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

Let's not forget that we as sports fans tend to be a bit myopic toward the sports.

Unlike our rural western campus, there is more to UAB than sports. A lot more.

(02-08-2013 04:58 PM)demiveeman Wrote:  

(02-08-2013 04:31 PM)ICB Wrote:  

President Watts Wrote:I am a strong supporter of athletics, and I'm an especially strong supporter of our student athletes,

President Watts Wrote:We have an on-campus basketball arena now that's an outstanding facility, and I go to all of the games...

These statements alone give me reason to be optimistic.

What a great cutoff point for that last quote. For those curious, it finished like this:

Quote:...and it's only about 25 percent full except when we play Memphis in the Bartow Classic."

I only posted the part that made me feel optimistic, at least he's at the games, so he says. The 25% IMO, is too low. But I'm at a point where I refuse to worry one way or the other. The vibe from the athletic department is this is a good hire, then so be it. If he proposes to shut down the program tomorrow.... So be it. If those in which we are fighting for, feels there is no reason to fight, then why fight?

(02-08-2013 06:38 PM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  

Quote:Watts also addressed the school's spending policies in the current economic climate, saying that beyond the school's student center, freshman housing and potential research facility projects, capital investments in the near term "will primarily be in people, programs and technology."

I don't read this as a good thing for athletics or the University as a whole.

The excess indirect funding from research dollars at UAB is used for two primary purposes capital investments and funding the athletic deficit.

My prediction for a long time is that a new east side medical/research president would committ more of this funding to recruit researchers = "programs and people". This investment is good policy for UAB as a whole and could play a big dividends in more money for the university in the long run.

IMHO this is GREAT news for athletics is that the reallocation will be from projects not the athletic budget/deficit.

http://blog.al.com/wire/2013/02/after_co...ion_u.html

So it turns out they did approve the land purchases. And the dispute over the Hardy property was over the price, not the specific piece of land. But, if you read the article they are actually paying the appraised price of the land as it sits. The value drops to $4 million because UAB is going to demolish the buildings and improvements on the property. I don't see how that's a problem, do they expect Hardy Corp to just give that stuff up for free?

(02-08-2013 08:57 PM)uabbean Wrote:  

(02-08-2013 06:38 PM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  

Quote:Watts also addressed the school's spending policies in the current economic climate, saying that beyond the school's student center, freshman housing and potential research facility projects, capital investments in the near term "will primarily be in people, programs and technology."

I don't read this as a good thing for athletics or the University as a whole.

The excess indirect funding from research dollars at UAB is used for two primary purposes capital investments and funding the athletic deficit.

My prediction for a long time is that a new east side medical/research president would committ more of this funding to recruit researchers = "programs and people". This investment is good policy for UAB as a whole and could play a big dividends in more money for the university in the long run.

IMHO this is GREAT news for athletics is that the reallocation will be from projects not the athletic budget/deficit.

I completely agree. I would also dare say we will see more help from the East side with Athletics. At JSU we funded some athletic projects from other sources. For example. You build a 7 story building and fund it as classrooms or through research funds. 3 of the floors end up being the classrooms or research and the other four athletics. This is how to build projects in a climate such as this. It works. I have already done it at universities more than once.

That land purchase was essentially approved before the meetings as most things are. It was just some grandstanding going on by the usual suspects strutting their feathers like some ole Tom turkey. We all know what happens to the turkeys.

(02-08-2013 06:35 PM)demiveeman Wrote:  We are averaging about 47.3% full this season (in terms of ticket sales...plus the Memphis game added).

Although, I'd go out on a limb and say 25% in most of the other games isn't THAT far off. I'd say more 30%.

25% would be 2125
30% would be 2550

our LOWEST attended game (officially) has been 3121, which is closer to 40% full than 30%. so yeah, i would say that 25% is pretty far off.

given that this years team is in competition for the worst record in school history, i dont think the attendance has been that poor

We can change that today by showing up for the game.

(02-09-2013 09:23 AM)ATTALLABLAZE Wrote:  We can change that today by showing up for the game.

Beads, beads and more beads!

You better earn those beeds!

AB, if you trying showing your moobs to get more beads I will personally throw something besides beads at you. Peanuts maybe. The concession stand lacks rocks and decaying vegetables.

Grin.

I will get beads. That's all I'm sayin.

(02-08-2013 06:54 PM)sadolakced Wrote:  USM game, quite well attended these days, was reported at 3k+. Attendance is definitely down from my undergrad years.

