Pay to play?

Two simple words: Let’s not

ACOOL $125,000 was dropped on consultants to provide a football study for UALR. For half that, we could have given the school advice just as good: Let’s not.

Of course, we couldn’t have been as diplomatic and respectable. The consultants told the school that starting a football program would require significant investment, even though the school “is challenged at times” to provide student services, and noted “resource constraints.” We would have just called it a damfool idea.

Football can be nice. It can be great: The first time we hear the Razorback fight song played out loud, we are reminded that summer is almost over, and that cool weather always seems to follow hot. And some of us can’t wait for the highs to be in the upper 60s, instead of the nightly lows.

But football is very much a luxury, not a necessity. And is the University of Arkansas at Little Rock in a position to spend on nonessentials?

Here are a few details, according to the consultants’ report and the frontpage story in Arkansas’ Newspaper:

■ Let’s assume that War Memorial would host home games for the Trojans. But then, what of the costs to build new facilities for football practices, support buildings, etc.? The report said such startup expenses could approach $39 million. That doesn’t include buying land.

■ If the school decided to play at the FBS level (Division I-A), the athletic budget would balloon from $11 million a year to more than $23 million a year.

■ To stay on the right side of Title IX, the school would have to order up perhaps two new women’s sports and find a way to pay for them, too.

■ Don’t forget the marching band, cheerleaders and other auxiliary groups.

■ This item might should be higher on the list: According to the paper, UALR has the highest activity fees in the state, at $21 per credit hour. Which brings us to the students at UALR and what they have to say: Last year, students presented the chancellor with a petition of 1,000 signatures supporting football on campus. So, with that kind of interest coming out of the blue, the school decided to survey alumni, donors, professors and students. The school got 3,000 people to return the surveys. Two-thirds supported adding football, with students supporting it more than others. More than three-fourths of respondents said they’d go to games. (Faculty and staff showed the least interest in football.)

But, as the story noted: “Those numbers fell dramatically when respondents were asked about financial contributions outside of buying tickets.”

Football isn’t cheap. Not even at schools where it’s been on the schedule for years. Football—American football—is easily more expensive than the other sports, what with its equipment, the number of coaches, the space needed to play. And unlike basketball or baseball, it only has a few shots each year at filling seats. How many home games do most football teams get? A max of six?

At most colleges, the sport also takes in the most money, no doubt. But most colleges don’t have startup costs, either.

“Fundraising will be an integral component of initiating the creation of a new football program as well as in sustaining its success,” the consultants’ report said. The report didn’t make a final recommendation about football, but did say the difference between UALR’s athletic budget and other schools of its size “accentuates” the challenges for adding the sport. Translated: This is gonna cost a lot. Football is fun. We like fun. But the question should be whether football should be a priority at UALR. And whether $39 million—excluding land purchases—could be put to better use. Especially in a state where the phrase “wooo pig sooie” is taught from birth.