NCAAbbs

If the point being made is that UAB football is losing money, is that true? I would expect that a Tennessee Vol writer could say the same thing about Memphis football.

The football program operates in the black but does not generate enough to cover the Olympic sports.

The football program does NOT operate in the black.
Subsidy covers the scholarships.
The operating expenses such as coaches salaries, travel, etc., are covered. But the subsidy for football is still several million.

depends how you manipulate the numbers. UAB is doing nothing different than any other schools in America. In a sense it does operate in the black. Same for Memphis.

I could manipulate numbers than almost every school in the country operates in the red as well.

I think too many people are obsessed with nip picking the numbers.

I didn't say UAB is doing anything wrong.
I said UAB football is subsidized with several million dollars each year.
This is simply fact.
What is not fact: UAB football operates in the black.
What is not fact: UAB football does not receive a subsidy.

Another fact: UAB takes discretionary funds, calls in "revenue" so it looks like it's in the black on that EADA report. So do several other schools. So?

Doesn't change the fact that it's a substantial subsidy.

I guess if you say it long enough, some might agree.
But it isn't true.
Don't let him shite you iisaphd

read it for yourself here

UAB athletic dept. revenue statement
http://www2.indystar.com/NCAA_financial_...ool_id=159

UAB athletic dept. expense statement
http://www2.indystar.com/NCAA_financial_...ool_id=159

you can fimd um's, there as well.

And it shows UAB's direct institutional support --- SUBSIDY -- being more than $6 million.

UAB football received almost $2 million in subsidy from scholarships alone and received a direct payment of $324,000 to offset being in the red on non-scholarship operational expenses. It is right there in the link you provided.

UAB athletes on these EADA statements also shows more than $4 million in revenue for women's sports in that particular reporting year. Riiiiiigghht. That is largely subsidy counted for the purpose of these reports as REVENUE. Which is how many schools in the red do it, not saying it is wrong to do so ... UAB and Memphis have historically been two of the schools that use high percentage of subsidy to balance their numbers on these EADA reports. Houston is another. I happen to think that is perfectly OK if an institution chooses to do that but stop pretending it's real "revenue."

Seriously oldblazer, if you want to believe UAB athletics are just fine financially, go right ahead. Do you believe in the tooth fairy, too?

These reports are WORTHLESS as a means to determine whether a school is truly "in the black" or "in the red" but one can deduce that a school with some of the worst ticket revenue in all of Division I-A and one of the lowest recruiting budgets in all of college sports isn't one of them that is truly balancing the books.

I don't think ANYONE ever insinuated UAB athletics are in great shape financially. It is commonly agreed among us that things need to improve. Again I can manipulate the numbers to show whatever I want. If there is nothing wrong with the way most of college football does their numbers why make an issue of it and give our detractors ammunition? Why defend the zealots of the world that want to harm UAB? No one with 1/3rd of a brain believes UAB is where it needs to be financially but UAB is no more a leech than Alabama & Auburn have been over the year and no more of a leech than every public institution in the United States. Blazer fans should unite and defend our kingdom instead of defecating on the castle walls.

congratulations FM, you can read.

let's examine the income statement line by line

ticket sales $592,559 self explanatory
student fees $995,126 ditto
guarantees $1.308mil. unclear [to me]
contributions $1.872mil. could be Blazer Club, private donations (unclear)
third party support $0
government support $0
direct institutional support $324,486 self explanatory, and you found it. congrats
indirect inst. support $0
NCAA/Conf. contributions $1.198mil.
Indiv. school media rights $0
concessions, programs, parking $8,591
advertisements & sponsorships $96,109
sports camps $0
endowments/investments $1,025
other $184,182
subtotal $6.580mil.

Since you pretend to be the smartest person in the room FM,
prove from where the almost $2 million in football scholarship subsidy comes. Speculation doesn't count.

the ENTIRE athletic dept. received $6.396mil. in direct institutional support, of which only $324,486 went to football.

words mean things FM
I've never said we are fine financially. I said football is not in red ink. You haven't proven me wrong on that.
But I've given you the opportunity to do so.
I'm not the 'chicken little' guy. You are. So I guess you believe in fiary tales, also (ie. the tooth fairy).

the entire football scholarship money is subsidy. Always has been.

Per this report and the BOT minutes. I have gotten that directly from the mouth of Carol Garrison and several members of the BOT. If you want you can find all of that in the Black Friday report too, in which UAB provided a very detailed breakdown of the athletic department finances as well as future projections to the BOT. Which, BTW, UAB has never met.

Or if you want to play the little shell game and transfer other funds over there to make uab football look better than it is, and then give all the subsidy to women's, we can play that game if you like. Whatever creative bookkeeping you like.

When UAB was able to get the trustees to back off on Black Friday, Garrison was able to get the trustees to sign off on carrying this scholarship money as subsidy if the university was able to generate funds to cover the other football operational cost. UAB has almost gotten there in that regard, but not quite. But football has not yet been successful enough -- and in fact has performed FAR below projections -- to cover itself entirely or start generating money to help fund other programs. And it has never made progress on the scholarships and likely won't for decades.

Meanwhile, the fundraising for the facilities, last I heard, was far below where it was hoped to be, too. So far the BOT has been understanding but that will be harder to do if the economy continues to lag. There should be a sense of urgency about this. Not only is the window of opportunity for conference movement going to be small (a period of about 4, maybe 5 years between 2009-13 before the next BCS deal) but the clock is ticking on the Garrison presidency and at some point UAB athletics is not going to get lucky with a replacement. That time seems to point to now with flagging economy and major unrest on the medical side about federal grants and such. The knives very possibly could get turned toward athletics in that scenario.

