First off I've had next to no free time between working three jobs, remodeling a house to sell, and raising our eight month old. So if anyone wants to know why I've not posted these thoughts on other threads...sue me. Fair warning though I'm not worth much financially right now. I've read many posts on here the last couple days and came to a few conclusions.
First off regardless of the fact that boosters paid for the OSKR report to finish it has become a very valuable asset to our cause. Watts and BOT have to pay some attention to it. They can try and spin it that it had bias but the damage is already done. The report made front page headlines at ESPN. Love the Network or hate it, there is no debating it has the largest audience. One of the problems with the FreeUAB Movement is the fact that most national media has not fully covered story outside of CBS and Tim Brando. The average person reading that article doesn't care who paid for the study. They care that the article is written in our favor. Here is an example from a poster named Jamie Hancock.
"I certainly have no insight to the issues at UAB. But please don't try to sell me this load of garbage that football programs nationwide are truly loosing money. College Football is a "Big Business"...period. These schools are racing to spend money to upgrade every little aspect of their football programs. But they are loosing money each year? Come'on Man!!!"
The ESPN article has over 7,000 shares already. That is national media attention they didn't want or need. It also applies pressure to the other report, do they want to throw their hat in with Carr Sports on a national platform. I highly doubt it. They will most likely recommend we can afford all sports and then we will have two reports stating Carr Report inaccuracies.
Secondly the witch hunt we are on against new potential AD's is baffling to me. It's possible the next AD may know Watts is a dead man walking and realize the potential in getting this job. When we get football back again WE WILL NEVER have a football issue again...provided the football foundation does what it's set up to do. Factor that in with how well most of our sports compete and the UAB AD job might not be as unattractive as some think. I for one also have faith in the AD search committee that they found quality people to be interviewed. I know several on that committee and I think we are hurting their work with a social media witch hunt about rumors. Even if we hired Joe Dean Jr (I highly doubt we are) he is at a school that dropped to division 3 in large part to field a football team. Just my thoughts, feel free to pick apart.
Totally agree on both points.
(04-23-2015 08:32 PM)stc Wrote: [ -> ]First off I've had next to no free time between working three jobs, remodeling a house to sell, and raising our eight month old. So if anyone wants to know why I've not posted these thoughts on other threads...sue me. Fair warning though I'm not worth much financially right now. I've read many posts on here the last couple days and came to a few conclusions.
First off regardless of the fact that boosters paid for the OSKR report to finish it has become a very valuable asset to our cause. Watts and BOT have to pay some attention to it. They can try and spin it that it had bias but the damage is already done. The report made front page headlines at ESPN. Love the Network or hate it, there is no debating it has the largest audience. One of the problems with the FreeUAB Movement is the fact that most national media has not fully covered story outside of CBS and Tim Brando. The average person reading that article doesn't care who paid for the study. They care that the article is written in our favor. Here is an example from a poster named Jamie Hancock.
"I certainly have no insight to the issues at UAB. But please don't try to sell me this load of garbage that football programs nationwide are truly loosing money. College Football is a "Big Business"...period. These schools are racing to spend money to upgrade every little aspect of their football programs. But they are loosing money each year? Come'on Man!!!"
The ESPN article has over 7,000 shares already. That is national media attention they didn't want or need. It also applies pressure to the other report, do they want to throw their hat in with Carr Sports on a national platform. I highly doubt it. They will most likely recommend we can afford all sports and then we will have two reports stating Carr Report inaccuracies.
Secondly the witch hunt we are on against new potential AD's is baffling to me. It's possible the next AD may know Watts is a dead man walking and realize the potential in getting this job. When we get football back again WE WILL NEVER have a football issue again...provided the football foundation does what it's set up to do. Factor that in with how well most of our sports compete and the UAB AD job might not be as unattractive as some think. I for one also have faith in the AD search committee that they found quality people to be interviewed. I know several on that committee and I think we are hurting their work with a social media witch hunt about rumors. Even if we hired Joe Dean Jr (I highly doubt we are) he is at a school that dropped to division 3 in large part to field a football team. Just my thoughts, feel free to pick apart.
