The unofficial online home for fans of the UAB Blazers. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

This was on AL.com, do you think that the AU BOT will shut down football. Just think if dr. Watts was at Auburn...would he shut football down?

Its sleeting and freezing rain here in Middle Tennessee..messy Snowing in southern KY

Imagine that... Sure wonder how the openly anti-UAB barners justify these facts?

There's only one fiscally responsible reaction.

Now isn't this the same thing with us but Watts tried to put it all on the football team? Our football team broke even but the athletic department is supplemented by $20 mil the same as Auburn.

It's nothing to worry about. They made a lot of big time moves, and those buyouts still linger. It's a more than manageable deficit for Auburn and the major sports for them are definitely trending up in my opinion.

I expect Auburn basketball to be big time soon with Pearl at the helm. They're not great now to say the least, but the hire alone said they were serious about basketball now. I like the passion he brings, and I truly believe he's going to have people fired up when he gets his recruits.

With the hire of Muschamp, football has even higher expectations than they did after making it to the championship game. The conference is wide open, and the fans are excited.

I really don't care how they're doing, I'm just seeing can this be used to benefit our cause.

The difference is, Auburn has a huge fanbase. Compare photos of a Saturday at Jordan-Hare versus Legion Field. That's the point.

(02-16-2015 04:21 PM)Montgomery Blazer Wrote:  The difference is, Auburn has a huge fanbase. Compare photos of a Saturday at Jordan-Hare versus Legion Field. That's the point.

Compare photos of Jordan Hare to Legion field period.

(02-16-2015 04:17 PM)rook360 Wrote:  I really don't care how they're doing, I'm just seeing can this be used to benefit our cause.

I don't see any way this could.

Auburn is going to remedy that situation in a few years and that headline would only be something for fringe Alabama fans to nitpick. The only thing to learn here is something that reasonable people already know.

Quote:The difference is, Auburn has a huge fanbase. Compare photos of a Saturday at Jordan-Hare versus Legion Field. That's the point.

I don't think so.

I think the point is that wise people that actually care about the university are in charge at Auburn. UAB atrophied, and part of Auburn's deficit is because they literally paid someone to go away before they started to do the same. Auburn already has a nice on campus stadium and is even about to upgrade it with a new scoreboard. UAB played at Alabama's leftovers since its inception.

Fan support is cool and it matters, but the bottom line is just having a baseline of institutional support from the people that govern the school. Instead of comparing stadiums, it's more about comparing the people tasked with making these decisions.

(02-16-2015 01:23 PM)TNBLAZERS Wrote:  This was on AL.com, do you think that the AU BOT will shut down football. Just think if dr. Watts was at Auburn...would he shut football down?

Its sleeting and freezing rain here in Middle Tennessee..messy Snowing in southern KY

The same source (B'ham NEWS) on Friday February 13 - pg 16 - stated "Auburn Athletic budget (2014-2015) expected to Eclipse $113 million; Revenue to reach all-time high" -- by Brandon Marcello.

There were 15 revenue items listed by category and by sport for the Athletic Dept. and 18 Athletic Dept. expenditure items listed by category and sport. The football team was the biggest expense item with $29.3 million -- while it was listed on the revenue side at $81.5 million.

Total salary pool in the AD is up 14.5% to $32.3 million.
Auburn says its revenue has jumped from $46 million to $108 million over the past decade.

Will they carry a similar breakdown for the Athletic Department at UA?

(02-16-2015 04:21 PM)Montgomery Blazer Wrote:  The difference is, Auburn has a huge fanbase. Compare photos of a Saturday at Jordan-Hare versus Legion Field. That's the point.

Deficits are deficits.

(02-16-2015 04:21 PM)Montgomery Blazer Wrote:  The difference is, Auburn has a huge fanbase. Compare photos of a Saturday at Jordan-Hare versus Legion Field. That's the point.

The only difference is that AU has it's own governing body and we don't!

Comparing Auburn's deficit to ours is a weak argument. If they were running a large deficit every year, then it would be a valid point. I would say that we have a plethora of good arguments to support UAB Football, but I don't think this is one.

