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

(04-02-2015 01:01 PM)Doktyr X Wrote:  I do more research in one day than UAT does in a month. Dr. Knox is right; UAT is building a debt bubble that will pop one day. You should never borrow based on expectations and projections of possible future student growth.

My question about both school's budgets is how much would their non athletic deficits (for Bama) and non medical deficits (for UAB) be if the BOT had not annually increased tuition and fees for both campuses by almost 50% since 2010? (and more increases probably / certainly coming in future years)

I would be interested to hear the administration's take on this, as the author says. A good amount of load bearing debt is healthy, but those numbers don't look good. I don't know why the author has those expectations of UA as an undergraduate research institution, when UAB's numbers aren't much better. I don't understand how the stone throwing at UA's undergrad program helps in our fight, as as if ours are so much better.

(04-02-2015 02:10 PM)TPBlaze84 Wrote:  I would be interested to hear the administration's take on this, as the author says. A good amount of load bearing debt is healthy, but those numbers don't look good. I don't know why the author has those expectations of UA as an undergraduate research institution, when UAB's numbers aren't much better. I don't understand how the stone throwing at UA's undergrad program helps in our fight, as as if ours are so much better.

I think you missed an important point - the same UA BOT which has been screwing over UAB royally for years is also ruining UA by over leveraging its debt load. If the author is right, they are trying grow their way out of financial hole by borrowing more and more while at the same time reducing the value of the UA education by hiring temporary instructors. Bottom line, these Trustees have proven over and over again that they are not competent to run the University of Alabama System. The board must be reorganized and the method of electing Trustees changed.

...and then there's a lottery

Our funding model is under more stress than UATs. We have relied on as Dr. Know called "tier one" primarily medical research dollars particularly the indirect cost subsidy dollars. With that money we have built our undergraduate infrastructure as well as selected research structure with little debt service except where advantages for specific grant coverage and outside partnership (such as dorms). However the federal pure research overall pie is under attack. For example the recent republican budgets calls for flat to actual very drastic immediate reductions in even existing grants. Further UAB share of the pie has fallen from almost top ten till barely in the top 25.

These can be expected to decrease over time. We can expect little for new buildings and/our needed atelic facilities. Unfortunately we have used the dollars for some operating expenses. The primarily usage has been as seed money for attracting new researchers and our increasing athletic budget( before the dreaded cut). Our state appropriations have fallen 25 % and the medical center is in bigger trouble than UAB

(04-03-2015 01:07 PM)uabbean Wrote:  Our funding model is under more stress than UATs. We have relied on as Dr. Know called "tier one" primarily medical research dollars particularly the indirect cost subsidy dollars. With that money we have built our undergraduate infrastructure as well as selected research structure with little debt service except where advantages for specific grant coverage and outside partnership (such as dorms). However the federal pure research overall pie is under attack. For example the recent republican budgets calls for flat to actual very drastic immediate reductions in even existing grants. Further UAB share of the pie has fallen from almost top ten till barely in the top 25.

These can be expected to decrease over time. We can expect little for new buildings and/our needed atelic facilities. Unfortunately we have used the dollars for some operating expenses. The primarily usage has been as seed money for attracting new researchers and our increasing athletic budget( before the dreaded cut). Our state appropriations have fallen 25 % and the medical center is in bigger trouble than UAB

Please explain how Alabama A&M, Alabama State with athletic subsidy over %80 and Troy %50+ survive the so called dwindling dollars.

(04-03-2015 01:42 PM)kdblazer Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 01:07 PM)uabbean Wrote:  Our funding model is under more stress than UATs. We have relied on as Dr. Know called "tier one" primarily medical research dollars particularly the indirect cost subsidy dollars. With that money we have built our undergraduate infrastructure as well as selected research structure with little debt service except where advantages for specific grant coverage and outside partnership (such as dorms). However the federal pure research overall pie is under attack. For example the recent republican budgets calls for flat to actual very drastic immediate reductions in even existing grants. Further UAB share of the pie has fallen from almost top ten till barely in the top 25.

These can be expected to decrease over time. We can expect little for new buildings and/our needed atelic facilities. Unfortunately we have used the dollars for some operating expenses. The primarily usage has been as seed money for attracting new researchers and our increasing athletic budget( before the dreaded cut). Our state appropriations have fallen 25 % and the medical center is in bigger trouble than UAB

Please explain how Alabama A&M, Alabama State with athletic subsidy over %80 and Troy %50+ survive the so called dwindling dollars.

Something is not right.

With regards to research dollars. Everything works together. You have to have the basic sciences before you can have clinical research. Having a medical center is crucial to medical research. Undergraduates pay the bills and are the primary source of income. Graduate students do the research and falculty run labs. On most grants medical doctors and PhDs from the undergrad side work side by side. You can't have one without the other.

