CSNbbs

Good. Really hope the fans show up to their games after putting up that fight.

More UAB news....

Quote:Brett McMurphy ‏@McMurphyESPN · 5m5 minutes ago
NCAA indicates to UAB it will be classified as FBS program & eligible to play in bowl, if qualifies, in 1st year back

Can't wait to see how big that first home crowd will be.

Good job Blazers!

Bittersweet news.

It's great for any fan of college football for the Blazers to return to college football. But I was kind of hoping they'd be back as a FBS transitional in 2016. I'd have thought that having games in 2016 would be a nice headstart & would be best for all parties: fans, recruits, players, coaches, the conference, etc. Not sure what the NCAA rationale is.

See you in 2017!

(07-21-2015 01:53 PM)cltnjd Wrote: [ -> ]Bittersweet news.

It's great for any fan of college football for the Blazers to return to college football. But I was kind of hoping they'd be back as a FBS transitional in 2016. I'd have thought that having games in 2016 would be a nice headstart & would be best for all parties: fans, recruits, players, coaches, the conference, etc. Not sure what the NCAA rationale is.

See you in 2017!

They're going to have to recruit a lot of players. Probably wasn't feasible by 2016.

(07-21-2015 01:53 PM)cltnjd Wrote: [ -> ]Bittersweet news.

It's great for any fan of college football for the Blazers to return to college football. But I was kind of hoping they'd be back as a FBS transitional in 2016. I'd have thought that having games in 2016 would be a nice headstart & would be best for all parties: fans, recruits, players, coaches, the conference, etc. Not sure what the NCAA rationale is.

See you in 2017!

(07-21-2015 01:57 PM)Niner National Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-21-2015 01:53 PM)cltnjd Wrote: [ -> ]Bittersweet news.

It's great for any fan of college football for the Blazers to return to college football. But I was kind of hoping they'd be back as a FBS transitional in 2016. I'd have thought that having games in 2016 would be a nice headstart & would be best for all parties: fans, recruits, players, coaches, the conference, etc. Not sure what the NCAA rationale is.

See you in 2017!

They're going to have to recruit a lot of players. Probably wasn't feasible by 2016.

Yeah, I'd think it's all about being able to actually field a team.

With the normal scholarship restrictions, that'll be hard enough to do with this timetable.

(07-21-2015 01:57 PM)Niner National Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-21-2015 01:53 PM)cltnjd Wrote: [ -> ]Bittersweet news.

It's great for any fan of college football for the Blazers to return to college football. But I was kind of hoping they'd be back as a FBS transitional in 2016. I'd have thought that having games in 2016 would be a nice headstart & would be best for all parties: fans, recruits, players, coaches, the conference, etc. Not sure what the NCAA rationale is.

See you in 2017!

They're going to have to recruit a lot of players. Probably wasn't feasible by 2016.

UAB is honoring the scholarships of some players that stayed.

I can't think of any positives if Charlotte reduced the number of games played during the FBS transitional year of 2014 from 11 to zero. I can think of quite a few positives if UAB played some D1 non-scholarship programs soon. It sounded as if Bill Clark would have preferred an earlier start, too.

It just seems like a misguided NCAA attempt at punishing UAB for mistakes made by idiots. From a purely selfish perspective, I'd like to see UAB as prepared and competive as possible in 2017. I wish them the best.

Put me in the skeptical group of believing in UAB Athletics. I simply can't envision our athletic program being able to prosper while under the watch of the BOT and its Athletic Committee.

(07-21-2015 02:17 PM)cltnjd Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-21-2015 01:57 PM)Niner National Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-21-2015 01:53 PM)cltnjd Wrote: [ -> ]Bittersweet news.

It's great for any fan of college football for the Blazers to return to college football. But I was kind of hoping they'd be back as a FBS transitional in 2016. I'd have thought that having games in 2016 would be a nice headstart & would be best for all parties: fans, recruits, players, coaches, the conference, etc. Not sure what the NCAA rationale is.

See you in 2017!

They're going to have to recruit a lot of players. Probably wasn't feasible by 2016.

UAB is honoring the scholarships of some players that stayed.

I can't think of any positives if Charlotte reduced the number of games played during the FBS transitional year of 2014 from 11 to zero. I can think of quite a few positives if UAB played some D1 non-scholarship programs soon. It sounded as if Bill Clark would have preferred an earlier start, too.

It just seems like a misguided NCAA attempt at punishing UAB for mistakes made by idiots. From a purely selfish perspective, I'd like to see UAB as prepared and competive as possible in 2017. I wish them the best.

I really can't see this as a punishment. Even with the players they may still have, they're going to be a long way from 85 in 2016.

And if it is meant to be some sort of punishment, it seems like a pretty mild one.

Good job UAB!

Way to go. Good luck! Is Clark still the HC? He's a good one.

Clark is at CUSA media day, so I am guessing so....GOod for him staying put, rare in today coaching world...

i hope they can get OOC games scheduled

(07-21-2015 02:42 PM)inutech Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-21-2015 02:17 PM)cltnjd Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-21-2015 01:57 PM)Niner National Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-21-2015 01:53 PM)cltnjd Wrote: [ -> ]Bittersweet news.

It's great for any fan of college football for the Blazers to return to college football. But I was kind of hoping they'd be back as a FBS transitional in 2016. I'd have thought that having games in 2016 would be a nice headstart & would be best for all parties: fans, recruits, players, coaches, the conference, etc. Not sure what the NCAA rationale is.

See you in 2017!

They're going to have to recruit a lot of players. Probably wasn't feasible by 2016.

UAB is honoring the scholarships of some players that stayed.

I can't think of any positives if Charlotte reduced the number of games played during the FBS transitional year of 2014 from 11 to zero. I can think of quite a few positives if UAB played some D1 non-scholarship programs soon. It sounded as if Bill Clark would have preferred an earlier start, too.

