But does he deserve it? Could he have done more to fight the good fight? Is he completely at the mercy of the BOT's vote?

I understand that there's a lot more to the whole thing and plenty of questionable political decisions. I still see UAB as a canary in the coal mine. I don't think they'll be the only FBS program to fold in the next few years.

It's very possible, but this is a somewhat unique situation because of the BOT structure here.
It is probably true that if more schools starting doing this, others could jump on board, but that movement has a long way to go to have much momentum.

I believe South Alabama has its own Board of Trustees. I don't think they are a branch of The University of Alabama! ;-)

Thanks, OCF.

South Alabama is not a part of the University of Alabama system. USA is totally separate. The University of Alabama has three campuses - Tuscaloosa, Birmingham, and Huntsville. The three campuses are under the same Board of Directors, a vast majority of which are grads from the Tuscaloosa campus. To make an interesting analogy, imagine OU being part of the Ohio State system and being under the same Board of Directors. What percentage of support for football from the Board would be divided between Columbus and Athens? 99 to 1? 90 to 10? That was the problem with UAB. They say that anyime UAB wanted to better their program, the Board turned them down.

Also there is an interesting story circulating that involves Bear Bryant, of all people. It seems the old Alabama coach was extremely put out by UAB wanting to start a D1 football program and continually worked against them. Imagine tosu's response if OU didn't have a football program but wanted to start one. Well anyway, it seems that Bear Bryant's son is still a member of the Board of Directors but is forced to retire at the beginning of next year due to age restrictions. Some sports journalists down here speculate that part of this situation is Mr. Bryant's parting shot to avenge for UAB crossing his father years ago.

There is also speculation that South Alabama could replace UAB in CUSA.

I had read something somewhere (don't remember where now) saying that a lot of the heat he's taking on campus comes from the fact that the previous president otr two put up a fight when any of these type of measures came up (not necessarily to discontinue, but the repeated attempts from Paul Bryant Jr. over the past 20 or so years to screw them over to set up the events of this past week), whereas Watts just rolled over and took it.

It will be interesting to see what happens in a couple other areas that at first don't seem related. Some have argued that having football attracts other students. What will happen to their applications, and to their plans to expand enrollment? Also, in looking at endowments, I found what appeared to be a very strong correlation between endowment giving and football. Based on that, I personally expect UAB to see a significant drop in alumni giving to their general fund, and a lot slower growth in their endowment going forward.

I can't imagine dropping football will have any significant impact on enrollment at UAB. Their football attendance hasn't been very good overall.

If you live in the South and you're really interested in attending a football school, you ain't goin to UAB anyway.

This whole thing just feels so shady, underhanded and disgraceful. I feel awful for UAB and their fans.

To put it in a perspective we might understand, I see it almost as if OU shut down OU-Lancaster's athletic program. What does OU have to gain? It's not like we're on the same playing field or competing for recruits.

Same thing with UAB. The gap between Alabama and them is cavernous.

There still a big hurdle to the P5 schools increasing scholarships and giving stipends.
Namely Title IX.
As I understand it,if you increase football to 100 scholarships,you'd have to compensate in other sports to stay Title IX compliant.
I also don't know if how,legally, you could limit stipends to 1 or 2 sports.

That's a common problem in business, too. It is reflected in the difference between "direct costing" and "fully absorbed costing". Most people like to use fully absorbed costing, but the problem is that it gives the wrong answers when used to make decisions. If you cut out a product, or department, the costs never fall as far as expected because only the direct costs go away, not the absorbed costs.