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

Typical Alabama fan. Do away with all sports except football.

(11-25-2014 11:37 AM)blazers9911 Wrote:  

(11-25-2014 11:32 AM)imjustafatkid Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 01:56 PM)mobileblazer Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 01:39 PM)imjustafatkid Wrote:  I want UAB to have a football program, but I would totally support a law stating college athletic departments have to break even if they want to continue to exist. Not make money, just break even.

As a whole, I think such an effort would have a more negative effect on women's sports than it would on football. Title 9 will keep anything like that from happening.

Well, then you'll have about 25 college football teams to watch...

I said the athletic department as a whole. I don't really think this would be the case if such a thing were to happen.

Seriously, what planet do you live on? Football makes money for some some schools. Basketball for some. Every other sport is pretty much a loser. You think the golf team is making the school money? Or the diving team?

College athletics were not created to make money.

I said it shouldn't be wasting money. Football, basketball, and baseball are the revenue generating sports. I have no issue with those sports funding other sports for a university. My problem is when there are so many other sports that it is impossible for the athletic program to survive without waste.

(11-25-2014 11:39 AM)imjustafatkid Wrote:  

(11-25-2014 11:37 AM)blazers9911 Wrote:  

(11-25-2014 11:32 AM)imjustafatkid Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 01:56 PM)mobileblazer Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 01:39 PM)imjustafatkid Wrote:  I want UAB to have a football program, but I would totally support a law stating college athletic departments have to break even if they want to continue to exist. Not make money, just break even.

As a whole, I think such an effort would have a more negative effect on women's sports than it would on football. Title 9 will keep anything like that from happening.

Well, then you'll have about 25 college football teams to watch...

I said the athletic department as a whole. I don't really think this would be the case if such a thing were to happen.

Seriously, what planet do you live on? Football makes money for some some schools. Basketball for some. Every other sport is pretty much a loser. You think the golf team is making the school money? Or the diving team?

College athletics were not created to make money.

I said it shouldn't be wasting money. Football, basketball, and baseball are the revenue generating sports. I have no issue with those sports funding other sports for a university. My problem is when there are so many other sports that it is impossible for the athletic program to survive without waste.

you dont understand Title IX do you?

Baseball and basketball are not revenue producing as a whole. You cannot be this ignorant.

(11-25-2014 11:30 AM)imjustafatkid Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 01:50 PM)nicknitro19 Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 01:39 PM)imjustafatkid Wrote:  I want UAB to have a football program, but I would totally support a law stating college athletic departments have to break even if they want to continue to exist. Not make money, just break even.

As a whole, I think such an effort would have a more negative effect on women's sports than it would on football. Title 9 will keep anything like that from happening.

The NCAA is a non profit and making money is not the mission of collegiate sports.

I could care less about the purpose of the NCAA. I care more about government waste. The universities are government run institutions and I prefer the government not to waste money. If the program is supporting itself that's great but at the very least it shouldn't be wasting money. I realize that's not an opinion held by everyone but that's the opinion I hold. It would be hypocritical of me to hold that position only for things I don't care about.

I think you should consider what is really "waste". Government's job is not to turn a profit, but rather to meet the needs of the people. UAB spending more on athletics than it is bringing in is not indicative of "waste" as you put it, but rather indicative of more money going out than coming in. There are two ways to address such a discrepancy: either bring in additional revenues or reduce expenses.

Without misapplying your statement to indicate that you're saying that UAB should cut football (which I don't necessarily think is what you're trying to say), your comments imply that cutting expenses is sufficient to eliminate this discrepancy. I must disagree; cutting expenses from a government budget has a compounding effect. In this situation, the cuts would reduce revenue above and beyond the expenses that would be saved (e.g., save $20M in expenses, but reduce total revenue by $25M, thereby digging an additional $5M hole). I do agree that there are areas of improvement in terms of expenses (usually in administrative salaries), but I don't think that wholesale termination of segments of the University will have the effect that you, and some others like you, may be expecting.

The wealthiest and most powerful people in this world realize that you can generally only improve your financial position through investment or theft. If UAB spends on its programs wisely, they will grow. If the administration cuts them off for short-term balance sheet and income statement purposes, they will find themselves in a far worse position within a few years than that in which they currently stand. That doesn't apply just to athletics, but athletics is an easy place to try the experiment.

