UALR paid for a study that showed FBS in LR was non feasible financially for UALR.

UALR would join Murray St to make the MVC 12.

UALR and Murray St would add baseball, which the MVC badly needs.

Why would UALR have added wrestling last year if it didn’t know football wasn’t in the cards? Their admin already knew the result before hand. MVC has a much bigger payout now with a Loyola Final 4 run and with UALR not getting part of the CFP from the Belt.

The UALR stance seems to give UCA an opening for FBS. UCA actually moved it’s mens soccer from the MVC to the Belt this year.

The MVC needs mid sized cities in its footprint with good mbb followings. The Belt has fallen short in that sport for some time.

UALR would become a travel partner with Mo St, replacing Wichita St. The Mo St President leads the search committee.

UALR has moved its games on campus, and it needs mbb to step up its game.

Adding Murray St and UALR would add two states to the MVC footprint.

Would the Belt add anyone to make good travel partners for Ark St, like UCA even if UCA stayed FCS?

So in your conspiracy theory, does LR start FCS football???

(02-08-2019 08:05 PM)NoDak Wrote:  UALR paid for a study that showed FBS in LR was non feasible financially for UALR.

UALR would join Murray St to make the MVC 12.

UALR and Murray St would add baseball, which the MVC badly needs.

Why would UALR have added wrestling last year if it didn’t know football wasn’t in the cards? Their admin already knew the result before hand. MVC has a much bigger payout now with a Loyola Final 4 run and with UALR not getting part of the CFP from the Belt.

The UALR stance seems to give UCA an opening for FBS. UCA actually moved it’s mens soccer from the MVC to the Belt this year.

The MVC needs mid sized cities in its footprint with good mbb followings. The Belt has fallen short in that sport for some time.

UALR would become a travel partner with Mo St, replacing Wichita St. The Mo St President leads the search committee.

UALR has moved its games on campus, and it needs mbb to step up its game.

Adding Murray St and UALR would add two states to the MVC footprint.

Would the Belt add anyone to make good travel partners for Ark St, like UCA even if UCA stayed FCS?

If UCA joined the belt they would either have to drop FB or upgrade to FBS per NCAA rules.

(02-08-2019 08:22 PM)Usajags Wrote:  So in your conspiracy theory, does LR start FCS football???

LR football of any kind is dead for now. Supposedly a fb team is part of a changing strategic plan, but the MVC would supply a conference at the FCS level.

https://www.nwaonline.com/news/2019/feb/...ll-at-u-1/

This is not some sort of evil conspiracy. It’s about the UALR admin doing the necessary steps or supposed due diligence so their alumni and boosters don’t second guess and hang them.

(02-08-2019 08:52 PM)Yosef Himself Wrote:  

(02-08-2019 08:05 PM)NoDak Wrote:  UALR paid for a study that showed FBS in LR was non feasible financially for UALR.

UALR would join Murray St to make the MVC 12.

UALR and Murray St would add baseball, which the MVC badly needs.

Why would UALR have added wrestling last year if it didn’t know football wasn’t in the cards? Their admin already knew the result before hand. MVC has a much bigger payout now with a Loyola Final 4 run and with UALR not getting part of the CFP from the Belt.

The UALR stance seems to give UCA an opening for FBS. UCA actually moved it’s mens soccer from the MVC to the Belt this year.

The MVC needs mid sized cities in its footprint with good mbb followings. The Belt has fallen short in that sport for some time.

UALR would become a travel partner with Mo St, replacing Wichita St. The Mo St President leads the search committee.

UALR has moved its games on campus, and it needs mbb to step up its game.

Adding Murray St and UALR would add two states to the MVC footprint.

Would the Belt add anyone to make good travel partners for Ark St, like UCA even if UCA stayed FCS?

If UCA joined the belt they would either have to drop FB or upgrade to FBS per NCAA rules.

There is no rule that prohibits mixing FCS with FBS. A conference can theoretically offer both if it is big enough.

The main question is would Ark St support UCA in the Belt, even at FBS. The Southland in the past hasn’t allowed FCS independents, especially for a school that is leaving. UCA is a football first school as much as UALR is mbb first. The Southland is an FCS support conference much like the Belt is an FBS support conference. Schools don’t move to the Belt just to improve mbb, but only possibly as a side effect.