Great Post
I think your assessment is on target.
The Carr Report painted a flawed picture that contained heavy assumptions and mistakes. That is the truth. The OSKR Report, on the other hand, draws on more reasonable assumptions, yet the accounting practices they cite really rub people the wrong way. Still, it's reassuring to see something that is more in line with the expectations I had considering the current state of college athletics. The main problem is the official stance of the university is that OSKR was dismissed for the very bias they'll say is reflected in their report. I'm extremely grateful for the people that financed that report out of their own pockets and for the people that put in real work to produce it, but all the detractors and uninformed will see is a report that said what the boosters wanted it to say. That's not to dismiss it. I'm still reading throw it myself. There's no question that it helps, but the people against us wrote it off before it was even produced.
As far the AD goes, the fact that they're conducting the search right now is still ridiculous to me, but actually trying interfering with the process is juvenile in my opinion. Regardless of how you feel about it, doing that kind of tampering reflects poorly on the entire university. Another thing is that I feel it's important to mention that being hired by the likes of Dr. Watts doesn't automatically make or mean the person is of questionable character. Bad people have hired good people, and vice versa. If the hire comes through, we shouldn't be so hasty to antagonize and ridicule but instead work to foster an environment where we can ensure, at least on a campus level, that this never happens again. I don't know who to expect, but I just hope it's not another botched job that ultimately ends up embarrassing us all.
(04-23-2015 09:47 PM)Hopeful Wrote: [ -> ]Another thing is that I feel it's important to mention that being hired by the likes of Dr. Watts doesn't automatically make or mean the person is of questionable character.
True. Watts has zero experience in administration, in undergrad affairs or in athletics. He's only been a SOM dean and department head. Further, he only listens to a very tiny circle, basically Shirls and Smithers. He can't hire a henchman, no matter how much he might want to, because he has no idea where to find one.
(04-23-2015 08:32 PM)stc Wrote: [ -> ]Even if we hired Joe Dean Jr (I highly doubt we are) he is at a school that dropped to division 3 in large part to field a football team.
Actually, football was only added at BSC because we needed it to join the SCAC conference in D-III. The drop to D-III to save money was controversial in part because many wondered how cheap it would be in the short term to start up football from scratch.
(04-23-2015 10:17 PM)thebernreuter Wrote: [ -> ] (04-23-2015 08:32 PM)stc Wrote: [ -> ]Even if we hired Joe Dean Jr (I highly doubt we are) he is at a school that dropped to division 3 in large part to field a football team.
Actually, football was only added at BSC because we needed it to join the SCAC conference in D-III. The drop to D-III to save money was controversial in part because many wondered how cheap it would be in the short term to start up football from scratch.
As I understood it, the decision to drop to D3 was not to save moved, but to increase revenue. D3 is non scholarship, so suddenly you have a football team full of tuition paying students.
In most D3 sports, the athletes are often put on academic scholarship. May not be a full ride but they get assistance.
(04-23-2015 10:25 PM)uab278 Wrote: [ -> ]In most D3 sports, the athletes are often put on academic scholarship. May not be a full ride but they get assistance.
This was true at BSC, but full cost at the time was approaching $30k a year. So even a generous $10k scholarship still nets the school a lot of revenue.
(04-23-2015 10:21 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote: [ -> ] (04-23-2015 10:17 PM)thebernreuter Wrote: [ -> ] (04-23-2015 08:32 PM)stc Wrote: [ -> ]Even if we hired Joe Dean Jr (I highly doubt we are) he is at a school that dropped to division 3 in large part to field a football team.
Actually, football was only added at BSC because we needed it to join the SCAC conference in D-III. The drop to D-III to save money was controversial in part because many wondered how cheap it would be in the short term to start up football from scratch.
As I understood it, the decision to drop to D3 was not to save moved, but to increase revenue. D3 is non scholarship, so suddenly you have a football team full of tuition paying students.
I remember students being told that D-I athletics were too expensive, but you could be right.
