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

Dan Harralson ‏@danharralson
...@markingram52 will be on with the @BhamBarons radio crew in the fourth inning.
...@markingram52 talks with the @BhamBarons about 'no room for negativity' at UAB.
...@markingram52 says he met with 53 people, then Dr. Watts called and offered him the job.
...@markingram52 says UAB football is more extensive than anyone understands.
...@markingram52 says they have been working with the @ncaa about the 'UAB football roster'
...@markingram52 says he would like for UAB football to play today, but the welfare of the student athlete is of concern with Bill Clark

Well, the welfare of Bill Clark and his family is of concern to the fanbase.

(07-07-2015 09:35 PM)WesternBlazer Wrote:  Dan Harralson ‏@danharralson
...@markingram52 will be on with the @BhamBarons radio crew in the fourth inning.
...@markingram52 talks with the @BhamBarons about 'no room for negativity' at UAB.GET RID OF THE PRIMARILY, FRONTLINE SOURCE OF THE NEGATIVITY...RAY WATTS!!!
...@markingram52 says he met with 53 people, then Dr. Watts called and offered him the job.
...@markingram52 says UAB football is more extensive than anyone understands.
...@markingram52 says they have been working with the @ncaa about the 'UAB football roster' AN UPDATE WOULD BE NICE...
...@markingram52 says he would like for UAB football to play today, but the welfare of the student athlete is of concern with Bill Clark EXPLAIN TO ME HOW 2017 IS BETTER FOR STUDENT ATHLETE WELFARE THAN 2016...OR 2018...0R 2019...FALSE ARGUMENT!!!

NO MENTION OF FACILITIES????

To a certain degree I understand his safety argument. If the ncaa doesn't allow us to back count scholarships for this year and some expansion of the normal 25 signing class we would trot out 50 scholarship players in 2016. It wouldn't matter who we played we wouldn't have enough bodies to get through the season. As far being complex yeah Mark we know trust us we know. We've been living it since the Carter administration

This argument over the concerns of players if we start back in 2016 is bogus. Whether we start back in 2016, 2017, or 2018 we will still take our lumps.
What that means is the players we'll have in 2016 will not be same as the years roll on (recruits will get better with time from restart date). Therefore the start year has little significance on whether we'll get drug a few times during the startup season. If we get can get some guys in this fall we can redshirt and get a couple of JUCO classes we'll be fine in the long run. Make no mistake if we start back in 2016 it will be ruff same thing if we start in 2017 or 2018.

The welfare of the students maybe for the current practice field, not playing opponents.

I am beginning to think Watts and crew are pushing for 2017 hoping people don't follow thru with their pledges.....and then they kill it again.

The NCAA allowed UTSA, as a startup, to play 2 years as FCS(D1A) before moving on to CUSA. The FCS scholarship limit is 63 with a mandatory count of about 55(FBS is 85 w/min of about 76). They signed players a year before they started such that their entire 1st signing class redshirted. I don't see why UAB, at the very least, could not restart in 2016 with a FCS-level/heavy schedule, if necessary, moving on to CUSA in 2017.

The biggest problem with 2016 is scheduling as most schools have theirs done already. This is particularly true with out-of-conference games during the conference schedule. This is only getting worse as things are delayed...

You can't expect some players to sit around for 3 yrs (those that are currently left) & then the next class to sit out 2 yrs w/o playing. We played Callaway's first season w/ FCS quality & numbers. We did take lumps & some young players that should've been on bench redshirting weren't able to. This 2017 argument is more Wattzi's putting us further behind.

As far as scheduling goes, yes the delays are only making it worse to try to make a OOC schedule but we could take 4 FCS teams then our conference schedule but we'd not be eliglible for a bowl game but we'd be on par w/ most teams we'd play even some of our conference mates which I think would be ok w/ most of us.

My opinion remains that we should play 2016 as an FCS independent and play a mixed schedule. Scheduling won't be as hard as you think. Just in the Sun Belt, there are three teams with an opening.

Watts has begun fapping again.

(07-07-2015 10:19 PM)Blazer Engineer Wrote:  I am beginning to think Watts and crew are pushing for 2017 hoping people don't follow thru with their pledges.....and then they kill it again.

Watts wants validation. Success on the field and throngs in the stands mean Ray Watts was wrong. But Wattsolini is always right. There must be failure.

#freeRayWatts!

(07-07-2015 10:19 PM)Blazer Engineer Wrote:  I am beginning to think Watts and crew are pushing for 2017 hoping people don't follow thru with their pledges.....and then they kill it again.

They might be. I'm ready to go with my pledge, but I need to hear something indicating we have a program before I send it in.

(07-07-2015 11:03 PM)FNblazer Wrote:  My opinion remains that we should play 2016 as an FCS independent and play a mixed schedule. Scheduling won't be as hard as you think. Just in the Sun Belt, there are three teams with an opening.

Exactly. The NCAA only requires the opponents be 4-year institutions for the games to count. It's an alarming rule, but it's true. NAIA, D-III, College of Faith, etc.

(07-07-2015 09:35 PM)WesternBlazer Wrote:  ...@markingram52 says he would like for UAB football to play today, but the welfare of the student athlete is of concern with Bill Clark

Ingram implies, no - actually states, that it is Clark who is concerned about starting back with football in 2016. Does anyone know if this is true? If it is not true, why should he lie? - Sorry that second question is rhetorical.

Could it be Clark wants facilities and has cited player safety? Ingram is playing that for 2017.

Did you guys really expect him to make an announcement while on the radio at a Barons game?

(07-08-2015 10:53 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  Did you guys really expect him to make an announcement while on the radio at a Barons game?

I don't think anybody was looking for that there. It's just an in general thing. We have been told we are bringing football back. They are starting to ask for our money. They have yet to tell us:
We have a coach signed to a reasonable contract
We have plans in place to start upgrading facilities(at least to have some quotes done)
What year we intend on playing
What we intend to ask of the NCAA-scholarships, fcs/fbs, etc.
How long the conference will give us to restart football

It's not unreasonable to expect our athletic director to answer a few of these questions. We don't need them all answered, but just knowing there is some sort of a plan in place would be nice to know.

Clark will give us direction when the contract is done. I don't want to speak for him. He needs to make that announcement and he will explain why he is starting when he starts. There is a lot involved. I will cut Ingram some slack on a couple of those comments.

That said Ingram needs pressure to get contract done. He has been in NO hurry.

(07-08-2015 09:32 AM)CajunBlazer Wrote:  

(07-07-2015 09:35 PM)WesternBlazer Wrote:  ...@markingram52 says he would like for UAB football to play today, but the welfare of the student athlete is of concern with Bill Clark

Ingram implies, no - actually states, that it is Clark who is concerned about starting back with football in 2016. Does anyone know if this is true? If it is not true, why should he lie? - Sorry that second question is rhetorical.

We all want 2016. IF it HAS to be 2017 or god forbid later, the only way the fans will accept it is from HCBC himself. Where it is true or not we will see some kind of conspiracy in a announcement by Ingram or anyone else.

Ingram has got to get a clue about how burned and jaded the fan base is.....