Conway is close enough to LR making the schools almost interchangeable.

If you're in a conference that supports a sport you can't play that sport in another conference

So UCA being in the Belt would mean either bringing up FB or dropping it...

But neither is going to happen.

(02-08-2019 09:52 PM)Yosef Himself Wrote:  If you're in a conference that supports a sport you can't play that sport in another conference

So UCA being in the Belt would mean either bringing up FB or dropping it...

But neither is going to happen.

A school can play in another conference when its home conference also offers it. No rule against that and it is currently done in lax and volleyball.

UCA has made noise in the past about FBS and UTA is currently making noise. An 11sport conference almost precludes divisions.

Well, first of all, UALR didn’t pay for it. Most of the funds were from the city and state. This had b nothing to do with UALR playing football. It was all about putting pressure on the pigs to play in Little Rock.

You should probably stick this back in the realignment section

(02-08-2019 10:00 PM)sdcritter Wrote:  Well, first of all, UALR didn’t pay for it. Most of the funds were from the city and state. This had b nothing to do with UALR playing football. It was all about putting pressure on the pigs to play in Little Rock.

Rather ingenious by the UALR admin to get LR and the state to pay for the study if they didn’t want to.

(02-08-2019 10:10 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(02-08-2019 10:00 PM)sdcritter Wrote:  Well, first of all, UALR didn’t pay for it. Most of the funds were from the city and state. This had b nothing to do with UALR playing football. It was all about putting pressure on the pigs to play in Little Rock.

Rather ingenious by the UALR admin to get LR and the state to pay for the study if they didn’t want to.

You left off the last sentence. That’s the crux of it. You have to grow up here to get it.

(02-08-2019 09:38 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(02-08-2019 08:52 PM)Yosef Himself Wrote:  

(02-08-2019 08:05 PM)NoDak Wrote:  UALR paid for a study that showed FBS in LR was non feasible financially for UALR.

UALR would join Murray St to make the MVC 12.

UALR and Murray St would add baseball, which the MVC badly needs.

Why would UALR have added wrestling last year if it didn’t know football wasn’t in the cards? Their admin already knew the result before hand. MVC has a much bigger payout now with a Loyola Final 4 run and with UALR not getting part of the CFP from the Belt.

The UALR stance seems to give UCA an opening for FBS. UCA actually moved it’s mens soccer from the MVC to the Belt this year.

The MVC needs mid sized cities in its footprint with good mbb followings. The Belt has fallen short in that sport for some time.

UALR would become a travel partner with Mo St, replacing Wichita St. The Mo St President leads the search committee.

UALR has moved its games on campus, and it needs mbb to step up its game.

Adding Murray St and UALR would add two states to the MVC footprint.

Would the Belt add anyone to make good travel partners for Ark St, like UCA even if UCA stayed FCS?

If UCA joined the belt they would either have to drop FB or upgrade to FBS per NCAA rules.

There is no rule that prohibits mixing FCS with FBS. A conference can theoretically offer both if it is big enough.

The main question is would Ark St support UCA in the Belt, even at FBS. The Southland in the past hasn’t allowed FCS independents, especially for a school that is leaving. UCA is a football first school as much as UALR is mbb first. The Southland is an FCS support conference much like the Belt is an FBS support conference. Schools don’t move to the Belt just to improve mbb, but only possibly as a side effect.

Conway is close enough to LR making the schools almost interchangeable.

We'd only support North Dakota's invitation...

I don't see the rationale for them doing a dog and pony show.

What I have gathered from most of the Arkansas residents is that even if the study said it was feasible, it would be near impossible to make it happen, as the "mighty" hogs and their supporters would ensure that the talent/media/interest pool isn't further diluted.

So a feasibility study wouldn't be needed to show it can't be done. Those that want football will dismiss it anyway, and those that don't care about football will just shrug and say "see? Told ya so."

If the MVC was legitimately such a good move for them, then they would have the rationale to move... because of their legitimate reasons.

