(11-25-2014 11:47 PM)Shrack Wrote:  

(11-25-2014 10:07 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(11-25-2014 09:31 PM)mtmedlin Wrote:  If the AAC had the same TV contract as the Big 12... I dont think any of us would be running a deficit or need student fees.

utk's athletic department was 200 million in debt. funny he didnt mention that in his article. uab football is like canadian football in alabama. people know it exists, its kinda an oddity, and no one cares unless there is absolutely nothing on tv but golden girl reruns.

It also isn't mentioned how The University of Alabama had 220 million in Athletic debt alone as of 2011. Nor does it mention that their campus owed only 200ish million just a decade ago, now it has over 1.2 billion in debt when it's yearly expenses/revenue are only 600-700 million.

UAB football has been held down since it's inception. Yes, support was terrible and there was a lot of apathy around the UAB football program, especially during the Callaway and McGee years. But I'm not sure how a school can generate a fanbase with someone else's foot on its throat. That's why all of these articles are popping up and all of these people are speaking out finally. Tim Brando just talked about it today in two different segments and our own coach spoke on how screwed up the situation is. CBS Sports has now done 2-3 articles on it. AL.com has written roughly 20 articles on the situation. The Alabama Board is denying UAB facility upgrades even when there are outside donors willing to pay for them. We are allowed to build a freaking soccer stadium when donations come in, but are not allowed to do anything for football, because you know, soccer is such a huge athletic revenue generator in Alabama. The freaking Mayor of Tuscaloosa just spoke out today for 20 minutes in support of UAB football. Heck, supposedly Nick Saban himself tried to speak out to a few of the trustees in favor of UAB over the Summer because Bill Clark asked him to when he was hired. Whatever his request was was allegedly shut down. Whether it was on Alabama playing UAB or UAB getting some small facility upgrades, who knows.

Just be happy Memphis isn't in the situation we UAB is in. I know we're an easy target to make fun of and it's probably hilarious to some people on the outside looking in, but you really wouldn't want the situation reversed.

I, and I believe the vast, vast majority of the fans here wish UAB nothing but the best in your fight to keep football alive. Your struggles against the evil empire are well known across southern football fans not associated with Tuscaloosa. Best wishes and keep up the good fight, it could be one of us some day.

(11-25-2014 09:19 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(11-25-2014 08:09 PM)Shrack Wrote:  Articles like this consider student fees to be a subsidy for some reason,

...because they are subsidies. The student fee is mandatory, so it's very likely that Sorority Susie is funding a team that she frankly doesn't care that much about--if she's sort-of into college sports, she probably follows the P5 team her family roots for (that she couldn't get accepted to). Or if she's not, then she doesn't really give a damn about the Bearcats or Buckeyes or Bengals and she'd rather have the money.

You can argue that the subsidy is justified, you can argue that the subsidy is no-more-unfair than a lot of expenses that get bundled into tuition. You can say that the athletic subsidy was part of the deal when the student applied--no one forced them to go to Miami-O or Ohio U instead of Wright State. But you can't really argue that the Athletic (or Activities) Fee added to the tuition bill isn't a subsidy to the athletic department.

Sort of like an education majors "building use fee" is a subsidy for the new engineering building.....

The reality is the whole university is a large integrated business and the athletic teams are the primary marketing/advertising arm of the university. Marketing and advertising is a cost. Not many corporate advertising and marketing departments break even. The fact that these marketing/advertisement departments actually recoup a significant portion of their costs is outstanding. Do people really believe that universities blow all this money on athletics because they are stupid? A child born today will see the Tulane football team on tv and see the name "Tulane" on sports casts and in newspapers thousands of times before they ever get their first college brochure in the mail. Football games serve as 3 hour infomercials lauding how great it is to be part of the Tulane college experience. Many kids will become fans of the university sports teams as kids or teens and will attend that university for no other reason than sports loyalty. Others will choose that school over others that might be cheaper because they have heard the name so often they equate the strong name recognition as proof the school is indeed a "major" university. There are only 128 FBS schools. Playing FBS football---just like Texas, Ohio State, and Notre Dame--sets these schools apart and lends prestige and a "big time" image to schools that would otherwise be indistinguishable from other similar sized state and private universities.

