I've always wished we had a football program...most people on the board are almost violently against it, though. I wish I knoew someone who could give me hard financial numbers to show why it would be such a financial black hole. Not saying I don't believe it, but I wish I could just see it.

It just takes a lot of money for football, and I don't think Little Rock could ever generate it under the shadow of Fayetteville. I couldn't prove it by figures, though.

(06-25-2009 07:04 PM)eh9198 Wrote:  I've always wished we had a football program...most people on the board are almost violently against it, though. I wish I knoew someone who could give me hard financial numbers to show why it would be such a financial black hole. Not saying I don't believe it, but I wish I could just see it.

I'm not opposed to having football. I wish we did have it, but just being involved with high school athletic programs for 25 years, I know what an expense football is at the high school level, and it's undoubtedly many times worse in D-1 football. The salaries of a ten or twelve man coaching staff would be expensive, even on the Sun Belt level. With the numbers and the travel involved with moving a 60 plus football team and all the extras that you have to have, managers, trainers, equipment people, and etc. A football team at UALR wouldn't draw flies. It's hard enough to get a decent crowd for basketball. If you want someone to give you the hard numbers as to why it would be a financial black hole, I'm sure Chris Peterson could give it to you.

(06-25-2009 07:57 PM)LRTrojan Wrote:  

(06-25-2009 07:04 PM)eh9198 Wrote:  I've always wished we had a football program...most people on the board are almost violently against it, though. I wish I knoew someone who could give me hard financial numbers to show why it would be such a financial black hole. Not saying I don't believe it, but I wish I could just see it.

I'm not opposed to having football. I wish we did have it, but just being involved with high school athletic programs for 25 years, I know what an expense football is at the high school level, and it's undoubtedly many times worse in D-1 football. The salaries of a ten or twelve man coaching staff would be expensive, even on the Sun Belt level. With the numbers and the travel involved with moving a 60 plus football team and all the extras that you have to have, managers, trainers, equipment people, and etc. A football team at UALR wouldn't draw flies. It's hard enough to get a decent crowd for basketball. If you want someone to give you the hard numbers as to why it would be a financial black hole, I'm sure Chris Peterson could give it to you.

I agree with most of what you have said. The mystery, if football is such a burden, why is almost every college willing to pay the price? I disagree to some extent about attendance. I actually believe football would have decent fan support here. Apparently, having football tends to lift the status or image of a University. And, those are the things that would terrorize hogism folks.

Good one.

(06-25-2009 09:58 PM)DollarBill Wrote:  

(06-25-2009 07:57 PM)LRTrojan Wrote:  

(06-25-2009 07:04 PM)eh9198 Wrote:  I've always wished we had a football program...most people on the board are almost violently against it, though. I wish I knoew someone who could give me hard financial numbers to show why it would be such a financial black hole. Not saying I don't believe it, but I wish I could just see it.

I'm not opposed to having football. I wish we did have it, but just being involved with high school athletic programs for 25 years, I know what an expense football is at the high school level, and it's undoubtedly many times worse in D-1 football. The salaries of a ten or twelve man coaching staff would be expensive, even on the Sun Belt level. With the numbers and the travel involved with moving a 60 plus football team and all the extras that you have to have, managers, trainers, equipment people, and etc. A football team at UALR wouldn't draw flies. It's hard enough to get a decent crowd for basketball. If you want someone to give you the hard numbers as to why it would be a financial black hole, I'm sure Chris Peterson could give it to you.

I agree with most of what you have said. The mystery, if football is such a burden, why is almost every college willing to pay the price? I disagree to some extent about attendance. I actually believe football would have decent fan support here. Apparently, having football tends to lift the status or image of a University. And, those are the things that would terrorize hogism folks.

That's always been my thought. If it's such a waste of money, why do so many colleges have football teams?

