U.A.B.’s Future Goes From Bleak to Dire
By Paul Myerberg // Nov 2, 2011
There are the haves and there are the have-nots in college football, as we all know. The haves are the haves because they, well, have things. They have nice facilities. They have history. They have a good coach, they have a strong roster and, perhaps most of all, they have a dedicated base of support. And all haves share one thing: all have a stadium. Their own stadium. Even the vast majority of the have-nots have their own, football-dedicated on-campus stadium — one who doesn’t, and might not for a long, long time, is U.A.B.
Here’s the thing with U.A.B.: while a separate institution, it is part and parcel of the University of Alabama system. This means that whenever U.A.B. wants to do anything — like hire a coach, for instance — it must gain approval from the Alabama board of trustees.
As with Jimbo Fisher, for instance. The Blazers thought they had Fisher, then the offensive coordinator at L.S.U., signed, sealed and delivered on a multiple-year contract worth about $600,000 a year. That would have been one heck of a hire for U.A.B., which was only begrudgingly granted approval to field a football program by the Alabama board of trustees in 1991.
The trustees balked, pulling the plug on the potential hire based on salary concerns. The reigning conspiracy theory goes that the Alabama board of trustees, those die-hard Crimson Tide backers, did not want one of the top assistant coaches in the country heading to Birmingham while the Tide floundered along under the direction of Mike Shula.
True, false? There are degrees of truth to every rumor. But this is the world U.A.B. lives in as the red-headed cousin to Alabama’s life as king of the castle. Further evidence was provided yesterday, when the board of trustees decreed that the university system could not allocate the proper funds to help finance an on-campus stadium for the Blazers.
The Blazers now play at old, leaky, creaky Legion Field, which was once the site of some of the most memorable moments in college football history — in the 1970s, for example. Today, Legion Field is one of the worst home fields in all of college football. The stadium’s structure is so poor that in 2003, when it was revealed that the upper deck was in a horrible state of disrepair, Alabama chose to simply not play there anymore rather then pay for the necessary renovations.
Instead, the university system opted to just remove the upper deck altogether. Here come the wrecking balls. But U.A.B. continues to play its home games at Legion Field, sometimes drawing 10,000 fans, sometimes drawing 5,000 and sometimes, as it seemed against U.C.F. two weeks ago, drawing about 250 fans.
The board of trustees referenced the lack of fan support in its statement regarding the viability of an on-campus stadium for the Blazers:
“A majority of the Board believes that an on-campus football stadium is not in the best interest of U.A.B., the University System or the State. It is the Board’s duty to be responsible stewards of the limited resources available for higher education. In these difficult economic times of rising tuition and decreasing state funds, we cannot justify the expenditure of $75 million in borrowed money for an athletic stadium which would only be used a few days each year. The U.A.B. football program has not generated sufficient student, fan or financial support to assure the viability of this project.”
The last sentence says it all. Listen: $75 million is not a small chunk of change. Not to say the university system doesn’t have that kind of money, however. In 2004, Alabama paid $47 million to expand the area surrounding the north end zone. In 2010, the university paid $65.6 million to expand the south end zone.
So the money’s there, just not for the Blazers. It’s a chicken-or-egg argument: U.A.B. is bad, perhaps undeserving of a new stadium, but would U.A.B. be this bad if it received more financial support from the University of Alabama system?
Your answer doesn’t really matter; the board of trustees have already made their decision. And it was an easy one for them — why allocate $75 million for U.A.B. when that same money can go to the state’s flagship university and football program?
The university system thinks U.A.B. is a have-not because it can’t pull itself up by its bootstraps. U.A.B. thinks it’s a have-not because it doesn’t land the sort of support afforded to the wide majority of the rest of the country. And while we’re talking money, here’s the $1 million question:
Without an on-campus stadium, without much fan support, without much hope for any change, does U.A.B. even have a viable future as an F.B.S. football program? Unfortunately, it’s a question that needs to be asked.
You can also follow Paul Myerberg and Pre-Snap Read on Twitter.
Tags: Alabama, Legion Field, U.A.B.
Home
Comments
Leave a Comment
Follow us
RSS | 
Twitter
[...] UAB is under the University of Alabama’s thumb. That works about as well as you might expect. [...]
