(03-21-2015 12:00 PM)IceJus10 Wrote:  As an alumni of a school that had to leave the CUSA because of lack of football (Charlotte) and who has since started football and rejoined (albeit a much weaker, watered down CUSA)... I'd be PISSED if they gave UAB any more than a ONE YEAR wavier... any longer and make 'em get their $#!+ together someplace else, we had to!

IMO basketball in C-USA 2.0 would have been better if Charlotte and St. Louis had been allowed to stay.

(03-21-2015 02:07 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(03-21-2015 02:01 PM)FriscoDawg Wrote:  

(03-21-2015 01:46 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(03-21-2015 12:00 PM)IceJus10 Wrote:  As an alumni of a school that had to leave the CUSA because of lack of football (Charlotte) and who has since started football and rejoined (albeit a much weaker, watered down CUSA)... I'd be PISSED if they gave UAB any more than a ONE YEAR wavier... any longer and make 'em get their $#!+ together someplace else, we had to!

Yeah, let's hope spite drives the decisions.

The most spiteful thing of all was the intentional violation of conference by-laws.

UAB needs to at least have a definite timeline in place by May to get the benefit of C-USA membership for 2015-2016. And no matter what the circumstances, UAB is entitled to only limited revenue-sharing (no football-related revenues) if it is a member for 2015-2016.

I want to see UAB football make it back. But there is no place in C-USA for UAB otherwise.

Check out the noob telling a charter member what there's a place in CUSA for.

You think we fans and alums don't know that? Do you think we're not trying everything we can to rectify it?

Spite is the reason we don't have a ******* football team.

We are in CUSA until such time as we are not. Stop going through our pockets until the damn body is at least cold.

If only there was some other way to know "what there's a place in CUSA for," like, I don't know. . . maybe a set of by-laws outlining membership requirements? We could always use that standard, huh?

Most seem to want UAB to bring football back. But it's not unfair for us to discuss what we'd prefer if they don't. You can't expect fans of other conference schools to not even be talking about our options.

(03-21-2015 02:24 PM)WEARE Wrote:  

(03-21-2015 02:22 PM)Saint Greg Wrote:  

(03-21-2015 02:16 PM)WEARE Wrote:  

(03-21-2015 12:00 PM)IceJus10 Wrote:  As an alumni of a school that had to leave the CUSA because of lack of football (Charlotte) and who has since started football and rejoined (albeit a much weaker, watered down CUSA)... I'd be PISSED if they gave UAB any more than a ONE YEAR wavier... any longer and make 'em get their $#!+ together someplace else, we had to!

Can't wait for you to play these watered down teams in football. It should be eye opening for you.

7-11 in basketball

I guess you struggle with comprehension. Please read my comment again, and see if you missed a keyword.

I didn't. I was adding onto your comment, not correcting it. I appreciate the insult though.

If UAB can't get a football program with in the next year or at least a plan with finances in place to fund one in year 2 they will be asked to leave next year.. We can not have a program in the conference that is not funding football it gives that school a unfair advantage in the other sports. While the amount spent isn't the over riding factor in wins...

it can help.

Especially when the rest of us has to scramble to find dollars to keep a football and basketball coach UAB will not have that 3/4 to a million to worry about.

Still gonna cash those NCAA tournament checks, I bet.

How long did we give some of the 3.0 schools to get their football running? Let's give UAB that same amount of time plus a year.

(03-21-2015 04:11 PM)mistabinks Wrote:  How long did we give some of the 3.0 schools to get their football running? Let's give UAB that same amount of time plus a year.

+1.

We are fight for the return of football. Several hundred of us went to Montgomery and lobbied our representatives and senators two weeks ago. Thursday we found out three of the freeUAB bills have been cosponsered by tons of reps. The most important bill is restructuring the BOT. I believe if it passes into law in the next couple of months a statewide referendum will be required. That vote might be in the fall. Hopefully C-USA gives us until Dec or so before makng a decision.

(03-21-2015 05:20 PM)UABGrad Wrote:  We are fight for the return of football. Several hundred of us went to Montgomery and lobbied our representatives and senators two weeks ago. Thursday we found out three of the freeUAB bills have been cosponsered by tons of reps. The most important bill is restructuring the BOT. I believe if it passes into law in the next couple of months a statewide referendum will be required. That vote might be in the fall. Hopefully C-USA gives us until Dec or so before makng a decision.

