UA-Little Rock Football and Marching Band Feasibility Study

UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT LITTLE ROCK
Football and Marching Band Feasibility Study – July 20, 2018
Cover
Football and Marching Band

Feasibility Study
July 20, 2018
INTRODUCTION Page | 1
July 20, 2018
Mr. Chasse Conque

Vice Chancellor/Director of Athletics
University of Arkansas at Little Rock
2801 S. University Ave.
Little Rock, AR 72204
Dear Mr. Conque:

Conventions, Sports & Leisure International (“CSL”), CarrSports Consulting, LLC (“CarrSports”), CBRE|Heery
(“Heery”) and The Grant Group (“Grant Group”) (collectively referred to as “The Project Team”) are pleased to
present this Study assessing the viability and sustainability of a new football and marching band program at the
University of Arkansas at Little Rock (“UA Little Rock”). The attached Study summarizes our research and analyses
and is intended to assist project stakeholders in making informed decisions regarding the future of a football and
marching band program at UA Little Rock.
The information contained in this report is based on estimates, assumptions and other information developed
from research of the market, knowledge of the sports industry and other factors, including certain information
provided by UA Little Rock and others. All information provided to us was not audited or verified and was assumed
to be correct. Because procedures were limited, we express no opinion or assurances of any kind on the
achievability of any projected information contained herein and this Study should not be relied upon for that
purpose. Furthermore, there will be differences between projected and actual results. This is because events and
circumstances frequently do not occur as expected, and those differences may be material. We have no
responsibility to update this Study for events and circumstances occurring after the date of this Study.
We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to assist you with this project and would be pleased to be of further
assistance in the interpretation and application of the Study’s findings.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 6
A. Background ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 6
B. Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................... 7
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................................ I-9
A. Context................................................................................................................................................................................................... I-9
B. Purpose .................................................................................................................................................................................................. I-9
C. Process ................................................................................................................................................................................................ I-10
D. Deliverables ...................................................................................................................................................................................... I-10
E. Key Study Resources ..................................................................................................................................................................... I-11
F. Feasibility Study Format .............................................................................................................................................................. I-12
Feasibility Study Assumptions ........................................................................................................................................................ II-13
Peer Institution Benchmarking ...................................................................................................................................................... III-15
A. Institutional Characteristcs....................................................................................................................................................... III-15
B. Local Market Characteristics .................................................................................................................................................... III-25
University Preparedness ................................................................................................................................................................... IV-35
A. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................... IV-35
B. Vision and Mission ....................................................................................................................................................................... IV-35
C. Benchmarking and Peer Institutions.................................................................................................................................... IV-36
D. Strategic Planning ........................................................................................................................................................................ IV-37
E. University Strategic Priorities .................................................................................................................................................. IV-37
F. Enrollment Impact ....................................................................................................................................................................... IV-37
G. University Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................................................ IV-38
H. Institutional Control and Responsibility ............................................................................................................................. IV-39
I. Academic Quality and Accountability ................................................................................................................................. IV-40
J. Institutional and Community Support ................................................................................................................................ IV-42
K. Summary .......................................................................................................................................................................................... IV-43
Attachments............................................................................................................................................................................................... IV-43
Equity and Diversity ............................................................................................................................................................................. V-44
A. Context............................................................................................................................................................................................... V-44
B. Title IX and Diversity Planning ................................................................................................................................................. V-44
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page | 3

C. Title IX – Gender Equity............................................................................................................................................................... V-46

D. Effective Accommodation of Student Interests and Abilities .................................................................................... V-46
E. Athletic Financial Assistance .................................................................................................................................................... V-50
F. Athletic Financial Assistance Compliance Status ............................................................................................................ V-50
G. Equal Opportunity and the Equivalence Standard ......................................................................................................... V-54
H. Summary ........................................................................................................................................................................................... V-56
NCAA Division I Legislation with FCS and FBS Football ..................................................................................................... VI-58
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................... VI-58
Sponsorship of NCAA Division I Football ........................................................................................................................... VI-58
FCS Postseason, FBS Bowl System and Revenue Distribution .................................................................................. VI-59
Sponsorship of NCAA Division I Football – FCS and FBS Requirements............................................................... VI-62
Attachments............................................................................................................................................................................................... VI-66
Football Implementation Considerations ................................................................................................................................VII-67
A. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................................VII-67
B. Methodology .................................................................................................................................................................................VII-67
C. Hypothetical Football Implementation Timeline ..........................................................................................................VII-67
D. Division I FCS and FBS Conference Membership ...........................................................................................................VII-72
E. Summary .........................................................................................................................................................................................VII-76
Athletics Support Services ............................................................................................................................................................ VIII-77
A. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................. VIII-77
B. Observations................................................................................................................................................................................ VIII-77
C. Support System Analysis and Recommendations ...................................................................................................... VIII-79
D. Summary ....................................................................................................................................................................................... VIII-81
Facilities Considerations ...................................................................................................................................................................IX-82
A. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................................................IX-82
B. Context..............................................................................................................................................................................................IX-82
C. Summary ..........................................................................................................................................................................................IX-84
Market Surveys ....................................................................................................................................................................................... X-97
A. UA Little Rock Athletics ............................................................................................................................................................... X-98
B. Football Implementation ........................................................................................................................................................ X-102
C. Football Classification Preferences ..................................................................................................................................... X-104

D. Football Attendance ................................................................................................................................................................. X-106

E. Football Ticket Price Sensitivity............................................................................................................................................ X-107
F. Student Football Program Interest ..................................................................................................................................... X-115
G. Football Ticket Demand Estimates ..................................................................................................................................... X-116
H. Football Program Fundraising .............................................................................................................................................. X-119
I. Football Program Corporate Sponsorship....................................................................................................................... X-123
J. Marching Band Implementation.......................................................................................................................................... X-124
Financial Considerations................................................................................................................................................................ XI-126
A. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................. XI-126
B. UA Little Rock Athletics Fiscal Environment: NCAA Division I – Without Football ....................................... XI-126
C. NCAA Division I Football Assumptions ............................................................................................................................ XI-129
D. NCAA Division I FCS Football................................................................................................................................................ XI-132
E. NCAA Division I FBS Football ................................................................................................................................................ XI-133
F. Summary ....................................................................................................................................................................................... XI-134
Attachments............................................................................................................................................................................................ XI-134
Economic Impact Analysis ........................................................................................................................................................... XII-135
A. Direct Spending ........................................................................................................................................................................ XII-135
B. Multiplier Effects ....................................................................................................................................................................... XII-137
C. Net New Fiscal Impacts .......................................................................................................................................................... XII-139
D. Summary of Economic and Fiscal Benefits .................................................................................................................... XII-140
E. Non-Quantifiable Benefits .................................................................................................................................................... XII-140
Marching Band .................................................................................................................................................................................XIII-141
Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................................................XIII-141
Profiles of Recent Marching Band Initiatives in FBS and FCS UNIVERSITIES...................................................XIII-141
UA Little Rock Marching Band Considerations ...........................................................................................................XIII-143
Summary .....................................................................................................................................................................................XIII-144