If you want to see the austerity method of governance in action, take a look at the state of Kansas. Cutting expenses and investment is how you move backwards, not forwards.

My humble opinion of course, but it's one I feel strongly about.

(11-25-2014 11:41 AM)blazers9911 Wrote:  Baseball and basketball are not revenue producing as a whole. You cannot be this ignorant.

He's just had too much blood rush to his head from bending over backwards defending all things Tuscaloosa (UAT & UA BOT). Also explains why he STILL, even now with all this in plain view, refuses to acknowledge that any of the past attacks on UAB from the BOT are more than rumors and hearsay.

(11-25-2014 11:39 AM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  Typical Alabama fan. Do away with all sports except football.

I like lots of sports other than just football and probably follow them more than most on this board.

The reality is Title 9 created a lot of the massive waste our universities are having to shoulder. I think it had a good purpose but has run it's course and is not created more waste than opportunity. I think that's why football is being removed at a lot of college campuses. When you remove those 85 football scholarships you also get to remove 85 scholarships in women's sports. Like it or not, that's a huge expense eliminated just by itself. When you're talking about people who have a fiduciary duty to taxpayers it's not hard to see why schools are making such moves. It's not as simple as just "eliminating football."

(11-25-2014 11:41 AM)blazers9911 Wrote:  Baseball and basketball are not revenue producing as a whole. You cannot be this ignorant.

Not for every school. Just like football isn't revenue producing for every school.

For some schools women's basketball is revenue producing. Do you have a point?

(11-25-2014 11:46 AM)blazr Wrote:  

(11-25-2014 11:41 AM)blazers9911 Wrote:  Baseball and basketball are not revenue producing as a whole. You cannot be this ignorant.

He's just had too much blood rush to his head from bending over backwards defending all things Tuscaloosa (UAT & UA BOT). Also explains why he STILL, even now with all this in plain view, refuses to acknowledge that any of the past attacks on UAB from the BOT are more than rumors and hearsay.

Says the Auburn fan.

You do realize that without the charity of television networks and wealthy donors, no athletic program, including your beloved Tide would turn a profit. It isn't the schools being financially responsible. It is their ability to get people to give them money.

(11-25-2014 11:41 AM)KSUBlazer Wrote:  

(11-25-2014 11:30 AM)imjustafatkid Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 01:50 PM)nicknitro19 Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 01:39 PM)imjustafatkid Wrote:  I want UAB to have a football program, but I would totally support a law stating college athletic departments have to break even if they want to continue to exist. Not make money, just break even.

As a whole, I think such an effort would have a more negative effect on women's sports than it would on football. Title 9 will keep anything like that from happening.

The NCAA is a non profit and making money is not the mission of collegiate sports.

I could care less about the purpose of the NCAA. I care more about government waste. The universities are government run institutions and I prefer the government not to waste money. If the program is supporting itself that's great but at the very least it shouldn't be wasting money. I realize that's not an opinion held by everyone but that's the opinion I hold. It would be hypocritical of me to hold that position only for things I don't care about.

I think you should consider what is really "waste". Government's job is not to turn a profit, but rather to meet the needs of the people. UAB spending more on athletics than it is bringing in is not indicative of "waste" as you put it, but rather indicative of more money going out than coming in. There are two ways to address such a discrepancy: either bring in additional revenues or reduce expenses.

Without misapplying your statement to indicate that you're saying that UAB should cut football (which I don't necessarily think is what you're trying to say), your comments imply that cutting expenses is sufficient to eliminate this discrepancy. I must disagree; cutting expenses from a government budget has a compounding effect. In this situation, the cuts would reduce revenue above and beyond the expenses that would be saved (e.g., save $20M in expenses, but reduce total revenue by $25M, thereby digging an additional $5M hole). I do agree that there are areas of improvement in terms of expenses (usually in administrative salaries), but I don't think that wholesale termination of segments of the University will have the effect that you, and some others like you, may be expecting.

