- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Fact and Fiction about UAB's Football and Athletic program
Posted on 12/2/14 at 7:43 pm
Posted on 12/2/14 at 7:43 pm
Sort of attempted to search in advance
LINK
LINK
quote:
UAB loses buckets full of money on sports every year.
True. UAB athletics was subsidized by about $18 million last year, according to the USA Today Sports college athletics financial database. Subsidies, which often obscure the bottom-line at schools across the country, include student fees and state or school contributions.
UAB is losing far more on athletics than other schools.
False. According to an AL.com analysis of the USA Today data, 125 schools have athletic programs subsidized at a higher percentage than UAB. UAB's subsidy is about the same as Colorado State, Ohio, Virginia Commonwealth or New Hampshire. Some 33 schools are subsidized at higher dollar figures, including Cincinnati, Kent State, James Madison and Houston. Rutgers and UNLV actually posted double the subsidy as UAB.
If you take the subsidies out of the mix and look simply at the bottom line, 36 schools across the country are hemorrhaging more than UAB. Rutgers and UNLV are bleeding money at twice the rate of UAB.
UAB Football is the big culprit.
False. Kristi Dosh of Campus Insiders reports that UAB's $7.2 million in football revenue last year ranked 98th overall in the Football Bowl Subdivision. Troy University pulled in less revenue, with $6.7 million, and South Alabama earned only $5.8 million.
UAB is unfit to compete financially with the schools in its own conference.
False. In Conference USA, UAB is a middle of the pack financially. Throw out all the subsidies and its athletic losses are sixth worst, behind Old Dominion, Middle Tennessee State, Florida International, North Carolina Charlotte and North Texas.
Compared to other schools in Alabama, UAB is a gaping financial wound.
False. Athletics simply ain't cheap. Fact is, in the state of Alabama last year, only the University of Alabama made money on its athletic programs. UAB, South Alabama, Troy and Alabama State all lost sums in 8 figures last year - when the subsidies are taken out of the equation -- and Alabama A&M lost $5 million. Auburn even came down on the crimson side of the ledge, losing $3.7 million. Alabama made $21 million.
LINK
quote:
UAB's football program brought in $8,980,301 in revenue and reported $8,956,079 in expenses in 2013, according to federal Equity in Athletics Data.
LINK
This post was edited on 12/2/14 at 9:03 pm
Posted on 12/2/14 at 7:45 pm to Indfanfromcol
quote:
when the subsidies are taken out of the equation
Posted on 12/2/14 at 7:46 pm to Indfanfromcol
My father is a Bama alum and he told me 20 years ago that UAB was bad for Bama athletics. That is reason they are the first D1 team since the 90s to drop the program.
Posted on 12/2/14 at 7:46 pm to Indfanfromcol
Here's the University of Alabama's response to the situation. I just found this a few minutes ago.
WOW!
quote:
"What's best for the University of Alabama is to limit funding to other athletic programs under our control and to optimize the use of funds in the best interests of both schools."
WOW!
Posted on 12/2/14 at 7:51 pm to Indfanfromcol
quote:
True. UAB athletics was subsidized by about $18 million last year, according to the USA Today Sports college athletics financial database. Subsidies, which often obscure the bottom-line at schools across the country, include student fees and state or school contributions.
The financial accounting for all of this can be inconsistent as well. How much of that deficit is actually funded in cash v. non-cash tuition abatement?
Posted on 12/2/14 at 8:11 pm to SabiDojo
quote:
"What's best for the University of Alabama is to limit funding to other athletic programs under our control and to optimize the use of funds in the best interests of both schools."
Knowing the state of Alabama the motive for shutting down the UAB program reeks.
However, I would think it's probably the right decision even if perhaps for the wrong reasons.
There's a reason excellent public university systems like the University of California are only paying out for bigger football programs at the main campuses that support them.
The focus should be squarely on academic related spending if these football programs are a money pit.
This post was edited on 12/3/14 at 2:49 am
Posted on 12/2/14 at 9:01 pm to wm72
Update
quote:
UAB's football program brought in $8,980,301 in revenue and reported $8,956,079 in expenses in 2013, according to federal Equity in Athletics Data.
Posted on 12/2/14 at 11:16 pm to Indfanfromcol
quote:
Auburn even came down on the crimson side of the ledge, losing $3.7 million.
Sell it for parts!
Posted on 12/2/14 at 11:30 pm to wm72
quote:
The focus should be squarely on academic related spending if these football programs are a money pit.
that's a bigger issue than uab football, imho. outside of medical research, UA keeps UAB a second tier academic school in order to attract better students and faculty to UA. UAB's business school is a dump, yet the BOT blocks any attempt to build a new one. this goes much deeper than football.
Posted on 12/2/14 at 11:51 pm to Indfanfromcol
I assume these figures don't include title IX schollies?
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News