A more likely (though still not likely at all) scenario would be that the original feasibility study showed that it would be possible to have an FBS team and that information was augmented to get the desired result, or just as bad: The firm was told what the outcome should be, and they worked backwards to support that notion.

EDIT: I was always pretty sure that feasibility studies were handled a lot like conference invites anyway, in that they aren't done if they truly don't know the answer already.

I live in LR. When the study was announced, I didn't think it was feasible unless they wanted to move to the Southland and compete in FCS football.

I think UALR has a significant problem on the horizon of decreased enrollment. Colleges that are dependent on large commuter students are more vulnerable to the on-line movement. Football is a way to legitimize a college. A true football program, even one that is marginally successful adds to a university and can be attractive to students and fans.

If UALR started an FCS football program, I think it would be about as successful as the Southland schools, but it would also help with enrollment. Football, Marching Band, sports medicine, plus the overall college environment is more attractive.

If your football program costs 10 million, but you can charge student fees, get some donations and it increases your overall enrollment, then it could be worth the effort.

Little Rock can and should do football for the same reasons that other schools like South Alabama and Georgia State have done so. It may be a harder challenge in some aspects than it has been elsewhere, but the study is a good initial step.

Starting football is something that has been done before at HUNDREDS of schools, and it looks like UALR has some political and community support.

So I would tend to ignore the nay sayers. Maybe before long we will see the Trojans and the Mavericks take up the sport. It wasn't that long ago that South Alabama's Club Football team came and played our UT Arlington Club team at Maverick Stadium.

(02-09-2019 11:40 PM)wewererebels Wrote:  Little Rock can and should do football for the same reasons that other schools like South Alabama and Georgia State have done so. It may be a harder challenge in some aspects than it has been elsewhere, but the study is a good initial step.

Starting football is something that has been done before at HUNDREDS of schools, and it looks like UALR has some political and community support.

So I would tend to ignore the nay sayers. Maybe before long we will see the Trojans and the Mavericks take up the sport. It wasn't that long ago that South Alabama's Club Football team came and played our UT Arlington Club team at Maverick Stadium.

Community Support? I guess you missed the results of the Survey. As part of the search, the Trojans went to Boosters and current Season ticket holders for Men's and Women's basketball to get their thoughts.

The result was overwhelming "Meh"

They have a much older fan base than the rest of us, and still rely on Razorback fans to purchase tickets. While they have a much stronger student base, they were not able to even achieve the numbers they wanted on that end when students were asked if they'd consider buying football tickets when they got out of school.

Sure...they'd love football, but supporting the program through tickets and donations? That's another ask entirely. Not to mention that the city of Little Rock in general just doesn't care about sports. There's a reason the Razorbacks are trying to move games out of the city.

(02-09-2019 02:30 AM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  I don't see the rationale for them doing a dog and pony show.

What I have gathered from most of the Arkansas residents is that even if the study said it was feasible, it would be near impossible to make it happen, as the "mighty" hogs and their supporters would ensure that the talent/media/interest pool isn't further diluted.

So a feasibility study wouldn't be needed to show it can't be done. Those that want football will dismiss it anyway, and those that don't care about football will just shrug and say "see? Told ya so."

If the MVC was legitimately such a good move for them, then they would have the rationale to move... because of their legitimate reasons.

A more likely (though still not likely at all) scenario would be that the original feasibility study showed that it would be possible to have an FBS team and that information was augmented to get the desired result, or just as bad: The firm was told what the outcome should be, and they worked backwards to support that notion.

EDIT: I was always pretty sure that feasibility studies were handled a lot like conference invites anyway, in that they aren't done if they truly don't know the answer already.

The truth is, Little Rock still doesn't sponsor the Sun Belt required number of sports to be a full time member. In theory, if the league could easily actually enforce their own rules there, but the Trojans are ignored because there's no real push from anyone to make that change.

There's been discussions before that the Trojans were a better fit for the MVC or Summit League, but they are happy in the Sun Belt, and the Sun Belt really doesn't have any impetus to go to all football schools. Nor does the MVC or Summit really seem that interested in UALR.