The wealthiest and most powerful people in this world realize that you can generally only improve your financial position through investment or theft. If UAB spends on its programs wisely, they will grow. If the administration cuts them off for short-term balance sheet and income statement purposes, they will find themselves in a far worse position within a few years than that in which they currently stand. That doesn't apply just to athletics, but athletics is an easy place to try the experiment.

If you want to see the austerity method of governance in action, take a look at the state of Kansas. Cutting expenses and investment is how you move backwards, not forwards.

My humble opinion of course, but it's one I feel strongly about.

I realize governments are not meant to make a profit. However, they still have to generate revenue and are only supposed to have expenditures to the amount of revenues they can generate. Generating revenue and cutting expenditures is how everything works. You can only increase taxes by so much before cutting expenditures becomes the only answer.

The problem with Kansas is they cut expenses and taxes together and far too quickly. Reversing waste is a slow process.

(11-25-2014 11:51 AM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  You do realize that without the charity of television networks and wealthy donors, no athletic program, including your beloved Tide would turn a profit. It isn't the schools being financially responsible. It is their ability to get people to give them money.

I'm still not arguing for profit in any way.

(11-25-2014 11:53 AM)imjustafatkid Wrote:  

(11-25-2014 11:51 AM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  You do realize that without the charity of television networks and wealthy donors, no athletic program, including your beloved Tide would turn a profit. It isn't the schools being financially responsible. It is their ability to get people to give them money.

I'm still not arguing for profit in any way.

Ok my point still stands. They wouldn't break even.

(11-25-2014 11:49 AM)imjustafatkid Wrote:  

(11-25-2014 11:41 AM)blazers9911 Wrote:  Baseball and basketball are not revenue producing as a whole. You cannot be this ignorant.

Not for every school. Just like football isn't revenue producing for every school.

For some schools women's basketball is revenue producing. Do you have a point?

Which schools? Show me numbers. You writing things does not make them true.

(11-25-2014 11:55 AM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  

(11-25-2014 11:53 AM)imjustafatkid Wrote:  

(11-25-2014 11:51 AM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  You do realize that without the charity of television networks and wealthy donors, no athletic program, including your beloved Tide would turn a profit. It isn't the schools being financially responsible. It is their ability to get people to give them money.

I'm still not arguing for profit in any way.

Ok my point still stands. They wouldn't break even.

And I would still support cutting expenses to break even.

(11-25-2014 11:57 AM)blazers9911 Wrote:  

(11-25-2014 11:49 AM)imjustafatkid Wrote:  

(11-25-2014 11:41 AM)blazers9911 Wrote:  Baseball and basketball are not revenue producing as a whole. You cannot be this ignorant.

Not for every school. Just like football isn't revenue producing for every school.

For some schools women's basketball is revenue producing. Do you have a point?

Which schools? Show me numbers. You writing things does not make them true.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2...asketball/

Man that was a really easy google search.

"Only four women’s teams reported revenue over $4 million to the Department of Education last year, and none had a profit over $500,000. In fact, just 43 of the 341 Division I women’s basketball programs managed to finish in the black. For context, consider that 86 men’s teams generated at least $4 million in revenue, and 75 of them were above $500,000 in operating income."

Edit: It should also be noted that these numbers probably don't include private institutions since they don't have to report to the Department of Education. Personally, I could care less how private institutions spend their money but some may feel that is relevant.

(11-25-2014 11:58 AM)imjustafatkid Wrote:  

(11-25-2014 11:55 AM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  

(11-25-2014 11:53 AM)imjustafatkid Wrote:  

(11-25-2014 11:51 AM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  You do realize that without the charity of television networks and wealthy donors, no athletic program, including your beloved Tide would turn a profit. It isn't the schools being financially responsible. It is their ability to get people to give them money.

I'm still not arguing for profit in any way.

Ok my point still stands. They wouldn't break even.

And I would still support cutting expenses to break even.

Thank you Dr. Watts for visiting Blazertalk.

(11-25-2014 11:52 AM)imjustafatkid Wrote:  

(11-25-2014 11:41 AM)KSUBlazer Wrote:  

(11-25-2014 11:30 AM)imjustafatkid Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 01:50 PM)nicknitro19 Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 01:39 PM)imjustafatkid Wrote:  I want UAB to have a football program, but I would totally support a law stating college athletic departments have to break even if they want to continue to exist. Not make money, just break even.