Sounds positive. Hopefully they give you a year announce bringing back football.

(03-21-2015 04:28 PM)BlazintheATL Wrote:  

(03-21-2015 04:11 PM)mistabinks Wrote:  How long did we give some of the 3.0 schools to get their football running? Let's give UAB that same amount of time plus a year.

+1.

+2

The conference could sign a deal with both UAB and UMass. UAB for basketball and UMass for football. The deal would be for a specific period of time, maybe 5 years. UAB would have until that time to bring back football or leave. UMass would have that time to bring their basketball or leave. In the meantime we have 14 basketball schools and 14 football.

(03-21-2015 06:06 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  The conference could sign a deal with both UAB and UMass. UAB for basketball and UMass for football. The deal would be for a specific period of time, maybe 5 years. UAB would have until that time to bring back football or leave. UMass would have that time to bring their basketball or leave. In the meantime we have 14 basketball schools and 14 football.

I like that. I'd like it better if we could get some OOC basketball games out of UMass.

(03-21-2015 03:53 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Still gonna cash those NCAA tournament checks, I bet.

Shouldn't CUSA cash them? Man, every person on this board appears to hope that UAB keeps its football team and accommodations are made that UAB remains a member. You seem to have a complaint. If you do, what is it?

Our local newspaper columnist here wrote today that the MVC has interest in inviting UAB.

Quote:There has been some interest in and from the Missouri Valley Conference, which would be a quality landing spot if UAB moves forward without football, but how long would any conference wait to adjust its roster for next season?

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2015/...ver_mobile

(03-21-2015 07:05 PM)stodgdog Wrote:  

(03-21-2015 03:53 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Still gonna cash those NCAA tournament checks, I bet.

Shouldn't CUSA cash them? Man, every person on this board appears to hope that UAB keeps its football team and accommodations are made that UAB remains a member. You seem to have a complaint. If you do, what is it?

Having my team yanked away from me and then watching a conference of which we are a charter member pile on the craptacity has made me a little testy.

Remember, when you say "this school" or "that school" on a message board, you are talking to actual people(not players, coaches or administrators) with years of investment in said programs.

CUSA isn't the victim here. It's the people who love and fight for UAB against the very people who control it. We are in a real existential crisis as a university.

I doubt like hell my kid in the marching band wold enjoy this conversation much, either.

(03-21-2015 07:23 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(03-21-2015 07:05 PM)stodgdog Wrote:  

(03-21-2015 03:53 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Still gonna cash those NCAA tournament checks, I bet.

Shouldn't CUSA cash them? Man, every person on this board appears to hope that UAB keeps its football team and accommodations are made that UAB remains a member. You seem to have a complaint. If you do, what is it?

Having my team yanked away from me and then watching a conference of which we are a charter member pile on the craptacity has made me a little testy.

Remember, when you say "this school" or "that school" on a message board, you are talking to actual people(not players, coaches or administrators) with years of investment in said programs.

CUSA isn't the victim here. It's the people who love and fight for UAB against the very people who control it. We are in a real existential crisis as a university.

I doubt like hell my kid in the marching band wold enjoy this conversation much, either.

I sympathize with you. But CUSA nor any posters "yanked" your team away from you. I don't know what "craptacity" means, please define. Like I said, 99% of the posts favor UAB remaining a member. What about that do you find upsetting? No, CUSA is not a victim, but neither is UAB a victim of CUSA. If things don't work out favorably, fans and supporters of UAB could not honestly claim that CUSA "kicked out" UAB. I really don't think it will come to that, but I don't know what ya'll are up against with the BOT, etc. I really hope there is a favorable resolution.

Craptacity seemed pretty self-explanatory to me.

(03-21-2015 07:21 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  Our local newspaper columnist here wrote today that the MVC has interest in inviting UAB.

Quote:There has been some interest in and from the Missouri Valley Conference, which would be a quality landing spot if UAB moves forward without football, but how long would any conference wait to adjust its roster for next season?

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2015/...ver_mobile

That would be a big step up for UAB hoops-wise. If CUSA doesn't work out they should jump at the chance to join the MVC.

I agree.

(03-21-2015 08:12 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Craptacity seemed pretty self-explanatory to me.

It doesn't make sense.