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

Winning and butts in seats will do a whole lot to end the debate and break the dam.

That and PBJ dying or retiring. Pray hard guys.

(04-02-2013 03:55 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  I think we would have been considered even without a stadium in the works if we had proactive leadership, instead of just saying "we are committed to CUSA" and slamming the door.

Might be an unpopular opinion here with some who think Mackin walks on water and I don't buy the presidency vacancy. Someone was in charge and if there was any seriousness about UAB being in the mix, someone would have stepped up and at least got us into discussions.

That statement has nothing to do with us not getting invited. UAB has been discussed and they chose not to invite us. There is a singular reason for that, and it has already been discussed in this thread.

I'll pray he retires. I'm not going to wish or pray death on anyone.

Would i like for UAB basketball to be in a conference with Memphis, Cincinnati, Temple, and UConn? Yes. I mean, i think so. However, new Big East media money will not be sufficiently more than C-USA to make a huge difference in the budget after added travel costs. Yet if UAB ends up in a division in C-USA with Charlotte, Marshall, Middle Tennessee, Old Dominion, Southern Miss, and Western Kentucky, sending the FL schools to Texas, that isn't all bad. UAB coaches and athletic administrators can work with that schedule of opponents.

The context of Mackins statement was on the heels of Soloman and his UAB to the sun belt tirade FWIW. It's not the reason why we have not been invited to the whateverthehellitisconference. I was also not aware that anyone thought that Mackin walked on water. If he could do that I assume we would be in a power 6 league by now.

What was Mackin going to say...we are trying every trick in the book to get out of conference USA.
Fast, quick and in a hurry...

He is also chairman if the conference expansion committee. Lol.

The figure I'm hearing in the discussion about the tax credit being offered under the new School Accountability Act is $3,500. If everyone who has kids in existing private schools is added to those who claim the credit for "Home schooling" and then others move their kids to newly set up "for profit" or new or existing church run private schools, the "well" of state income tax "water" is going to be seriously depleted in a couple of years. Where will UAB get the funds to make up this shortfall in one of the two major revenue streams for the SETF? (The SETF is presently divided 70% for K-12 and 30% for all 2 and 4 year schools) For every 1000 students for whom this credit is claimed, the loss would be around $3.5 million to a fund already legislatively cut over 23% since 2008.

(04-02-2013 11:28 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  The figure I'm hearing in the discussion about the tax credit being offered under the new School Accountability Act is $3,500. If everyone who has kids in existing private schools is added to those who claim the credit for "Home schooling" and then others move their kids to newly set up "for profit" or new or existing church run private schools, the "well" of state income tax "water" is going to be seriously depleted in a couple of years. Where will UAB get the funds to make up this shortfall in one of the two major revenue streams for the SETF? (The SETF is presently divided 70% for K-12 and 30% for all 2 and 4 year schools) For every 1000 students for whom this credit is claimed, the loss would be around $3.5 million to a fund already legislatively cut over 23% since 2008.

Wrong thread.

(04-02-2013 11:33 PM)uab278 Wrote:  

(04-02-2013 11:28 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  The figure I'm hearing in the discussion about the tax credit being offered under the new School Accountability Act is $3,500. If everyone who has kids in existing private schools is added to those who claim the credit for "Home schooling" and then others move their kids to newly set up "for profit" or new or existing church run private schools, the "well" of state income tax "water" is going to be seriously depleted in a couple of years. Where will UAB get the funds to make up this shortfall in one of the two major revenue streams for the SETF? (The SETF is presently divided 70% for K-12 and 30% for all 2 and 4 year schools) For every 1000 students for whom this credit is claimed, the loss would be around $3.5 million to a fund already legislatively cut over 23% since 2008.

Wrong thread.

This whole Page 3 is about UAB doing something about conference alignment and I doubt it will escape the notice of other conferences that UAB is in eminent danger of running short of even basic funding in the next two years. Will this situation make UAB more or less attractive to other conferences? Does one's daughter bringing home a guy who is running short of funds make him more or less appealing to you as a family addition?

(04-02-2013 11:39 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  

(04-02-2013 11:33 PM)uab278 Wrote:  

(04-02-2013 11:28 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  The figure I'm hearing in the discussion about the tax credit being offered under the new School Accountability Act is $3,500. If everyone who has kids in existing private schools is added to those who claim the credit for "Home schooling" and then others move their kids to newly set up "for profit" or new or existing church run private schools, the "well" of state income tax "water" is going to be seriously depleted in a couple of years. Where will UAB get the funds to make up this shortfall in one of the two major revenue streams for the SETF? (The SETF is presently divided 70% for K-12 and 30% for all 2 and 4 year schools) For every 1000 students for whom this credit is claimed, the loss would be around $3.5 million to a fund already legislatively cut over 23% since 2008.

