Interesting article:
http://hamptonroads.com/2015/04/conf...meeting-dallas
Printable View
Interesting article:
http://hamptonroads.com/2015/04/conf...meeting-dallas
Rules are rules. They don't play football, they can't be members of CUSA. Doesn't matter they had a very good basketball team in 2014-15! They don't play football, they should be out after the conference meeting.
i think they will be able to stay at least for 2015-2016 until they can find a new home
I'm hearing they are done and we will stay at 13 with the new lax rules set to take place next year.
I hope they don't allow them to stay for the 15-16 season. That isn't meant to seem callous, but they withdrew the day they dropped football in my opinion. This needs to stopped being couched as CUSA kicking them out or allowing them to stay.Quote:
Originally Posted by KSDAWG
If they can't get football, they need to go. It is what it is.
I'm ok allowing them the 15-16 season as long as all revenue sharing is forfeited. If that happens, then no big deal about letting them hang around for another potential conference invite.Quote:
Originally Posted by champion110
1) No revenue sharing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Built4Speed
2) Ineligible for any championships.
3) Ineligible to represent the conference in any postseason tournament.
If they'd agree to those, then I'd be willing to hold my nose and let them hang around until June 30, 2016.
Based on UAB's favored status during the tournament, I'm pretty sure Barnowski loves UAB as much as Benson loved Boise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Champ967
Yep!Quote:
Originally Posted by KSDAWG
To the curb Alice.
I'd rather see them stay in CUSA if the alternative is that ULL gets invted as their replacement in CUSA. I do not want to share a conference with that shithole school in Lafayette.
Amen! Just stay at 13 for now.Quote:
Originally Posted by HogDawg
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by HogDawg
Agreed, I am all for staying at 13 until there is someone we want to invite. No need to fill a spot just to fill it.Quote:
Originally Posted by HogDawg
(2) & (3) is not going to happen. Bankowsky didn't like the way ODU players were treated by CAA after they announced they were leaving. To paraphrase, don't punish the players for the decisions of adults.Quote:
Originally Posted by Champ967
I agree with sportsdawg--- we all shared revenue from UAB NCAA tournament-- let them have 1 year to find a home and CUSA find a replacement-- college football is evolving 100 miles an hour and having them around 1 more year will not hurt us either way -- have new team ready for football 2016. Just not from Belch if possible .... like sportsdawg , i feel for the players and the students -- they were chanting big time at CUSA basketball tourney against the decision.... close to a non issue either way with me
I would only let them stay if they collect no revenue as a penalty. Even if they earned the revenue in the BB tourney
They stole the Tournament; I have zero loyalty to UAB and they were not friendly at the Tournament like UTEP Fans were last year! They were in the Heart of the South and
got every break starting with their ref's stealing the game from Western before Tech played them. Hope CUSA cuts them lose May 1!
By-laws state you get no revenue for the year if you are asked to leave. I'm not sure why that would even be a discussion point.
The long-term decision has already been made as well. C-USA just wants to appear cordial. Watts knew the by-laws and violated them. Nothing to discuss there either.
And yes, Banowsky is pushing the Presidents to allow UAB one year to find a new league. He doesn't believe the student athletes should be punished because of poor University leadership.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UABlazin
By all indications they will be given that year...
Hopefully a decision based on minor sports scheduling and convenience rather than feeling sorry for the UAB players and fans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwayne From Minden
Yep....Quote:
Originally Posted by maddawg
Are they going to enforce the no revenue?
That is what I've heard, although it's impossible to know which is the actual motivator.Quote:
Originally Posted by maddawg
Yes it appears that way, 90% of conference revenue is derived from football contracts with tv providersQuote:
Originally Posted by TechDAG
We often talk about the business of sports. Here's the Birmingham Business Journal's take on post CUSA options for UAB. These options are like divorcing your wife so you can date your sister. UGLY!
http://www.bizjournals.com/birmingha...ould-take.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDawg
I just hate when I see the words "being kicked out". UAB President decided to leave CUSA when they got rid of football. It was a choice to leave.
I hear you singing and I know the tune. They knowingly disqualified themselves and are now standing, hat in hand, hoping we are more gracious than they were during the tourney in Birmingham.
