UAB attendance back to normal

KrAzY3 · Sep 20, 2017

Shrack said:
quote whatever you believe to be true

Here's what I know to be true. I know that their athletic department is subsidized to the tune of millions of dollars every single year. I know they are subsidized by the city of Birmingham. I know that they are further subsidized directly or indirectly by taxpayers on multiple levels. There is a student fee, many of those students are getting some sort of assistance, there are funds trickling in from all over the state and country to prop them up.

Now how could I have the audacity to claim, without documentation (sorry you're not worth my time) that UAB just has to be losing money? Reports saying just that aside, no one showed up to their games! The fact is the NCAA themselves should have shut them down, for not having 15,000 paying fans on average. Just so they could meet that meager goal (which they still sometimes missed), they had to have entities like the city buy the stupid unwanted tickets and give them away, and guess what? They have trouble giving them away!

So how do I know they're losing money? When you can't give away tickets to see them, that's how I know! It's pretty obvious... You do understand that UAB went entire football seasons without having as many combined fans show up as one Alabama home game right? Never mind that a UAB ticket is worth the price of dirt, they still couldn't get anyone to sit through that crap.

RT27 · Sep 20, 2017

UAB has a football team??? BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA and I thought auburn was the states football joke, I stand corrected. UAB is school of medicine mostly, not many doc jocks, maybe push those basket weaving degrees to pump up talent pool hehe

PitMaster · Sep 20, 2017

Shrack said:
I'm curious. How much do you even think UAB football costs to run? How much do you think the recorded subsidy even was in a yearly basis?

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

In 2012 it was reported by uab to the ncaa that 64% of ad revenue was in the form of a subsidy

Two years laterr an al.com article by John Archibald admitted uab was bleeding money, and reported 18 million in subsidies for 2013

The uab-Carr report was, imo, detailed and thorough, and showed hard facts and numbers which President Watts used to decide it prudent to drop the football farse. This decision was made in the best interest, and would benefit, THE ENTIRE UNIVERSITY.

However, it obviously did not benefit the tiny but dedicated football sect, and uab officials caved.

Where was all this love and passion for uab football all those years of 10k or less in the seats at games? It did not exist - nor does it now. uab having division 1 football is nonsensical, and makes as much sense as me starting a rally saying I need a recording contract, just because...

"But Mama, I wanna, I wanna"

Shrack · Sep 20, 2017

KrAzY3 said:
Here's what I know to be true. I know that their athletic department is subsidized to the tune of millions of dollars

...so, the athletic department. You realize that by shutting down UAB football the subsidy would actually increase? Shutting down one of the two revenue sports is absolutely idiotic if you're trying to make your athletic department revenue neutral.

I know that they are further subsidized directly or indirectly by taxpayers on multiple levels.

That's every nearly ever athletic program in existence. Nearly all of them in the country run a subsidy, including multiple "power" schools. Everyone is not Alabama. Alabama is the top tier of the top tier when it comes to football history and money. Even then, Alabama was essentially revenue neutral as early as the 2000s and late 90s as an athletic department. Anyone has access to that information by just googling. They were not running huge surpluses as they are today thanks to these TV contracts and Nick Saban.

There is a student fee,

Voted in by the students, yes

So how do I know they're losing money? When you can't give away tickets to see them, that's how I know!

That's called supply and demand my man. That's what happens when teams play in stadiums 2-3x that is necessary for them and anyone will have access to a ticket if they want it. I've seen many athletic programs give away tickets at time...they're athletic programs, not businesses. Not to mention UAB sucked for nearly 10 years which is what happens when you willingly hire a bad coach (Neil Callaway)

So you posted a bunch of anecdotes and zero actual numbers.

Here's how the major non Alabama/Auburn schools subsidies shake out for 2016 (These are while UAB is paying for a football program, but it is not playing and generating any revenue...only costs):

UAB: $32,453,663 revenue (14,651,654 school fund subsidy, 45.14%) - If you want to include student fees ($6,333,200), it goes to 64%

Troy: $27,320,624 revenue (18,847,710 school fund subsidy, 69% subsidy) - If you want to include student fees ($1,088,609), that goes to 73% subsidy

South Alabama: $27,184,245 revenue (11,061,043 school funds subsidy, 41%) - If you want to include student fees ($9,173,925), that goes to 74.4% subsidy

Jacksonville State: $16,317,227 revenue ($12,044,164 school funds subsidy, 74% subsidy) - zero student fees, 74% subsidy

