With all the damaging articles that have been released and those to come what are our chances for CUSA giving us a time frame for restoring the teams without having to exit the conference. Watts most definitely would have to be gone because he has willfully damaged UAB and CUSA brand.
I hope so. I think the vote of no confidence will buy us a little time.
(01-07-2015 09:05 AM)kdblazer Wrote: [ -> ]what are our chances for CUSA giving us a time frame for restoring the teams without having to exit the conference.
I don't know, and I don't think the other C-USA presidents/chancellors/etc. really know, either. I suspect they are going to wait and see what everyone has to say at the Boca Raton meetings before they commit themselves to a specific time-frame on this. But I do think -- this is just a hunch, nothing more -- that they are willing to work with UAB on this, and give UAB some time to remove the cancer within its body (i.e., Watts), and recover as a member of C-USA.
My hunch is that UAB will be allowed to remain a member of C-USA for the 2015-'16 academic season, and that the question will be revisited 12 months from now.
Quote:Watts most definitely would have to be gone because he has willfully damaged UAB and CUSA brand
The removal of Watts from his position would be an obvious and non-negotiable prerequisite for remaining in the league.
Who is fighting for our cause to CUSA? I believe that is a big question that cannot be overlooked. Send the wrong person down to those meetings, and we might as well not attend.
(01-07-2015 02:11 PM)blazers9911 Wrote: [ -> ]Who is fighting for our cause to CUSA? I believe that is a big question that cannot be overlooked. Send the wrong person down to those meetings, and we might as well not attend.
Who are the leaders of the UAB Football Foundation? Send them, and Izell Reese.
At the SOM meeting, Watts said he is working on a presentation with respect to keeping us in CUSA. Don't know if it is for this meeting and I know most don't even want Watts representing UAB in any form or fashion. But I'm just stating that it is possible this will be Watts going. Of course I think our CUSA folks are probably not going to trust anything Watts says any more than the rest of us. So it may well blow up in his face.
(01-07-2015 02:17 PM)Blazer85 Wrote: [ -> ]At the SOM meeting, Watts said he is working on a presentation with respect to keeping us in CUSA. Don't know if it is for this meeting and I know most don't even want Watts representing UAB in any form or fashion. But I'm just stating that it is possible this will be Watts going. Of course I think our CUSA folks are probably not going to trust anything Watts says any more than the rest of us. So it may well blow up in his face.
I think Watts is in for a very rude awakening if he goes down there as the "leader" of the UAB delegation. His peers -- not just students or faces in a crowd, but university presidents, whose opinions matter to him -- are going to tell him that he has made a complete and utter fool of himself, and that he has wreaked havoc not just on UAB but on C-USA as a whole. They are going to tell him this by their actions and by their inactions, by their words and by their silence.
(01-07-2015 02:13 PM)Native Georgian Wrote: [ -> ] (01-07-2015 02:11 PM)blazers9911 Wrote: [ -> ]Who is fighting for our cause to CUSA? I believe that is a big question that cannot be overlooked. Send the wrong person down to those meetings, and we might as well not attend.
Who are the leaders of the UAB Football Foundation? Send them, and Izell Reese.
They are not UAB employees. It is going to have to be someone with an official position.
I hope Watts goes and gets his ass snubbed, but I fear for what happens to our conference affiliation under that scenario.
(01-07-2015 02:25 PM)UAB Band Dad Wrote: [ -> ]It is going to have to be someone with an official position.
Who introduced the no-confidence resolution to the faculty Senate? That's a UAB employee, someone with an official position. Let Reese and the UAB-FF go as "guests" of that person.
The point is, you can't let Watts be the voice (at least, not the sole voice) of UAB's agenda. That is just begging for expulsion from the league.
(01-07-2015 02:25 PM)UAB Band Dad Wrote: [ -> ] (01-07-2015 02:13 PM)Native Georgian Wrote: [ -> ] (01-07-2015 02:11 PM)blazers9911 Wrote: [ -> ]Who is fighting for our cause to CUSA? I believe that is a big question that cannot be overlooked. Send the wrong person down to those meetings, and we might as well not attend.
Who are the leaders of the UAB Football Foundation? Send them, and Izell Reese.
They are not UAB employees. It is going to have to be someone with an official position.
I hope Watts goes and gets his ass snubbed, but I fear for what happens to our conference affiliation under that scenario.
Don't worry he has a fantastic backup plan.
Regardless of what happens, he set our football program back a decade if, and when, it does return. It took us forever to get the right coach in place, and right when we were ready to finally turn a corner, he screwed it all up.(no longer having multiple buy games was going to be huge for us). Even if he reinstated the program tomorrow, the damage has already been done. Now, we may have to move to a crappier conference than CUSA if we play again at the fbs level.
(01-07-2015 02:37 PM)blazers9911 Wrote: [ -> ]Don't worry he has a fantastic backup plan.
Heh.
I wish one of his C-USA peers would ask him, on the record, what UAB's fall-back position is if UAB is excluded from C-USA. I would love to hear him answer that.
(01-07-2015 02:37 PM)blazers9911 Wrote: [ -> ]Don't worry he has a fantastic backup plan.
I can't wait to have Samford as a crosstown conference rival!
(01-07-2015 02:51 PM)HSV_BLAZER Wrote: [ -> ] (01-07-2015 02:37 PM)blazers9911 Wrote: [ -> ]Don't worry he has a fantastic backup plan.
I can't wait to have Samford as a crosstown conference rival!
No offense to Samford, but that sickens me.
Wasn't meant as a shot at Samford. Just trying to imagine how they will try to frame a move to the OVC as a good thing.
(01-07-2015 02:37 PM)blazers9911 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-07-2015 02:25 PM)UAB Band Dad Wrote: [ -> ] (01-07-2015 02:13 PM)Native Georgian Wrote: [ -> ] (01-07-2015 02:11 PM)blazers9911 Wrote: [ -> ]Who is fighting for our cause to CUSA? I believe that is a big question that cannot be overlooked. Send the wrong person down to those meetings, and we might as well not attend.
Who are the leaders of the UAB Football Foundation? Send them, and Izell Reese.
They are not UAB employees. It is going to have to be someone with an official position.
I hope Watts goes and gets his ass snubbed, but I fear for what happens to our conference affiliation under that scenario.
Don't worry he has a fantastic backup plan.
Regardless of what happens, he set our football program back a decade if, and when, it does return. It took us forever to get the right coach in place, and right when we were ready to finally turn a corner, he screwed it all up.(no longer having multiple buy games was going to be huge for us). Even if he reinstated the program tomorrow, the damage has already been done. Now, we may have to move to a crappier conference than CUSA if we play again at the fbs level.
If staying in CUSA is the main plan, then there is no way the backup plan is fantastic.
(01-07-2015 03:25 PM)HSV_BLAZER Wrote: [ -> ]Wasn't meant as a shot at Samford. Just trying to imagine how they will try to frame a move to the OVC as a good thing.
Samford moved from OVC to the Southern Conference a few years ago
All this talk of moving to ANY new conference implies that any conference would be willing to overlook the obvious demonstrated inability of UAB to be master of its own ship. NO ONE really believes the tale that Dr Watts - acting alone - made such an important decision about such an important athletic team.
Proof? They don't need "proof" to vote "no confidence" in UAB's leadership when UAB asks for admittance. As long as the existing overbearing UA System governance structure remains intact, UAB will be considered as though it has the dreaded "Show Cause" requirement attached to its application. We would be considered HIGH RISK for some kind of future detrimental action from Tuscaloosa.