They continue to use the "kicked out" phrase so in my view it's essential for everyone else to continue correcting the dialogue. An inaccurate statement that goes unchallenged will, if repeated often enough, become de facto truth.
from the choices in the article, I'd go Sun Belt or Atlantic Sun. They have similar WBB/BSB RPIs, the big difference is in MBB, which SBC wins. The Atlantic Sun wins for Travel costs.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDawg
Conference RPI MBB WBB Baseball # Schools Sun Belt 20 15 12 11 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...t_Map_2014.png Big South 23 30 10 11 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._Locations.png Southern 24 19 18 10 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ce_Map.svg.png Southland 28 27 17 13 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ce_Map.svg.png Atlantic Sun 30 11 13 8 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...teams_2012.png
I've posted this before on the BBB's conference talk forum, but I'll say it again. Of all those conferences, the Atlantic Sun is the only one that I think would invite UAB. I don't see the Belch, SoCon, Big South, or Southland voting to take in UAB. If the UAB folks think that those lesser conferences will invite UAB just because they are UAB, they are mistaken.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDawg
There's good reason to give UAB more time if necessary, but pity is not it. The only good reasons to give them an extra year are if the door to bring back football is still cracked open or maybe if Army is interested in returning for football-only. If keeping UAB another year would help C-USA scheduling, then C-USA could enter a scheduling agreement with UAB as a non-conference opponent for select sports because UAB probably isn't gonna have any other options on such short notice.Quote:
Originally Posted by maddawg
Student-athletes are punished all the time for things that the SAs had nothing to do with. The NCAA issues postseason bans all the time for poor university leadership (APR, recruiting violations, failure to monitor, other scandals, etc.), which doesn't allow innocent SAs to compete for championships. This situation is no different. UAB shouldn't be immune from the consequences of their admin's actions. It's not fair to the non-football SAs at all the other C-USA schools when UAB has shifted all their football money to significantly bolster their non-football sports.Quote:
Originally Posted by UABlazin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg06
Agree
This reminds me of what Coach White said about UAB on his coach's show during the year. He talked about how our guys either had to bus or to fly commercial everywhere we went (we bussed to B'ham) and had to eat at Wendy's. At the same time, UAB was flying charter to Ruston and eating at Ruston's finest steakhouse (Beau Vines). UAB cutting football because they didn't have enough in money in their budget that's $10 million greater than our's is laughable. They didn't even try to make it work.Quote:
Originally Posted by techman05
And THAT, as Paul Harvey would say...is the rest of the story. They squandered the money they had!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg06
I thought he said "...and now you know, the rest of the story."
Source?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwayne From Minden
Basically last two CUSA columns by the ODU paperQuote:
Originally Posted by HogDawg
Speculation on there part but appears to be best for all parties involved
This is one of the reasons I would allow them to stay but not be eligible for conference championships.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg06
Well said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg06
Oh I don't doubt that it could be the best option for all parties, but from your post I thought you might have had a credible inside source.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwayne From Minden
I rather for CUSA to give UAB a year with no revenue shared than giving the directional school down south a chance to get in CUSA.
I would prefer to see hell freeze over and CUSA send a formal invitation to Haynesville High School, before giving the directional school down south a chance to get in CUSA.Quote:
Originally Posted by latech
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by HogDawg
All of our fans are clamoring to get into CUSA, but our administration is not. You need not worry.Quote:
Originally Posted by latech
Why? Your fan base lets us know that the sunbelt is a better conference and where you'd rather be all the time...especially right after we accepted an invite and you guys were passed over. So was that jealousy or self-delusion?Quote:
Originally Posted by chew4219
OK--my good friend Bob has the perfect solution--KEEP UAB -- bring in Army for football only--pipe dream but I am currently on Meth(lprednisolone) and in this seems like a great solution
I think we could all be supportive of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogsince65
Given the sweetheart deal that Army got with the SEC, I suspect they are more averse than ever at joining a conference. Navy is likely kicking themselves.
For those of us who didn't knowQuote:
Originally Posted by parialex
SEC will consider Notre Dame, BYU and Army as Power Five opponents
http://mweb.cbssports.com/ncaaf/eye-...five-opponents
But the only "sweetheart" thing about it is that the SEC can get around their own scheduling rule that way. So Army can play all the homecoming games in the south they want.Quote:
Originally Posted by sportdawg
Like it's that hard to get a money game from an SEC team.
Joining a conference gives them home games - something this SEC exception very much does not do.
Having said that, I doubt either party is interested, just like I doubt CUSA is interested in a frankenconference with bball or football only members.