Here's some other random schools for your enjoyment:

Houston ($17,609,027 school funds, $7,546,458 student fees)
Memphis ($10,976,828 school funds, $7,387,557 student fees)
Cincinnati ($24,892,123 school funds used)
Connecticut ($26,990,210 school funds, $8,280,611 student fees)
Rutgers ($17,188,776 school funds, $11,421,897 student fees)
Arizona State ($9,917,840 school funds, $10,576,696 student fees)
Central Florida ($4,391,175 school funds, $22,447,191 student fees)

see: USA Today Sports Finance

I could sit here and run the numbers from equity in athletics and other reports on UAB football financials, but I really don't want to spend the time to do that right now. Worst case scenario if you want to calculate things to make the football program look as bad as possible, UAB would've spent at most around 2-2.5 million a year subsidizing their football program in it's worst state ever (2013 numbers)...and even then that's not calculating the fact that students want to come to a school with a football program, even if it's a bad one (reference UAB's only enrollment decline in something like 10 years after the football announcement).

You don't fix an athletic department's financial troubles by chopping the two potential money makers in football or MBB. UAB Basketball would've been sent to the Atlantic Sun or the Big South without a football program, further increasing UAB's athletic subsidy. It also would've decreased donations. That doesn't even make sense unless you're just gutting the whole program and sending it to division 3.

Shrack · Sep 20, 2017

PitMaster said:
In 2012 it was reported by uab to the ncaa that 64% of ad revenue was in the form of a subsidy

Two years laterr an al.com article by John Archibald admitted uab was bleeding money, and reported 18 million in subsidies for 2013

The uab-Carr report was, imo, detailed and thorough, and showed hard facts and numbers which President Watts used to decide it prudent to drop the football farse. This decision was made in the best interest, and would benefit, THE ENTIRE UNIVERSITY.

However, it obviously did not benefit the tiny but dedicated football sect, and uab officials caved.

Where was all this love and passion for uab football all those years of 10k or less in the seats at games? It did not exist - nor does it now. uab having division 1 football is nonsensical, and makes as much sense as me starting a rally saying I need a recording contract, just because...

"But Mama, I wanna, I wanna"

Should Troy or JSU or South Alabama have football programs? They all run athletic subsidies of 12 to 20 million a year at 74% subsidies each. And I've posted numbers above*.

And again, the FOOTBALL PROGRAM doesn't cause the high subsidy. If you take away the program, the athletic department subsidy rises to something like 85% of it's revenue.

KrAzY3 · Sep 20, 2017

Shrack said:
Should Troy or JSU or South Alabama have football programs? They all run athletic subsidies of 12 to 20 million a year at 74% subsidies each. And I've posted numbers above*.

Not if they are bleeding money on something no one wants to see. I've openly criticized South Alabama for the giant waste of money that their football program represents. And, I'm enrolled there... so, no UAB isn't some poor persecuted program. They're just the poster boy for wasting other people's money on something very few actually want. But no, I'm not happy that my city and my school is wasting money on South Alabama football. I'm pretty unhappy about it, stop reaching into my pocket!

PitMaster · Sep 20, 2017

Shrack said:
...so, the athletic department. You realize that by shutting down UAB football the subsidy would actually increase? Shutting down one of the two revenue sports is absolutely idiotic if you're trying to make your athletic department revenue neutral.

That's every nearly ever athletic program in existence. Nearly all of them in the country run a subsidy, including multiple "power" schools. Everyone is not Alabama. Alabama is the top tier of the top tier when it comes to football history and money. Even then, Alabama was essentially revenue neutral as early as the 2000s and late 90s as an athletic department. Anyone has access to that information by just googling. They were not running huge surpluses as they are today thanks to these TV contracts and Nick Saban.

[/COLOR]Voted in by the students, yes

That's called supply and demand my man. That's what happens when teams play in stadiums 2-3x that is necessary for them and anyone will have access to a ticket if they want it. I've seen many athletic programs give away tickets at time...they're athletic programs, not businesses. Not to mention UAB sucked for nearly 10 years which is what happens when you willingly hire a bad coach (Neil Callaway)

So you posted a bunch of anecdotes and zero actual numbers.

