CSS Report - More like the OSKR Report or the Carr Report?
Everyone is assuming that CSS will follow the same methodology used by OSKR and find that UAB football was not the costly program which the Carr report described. While I really hope I am wrong, but I think that there is a good possibility the CSS report will look a lot more like the Carr Report than the report produced by OSKR. Here are the reasons why:
First, UAB (Watts) is paying for CSS to do the study and the way CSS, Carr and Associates and others play the game, the customers gets what they pay for. Why do you think Wes Smith and Watts wanted CSS to do the report? There is too much riding on this so if you don't think somebody high up in the administration has already made a call to CSS, as they did to Bill Carr, you're naive.
Second, everyone is assuming that since OSKR put out a 156 page report that proves that Football actually made money, CSS would be forced to come to the same conclusion or they would be embarrassed nationally. Unfortunately, they could pull a Carr, with less mistakes, and they might get away with it..
OSKR did the football cost/benefit exactly right and it would stand up under against attack in a court of law. (The methodology was was already successfully used in the O'Bannon vs. the NCAA case where Schwarz was a key witness.) However, It is also true that if CSS were to follow the Carr methodology, for instance using the full cost of scholarships in their study, it may not stand up in court, but it doesn't have to. Remember, it will be Watts and the BOT, not a court of law, who will decide if the methodology is valid. We have already seen that those b@st@rds will use any narrative that sounds good on the surface even though anyone with a brain knows it's wrong.
As for CSS being embarrassed, just remember what I have been saying, you can make a close study come out anyway you want by using the right (wrong) assumptions. All CSS has to do is assume that the numbers generated by the athletic cost accounting system are valid. Now we know that that system puts out BS numbers that are designed to make it look like most athletic programs lose money, but every college and university is using it. That's enough of a fig leaf for CSS to hide behind.
Lastly, Watts and company are already setting up everyone with their "real numbers" statement. Don't you think the Watts and his buddies are talking behind the scenes with CSS. Given their blatant lack of integrity, I would be surprised if they weren't. So they probably already know what methodology CSS is using. Their "real numbers" statement is not only useful for attacking the OSKR report, but it is also useful for setting up a defense of the CSS report when comes out using figures produced from UAB's cost accounting systems. This is the cost accounting system everyone in college sports uses - the "real numbers".
One good thing, if CSS chooses to go in that direction, you can bet Andy Schwarz will do his best to in articles to beat CSS over the head with with their own report. And Watts and the BOT will again accuse him of being prejudice. The question will be whether the media, both local and national, picks up their queue from Andy Schwarz and puts the CSS report through the ringer.
Again, I hope to heck I'm wrong, but I have a sneaky feeling.......
|