it seems like deja' vue all over again......I live in Alabama now and I am sick at how similar this is to ETSU back in 2002-2003. The president even used the failed fund rasing effort excuse too. Said they only raised 2 million throught that effort....a local radio host called BS on that, saying you could walk down a hall at the local Medical center and get that much donations from the football alum Dr's UAB has produced......

The UAB president said that the athletic budget would not be cut, just "reallocated". In other words, UAB's invisible sports will get more money -- in a scheme that sounds a lot like that famous, revolutionary college AD, Dave Mullins, who invented the "winning the right way" athletic model. But, it does sound as if this president is a football hater and is using this opportunity to exercise his power, with the help or insistence of the Alabama Board. Perhaps that board hired him to eventually do this.

With this UAB situation, perhaps it reminds that it is long past time for the NCAA to stop telling schools how many sports they must carry in order to be Division I, thus dictating, to an extent, their athletic budgets. Each conference should be left to decide which sports they want to sponsor. If a conference only wants men's football, basketball, and baseball, for example -- so be it. Why not be allowed to put all your resources into your MOST visible sports, if you want -- especially for the non-power five conference DI schools?

Perhaps this UAB situation will move the NCAA to make some financial reforms that better reflect 2015 reality -- especially for the non-power five conferences DI schools.

(12-04-2014 02:30 PM)Buc66 Wrote:  The UAB president said that the athletic budget would not be cut, just "reallocated". In other words, UAB's invisible sports will get more money -- in a scheme that sounds a lot like that famous, revolutionary college AD, Dave Mullins, who invented the "winning the right way" athletic model. But, it does sound as if this president is a football hater and is using this opportunity to exercise his power, with the help or insistence of the Alabama Board. Perhaps that board hired him to eventually do this.

With this UAB situation, perhaps it reminds that it is long past time for the NCAA to stop telling schools how many sports they must carry in order to be Division I, thus dictating, to an extent, their athletic budgets. Each conference should be left to decide which sports they want to sponsor. If a conference only wants men's football, basketball, and baseball, for example -- so be it. Why not be allowed to put all your resources into your MOST visible sports, if you want -- especially for the non-power five conference DI schools?

Perhaps this UAB situation will move the NCAA to make some financial reforms that better reflect 2015 reality -- especially for the non-power five conferences DI schools.

Not sure if the president is a football hater but Paul Bryant Jr (president of the board of trustees) is a Gene Bartow hater, I think he is stepping down so this was his last chance to do in something Bartow built.

I honestly wish the "power 5" would just get it over with and break off entirely. It really needs to be the "power 4" with 16 teams in each conference.

The "group of 5" and the FCS teams need to come together and have a total realignment. Redo the conferences so that travel is kept to a minimum to allow fans to travel more and keep costs down for the schools. This would also restore some old rivalries of schools that are near each other. Also do not have these teams play the "power 5" anymore. It doesn't help anybody.

The "group of 5" are kidding themselves if they ever think they will be allowed to get into the college football playoff. A combined "group of 5" and FCS would be good football and could be marketed and packaged nicely. With the introductions of the conference networks (SEC, BIG, PAC12 and more to come) the local TV affiliates do not get the opportunities anymore for regional college games. They would probably like to get their hands on those games.

(12-05-2014 11:05 AM)brock20 Wrote:  I honestly wish the "power 5" would just get it over with and break off entirely. It really needs to be the "power 4" with 16 teams in each conference.

The "group of 5" and the FCS teams need to come together and have a total realignment. Redo the conferences so that travel is kept to a minimum to allow fans to travel more and keep costs down for the schools. This would also restore some old rivalries of schools that are near each other. Also do not have these teams play the "power 5" anymore. It doesn't help anybody.

The "group of 5" are kidding themselves if they ever think they will be allowed to get into the college football playoff. A combined "group of 5" and FCS would be good football and could be marketed and packaged nicely. With the introductions of the conference networks (SEC, BIG, PAC12 and more to come) the local TV affiliates do not get the opportunities anymore for regional college games. They would probably like to get their hands on those games.

Also the smaller schools have the numbers. I think something could be formed that could be pretty strong. Over 200 schools versus the big 65 would give some good leverage I believe.

