(07-11-2019 09:58 PM)pablowow Wrote:  

(07-11-2019 08:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-11-2019 07:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-11-2019 07:25 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(07-11-2019 05:09 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, problem is, UAB just isn't ready for the AAC yet. Like Georgia State and Georgia Southern, they need to marinate in CUSA/SB for a few years to build their brand and prove their value.

As of now, ESPN would not pay $7m for UAB.

ESPN was okay with giving 7 million to Tulane. I don't think they care that much, it's peanuts to them.

So you think that when they negotiated with Aresco over the recent AAC contract, ESPN told its reps to just give away $7 million because its peanuts and nobody cares?

Well, TV did pay 35 million for Rutgers.

Thank you Attack:)...
love that we got each other’s back when an obvious lucky Rutgers hasn’t carried their weight and comes talking crap on our board...Tulane will show everybody this year why they are valuable :..

It's not your board genius, it's the conference realignment board. We've carried our weight a lot more than Tulane has in the AAC. We actually make our conference money!

UAB only has 9600 full time undergrads. That is about the same size as Vermont and Idaho, basically FCS or D-II sized.

They are tapped out in funding, heavily subsidized by tax payer education money, the 3rd school in a smaller state, and do not have a on-campus stadium. They are $15-20M short of minimum AAC athletic budget levels. Where is that money supposed to come from?

What UAB was known for is MBB, ... back in the day. The one big plus they have is a Med School. But Med schools are nothing for sports, as the students are not the least bit interested, and they do not pay fees for undergraduate intercollegiate sports. The other plus is geography, as they sit smack in the geographic center of the AAC. The Academic index is good.

The basic problem is a lack of resources, and way too small a school to support the fees necessary (Private schools can be much smaller than public due to different funding and support models - so don't compare Tulane or Tulsa, it's apples to oranges).

(07-12-2019 02:25 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  UAB only has 9600 full time undergrads. That is about the same size as Vermont and Idaho, basically FCS or D-II sized.

They are tapped out in funding, heavily subsidized by tax payer education money, the 3rd school in a smaller state, and do not have a on-campus stadium. They are $15-20M short of minimum AAC athletic budget levels. Where is that money supposed to come from?

What UAB was known for is MBB, ... back in the day. The one big plus they have is a Med School. But Med schools are nothing for sports, as the students are not the least bit interested, and they do not pay fees for undergraduate intercollegiate sports. The other plus is geography, as they sit smack in the geographic center of the AAC. The Academic index is good.

The basic problem is a lack of resources, and way too small a school to support the fees necessary (Private schools can e much smaller than public due to different funding and support models - so don't compare Tulane or Tulsa, it's apples to oranges).

Not trying to take a dig at anyone but look who is in the AAC:

Tulsa 3rd school
ECU 5th school
U_F 4th/5th school
Memphis 3rd school
Houston/SMU 6/7th school
Temple 3rd school
Wichita 3rd school

As for undergrad size...

SMU 6,521
Tulane 7,924
Tulsa 3,406

(07-12-2019 02:46 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(07-12-2019 02:25 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  UAB only has 9600 full time undergrads. That is about the same size as Vermont and Idaho, basically FCS or D-II sized.

They are tapped out in funding, heavily subsidized by tax payer education money, the 3rd school in a smaller state, and do not have a on-campus stadium. They are $15-20M short of minimum AAC athletic budget levels. Where is that money supposed to come from?

What UAB was known for is MBB, ... back in the day. The one big plus they have is a Med School. But Med schools are nothing for sports, as the students are not the least bit interested, and they do not pay fees for undergraduate intercollegiate sports. The other plus is geography, as they sit smack in the geographic center of the AAC. The Academic index is good.

The basic problem is a lack of resources, and way too small a school to support the fees necessary (Private schools can e much smaller than public due to different funding and support models - so don't compare Tulane or Tulsa, it's apples to oranges).