Executive Summary
A. BACKGROUND
This Feasibility Study (Study) is a formal response to a student-led petition expressing interest in the University of
Arkansas at Little Rock’s (UA Little Rock) sponsorship of NCAA Division I football (Football) and a marching band
program (Marching Band). Further, this Study represents a collaboration between the University, the City of Little
Rock, and the Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism.
The Project Team, beginning with an analysis of the University and UA Little Rock Athletics’
(Athletics) readiness, examined the primary components of starting Football Championship
Subdivision (FCS) or Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS). The effects that Football could have on
the local economy along with potential enrollment growth were also considered.
Key assumptions included the University’s continued commitment to the

health, well-being, and academic success of its student-athletes; maintaining Title IX compliance;
and, the assertion that Trojan teams will consistently compete for conference championships and
post-season opportunities. It is understood that UA Little Rock would play its home football games
in War Memorial Stadium. Likewise, a pledge of FBS Football membership in its current Conference
(Sun Belt Conference) provides UA Little Rock with an attractive option for FBS Football affiliation.
Study benchmarking focused on four regional Division I Football Conferences: FCS (Southland and Ohio Valley)
and FBS (Sun Belt and Conference USA). Meaningful information was also gathered from several Division I
institutions that recently added Football, including Kennesaw State University, University of North Carolina
Charlotte, and the University of South Alabama.
Observations
The University’s preparedness for Football was a significant element of the Study. UA Little Rock makes a
concerted effort to provide an array of student services but is challenged at times to meet the needs of its
approximately 11,000 students, including student-athletes, due to resource constraints. The addition of Football,
plus approximately 30 new female student-athletes to maintain Title IX compliance, would essentially double the
number of UA Little Rock student-athletes, requiring proportionate growth in University and Athletics student
support services. University Administration has acknowledged that student services, such as Dining Services, the
Student Center, and academic services are not currently equipped to accommodate a substantial infusion of new
students.
Likewise, the range of Athletics-managed support services varies by department. While the University continues
to make major investments into the well-being of its student-athletes, assorted infrastructure upgrades are
required - with or without Football. Generally, student-athlete well-being is measured by access to quality
coaching, academic support, medical care, housing, dining, team travel, and facilities.
The possible implementation of Football followed two hypothetical, expedited timelines that properly sequence
adding FCS or FBS Football, per NCAA legislation. In an effort to provide real-time data, the implementation begins
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page | 6

with a Decision Year (FY 2018-19), followed by a Preparation Year (FY 2019-20), and then a Practice Year
(FY 2020-21). Scenarios for achieving membership at FCS or FBS levels are delineated in subsequent years.
The financial implications of adding Football at either level are addressed using two Financial Pro Formas (Pro
Forma): the first is a baseline for forecasting Athletics’ financial position Without Football; the second illustrates
the implementation of Football at the FCS or FBS levels, respectively. Projected revenues and expenses associated
with current sports sponsorship, as well as Football, were developed through a Market Survey, peer institution
benchmarking, use of institutional assumptions and budget projections, along with reliable NCAA research data.
The Football Pro Forma, aligned with the implementation timeline, shows Athletics’ budgeted expenses growing
from approximately $11 million (Without Football in FY 2017-18), to $18.8 million with Football at the FCS level,
and $23.4 million for FBS Football. Likewise, Football-driven revenues are expected to increase as well, but they
would not fully offset anticipated expenses.
The growth of UA Little Rock Athletics to include FCS or FBS Football would require extensive new facilities,
including space for practice, football operations, and support services. The introduction of Football, along with
the addition of at least two more women’s sports to maintain compliance with Title IX, would further expand UA
Little Rock’s student-athlete population and place additional strain on existing facilities. However, a new Football
Operations facility also offers potential for increased shared space/facilities for such units as academic services and
training table, along with proximity to future indoor practice facilities.
Finally, sponsoring a Marching Band with corresponding auxiliary groups, such as a drum and bugle corps, color
guard, and majorettes requires significant institutional commitment in key areas such as academics and a
sufficient allocation of resources, including dedicated, recurring funding, leadership, and facilities. Expense
projections include $500,000 in start-up costs and approximately $200,000 - $300,000 in annual operations.
B. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Project Team has outlined the most significant components of the Study, including facility requirements,
infrastructure enhancements, financial considerations, and Title IX implications for introducing FCS or FBS
Football. The hypothetical Football implementation timeline succinctly describes the chronological steps and
requisites for adding FCS or FBS Football. Additionally, the Market Survey indicated that a majority of survey
respondents indicated a positive attitude toward the implementation of UA Little Rock Football. Similarly, sizeable
net new economic and fiscal benefits could be realized by the City of Little Rock from the operations of UA Little
Rock Football.
In consideration of introducing Football at UA Little Rock, the Project Team makes the following
recommendations:
1. The difference between UA Little Rock’s current Athletics budget and the median institution’s FCS or
FBS Football budget accentuates the challenge of UA Little Rock’s considerations for Football. In
advance of a decision to sponsor Football, the University should develop a sustainable funding
model that identifies all revenue sources, especially Allocated Revenues and any philanthropic
support needed to cover start-up and ongoing costs.
2. Financial forecasts must include capital outlay pro forma(s) depicting revenues and expenses for
essential Football facilities as well as increased requirements for current Athletics Support Services.

Likewise, Athletics would need to accelerate the maturity of Athletics’ revenue generating units
(External Affairs) and programs to achieve the Football Pro Forma projections.
3. The University should invest in the development of a Facilities Master Plan that includes Athletics
facilities requirements, with or without Football.
4. The University and Athletics should develop strategies to enhance campus and Athletics’ student
support services. Efficiencies of operations should also be identified and implemented.
5. Upon receiving a formal invitation from an FBS Conference, Athletics should review and revise this
Study’s Financial Pro Forma with the University and Conference Office to confirm the impact on
revenues and expenses as a component of the University’s decision on Football.

Introduction
A. CONTEXT
This Feasibility Study (Study) is the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UA Little Rock) and its Department of
Athletics’ (Athletics) initial response to a student led petition expressing their interest in UA Little Rock’s
sponsoring of NCAA Division I football and a marching band program. The Study is collaboration between UA
Little Rock, the City of Little Rock and the Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism.
The University has been NCAA Division I (Division I) since the late 1970s and a
Sun Belt Conference (Sun Belt) member since 1992 providing a clear path to
Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS). UA Little Rock now sponsors 14 Division I
sports, all competing in the Sun Belt except for Women’s Swimming and
Diving 1. The addition of Men’s Wrestling (Wrestling) in FY 2018-19 will increase the number of Trojan’s sports to
15. Wrestling’s conference affiliation is yet to be determined. The University of Texas at Arlington (UTA) and UA
Little Rock are the Sun Belt’s only non-football playing institutions.
Similar to the University, Athletics has experienced a significant evolution. Sport

sponsorship has varied as prominent sports such as basketball and football were added
and later discontinued. For example, football, dormant since the 1930s and resurrected in
1947, won the Junior Rose Bowl or junior college national championship in 1949.
Founded in 1927 as Little Rock Junior College or popularly known as “Jaycee”, is now the
State’s major metropolitan research University within the University of Arkansas System.
Located on over 250 acres in Little Rock’s midtown area, the University is home to
approximately 12,000 students and is a driving force in Little Rock’s thriving cultural community and a major
component of the city and state’s growing profile as a regional leader in research, technology transfer, economic
development, and job creation. US News and World Report recognizes the quality of several UA Little Rock
academic offerings as well as one of the “Best Universities for 2018”.
B. PURPOSE
The University wishes to provide a sustainably successful Division I Athletic Department within a dynamic Division
I marketplace including the possibility of sponsoring intercollegiate football. This Study examines primary aspects
of starting a football program as well as economic and student enrollment impact. UA Little Rock will use this
initiative to help determine if it will move forward with bringing college football back to Little Rock.
As a result, UA Little Rock commissioned Conventions, Sports & Leisure (CSL), CarrSports Consulting LLC
(CarrSports), CBRE Heery International (Heery), and The Grant Group (collectively referred to herein as “The Project
Team”) to lead the Study. This process will determine the specific revenues, expenses and infrastructures required
to properly resource and maintain a contemporary Division I Athletic Department – with football. The Study
findings will be shared with numerous campus and community entities as well as State and central Arkansas
representatives.
1 UA Little Women’s Rock Swimming and Diving is an Associate Member of the Missouri Valley Conference.
INTRODUCTION Page | I-9