As a whole, I think such an effort would have a more negative effect on women's sports than it would on football. Title 9 will keep anything like that from happening.

The NCAA is a non profit and making money is not the mission of collegiate sports.

I could care less about the purpose of the NCAA. I care more about government waste. The universities are government run institutions and I prefer the government not to waste money. If the program is supporting itself that's great but at the very least it shouldn't be wasting money. I realize that's not an opinion held by everyone but that's the opinion I hold. It would be hypocritical of me to hold that position only for things I don't care about.

I think you should consider what is really "waste". Government's job is not to turn a profit, but rather to meet the needs of the people. UAB spending more on athletics than it is bringing in is not indicative of "waste" as you put it, but rather indicative of more money going out than coming in. There are two ways to address such a discrepancy: either bring in additional revenues or reduce expenses.

Without misapplying your statement to indicate that you're saying that UAB should cut football (which I don't necessarily think is what you're trying to say), your comments imply that cutting expenses is sufficient to eliminate this discrepancy. I must disagree; cutting expenses from a government budget has a compounding effect. In this situation, the cuts would reduce revenue above and beyond the expenses that would be saved (e.g., save $20M in expenses, but reduce total revenue by $25M, thereby digging an additional $5M hole). I do agree that there are areas of improvement in terms of expenses (usually in administrative salaries), but I don't think that wholesale termination of segments of the University will have the effect that you, and some others like you, may be expecting.

The wealthiest and most powerful people in this world realize that you can generally only improve your financial position through investment or theft. If UAB spends on its programs wisely, they will grow. If the administration cuts them off for short-term balance sheet and income statement purposes, they will find themselves in a far worse position within a few years than that in which they currently stand. That doesn't apply just to athletics, but athletics is an easy place to try the experiment.

If you want to see the austerity method of governance in action, take a look at the state of Kansas. Cutting expenses and investment is how you move backwards, not forwards.

My humble opinion of course, but it's one I feel strongly about.

I realize governments are not meant to make a profit. However, they still have to generate revenue and are only supposed to have expenditures to the amount of revenues they can generate. Generating revenue and cutting expenditures is how everything works. You can only increase taxes by so much before cutting expenditures becomes the only answer.

The problem with Kansas is they cut expenses and taxes together and far too quickly. Reversing waste is a slow process.

I fear we will never agree, but I do wish to strongly disagree with the item bolded above. This is why governments issue bonds - they have to be able to pay for things that they do not have current revenues to cover. The fact that UAB has no debt service on athletic facilities is indicative of the poor stewardship of the administration and board of trustees. This is an opportunity cost that is detrimental to both the university and the community.

I have no issue with issuing bonds but those do have to be paid so I view those more like loans than revenues. In a perfect world those bonds would actually be repaid.

I agree with you that UAB could certainly do with some bond issues for athletics and have no issue with that but I'm also not trying to argue against a UAB football program.

(11-25-2014 11:59 AM)imjustafatkid Wrote:  

(11-25-2014 11:57 AM)blazers9911 Wrote:  

(11-25-2014 11:49 AM)imjustafatkid Wrote:  

(11-25-2014 11:41 AM)blazers9911 Wrote:  Baseball and basketball are not revenue producing as a whole. You cannot be this ignorant.

Not for every school. Just like football isn't revenue producing for every school.

For some schools women's basketball is revenue producing. Do you have a point?

Which schools? Show me numbers. You writing things does not make them true.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2...asketball/

Man that was a really easy google search.

"Only four women’s teams reported revenue over $4 million to the Department of Education last year, and none had a profit over $500,000. In fact, just 43 of the 341 Division I women’s basketball programs managed to finish in the black. For context, consider that 86 men’s teams generated at least $4 million in revenue, and 75 of them were above $500,000 in operating income."

Edit: It should also be noted that these numbers probably don't include private institutions since they don't have to report to the Department of Education. Personally, I could care less how private institutions spend their money but some may feel that is relevant.

It also says in that very article that universities commonly use profits from football and men's basketball to overinflate women's bball revenue. But hey, when you are trying to make a point, why lay out all the facts.