Don't believe me. Ask uabbean, who actually sees some of the reports before they are filed. Or Grammar Nazi, who has very keen knowledge of the inner workings of the financies and the rumblings on the horizon.

I told you speculation wouldn't count.

Your almost $2mil football scholarship subsidy figure is bogus.

let me help you

a full scholly=$13,000-$15,000 for the fall of 2008.
I know this because I have a recipient in my household.
multiply by 85 (the MAXIMUM number of football scholarships avail. per NCAA rules, and a figure I don't think we've ever attained)
equals $1.105mil.-$1.275mil.

if we used your nearly $2mil figure, we'd have approx. 130-150 football players on scholarship.
Don't let the NCAA know about that one.

keep tryin', but you haven't proven anything yet.

I give up.
UAB athletics is rolling in dough.
The BCS awaits.

And I didn't come up with the $1.7 milliion number for scholarships, oldblazer. UAB did. Take that up with them. But it's all subsidy.
I am sorry that I didn't save the minutes from the meeting where, you know, Garrison spelled all of that out while pleading for the life of the program. But you can find them online if you want to dig. Or you can put in a public records request.

I have a better idea if you really want your answers. Send your links to a reporter at the Birmingham News or 6 on Your Side and ask them to check them out. I have a feeling you won't like their expose on how UAB has spent millions in taxpayer dollars for a football program that generated 500K in ticket revenue.

Aren't we all fighting for the same thing?

I don't thin k ANYONE said UAB is rolling in dough.

We all know Vanderbilt will see a BCS game before UAB unless we hit the conference jackpot of realignment.

I would like to see the correct numbers because 1.7 should be no where close unless we are talking about multiple years.

UAB has not even had a full compliment of 85 even when Watson was here. We have always been short of the REAL number.

UAB is not rolling in dough but it is no more of a leech than hundreds of other schools across this nation.
No one claims UAB is well off but UAB is not as bad a shape as some would make it out unless the administration is lying.

And now you've changed the dynamics to pre-black friday.
I'm sorry you have nothing to back up your contention, other than your word.
maybe student aid is more than scholarship monies, 'cause it's waaay more than the cost of 85 scholly's.
I only performed the math any 3rd grader could have performed.

no, you failed to comprehend what it was you actually were reading.
Stop it with the EADA reports. They are not an accurate reflection. Period.

and your numbers to counter are?
oh yea, I forgot
YOU ARE THE SMARTEST MAN IN THE ROOM

nor is your incessant 'sky is falling' tripe

you have failed to provide anything, other than your speculation

Never said the sky is falling, oldblazer.

UAB fans need to deal in reality to address the challenges the future holds. These challenges will require singular focus and a united front.
They are real. They can be overcome but they are real.

<<YOU ARE THE SMARTEST MAN IN THE ROOM>

is not!

My daddy is smarter than your daddy!

Mr Mouse must be a Bamer fan the way he always defends them.

He needs to change his name to Flying Chicken Little!

Maybe he can post over there at tidefans.com with jess t Blazerhater?

My daddy can whip your daddy's ass!

My Johnson is bigger than yours too!

From MVP to "Blazer Chicken Little," ha ha hahahahahahahaha

That was funny. I was the villain a couple weeks ago so now it's someone else's turn......

just another day at BlazerTalk......

Obviously not a happy thought, but where can I find info on it.

Student fees for athletic purposes seem to be the norm for virtually all colleges. Maybe it is the word "subsidize", but the football program is less subsidized than the math department; unless the math department has a revenue generator on the side (see Spitzer).
As a father of a chemistry / math major, I am definitely not ridiculing the math department.

The students at Univ Texas - Arlington voted overwhelmingly to increase fees to re-start a football program. The students felt they were missing out on the full college experience by not having a football team.
UTA administration turned it down.

Not to get in the middle of this, but as a CPA, I have read a few financial statements and have been taught how to read between the lines and apply logic to what you are seeing. In this case, OB79 is somewhat correct as is FM. The football lines as provided by the link do not indicate that the subsidies are covering football, but there appears to be a lot of things lumped into "Non-Program Specific" that need to be looked at a little closer.

Non-Program is getting 2.8M in direct institutional support, which is offsetting some odd expenses. First you have "Promotions" which is all allocated to Non-Program (863K), but we all know that the majority of the promotions are done for football and basketball so that is probably 300-400K for football and 200-300K for basketball that is not being allocated. Then there is Medical (275K) which I guess is for sports related surgeries and such, which again, with football have 85-100 players, it should get at least half if not 75% of that cost. I am not sure what "Memberships" mean (297K), but that is probably C-USA fees, which all sports participate in, but should probably be spread to the each sport based on size, thus meaning that football should be getting 50-75% of that as well. So right there you have at least 600-800K that should be allocated to football, but is not. At that is not even getting into the 2.3M of salaries and support staff salaries that probably provide service to all programs, but would be drastically less wihout football.

My point is that FM is right when he says that the numbers can be moved and manipulate to say anything. Logic has to be used when you are looking at a financial statment. However, it may not be as significant a manipulation as has been indicated.

Either way, things aren't good and we all need to do better. I just renewed my 3 football tickets, throw in a $100 to Blazer Club (baby on the way, that is all I can do) and plan to get 3 basketball tickets for this next season. But we gotta focus on the prize, paying butts in seats and not worry about the details of the past.