Also, since its come up before. I do not believe Arkansas State honestly cares one way or the other if UALR is a Sun Belt member. We like having a close conference game that's easy for our large Little Rock based alums to attend, but we could easily play them in OOC if they ever left. Provided we could replace them with someone reasonably close to Jonesboro *Stares directly at Missouri State* I don't think you'd see much of a push on our end to save them. Nor would there by any push to add UCA. That's just crazy talk. It benefits us to be clearly seen as the #2 team in the state.

(02-08-2019 09:52 PM)Yosef Himself Wrote:  If you're in a conference that supports a sport you can't play that sport in another conference

So UCA being in the Belt would mean either bringing up FB or dropping it...

But neither is going to happen.

Incorrect

We dealt with this long ago and the precedent is settled. FCS football is not a sport the Sun Belt offers a championship in. If a school plays FCS football they are under no obligation to play FBS football which requires sponsoring more sports and awarding more scholarships.

WKU played 7 seasons of FCS with no issues until they elected to move up and the league office even lobbied the Gateway (now MVFC) to take WKU as a football member when the OVC gave them an ultimatium to join in all sports or be expelled from OVC football.

If the Sun Belt COULD have forced the issue it would have done so in 2004 when the NCAA adopted the 8 full member rule for FBS leagues. We added Idaho and Utah State and convinced FIU to accelerate their football transition and added FAU and we added ULM as a full member just to be able to get to eight full members. If the league could have forced WKU to move FBS we would have done so then because we were in danger of losing our status as an FBS league.

WKU won the I-AA title in 2002 and in 2005 we were playing with FIU playing as a transitional team in their fourth year of football bringing 10 total wins all-time as a program. FAU was a transitional as well in their 5th year of football.

(02-08-2019 10:10 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(02-08-2019 10:00 PM)sdcritter Wrote:  Well, first of all, UALR didn’t pay for it. Most of the funds were from the city and state. This had b nothing to do with UALR playing football. It was all about putting pressure on the pigs to play in Little Rock.

Rather ingenious by the UALR admin to get LR and the state to pay for the study if they didn’t want to.

The state was in panic mode trying to figure out a way to keep the stadium viable with the Hogs saber rattling again about leaving. The city has a sweet deal. The state owns the stadium but the city owns the parking and it's basically free money to them for parking so they were willing to kick in.

The chancellor on an email sent to faculty and staff when the football talk started pretty much said they weren't adding football until they could fully fund the sports they have and do so in a financially responsible manner.

It was the state that strong-armed UALR into doing the study and needed UALR to kick in to not make it so obvious that the Department of Parks and Tourism was pushing it (depending on who you believe) to keep the stadium viable or to goad UA into extending their contract.

(02-09-2019 02:30 AM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  I don't see the rationale for them doing a dog and pony show.

What I have gathered from most of the Arkansas residents is that even if the study said it was feasible, it would be near impossible to make it happen, as the "mighty" hogs and their supporters would ensure that the talent/media/interest pool isn't further diluted.

So a feasibility study wouldn't be needed to show it can't be done. Those that want football will dismiss it anyway, and those that don't care about football will just shrug and say "see? Told ya so."

If the MVC was legitimately such a good move for them, then they would have the rationale to move... because of their legitimate reasons.

A more likely (though still not likely at all) scenario would be that the original feasibility study showed that it would be possible to have an FBS team and that information was augmented to get the desired result, or just as bad: The firm was told what the outcome should be, and they worked backwards to support that notion.

EDIT: I was always pretty sure that feasibility studies were handled a lot like conference invites anyway, in that they aren't done if they truly don't know the answer already.

With UALR already having a high student athletic fee it was unlikely that the UA board was going to bless football unless they had a crap ton of cash in hand.

When the old AIC was debating leaving the NAIA to go NCAA Division II the chancellor at Arkansas-Monticello was instructed to vote against the proposal. They would be permitted to follow the others to Division II but they weren't allowed to support it.

When Arkansas A,M&N was taken back into the UA system, the first order of business was withdrawing from the SWAC to join the NAIA.

UALR putting together a plan to leave NAIA and get to Division I was considered remarkable and it took a good bit of help from local business leaders.

For the trivia fans, UALR's first basketball game as Division I school was played at AState.