PonyFans.com

orguy wrote:

SMUPhil wrote:Only a handful of universities are making it into the black from their sports programs. There's a reason to keep athletics around: it enhances the student experience, it is great recruiting/advertising for the school, and it keeps alumni involved. All the excuses being thrown around could be said for 90% of schools out there, but UAB is in this position plain and simple because the UA trustees don't like the strain on their flagship school and football team. Like someone else said, do you think the UT trustees would approve anything for aTm if they controlled their budget?

And as also previously mentioned, UAB was all set to hire Jimbo Fisher for a $600,000 salary, HALF of which was to be covered by boosters, but the Bama trustees said no at the last minute citing "fiscal responsibility." That would have been the deal of the century, not a fiscal blunder, but it's rumored that the Bama trustees wanted to keep Fisher available as a possible coordinator for Saban, or at the very least, not competing in-state with Saban for recruits.

UT/TAMU is analogous to UA/Auburn not UA/UAB.

Ok UT to UTSA - Better example.

Simply put, UA Board contained people who did not want UAB to take any resources (sports related) from UA. One of them is named Bear Bryant Jr.

Maybe UA wants to ensure enough players to start its own JUCO system to rival Mississippi: http://www.gq.com/sports/201411/last-chance-university

Planter's Punch wrote:Maybe UA wants to ensure enough players to start its own JUCO system to rival Mississippi: http://www.gq.com/sports/201411/last-chance-university

$5 says the wife/kicking coach could out coach our ST coach?

Digetydog wrote:

orguy wrote:

SMUPhil wrote:Only a handful of universities are making it into the black from their sports programs. There's a reason to keep athletics around: it enhances the student experience, it is great recruiting/advertising for the school, and it keeps alumni involved. All the excuses being thrown around could be said for 90% of schools out there, but UAB is in this position plain and simple because the UA trustees don't like the strain on their flagship school and football team. Like someone else said, do you think the UT trustees would approve anything for aTm if they controlled their budget?

And as also previously mentioned, UAB was all set to hire Jimbo Fisher for a $600,000 salary, HALF of which was to be covered by boosters, but the Bama trustees said no at the last minute citing "fiscal responsibility." That would have been the deal of the century, not a fiscal blunder, but it's rumored that the Bama trustees wanted to keep Fisher available as a possible coordinator for Saban, or at the very least, not competing in-state with Saban for recruits.

UT/TAMU is analogous to UA/Auburn not UA/UAB.

Ok UT to UTSA - Better example.

Simply put, UA Board contained people who did not want UAB to take any resources (sports related) from UA. One of them is named Bear Bryant Jr.

Why should Alabama (self sustaining program) subsidize UAB's football program? Do you think UT subsidizes UTSA or UTEP football? (Nada) Where do you think Alabama gets all the money to fund Saban's exorbitant salary? Their own AD coffers and Booster support.

Was the 300k to come from the Taxpayers (UA system)? or Alabama's AD profits? In either case its unethical. UAB should fund its own Athletic programs.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootbal ... epartments

information for public schools, non P-5. UAB lost the most money and U of Houston second biggest lost. If UH is that bad is SMU near this much of a lost as well?

re: cougar high. They used to have John and Becky Moores but since their divorce there is less money to donate. UH may well suck it financially.

orguy wrote:
Why should Alabama (self sustaining program) subsidize UAB's football program? Do you think UT subsidizes UTSA or UTEP football? (Nada) Where do you think Alabama gets all the money to fund Saban's exorbitant salary? Their own AD coffers and Booster support.

Was the 300k to come from the Taxpayers (UA system)? or Alabama's AD profits? In either case its unethical. UAB should fund its own Athletic programs.

Years ago, UTA killed its FB program for financial reasons. But, the decision was made as part of a plan to benefit UTA. Later, UTSA added football after the board decided it was a good investment.

UAB supporters are mad because the "UA" Board members make decisions that appear intended to keep UAB down. Facts suggest that they may be correct.

Outside of UT- Austin and Tamu (maybe Tech), Texas taxpayers and students subsidize athletic programs as amenities for students at the state universities. UH, UNT, UTSA, UTEP, Texas State, SFA, SHSU all run at a deficit.

Maybe some refugee's for us?

redpony wrote:re: cougar high. They used to have John and Becky Moores but since their divorce there is less money to donate. UH may well suck it financially.

If it gets bad enough, their Board might pull the plug. But, unlike UAB, it will be their Board that makes the decision. Texas Tech's board won't make the decision for them.

UH just built a brand new football stadium. They may well be broke as a joke but they won't disband the program anytime soon

Digetydog wrote:

orguy wrote:
Why should Alabama (self sustaining program) subsidize UAB's football program? Do you think UT subsidizes UTSA or UTEP football? (Nada) Where do you think Alabama gets all the money to fund Saban's exorbitant salary? Their own AD coffers and Booster support.

Was the 300k to come from the Taxpayers (UA system)? or Alabama's AD profits? In either case its unethical. UAB should fund its own Athletic programs.

