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

http://www.goducks.com/PhotoAlbum.dbml?P...OEM_ID=500

That video certainly answers my question about what our coaches might want added to our present football facilities. It is truly amazing what a huge amount of support money can buy for a program that is valued by the people. And to think that the Pac 12 was # 5 in the 2010 MEDIAN conference school's annual per athlete spending (#1 was the SEC @ $165,000).

That's Phil Knight money.

Find us our own sugar daddy, and we're good.

(07-31-2013 02:34 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  That video certainly answers my question about what our coaches might want added to our present football facilities. It is truly amazing what a huge amount of support money can buy for a program that is valued by the people. And to think that the Pac 12 was # 5 in the 2010 MEDIAN conference school's annual per athlete spending (#1 was the SEC @ $165,000).

This is the type of facility that I said we needed in another thread a couple of days ago. Of course ours wouldn't have to be as elaborate.

So THAT is what a Sugar Daddy will buy you if run a crooked program!

(07-31-2013 03:26 PM)Smaug Wrote:  That's Phil Knight money.

Find us our own sugar daddy, and we're good.

Well we've got Russel Athletic in our neck of the woods but I assume he's a fan of another program

Damn! That looks like "CTU Headquarters"...Did Jack Bauer get the head coaching job at Oregon?

Let's face it, when your school has a supportive and progressive Board Of Trustees, the sky's the limit for your athletic program.

Oregon clearly has a strong circle of support and resources at their disposal, they will be competitive and relevant for a long, long time.

remember guy
Money is not issue , even attendance is not an issue

(07-31-2013 06:56 PM)UABFRENCHY Wrote:  remember guy
Money is not issue , even attendance is not an issue

...power & control...

Pretty much sums up to winning at all costs.

If one school thinks that the other school has an advantage & can throw tons of money at the issue, then they will.

I think there is a point where your focus has changed from what college athletics are all about.

(08-01-2013 11:26 AM)the_blazerman Wrote:  I think there is a point where your focus has changed from what college athletics are all about.

And said point is no longer visible in the rearview mirror.

And yet almost 20% of the children in this great country of ours live in poverty. All this money spent on so called "college athletics" is sickening (and sinful).

(08-01-2013 11:33 AM)KevMo4UAB Wrote:  And yet almost 20% of the children in this great country of ours live in poverty. All this money spent on so called "college athletics" is sickening (and sinful).

So you are against an on campus stadium then?

(08-01-2013 11:35 AM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  

(08-01-2013 11:33 AM)KevMo4UAB Wrote:  And yet almost 20% of the children in this great country of ours live in poverty. All this money spent on so called "college athletics" is sickening (and sinful).

So you are against an on campus stadium then?

I think he is referring to a state school spending about $200,000 annually per athlete - like AU and UA did to win 4 BCS NCs - while the state public schools were being cut in those same years (2008-2012) by almost $1400 per pupil. Alabama is very likely not the only state to lavishly support sports while griping loudly about relatively small amounts of money spent by the state government to help its poorest citizens.

(07-31-2013 04:53 PM)blazerwkr Wrote:  

(07-31-2013 03:26 PM)Smaug Wrote:  That's Phil Knight money.

Find us our own sugar daddy, and we're good.

Well we've got Russel Athletic in our neck of the woods but I assume he's a fan of another program

They've been bought out by Vanity Fair.