While UAB would never be able to attain the same status of Bama or Auburn in the state, there are enough UAB fans to rally around the program and make these projects success if given the chance. I, of course, chalk this up as another move by UAT to keep this football program from enjoying any measure of success. As much as it pains me to say, if they are determined to keep the program down then they might as well just kill it and keep it from being such a drain on expenditures. I get hopeful for the prospect of whatever coach may get hired after Calloway, but then reality reminds me that UAB will never get anybody better than what they already have.
Hi Paul,
Do you have connections to UAB or just trying to touch on a story of interest?
Either way, I’m not sure this is being presented in the proper manner.
First, Legion Field is owned by the city of Birmingham and maintained by the parks and recreation department. The U of A may have paid for some type of upkeep in the past, but why on earth would they agree to pay for the upper deck repairs? Especially when they had decided years before to move all of their home games to Tuscaloosa.
Regarding Fisher, why pay him $600k when you can pay a coach like Calloway almost half that much?
Regarding the investments into Bryant-Denny, I’m sure those were funded either by financial commitments solicited from supporters, through the profits of the athletics department or through debt to be serviced through the profits of the athletics department. If UAB can do the same, they should go for it.
Also, why should the U of A system sew the seeds to raise up a competitor to their multi-million dollar, profitable operation?
UAB football is a black hole. It should have never been started. Now that it has, UAB and it’s students and alumni act like they are entitled to a stadium.
UAB acts offended that they don’t receive more help. They should be glad that the failed experiment isn’t yanked before another dollar is wasted.
Other than that, I don’t really care. :)
Have a good day,
BD
Wayne,
If UAB fans, alumni and students really support UAB football, they should show up at the games (wherever they are played) and they should dig into their pockets to fund what the program needs.
Right now, tell me what sane business person would fund this black hole?
BD
“Regarding Fisher, why pay him $600k when you can pay a coach like Calloway almost half that much?”
Because one of them is a real football coach and Calloway obviously isn’t?
Fisher would obviously be gone by now if he had had any success, but then UAB’s program wouldn’t be such a hellhole either.
I’d say that UAB fans are supporting the program at a level that is warranted at the moment. They are possibly the worst team in FBS – attendance isn’t going to change that. There were plenty of empty seats at B-D during the Shula era, too.
Bryant Denny asked the question:
“Why should the U of A system sew the seeds to raise up a competitor?”
Clearly, it is not in Bama’s best interest for UAB to have a strong football program.
So far as I know, UAB is in an unique position. UCLA doesn’t have to ask permission from Cal to hire a football coach. UTEP doesn’t have to ask permission from Texas to build athletic facilities. USF doesn’t have to ask Florida for permission to join the Big East.
On the flip side, the funding for UAB’s proposed football stadium was $15M in private donations and $60M in bonds. The City of Birmingham and the State of Alabama are in dire straits financially, and that’s a lot of leverage.
Most projects I have seen limit the bond portion to 50%. In the University of Houston’s case, we will soon announce a new $120M on campus stadium where at least 70% has been raised privately.
Further, the bonds are often paid back with suite/club level revenue. UAB’s campus stadium proposed some 1500 of these premium seats. It’s hard to imagine 1500 UAB fans ponying up big dollars to watch UAB football given their current level of support.
So I can totally understand why the UAB stadium would be vetoed based on financial considerations. It’s just very odd that Bama controls the major facets of UAB’s football operations. Unless and until that changes, UAB has no chance to succeed on the gridiron.
Alabama football makes over $40million per year in profit (no student fees for FB) and the Athletic Department as a whole makes over $30million. The Athletic Dept gets about $2.5million for all sports in student fees and receives no institutional support for the AD.
UAB breaks even on FB (if you include about $1million in student fees allocated for FB)and the Athletic Dept receives about $6.4million in institutional support and a total of $2.5million in student fees, which allows the AD to squeeze a small (and wholly imaginary) profit.
As mentioned above, the UA improvements were almost certainly funded through private means and help generate a huge profit for the university. UAB already receives $6million a year in direct support for athletics and wants more to build the stadium. They already get $6million a year more from the University of Alabama system for athletics than Alabama gets.
The ugly truth is that nearly all non AQ schools (I’m a Nevada fan and we’re having similar issues) are being turned down for state funding for athletic improvements and are scrambling to find private funding. This struggle for dollars is what’s fueling the realignment nonsense.
@ Patrick
I don’t know where you are getting your figures, but in 2009-10, UAB subsidized its athletic department with $3.5M in student fees and $10.5M in direct institutional support.