Not trying to take a dig at anyone but look who is in the AAC:

Tulsa 3rd school
ECU 5th school
U_F 4th/5th school
Memphis 3rd school
Houston/SMU 6/7th school
Temple 3rd school
Wichita 3rd school

As for undergrad size...

SMU 6,521
Tulane 7,924
Tulsa 3,406

Define the rankings. Are they academic, athletic performance, prestige, or partying?

Another point is that Tulane is #2 but behind an absolute powerhouse in LSU that easily takes all the smoke. The state is also small.

Houston might be #5, but nobody can hold all of Texas so there is still crazy room to grow.

(07-12-2019 03:03 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(07-12-2019 02:46 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(07-12-2019 02:25 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  UAB only has 9600 full time undergrads. That is about the same size as Vermont and Idaho, basically FCS or D-II sized.

They are tapped out in funding, heavily subsidized by tax payer education money, the 3rd school in a smaller state, and do not have a on-campus stadium. They are $15-20M short of minimum AAC athletic budget levels. Where is that money supposed to come from?

What UAB was known for is MBB, ... back in the day. The one big plus they have is a Med School. But Med schools are nothing for sports, as the students are not the least bit interested, and they do not pay fees for undergraduate intercollegiate sports. The other plus is geography, as they sit smack in the geographic center of the AAC. The Academic index is good.

The basic problem is a lack of resources, and way too small a school to support the fees necessary (Private schools can e much smaller than public due to different funding and support models - so don't compare Tulane or Tulsa, it's apples to oranges).

Not trying to take a dig at anyone but look who is in the AAC:

Tulsa 3rd school
ECU 5th school
U_F 4th/5th school
Memphis 3rd school
Houston/SMU 6/7th school
Temple 3rd school
Wichita 3rd school

As for undergrad size...

SMU 6,521
Tulane 7,924
Tulsa 3,406

Define the rankings. Are they academic, athletic performance, prestige, or partying?

Another point is that Tulane is #2 but behind an absolute powerhouse in LSU that easily takes all the smoke. The state is also small.

Houston might be #5, but nobody can hold all of Texas so there is still crazy room to grow.

The rankings are that thats how many P5 schools in their state are ahead of them so they will always be behind them in things like resources and prestige.

Houston is 6th behind the 5 P5 schools in state. They have 2 huge state schools in UT and A&M and the other 3 have had more success in one of the two major sports TCU & Baylor BCS bowls and Tech Final Four.

(07-12-2019 02:46 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  Not trying to take a dig at anyone but look who is in the AAC:

Tulsa 3rd school
ECU 5th school
U_F 4th/5th school
Memphis 3rd school
Houston/SMU 6/7th school
Temple 3rd school
Wichita 3rd school

Florida, Pennsylvania and Texas are not small states like Alabama. Philadelphia, Dallas and Houston way outsizes Birmingham. Heck Memphis is much bigger. And Tennessee is bigger (I think Vandy is a bit like Duke, in that it's not really much of State pride draw, making Memphis more like the 2nd public school in the State).

This falls under apples to oranges category for Temple, Houston, SMU, USF, UCF and even Memphis.

Wichita State is Basketball only. Were UAB still anything in Basketball and considered as Basketball only maybe. But Wichita State is 70% more enrollment than UAB. Again Apples to Oranges.

(07-12-2019 02:46 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  As for undergrad size...

SMU 6,521
Tulane 7,924
Tulsa 3,406

I said comparing private and public is apples to oranges. I good rule of thumb is to multiple undergraduate enrollment by 3x to get a comparable resource level to a public school.

All the AAC schools budgets are 50% to 75% larger than UAB. They have more resources. These are facts.

It seems you ignored the parameters of my argument.

(07-11-2019 09:58 PM)pablowow Wrote:  

(07-11-2019 08:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Well, TV did pay 35 million for Rutgers.

Thank you Attack:)...
love that we got each other’s back when an obvious lucky Rutgers hasn’t carried their weight and comes talking crap on our board...Tulane will show everybody this year why they are valuable :..