That, and yeah, making Hog fans shake in their coveralls is always amusing, if not rare. :)

(06-26-2009 12:14 AM)eh9198 Wrote:  

(06-25-2009 09:58 PM)DollarBill Wrote:  

(06-25-2009 07:57 PM)LRTrojan Wrote:  

(06-25-2009 07:04 PM)eh9198 Wrote:  I've always wished we had a football program...most people on the board are almost violently against it, though. I wish I knoew someone who could give me hard financial numbers to show why it would be such a financial black hole. Not saying I don't believe it, but I wish I could just see it.

I'm not opposed to having football. I wish we did have it, but just being involved with high school athletic programs for 25 years, I know what an expense football is at the high school level, and it's undoubtedly many times worse in D-1 football. The salaries of a ten or twelve man coaching staff would be expensive, even on the Sun Belt level. With the numbers and the travel involved with moving a 60 plus football team and all the extras that you have to have, managers, trainers, equipment people, and etc. A football team at UALR wouldn't draw flies. It's hard enough to get a decent crowd for basketball. If you want someone to give you the hard numbers as to why it would be a financial black hole, I'm sure Chris Peterson could give it to you.

I agree with most of what you have said. The mystery, if football is such a burden, why is almost every college willing to pay the price? I disagree to some extent about attendance. I actually believe football would have decent fan support here. Apparently, having football tends to lift the status or image of a University. And, those are the things that would terrorize hogism folks.

That's always been my thought. If it's such a waste of money, why do so many colleges have football teams?

That, and yeah, making Hog fans shake in their coveralls is always amusing, if not rare. :)

Every school that plays low end 1a football is thought of as a loser. So, no thanks to football and being part of that. If you want football, we have the hogs and UCA is right down the street.

(06-26-2009 06:52 AM)insideualr Wrote:  Every school that plays low end 1a football is thought of as a loser. So, no thanks to football and being part of that. If you want football, we have the hogs and UCA is right down the street.

+1

(06-26-2009 12:14 AM)eh9198 Wrote:  In

That's always been my thought. If it's such a waste of money, why do so many colleges have football teams?

When I said I wished we had football, I do, but on a competitive level, and not at the expense of having to whore my team out to the big boys in order to pay the bills like UAPB, and even Arkansas State does to a point. In Arkansas you're never going to be much more than ASU and UCA are right now in football. If UCA keeps on going, and if they could play the level of competition that they play now, they'll probably keep winning, but if they decide that they want to tangle with the big boys, and start whoring out to pay the bills of D-1 football, then they'll drop down and be about a .500 team year in and year out like ASU has been lately. At least in basketball, you've got a chance to have decent teams in D-1, even though you'll never be more than a poor second in this state.

To answer your question as to why so many colleges play football, well, it's just the thing to do. You aren't thought of by some people as a real college, if you don't have a football team. So, they'll beg, borrow, or steal to pay for football.

And to comment on DollarBill's opinion that he thought that UALR would draw decently in football, I seriously doubt that we'd draw many more than we do in basketball.

And the basketball attendance isn't likely to improve much until we get a young whipper snapper of a coach in here(like Newell did) that can excite the fan base, plays an exciting brand of offensive basketball, win a conference championship, and get back to the NCAA tourney. I like Steve, but with his style of offense, we will never be more than mediocre, and will never win the Sun Belt championship. That's my opinion, and I don't think I'll be proven wrong. The reason I'm so sure about this, is that we haven't even sniffed a tournament championship in his six years. Having one shooter and scorer a season is like having a one leg man competing in a sprint race against all his opponents with two legs.

It's all about expectations. We graduate players. It's good entertainment. The program is clean.

If you want to follow a team to the NCAA Tourney it's best to have a second team.

It's all good.

(06-26-2009 10:04 AM)Scotto Wrote:  It's all about expectations. We graduate players. It's good entertainment. The program is clean.

If you want to follow a team to the NCAA Tourney it's best to have a second team.

It's all good.

