The unofficial online home for fans of the UAB Blazers. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(04-01-2015 01:54 PM)rebounder2u Wrote:  

(04-01-2015 12:10 PM)ATTALLABLAZE Wrote:  This goes for everyone.

Instead of insulting people how about doing something constructive to help. Fighting between each other is what they want.

Conversation is healthy. The insults and smart comments are not. The people we are up against play dirty. People are putting their careers on the line for UAB. Please keep that in mind.

Any threads that turn into bickering will be moved. I am sick of it and I think I speak for the other mods as well.

This!!!!

Absolutely!!!

You guys should lighten up a little.

Where is the wonderful sense of humor we all know and love gone?

(04-01-2015 04:35 PM)backyardblazer Wrote:  You guys should lighten up a little.

Where is the wonderful sense of humor we all know and love gone?

Gone with the bowling, rifle, & football teams. Carrying the unknown future of conference affiliation.

This thread is about the ongoing war that we are fighting. No joking around when passing the ammunition.

Thanks for the update.

Pointing out grammatical errors is helpful to the cause.

(03-31-2015 10:09 PM)CajunBlazer Wrote:  This large number of co-sponsors is unusual so it looks good for the bills' passage.

You would think so, but this is politics. One of the reps told me that he co-sponsored the bill to bring back football, but he said he would be against it if it came up for a vote because "the legislature shouldn't be dictating that a school must have a football team." He said the reason he co-sponsored it is "to help Jack out." Makes no sense but like I said, it's politics.

(04-01-2015 06:29 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  Pointing out grammatical errors is helpful to the cause.

I actually agree. And you weren't even snarky about it.... Cajun's piece was a nice summary that could be copied & pasted. It needed some spell-check.

It was NOT a personal attack on his intelligence.

Pondexters.

(04-01-2015 09:43 PM)BlazerGrad88 Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 10:09 PM)CajunBlazer Wrote:  This large number of co-sponsors is unusual so it looks good for the bills' passage.

You would think so, but this is politics. One of the reps told me that he co-sponsored the bill to bring back football, but he said he would be against it if it came up for a vote because "the legislature shouldn't be dictating that a school must have a football team." He said the reason he co-sponsored it is "to help Jack out." Makes no sense but like I said, it's politics.

I agree with this rep. A law to dictate a school must play football is a very, very poor idea. The other bills attack the root of the problem, and those are the ones I hope pass.(as much as I want football back, I am against that bill)

(04-02-2015 08:21 AM)blazers9911 Wrote:  

(04-01-2015 09:43 PM)BlazerGrad88 Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 10:09 PM)CajunBlazer Wrote:  This large number of co-sponsors is unusual so it looks good for the bills' passage.

You would think so, but this is politics. One of the reps told me that he co-sponsored the bill to bring back football, but he said he would be against it if it came up for a vote because "the legislature shouldn't be dictating that a school must have a football team." He said the reason he co-sponsored it is "to help Jack out." Makes no sense but like I said, it's politics.

I agree with this rep. A law to dictate a school must play football is a very, very poor idea. The other bills attack the root of the problem, and those are the ones I hope pass.(as much as I want football back, I am against that bill)

Usually, I don't even mention the football bill when I talk to them. If it comes up I'm pretty honest with them and tell them I don't care as long as HB339 & HB340 passes then the rest will fix itself.
As far as co-sponsors, that doesn't always mean anything. One senator had a bill in the legislature and half his co-sponsors voted against it. But, that's why its important for people to go lobby and keep writing them, especially people in that particular rep or senators district.

(04-01-2015 09:43 PM)BlazerGrad88 Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 10:09 PM)CajunBlazer Wrote:  This large number of co-sponsors is unusual so it looks good for the bills' passage.

You would think so, but this is politics. One of the reps told me that he co-sponsored the bill to bring back football, but he said he would be against it if it came up for a vote because "the legislature shouldn't be dictating that a school must have a football team." He said the reason he co-sponsored it is "to help Jack out." Makes no sense but like I said, it's politics.

True, but I think that is a one off and, if this person is like many others, he will probably vote for the other two bills. (Believe it or not, the bill which mandates bringing back football is the least popular of the three bills because some legislators don't believe in meddling in a university's business. I disagree, but.....) One or two co-sponsors might even get mad at Jack before the votes because of some other legislative issue in the same way Jack might get votes from people unexpected because he partnered with them on their legislation. Again, its politics.

On the other hand, each of us have talked to others who didn't co-sponsor the bills, or didn't have an opportunity to co-sponsor them, who will definitely vote for the bills. Obviously we will need a lot of non-sponsors on our side to get these bills passed. From what I have seen I believe this is definitely possible in the House which is our first objective. We will know more about the sentiment in the Senate as we get further along.

I don't even know how the football bill could work if passed. If a university is forced by the legislature to field a sport that it doesn't want to, is there anything forcing the university to field a competitive team. What's to keep the university from hiring a $40,000 coach who doesn't know what he is doing?

I agree the premise of the "bring back football" bill is not palatable, but because of our glorious 1901 Constitution, it's the only way to get football reinstated from a legislative standpoint without pushing the issue to a statewide vote in 2016.

(04-02-2015 09:16 AM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  I don't even know how the football bill could work if passed. If a university is forced by the legislature to field a sport that it doesn't want to, is there anything forcing the university to field a competitive team. What's to keep the university from hiring a $40,000 coach who doesn't know what he is doing?

Like Neil Callaway?

Point.

(04-02-2015 07:13 AM)FNblazer Wrote:  Pondexters.

btw, you misspelled "Poindexter"

Some blaZers are just slow, I guess... ;-)