The entire athletic budget was $23.8M, meaning well over half of the budget came from subsidies.
There is no way UAB breaks even on football. In 2009-10, all of UAB’s sports combined generated $1.25M in ticket revenue.
But UAB is not alone. All but a handful of schools subsidize their athletic programs.
$300,000 of Fisher’s salary was going to come from some prominent businessmen in the Birmingham area. Currently, UAB is paying Callaway more than they would have paid Fisher.
Also, Fisher had a lot of ties to the Birmingham area. He attended Samford University, and his wife is from Birmingham. So if he had immediate success at UAB, would he have left? Probably, but I think he would have stayed longer than people think.
So some facts:
UAB generates 70% of all revenue for the UA system.
To build the stadium, UAB had to show the Trustees a financial plan that showed the stadiums ability to pay for itself. They did.
The bond payment for the stadium was around $3.5 million per year.
The revenue generated for the stadium, using the most conservative of numbers, would be around $5.5 million per year.
The luxury boxes were already spoken for, all 27 of them.
Money is not the issue here. In fact, it appears that many of the trustees support UAB’s stadium; however, it appears that one individual with power removed the item from the agenda for the upcoming board meeting. So there has even been a vote, and if there has been a vote, it was done illegally due to open meeting laws.
Paul: Good comment. I couldn’t wrap my head around the financial issue enough to do more than merely touch on it briefly. But to my best knowledge, the deal comes down to the board’s queasiness over using bonds to finance most of the stadium price. As for the open meeting, we know from the plethora of expansion-related hearings that universities can bypass open meeting laws by calling an executive session. UNderhanded, perhaps, but par for the course.
UA-Huntsville also just had its hockey program shut down for the same reasons. Currently, UA-Tuscaloosa has a club team, so there isn’t direct competition. However, the board making these decisions seems to be made up of UAT alumni without any real ties to the other universities in the system.
It isn’t limited to athletics. There was a report[1] a few days ago that UAT was opening an office in Huntsville to compete with their sister university for military/NASA research funding.
[1] http://bit.ly/uAsKlJ
Paul: I just shortened the link so it didn’t run off the column.
Parker:
I got my financial stats from the NCAA Financial Reports Data Base at the Indy Star but after your correction I noticed that it was out of date – and should have been deleted from my favorites so I don’t make such a simple mistake. I should have used the USA Today info…it’s been updated for 2010. Those numbers match yours. I apologize for the error.
The ‘breaking even in FB’ data I got from the office of postsecondary education here:http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/Index.aspx But that’s just from financial juggling…they allocate enough revenue to offset the expense.
And yes, many colleges supplement athletics. Mine does. I just don’t necessarily agree with the sentiment that Alabama is taking advantage of something while denying it to UAB.
According to USA Today: Alabama gets about 3% of their funding from institutional support. 0% from student fees.
UAB gets 14.2% from student fees and over 43% from institutional support.
Thanks again for catching my mistake.
@a5ehren – I went to plenty of games in the Shula era and there were not really any significant empty seats. Even if there were, the Tide Pride program still had a waiting list of 5,000+ during that era, too.
If they can’t get private funds for a new stadium then they should drop back to the FCS (I-AA) level and cut expenses. Which is better……to play in Conference USA or the Sunbelt and be irrelevant in the FBS or play for a championship in I-AA? Too many schools think when they make the move to FBS they’ll get the same treatment and money as the big dogs but that will not ever happen.
UA are a bunch of racist inbreds trying to hold down an institution that they are supposed to be looking out for.There is not a week that goes by where there is not a racist incident on campus. UAB deserves their own stadium and coach. FREE UAB!
Good article. The tuscaloosa bot has held UAB down for far too long. The fans, alum, and students at UAB deserve a fair shake. There are high schools with better facilities. UAB is the biggest employer in the entire state. We deserve better!