If we were playing in the SEC, I would agree that it would be foolish to expect to get to the NCAA, since we'd probably be bottom feeders, but I agree with Little Rock Trojan on this one. We spend our entertainment dollars on our team just like Hog fans do on theirs, and we are playing in a league in which all teams should be competitive. So it's not unreasonable to expect a NCAA bid every few years. Hasn't happened, but that doesn't mean we should be satisfied with mediocrity. Obviously we can't expect to win every year, but once in awhile (every four or five years) certainly is a reasonable expectation. And while I'm proud of our academic accomplishments, that's not my reason for supporting the athletic program. I'm paying for entertainment and enjoyment, and that means getting to the post season on a reasonable basis. But hey. That's just me....and Little Rock Trojan.

(06-26-2009 10:04 AM)Scotto Wrote:  It's all about expectations. We graduate players. It's good entertainment. The program is clean.

If you want to follow a team to the NCAA Tourney it's best to have a second team.

It's all good.

Great points. After 20 years I don't have any "expectations" about making the NCAA tournament. If it happens, great. Don't worry myself sick about it like I used to when I was younger. Just enjoy the great entertainment in my plush leather seats.

(06-26-2009 11:35 AM)outsideualr Wrote:  Obviously we can't expect to win every year, but once in awhile (every four or five years) certainly is a reasonable expectation.

On the average in the SBC, assuming no at-large births, would be every 13 years. We are below the curve, since we have been in the Belt 17 years and have not gone to the NCAA in that period.

Doing the same thing over and over again with the expectation of a different result seems to me to be a definition of insanity.

Our program seems satisfied with doing the same over and over. I've changed expectations.

(06-26-2009 11:39 AM)mjs Wrote:  After 20 years I don't have any "expectations" about making the NCAA tournament. If it happens, great. Don't worry myself sick about it like I used to when I was younger. Just enjoy the great entertainment in my plush leather seats.

I'm with you. Post-season is just gravy to me. But I wish we could go occasionally for the players' and coaches' sakes.

(06-26-2009 11:50 AM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote:  

(06-26-2009 11:39 AM)mjs Wrote:  After 20 years I don't have any "expectations" about making the NCAA tournament. If it happens, great. Don't worry myself sick about it like I used to when I was younger. Just enjoy the great entertainment in my plush leather seats.

I'm with you. Post-season is just gravy to me. But I wish we could go occasionally for the players' and coaches' sakes.

We have everything it takes now to be a consistent mid major winner. We have great facilities; a stable coaching staff; good opponents to play and travel to places like California and Florida. But the one thing that we haven't accomplished is a "visable" winning tradition. True, we've won over 20 games the past two seasons, but I would think to kids today, that getting to the post season is high on their list of priorities. So to move up in the pecking order and be able to recruit some higher level players, the post season seems to be a necessity. Doesn't mean I can't enjoy the season. I would just like to see our program reach a little higher. Whatever it takes, without cheating or recruiting thugs or malcontents. 100% graduation rate is great. I'd take a 90% with NCAA trips every season.

(06-24-2009 09:30 PM)eh9198 Wrote:  This was just for fun, and I agree this will never happen, but geographically speaking this alignment would make the most sense (and yes, I know football is a factor and New Orleans' future is up in the air):

--Denver leves for the Summit Conference

Conference USA:

1.Houston
2. Rice
3. SMU
4. UTEP
5. North Texas
6. Tulane
7. New Orleans
8. LA-Lafayette
9. LA-Monroe
10. UALR
11. Arkansas St.
12. Tulsa

Sun Belt:
1. East Carolina
2. Marshall
3. Memphis
4. Southern Miss
5. UCF
6. Florida Atlantic
7. Florida International
8. Middle Tennesssee St.
9. South Alabama
10. Troy
11. UAB
12. Western Kentucky

I'm appointing you commissioner. Get er done!

(06-27-2009 08:44 AM)outsideualr Wrote:  I'd take a 90% with NCAA trips every season.

LOL, nobody would give a damn about graduation rates if we were winning and scoring in the 80's and 90's night in and night out.

