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

(08-19-2015 04:16 PM)ICB Wrote:  I am thinking, that they don't want people using their current giving to bring back the 3 sports. In order to save FB, Bowling and Rifle, people could have redirected their current giving to those sports, which would not be an overall net for the Athletics Dept but rather shifting of funds. just my thoughts... although i dont think its fair.

Correct the funding for FF,B& R was supposed to be new money not counting present pledges. Otherwise say we were giving one million a year in booster and we have agreed to give 3 million a year more to bring it back - not a net of 2 million if it was credited your way. Very normal way that all fundraising work, A good example is a new capital fund pledge at your church allow you to quit giving operating/yearly money.

I agree it will suck for some of our best boosters who gave to it hurt, They should have made it clearer at the time

I had to back off other donations to save football. it's sad this could have been handled better but its water under the bridge now. We have a task at hand and need to Finis the drive! ;-)

But ... why not give BB credit for any $ donated to the athletic program... or at least for Football calculations for the next 5 years since you are donating to save football? A Blazer Booster point costs the university nothing and then get to decide what those points are worth whenever they feel like it.

Let's say you are worried about a redistribution from the general athletics BB fund to just football, bowling, and rifle...

First, does that really matter? It didn't matter in August of 2014, why does it matter in August of 2015? Because before they could take your general fund donation and allocate it to other sports and only give football enough to barely squeak by?

Second, if you are worried about being able to account for how much money has been given as a result of this drive versus what you would have received before... that's easy. Just look at the giving you had in the last three years... either for all donors or do it per donor. Any athletics donation that spikes up and breaks away from the previous giving graph is due to football.

Third, with this current structure you are creating perverse incentives. Primarily you create a free rider problem. Say I am a Blazer Rep and I go to the CEO of a local company (that I know) and I encourage him to donate to the effort. He asks what level he would need to donate at to be able to have 2-4 seats in the Legion Field skybox for entertaining clients when they come to town... I have to answer, well there is no level you can donate at to get those seats because these donations don't count for that. If you want seats, you need to wait until the year they start playing again and donate then through a different program. So he asks, then why would I donate now... of course the answer is to save the football program, but you see the issue. On top of that, he doesn't get credit for donating, but if I sign him up to donate as a Blazer Rep I do get some version of Blazer Club credit. Am I wrong to think that is messed up?

If enough people look that far ahead, then they will not donate now or will donate less now to give a margin to donate later in two years.... so you are potentially leaving money on the table.

There are some details that I don't know about how the credit system works for seating preference, Blazer club access, etc. I am going to talk to someone today about that. Unless that conversation leads to some epiphany in my understanding of such a system, I will retain my opinion that this seems like a terrible idea borne out of Wattsonian or BOT edict than a rational way to handle this....

So you have this onrush of new Blazer Boosters with a lot of points... If it creates a new group of people that can potentially buy better seats and potentially leads to high demand for those seats... and more of those seats being sold, isn't that a good thing?

(08-21-2015 12:07 PM)uabbean Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 04:16 PM)ICB Wrote:  I am thinking, that they don't want people using their current giving to bring back the 3 sports. In order to save FB, Bowling and Rifle, people could have redirected their current giving to those sports, which would not be an overall net for the Athletics Dept but rather shifting of funds. just my thoughts... although i dont think its fair.

Correct the funding for FF,B& R was supposed to be new money not counting present pledges. Otherwise say we were giving one million a year in booster and we have agreed to give 3 million a year more to bring it back - not a net of 2 million if it was credited your way. Very normal way that all fundraising work, A good example is a new capital fund pledge at your church allow you to quit giving operating/yearly money.

I agree it will suck for some of our best boosters who gave to it hurt, They should have made it clearer at the time

That all ignores the fact, though, that some of those donations would have went away anyway if they did not reverse the decision about football. Some of those prior and historical donations were "dedicated" to football essentially anyway.

(08-21-2015 01:34 PM)legalblazer Wrote:  Unless that conversation leads to some epiphany in my understanding of such a system, I will retain my opinion that this seems like a terrible idea borne out of Wattsonian or BOT edict than a rational way to handle this....

I fully expected things to be crafted in such a way to deny any added benefit to football donors and, in effect, punish us for defying the Ray of Nope. And yes, it does mean that I'll still be buying Family and Friends seats for basketball and scrounging free City of Birmingham football tix while others who waltzed in after the risk was gone and donated less money will have the box seats, special parking, free drinks delivered by topless showgirls etc. I don't like it but it was necessary, and would do it again to stop that pumpkin-headed little bastard's evil plans.