C. PROCESS
This Assessment included interviews with select University administrators and external constituents, along with
Athletics Department staff, coaches and student-athletes. Additionally, CarrSports examined UA Little Rock,
Athletics and NCAA materials along with documents from applicable NCAA conferences and institutions. A review
of Athletics' Title IX compliance, detailed financial pro formas and an evaluation of current and proposed campus
Intercollegiate Athletics facilities are also key components of the Study.
D. DELIVERABLES
Identify specific operational costs, revenues, and facilities associated with implementing and maintaining a
sustainably successful Division I Athletic Department with football within an evolving Division I membership
environment. The Deliverables divided into the following three project phases:
Phase I. Football Implementation Analysis
• Consider UA Little Rock’s institutional goals, policies, procedures, mission as well as applicable peer
institutions and aspiring peer institutions for benchmarking purposes;
• Assess the University’s rules compliance, Institutional Control and academic quality measures;
determine impact of football;
• Identify the significance of Division I academic quality and accountability measures, including but not
limited to, NCAA Graduation Success Rate (GSR), NCAA Academic Progress Rate (APR) and
NCAA/Federal Graduation Rates;
• Identify NCAA legislative issues and requirements with respect to Division FCS or FBS;
• Describe strategic steps and timeline for the implementation of football including
conference affiliation;
• Evaluate impact of football on gender equity/Title IX compliance;
• Determine institutional, academic and athletic support infrastructure required to maintain

successful athletic programs with football; examine impact on industry standard student-athlete
support services;
• Identify facility and campus master plan considerations;
• Identify revenues and costs associated with implementing and maintaining a successful FCS or FBS
football program along with marching band; and
• Prepare a written Feasibility Study presented in electronic and hard copy, as requested. Documents to
include an Executive Summary, Attachments and Exhibits.

Phase II. Market Assessment
• Assess the local market conditions and key football operating statistics of peer institutions in both FCS
and FBS classifications;
• Implement a broad-based survey process to engage internal and external UA Little Rock
constituents to provide statistically-valid data to determine the support for a football program
and marching band; and
• Estimate the direct and indirect economic and fiscal impacts generated by the football program and
marching band.
Phase III. Strategic Plan
• Revise and/or develop new Athletics’ mission, vision and values statements as appropriate; align with
the UA Little Rock’s mission and strategic priorities;
• Engage Athletics’ internal and external constituents; encourage stakeholder advocacy for Athletics’
strategic plan, including the possible implementation of football;
• Delineate the impact of Division I on Athletics’ applicable business units, student-athlete support
service or cost centers;
• Incorporate a sequential Division I FCS and FBS implementation plans: Timelines; assignment of
responsibilities; due dates; resource requirements; measurable objectives and procedures for each key
goal and strategy; and
• Develop key goals and strategies that are mission critical, market driven, researched-based and
constituency-supported.
E. KEY STUDY RESOURCES

• UA Little Rock Strategic Plan 2017
http://ualr.edu/about/home/strategicplan/
• University of Arkansas at Little Rock Mission

http://ualr.edu/about/mission/
• UA Little Rock Organizational Chart

http://ualr.edu/administration/home/organizational-chart/
• UA Little Rock Office of Title IX

http://ualr.edu/titleix/
• Sun Belt Conference

http://sunbeltsports.org/
• War Memorial Stadium Feasibility Study Brief

F. FEASIBILITY STUDY FORMAT

The Study is arranged as follows:
Executive Summary
I. Introduction
II. Feasibility Study Assumptions
III. Peer Institution Benchmarking
IV. University Preparedness
V. Equity and Diversity
VI. NCAA Division I Legislation with FCS and FBS Football
VII. Football Implementation Considerations
VIII. Athletics Support Services
IX. Facilities Considerations
X. Market Surveys
XI. Financial Considerations
XII. Economic Impact Analysis
XIII. Marching Band

Feasibility Study Assumptions

Establishing a leadership position in NCAA Division I (Division I), as well as possibly sponsoring Division I football
(Football), have significant requirements and long-term implications for the University of Arkansas at Little Rock
(UA Little Rock) and UA Little Rock Athletics (Athletics). Both Football options, NCAA Division I Football
Championship Subdivision (FCS) and Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS), are substantially more resource-intensive
than UA Little Rock’s current level of sports sponsorship.
Accordingly, The Project Team developed a basic set of Feasibility Study Assumptions (Study Assumptions) to
establish a shared understanding of the environment in which Athletics currently operates, as well as
considerations for Football membership. These Assumptions evolved from The Project Team's on-campus
interviews and review of UA Little Rock, NCAA, select Division I peers and applicable benchmarking data.
1. The University of Arkansas Board of Trustees and the UA Little Rock Administration agree that
Athletics participation in NCAA Division I is consistent with the University’s vision and priorities.
2. Athletics will comply with all Federal, State of Arkansas, Arkansas Board of Trustees, University,
NCAA and Conference requirements.
3. The University of Arkansas Board of Trustees and UA Little Rock Administration recognize that
maintaining Athletics’ competitive position within its current Division I classification, or with
football, requires continual, substantial Allocated Revenues2, as well as Athletics' Generated
Revenues 3.
4. The University is committed to the health, safety and well-being of its student-athletes. This is
demonstrated through Athletics' adherence to best practices in its policies, procedures and
funding philosophies.
5. UA Little Rock is dedicated to providing the resources for select, permissible, student-athlete well-
being benefits, as outlined in recent NCAA Division I governance and resulting legislation. 4
6. The University emphasizes student-athlete academic success leading to graduation. Likewise, UA

Little Rock seeks to enhance its accomplishments, as measured by Division I academic standards,
such as Team and Individual GPA, Academic Progress Rate (APR), Graduation Success Rate (GSR)
and Federal Graduation Rates. Further, beginning in FY 2019-20, these metrics will be used to
partially determine enhanced revenue distributions from a new Division I television contract 5.
2
The NCAA defines Intercollegiate Athletics Allocated Revenues as income from Student Fees, Direct Institutional Support, State Funding, or
Indirect Institutional Support - such as utilities and maintenance.
3
Athletics Generated Revenues are defined by the NCAA as income provided from gate receipts, donations, conference distributions, and
miscellaneous sources (such as NCAA, television, radio, corporate sponsorships and special events).
4
In 2014, the NCAA Division I Board of Directors adopted autonomy measures that allow the top 64 schools in the five leagues -- ACC, Big 12,
Big Ten, SEC and Pac-12 -- plus Notre Dame, to decide on the flexibility to make decisions for themselves in a specific list of areas intended to
improve the student-athlete experience, including: “cost-of-attendance” stipends and insurance benefits for players, staff sizes, recruiting
rules and mandatory hours spent on individual sports.
5
NCAA Division I Academics-Based Revenue Distribution Question and Answer Document; Updated: May 4, 2017.
FEASIBILITY STUDY ASSUMPTIONS Page | II-13