I don't know that football makes a ton of sense for urban schools. Outside of USC, UCLA, and Georgia Tech most struggle to fill a stadium. South Florida couldn't get 25,000 to go across town for a bowl game.

The basic rules of football are:
1. Unless you are prepared to spend a lot building. Don't add football.
2. Unless you are prepared to spend a lot building. Don't shift from I-AA to I-A.
3. Don't less to the snake oil sales men who tout revenue to be made, at the end of the day unless you can attract donations and sell tickets football becomes a burden.

Look at UCA. I predicted they wouldn't move to Division I because there was no way I could see that they could close the million dollar plus gap that would be created. I was wrong about what they would do but as we all know now they've been caught improperly transferring more than a million dollars to prop up athletics.

If I were AD at Centenary, I'd be adding football, but I'd leave the Summit and Division I to do it. A small school like that would financially come out ahead by no longer paying kids to play sports there and get them to pay the school for the privilege like other DIII schools.

The worst spot in Division I is high scholarship I-AA football. It is expensive with little return on the investment (again look at UCA who reports average attendance well in excess of stadium capacity, photos don't back that up and you can't spend claimed numbers, only sold tickets). Low or non-scholarship I-AA is much cheaper but produces even less revenue. High scholarship gives you access to money games but you are getting a third of what the FBS programs get for the same trip and despite Lu's touting of the military academies or Rice coming to LR to play UCA, it ain't showed up on the schedule and won't. You can't get name home games. 2010 ASU hosts Louisville and hosts Memphis in 2011 and 2012. Those are games that can be sold.

At the end of the day unless you can throw money down a hole for a decade to build, FBS football doesn't make sense and FCS doesn't make sense unless you are content to play at a low/no scholarship level and you don't have anyone in this region to play who plays by those rules.

(07-01-2009 11:09 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I don't know that football makes a ton of sense for urban schools. Outside of USC, UCLA, and Georgia Tech most struggle to fill a stadium. South Florida couldn't get 25,000 to go across town for a bowl game.

The basic rules of football are:
1. Unless you are prepared to spend a lot building. Don't add football.
2. Unless you are prepared to spend a lot building. Don't shift from I-AA to I-A.
3. Don't less to the snake oil sales men who tout revenue to be made, at the end of the day unless you can attract donations and sell tickets football becomes a burden.

Look at UCA. I predicted they wouldn't move to Division I because there was no way I could see that they could close the million dollar plus gap that would be created. I was wrong about what they would do but as we all know now they've been caught improperly transferring more than a million dollars to prop up athletics.

If I were AD at Centenary, I'd be adding football, but I'd leave the Summit and Division I to do it. A small school like that would financially come out ahead by no longer paying kids to play sports there and get them to pay the school for the privilege like other DIII schools.

The worst spot in Division I is high scholarship I-AA football. It is expensive with little return on the investment (again look at UCA who reports average attendance well in excess of stadium capacity, photos don't back that up and you can't spend claimed numbers, only sold tickets). Low or non-scholarship I-AA is much cheaper but produces even less revenue. High scholarship gives you access to money games but you are getting a third of what the FBS programs get for the same trip and despite Lu's touting of the military academies or Rice coming to LR to play UCA, it ain't showed up on the schedule and won't. You can't get name home games. 2010 ASU hosts Louisville and hosts Memphis in 2011 and 2012. Those are games that can be sold.

At the end of the day unless you can throw money down a hole for a decade to build, FBS football doesn't make sense and FCS doesn't make sense unless you are content to play at a low/no scholarship level and you don't have anyone in this region to play who plays by those rules.

Good analysis. There was a time when GaTech had trouble drawing fans. They seem to be doing much better now, but still are at the low end for a BCS school:


Georgia Tech ranked No. 48, drawing 47,489 per game in 2008. Attendance at Division I-A games nationwide totaled 37,483,158, or 46,971 per game.