Started By
Message
re: Somebody please explain to me why Alabama would give ...
Posted on 12/3/14 at 8:39 am to DynastyDawg
Posted on 12/3/14 at 8:39 am to DynastyDawg
quote:
Well the one quote from the UAB President yesterday saying it was not about money is certainly a place to start.
He's lying. He, or the BOT, or more likely both, are running an end-around on Title IX, and they're probably pretty happy with the media and the vocal Auburn fans making this about an imaginary grudge.
I doubt they're breaking any laws, but they certainly don't want to invite federal scrutiny when they begin gutting the money pit that is women's athletics.
1
Posted on 12/3/14 at 8:40 am to Evolved Simian
quote:
UAB football didn't lose any money. It was a break even proposition.
You usually seem pretty knowledgeable about this issue, but to claim that UAB didn't lose any money is disingenuous at best. It took an ~18m subsidy from UAB to allow the program to "break even."
This post was edited on 12/3/14 at 8:42 am
Posted on 12/3/14 at 8:40 am to Evolved Simian
quote:
Fully half of UAB undergrads are primarily AU fans.
Probably more now with yall ripping their hearts out.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 8:43 am to NorthGwinnettTiger
quote:
South Alabama costs 15.2 million. Troy is 12.9 million. Should they be next?
Not even sure what you're asking here? What do USA and Troy have to do with UAB?
Running a deficit is up to their president and BOT's. If they want to subsidize athletics, they can. UAB has chosen not to do that anymore.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 8:46 am to higgs_boson
quote:
Because Bear Bryant Jr. hates UAB athletics. Because UA does not want UAB to transition into a traditional campus.
But mainly, it s because of a letter written by a dead man many decades ago.
and he was able to get the entire board plus the UAB administrators and president plus the consulting firm to not only lie about the reasons but to go along with him. Seems legit
Posted on 12/3/14 at 8:47 am to Old Hellen Yeller
quote:
You usually seem pretty knowledgeable about this issue, but to claim that UAB didn't lose any money is disingenuous at best. It took an ~18m subsidy from UAB to allow the program to "break even."
That was the athletic department as a whole. The football team made about $20k in profit last year. Not much, but they certainly didn't lose anything. The money you're talking about went to subsidize every other sport in the AD.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 8:48 am to Evolved Simian
quote:
South Alabama costs 15.2 million. Troy is 12.9 million. Should they be next?
South Alabama absolutely should be next
Posted on 12/3/14 at 8:49 am to Evolved Simian
Because of how much was spent on the football team right?
Football usually is #1 spender but #1 earner also Id imagine.
Football usually is #1 spender but #1 earner also Id imagine.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 8:49 am to Evolved Simian
quote:
That was the athletic department as a whole. The football team made about $20k in profit last year.
This is false. When you take in the subsidies that go to the football program it loses money. A lot of money and it is only going to lose more.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 8:56 am to StopRobot
quote:
and he was able to get the entire board plus the UAB administrators and president plus the consulting firm to not only lie about the reasons but to go along with him. Seems legit
Not to mention that the first major capital item that Bryant voted to approve when he was elected to the BOT was Campus Green.
Definitely trying to kill a traditional campus theme when you build a quad, eh, higgs?
Posted on 12/3/14 at 8:58 am to Evolved Simian
quote:
begin gutting the money pit that is women's athletics.
I'm not sure that it is Women's athletics alone. I've always heard that the Alumni don't really care about supporting athletics of any kind at all. Perhaps not the younger Alumni but the ones they would be able to get money from to further athletics. We're talking about a medical school here, it's a different breed of Alumni. If they were building a 200 million dollar building they get the money in no time. To play football, not so much.
I think it's a complicated web that doesn't just boil down to PBJ is a dirty mofo.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 9:00 am to StopRobot
quote:
This is false. When you take in the subsidies that go to the football program it loses money. A lot of money and it is only going to lose more.
Not according to an article published yesterday. The subsidy was paid to the GAF. Football generated about $9m in revenues and had about $9m in expenses. No subsidy.
Football broke even. Nothing else even came close.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 9:01 am to StopRobot
quote:
When you take in the subsidies that go to the football program it loses money
The vast majority of those "subsidies" are revenues that are taken in specifically for the football program/AD. i.e. the students are charged an athletic fee and it goes to the AD. Likewise, the City of Birmingham pays money in for the football program/AD. To say that those are subsidies coming from the general fund's pocket is bullshite, because the whole reason that revenue is raised is for football and athletics. The university is just the middle man.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 9:03 am to APIEE
What percentage of the subsidies do those make up? Vast majority is a big number for student fees and Bham tax payer money.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 9:11 am to MrLarson
quote:
I've always heard that the Alumni don't really care about supporting athletics of any kind at all.
This may be true (they sure didn't show up for any sport other than football, and not many of them did that), but in their defense, there's not much revenue generated by women's sports anywhere.
Almost every P5 football team makes a profit. Only about a third of their full athletic departments do.
The ones in the most precarious financial position are the non P5 schools. For now, most of them have made a decision to continue the subsidies. When they finally change their minds, the only way to touch the women's sports (zero revenues, some have fairly high costs), is to start hacking men's sports. Football is the easy one, because it frees up 85 scholarships at once, and you are free to eliminate that many on the women's side. HUGE deficit reduction tool.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 9:12 am to bamafan425
Vast majority was incorrect. About a third. Without the fees and contributions, the AD as a whole gets around $12.5M from the university (not sure how that number is broken down - some more of that might be similar to what I said). The key point is that UAB is in the same or better position as the majority of schools that are out there who make things work. The question isn't whether you have to subsidize the football program. It is whether that subsidy adds more in value than it costs. For UAB, Birmingham and Alabama, I think it is hard to argue that it doesn't.
LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK
This post was edited on 12/3/14 at 9:15 am
Posted on 12/3/14 at 9:15 am to Evolved Simian
quote:
UAB football didn't lose any money. It was a break even proposition.
They broke even during what has basically been their most successful period ever. What happens when they go back to 3-9?
Numbers that show that a program can be successful don't do much to argue against the trend that says that it won't.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 9:15 am to BowlJackson
quote:
But leave it to Bama fans to make it about them.
You're actually one of the trolls, as evidenced by this last sentence.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 9:16 am to APIEE
What percentage of them are fees/contributions though? You said a vast majority.
Those fees/contributions are over 13 mil?
Those fees/contributions are over 13 mil?
Posted on 12/3/14 at 9:17 am to GoldenDawg
quote:
Here in Georgia I can see us pulling the plug on Georgia State's football program for the same reason.
Ga St just started playing football 2 years ago, Kennesaw St just started this year. If those programs are sustaining or even if they aren't and the schools can justify financing them, YOU can't do ANYTHING to stop them. LoL.
It's hard to justify not financing a lower tier program when the top tiers are adding funds and increasing spending (Power 5 stipend to players) is just one example. The thing is any of those players at the lower tier schools after a year or two COULD get a look at a bigger school, IF they were good enough.
If Hutchinson ks. can have a football program, pretty much anybody can, the only thing that would stop that is the worsening economy and increased costs from regulation.
If a P5 program can't take the heat of a juco startup near by something is truly wrong with them.
Page 5 of 7
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News