It just seems like a misguided NCAA attempt at punishing UAB for mistakes made by idiots. From a purely selfish perspective, I'd like to see UAB as prepared and competive as possible in 2017. I wish them the best.

I really can't see this as a punishment. Even with the players they may still have, they're going to be a long way from 85 in 2016.

And if it is meant to be some sort of punishment, it seems like a pretty mild one.

Playing 0 games in 2016 is punishment. Worse yet, it doesn't hurt folks like Watts.

Last week, I had to listen to an ECU fan tell me that he felt sorry because Charlotte should have spent a longer amount of time preparing for full CUSA membership. 0 games in 2016 to fully conference title eligible in 2017 is about as fast-track as it gets!

UAB ought to be able to do what's right for UAB. I question the NCAA's decision, that's all. It was the right call to allow UAB to keep its FBS status and to allow them to compete in CUSA for 2017. But the NCAA shouldn't suspend play prior to their 1st game back.

(07-21-2015 03:05 PM)cltnjd Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-21-2015 02:42 PM)inutech Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-21-2015 02:17 PM)cltnjd Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-21-2015 01:57 PM)Niner National Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-21-2015 01:53 PM)cltnjd Wrote: [ -> ]Bittersweet news.

It's great for any fan of college football for the Blazers to return to college football. But I was kind of hoping they'd be back as a FBS transitional in 2016. I'd have thought that having games in 2016 would be a nice headstart & would be best for all parties: fans, recruits, players, coaches, the conference, etc. Not sure what the NCAA rationale is.

See you in 2017!

They're going to have to recruit a lot of players. Probably wasn't feasible by 2016.

UAB is honoring the scholarships of some players that stayed.

I can't think of any positives if Charlotte reduced the number of games played during the FBS transitional year of 2014 from 11 to zero. I can think of quite a few positives if UAB played some D1 non-scholarship programs soon. It sounded as if Bill Clark would have preferred an earlier start, too.

It just seems like a misguided NCAA attempt at punishing UAB for mistakes made by idiots. From a purely selfish perspective, I'd like to see UAB as prepared and competive as possible in 2017. I wish them the best.

I really can't see this as a punishment. Even with the players they may still have, they're going to be a long way from 85 in 2016.

And if it is meant to be some sort of punishment, it seems like a pretty mild one.

Playing 0 games in 2016 is punishment. Worse yet, it doesn't hurt folks like Watts.

Last week, I had to listen to an ECU fan tell me that he felt sorry because Charlotte should have spent a longer amount of time preparing for full CUSA membership. 0 games in 2016 to fully conference title eligible in 2017 is about as fast-track as it gets!

UAB ought to be able to do what's right for UAB. I question the NCAA's decision, that's all. It was the right call to allow UAB to keep its FBS status and to allow them to compete in CUSA for 2017. But the NCAA shouldn't suspend play prior to their 1st game back.

I may have misread the article, but I don't see where the NCAA forced the Blazers into a 2017 date. It seems like it was a decision of UAB, with input from the conference and the NCAA.

Quote:“We truly hope UAB is aspirational and that their plan intends to realize the wonderful opportunity they have going forward,” Banowsky added. “If playing a conference schedule in 2017 makes the most sense for the ultimate long term success, then we will continue to work with them toward that goal.”

Can't see why you think the NCAA is punishing the program.

Congrats, great news for UAB and CUSA!

(07-21-2015 02:17 PM)cltnjd Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-21-2015 01:57 PM)Niner National Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-21-2015 01:53 PM)cltnjd Wrote: [ -> ]Bittersweet news.

It's great for any fan of college football for the Blazers to return to college football. But I was kind of hoping they'd be back as a FBS transitional in 2016. I'd have thought that having games in 2016 would be a nice headstart & would be best for all parties: fans, recruits, players, coaches, the conference, etc. Not sure what the NCAA rationale is.

See you in 2017!

They're going to have to recruit a lot of players. Probably wasn't feasible by 2016.

UAB is honoring the scholarships of some players that stayed.

I can't think of any positives if Charlotte reduced the number of games played during the FBS transitional year of 2014 from 11 to zero. I can think of quite a few positives if UAB played some D1 non-scholarship programs soon. It sounded as if Bill Clark would have preferred an earlier start, too.

It just seems like a misguided NCAA attempt at punishing UAB for mistakes made by idiots. From a purely selfish perspective, I'd like to see UAB as prepared and competive as possible in 2017. I wish them the best.

So? The program is 2 years away from playing again. How many of those players are still going to be eligible at that point? Virtually none. Their eligibility isn't freezing. They still have 5 years to play 4. If they were freshmen last year and stuck it out, they'd be seniors by the time the program starts again.

If they were anything other than a freshman, they won't be eligible by the time football comes back.

(07-21-2015 03:21 PM)FIU4Ever Wrote: [ -> ]Can't see why you think the NCAA is punishing the program.

Congrats, great news for UAB and CUSA!

You might, in fact, be correct, FIU.  I just re-read the linked article.  I'm probably making a wrong asumption.  Sorry bout that.

It sounds like UAB is allowed to return right back to where they were within 3 years.  As if nothing had happened.  So they'll be back in 2017.

The self-inflicted death penalty hurts ( duh!). 

Is there a slight possibility that UAB could play a lower FCS (Pioneer, etc.)-D2 schedule next year?, I keep reading a time line of a 2017 FBS approval, could they get some on-field experience in 2016? Otherwise, UAB will be playing lots of freshmen and RS freshmen in a FBS situation. Should UAB punt a CUSA schedule in 2017 (again play more of a FBS transition schedule) and focus on 2018, if for no other reason, that to keep their young players healthy?