7. The University and Athletics are committed to a systematic, intentional, comprehensive and holistic
approach to diversity and inclusiveness. These principles are further exhibited by the University’s
commitment to Title IX compliance.
8. UA Little Rock currently sponsors 14 Division I intercollegiate sports (six men’s/eight women’s) with
approximately 200 student-athletes. Football, along with the recent addition of Men’s Wrestling in
FY 2018-19, would increase sports sponsorship to 15 (seven men’s/eight women’s) with the total of
number of student-athletes growing to approximately 400. This hypothesis considers meeting
NCAA standards as well maintenance of Title IX compliance to include requiring additional sport
offerings for women.
9. UA Little Rock will sponsor intercollegiate sports teams that consistently compete for conference
championships and post-season opportunities, with or without the inclusion of Football.
Maintaining Title IX compliance may limit resources for some UA Little Rock sports, modifying their
respective competitive expectations.
10. UA Little Rock will consistently compete for Sun Belt Conference’s all-sports award, the Bubas Cup 6.
11. UA Little Rock will fully-fund all women’s sports, and most men’s sports, at the maximum number of
NCAA Division I student-athlete scholarships and permitted staffing (coaches and
administrative/support positions). Note: Maintaining Title IX compliance may limit resources for
some UA Little Rock men’s sports.
12. The University recognizes that providing modern, contemporary athletics facilities for practice,
competition and support services is essential to strengthening its position and sustained success
in Division I.
13. Athletics’ primary Division I peers are the members of the Sun Belt Conference and select members
of Conference USA, Ohio Valley Conference and Southland Conference.
14. Athletics head coaches, senior staff and department heads will be financially compensated at the
median-level, or above, of their Division I peers – with, or without, football.
15. This Study presents a hypothetical addition of FCS or FBS football; calculations assume June 1,
2019, as the earliest date at which UA Little Rock would begin the implementation of football 7.
16. This Study assumes that UA Little Rock Football, regardless of classification, would play all home
games at War Memorial Stadium in Little Rock.
17. Enhancements or additions to Athletics are resource-dependent and will be implemented

strategically.
6
Bubas Cup points are awarded based on the following: (1) Regular season-finish for sports that have a regular season conference schedule;
(2) Sun Belt Championship-finish if that sport does not have a regular season conference schedule; (3) the number of schools sponsoring the
sport; and (4) institutions tying for positions split the combined points of their positions. Finally, institutions not sponsoring a sport do not
receive points in that sport.
7
An institution can begin FCS membership by simply notifying the NCAA of its intent to sponsor football as one of its required 14 Division I
sports during the summer prior to the first year of FCS Football competition. FBS reclassification requires 16 sports and a two-year transition
period.
FEASIBILITY STUDY ASSUMPTIONS Page | II-14

Peer Institution Benchmarking

To gain an understanding of the relative strength of UA Little Rock and the Little Rock regional market area to
support a football and marching band program, it is useful to compare various institutional and local market
characteristics to other universities supporting football and marching band programs in comparable NCAA
conferences.
Specific institutional and local market characteristics that can provide an indication of the ability of a market to
support a football program include:
Institutional Characteristics: Local Market Characteristics:
• Student enrollment • Population
• Living alumni base • Age
• Athletic budget • Household income
• Football budget • Cost of living
• Athletic donors • Corporate base
• Football attendance • Competition
UA Little Rock and the Little Rock market area were compared to institutions supporting football and marching
band programs in the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS), including the Sun Belt Conference and Conference USA, as
well as the Football Championship Subdivision (FCS), including the Southland Conference and Ohio Valley
Conference. These conferences were selected based on geographic proximity, institutional characteristics, and
discussions with project stakeholders.
A. INSTITUTIONAL CHARACTERISTCS
Institutional data that can indicate the ability of UA Little Rock to support a football program includes statistics
such as student enrollment, alumni base, athletic budget, football budget, athletic donors, and football
attendance.
Student Enrollment
Student enrollment is an important consideration in assessing the viability of establishing a football program
because it can impact attendance levels at home football games, the amount of student fees that can be
generated towards athletics (should the University choose to increase student fees), and potential future
donations as future alumni. Table 1 below compares total enrollment at institutions from comparable NCAA
conferences.
PEER INSTITUTION BENCHMARKING Page | III-15

UA LITTLE ROCK ATHLETICS

TABLE 1 STUDENT ENROLLMENT (FALL 2016)
Peer FCS & FBS Institutions
FOOTBALL CHAMPIONSHIP SUBDIVISION
Southland Conference Ohio Valley Conference

Undergrad Grad Total Undergrad Grad Total
Rank Institution Enrollment Enrollment Enrollment Rank Institution Enrollment Enrollment Enrollment
1 Sam Houston State 17,902 2,575 20,477 1 Eastern Kentucky 14,293 2,588 16,881
2 Lamar 9,308 5,693 15,001 2 Southeast Missouri State 10,693 1,285 11,978
3 Southeastern Louisiana 13,544 939 14,483 3 UA Little Rock 8,814 2,932 11,746
4 Stephen F. Austin 11,058 1,684 12,742 4 Morehead State 9,752 994 10,746
5 UA Little Rock 8,814 2,932 11,746 6 Tennessee Tech 9,438 1,055 10,493
6 Central Arkansas 9,616 1,871 11,487 5 Murray State 8,877 1,609 10,486
8 Incarnate Word 8,906 1,283 10,189 7 Austin Peay 9,513 831 10,344
7 Northwestern State 8,832 987 9,819 8 Tennessee State 7,014 1,746 8,760
9 McNeese 6,894 727 7,621 9 Jacksonville State 7,561 953 8,514
10 Nicholls State 5,636 619 6,255 10 Eastern Illinois 5,957 1,458 7,415
11 Abilene Christian 3,758 1,152 4,910 11 UT-Martin 6,279 426 6,705
12 Houston Baptist 2,332 938 3,270
AVERAGE 8,883 1,783 10,569 AVERAGE 8,926 1,443 10,232
MEDIAN 8,906 1,152 10,189 MEDIAN 9,158 1,170 10,415
FOOTBALL BOWL SUBDIVISION
Sun Belt Conference Conference USA

Undergrad Grad Total Undergrad Grad Total
Rank Institution Enrollment Enrollment Enrollment Rank Institution Enrollment Enrollment Enrollment
1 Texas State 34,244 4,564 38,808 1 Florida International 45,856 9,147 55,003
2 Georgia State 25,228 7,009 32,237 2 North Texas 31,241 6,904 38,145
3 Georgia Southern 18,005 2,668 20,673 3 Florida Atlantic 25,402 5,139 30,541
4 Appalachian State 16,595 1,700 18,295 4 UT-San Antonio 24,724 4,235 28,959
5 Troy 14,144 3,711 17,855 5 Charlotte 23,404 5,317 28,721
6 UL-Lafayette 15,998 1,521 17,519 6 Old Dominion 19,793 4,529 24,322
7 South Alabama 11,761 4,682 16,443 7 UTEP 20,521 3,401 23,922
8 Arkansas State 9,839 4,246 14,085 8 Middle Tennessee 19,693 2,357 22,050
9 UA Little Rock 8,814 2,932 11,746 9 Western Kentucky 17,595 2,676 20,271
10 Coastal Carolina 9,747 732 10,479 10 UA-Birmingham 12,369 7,166 19,535
11 UL-Monroe 7,778 1,260 9,038 11 Southern Mississippi 11,779 2,773 14,552
12 Marshall 9,615 4,032 13,647
13 LA Tech 11,281 1,391 12,672
14 UA Little Rock 8,814 2,932 11,746
15 Rice 3,893 2,962 6,855
AVERAGE 15,650 3,184 19,543 AVERAGE 19,065 4,331 24,228
MEDIAN 15,071 3,190 17,687 MEDIAN 19,743 4,134 22,986
Source: National Center for Education Statistics.
In the fall of 2016, UA Little Rock had a total student enrollment of approximately 11,700, which is 12 percent lower
than the University’s peak enrollment in fall 2010. Full-time undergraduate enrollment (4,760) ranks below the
average of comparable FCS and FBS institutions.
Specifically, UA Little Rock’s full-time undergraduate enrollment is 30 percent lower than the Southland
Conference average (6,787), 30 percent lower than the Ohio Valley Conference average (6,843), 64 percent lower
than the Sun Belt Conference average (13,202), and 68 percent lower than the Conference USA average (14,670).