Theres much more to this equation than a standard athletics department profit-and-loss statement. Its like looking at the HR department in a large company and saying it doesn't make money. Of course it doesn't. That's not the same as saying it doesn't pay for itself.

(11-26-2014 12:34 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-25-2014 09:19 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(11-25-2014 08:09 PM)Shrack Wrote:  Articles like this consider student fees to be a subsidy for some reason,

...because they are subsidies. The student fee is mandatory, so it's very likely that Sorority Susie is funding a team that she frankly doesn't care that much about--if she's sort-of into college sports, she probably follows the P5 team her family roots for (that she couldn't get accepted to). Or if she's not, then she doesn't really give a damn about the Bearcats or Buckeyes or Bengals and she'd rather have the money.

You can argue that the subsidy is justified, you can argue that the subsidy is no-more-unfair than a lot of expenses that get bundled into tuition. You can say that the athletic subsidy was part of the deal when the student applied--no one forced them to go to Miami-O or Ohio U instead of Wright State. But you can't really argue that the Athletic (or Activities) Fee added to the tuition bill isn't a subsidy to the athletic department.

Sort of like an education majors "building use fee" is a subsidy for the new engineering building.....

The reality is the who university is a business and the athletic teams are the primary marketing/advertising arm of the university. Marketing and advertising is a cost. Not many corporate advertising and marketing departments break even. The fact that these marketing/advertisement departments actually recoup a significant portion of their costs is outstanding. Do people really believe that universities blow all this money on athletics because they are stupid? A child born today will see the Tulane football team on tv and see the name "Tulane" on sports casts and in newspapers thousands of times before they ever get the first college brochure in the mail. Football games serve as 3 hour infomercials lauding how great it is to be part of the Tulane college experience.

Theres much more to this equation than a standard athletics department profit-and-loss statement. Its like looking at the HR department in a large company and saying it doesn't make money. Of course it doesn't. That's not the same as saying it doesn't pay for itself.

Exactly. College athletics are just a cost of doing business as a University. It adds name recognition, more student enrollment (generates $$$), and thus more alumni who end up giving back to the University, etc.

(11-26-2014 12:34 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-25-2014 09:19 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(11-25-2014 08:09 PM)Shrack Wrote:  Articles like this consider student fees to be a subsidy for some reason,

...because they are subsidies. The student fee is mandatory, so it's very likely that Sorority Susie is funding a team that she frankly doesn't care that much about--if she's sort-of into college sports, she probably follows the P5 team her family roots for (that she couldn't get accepted to). Or if she's not, then she doesn't really give a damn about the Bearcats or Buckeyes or Bengals and she'd rather have the money.

You can argue that the subsidy is justified, you can argue that the subsidy is no-more-unfair than a lot of expenses that get bundled into tuition. You can say that the athletic subsidy was part of the deal when the student applied--no one forced them to go to Miami-O or Ohio U instead of Wright State. But you can't really argue that the Athletic (or Activities) Fee added to the tuition bill isn't a subsidy to the athletic department.

Sort of like an education majors "building use fee" is a subsidy for the new engineering building.....

The reality is the whole university is a large integrated business and the athletic teams are the primary marketing/advertising arm of the university. Marketing and advertising is a cost. Not many corporate advertising and marketing departments break even. The fact that these marketing/advertisement departments actually recoup a significant portion of their costs is outstanding. Do people really believe that universities blow all this money on athletics because they are stupid? A child born today will see the Tulane football team on tv and see the name "Tulane" on sports casts and in newspapers thousands of times before they ever get their first college brochure in the mail. Football games serve as 3 hour infomercials lauding how great it is to be part of the Tulane college experience. Many kids will become fans of the university sports teams as kids or teens and will attend that university for no other reason than sports loyalty. Others will choose that school over others that might be cheaper because they have heard the name so often they equate the strong name recognition as proof the school is indeed a "major" university. There are only 128 FBS schools. Playing FBS football---just like Texas, Ohio State, and Notre Dame--sets these schools apart and lends prestige and a "big time" image to schools that would otherwise be indistinguishable from other similar sized state and private universities.