Forgot in my rage that I already put down money for football season tix, so I won't have to scrounge. Doesn't change my view that the entire sports marketing arm at UAB is welcome to grease themselves up with pumpkin goo and gang-bang Ray.

If we can get video of that we might be able to get rid of him.

Okay - I had the aforementioned conversation...

I feel better about it. I still don't think it makes sense, but I no longer think it was a BOT or Watts thing.

Going to put my head down and stay positive.... I am also becoming a Blazer Rep.

I can certainly understand because there has been some confusion about how the football pledges and the Blazer Booster contributions work together. The bottom line is that they don't except in very limited ways. I was probably more involved than some others, but it was made perfectly clear to me from the start that the football pledges were monies pledged above and beyond any Blazer Booster contributions that may be needed to secure the rights to buy premium basketball or football tickets in the future. So I I went in with my eyes wide open.

As to why the pledges for football have to be in addition to Blazer Club donations: Blazer Club donations are are to be used for scholarships and other expenses such as coaches' salaries associated with basketball and football. Those are baselines that have to be met regardless just to maintain the status quo for the basketball team and later for the football team when it returns. Our pledges to bring back football are going to pay for facilities and other expenses that are costs which are not part of the status quo, but are above in beyond normal expenses.

So simply put Blazer Club dues are needed to simply maintain contributions to the basketball and football programs at the same level into the future while the pledged money is cover expenses that are above and beyond that.

Apparently this was not made clear to everyone up front and/or folks didn't pay attention to it when it was communicated. Either way that is very unfortunate and I can understand why folks are feeling as they do. However, I can assure you that there was no intention what so ever to deceive by anyone involved.

One way that your football pledges do help you is to raise your priority as a UAB booster. The Athletic Department has set up a priority system which is to be used to determine who gets first dibs on stuff like tickets to very desirable out of town games (like the basketball game at North Carolina) or which boosters get the best seats out of UAB's allocation of tickets for out of town football games and out of town conference tournaments. Points are given for all contributions made to the Athletic Department in the past (covering I think the previous 10 years) and the future. When you honor your football pledges you get priority points just like you would for any other contribution.

(08-21-2015 02:17 PM)58-56 Wrote:  

(08-21-2015 01:34 PM)legalblazer Wrote:  Unless that conversation leads to some epiphany in my understanding of such a system, I will retain my opinion that this seems like a terrible idea borne out of Wattsonian or BOT edict than a rational way to handle this....

I fully expected things to be crafted in such a way to deny any added benefit to football donors and, in effect, punish us for defying the Ray of Nope. And yes, it does mean that I'll still be buying Family and Friends seats for basketball and scrounging free City of Birmingham football tix while others who waltzed in after the risk was gone and donated less money will have the box seats, special parking, free drinks delivered by topless showgirls etc. I don't like it but it was necessary, and would do it again to stop that pumpkin-headed little bastard's evil plans.

Read my post above. I can assure you there was absolutely no intent to hurt people who pledged to return football - absolutely none - and I know this for a fact. Even before the UAB Athletic Department became involved in the pledge program, back when Justin Craft et all were pushing the program for the Committee, it was made clear to me that the pledges were for money above and beyond normal Blazer Club donations for the reasons given in my post. Even back then it clear that the money pledged would not count towards Blazer Club contributions. Justin and others involved at that time did not intend to hurt people who pledged. To believe otherwise is flat ridiculous.

I think that it is most unfortunate that there was a misunderstanding, but this is one case at least that black helicopters with "Watts" painted on their sided are not involved.

Cajun - I don't think anyone ever thought that there was ill intent or deception on the part of Justin or anyone working to bring back football. I certainly do not and never did. I don't read 58-56's post as him in any way thinking that either.

My problem is primarily as you stated - that I was not fully informed how all of this will work, especially before I actually increased my pledge. That's as much my fault as anyone else's. I have regularly bought tickets and come out to games, but I am admittedly new to the world of giving money to athletics. In retrospect, a note about this would have ideally been included on the pledge form itself. I assumed an athletic donation was an athletic donation.

The way this is being treated appears to be standard operating procedure for athletic departments. For athletic departments where the premium seating always sells out, that is probably the right way to do it. I don't think ours currently sell out.

Andy Schwartz might could help me with various economic arguments as to why it would be better to make more people eligible for those seats, sell those tickets, and have people in them than to tell people they aren't eligible and leave'em empty. To prevent defunding of the general scholarship fund, you could implement the rule that the general scholarship fund will have to be funded first at a level matching a three year projection before money can be designated for special projects.

It is what it is. I will deal. I am just not convinced it is the right way to do it.