Well, that is good news.Quote:
Originally Posted by chew4219
They can offer what almost nobody else can: A "P5" game against a decidedly G5-level opponent. They're going to get a level of consideration that none of us are (more money, return trips). Which, if you want to go it alone, you need.Quote:
Originally Posted by inudesu
Why don't we just give Army our 2016 game at Hogville & tell Arkansas if they want to play us we will play them in Little Rock for a 1 & done, Little Rock & Shreveport (or Cotton Bowl) for a a neutral & neutral or Hogville & Dawgville for a home & home. It's just that easy. No moving games after a contract is signed. We can do better.
So, many have the opinion that P5 schools will need quality opponents like us more than ever with this new playoff system. I say, if that is the case, that we hold every ace in the deck. Schedule home and home series with any P5 that needs us, and the series starts in Ruston.
They will only need us 2 or 3 times a year....
Not much more than they do now
Basically 70 of them and 150 of us....
Meh. The SEC has a rule that they have to play a "P5" every year. They're counting independents as "P5."Quote:
Originally Posted by parialex
That means that if you prefer Army at home to a home and home with Oregon or NC State or Indiana or whoever, you can do that. But if an SEC team is going to give up a home and home, they'll probably just opt for another actual P5 team.
I mean, I wish they'd consider Tech a P5 game, because it is an advantage in getting those deals with Vanderbilt or Kentucky or Arkansas. But it's not any kind of game changer, and it isn't going to get them home games in West Point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by parialex
Remember scheduling is a two-way street. I don't think Army (or Navy for that matter) has any interest in scheduling SEC schools. Army left C-USA because they couldn't win. The last time Army scheduled an SEC school not named Vanderbilt was in 1986, and that's including their partial future schedules through 2016. The last time Army played more than one FBS Top 25 team in one season was 10 years ago in their first season as an independent. Going back to September 2007, Stanford is the only FBS Top 25 team Army has played. I really don't think the SEC's decision to count Army as a P5 opponent will affect anything because Army doesn't want anything to do with the SEC unless it's Vandy.Quote:
Originally Posted by parialex
Jon Soloman from CBS Sports just stated on the Brando Show that he sees NO WAY that UAB football comes back any time soon, not even in 2016-2017 year, it could be closer to 2019-2020 if it ever comes back...
And he is the one who broke the story on this whole mess
I don't see it coming back as long as Watts is there and Paul Bryant Jr has control of the Board.
The OSKR report says UAB wants basketball in the MVC with all other sports in a more regional league. I suppose that would be something like SoCon, OVC, or ASUN. Don't know why any league would take our sports without basketball or football. More proof that there are too many stupid people in charge.
Wow. I'm pretty sure every conference's bylaws require all of their members' non-football sports to compete in that conference if they sponsor the sport. There's no way UAB would be allowed to put their basketball program in the MVC and all their other sports elsewhere unless UAB drops all their other sports down to DII which allows you to compete in DI in one sport.Quote:
Originally Posted by UABlazin
I think it's more likely that the people in charge are intentionally trying to sabotage UAB than them being stupid.
That's possible as well.
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg06
This article says UAB football UAB football WAS profitable. . . .
In a purely by-the-books accounting, no, it loses about 2-3 million per year. But OSKR's point is that Universities straddle the athletic department finances with listed tuition prices, not the actual cost the the school. i.e. If tuition is $15,000 but it actually costs the school only $5,000 per athlete in labor & supplies, then the athletic department's losses are overstated by $10,000 per athlete.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgpix
UAB is dead to us.
Attachment 12712
I have to agree with mister wonderful after the way they have acted of late. I was all for keeping them in the conference till they could restore football early on but now view them as trying to take advantage now.
That said, this is pretty funny. Serves this Pres., a pure politico, right. :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
Still to heck with UAB.
UAB linebacker brings helmet to graduation and leaves President Watts hanging
Posted by Kevin McGuire on April 25, 2015, 1:28 PM EDT
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports...watts-hanging/
I feel some for their football players, not so much for their fans - they NEVER supported the program
I know Timmy B likes comparing their attendance in football to ours, but that is comparing apples to oranges when you take population and demographics into account
You mean Timmy had enough breath to say "Tech" when exhaling all that nlulm verbage?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwayne From Minden
LMAO!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgpix
Barely...