Also remember that whatever story they told, BSC's accountants lost a ton of money. I'm not talking about a revenue vs. expenses thing. It's just gone. I'm not sure anyone ever figured out how we got into so much financial trouble so quickly. It sure as hell wasn't just those duplicate Pell grants. So look sideways at any official statements from BSC from that era having to do with money decisions.
(04-23-2015 10:21 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote: [ -> ] (04-23-2015 10:17 PM)thebernreuter Wrote: [ -> ] (04-23-2015 08:32 PM)stc Wrote: [ -> ]Even if we hired Joe Dean Jr (I highly doubt we are) he is at a school that dropped to division 3 in large part to field a football team.
Actually, football was only added at BSC because we needed it to join the SCAC conference in D-III. The drop to D-III to save money was controversial in part because many wondered how cheap it would be in the short term to start up football from scratch.
As I understood it, the decision to drop to D3 was not to save moved, but to increase revenue. D3 is non scholarship, so suddenly you have a football team full of tuition paying students.
That's the "positive spin" story I remember school officials spouting at the time. I also know it cost that school their two largest benefactors at the time with the way it was handled.
I said that BSC "In part" went D3 for football. Most reasons were much more financially motivated.
I found it interesting that 12 walkons left UAB and joined other football teams. That's a source of revenue I never thought of.
(04-23-2015 11:35 PM)FNblazer Wrote: [ -> ]I found it interesting that 12 walkons left UAB and joined other football teams. That's a source of revenue I never thought of.
Yep. I'm an accounting major, and that didn't even cross my mind. There is a reason people specialize in what they do, and get paid to do it. The Carr report was **** simply based off the fact it contained little to no detail. Anybody can put imaginary numbers in a spreadsheet and manipulate them however he or she wants to. I took one look at the Carr report and had about ten questions in 2 minutes. I was pissed that we used this report(and you know what I mean when I say we) for anything other than wiping our asses. It was garbage. Anybody with a brain knew it was garbage.(say what you want about watts, he isn't dumb). It was ridiculous that those in charge allowed it to be used for anything else. I hope that the outside pressure causes those in charge to eventually cave. I doubt that it will. There's a line drawn in the sand, and those guys aren't budging, no matter how bad they look.
Of the 30 walkons that paid full price to UAB, how many would attend UAB without football?
I would say none. 15% ?
If 20-30 kids are attending to play football they probably have as many friends/siblings going there to accompany them. That would be 40-60 just based on football walkons only. You still have the full ride football players that have friends and family attending UAB to be there with that athlete. I would say 50-100 with some of those out of state tuition rated.
The band and spirit squads would be many more.
We have not discussed the general student population.
If it is 1000 total that is about $10,000,000 in tuition and fees.
The critical question that only UAB can answer is how is enrollment going since 12/2 ?
Can we get some transparent review of that data?
We had around 30 + walk-ons so that was never figured in there. Remember some don't even dress out for games but can practice.
(04-24-2015 08:30 AM)notnow Wrote: [ -> ]Can we get some transparent review of that data?
No. You won't see that, any more than you'll get real numbers on what has happened with regard to contributions to the Campaign for UAB since last December 2nd.
I do not think it will be Joe Dean because he would lose outside income.
BSC had a new president (before general). His plan was to raise admissions from 300 a year to 400 a year(1600) He added new faculty and academic buildings went from NAIA to Division 1 and built new and remolded the dorms. The student body barely increased. They were bleeding money and the diminished / spent endowment could not handled the operating deficit. They closed academic departments, retired and fired tenured staff AND went to non scholarship (Div 3).
All Colleges are increasing female 55 t0 60 % In small liberal arts it is especially a problem(75 %). The div 3 football was primarily to lure academically inclined males which keeps females.
uabbean you hit it exactly. A few years ago our Virginia equivalent to BSC (Nominally methodist, great music/theatre dept, etc) started DIII football. The president at the time-a great man-told a friends of mine it did two things-70 players paying their own way and 70 males who were overwhelmingly heterosexual. It was a huge bottom line plus for the school
So you guys are saying Joe Dean is a pimp too?