazerTalk cursing his name. He called for the program to drop to I-AA or go to the Sun Belt because he thought it would be more profitable. LOL It was not until recently that he has acted like he was pro-UAB. In reality he is not. It is college football news and he is reporting it.

There is also a LOT he is not privy to and we are hammering them the next couple of weeks. I can see and clearly understand why he would say that not knowing all what is coming next.

Soloman has not been anti-UAB.

He just hasn't bent over backwards to pander to the FreeUAB crowd like another unnamed AL.com reporter who has since earned cult status on the UAB forum.

Soloman has been pretty even-handed, which in the FreeUAB universe means he must be receiving kick backs from Ray Watts PR firm and fishing on the weekends with Paul Bryant, Jr.

yea whatever.

(04-24-2015 02:14 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 12:28 PM)usmgh Wrote:  So UAB's football boosters paid the consulting firm that everyone knew was already on the side of UAB football to produce a report saying UAB football was "profitable".

What else would you expect?

You get what you pay for.
Especially from a consulting firm that specializes in providing reports and expert witness testimony to whomever pays them the most money.

As opposed to the Carr Study that we know was contracted to prove that UAB football should be shut down. It was so inaccurate that it didn't even include millions in CUSA income in the report---meaning it was not only biased, but incompetent.

But isn't that the point?

FreeUAB has been saying since December that the Car Report is wrong. It was done with the sole purpose of shutting down UAB football and UAB gave them phony numbers to work with.

Now FreeUAB has their own study for the sole purpose of showing why UAB football should NOT be shut down. This study was produced by a consultant who had previously criticized the decision to close down UAB football, without financial records from UAB (OSKR stated they made assumptions on the data they did not have) and OSKR used a completely different accounting method (ignoring the monetary value of an athletic scholarship) from every other school in the country when calculating the financial impact of athletics, and the supporters of UAB football want to trumpet it as if it is the gospel on the subject.

Why should the OSKR report not be greeted with at least as much skepticism as the Car report?

It should be.

And I think it is by most people. As a poster in this thread pointed out, any report that passes rifle and bowling off as profitable loses its credibility.

Again, if we restore the program we still have more that 45 guys still on campus. From what we are hearing there will be a good chance that players who left will be allowed to return with no penalty. We would be allowed to recruit a full compliment in 2015. We would recruit a full class in 2016. we will play in the fall of 2016.

As far as players returning a LOT have said privately they will return if they can with no penalty. Even if they don't we will be fine. Coach Clark has also said he will stay and has already put together a plan to get us up and running again. Will we struggle some? Sure but no worse than under McGoof and Callaway and we will be back up to strength faster than most of the vultures think.

(04-24-2015 02:38 PM)usmgh Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 02:14 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 12:28 PM)usmgh Wrote:  So UAB's football boosters paid the consulting firm that everyone knew was already on the side of UAB football to produce a report saying UAB football was "profitable".

What else would you expect?

You get what you pay for.
Especially from a consulting firm that specializes in providing reports and expert witness testimony to whomever pays them the most money.

As opposed to the Carr Study that we know was contracted to prove that UAB football should be shut down. It was so inaccurate that it didn't even include millions in CUSA income in the report---meaning it was not only biased, but incompetent.

But isn't that the point?

FreeUAB has been saying since December that the Car Report is wrong. It was done with the sole purpose of shutting down UAB football and UAB gave them phony numbers to work with.

Now FreeUAB has their own study for the sole purpose of showing why UAB football should NOT be shut down. This study was produced by a consultant who had previously criticized the decision to close down UAB football, without financial records from UAB (OSKR stated they made assumptions on the data they did not have) and OSKR used a completely different accounting method (ignoring the monetary value of an athletic scholarship) from every other school in the country when calculating the financial impact of athletics, and the supporters of UAB football want to trumpet it as if it is the gospel on the subject.

Why should the OSKR report not be greeted with at least as much skepticism as the Car report?

It should be.

And I think it is by most people. As a poster in this thread pointed out, any report that passes rifle and bowling off as profitable loses its credibility.

It's obvious you have not read the report by that statement.

Case closed.

Carr report was trumped up numbers and blatant math errors. This Report is factual data backed up by more data furnished by UAB.

UAB paid for a majority of this report. OSKR knows it will be scrutinized and welcomes it.

BTW The board had a report done in 2008 that was recently leaked to the press. It showed UAB football viable and UAB would lose far more if the eliminated the program. They (Board) shelved it. They waited until they replaced a good president with a lackey and cooked the numbers. BTW there were blatant MATH ERRORS in the Carr report. The Carr report by comparison was written in crayon.

That makes two independent reports from two separate firms saying the same thing. CSS will be similar to OSKR. That will make three.

Scrutinize away FU*****

(04-24-2015 02:39 PM)ATTALLABLAZE Wrote:  Again, if we restore the program we still have more that 45 guys still on campus. From what we are hearing there will be a good chance that players who left will be allowed to return with no penalty. We would be allowed to recruit a full compliment in 2015. We would recruit a full class in 2016. we will play in the fall of 2016.