(08-21-2015 05:47 PM)legalblazer Wrote:  Cajun - I don't think anyone ever thought that there was ill intent or deception on the part of Justin or anyone working to bring back football. I certainly do not and never did. I don't read 58-56's post as him in any way thinking that either.

That's correct. I expected nothing going in, and got exactly what I expected. I simply would have appreciated more of a "thank you" than a "**** you" from the UAB Department of Athletics (not Craft et al, who have been nothing but gracious and professional, the absolute opposite of the trolls living under Bartow West). The demand to be paid early, coupled with the insinuation that I am a liar if I don't pay up early, is really the root of my pissed-offed-ness which they could have alleviated with a tiny dollop of thanks.

Instead, my suggestion regarding pumpkin goo still stands.

(08-21-2015 05:58 PM)58-56 Wrote:  

(08-21-2015 05:47 PM)legalblazer Wrote:  Cajun - I don't think anyone ever thought that there was ill intent or deception on the part of Justin or anyone working to bring back football. I certainly do not and never did. I don't read 58-56's post as him in any way thinking that either.

That's correct. I expected nothing going in, and got exactly what I expected. I simply would have appreciated more of a "thank you" than a "**** you" from the UAB Department of Athletics (not Craft et al, who have been nothing but gracious and professional, the absolute opposite of the trolls living under Bartow West). The demand to be paid early, coupled with the insinuation that I am a liar if I don't pay up early, is really the root of my pissed-offed-ness which they could have alleviated with a tiny dollop of thanks.

Instead, my suggestion regarding pumpkin goo still stands.

Now you know as well as I do that the early deadline did not originate from anyone at UAB. I have very good reason to believe that it didn't even come from Watts, even though he insisted in signing the letter. Didn't yourself write on this board you believed that the BOT was behind that move.

Look, so far Ingram has given me absolutely no reason to trust him, but know for a fact that other people in the Athletic Department were working just as hard as you and I were, though understandably behind the scenes, to bring back football.

So let's put the blame for the latest Shenanigans were it rightfully belongs, where it has always belonged.

(08-21-2015 05:47 PM)legalblazer Wrote:  Cajun - I don't think anyone ever thought that there was ill intent or deception on the part of Justin or anyone working to bring back football. I certainly do not and never did. I don't read 58-56's post as him in any way thinking that either.

My problem is primarily as you stated - that I was not fully informed how all of this will work, especially before I actually increased my pledge. That's as much my fault as anyone else's. I have regularly bought tickets and come out to games, but I am admittedly new to the world of giving money to athletics. In retrospect, a note about this would have ideally been included on the pledge form itself. I assumed an athletic donation was an athletic donation.

The way this is being treated appears to be standard operating procedure for athletic departments. For athletic departments where the premium seating always sells out, that is probably the right way to do it. I don't think ours currently sell out.

Andy Schwartz might could help me with various economic arguments as to why it would be better to make more people eligible for those seats, sell those tickets, and have people in them than to tell people they aren't eligible and leave'em empty. To prevent defunding of the general scholarship fund, you could implement the rule that the general scholarship fund will have to be funded first at a level matching a three year projection before money can be designated for special projects.

It is what it is. I will deal. I am just not convinced it is the right way to do it. If you don't believe that the BOT was behind that letter, I actually have a few acres of swampland in Louisiana to sell you.

(08-21-2015 10:27 PM)CajunBlazer Wrote:  Now you know as well as I do that the early deadline did not originate from anyone at UAB. I have very good reason to believe that it didn't even come from Watts, even though he insisted in signing the letter. Didn't yourself write on this board you believed that the BOT was behind that move.

Look, so far Ingram has given me absolutely no reason to trust him, but know for a fact that other people in the Athletic Department were working just as hard as you and I were, though understandably behind the scenes, to bring back football.

So let's put the blame for the latest Shenanigans were it rightfully belongs, where it has always belonged.

Of course I know where the letter originated. I'm simply annoyed at the attitude. They are ungrateful wretches.

(08-21-2015 11:07 PM)58-56 Wrote:  

(08-21-2015 10:27 PM)CajunBlazer Wrote:  Now you know as well as I do that the early deadline did not originate from anyone at UAB. I have very good reason to believe that it didn't even come from Watts, even though he insisted in signing the letter. Didn't yourself write on this board you believed that the BOT was behind that move.

Look, so far Ingram has given me absolutely no reason to trust him, but know for a fact that other people in the Athletic Department were working just as hard as you and I were, though understandably behind the scenes, to bring back football.

So let's put the blame for the latest Shenanigans were it rightfully belongs, where it has always belonged.

Of course I know where the letter originated. I'm simply annoyed at the attitude. They are ungrateful wretches.

Ingram = Watts / BOT toadie