What has Timmy B. said about our attendance? I know we have been better than UAB, ULM and many of the other CUSA schools.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwayne From Minden
Just that it was comparable with UAB's during last year's season and we were one of the better teams in CUSA and West Division Champs
Ruston metro + Shreveport metro + Monroe metro = 685K
Birmingham consolidated metro = 1,313K (1.31MM)
A 30 minute driving radius from Legion Field has nearly double the COMBINED population of every La. parish along I-20.
Who is Timmy B.?
Never mind. I figured it out.
Looks like it's bring back football or hit the road
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoot...thout-football
Ray Watts really screwed that school (UAB) over. I guarantee you he never considered the fact that CUSA could kick UAB out of the conference when he made the stupid decision to drop football. What a dumbass. He never saw it coming.
Unless you are in the camp that thinks he KNEW EXACTLY what he was doing...Quote:
Originally Posted by HogDawg
Personally I think Paul Bryant Jr. wants to kill the entire UAB athletic program, they will probably end up in the SBC or ASun
Exactly. UAB's "decision maker" puppets are neither dumb nor ignorant. They know exactly what they are doing. I will be shocked if they end up anywhere other than the A-Sun. I only see Benson taking in UAB if C-USA invites South Alabama. The MVC rumors don't make any sense from the MVC perspective.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwayne From Minden
I say UAB joins the Sunbelt and never looks back. Ironically, the Sunbelt will end up getting one of our prized basketball programs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwayne From Minden
Trading UAB for South Alabama is a losing deal for CUSA, but it would beat trading them for ULL.Quote:
Originally Posted by HogDawg
I don't know if they can keep up their recruiting in the belt, so they won't be that "prized" for too long.....Quote:
Originally Posted by HogDawg
Quote:
Originally Posted by HogDawg
He'd have to be a complete fool to have counted on CUSA letting them stick around. Surely he knew what would happen, and that it would cost them even more money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwayne From Minden
But that information was (purposely, you'd have to think) very much not a part of the initial (anti-football) consultant's report. Whether Watts knew or not, the cost of dropping football was not factored in their justification for dropping it to begin with (at least, the public justification). They just left that part out of the equation from what I understand (having not read the report myself).
So shady. Not including the cost of changing conferences (to one that pays less in conference payouts) is right there with acting like 85 football scholarships were being paid with real money instead of just "in-kind" for the most part. The thing that makes me question Watts's intelligence is the fact that they seemingly thought everyone would buy this crap at face value. Has he not heard of the internet? This might have worked 20 years ago, but not now.
He is one of the top paid president's in all of the nation for a reason...
Does anything matter there other than their grad school programs?
ESPN said the UAB football program actually made money. UAB supporters have raised $6 million to restart the football program. These issues will weigh heavily when CUSA is trying to determine whether or not to oust UAB.
It's simple. If UAB commits to bring football back they are in. If they can't commit to it they are out. C-USA presidents can't decide in/out on what they think UAB might do.Quote:
Originally Posted by counselingdawg
Oh btw, they are out for now. The decision is not to "oust " rather to allow them more time.
So . . . they disband the program, then put it back together? Bizarre.
Sports Illustrated @SInow 16h16 hours ago UAB will decide by June 1 whether to reinstate its football program http://on.si.com/1A0PjlN
If they reinstate it, everyone should be fired.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgpix
Guess they realized the C-USA meant business . . . no associate membership.
My opinion - it's a bluff to stay in CUSA longer. They have to start from scratch again with no players. If I was a recruit, there is no way I would go.
Supposedly they have 40ish players still around who didn't want to transfer.Quote:
Originally Posted by champion110
But yeah, it would take them years to get back to full speed (which hasn't ever been really impressive for them).
They probably ought to consider that option either way. They have spent a lot of money on consultants and PR firms and have still bungled this left and right. I doubt they're really better off without football, but there had to have been a better way to go about the process of dropping it if they really felt that they needed to.Quote:
Originally Posted by RhythmDawg
Did they keep their coach around? I can't imagine that, but wondering what fool would go there as a coach.
He has not taken another job on the off chance they can bring it back (he had time left on his contract, so they're paying him not to work).Quote:
Originally Posted by champion110
I can't see UAB reinstating football. Watts --the university prez who started all this-- is still in his same post, and still in charge. And nobody's pushing him out. If UAB does reinstate football, as CHAMP110 said, they are so far behind everybody else now that they will be a drag on CUSA for years.
What's wrong with a weak UAB football program? They'd be an easy conference division win for us every year.Quote:
Originally Posted by HogDawg