The announcers said something on the ETSU / WCU basketball telecast about the possibility of UAB coming to the Socon..
Here' my question... Since they kicked us out for dropping football, how could they bring them in after dropping it?????????????

I wouldn't think UAB would want to be in a league with Samford.

(12-05-2014 03:26 PM)bucfan1968 Wrote:  The announcers said something on the ETSU / WCU basketball telecast about the possibility of UAB coming to the Socon..
Here' my question... Since they kicked us out for dropping football, how could they bring them in after dropping it?????????????

UAB has a much bigger national profile than ETSU. It would be a great pick up for the SoCon.

(12-05-2014 03:41 PM)ETSUfan1 Wrote:  I wouldn't think UAB would want to be in a league with Samford.

That is probably true. So let's give Samford the boot if needed to get UA-B.

VICE article discussing the bad math/logic

It sounds all so familiar.

Interesting point about WKU at the end.

(12-05-2014 03:41 PM)ETSUfan1 Wrote:  I wouldn't think UAB would want to be in a league with Samford.

We wouldn't want to be. This doesn't seem to be about what we want, though.

(12-08-2014 02:38 PM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 03:41 PM)ETSUfan1 Wrote:  I wouldn't think UAB would want to be in a league with Samford.

We wouldn't want to be. This doesn't seem to be about what we want, though.

My guess is that you calculate that you're better off without football than with FCS football?

FCS football was not considered in the study by the Carr Group.

(12-08-2014 02:36 PM)Seattle Bucs Wrote:  VICE article discussing the bad math/logic

It sounds all so familiar.

Interesting point about WKU at the end.

Yes, so familiar. ETSU cooked the books -- athletic spending never went down after 2003. It increased each year thereafter as overall university spending stalled due to state cuts. In fact, athletic spending continued on a pace as if football was still there, as if more money was being spent on football. It was a scheme to rob football, a revenue sport, to give to non-revenue sports. Real smart, that was. It was never about "saving" money, it was about redistribution of athletic spending. In fact, subsidizing of athletics increased because of the elimination of a sport that actually brought in revenue. Sounds as if the same thing is going on at UAB.

Would be interesting to know if the overall athletic budget at ETSU has been reprioritized with a shift in spending back towards the visible, front porch sports -- even after the recent designated student fee for football.

(12-08-2014 02:38 PM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 03:41 PM)ETSUfan1 Wrote:  I wouldn't think UAB would want to be in a league with Samford.

We wouldn't want to be. This doesn't seem to be about what we want, though.

I hope they will join the Southern. I guess the Atlantic 10 is an option but that would be a lot more travel.

I really think they could end up in the ASUN. I'm not sure the SoCon would take UAB knowing that they would bolt at the first chance they got. The ASUN doesn't care.

A10 - They are full and probably wouldn't consider us worth the travel.
MVC - Don't think they'd add an 11th team, especially so far outside the footprint. It's worth a few calls, though.
CAA - Even missing members it compares pretty well to C-USA basketball in RPI. Multiple soccer bids per year.
Sun Belt - A couple of in state teams and names some people recognize.

After that would be SoCon and the Atlantic Sun. Nothing would surprise me at this point.

I think you all would fit in pretty well in the Sun Belt. The CAA would be better than the SoCon or ASUN. Good luck, you all deserve something better than what you're getting. It's really odd all the similarities that we have in the way this football thing went down.

We've got that whole Bartow connection, too. I suppose it would be oddly fitting to be in the same conference.

(12-08-2014 06:56 PM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  A10 - They are full and probably wouldn't consider us worth the travel.
MVC - Don't think they'd add an 11th team, especially so far outside the footprint. It's worth a few calls, though.
CAA - Even missing members it compares pretty well to C-USA basketball in RPI. Multiple soccer bids per year.
Sun Belt - A couple of in state teams and names some people recognize.

After that would be SoCon and the Atlantic Sun. Nothing would surprise me at this point.

4 conferences wouldn't take ETSU without football- Colonial, OVC, SoCon, and Big South.

Good luck! The A-Sun may be where you have to go to heal; I hope not.