I think the media company logic is different once you are talking about adding a specific new member, rather than when you are selling the whole conference as a package.

We saw that clearly in 2016, when the Big 12 was considering expansion. When they made a list of mostly AAC schools and invited them to make pitches to join, ESPN and FOX were quick to make it very clear that they did NOT want to pay another $20 million or whatever the 2012 contract called for, for a Houston or a Cincy or a USF.

On the other hand, if USF and Houston had already been in the Big 12 when that same deal was negotiated in 2012, I don't think there's any doubt it will still have been for the same $20m per school that the 10-team league signed for. Because then they would just have been "blended in" to the whole package.

(07-12-2019 02:46 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(07-12-2019 02:25 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  UAB only has 9600 full time undergrads. That is about the same size as Vermont and Idaho, basically FCS or D-II sized.

They are tapped out in funding, heavily subsidized by tax payer education money, the 3rd school in a smaller state, and do not have a on-campus stadium. They are $15-20M short of minimum AAC athletic budget levels. Where is that money supposed to come from?

What UAB was known for is MBB, ... back in the day. The one big plus they have is a Med School. But Med schools are nothing for sports, as the students are not the least bit interested, and they do not pay fees for undergraduate intercollegiate sports. The other plus is geography, as they sit smack in the geographic center of the AAC. The Academic index is good.

The basic problem is a lack of resources, and way too small a school to support the fees necessary (Private schools can e much smaller than public due to different funding and support models - so don't compare Tulane or Tulsa, it's apples to oranges).

Not trying to take a dig at anyone but look who is in the AAC:

Tulsa 3rd school
ECU 5th school
U_F 4th/5th school
Memphis 3rd school
Houston/SMU 6/7th school
Temple 3rd school
Wichita 3rd school

As for undergrad size...

SMU 6,521
Tulane 7,924
Tulsa 3,406

Exactly. You correctly identify the achilles heel of the AAC. Then---you suggest doubling down on the weakest aspects of the conference to make it even worse? Not sure thats much of a sales pitch for adding a team.

(07-12-2019 02:25 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  UAB only has 9600 full time undergrads. That is about the same size as Vermont and Idaho, basically FCS or D-II sized.

They are tapped out in funding, heavily subsidized by tax payer education money, the 3rd school in a smaller state, and do not have a on-campus stadium. They are $15-20M short of minimum AAC athletic budget levels. Where is that money supposed to come from?

What UAB was known for is MBB, ... back in the day. The one big plus they have is a Med School. But Med schools are nothing for sports, as the students are not the least bit interested, and they do not pay fees for undergraduate intercollegiate sports. The other plus is geography, as they sit smack in the geographic center of the AAC. The Academic index is good.

The basic problem is a lack of resources, and way too small a school to support the fees necessary (Private schools can be much smaller than public due to different funding and support models - so don't compare Tulane or Tulsa, it's apples to oranges).

On campus stadium? They have lots of company. They are also building a brand new football stadium. Seats 40K. (Bolded teams are also in the AAC. Green colored teams are in a P5 Conference).

Pitt
Miami
Memphis
UConn
UCLA
UT-San Antonio
Hawaii
South Florida
Temple
UNLV
Washington
NC State
San Diego State
Baylor
South Carolina
Oregon
Navy
Northwestern
San Jose State

(07-11-2019 04:42 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Surprised something so obvious is even a news story. Would UAB like to get another 7 million in revenue for nothing? Yes---we would "entertain" such an offer. Duh.

That kind of arrogant attitude is the kind of thing thatwill get that invite snatched back out of the UAB AD’s hand faster than Baby’s dad yanked that medical school recommendation back from Robbie! (See how many of you get that reference...lol)

(07-12-2019 02:16 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(07-11-2019 09:58 PM)pablowow Wrote:  

(07-11-2019 08:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-11-2019 07:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-11-2019 07:25 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  ESPN was okay with giving 7 million to Tulane. I don't think they care that much, it's peanuts to them.