Theres much more to this equation than a standard athletics department profit-and-loss statement. Its like looking at the HR department in a large company and saying it doesn't make money. Of course it doesn't. That's not the same as saying it doesn't pay for itself.

Well put. UAB in FBS puts them on a level locally with Troy, USA, USM, Georgia Southern and Georgia State. Dropping would make those schools look more major than UAB.

Athletics is a little different because it's easier to sort out athletic expenses-and-revenues than it is for academic departments, and because it's easier to imagine a university without athletics (or major-college athletics) than it is to imagine a university without an engineering school.

And it's also possible to imagine that a $100M/10 year traditonal adveritising campaign would produce the same dividends as a $15M/year athletic department subsidy. (True or fales, it's possible to imagine).

(11-26-2014 12:34 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-25-2014 09:19 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(11-25-2014 08:09 PM)Shrack Wrote:  Articles like this consider student fees to be a subsidy for some reason,

...because they are subsidies. The student fee is mandatory, so it's very likely that Sorority Susie is funding a team that she frankly doesn't care that much about--if she's sort-of into college sports, she probably follows the P5 team her family roots for (that she couldn't get accepted to). Or if she's not, then she doesn't really give a damn about the Bearcats or Buckeyes or Bengals and she'd rather have the money.

You can argue that the subsidy is justified, you can argue that the subsidy is no-more-unfair than a lot of expenses that get bundled into tuition. You can say that the athletic subsidy was part of the deal when the student applied--no one forced them to go to Miami-O or Ohio U instead of Wright State. But you can't really argue that the Athletic (or Activities) Fee added to the tuition bill isn't a subsidy to the athletic department.

Sort of like an education majors "building use fee" is a subsidy for the new engineering building.....

The reality is the whole university is a large integrated business and the athletic teams are the primary marketing/advertising arm of the university. Marketing and advertising is a cost. Not many corporate advertising and marketing departments break even. The fact that these marketing/advertisement departments actually recoup a significant portion of their costs is outstanding. Do people really believe that universities blow all this money on athletics because they are stupid? A child born today will see the Tulane football team on tv and see the name "Tulane" on sports casts and in newspapers thousands of times before they ever get their first college brochure in the mail. Football games serve as 3 hour infomercials lauding how great it is to be part of the Tulane college experience. Many kids will become fans of the university sports teams as kids or teens and will attend that university for no other reason than sports loyalty. Others will choose that school over others that might be cheaper because they have heard the name so often they equate the strong name recognition as proof the school is indeed a "major" university. There are only 128 FBS schools. Playing FBS football---just like Texas, Ohio State, and Notre Dame--sets these schools apart and lends prestige and a "big time" image to schools that would otherwise be indistinguishable from other similar sized state and private universities.

Theres much more to this equation than a standard athletics department profit-and-loss statement. Its like looking at the HR department in a large company and saying it doesn't make money. Of course it doesn't. That's not the same as saying it doesn't pay for itself.

Perfect response

The article frames subsidy as a G5 problem. From the USA today http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/s.../finances/ all but 7 FBS programs listed here have at least some subsidy.

(11-26-2014 08:59 AM)FrancisDrake Wrote:  The article frames subsidy as a G5 problem. From the USA today http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/s.../finances/ all but 7 FBS programs listed here have at least some subsidy.

Solomon said he only used G5 teams because no P5 team is in danger of losing football.

(11-26-2014 09:01 AM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  

(11-26-2014 08:59 AM)FrancisDrake Wrote:  The article frames subsidy as a G5 problem. From the USA today http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/s.../finances/ all but 7 FBS programs listed here have at least some subsidy.

Solomon said he only used G5 teams because no P5 team is in danger of losing football.

Son, we live in a (P5) world that has walls, and those walls have to be attacked by men with erroneous stats. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Jon Solomon, and you correct my post. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Solomon's article, while accurate, probably ruins lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a keyboard, and post before reading the entire article. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.