Wrong thread.

This whole Page 3 is about UAB doing something about conference alignment and I doubt it will escape the notice of other conferences that UAB is in eminent danger of running short of even basic funding in the next two years. Will this situation make UAB more or less attractive to other conferences? Does one's daughter bringing home a guy who is running short of funds make him more or less appealing to you as a family addition?

Still wrong thread. Wrong board even.

Smh

(04-02-2013 04:54 PM)UAB Band Dad Wrote:  Winning and butts in seats will do a whole lot to end the debate and break the dam.

It will certainly help, but it will take dominating, not just winning, in C-USA Lite to get the attention of potential new fans or potential conference suitors.

(04-03-2013 12:33 AM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  

(04-02-2013 11:39 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  

(04-02-2013 11:33 PM)uab278 Wrote:  

(04-02-2013 11:28 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  The figure I'm hearing in the discussion about the tax credit being offered under the new School Accountability Act is $3,500. If everyone who has kids in existing private schools is added to those who claim the credit for "Home schooling" and then others move their kids to newly set up "for profit" or new or existing church run private schools, the "well" of state income tax "water" is going to be seriously depleted in a couple of years. Where will UAB get the funds to make up this shortfall in one of the two major revenue streams for the SETF? (The SETF is presently divided 70% for K-12 and 30% for all 2 and 4 year schools) For every 1000 students for whom this credit is claimed, the loss would be around $3.5 million to a fund already legislatively cut over 23% since 2008.

Wrong thread.

This whole Page 3 is about UAB doing something about conference alignment and I doubt it will escape the notice of other conferences that UAB is in eminent danger of running short of even basic funding in the next two years. Will this situation make UAB more or less attractive to other conferences? Does one's daughter bringing home a guy who is running short of funds make him more or less appealing to you as a family addition?

Still wrong thread. Wrong board even.

IF UAB suddenly becomes so wealthy it can disregard state funding for its athletic programs (like Bama, LSU, UTX and TX A&M) then it does become irrelevant to this thread, even to this board. IF that doesn't happen however, then the decrease in funding from the state may have great consequences on UAB support for athletics by mid-decade, especially since it is not a "favored child" of the state when "it asks for more"(think Charles Dickens). YES! The Accountability Act's effect is at this point all conjecture since we don't know how many will take advantage of the tax credit and it may be ruled to be state or federally unconstitutional, but for now it will take effect at next year's tax paying time and then we will know for sure. It is still possible that this act may pose a greater threat to UAB football than the attendance issue.

This is most relevant. Our athletics can not support itself on revenue it generates (like the vast amjority of D-I schools). State policies that effect our bottom line will have an effect on our sports program and any attractiveness we have for future conference reallignment. We can not escape the fact we are as an instutition reliant on city, state and antional fiscal and tax policy.

(04-03-2013 11:03 AM)uabrsc3 Wrote:  This is most relevant. Our athletics can not support itself on revenue it generates (like the vast amjority of D-I schools). State policies that effect our bottom line will have an effect on our sports program and any attractiveness we have for future conference reallignment. We can not escape the fact we are as an instutition reliant on city, state and antional fiscal and tax policy.

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Which vast majority?

It's more like the top 25 or so althletic programs end the year in the black. The other 300 or so have varying degrees of deficit. It's a question of marketing your school, as an educational and research institute, as an asset to the community, and for your undergrads and later alumni loyalty and donations.

FGCU's admissions page got something like 10 times as many hits the day after they made it to the sweet sixteen than the week before. I'm willing to bet at FGCU, basketball is not a revenue positive sport

(04-03-2013 11:25 AM)UAB Band Dad Wrote:  It's more like the top 25 or so althletic programs end the year in the black. The other 300 or so have varying degrees of deficit. It's a question of marketing your school, as an educational and research institute, as an asset to the community, and for your undergrads and later alumni loyalty and donations.

These are all positive factors to long range planning for success, but I was talking about the next 2 or 3 years, not decades. If several millions are lost to the SETF because of this new law, it will have an immediate effect on ALL public schools by 2015 and beyond, year by year.

(04-03-2013 11:33 AM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  

(04-03-2013 11:25 AM)UAB Band Dad Wrote:  It's more like the top 25 or so althletic programs end the year in the black. The other 300 or so have varying degrees of deficit. It's a question of marketing your school, as an educational and research institute, as an asset to the community, and for your undergrads and later alumni loyalty and donations.

These are all positive factors to long range planning for success, but I was talking about the next 2 or 3 years, not decades. If several millions are lost to the SETF because of this new law, it will have an immediate effect on ALL public schools by 2015 and beyond, year by year.

However much money universities lose from state funding, will simply be made up in tuition increases. This has been standard operating procedure for a long time.