La Tech is on right now. As far as I know, no one is questioning the viability of their football program, but here we are with ours shut down. How do the 2 schools compare?
I think we have about the same number of undergraduate students; 15% of their students live on campus, while 22% of the students at UAB (the "commuter school") live on campus.
Their 2013 endowment was about $72 million while UAB's was nearly $400 million.
UAB averaged about 1,800 more fans per football game.
Just a couple of comparisons, but how does any of this make sense?
(12-26-2014 01:50 PM)hershel1993 Wrote: [ -> ]La Tech is on right now. As far as I know, no one is questioning the viability of their football program, but here we are with ours shut down. How do the 2 schools compare?
I think we have about the same number of undergraduate students; 15% of their students live on campus, while 22% of the students at UAB (the "commuter school") live on campus.
Their 2013 endowment was about $72 million while UAB's was nearly $400 million.
UAB averaged about 1,800 more fans per football game.
Just a couple of comparisons, but how does any of this make sense?
LA Tech and its resident city do not have the powerful enemies in their state that UAB & B'ham have in Alabama. That is the real difference.
(12-26-2014 01:50 PM)hershel1993 Wrote: [ -> ]La Tech is on right now. As far as I know, no one is questioning the viability of their football program, but here we are with ours shut down. How do the 2 schools compare?
I think we have about the same number of undergraduate students; 15% of their students live on campus, while 22% of the students at UAB (the "commuter school") live on campus.
Their 2013 endowment was about $72 million while UAB's was nearly $400 million.
UAB averaged about 1,800 more fans per football game.
Just a couple of comparisons, but how does any of this make sense?
La Tech has a much deeper football tradition. They won multiple NCAA championships at the DII level.
They also have a few wealthy boosters, who are former NFL/NBA players, that will write a check to cover most any need. They also have a booster worth several hundred million, who writes checks to cover shortfalls (and calls most of the shots).
LA Tech once thought about returning to a lower level in football, but their President (Dr. Reneau, I think) wouldn't hear of it. Said to raise more money or we'll shut down football. More money was raised and now you have La Tech in a bowl.
Imagine what could have been at UAB, if the school have a good prez, who would give it a chance to prosper?
(12-26-2014 02:05 PM)backyardblazer Wrote: [ -> ] (12-26-2014 01:50 PM)hershel1993 Wrote: [ -> ]La Tech is on right now. As far as I know, no one is questioning the viability of their football program, but here we are with ours shut down. How do the 2 schools compare?
I think we have about the same number of undergraduate students; 15% of their students live on campus, while 22% of the students at UAB (the "commuter school") live on campus.
Their 2013 endowment was about $72 million while UAB's was nearly $400 million.
UAB averaged about 1,800 more fans per football game.
Just a couple of comparisons, but how does any of this make sense?
La Tech has a much deeper football tradition. They won multiple NCAA championships at the DII level.
They also have a few wealthy boosters, who are former NFL/NBA players, that will write a check to cover most any need. They also have a booster worth several hundred million, who writes checks to cover shortfalls (and calls most of the shots).
LA Tech once thought about returning to a lower level in football, but their President (Dr. Reneau, I think) wouldn't hear of it. Said to raise more money or we'll shut down football. More money was raised and now you have La Tech in a bowl.
Imagine what could have been at UAB, if the school have a good prez, who would give it a chance to prosper?
Yes!!! Imagine UAB with a supportive BOT, their selected President and a supportive metro area as well around it.
(12-26-2014 01:50 PM)hershel1993 Wrote: [ -> ]La Tech is on right now. As far as I know, no one is questioning the viability of their football program, but here we are with ours shut down. How do the 2 schools compare?
I think we have about the same number of undergraduate students; 15% of their students live on campus, while 22% of the students at UAB (the "commuter school") live on campus.
Their 2013 endowment was about $72 million while UAB's was nearly $400 million.
UAB averaged about 1,800 more fans per football game.
Just a couple of comparisons, but how does any of this make sense?
Their subsidy is about 1/2 what ours is. Don't know if that's because of more booster donations, season ticket holders, Big Dance money, or a combination. It's the subsidy (and the potential increases in it because of the new football rules about full cost of attendance) that is the "problem" for us that Watts is basing his argument on. That's why he is willing to keep the subsidy at $20 million per year without football because he doesn't expect it to rise much without additional football expenses.
(12-26-2014 02:05 PM)backyardblazer Wrote: [ -> ]Imagine what could have been at UAB, if the school have a good prez, who would give it a chance to prosper?
We've had good presidents. I'd like to see a supportive board of trustees.