(04-17-2015 09:52 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  It even says it in the name lol, THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA at Birmingham.

Ignorant reasoning. Schools like UCLA and UTEP aren't mere extension centers just because they are in the same system & start with the name of the state they are in.

(04-17-2015 10:54 PM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 09:52 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  It even says it in the name lol, THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA at Birmingham.

Ignorant reasoning. Schools like UCLA and UTEP aren't mere extension centers just because they are in the same system & start with the name of the state they are in.

The "problem" is that in his view he is treating them as extension centers or community college type branches but UA allowed or probably fostered these universities to be more than that.

The Alabama system is similar (though much MUCH smaller) to the New York system where you have a number of universities under one umbrella. Just like in New York each of these branches in ALabama could really be its own university if it wanted to be but are trying to stick together to form a more cohesive unit (or at least that would be the theory). Unlike in NY you have one university out of the three main branches that holds vastly more power than the others and uses it against the other branches. NY has 4 main branches (Binghamton, Buffalo, Stony Brook, Albany) and while they are not 100% equal they all get their roles and they do not completely dominate the others and each gets to choose the majority of their own decisions. In NY most every branch is its own university or college even though it is part of the system from the largest branches to the smaller community colleges.

Alabama wants treat this more like say the Kent State system. Kent State has a bunch of branch campuses in many places across Ohio, the USA, and the world at large. The difference between SUNY and Kent is that Kent's branch campuses by and large could not exist without the Kent main campus. They would serve little to no purpose. They are designed for very limited needs and really only one is big enough to become its own college if it wanted to. Kent's branch campuses serve to really serve the main campus in many ways and are mostly not able to be their own universities.

The UA system needed to not allow UAB and UAH to get as large as they are if they wanted to keep that KSU style university system. By allowing these universities to get as large as they did they need to transition to being a system where each university is part of the system and not where each is just to serve one branch.

Although this was years ago, Auburn made some changes that allowed Auburn-Montgomery students to attend athletic events on the Auburn campus, even though AUM has its own athletic program that competes in the NAIA. At no point, though, were there talks about eliminating academic units of AUM, which has happened with UAB; UAB's respiratory program will also have its final academic year of operation in 2014-2015. UAB also nearly lost its honors program before Ray Watts issued a rare mea culpa and announced that it would not be eliminated.

(04-17-2015 09:52 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  UAB exists because the UA school system decided to build a campus in Birmingham. UAB is no different than Auburn Montgomery is or Troy Montgomery is aside from the fact that the UA system got the funding to heavily invest in the Campus and make it what it is today.

It even says it in the name lol, THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA at Birmingham. It's not Birmingham University, it's not the University of Birmingham, it's branch of a school that was already around.

Now I'm not saying that UAB would not be better of as it's own public school with it's own governing body. But all of those building were built with funds are result of the actions of UA school system, even money made by the school itself is once again result of the UA school system deciding to build a campus. But how would the UA school system be better off without UAB?

And saying all three schools belong to the people is just more wishful thinking. The people pay for everything the governments fund but none of it belongs to us in reality.

The United States declared independence from England. That worked out ok for us. Seems to be a pretty good analogy for UAB and Alabama.

So long as the people of Alabama would be better off with UAB self-governing, that's all that matters.

(03-28-2015 06:06 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Interestingly enough, a cold split would be the easiest option to actually do. There are no constitutional questions or anything associated with it.

It isn't on the table because it would be catastrophic for whatever is left of UAH and UAB. Nobody in power anywhere wants to see that.

Yep. bham is a clusterfrick. The state is sick of bham and their endless drams

(04-22-2015 11:24 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(03-28-2015 06:06 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Interestingly enough, a cold split would be the easiest option to actually do. There are no constitutional questions or anything associated with it.

It isn't on the table because it would be catastrophic for whatever is left of UAH and UAB. Nobody in power anywhere wants to see that.

Yep. bham is a clusterfrick. The state is sick of bham and their endless drams

More fuel being added to the fire. I read somewhere that the BoTs of Alabama wanted to kill all sports at UAB in 2004. It seems it is not the football program that the BoTs and Bryant JR are going after. Destroying UAB's D1 classification.

[/quote]

Every single one of those school systems has had to battle with their branch sites at least once. Example, Troy's Montgomery campus once broke away from the system before being brought back in. And Auburn has has tensions with it's Montgomery campus also, just not to to level UA is having with UAB.[/quote]

Don't forget West Alabama - UWA

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...tudy-finds

Surprised no one has posted this yet

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com...ly-viable/


This one showed that bowling was in the positive as well. 2 of the 3 sports dropped where in the positive. So, this study shows more fuel to the fire, and that UAB could become a separate entity from Alabama.

What a PRO UAB Sports group sponsored finds that the Anti UAB Sports group study is wrong? I am shocked! I just want this soap opera to just come to an end. Right now I am at the point I just want the Hero or Villain to just win and move on.

(04-24-2015 09:18 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  What a PRO UAB Sports group sponsored finds that the Anti UAB Sports group study is wrong? I am shocked! I just want this soap opera to just come to an end. Right now I am at the point I just want the Hero or Villain to just win and move on.

OSKR was hired by UAB and the Task Force but was then fired. The school is on the hook for over half the costs of the study.

(04-24-2015 10:14 AM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 09:18 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  What a PRO UAB Sports group sponsored finds that the Anti UAB Sports group study is wrong? I am shocked! I just want this soap opera to just come to an end. Right now I am at the point I just want the Hero or Villain to just win and move on.

OSKR was hired by UAB and the Task Force but was then fired. The school is on the hook for over half the costs of the study.

My understanding the TASK FORCE hired a consulting group but UAB had to approve. UAB is on the hook for the task force, but it sounded like the TASK FORCE started work before UAB weighed in about the concerns.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...g-football
Last month, CSS lost its bid to become UAB's new consultant to review the work by previous consultant, CarrSports. UAB's task force announced in early March the hiring of consultant OSKR after a unanimous vote.

But UAB's administration cited perceived biases by OSKR because of articles written by its co-founder and eliminated the company from consideration. UAB owes OSKR $22,400 for work the firm did after initially getting approval, AL.com reported. (Wes Smith, the chair of UAB's Athletics Assessment Task Force, said OSKR will be paid.)

The task force was not supposed to have things approved by UAB. The task force was theoretically an independent group of people hand selected by Watts, but he stepped in to reject their firm selection.

I read in one article that uab boosters paid oskr 20,000 to help pay for the study.

Yep. UAB is on the hook for $22,000 and some change. The boosters kicked in $20,000 more to OSKR after Watts fired them.

(04-25-2015 08:03 PM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  Yep. UAB is on the hook for $22,000 and some change. The boosters kicked in $20,000 more to OSKR after Watts fired them.

Plus all the same people have been raising money to buy an on-campus stadium which was part of the study as well.

According to Kevin Scarbinsky, UAB will vote on whether or not to bring back football by June 1.

(05-13-2015 02:26 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  According to Kevin Scarbinsky, UAB will vote on whether or not to bring back football by June 1.

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2015/..._uabs.html