Years ago, UTA killed its FB program for financial reasons. But, the decision was made as part of a plan to benefit UTA. Later, UTSA added football after the board decided it was a good investment.

UAB supporters are mad because the "UA" Board members make decisions that appear intended to keep UAB down. Facts suggest that they may be correct.

Outside of UT- Austin and Tamu (maybe Tech), Texas taxpayers and students subsidize athletic programs as amenities for students at the state universities. UH, UNT, UTSA, UTEP, Texas State, SFA, SHSU all run at a deficit.

Good information. Thank You.

The actions of the Alabama system board are hard to figure. I read some more and found out they refused funding for a new stadium for UAB awhile back. However, its a catch 22 for UAB. Show that you can draw and be successful first (but perhaps without the necessary resources to do so?)

I remember Arlington football. There was little interest in the program from students as I recall. Doubtful football will ever be revived at UTA.

orguy wrote:

Digetydog wrote:

orguy wrote:
Why should Alabama (self sustaining program) subsidize UAB's football program? Do you think UT subsidizes UTSA or UTEP football? (Nada) Where do you think Alabama gets all the money to fund Saban's exorbitant salary? Their own AD coffers and Booster support.

Was the 300k to come from the Taxpayers (UA system)? or Alabama's AD profits? In either case its unethical. UAB should fund its own Athletic programs.

Years ago, UTA killed its FB program for financial reasons. But, the decision was made as part of a plan to benefit UTA. Later, UTSA added football after the board decided it was a good investment.

UAB supporters are mad because the "UA" Board members make decisions that appear intended to keep UAB down. Facts suggest that they may be correct.

Outside of UT- Austin and Tamu (maybe Tech), Texas taxpayers and students subsidize athletic programs as amenities for students at the state universities. UH, UNT, UTSA, UTEP, Texas State, SFA, SHSU all run at a deficit.

Good information. Thank You.

The actions of the Alabama system board are hard to figure. I read some more and found out they refused funding for a new stadium for UAB awhile back. However, its a catch 22 for UAB. Show that you can draw and be successful first (but perhaps without the necessary resources to do so?)

I remember Arlington football. There was little interest in the program from students as I recall. Doubtful football will ever be revived at UTA.

UAB has never been allowed to have the resources to be an even remotely competitive program.

I lived within walking distance of the UAB campus until April of this year so I've got a very good idea of what they have and what they've been denied.

Their football "facilities" are non existent. They have 1 practice field and a small building that is barely even large enough to house a locker room for practice. That's it.

Legion Field is in one of the worst neighborhoods in the southeast and is so badly maintained that the upper decks were literally condemned and had to be torn down. Entire rows of seats in the stadium are unsafe to sit on because of rusted out bolts attaching the seats to the concrete (during the BBVA Compass Bowl 3 years ago when Ole Miss was there, the row in front of us was packed with people and almost fell off the concrete riser on multiple occasions due to only being held in place by rusted out bolts).

UAB has never had a chance to be competitive in football and that's exactly how the UA Board of Trustees wanted it.

Heck, there was a senior administrator that was fired a couple years ago for suggesting that UAB should be allowed to try to build an on campus football stadium.

orguy wrote:

Digetydog wrote:

orguy wrote:
Why should Alabama (self sustaining program) subsidize UAB's football program? Do you think UT subsidizes UTSA or UTEP football? (Nada) Where do you think Alabama gets all the money to fund Saban's exorbitant salary? Their own AD coffers and Booster support.

Was the 300k to come from the Taxpayers (UA system)? or Alabama's AD profits? In either case its unethical. UAB should fund its own Athletic programs.

Years ago, UTA killed its FB program for financial reasons. But, the decision was made as part of a plan to benefit UTA. Later, UTSA added football after the board decided it was a good investment.

UAB supporters are mad because the "UA" Board members make decisions that appear intended to keep UAB down. Facts suggest that they may be correct.

Outside of UT- Austin and Tamu (maybe Tech), Texas taxpayers and students subsidize athletic programs as amenities for students at the state universities. UH, UNT, UTSA, UTEP, Texas State, SFA, SHSU all run at a deficit.

Good information. Thank You.

The actions of the Alabama system board are hard to figure. I read some more and found out they refused funding for a new stadium for UAB awhile back. However, its a catch 22 for UAB. Show that you can draw and be successful first (but perhaps without the necessary resources to do so?)

I remember Arlington football. There was little interest in the program from students as I recall. Doubtful football will ever be revived at UTA.

Let's be clear: UAB had put together a self-funding plan for the new stadium that would require zero funds coming from the UA system. The UA BOT still refused to approve the new stadium.

CalallenStang wrote:
Let's be clear: UAB had put together a self-funding plan for the new stadium that would require zero funds coming from the UA system. The UA BOT still refused to approve the new stadium.

These combined BOT/Regents are BS! Texas has it right. Each school is its own system and should benefit from unbiased leadership. The State of Kansas is in a simiar (crappy) boat.

They have some players that definitely look like an upgrade for us especially just looking at the stats...

http://espn.go.com/college-football/team/stats/_/id/5/uab-blazers