Kids in Alabama grow up as Alabama and Auburn fans. So the smaller universities have to build fans from their student bodies many of whom are Alabama or Auburn fans when they set foot on campus. They have to be cultivated to be UAB fans. You cannot do that with a coach forced on you by the BOT who won’t allow you to fire them; by having said coaches run the program into the ground;by playing in a 70000 seat stadium that UA didn’t fill during their last days there(their last game drew only 30K)and that doesn’t have hot water; that’s miles from campus;that students feel uncomfortable going to. An entire generation of UAB fans has been lost due to the BOT’s meddling. The BOT has made promise after promise over the years – if you do this, we’ll do that. They have NEVER set any goals – because they don’t want to have a reason to not say no.They have held the threat of shutting down the entire athletic program over UAB’s head to keep them quiet. It has to stop. Writers in this state are AFRAID to dig into any story that does not promote UAT. They simply regurgitate what they are told and move on. Oh,and the UAH hockey team that was terminated last week, look for it to resurface at UAT as the elevate their club tea. Its clear to everyone who wants to see it the the Alabama BOT wants UAT to be the only game in tow. BTW, the UCF game was a protest against the FB coach, but no one mentions that because they are to busy collecting Saban’s stool samples at the local WalMart. The UCF game had 8K people, per the turnstyles and you best believe people in AL count that. The view shown above is the visiting side – which is shown 90% of the time. The home side did not look much better but the upper portion of legion is covered and does not show in photgraphs unless you aim the camera directly at them. The UCF crowd was the lowest in 10 years and UAB is still averages 18K+ fans even so.
Please be aware that of the three schools in the University of Alabama System, UA, UAB, and UAH, UAB receives far and away more state funding than the other two schools. UAB has grown a great deal in the past 20 years–under the oversight of the UA System Board of Trustees. As a matter of fact, the joke in Birmingham is that UAB stands for the University that Ate Birmingham. On the other hand, UAB athletic events are poorly attended. Note that UAB averages selling out 1 basketball game per year (Memphis) and usually has between 4,000-6,500 in Bartow Arena (seating capacity 8,500). Any objective 3rd party can see that there is little interest in UAB athletics. Figures vary but institutional support for UAB athletics is about 8-10 million per year. Adding debt service on a bond issue to this amount is not wise. I know everyone wants to root for the underdog. But in the UA system, UAB is (money-wise) the big dog.
Just to set the record straight, UAB averages 20,000 fans per game, not 10,000 or less, and the photo included with this blog is of the visitor’s side, not the home side, where the crowds are much larger. The picture is not a fair representation of an average UAB crowd. It’s usually this visitor’s side that get’s shown on TV, as it’s across from where the TV cameras are. Yes, there are games where the attendance was dismal, but this has been due to the combination of an unsafe Legion Field, and a very poor win-loss record under a less than mediocre Coach Callaway, the same coach who was foisted upon UAB by the same Board of Trustees. Recently, many fans have been boycotting games in protest of Callaway. It’s simply unfair to say we don’t generate support, when we have been prevented from doing the most basic things that would help grow support, yet despite this UAB still has managed to average 20,000 plus for most games.
Paul: Well, you have a point on Callaway. The last time U.A.B. averaged more than 20,000 fans per game was in 2006, the year before he arrived. It’s been downhill since. He’s just one part of the problem, however. The bigger issue is that the U.A. board of trustees continue to make life extremely difficult for U.A.B. And until that changes — if it ever does — the Blazers are going to continue to cling to life in the F.B.S. Sad story. It’s clear, given how the university has done in basketball, that U.A.B. could be a factor in football if given the chance.
The real question here is if there is a conflict of interest on the Board of Trustees that prevents the board from objectively administering the three campuses without favoring one over the others.
I think the answer to that question is a clear yes.
You can see that with regard to the author’s statement…
“Your answer doesn’t really matter; the board of trustees have already made their decision. And it was an easy one for them — why allocate $75 million for U.A.B. when that same money can go to the state’s flagship university and football program?”
And this one by an earlier commenter:
“Also, why should the U of A system sew the seeds to raise up a competitor to their multi-million dollar, profitable operation?”
These quotes knowledge the existence of that conflict of interest as a fundamental basis for their statement/question. Despite what the common belief might be, UAB is a very big deal in performing the functions that universities are supposedly exist to perform – research and teaching. It’s a much bigger deal than other universities in the state. So why aren’t more people aware of that? Well, the schools that show up on TV every Saturday are the face of Alabama to most of the rest of the country.
There are three reasons UAB needs its football program (in this order of importance).
1) Improve student life on campus.
2) Building on (2) turn that into alumni loyalty.
3) To gain some bit of that aforementioned recognition.
