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

It seems that Watts cancelled his interview today. He's been trying to stay on message and build upon his narrative of what happened and begin to "move forward". Hopefully the recordings that were released today have Watts (And the BOT) guessing "who will say what" right now. They don't know what else has been recorded and need to be careful with what they say next because if they get caught in a lie....

If the playbook from political communication is applicable, we should see the most damaging story come out right before the F.S. vote.

(01-05-2015 05:26 PM)blazerjay Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 03:52 PM)the_blazerman Wrote:  Athletic Directors would be more likely to attend the meetings.
In special cases they would try and get the presidents together.

Most of the time I believe the AD's attending would suffice.

No, the meetings this month in Boca Raton are regularly scheduled week-long conference business meetings. The President's will be in attendance.

What about Presidents that don't care about Athletics?

Watts should meet with the media as he is escorted from campus...by the students he so faithfully served.

Is Daniel his brother?

(01-05-2015 05:39 PM)ATTALLABLAZE Wrote:  They should beat him down. Pummel him.

Jack Williams said it already. He's lucky that crowd waiting for his sorry ass outside the UAB Football Building last month didn't do just that. Remember that picture of him that got plastered on the front page of the News surrounded by the cops? The guy on the lower right of that photo with the shades on that looks like the guy that slaughtered Tony Montana in "Scarface?" I met and talked with him at the last Rally On The Green.

Oh gosh, he is going to lie through his teeth, over and over again, and he knows it. No wonder he is sick. He is probably having a nervous breakdown. Honestly, I hope he ends up on the 4th Floor, where he belongs.

Maybe they are saving the best evidence that would really screw him and the BOT over right before the no confidence vote.

Watts is hosting a town hall for the School of Medicine folks this Wednesday at 730am in Spain Auditorium.

(01-05-2015 03:05 PM)hooverblazer Wrote:  http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index....ill_m.html

That bastard needs to be announcing his resignation. It's too late Chain Saw Ray-you've disrespected the football program, students, faculty and everything UAB-time to take your medicine like a man or at least try to be one for once.

(01-05-2015 05:42 PM)blazerwkr Wrote:  While I don't hold BB in much regard, I think they've been trying to hold things together as long as possible to keep UAB in but alas time may run out & make them vote us out

That's my impression, too.

Someone who is all-in for Blazer football needs to be at that meeting and explain what the plan is to bring it back. If that means crashing the party and speaking out of turn, so be it. But my guess is that the other C-USA honchos WANT to hear that side of the story, anyway.

(01-05-2015 04:39 PM)the_blazerman Wrote:  I bet Watts has called Fess & Cubby today.

I would bet THEY called him. They don't want a repeat of the Governor's first statement that the BOT was in charge of the actions on UAB football which had to be "corrected" to say it was all the work of the UAB President. They will want a seamless story line that lets them stay as far away as possible. The more they get tied into the shut down, the more likely they will have to deal with SACS over it.

Since the BOT is over all three campuses, might it be possible SACS might hit all three campuses with probations? That would only be a pain for the one in the west since they are already planning on the next football season playoffs.

(01-06-2015 12:03 AM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  Since the BOT is over all three campuses, might it be possible SACS might hit all three campuses with probations? That would only be a pain for the one in the west since they are already planning on the next football season playoffs.

OK, this has been explained before: SACS is not an athletic organization. They don't punish football teams.

As for affecting all three campuses, that's a no-and-yes. No, not solely for the actions of Ray Watts as directed by the Board. Yes, for other actions that will become obvious in even a cursory inspection of the Board's acts (say, Guy Bailey's sudden desire to see the desert after suggesting that the Greeks might act a tiny bit less overtly racist).

I doubt it. The fact that UAB and UAH have no real representation on the board is probably enough for them to get out either unaffected or positively-affected!

(01-06-2015 12:09 AM)58-56 Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 12:03 AM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  Since the BOT is over all three campuses, might it be possible SACS might hit all three campuses with probations? That would only be a pain for the one in the west since they are already planning on the next football season playoffs.

OK, this has been explained before: SACS is not an athletic organization. They don't punish football teams.

As for affecting all three campuses, that's a no-and-yes. No, not solely for the actions of Ray Watts as directed by the Board. Yes, for other actions that will become obvious in even a cursory inspection of the Board's acts (say, Guy Bailey's sudden desire to see the desert after suggesting that the Greeks might act a tiny bit less overtly racist).

I recall that SACS did something to AU after finding their BOT had violated SACS policy. I thought it was a sport team probation. If not, what did they do in that case?

