CSNbbs

Full Version: Think the Ingram hire still coincidence?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
http://6abc.com/archive/9351556/

Just watch the video. Deja vu

Not passing judgement yet. But lets see what he has to say about it.
The biggest difference? They did it to stay with their peer institutions & to prop up football to stay competitive in the AAC.
He was also not the head guy.
UAB will have to cut sports if football ever comes back. By the time it will even be possible to do, the new sports will have already been established.
The timing and handling of the announcement do look like they used the same Sard-Verbinnen playbook, just not as egregiously bumbled as Ray Watts managed at UAB.

Sure looks like the Watzis want to shield the new hire from uncomfortable questions, what with the announcement timing and introduction timed during a contentious NAS meeting.
So which sports do we drop to keep football. Now the football people are the bad guys.
True, he didn't make the call but he had to learn how to get the fans and boosters to accept it.
I'm not labeling him a villian or a hero, yet. But it is what it is, just address it and go from there.
(05-02-2015 08:44 AM)rook360 Wrote: [ -> ]So which sports do we drop to keep football. Now the football people are the bad guys.

Cross country.
No additional coaches are going to be added for mens cross country right now (Coach KT is running it, bad pun intended). Ideal situation would be to let some of the football walkons do it, get a full scholarship for a year, and then dissolve the team.
(05-02-2015 08:44 AM)rook360 Wrote: [ -> ]So which sports do we drop to keep football.

The new ones we were afflicted with. My apologies to the coaches and athletes who were unwittingly dragged into the crossfire.
(05-02-2015 09:43 AM)UAB Band Dad Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-02-2015 08:44 AM)rook360 Wrote: [ -> ]So which sports do we drop to keep football.

The new ones we were afflicted with. My apologies to the coaches and athletes who were unwittingly dragged into the crossfire.

Cross country scholarships should be honored like football's were, and athletes should be able to transfer without penalty.

And it's certain that we would have to drop sports?
Drop sports? No. We could add football, bowling, and rifle back and keep cross country. All we have to do is add one more women's sport.
(05-02-2015 09:58 AM)stc Wrote: [ -> ]Drop sports? No. We could add football, bowling, and rifle back and keep cross country. All we have to do is add one more women's sport.

That's what I was thinking.
(05-02-2015 10:00 AM)blazers9911 Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-02-2015 09:58 AM)stc Wrote: [ -> ]Drop sports? No. We could add football, bowling, and rifle back and keep cross country. All we have to do is add one more women's sport.

That's what I was thinking.

Templr dropped sports so they could better serve their athletes, sounds familiar. So if we bring back football and follow Temples lead, what sports do we drop.
(Devil's advocate)
(05-02-2015 10:05 AM)rook360 Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-02-2015 10:00 AM)blazers9911 Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-02-2015 09:58 AM)stc Wrote: [ -> ]Drop sports? No. We could add football, bowling, and rifle back and keep cross country. All we have to do is add one more women's sport.

That's what I was thinking.

Templr dropped sports so they could better serve their athletes, sounds familiar. So if we bring back football and follow Temples lead, what sports do we drop.
(Devil's advocate)

That was quite a different situation. Temple athletics was bloated with sponsorship of 24 sports. That's a large number over the requirements for Division I membership. Temple also chose to eliminate a number of non-revenue teams while keeping football.
(05-02-2015 08:28 AM)UABslant Wrote: [ -> ]The biggest difference? They did it to stay with their peer institutions & to prop up football to stay competitive in the AAC.

UAB made two major mistakes in sports when faced with the budget crisis - one academic departments faced cuts of 15 to 20 percent. On the other hand athletics received increses in budgets/deficits to compete with the now departed upper parts of old CUSA. This in turn led to even more resentment by the east side/SOM.

This lead to Watts coming in with the east side agenda to cut sports subsidy Rather than the simple gradually bringing the budget under control and switch the funding out of UAB side. Watts made the second mistake of cutting football. Fortunately he blew the implementation

IMHO When we bring back football we will need to in the long run ether ACTUALLY fundraise or cut budgets to average of new CUSA level and have the undergraduate side fund more or cut other sports
(05-02-2015 10:05 AM)rook360 Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-02-2015 10:00 AM)blazers9911 Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-02-2015 09:58 AM)stc Wrote: [ -> ]Drop sports? No. We could add football, bowling, and rifle back and keep cross country. All we have to do is add one more women's sport.

That's what I was thinking.

Templr dropped sports so they could better serve their athletes, sounds familiar. So if we bring back football and follow Temples lead, what sports do we drop.
(Devil's advocate)

That's the thing, we don't have many sports left to drop. We are adding cross country to remain in d1. Short of dropping a division, we aren't going to be cutting many sports if football returns. I know everybody wants to panic about everything, but we just need to wait and see what actually happens.
Temple vs UAB sports dropping is like comparing Kahn to Kate Upton. It was a politically-motivated hit job, with no due diligence.
The sports profile of the UAB athletic programs will depend upon the amount of funding raised to get the FB program back. If generously funded, there may be no need to drop any sport to reinstate FB. One major problem is that UAB was forced to delay so many critical facility upgrades for so long that the financial needs just to get back to the 2014 level will be substantial.

After reading (B'ham NEWS, 4/29/15 sec B, pg3) what facilities many state high schools are already using as well as presently building, we can see that UAB was already facing a substantial facilities gap as of 12/2/14.
(05-02-2015 10:37 AM)uabbean Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-02-2015 08:28 AM)UABslant Wrote: [ -> ]The biggest difference? They did it to stay with their peer institutions & to prop up football to stay competitive in the AAC.

UAB made two major mistakes in sports when faced with the budget crisis - one academic departments faced cuts of 15 to 20 percent. On the other hand athletics received increses in budgets/deficits to compete with the now departed upper parts of old CUSA. This in turn led to even more resentment by the east side/SOM.

This lead to Watts coming in with the east side agenda to cut sports subsidy Rather than the simple gradually bringing the budget under control and switch the funding out of UAB side. Watts made the second mistake of cutting football. Fortunately he blew the implementation

IMHO When we bring back football we will need to in the long run ether ACTUALLY fundraise or cut budgets to average of new CUSA level and have the undergraduate side fund more or cut other sports

This is where the rubber meets the road. Growth of athletics is good. Growth of athletic deficits isn't. Something about all this didn't make sense so I went back and looked at EOY reports and budget submissions back to 2005. Revenue growth wasn't there but expenditures sure was. But expenditures were rising at a rate pretty consistent with the rest of the university. That means it's one side of the ledger and fixable. I think when football comes back there will be an explosion of giving and gate generated revenue.

Btw all that growth Witt talks about in enrollment is totally on the graduate and professional side. Undergraduate enrollment is flat over the last 10 years.
I think Witt will be gone before much longer.

UA still needs to replace Judy Bonner, and I don't think they will deal with Watts until they have UAT's new president.
Pages: 1 2 3
Reference URL's