CSNbbs

funny how he won't speak to anyone locally...


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/16/opinio....html?_r=0

it will be nice if somebody for uab write a comment to explain the real situation

No we ALL need to write UAB comments

My comment:

All you people calling Dr. Watts a hero should come and talk to the people affected. This was a crushing blow to this university, the students, and alumni. And it has NOTHING to do with money, despite the lie that Watts is telling. UAB Football made money last year!! Yes, it turned a small profit!. The athletic department didn't make money, but football did. So why cancel football. Well, football, like it or not, drives enrollment. So, why would a president wreck his own school's enrollment driver? Well, he was hired by the UA Trustees, who are mostly graduates of the Univ. of Alabama in Tuscaloosa. Their idea is that if they wreck undergraduate growth at UAB, they can grow enrollment in Tuscaloosa. There's your real story.

So if you posted and said Watts is a hero, then check again. He is a puppet of a corrupt board, and he has caused untold hurt to the Birmingham community!

Those people aren't interested in the truth because what's in that op-ed backs what they want to believe.

It's really an op-ed for the people that believe that college athletics on the highest level, particularly football, is inherently bad and intellectually degrade a school, that the money spent on trying to keep up with power schools will be better spent on education, that the school can be better without a football team, or any of all of the above. Again, the Pacific is referenced and the Carr Study is cited.

There will always be segments of people that have those opinions that believe the pros of having a football team doesn't outweigh the cons. I do not begrudge those people. There are definitely abuses. There are shadow classes and rubber stamps that enable some programs to recruit and play kids that can't even read on a grade school level. There are instances where money is made illegally and where big time sports encourages an unhealthy culture. Those are verified facts.

However, the notion that we should collectively just accept this to avoid all that is ridiculous. If you're going to accept the bad things that can come with having a football team, then you have to acknowledge the good as well. You have to see the binding effect an on campus stadium has for a team, school, and community. You have to see those kids that never would have gotten a chance otherwise walk across that stage. You have to address and understand the intangibles that you can't see reflected on a balance sheet.

Pacific dropping football has no relevance to our situation so I wish they would quit referencing it. Football isn't as big to ANY school in California as it is in the South. And just because a school CAN survive the loss of football doesn't mean they SHOULD get rid of football.

Wow. Judging by the comments, he should just move to New York permanently.

Those comments aren't limited to New York. It is a national newspaper. Not everyone feels about football like they do in the deep south.

(12-16-2014 08:55 AM)Blazer85 Wrote: [ -> ]Pacific dropping football has no relevance to our situation so I wish they would quit referencing it. Football isn't as big to ANY school in California as it is in the South. And just because a school CAN survive the loss of football doesn't mean they SHOULD get rid of football.

Me too. And they say their enrollment has gone up, but the numbers I saw were insignificant. It's a stupid comparison.

Glibly ignored the other dynamics at play.

(12-16-2014 09:48 AM)blazers9911 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-16-2014 08:55 AM)Blazer85 Wrote: [ -> ]Pacific dropping football has no relevance to our situation so I wish they would quit referencing it. Football isn't as big to ANY school in California as it is in the South. And just because a school CAN survive the loss of football doesn't mean they SHOULD get rid of football.

Me too. And they say their enrollment has gone up, but the numbers I saw were insignificant. It's a stupid comparison.

Yeah, a few hundred students over how many years since they dumped football??? Give me a break.

One thing the two schools (BSC & UAB) have in common is that the decisions about football were made by ruling Boards that gave the marching orders to their chosen presidents. BSC's Board decided to have football even at the expense of their D1 athletic programs. The UA's Board decided to abolish football at UAB for its own reasons. Just as there is no substantive "Home Rule" in Alabama politics, there is no "Home Rule" in the UA system either.

(12-16-2014 11:41 AM)BlazrDawg Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-16-2014 09:48 AM)blazers9911 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-16-2014 08:55 AM)Blazer85 Wrote: [ -> ]Pacific dropping football has no relevance to our situation so I wish they would quit referencing it. Football isn't as big to ANY school in California as it is in the South. And just because a school CAN survive the loss of football doesn't mean they SHOULD get rid of football.

Me too. And they say their enrollment has gone up, but the numbers I saw were insignificant. It's a stupid comparison.

Yeah, a few hundred students over how many years since they dumped football??? Give me a break.

It's also an extremely small sample size to use as supporting evidence. One school, 20 years ago, on the complete other side of the country, that as a small, private school is in no way comparable to UAB, was able to drop D-1A football successfully. There are so many variables that haven't been considered.

(12-16-2014 01:40 PM)thebernreuter Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-16-2014 11:41 AM)BlazrDawg Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-16-2014 09:48 AM)blazers9911 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-16-2014 08:55 AM)Blazer85 Wrote: [ -> ]Pacific dropping football has no relevance to our situation so I wish they would quit referencing it. Football isn't as big to ANY school in California as it is in the South. And just because a school CAN survive the loss of football doesn't mean they SHOULD get rid of football.

Me too. And they say their enrollment has gone up, but the numbers I saw were insignificant. It's a stupid comparison.

Yeah, a few hundred students over how many years since they dumped football??? Give me a break.

It's also an extremely small sample size to use as supporting evidence. One school, 20 years ago, on the complete other side of the country, that as a small, private school is in no way comparable to UAB, was able to drop D-1A football successfully. There are so many variables that haven't been considered.

In the same area is San Diego College (not to be confused with San Diego State), a private college which has kept football. What might be the comparisons between the two in that same region?

(12-16-2014 11:41 AM)BlazrDawg Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-16-2014 09:48 AM)blazers9911 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-16-2014 08:55 AM)Blazer85 Wrote: [ -> ]Pacific dropping football has no relevance to our situation so I wish they would quit referencing it. Football isn't as big to ANY school in California as it is in the South. And just because a school CAN survive the loss of football doesn't mean they SHOULD get rid of football.

Me too. And they say their enrollment has gone up, but the numbers I saw were insignificant. It's a stupid comparison.

Yeah, a few hundred students over how many years since they dumped football??? Give me a break.

Exactly - but in addition, who could possibly deny that the increase in enrollment may have been even higher if they had kept football?

I didn't think the article was that bad. The comments, however, leave a lot to be desired from a pro-UAB football perspective.

(12-16-2014 02:45 PM)KevMo4UAB Wrote: [ -> ]I didn't think the article was that bad. The comments, however, leave a lot to be desired from a pro-UAB football perspective.

It has turned into place for people to vent about how much they hate college sports, athletes, and football in general. Everyone can spell, though.

Lee Miller and my comments were selected as "NYT Picks," meaning they are featured more prominently next to the article. I think we represented pretty well.