This is a modestly sized 27,500 seat stadium. Even if UAB were to drop down to some other level of play in football (which I think is a bad idea for reasons of conference affiliation for other sports if nothing else) there will still need for a place for them to play. It can also be used for a myriad of other events. The plans had already been drawn up as part of a feasibility study requested by the board – the results of which the board seemed to find very favorable at their previous meeting. The skyboxes are spoken for, the land is cleared ready for construction. The stadium is also part of a larger plan for redevelopment in that part of Birmingham. Interestingly the BOT seemed to change their mind between that meeting and this week’s meeting. Perhaps only circumstantially, Paul Bryant Junior was made president of the BOT just prior to the announcement that the OCS plan was shelved.
There have been continuing efforts underway to transform UAB from a commuter school into a traditional college campus. One of the primary elements that UAB is arguably lacking in that regard is a sense of community. How better, in the Southeastern US, does a school create the social experiences needed to develop that sense of community than a football program?
Regarding alumni giving and loyalty… Today’s freshman that walks from his dorm to an on campus stadium where he meets his future wife is tomorrow’s big donor. Or, as I imagine at least one member of the BOT might see it, that student can jump in a car, drive 45 minutes down I-59 and instead develop a fondness for another place.
Why should a university that is a $2 Billion annual business and a $4 -$5 Billion economic driver in the Birmingham with an enrollment of over 16,000 students need permission from an arguably biased group of oligarchs to take a chance on the success of an on campus stadium that most schools would consider tiny? If it is a failure, the administration should be held accountable, but the opportunity should not be buried in order to maintain the status quo under the false guise of financial concerns and past program performance (especially where that performance has been limited by the same empowered body).
If anything UAB football has done extraordinarily well under the circumstances of limited facilities and lack of institutional support. Not so long ago, when the very first BCS rankings were released, UAB was ranked 24th. The jokes are plenty, but many are not based in fact. Even the picture included in the article above misrepresents the facts. That is a photo of the east side of Legion Field. Not that it isn’t bad, but that does not reflect the attendance for the game shown. The UAB fans sit on the side from where the photo was being taken and are out of the frame – not to mention that Legion Field is cavernous and would make a sell out crowd in the proposed stadium look like a disappointment. UAB has had home crowds as big as 44,000 for a conference USA opponent and had a home crowd of 27,000 for one of their home games this year. The proposed stadium would be profitable at around 16,000. (Attendance can be found here: http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/albr/sports/m-footbl/auto_pdf/10-mg-records-1.pdf) Clearly the situation is far less dire than the snide remarks indicate. UCF recently opened a similar stadium, moving out of an older venue, and their attendance increased dramatically.
The BOT has indeed overseen a period of tremendous expansion and increased successes for UAB in nearly EVERY area that UAB has considered fit to enter – EXCEPT for one – football. Some cite that as a reason to give football a backseat (or death sentence) at UAB. I personally see that as the most striking evidence available that there is a disparity in support for that particular endeavor at the highest level.
That is not a reason to give up. It is a reason to challenge the failed system that permits conflicts of interest and violations of fiduciary duties to go unchallenged and be covered over behind closed doors.
Paul: This is a wonderful comment. I hope everyone takes the time to go through it.
Paul,
The Code of Alabama no longer allows executive sessions. You can download the law from the Secretary of State’s website:
https://www.openmeetings.alabama.gov/generalpublic/publicdefault.aspx
It also disallows workarounds like polling by phone or e-mail.
Either a. the law was broken or b. there was no vote, and the Board’s president removed the item himself and issued a fabricated press release.
Either way, this is wrong. Terribly wrong.
Paul: Whoops. Thanks for the link.
I can see both sides of this argument, UAB needs to raise the funds privately and not lean on the state. There is no shame in FCS football. This notion of “D1″ is for the “big boys” is ignorant and rediculous. Most don’t even know what D1 means. Yes FCS is D1. I would challenge any of these lesser FCS schools to visit Boone (APState) or Statesboro (GaSouthern), or for that matter Spartanburg (Wofford). The fact of the matter is UAB should have made an initial investment in their own facility when they began as Georgia Southern did in early 1980s. They might still be FCS, but who cares. They wear championship rings at that level too. Mercer University in Macon and UNC-C are building their own stadiums. Charolate is spending 40 million on a very nice expandable facility. It looks like UAB is learning this the hard way in hind sight.
I’m a GT grad living in Bham with no dog in this fight, and it’s awful what UA has done to UAB.
