Looking at some of the names on this new committee make me very suspicious. Bryant jr's last bit meeting is this September. Is this a way for him to still have influence in UAB affairs? I don't trust it. Why does this committee really exist?
I think the alumni society should get heavily involved and make sure there is a true UAB representation on the board. Why isn't Hatton Smith on this committee?
(09-05-2015 10:17 AM)smcleod Wrote: [ -> ]Looking at some of the names on this new committee make me very suspicious. Bryant jr's last bit meeting is this September. Is this a way for him to still have influence in UAB affairs? I don't trust it. Why does this committee really exist?
Yep. I am more upset about this Committee and the way it is being sold than anything that has transpired so far.
(09-05-2015 10:55 AM)PTBlazer Wrote: [ -> ] (09-05-2015 10:17 AM)smcleod Wrote: [ -> ]Looking at some of the names on this new committee make me very suspicious. Bryant jr's last bit meeting is this September. Is this a way for him to still have influence in UAB affairs? I don't trust it. Why does this committee really exist?
Yep. I am more upset about this Committee and the way it is being sold than anything that has transpired so far.
Probably not a coincidence this coming right after the Bentley collapse. Junior is taking a more direct hand since the minders he's put in place over wholly-owned assets like Watts and Bentley aren't controlling events to his satisfaction.
I can't stand this nonsense anymore. It's like trying to play some kind of crazy chess when your opponent has 8 queens--so at what point do we just flip the table over and punch them in the face?
If the real purpose of this is to delay Clark's contract, why don't we call their bluff, and sign Clark to the first "Volunteer Contract" in NCAA Head Coaching History for 2017 only, with the reasoning that recruiting as he's done is only half the job and he's owed UAB the "sweat equity" of one season coaching for building his team? Then the BOT couldn't say squat about it since technically (or at least theoretically) when no money is involved, they have no say!
"...your move, BOT..."
(09-05-2015 10:51 AM)uab278 Wrote: [ -> ]I think the alumni society should get heavily involved and make sure there is a true UAB representation on the board. Why isn't Hatton Smith on this committee?
The alumni society? Are you joking? Their boy Wes Smith is on there so they won't be asking anymore questions.
He is not president anymore
(09-05-2015 11:31 AM)uab278 Wrote: [ -> ]He is not president anymore
But is still very much running the show. Trust me on this.
Maybe we should pay Coach Clark like Gov Bentley top sr aide is being paid. BOT can't take issue if 100% of Clark contract is paid by private interests.
Student vote should include referendum on "Should UAB sign Coach Clark to a 5 yr contract?"
(09-05-2015 11:32 AM)hooverblazer Wrote: [ -> ] (09-05-2015 11:31 AM)uab278 Wrote: [ -> ]He is not president anymore
But is still very much running the show. Trust me on this.
Base on what I've seen, it isn't just Wes Smith. it looks to me that many members of the NAS board, not all but many, are willing tools of the administration. Wes just leads the parade, there a lot folks who are marching in lock step right behind him.
(09-06-2015 10:48 PM)CajunBlazer Wrote: [ -> ] (09-05-2015 11:32 AM)hooverblazer Wrote: [ -> ] (09-05-2015 11:31 AM)uab278 Wrote: [ -> ]He is not president anymore
But is still very much running the show. Trust me on this.
Base on what I've seen, it isn't just Wes Smith. it looks to me that many members of the NAS board, not all but many, are willing tools of the administration. Wes just leads the parade, there a lot folks who are marching in lock step right behind him.
This is accurate.
This committee is a farce. Queue someone to defend it.
(09-07-2015 07:34 PM)hooverblazer Wrote: [ -> ] (09-06-2015 10:48 PM)CajunBlazer Wrote: [ -> ] (09-05-2015 11:32 AM)hooverblazer Wrote: [ -> ] (09-05-2015 11:31 AM)uab278 Wrote: [ -> ]He is not president anymore
But is still very much running the show. Trust me on this.
Base on what I've seen, it isn't just Wes Smith. it looks to me that many members of the NAS board, not all but many, are willing tools of the administration. Wes just leads the parade, there a lot folks who are marching in lock step right behind him.
This is accurate.
Canceling NAS membership then by the droves would be in order.
I know a few people on the NAS board. If you think they are just pawns of someone else, you need to actually spend two minutes talking to them. PM me and I'll point you in the right direction.
But, yeah it's just easier to say they are against our own interests and forget all the facts of what they accomplished and all the time and money they spent to help get football back.
By no means am I saying all of them are bad. I know several on the board that are rock solid.
Would be a good place here to list what they have accomplished then because it is quite fuzzy to me.
(09-08-2015 10:40 AM)hooverblazer Wrote: [ -> ]By no means am I saying all of them are bad. I know several on the board that are rock solid.
I agree, that has been my experience with several members of the board as well. Several of the current board who I know worked very hard with us to bring football back.
But remember a substantial majority of NAS board members backed Wes to the hilt on the manner in which the NAS acted throughout the entire period football when football was cancelled. In addition a substantial majority also agreed to enact bylaw changes which made it virtually impossible for the membership at large to elect officers and board members who weren't already handpicked by the NAS elite.
Former NAS board members who now want nothing to do with the organization have told me that board members who don't go with the flow and object to the direction set by a core group of NAS elites are shuffled to the side, given meaningless stuff to do, and are generally ignored. So most go along to get along.
Those who control the NAS behind the scenes are not bad people. They just think that they know what is best for the organization and don't want to lose control to a bunch of heathens with pitchforks at the gates. They have grown so used to working closely with the UAB administration that they seemed compelled to continue to do so even after Presidency was taken over by a puppet of the BOT that is no way working in the best interest of the university.
I have lost all respect for the NAS.
The whole "no confidence up until Ray held the press conference to announce the ATF" was the most sanguine, disgusting moment in the the saga for the NAS--especially after alumni roasted the BOT and administration for two solid hours beforehand.
(09-08-2015 11:55 AM)FNblazer Wrote: [ -> ]The whole "no confidence up until Ray held the press conference to announce the ATF" was the most sanguine, disgusting moment in the the saga for the NAS--especially after alumni roasted the BOT and administration for two solid hours beforehand.
And police officers posted around Alys Stephens center in order to insure nobody recorded any of the events ... the more look back on that now, the weirder it gets.
In my time at UAB I often had direct contact with the research docs and donor class that loved to say attend concerts and have their own events at the Stephens center. These people have little interest in sports in general much less UAB in particular.
Very good people and have a lot to do with the reason UAB has turned into a major research institution. But as a whole they would be much more receptive to the SOM/Watts argument to spend our increasing limited resources for seed money for research instead of for undergraduate promoting athletics as we advocate
IMHO these are the kind of people we are venting against on the NAS. Not actual lackeys or part of a BOT grand conspiracy but just a totally different mindset that is indifferent to athletics.
IMHO the planned combining of athletics with research and the limiting of the transfer of research dollars to 20 million for athletics will help us in the long run with this very important constituency.