(01-06-2015 12:16 AM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 12:09 AM)58-56 Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 12:03 AM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  Since the BOT is over all three campuses, might it be possible SACS might hit all three campuses with probations? That would only be a pain for the one in the west since they are already planning on the next football season playoffs.

OK, this has been explained before: SACS is not an athletic organization. They don't punish football teams.

As for affecting all three campuses, that's a no-and-yes. No, not solely for the actions of Ray Watts as directed by the Board. Yes, for other actions that will become obvious in even a cursory inspection of the Board's acts (say, Guy Bailey's sudden desire to see the desert after suggesting that the Greeks might act a tiny bit less overtly racist).

I recall that SACS did something to AU after finding their BOT had violated SACS policy. I thought it was a sport team probation. If not, what did they do in that case?

It wasn't. I was a student there at the time. The university had to change a few things: better defined roles between board and president; ensure that a minority of board members could not control the entire body; adopt a conflict of interest policy (since board members -- namely, Lowder -- had improper financial ties to Auburn); operate more openly and transparently; etc.

A number of changes were made during Auburn's time on probation. Five new board members were appointed; a president was removed; etc. That said, despite some of the violations stemming from board overreach into sports, no actions were taken against the athletic teams (it's outside of SACS purview).

(01-06-2015 01:22 AM)BirminghamBound Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 12:16 AM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 12:09 AM)58-56 Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 12:03 AM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  Since the BOT is over all three campuses, might it be possible SACS might hit all three campuses with probations? That would only be a pain for the one in the west since they are already planning on the next football season playoffs.

OK, this has been explained before: SACS is not an athletic organization. They don't punish football teams.

As for affecting all three campuses, that's a no-and-yes. No, not solely for the actions of Ray Watts as directed by the Board. Yes, for other actions that will become obvious in even a cursory inspection of the Board's acts (say, Guy Bailey's sudden desire to see the desert after suggesting that the Greeks might act a tiny bit less overtly racist).

I recall that SACS did something to AU after finding their BOT had violated SACS policy. I thought it was a sport team probation. If not, what did they do in that case?

It wasn't. I was a student there at the time. The university had to change a few things: better defined roles between board and president; ensure that a minority of board members could not control the entire body; adopt a conflict of interest policy (since board members -- namely, Lowder -- had improper financial ties to Auburn); operate more openly and transparently; etc.

A number of changes were made during Auburn's time on probation. Five new board members were appointed; a president was removed; etc. That said, despite some of the violations stemming from board overreach into sports, no actions were taken against the athletic teams (it's outside of SACS purview).

To further that. No actions were taken against the athletic teams because Auburn took the neccesarry steps needed to ensure a more representative system that SACS recommended. Had the Auburn BOT dug their heels in as the UA BOT loves to do, the school's academic probation could have advanced to a loss of accredidation.

If a school were to lose accredidation it would mean an automatic NCAA-probation department wide for two years as NCAA rules do require accredidation for membership in any of the three divisions. After that two year probationary period, if the institution has not re-acquired accreditation it would then be expelled.

If SACS suspends or even temporarily pulls your school accreditation, the damage comes from a loss of Federal grant money. The Feds have many restrictions on the grants they hand out; one of them is not funding research at institutions without proper accreditation. Anyone with a Federal research grant may end up with it suspended or pulled should SACS drop that hammer on us.

Staff and prominent researchers would be lost. That is why this should be on the table as only the final option; the very last shot we have. If we can get the changes that UAB needs without mentioning SACS, that is a very good thing.

It would also mean that people with UAB degrees would find it very difficult to be accepted into advanced programs elsewhere. I believe that the ban on federal money would also hit things like Pell Grants and student loans.

(01-06-2015 11:46 AM)Doktyr X Wrote:  If SACS suspends or even temporarily pulls your school accreditation, the damage comes from a loss of Federal grant money. The Feds have many restrictions on the grants they hand out; one of them is not funding research at institutions without proper accreditation. Anyone with a Federal research grant may end up with it suspended or pulled should SACS drop that hammer on us.

Staff and prominent researchers would be lost. That is why this should be on the table as only the final option; the very last shot we have. If we can get the changes that UAB needs without mentioning SACS, that is a very good thing.

Since about 99% of federal grant money coming to UAB is for the medical center "east side" - which is what the demolition of the football team was supposed to protect - such a threat is not "small potatoes". "Unintended consequences" is not unknown to power players in Alabama whose concentration of effort on their own limited target may cause ("unintended") collateral damage to just what they claim to desire to protect. How much are we willing to risk to get the football program restored?