Here's how the major non Alabama/Auburn schools subsidies shake out for 2016 (These are while UAB is paying for a football program, but it is not playing and generating any revenue...only costs):

UAB: $32,453,663 revenue (14,651,654 school fund subsidy, 45.14%) - If you want to include student fees ($6,333,200), it goes to 64%

Troy: $27,320,624 revenue (18,847,710 school fund subsidy, 69% subsidy) - If you want to include student fees ($1,088,609), that goes to 73% subsidy

South Alabama: $27,184,245 revenue (11,061,043 school funds subsidy, 41%) - If you want to include student fees ($9,173,925), that goes to 74.4% subsidy

Jacksonville State: $16,317,227 revenue ($12,044,164 school funds subsidy, 74% subsidy) - zero student fees, 74% subsidy

Here's some other random schools for your enjoyment:

Houston ($17,609,027 school funds, $7,546,458 student fees)
Memphis ($10,976,828 school funds, $7,387,557 student fees)
Cincinnati ($24,892,123 school funds used)
Connecticut ($26,990,210 school funds, $8,280,611 student fees)
Rutgers ($17,188,776 school funds, $11,421,897 student fees)
Arizona State ($9,917,840 school funds, $10,576,696 student fees)
Central Florida ($4,391,175 school funds, $22,447,191 student fees)

see: USA Today Sports Finance

I could sit here and run the numbers from equity in athletics and other reports on UAB football financials, but I really don't want to spend the time to do that right now. Worst case scenario if you want to calculate things to make the football program look as bad as possible, UAB would've spent at most around 2-2.5 million a year subsidizing their football program in it's worst state ever (2013 numbers)...and even then that's not calculating the fact that students want to come to a school with a football program, even if it's a bad one (reference UAB's only enrollment decline in something like 10 years after the football announcement).

You don't fix an athletic department's financial troubles by chopping the two potential money makers in football or MBB. UAB Basketball would've been sent to the Atlantic Sun or the Big South without a football program, further increasing UAB's athletic subsidy. It also would've decreased donations. That doesn't even make sense unless you're just gutting the whole program and sending it to division 3.

Read The Carr Report. It was determined that dropping football would move the athletic department from the red to the black. You mention "revenue" and "potential" but nary a thing about expense.

As for the "but mama, everybody else is doing it" - well there are too many. I think they should act as uab did til they caved - strategically analyze the cost-benefits, then make a logical decision as to whether to stay teh course, quit the course, or adjust the course.

BTW - I cannot tell you the last time I was out and heard ANYONE wanting to talk uab football. In realistic and practical terms, there is just no interest in uab football.

Shrack · Sep 20, 2017

PitMaster said:
Read The Carr Report. It was determined that dropping football would move the athletic department from the red to the black. You mention "revenue" and "potential" but nary a thing about expense.

As for the "but mama, everybody else is doing it" - well there are too many. I think they should act as uab did til they caved - strategically analyze the cost-benefits, then make a logical decision as to whether to stay teh course, quit the course, or adjust the course.

BTW - I cannot tell you the last time I was out and heard ANYONE wanting to talk uab football. In realistic and practical terms, there is just no interest in uab football.

The Carr report didn't account for many things and has been disputed multiple times. It's also said UAB football's subsidy would increase to 7.25 million by as early as next year. I'll be glad to reassess that next with you and see if that is the case (here's a clue, it won't be).

The Carr report misreported donations lost from dropping football, how it calculates expenses, etc.

If I'm running a university and I have to write a check (to myself) to supply 85 scholarships, I'm not paying 100% of the price of a scholarship by providing this service. The real world doesn't work like that...not to mention Carr cited a UAB scholarship would cost $52,000 per year. That is not what a UAB scholarship costs.

The real cost of the scholarship would be if that player receiving it took away the attendance of a single self paying student. And that's a big *if*. Even then again, UAB doesn't cost $52,000 a year to attend like the report says. Living on campus which the football players do costs something like $5,000-$6,000 a year per player. You also have to include the paid tuition of walk-ons.

-The Carr report didn't include money UAB would receive from the CFP. That's $800,000 annually.
-The Carr report clearly miscalculated an increase in athletic revenue by year
-The Carr report did not include the full loss of revenue from leaving Conference USA (you know, you're required to have a football team to be in the conference)...that's a 1.4 million extra loss not even calculated in by Carr Reports. (They only included 1.6 million when the total would be 3 million)

The Carr report does not mention any actual reduction in student fees if football is cut. It's all around based on bad accounting...there's a reason other FBS schools aren't trying to cut their football programs. It would be a stupid thing to do.