Alumni Base
The size of an institution’s alumni base is an important consideration when evaluating the viability of a football
program. Alumni typically constitute the majority of athletic donors and football game attendees at peer
institutions. Table 2 below compares the alumni base at institutions among comparable conferences.

TABLE 2 LIVING ALUMNI BASE (CURRENT)
Football Championship Subdivision

Living Living
Rank Institution Alumni Rank Institution Alumni
1 Sam Houston State University 130,000 1 Eastern Kentucky University 130,000
2 Stephen F. Austin State University 102,000 2 Eastern Illinois University 86,000
3 Abilene Christian University 86,000 3 Murray State University 75,000
4 Lamar University 84,000 4 Tennessee Technological University 72,000
5 University of Central Arkansas 66,000 5 Southeast Missouri State University 70,000
6 Northwestern State University 60,000 6 Tennessee State University 63,000
7 University of Arkansas at Little Rock 57,000 7 Morehead State University 60,000
8 Southeastern Louisiana University 53,000 8 University of Arkansas at Little Rock 57,000
9 University of the Incarnate Word 40,000 9 Jacksonville State University 54,000
10 Nicholls State University 37,300 10 Austin Peay State University 50,000
11 McNeese State University 22,000 11 University of Tennessee at Martin 43,000
12 Houston Baptist University 18,000
AVERAGE 63,482 AVERAGE 70,300
MEDIAN 60,000 MEDIAN 66,500
Football Bowl Subdivision

Living Living
Rank Institution Alumni Rank Institution Alumni
1 Georgia State University 180,000 1 University of North Texas 326,000

2 Texas State University 170,000 2 Florida International University 200,000
3 Appalachian State University 124,000 3 Old Dominion University 133,000
4 Troy University 100,000 4 Florida Atlantic University 131,000
5 University of Louisiana at Lafayette 90,000 5 University of Southern Mississippi 120,000
6 Georgia Southern University 75,000 6 University of Alabama at Birmingham 120,000
7 University of South Alabama 74,000 7 Middle Tennessee State University 111,000
8 Arkansas State University 70,000 8 University of North Carolina at Charlotte 101,000
9 University of Louisiana at Monroe 63,000 9 University of Texas at San Antonio 100,000
10 University of Arkansas at Little Rock 57,000 10 Western Kentucky University 100,000
11 Coastal Carolina University 27,000 11 University of Texas at El Paso 89,000
12 Louisiana Tech University 80,000
13 Marshall University 80,000
14 University of Arkansas at Little Rock 57,000
15 Rice University 45,000
Source: Institutional Representatives.
Note: UT-Arlington has been excluded from the Sun Belt Conference because the school does not currently sponsor a football program.

UA Little Rock currently has a base of approximately 57,000 living alumni, which ranks seventh in the Southland
Conference and eighth in the Ohio Valley and is one of the smallest alumni bases among comparable FBS
conferences. The UA Little Rock alumni base (57,000) is approximately 10 percent below the Southland
Conference average (63,482), 19 percent below the Ohio Valley Conference average (70,300), 41 percent below
the Sun Belt conference average (97,300), and 54 percent below the Conference USA average (124,000).
Athletic Budgets
Gaining an understanding of the athletic budgets of comparable institutions provides a benchmark from which
to evaluate the financial resources necessary to field a competitive football program. Table 3 below shows the
athletic budget of institutions among comparable conferences.
TABLE 3
ATHLETIC BUDGET (FY 2017)

Rank Institution Budget Rank Institution Budget
1 University of the Incarnate Word* $18,629,846 1 Eastern Kentucky University $17,020,000
2 Sam Houston State University $18,320,000 2 Murray State University $16,010,000
3 Lamar University $17,660,000 3 Austin Peay State University $15,120,000
4 Stephen F. Austin State University $16,870,000 4 Tennessee Technological University $14,250,000
5 Houston Baptist University* $16,060,012 5 Jacksonville State University* $13,579,563
6 Abilene Christian University* $13,701,403 6 Tennessee State University $12,480,000
7 Southeastern Louisiana University $13,460,000 7 Southeast Missouri State University $12,470,000
8 University of Central Arkansas $12,840,000 8 Morehead State University $12,150,000
9 Northwestern State University $12,560,000 9 Eastern Illinois University $12,090,000
10 University of Arkansas at Little Rock $10,637,740 10 University of Arkansas at Little Rock $10,637,740
11 McNeese State University $11,650,000 11 University of Tennessee at Martin $11,310,000
12 Nicholls State University $8,330,000
AVERAGE $14,552,842 AVERAGE $13,647,956
MEDIAN $13,701,403 MEDIAN $13,029,782

1 Arkansas State University $39,460,000 1 Old Dominion University* $46,180,000

2 Texas State University $35,920,000 2 Rice University* $39,125,169
3 Appalachian State University $35,070,000 3 University of North Texas $36,360,000
4 Troy University $29,960,000 4 Florida Atlantic University $34,100,000
5 Georgia State University $29,860,000 5 Middle Tennessee State University $34,040,000
6 Coastal Carolina University* $28,936,464 6 University of North Carolina at Charlotte $33,250,000
7 Georgia Southern University $28,760,000 7 Florida International University $33,000,000
8 University of South Alabama $27,950,000 8 University of Texas at El Paso $32,040,000
9 University of Louisiana at Lafayette $27,410,000 9 Western Kentucky University $30,440,000
10 University of Louisiana at Monroe $15,480,000 10 Marshall University $30,340,000
11 University of Arkansas at Little Rock $10,637,740 11 University of Texas at San Antonio $30,100,000
12 University of Southern Mississippi $25,250,000
13 Louisiana Tech University $23,830,000
14 University of Alabama at Birmingham $23,800,000
15 University of Arkansas at Little Rock $10,637,740
AVERAGE $29,880,646 AVERAGE $32,275,369
MEDIAN $29,398,232 MEDIAN $32,520,000
Source: NCAA Financial Revenue and Expense FY 17 Reports.
*Source: Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act FY 17 Reports

In FY 2017, UA Little Rock had an athletic department budget of approximately $10.6 million, ranking towards the
bottom among comparable FCS and FBS institutions, which is expected since UA Little Rock’s budget does not
include a football program and the addition of other sports programs to be in compliance with Title IX.
UA Little Rock’s athletic budget is 18 percent below the Southland Conference average ($14.6 million), 13 percent
below the Ohio Valley Conference average ($13.6 million), 60 percent below the Sun Belt Conference average
($29.9 million), and 63 percent below the Conference USA average ($32.3 million).
Athletic budgets tend to vary by the number of sports sponsored by an athletic department. Table 4 below details
the number of sponsored sports of institutions among comparable conferences.