So you think that when they negotiated with Aresco over the recent AAC contract, ESPN told its reps to just give away $7 million because its peanuts and nobody cares?

Well, TV did pay 35 million for Rutgers.

Thank you Attack:)...
love that we got each other’s back when an obvious lucky Rutgers hasn’t carried their weight and comes talking crap on our board...Tulane will show everybody this year why they are valuable :..

It's not your board genius, it's the conference realignment board. We've carried our weight a lot more than Tulane has in the AAC. We actually make our conference money!

Gotcha... on the realignment board! But the point about you earning your money is downright laughable... I do think you should be in the BIG ... your wrong about Tulane value... we earn our way in the American and will show you even more this year... you have a long way to go to being competitive... good luck this year...

A lot of different perspectives on the UAB situation.

The fact they dropped their football program just a few years ago seems like a gamble. Also what is attendance going to look like in that new stadium once the novelty wears off?

If the AAC waits a few years before deciding on a 12th like most are thinking at this point it will help UAB's case.

(07-12-2019 05:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-12-2019 02:46 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(07-12-2019 02:25 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  UAB only has 9600 full time undergrads. That is about the same size as Vermont and Idaho, basically FCS or D-II sized.

They are tapped out in funding, heavily subsidized by tax payer education money, the 3rd school in a smaller state, and do not have a on-campus stadium. They are $15-20M short of minimum AAC athletic budget levels. Where is that money supposed to come from?

What UAB was known for is MBB, ... back in the day. The one big plus they have is a Med School. But Med schools are nothing for sports, as the students are not the least bit interested, and they do not pay fees for undergraduate intercollegiate sports. The other plus is geography, as they sit smack in the geographic center of the AAC. The Academic index is good.

The basic problem is a lack of resources, and way too small a school to support the fees necessary (Private schools can e much smaller than public due to different funding and support models - so don't compare Tulane or Tulsa, it's apples to oranges).

Not trying to take a dig at anyone but look who is in the AAC:

Tulsa 3rd school
ECU 5th school
U_F 4th/5th school
Memphis 3rd school
Houston/SMU 6/7th school
Temple 3rd school
Wichita 3rd school

As for undergrad size...

SMU 6,521
Tulane 7,924
Tulsa 3,406

Exactly. You correctly identify the achilles heel of the AAC. Then---you suggest doubling down on the weakest aspects of the conference to make it even worse? Not sure thats much of a sales pitch for adding a team.

maybe they borrowed the AAC members proposals to the Big 12?

(07-14-2019 09:35 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-12-2019 05:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-12-2019 02:46 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(07-12-2019 02:25 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  UAB only has 9600 full time undergrads. That is about the same size as Vermont and Idaho, basically FCS or D-II sized.

They are tapped out in funding, heavily subsidized by tax payer education money, the 3rd school in a smaller state, and do not have a on-campus stadium. They are $15-20M short of minimum AAC athletic budget levels. Where is that money supposed to come from?

What UAB was known for is MBB, ... back in the day. The one big plus they have is a Med School. But Med schools are nothing for sports, as the students are not the least bit interested, and they do not pay fees for undergraduate intercollegiate sports. The other plus is geography, as they sit smack in the geographic center of the AAC. The Academic index is good.

The basic problem is a lack of resources, and way too small a school to support the fees necessary (Private schools can e much smaller than public due to different funding and support models - so don't compare Tulane or Tulsa, it's apples to oranges).

Not trying to take a dig at anyone but look who is in the AAC:

Tulsa 3rd school
ECU 5th school
U_F 4th/5th school
Memphis 3rd school
Houston/SMU 6/7th school
Temple 3rd school
Wichita 3rd school

As for undergrad size...

SMU 6,521
Tulane 7,924
Tulsa 3,406

Exactly. You correctly identify the achilles heel of the AAC. Then---you suggest doubling down on the weakest aspects of the conference to make it even worse? Not sure thats much of a sales pitch for adding a team.

maybe they borrowed the AAC members proposals to the Big 12?

And how’d that turn out?