The only viable argument I can see for someone to have about UAB football is to simply drop athletics entirely for a majority of institutions in this state. If that's your thing, sure, you have a valid argument. The only thing that matters is money, and UAB has more of it than any of the non Alabama/Auburn schools in this state. Regardless, people need to stop confusing an athletic department subsidy with a football program subsidy. You *have* to have a football program in the South if you want a viable athletic program. There just are not conferences to support a non football playing athletic program down here. Going basketball only is simply not an option.

crimsonaudio · Sep 20, 2017

Still zero reason for UAB to be in FBS.

Cruiser · Sep 20, 2017

Shutting down a football program that is losing money does not make other athletic programs lose more money at the institution

PitMaster · Sep 20, 2017

Shrack said:
Going basketball only is simply not an option.

It was a viable option in 1978

Funny - this really inspires confidence, from August 2015

On Tuesday, the Birmingham City Council gave itself a raise andapproved a budget for the fiscal year, but they left one thing out. The city had promised $500,000 a year for UAB football, but that money is missing from the $400 million in spending the council approved this week.
Reached by phone Friday, Birmingham Finance Director Tom Barnett said that the city had not anticipated that it would need to deliver on that promised funding so soon, so it had not been included in the current budget.

uab NEVER should have gone d-1, much less in what must be at least a near record 6 years. No need to compound matters by propping up a bad decision by continuing to make bad decsions. There is saying "throwing good money after bad"...

B1GTide · Sep 20, 2017

Question - would it cost the state any less if UAB were running an FCS football program?

Cruiser · Sep 20, 2017

That's TFF; so the council made a promise but hoped they would not have to deliver.
Typical grandstanding with no meat

Shrack · Sep 20, 2017

PitMaster said:
It was a viable option in 1978

Funny - this really inspires confidence, from August 2015

uab NEVER should have gone d-1, much less in what must be at least a near record 6 years. No need to compound matters by propping up a bad decision by continuing to make bad decsions. There is saying "throwing good money after bad"...

It's not the 70s. There are not those kind of conferences available. The only hope wouldve been a MVC move at the time in 2014 and that would be it, hoping that conference didn't collapse...and Wichita state just left for a football conference (AAC) this year. There were no other viable conferences available. It's football or bust. The A10 isn't a possibility.

And feel free to post actual data or a real report of the donated money from multiple UAB donors not being available, not some random al.com news article from 2 years ago about the city council. I don't think you'll be able to post one

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Cruiser · Sep 20, 2017

B1GTide said:
Question - would it cost the state any less if UAB were running an FCS football program?

For starters; they would not have to spend $700k for a head coach; which is ludicrous

B1GTide · Sep 20, 2017

Cruiser said:
Shutting down a football program that is losing money does not make other athletic programs lose more money at the institution

Remember, only about 15-20 football programs are actually profitable. If a football program has to make money to survive, the sport would have disappeared a long time ago.

Shrack · Sep 20, 2017

B1GTide said:
Question - would it cost the state any less if UAB were running an FCS football program?

I posted JSU's 70% + subsidy above and they are as about as successful as it gets in FCS. So no, probably not

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Shrack · Sep 20, 2017

Cruiser said:
Shutting down a football program that is losing money does not make other athletic programs lose more money at the institution

Of course it does. It doesn't exist in a bubble. You drop conference affiliation and you lose donations, ticket sales, etc. And you have to use solid accounting to even come to the conclusion it loses money in the first place. The Carr report is a hit piece

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

DzynKingRTR · Sep 20, 2017

PitMaster said:
It was a viable option in 1978

Funny - this really inspires confidence, from August 2015

uab NEVER should have gone d-1, much less in what must be at least a near record 6 years. No need to compound matters by propping up a bad decision by continuing to make bad decsions. There is saying "throwing good money after bad"...

I don’t think 6 years is a record. I can name a few right off the top of my head.
Florida Atlantic started in 2001 was FBS in 2005
Florida International started in 2001 was FBS in 2005
South Alabama started in 2008 was FBS starting in 2013
Charlotte started in 2013 moved to FBS 2015 (there is your record holder)

TideMan09 · Sep 20, 2017

Shrack said:
I posted JSU's 70% + subsidy above and they are as about as successful as it gets in FCS. So no, probably not

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Yup..UAB doesn't need to worry about competing with Bama or The Barn when Jax St is a far superior Football Program compared to UAB Football..

UAB attendance back to normal

Hall of Fame

All-American

Suspended

New Member

New Member

Hall of Fame

Suspended

New Member

Administrator

All-American

Suspended

TideFans Legend

All-American

New Member

All-American

TideFans Legend

New Member

New Member

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!