TABLE 4
SPONSORED SPORTS (CURRENT)

Rank Institution Sports Rank Institution Sports
1 University of the Incarnate Word 23 1 Eastern Illinois University 20
2 University of Central Arkansas 18 2 Jacksonville State University 18
3 Abilene Christian University 17 3 University of Tennessee at Martin 18
4 Houston Baptist University 17 4 Eastern Kentucky University 17
5 Lamar University 17 5 Morehead State University 17
6 Sam Houston State University 17 6 Austin Peay State University 16
7 Stephen F. Austin State University 17 7 Murray State University 16
8 McNeese State University 16 8 Southeast Missouri State University 15
9 Southeastern Louisiana University 15 9 Tennessee State University 15
10 University of Arkansas at Little Rock 14 10 University of Arkansas at Little Rock 14
11 Nicholls State University 14 11 Tennessee Technological University 14
12 Northwestern State University 14
AVERAGE 17 AVERAGE 17
MEDIAN 17 MEDIAN 17

Rank Institution Sports Rank Institution Sports
1 Appalachian State University 20 1 Florida Atlantic University 19
2 Coastal Carolina University 18 2 University of Alabama at Birmingham 19
3 Georgia Southern University 17 3 Florida International University 18
4 University of South Alabama 17 4 Old Dominion University 18
5 Troy University 17 5 University of North Carolina at Charlotte 18
6 University of Louisiana at Monroe 17 6 Western Kentucky University 18
7 Georgia State University 16 7 Middle Tennessee State University 17
8 Arkansas State University 16 8 University of Southern Mississippi 17
9 Texas State University 16 9 University of Texas at San Antonio 17
10 University of Louisiana at Lafayette 16 10 Louisiana Tech University 16
11 University of Arkansas at Little Rock 14 11 Marshall University 16
12 Rice University 16
13 University of North Texas 16
14 University of Texas at El Paso 16
15 University of Arkansas at Little Rock 14
AVERAGE 17 AVERAGE 17
MEDIAN 17 MEDIAN 17
Note: Men's and women's teams are counted separately.
Source: Institutional Representatives.

UA Little Rock currently sponsors 14 sports (excluding wrestling), which ranks toward the bottom among
comparable FCS and FBS institutions.
To adjust for the variations among the sizes of departments, Table 5 below details the total athletic budget per
sponsored sport of institutions among comparable conferences.

TABLE 5
ATHLETIC BUDGET PER SPONSORED SPORT (FY 2017)

1 Sam Houston State University $1,077,647 1 Tennessee Technological University $1,017,857
2 Lamar University $1,038,824 2 Eastern Kentucky University $1,001,176
3 Stephen F. Austin State University $992,353 3 Murray State University $1,000,625
4 Houston Baptist University* $944,707 4 Austin Peay State University $945,000
5 Southeastern Louisiana University $897,333 5 University of Arkansas at Little Rock $849,286
6 Northwestern State University $897,143 6 Tennessee State University $832,000
7 University of Arkansas at Little Rock $849,286 7 Southeast Missouri State University $831,333
8 University of the Incarnate Word* $809,993 8 Jacksonville State University* $754,420
9 Abilene Christian University* $805,965 9 Morehead State University $714,706
10 McNeese State University $728,125 10 University of Tennessee at Martin $628,333
11 University of Central Arkansas $713,333 11 Eastern Illinois University $604,500
12 Nicholls State University $595,000
AVERAGE $863,675 AVERAGE $832,995
MEDIAN $897,143 MEDIAN $831,667

1 Arkansas State University $2,466,250 1 Old Dominion University* $2,565,556

2 Texas State University $2,245,000 1 Rice University* $2,445,323
3 Georgia State University $1,866,250 2 University of North Texas $2,272,500
4 Troy University $1,762,353 3 University of Texas at El Paso $2,002,500
5 Appalachian State University $1,753,500 4 Middle Tennessee State University $2,002,353
6 University of Louisiana at Lafayette $1,713,125 5 Marshall University $1,896,250
7 Georgia Southern University $1,691,765 6 University of North Carolina at Charlotte $1,847,222
8 University of South Alabama $1,644,118 7 Florida International University $1,833,333
9 Coastal Carolina University* $1,607,581 8 Florida Atlantic University $1,794,737
10 University of Louisiana at Monroe $910,588 9 University of Texas at San Antonio $1,770,588
11 University of Arkansas at Little Rock $849,286 10 Western Kentucky University $1,691,111
12 University of Southern Mississippi $1,485,294
13 University of Alabama at Birmingham $1,252,632
14 University of Arkansas at Little Rock $849,286
AVERAGE $1,766,053 AVERAGE $1,882,055
MEDIAN $1,733,313 MEDIAN $1,840,278
UA Little Rock’s athletic budget per sport of approximately $849,000 ranks near the average of comparable FCS
institutions and is last among comparable FBS institutions. UA Little Rock’s budget per sport is 2 percent below
the Southland Conference average ($864,000), 2 percent above the Ohio Valley Conference average ($833,000),

52 percent below the Sun Belt Conference average ($1.8 million), and 55 percent below the Conference USA
average ($1.9 million).
Football Budgets
Understanding the operating budgets of current football programs can provide a benchmark from which
university officials could judge the requisite resources needed to field a competitive football program. Table VI.6
below shows the football budgets of institutions among comparable conferences.
The average Southland Conference peer has a football budget of $3.7 million, the average Ohio Valley Conference
peer has a football budget of $3.2 million, the average Sun Belt Conference peer has a football budget of $9.0
million, and the average Conference USA peer has a football budget of $10.0 million.

Football budgets also typically constitute a significant portion of athletic budgets, with more competitive schools
often dedicating larger proportions of their athletic budgets to their football programs. Table VI.7 below details
the percentage of a school’s athletic budget dedicated to football.
The average football budget as a percentage of the total athletic budget is 25 percent for the Southland
Conference, 23 percent for the Ohio Valley Conference, 30 percent for the Sun Belt Conference, and 31 percent for
Conference USA.

Athletic Donors
Fundraising will be an integral component of initiating the creation of a new football program as well as in
sustaining its success. Table VI.8 below details the approximate number of athletic donors among comparable
NCAA conference schools.
UA Little Rock Athletics currently has approximately 890 donors, which ranks second in both the Southland and
Ohio Valley conferences but ranks quite low among the comparable FBS conferences. The UA Little Rock donor
base is 135 percent larger than the Southland Conference average (380), 26 percent larger than the Ohio Valley
Conference average (709), 46 percent below the Sun Belt Conference average (1,659), and 58 percent below the
Conference USA average (2,100).

Football Attendance
Football attendance is an important factor in overall program support as a significant portion of football revenue
is derived from ticket sales, concession and merchandise revenue, as well as other game-day operations that are
functions of attendance. Table VI.9 below compares the 2017 reported football attendance of programs from
comparable NCAA conferences. (It should be noted that reported attendance often overstates paid attendance,
sometimes by as much as 20 to 30 percent.)
TABLE AVERAGE FOOTBALL ATTENDANCE PER GAME (2017)

VI.9 Peer FCS & FBS Institutions

Average Reported Average Reported
Attendance Attendance
Rank Institution Per Game Rank Institution Per Game
1 Stephen F. Austin State University 11,376 1 Jacksonville State University 13,756
2 Abilene Christian University 10,441 2 Tennessee State University 12,080
3 McNeese State University 9,939 3 Austin Peay State University 8,342
4 University of Central Arkansas 8,550 4 Eastern Kentucky University 7,234
5 Nicholls State University 7,883 5 Tennessee Technological University 6,605
6 Northwestern State University 7,550 6 Morehead State University 5,887
7 Sam Houston State University 6,986 7 Murray State University 5,040
8 Lamar University 6,607 8 Eastern Illinois University 4,950
9 Southeastern Louisiana University 5,620 9 Southeast Missouri State University 3,864
10 University of the Incarnate Word 4,881 10 University of Tennessee at Martin 3,276
11 Houston Baptist University 2,250

Average Reported Average Reported
Attendance Attendance
Rank Institution Per Game Rank Institution Per Game
1 Appalachian State University 25,787 1 University of Alabama at Birmingham 26,375

2 Troy University 24,456 2 University of Texas at San Antonio 22,821
3 Arkansas State University 23,908 3 University of North Texas 22,362
4 Texas State University 17,447 4 Marshall University 21,741
5 University of South Alabama 17,345 5 University of Southern Mississippi 21,711
6 Georgia State University 15,833 6 Louisiana Tech University 20,375
7 University of Louisiana at Lafayette 15,751 7 Old Dominion University 20,118
8 Georgia Southern University 15,258 8 University of Texas at El Paso 19,548
9 Coastal Carolina University 14,959 9 Rice University 19,354
10 University of Louisiana at Monroe 9,928 10 Florida Atlantic University 18,948
11 Western Kentucky University 15,706
12 Middle Tennessee State University 15,620
13 Florida International University 14,286
14 University of North Carolina at Charlotte 11,903
Source: NCAA.
The average reported football attendance in 2017 was 7,462 in the Southland Conference, 7,103 in the Ohio Valley
Conference, 18,067 in the Sun Belt Conference, and 19,348 in Conference USA.