This is as relevant to UAB athletics as Bama's possible next basketball coach and it's impact on our recruiting...which was deemed not Blazer related and moved to the Bar and Grill.

This article (from 2014) shed light on just how difficult from an accounting standpoint it is to compare and evaluate D1 athletic department financial information. However, using a "common analysis" approach, they determine that of 230 D1 programs, only 20 were actually profitable when using common analysis tools.

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football...-subsidies

Everybody's cooking the books, they're all just doing it in their own way......

(02-16-2015 07:26 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  This is as relevant to UAB athletics as Bama's possible next basketball coach and it's impact on our recruiting...which was deemed not Blazer related and moved to the Bar and Grill.

+1

(02-16-2015 08:17 PM)PTBlazer Wrote:  This article (from 2014) shed light on just how difficult from an accounting standpoint it is to compare and evaluate D1 athletic department financial information. However, using a "common analysis" approach, they determine that of 230 D1 programs, only 20 were actually profitable when using common analysis tools.

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football...-subsidies

Everybody's cooking the books, they're all just doing it in their own way......

There is also the fact that Athletic Departments are not audited by independent outside firms so they live by their own numbers without challenge. That is why you can get an AL.com report for 2013-2014 showing a deficit and another for 2014-2015 (post #10) showing a large and growing surplus.

(02-16-2015 07:26 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  This is as relevant to UAB athletics as Bama's possible next basketball coach and it's impact on our recruiting...which was deemed not Blazer related and moved to the Bar and Grill.

I disagree. I think as UAB people we need to be highly attuned to the financial aspects of athletics. Because, as we have seen, for us, it really, really matters. We've got to be supportive of our athletic teams at all levels (which I have not always done), demanding of transparency of all our athletic department actions, financial and otherwise, and willing to go the extra mile from a contribution standpoint (which we have not always done, me first). As a people, the Blazers should now understand we can't rely on anyone, particularly to the Southwest, to support our athletic program, and indeed, we must continually work to protect them from judgment from outsiders. So, I do think it is important to know what the competitive landscape looks like.

According to the article I linked above, UAB is 194 out of 230 programs from an athletic profitability standpoint, or in the bottom 17% of programs. Is that acceptable? Would it be acceptable if the Medical School was in the bottom tier? The Business School? The Engineering School?

The answer is no, it wouldn't. Then why are we willing to allow this to happen to our athletic programs?

I'm sure the Auburn site is discussing how great a coach Haase is.

(02-16-2015 08:35 PM)PTBlazer Wrote:  

(02-16-2015 07:26 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  This is as relevant to UAB athletics as Bama's possible next basketball coach and it's impact on our recruiting...which was deemed not Blazer related and moved to the Bar and Grill.

I disagree. I think as UAB people we need to be highly attuned to the financial aspects of athletics. Because, as we have seen, for us, it really, really matters. We've got to be supportive of our athletic teams at all levels (which I have not always done), demanding of transparency of all our athletic department actions, financial and otherwise, and willing to go the extra mile from a contribution standpoint (which we have not always done, me first). As a people, the Blazers should now understand we can't rely on anyone, particularly to the Southwest, to support our athletic program, and indeed, we must continually work to protect them from judgment from outsiders. So, I do think it is important to know what the competitive landscape looks like.

According to the article I linked above, UAB is 194 out of 230 programs from an athletic profitability standpoint, or in the bottom 17% of programs. Is that acceptable? Would it be acceptable if the Medical School was in the bottom tier? The Business School? The Engineering School?

The answer is no, it wouldn't. Then why are we willing to allow this to happen to our athletic programs?

You have false assumptions. First thing we haven't allowed anything the BOT has hamstrung the athletic department from the beginning. If UAB was allowed to follow it's own path we probably would be more like Georgia Tech or UCF from a marketing and rights standpoint. When your governing board is trying to figure out ways to undermine the university year in and year out it is amazing we are even at that 194. Lets not forget history for we will be doomed to repeat it.

#FreeUAB!