(04-03-2015 01:42 PM)kdblazer Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 01:07 PM)uabbean Wrote:  Our funding model is under more stress than UATs. We have relied on as Dr. Know called "tier one" primarily medical research dollars particularly the indirect cost subsidy dollars. With that money we have built our undergraduate infrastructure as well as selected research structure with little debt service except where advantages for specific grant coverage and outside partnership (such as dorms). However the federal pure research overall pie is under attack. For example the recent republican budgets calls for flat to actual very drastic immediate reductions in even existing grants. Further UAB share of the pie has fallen from almost top ten till barely in the top 25.

These can be expected to decrease over time. We can expect little for new buildings and/our needed atelic facilities. Unfortunately we have used the dollars for some operating expenses. The primarily usage has been as seed money for attracting new researchers and our increasing athletic budget( before the dreaded cut). Our state appropriations have fallen 25 % and the medical center is in bigger trouble than UAB

Please explain how Alabama A&M, Alabama State with athletic subsidy over %80 and Troy %50+ survive the so called dwindling dollars.

We were discussing the funding model for UAT and I was simply saying was that UAB CURRENT funding model requires more attention/adjustment than UAT does.

Now can we afford athletics? SURE we can!! We may just need to change our current funding model if you want the same model as Troy or Alabama state just cut all other undergraduate programs by say 3 % over time or raise tuition by say 1 percent a year for five years. We are just slowly losing a funding advantage that they and UAT never had

By the way UAB subsidy with football was 60% for whatever that is worth.

(04-03-2015 02:47 PM)uabbean Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 01:42 PM)kdblazer Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 01:07 PM)uabbean Wrote:  Our funding model is under more stress than UATs. We have relied on as Dr. Know called "tier one" primarily medical research dollars particularly the indirect cost subsidy dollars. With that money we have built our undergraduate infrastructure as well as selected research structure with little debt service except where advantages for specific grant coverage and outside partnership (such as dorms). However the federal pure research overall pie is under attack. For example the recent republican budgets calls for flat to actual very drastic immediate reductions in even existing grants. Further UAB share of the pie has fallen from almost top ten till barely in the top 25.

These can be expected to decrease over time. We can expect little for new buildings and/our needed atelic facilities. Unfortunately we have used the dollars for some operating expenses. The primarily usage has been as seed money for attracting new researchers and our increasing athletic budget( before the dreaded cut). Our state appropriations have fallen 25 % and the medical center is in bigger trouble than UAB

Please explain how Alabama A&M, Alabama State with athletic subsidy over %80 and Troy %50+ survive the so called dwindling dollars.

We were discussing the funding model for UAT and I was simply saying was that UAB CURRENT funding model requires more attention/adjustment than UAT does.

Now can we afford athletics? SURE we can!! We may just need to change our current funding model if you want the same model as Troy or Alabama state just cut all other undergraduate programs by say 3 % over time or raise tuition by say 1 percent a year for five years.

By the way UAB subsidy with football was 60% for whatever that worth.

Yes that is true but with the exception of UA and AU all the other schools subsidized there athletic budget %50+ as well. UAB is not alone on some kind of frontier in this state.

We were significantly better in actual revenue due to conference affiliation than both Troy and USA before the football cut as we had about as much athletic revenue as the other two schools combined. The UAB athletic department just needed some fat cutting and some vision for the football program. Nothing more. We got hosed.

UAB 2014

20.345 million dollar subsidy with 15 million coming from "School funds"
Ticket Sales + Contributions + Rights / Licensing = 8.27 million
Total Subsidy % = 64.49%

Troy 2014

17.835 million dollar subsidy with 16.820 million coming from "School funds"
Ticket Sales + Contributions + Rights / Licensing = 4.20 million
Total Subsidy % = 72.42%


USA 2014

17.883 million dollar subsidy with 10.04 million coming from "School funds"
Ticket Sales + Contributions + Rights / Licensing = 4.22 million
Total Subsidy % = 77.44%

(04-02-2015 09:47 PM)BlazerHam Wrote:  ...and then there's a lottery

There are problems with starting a lottery after so many contiguous states already have theirs well established. Can / will Alabama put in the large start up money needed to make it competitive with Florida, Tenn. and Georgia or will many state residents perhaps choose to continue to play those with their bigger pay outs and /or more choices of how to play?

There are many (according to letters in opinion columns) who have an understanding that a lottery means even lower taxes and certainly not more taxes in the future. They look at it as a "King Midas" lottery where all will turn to gold for all state funding. They hear of lottery states that have no sales tax and some with no income tax. They may want all of that and more.

I have no moral objections to gambling, but gaming has some of the same economic hazards as income and sales taxes as they can be just as subject to downturns in a state's economy.

How far down that road will the state's leadership be willing to travel? Slot machines? Bingo parlors? casinos not run by the Indians? More horse and dog tracks? I walked through a casino in Tunica, MS and saw that over 90% of its space was devoted to slot machines of various denominations with one roulette wheel and a dozen or so card playing tables.