B. LOCAL MARKET CHARACTERISTICS

In addition to institutional characteristics, it is useful to compare the local market characteristics of UA Little Rock
and the Little Rock regional market area to other markets supporting collegiate football programs to provide a
benchmark from which to assess the potential success of creating a football program at UA Little Rock.
The strength of a market in terms of its ability to attract supporters and generate revenues is measured, to some
degree, by the demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of the regional market area. Specific demographic
and socioeconomic information that can provide an indication of the ability of a market to support a football
program includes population, age, household income, cost of living, and corporate base, among others.
TABLE LOCAL MARKET CHARACTERISTICS

VI.10 Market Definition
Rogers Mountain Home

Harrison
Batesville
Arkansas
Conway
Russellville Searcy
Little Rock
CBSA Pine Bluff Hot Springs
Arkadelphia
CBSA
Pine Bluff
Texarkana
El Dorado
The demographic and socioeconomic data presented in this section is based on the Little Rock metropolitan area.
The Little Rock metropolitan area is defined as the Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, AR Core-Based Statistical
Area (“CBSA”).
A CBSA is a U.S. geographic area defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget based around an urban
center of at least 10,000 people and adjacent areas that are socioeconomically tied to the urban center by
commuting. A large portion of game attendees, ticket sales, and corporate partners are expected to originate
from within this area, as indicated in the map above.

Population
The size of the regional population from which a new program can expect to draw visitors and spectators can
impact attendance. Table VI.12 below compares the populations of markets from comparable NCAA conference
schools.
The Little Rock metro area has a population of approximately 750,000, which is approximately 2.5 times greater
than the Southland Conference median (212,000), 6.2 greater than the Ohio Valley Conference median (104,000),
1.5 times greater than the Sun Belt Conference median (303,000), and 0.6 times less than the Conference USA
median (1.8 million).

Additionally, the population growth of a market can help indicate market health and long-term potential
population. Table VI.13 below compares the projected annual population growth rates among markets from
comparable NCAA conference schools.
The Little Rock metro area is projected to grow at an annual rate of 0.9 percent, which is approximately 3 percent
faster than the national annual growth rate of 0.8 percent. This growth rate ranks in the middle of the comparable
conferences - fifth among Southland Conference markets, fourth among Ohio Valley Conference markets, sixth
among Sun Belt Conference markets, and tenth among Conference USA markets.

Age
Another demographic characteristic important to the overall viability of a football program is the age of the local
population. In general, sports and entertainment events attract patrons of various ages, with the core groups of
attendees clustered between the ages of 15 and 54, though a younger population could indicate a higher
tendency to attend sporting events while an older population could indicate a larger base from which an athletic
foundation could solicit athletic donations. Table VI.14 below compares the median age of the populations of
markets from comparable NCAA conference schools.
The Little Rock metro area population has a median age of 37.2 years, which is 1 year younger than the national
median age of 38.2. The median age of the Little Rock market is 1.5 years older than the Southland Conference

average, approximately equal to the Ohio Valley Conference average, 1.9 years older than the Sun Belt average,
and 0.7 years older than the Conference USA average.
Household Income
Household income can indicate the ability of local market residents to allocate discretionary spending towards
the purchase of tickets, concessions, merchandise, parking, and other such items associated with attending UA
Little Rock football games. Table VI.15 below compares the median household income of the metropolitan
populations of comparable NCAA conference institutions.
The median household income of the Little Rock metro area is $50,185, which is 11 percent below the national
median ($56,124). Compared to the peer conferences, the Little Rock metro area is 6 percent above the Southland

Conference average ($47,403), 18 percent above the Ohio Valley Conference average ($42,689), 11 percent above
than the Sun Belt Conference average ($45,153), and 2 percent below the Conference USA average ($51,095).
Cost of Living
The cost of living, measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI), indicates how expensive or inexpensive a city is,
relative to the nation as a whole. The national average is set at 100.0. A lower CPI indicates a less expensive market
while a higher CPI indicates a more expensive market. In comparing the costs of attending and supporting football
games (e.g. ticket costs, concession prices, required seat donations, etc.) to other conference peers, athletic

department officials should be mindful of the cost of living in Little Rock when determining appropriate pricing.
Table VI.16 below compares the relative cost of living for the markets from comparable NCAA conference schools.
The cost of living in the Little Rock metro area is 95.1, which is approximately 5 percent below the national average
(100.0).
TABLE CORPORATE BASE (METROPOLITAN AREA)

VI.16 Comparable Markets

Corporate Corporate
Rank Institution Base Rank Institution Base
1 Houston Baptist University 342,641 1 Tennessee State University 85,693
2 University of the Incarnate Word 106,029 2 University of Arkansas at Little Rock 34,336
3 University of Central Arkansas 34,336 3 Austin Peay State University 8,568
4 University of Arkansas at Little Rock 34,336 4 Eastern Kentucky University 7,934
5 Lamar University 17,301 5 Jacksonville State University 4,380
6 McNeese State University 10,266 6 Tennessee Technological University 4,358
7 Nicholls State University 10,237 7 Southeast Missouri State University 4,295
8 Abilene Christian University 8,168 8 Eastern Illinois University 2,743
9 Southeastern Louisiana University 5,747 9 Murray State University 2,397
10 Sam Houston State University 3,554 10 University of Tennessee at Martin 2,161
11 Stephen F. Austin State University 2,924 11 Morehead State University 1,577
12 Northwestern State University 1,601

Corporate Corporate
Rank Institution Base Rank Institution Base
1 Georgia State University 342,819 1 Florida Atlantic University 495,726

2 Texas State University 117,674 2 Florida International University 495,726
3 University of Arkansas at Little Rock 34,336 3 University of North Texas 403,124
4 University of Louisiana at Lafayette 27,268 4 Rice University 342,641
5 Coastal Carolina University 21,616 5 University of North Carolina at Charlotte 116,027
6 University of South Alabama 16,105 6 University of Texas at San Antonio 106,029
7 University of Louisiana at Monroe 9,250 7 Middle Tennessee State University 85,693
8 Arkansas State University 5,386 8 Old Dominion University 75,948
9 Appalachian State University 4,630 9 University of Alabama at Birmingham 50,046
10 Georgia Southern University 3,437 10 University of Arkansas at Little Rock 34,336
11 Troy University 1,256 11 University of Texas at El Paso 28,821
12 Marshall University 11,894
13 Western Kentucky University 7,410
14 University of Southern Mississippi 5,950
15 Louisiana Tech University 2,315
Note: Excludes government and religious entities, education and nonprofit industries, membership organizations, and private households.
Source: Hoovers.