There is no chicken and egg scenario here. Previous comments have made it clear that UAB attendance has been fine in the past, and the current attendance issues are due to the lack of a good coach, which UAB had remedied until UA interfered. UA is responsible for UAB’s current attendance woes, and is now using those same woes to deny them a safe place to watch football games. The root cause of these issues are clearly UA.
UAB also has the best basketball in the state. The fans go to those games. It’s not a fan support issue. This is obviously a UA screwing over UAB issue.
Another thing that’s worth mentioning here, that stadium is in a very bad part of town. Attendance would be far greater on campus not only due to proximity, but also due to security.
Is there another situation anywhere in the nation that exists between UAB and UA? It’s outrageous. And the people here are truly ignorant. I can’t tell you how many yokels I’ve run into that honestly believe UAB is a division of UA. These folks don’t help all the Alabama sterotypes.
The sad part is, UAB is the sole bright spot in the academic wasteland of Alabama. It is ranked #25 in the nation in NIH-Med School funding.
See this link, and click on Table 2:
http://www.brimr.org/NIH_Awards/2010/NIH_Awards_2010.htm
It receives about 150 million per year, and the oversigning hicks in Tuscaloosa have nothing to do with that. Those researchers work 90 hours weeks writing grants and doing science, and they earned every penny of it. UAB does more to make the world a better place than Alabama and Auburn combined, and they deserve the support of the state.
But this morally bankrupt scumbag Bear Bryant Jr. is apparently scared of the threat little ol’ UAB poses to Alabama in football, so UAB can’t get the resources it is entitled to. 70 million for a new safe stadium at UAB vs. 60 million for an endzone expansion at UA? Give me a f’n break. Go LSU. Beat the hell out of Bama.
Oh don’t worry bama fans, UAB will still be there for you when you need those serious medical treatments.
To the idiot “Dawg” that posted above me, if there’s no shame in FCS, then I’m sure you’ll have no objections to UGA joining next year.
GTwrek, don’t know what the venom is all about, I suppose it’s the Dawg thing. I take no offense in that,I just consider the source. To get off the subject momentarily, who lost last to an 1-AA/FCS school, hmm I think it was GT, yup 1983 vs. the vaunted Furman Paladins haha ! I remember that, and in ’86 they had to kick a field goal to tie the mighty furple. Ouch ! Back to the subject, I meant not to dog on UAB, it would be my hope that the Blazer Nation would rise up, and open up their wallets and raise the funds themselves and build their stadium. Though I wouldn’t follow the GT model and build down, and then expand beyond the 40+ thousand or so average and require ticket sales gimmicky like the “triple option three game packages to sell out seats. Really there is no shame in FCS. Look at Appalachian State, and Georgia Southern, both have way more fans than capacity. How bout Old Dominion; nearly capacity with season ticket holders alone. UAB, I think jumped into this this assuming Legion Field would always be there or that at some point they would get something built.By contrast Georgia State, is in way better shape having an NFL franchise to fall back on, but talk about an echo from that huddle ! At least the other “GSU” (State)isn’t a subsidiary of UGA. In fact I would venture to say that within a few decades “State” will surpass GTU in fan base and attendance. Of course, given the possible consolidation of Univ System of Georgia campuses, who knows, Tech may become a midtown extension of Ga. State, then the Panthers would be the defacto occupiers of Dodd-Curry stadium aka Sanford Stadium West Annex ! Assuming the National Guard can make it safe for students to walk to class without getting thugged out. FCS is a fine subdivision. It includes many outstanding institutions that for what ever reason have chosen not to become football factories, or in the case of Georgia Tech, and Vanderbilt, once proud powerful institutions whose academic standards far exceed their ability to compete consistantly on the gridiron. Kudos to Tech ! Look at Georgia Southern, Six National Championships. There is NO WAY any C-USA program is going to compete for a National Title under the current BCS or possible playoff regime. But the author also pointed out in the article UAB’s pathetic home attendance, it reminds me of the old joke we used to say about home games for GT back in the Curry Dynasty: when one calls the ticket office to find out what time the game starts, the response is: “What time can you be here”. Not good, as the article referenced the UCF game, actual attendance was 8,872. Less tan 10,000for an FBS program ? ? They’d better watch out if they fall below 15,000 on a two year rolling period, FCS might not be an alternative, but a consequence.