5,103. Way more than 25%. Alarming comment from the new president. He wasn't at that game.

Basketball attendance is down because our home schedule is garbage. No one even remotely interesting to the general public will be in C-USA next year.

I would love for crowds to appear just because that many people are super excited about our program, but I've been waiting for that day to come for awhile.

I renewed my booster membership last week. I suggest everyone on this board do the same. Watts should contribute at least $15,000.

(02-08-2013 06:54 PM)sadolakced Wrote:  Attendance is a fair gripe. If we can't fill an 8k arena with no big basketball competitors nearby, how can we claim we'll fill a 30k stadium with the last 4 year's worth of national champions down the road?

Because it's basketball. Basketball does not draw as well as football, even at UAB. And it's not even close.

(02-09-2013 07:19 AM)ATTALLABLAZE Wrote:  

(02-08-2013 08:57 PM)uabbean Wrote:  The excess indirect funding from research dollars at UAB is used for two primary purposes capital investments and funding the athletic deficit.

My prediction for a long time is that a new east side medical/research president would committ more of this funding to recruit researchers = "programs and people". This investment is good policy for UAB as a whole and could play a big dividends in more money for the university in the long run.

IMHO this is GREAT news for athletics is that the reallocation will be from projects not the athletic budget/deficit.

I completely agree. I would also dare say we will see more help from the East side with Athletics. At JSU we funded some athletic projects from other sources. For example. You build a 7 story building and fund it as classrooms or through research funds. 3 of the floors end up being the classrooms or research and the other four athletics. This is how to build projects in a climate such as this. It works. I have already done it at universities more than once.

I also completely agree with your suggestions. I also see an another opportunity for being creative/sharing of costs with facilities/parking/land at the new new railroad/baseball park with the city

(02-09-2013 11:26 AM)thebernreuter Wrote:  

(02-08-2013 06:54 PM)sadolakced Wrote:  Attendance is a fair gripe. If we can't fill an 8k arena with no big basketball competitors nearby, how can we claim we'll fill a 30k stadium with the last 4 year's worth of national champions down the road?

Because it's basketball. Basketball does not draw as well as football, even at UAB. And it's not even close.

Amen. It baffles me why you would compare basketball to football.

They are different.

(02-09-2013 11:26 AM)thebernreuter Wrote:  

(02-08-2013 06:54 PM)sadolakced Wrote:  Attendance is a fair gripe. If we can't fill an 8k arena with no big basketball competitors nearby, how can we claim we'll fill a 30k stadium with the last 4 year's worth of national champions down the road?

Because it's basketball. Basketball does not draw as well as football, even at UAB. And it's not even close.

whether we can fill a 30K seat stadium is irrelevant. the question is whether we can put enough butts in it to prevent it from losing money...the answer to that is undoubtedly...yes

if we can put enough butts in the seats to make it profitable (we can and do), we should be able to build it

Bingo bean. There is a world of opportunity out there to make things happen and to also generate some much needed cash.

I wouldn't take the comment on being careful with spending to mean not building things. The new art center is already under the construction and the new HUC and new freshmen dorm will be game changers. I wouldn't take those projects lightly.

He said we'll build things as it makes sense financially. Increasing enrollment means new buildings make sense.

(02-09-2013 12:31 PM)LairDweller Wrote:  

(02-09-2013 11:26 AM)thebernreuter Wrote:  

(02-08-2013 06:54 PM)sadolakced Wrote:  Attendance is a fair gripe. If we can't fill an 8k arena with no big basketball competitors nearby, how can we claim we'll fill a 30k stadium with the last 4 year's worth of national champions down the road?

Because it's basketball. Basketball does not draw as well as football, even at UAB. And it's not even close.

whether we can fill a 30K seat stadium is irrelevant. the question is whether we can put enough butts in it to prevent it from losing money...the answer to that is undoubtedly...yes

if we can put enough butts in the seats to make it profitable (we can and do), we should be able to build it

We had a competitive team last year...the back and forth with Tulsa comes to mind. I'd like to see us schedule easier out of conference games, not necessarily the caliber of LSU, and definitely not the first few games of the season. But, if we were to play a pay game against the Big East or Big 10 for their homecoming, we could reap the benefits of playing the pay game and not risking starting the season off with a losing record. Winning records will put butts in the seats. Did anybody see the crowds for the last few Auburn home games this year??? Nearly could have confused their crowd for the number of people that come out to see our games. Recruiting will play a big part, winning will play a huge part. We put that together, the rest will take care of itself.