As far as players returning a LOT have said privately they will return if they can with no penalty. Even if they don't we will be fine. Coach Clark has also said he will stay and has already put together a plan to get us up and running again. Will we struggle some? Sure but no worse than under McGoof and Callaway and we will be back up to strength faster than most of the vultures think.

There is no way the NCAA would allow former UAB players to transfer back for this coming year with no penalty. Why would they allow several other programs to be adversely affected by a legal decision of UAB's administration? Maybe it's possible that some sort of compromise could be reached that after 2015-16 former players with eligibility can return, but that's the best possible outcome I can imagine for UAB in regards to returning players.

(04-24-2015 02:43 PM)ATTALLABLAZE Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 02:38 PM)usmgh Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 02:14 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 12:28 PM)usmgh Wrote:  So UAB's football boosters paid the consulting firm that everyone knew was already on the side of UAB football to produce a report saying UAB football was "profitable".

What else would you expect?

You get what you pay for.
Especially from a consulting firm that specializes in providing reports and expert witness testimony to whomever pays them the most money.

As opposed to the Carr Study that we know was contracted to prove that UAB football should be shut down. It was so inaccurate that it didn't even include millions in CUSA income in the report---meaning it was not only biased, but incompetent.

But isn't that the point?

FreeUAB has been saying since December that the Car Report is wrong. It was done with the sole purpose of shutting down UAB football and UAB gave them phony numbers to work with.

Now FreeUAB has their own study for the sole purpose of showing why UAB football should NOT be shut down. This study was produced by a consultant who had previously criticized the decision to close down UAB football, without financial records from UAB (OSKR stated they made assumptions on the data they did not have) and OSKR used a completely different accounting method (ignoring the monetary value of an athletic scholarship) from every other school in the country when calculating the financial impact of athletics, and the supporters of UAB football want to trumpet it as if it is the gospel on the subject.

Why should the OSKR report not be greeted with at least as much skepticism as the Car report?

It should be.

And I think it is by most people. As a poster in this thread pointed out, any report that passes rifle and bowling off as profitable loses its credibility.

It's obvious you have not read the report by that statement.

Case closed.

Carr report was trumped up numbers and blatant math errors. This Report is factual data backed up by more data furnished by UAB.

UAB paid for a majority of this report. OSKR knows it will be scrutinized and welcomes it.

BTW The board had a report done in 2008 that was recently leaked to the press. It showed UAB football viable and UAB would lose far more if the eliminated the program. They (Board) shelved it. They waited until they replaced a good president with a lackey and cooked the numbers. BTW there were blatant MATH ERRORS in the Carr report. The Carr report by comparison was written in crayon.

That makes two independent reports from two separate firms saying the same thing. CSS will be similar to OSKR. That will make three.

Scrutinize away FU*****

I didn't read the 2008 report, but John Solomon's article about doesn't make it seem like it justified keeping football. It does state that the 2008 report was just an analysis and didn't include any suggestions for action.

"The study suggested UAB would have lost money in the Missouri Valley and barely broke even in the Atlantic 10 by eliminating football. Another option of trying to be more competitive in football listed a net loss of $11.3 million."


http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...ll-in-2008

(04-24-2015 10:53 AM)usmgh Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 10:30 AM)ATTALLABLAZE Wrote:  Actually Soloman up until recently has been anti-UAB. There are many threads on BlazerTalk cursing his name. He called for the program to drop to I-AA or go to the Sun Belt because he thought it would be more profitable. LOL It was not until recently that he has acted like he was pro-UAB. In reality he is not. It is college football news and he is reporting it.

There is also a LOT he is not privy to and we are hammering them the next couple of weeks. I can see and clearly understand why he would say that not knowing all what is coming next.

Soloman has not been anti-UAB.

He just hasn't bent over backwards to pander to the FreeUAB crowd like another unnamed AL.com reporter who has since earned cult status on the UAB forum.

Soloman has been pretty even-handed, which in the FreeUAB universe means he must be receiving kick backs from Ray Watts PR firm and fishing on the weekends with Paul Bryant, Jr.

Before Soloman moved to CBS he was pretty anti-UAB with his articles. He's been more than fair since the whole UAB football shutdown thing began. You're basically making stuff up if you are saying UAB fans have hated on Soloman's CBS sports articles. That is completely wrong.

The report also doesn't say that rifle made a profit. Not sure why people keep saying that. It says rifle would lose 62,593$. They are combining football, bowling, and rifle as one unit since they were dropped together.

This report is HEAVILY detailed and explains every little number they have added. The Carr report did none of that. It was a bunch of blanket statements. You can dispute the way they did the accounting all you want, but at least they explained what they have done.

(04-24-2015 02:38 PM)usmgh Wrote:  As a poster in this thread pointed out, any report that passes rifle and bowling off as profitable loses its credibility.

Good thing this report doesn't say that.