While less expensive than the country overall, Little Rock ranks as one of the more expensive cities compared to
other NCAA conference peers - 2.9 points more expensive than the Southland Conference average (92.2), 3.5
points more expensive than the Ohio Valley Conference average (91.6), 2.5 points more expensive than the Sun
Belt Conference average (92.6), and 0.4 points less expensive than the Conference USA average (95.5).
Corporate Base
The depth and breadth of the regional corporate market provides a base from which a UA Little Rock football
program could draw for various premium seating, athletic donations, advertising, sponsorship, and naming rights
opportunities.
Table VI.17 on the following page compares the corporate base of Little Rock to comparable NCAA conference
schools. (Note: the corporate base for each market excludes government entities, membership organizations,
religious organizations, non-profit organizations, and private households.)

The Little Rock metro area supports a corporate base of approximately 34,300 companies, which is 2.4 times larger
than the Southland Conference median (10,237), 6.9 times larger than the Ohio Valley Conference median (4,327),
1.7 times larger than the Sun Belt Conference median (12,678), and 0.6 times lower than the Conference USA
median (80,821).
Competition
In terms of football attendance, ticket sales, and sponsorship and advertising support, a new UA Little Rock
football program would have to compete directly with other, established collegiate football programs throughout
the State of Arkansas. Table VI.18 below details the current Division I (“D-I”) (FBS and FCS) and Division II (“D-II”)
football programs in Arkansas.
Because UA Little Rock would have the benefit of being in the state’s most populous and capital city, a new football
program would likely only have to compete directly with the program support of nearby Division I football
programs, like the University of Central Arkansas and University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, which are each within 50
miles of the UA Little Rock campus.
However, a new football program at UA Little Rock would also have to compete indirectly with the University of
Arkansas for fandom and support. As the only Power Five (SEC, ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, and Pac-12 conferences)
program in the state, the University of Arkansas’s support throughout the state is the strongest among all football
programs, possibly providing a unique challenge to gaining support for a new football program at UA Little Rock.
For example, the University of Arkansas currently has approximately 16,000 athletic donors, over 11 times as many
donors as the only other FBS competitor in the state (Arkansas State - 1,400), which underscores the influence the
University of Arkansas has in terms of fandom and support. At the writing of this report, the Razorbacks also play
an annual contest in Little Rock at War Memorial Stadium, which has the potential to further bifurcate fandom,
program support, and sponsorship dollars.

C. SUMMARY
Table VI.19 below details a summary of the various demographic and socioeconomic statistics reviewed in this
analysis.
Overall, in terms of institutional benchmarking, UA Little Rock is most similar to FCS peers in terms of student
enrollment, alumni base, athletic budget, and athletic donors.
A review of comparable markets indicates that UA Little Rock would also have certain competitive advantages
with respect to local market conditions relative to its FBS and FCS peers. With the notable exception of Conference
USA, the Little Rock metro area has a higher median population, higher projected annual growth rate, a higher
median age, a larger median household income, and a larger corporate base than comparable market averages.
Additionally, while UA Little Rock would face competition from other football programs within the State of
Arkansas, the University would have an advantage of being in the state’s capital and most populous city. In order
for UA Little Rock to capitalize on these competitive advantages, it will be important for the potential football
program to work diligently to earn the status as the City of Little Rock’s signature college team.

University Preparedness
A. INTRODUCTION
This Chapter addresses University policies and procedures, as well as priorities that will be considered as UA Little
Rock assesses the future of its current sports offerings, along with the possible addition of Intercollegiate Football:
NCAA Division I Football Championship Subdivision (FCS), or Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS).
Therefore, UA Little Rock should address the following questions:
• In consideration of UA Little Rock’s Vision and Mission, what are the most effective means to accomplish
institutional goals through the sponsorship of Intercollegiate Athletics (Athletics)?
• A successful FCS or FBS Football program will require additional, sustained institutional expenses and
increased levels of constituent support. Is there sufficient interest and potential financial support from
UA Little Rock’s internal resources and external entities?
B. VISION AND MISSION
University
UA Little Rock’s sponsorship of NCAA Division I Athletics (Division I) appears to

UA Little Rock
be in concert with its Vision. While the University’s Mission Statement does not Vision Statement
specifically mention extracurricular activities or Athletics, it does emphasize the UA Little Rock is dedicated to
desire to “apply the resources and research skills of the University community improving students’ lives and
to the service of the city, the state, the nation, and the world”. enhancing our communities.
We will be a leading urban
Athletics and metropolitan university
that engages the city, the
Athletics is guided by a set of Core Values that are prominently integrated into region and beyond through
its Mission Statement. One of the four Values, Teamwork, describes Athletics’ as excellent teaching, research
being “inclusive and values partnerships with the University, Little Rock and and partnerships.
State of Arkansas to make intercollegiate
UA Little Rock Athletics athletics a key unifier in our community”.
Core Values
However, noticeably absent is an Athletics Vision Statement. Foundational to
Greatness
Respect sound management practices, a concise Vision Statement represents a
Integrity compelling agreement among the campus leadership, University constituents
Teamwork and Little Rock community for the direction of UA Little Rock Athletics. This is
especially meaningful when assessing the widespread impact of football at UA
Little Rock.
UNIVERSITY PREPAREDNESS Page | IV-35

C. BENCHMARKING AND PEER INSTITUTIONS
University
Using the Carnegie Classification 8 as its primary criteria, the University includes the 14 institutions listed below for
peer benchmarking. While each of these institutions, except the University of Colorado Denver, conducts
Intercollegiate Athletics, their respective national sports affiliations and resource commitments vary significantly.
For example, only five sponsor Division I Football: one in FCS and four in FBS. Further, this group includes only
two of this Study’s 45 Athletics’ benchmark institutions (University of North Carolina at Charlotte and Georgia State
University).
TABLE 1 UA LITTLE ROCK AND ATHLETICS

Institutions Used For Peer Benchmarking
DIVISION I
FCS FBS DIVISION II DIVISION III NA
WITHOUT FOOTBALL
1. Portland 1. Boise State 1. Cleveland State 1. University of 1. University of 1. University

State University University Central Massachusetts - of Colorado
University 2. Georgia State 2. University of Oklahoma Boston Denver
University Nebraska at 2. University of 2. University of
3. University of Omaha Missouri – Southern Maine
Memphis 3. University of New St. Louis
4. University of North Orleans
Carolina at 4. Wichita State
Charlotte University
Athletics
Athletics’ primary peer institutions are fellow members of the Sun Belt Conference
(Sun Belt). UA Little Rock and University of Texas at Arlington are the only institutions
within the 12-member Sun Belt that do not sponsor Football at the FBS level. In contrast,
the Sun Belt Football-playing schools feature substantially greater Athletics’ operating
budgets and more sophisticated support services than those without Football.
The data presented in III. Peer Institution Benchmarking illustrates the sizable budgetary gap between UA Little
Rock Athletics and the other Sun Belt members as well as three regional Division I Football Conferences:
Conference USA (FBS), Ohio Valley Conference (FCS), and the Southland Conference (FCS).
8 The Carnegie Classification® has been the leading framework for recognizing and describing institutional diversity in U.S. higher education for the
past 45 years. Derived from empirical data on colleges and universities, the Carnegie Classification was originally published in 1973 and subsequently
updated to reflect changes among colleges and universities. This framework has been widely used in the study of higher education, both as a way to
represent and control for institutional differences, and also in the design of research studies to ensure adequate representation of sampled institutions,
students, or faculty.

D. STRATEGIC PLANNING
University and Athletics
Athletics’ responsibility for assisting the University in achieving its Vision and Mission is described within UA Little
Rock’s Strategic Plan – 2017: “Accelerate UA Little Rock’s brand trajectory by leveraging its athletic program to recruit
and retain students, strengthen the image of the University, enhance community outreach, and nurture a sense of pride
and community on campus”. While this strategy is laudable, specific steps are neither delineated nor measured.
Best practices compel Athletics to develop a formal strategic plan with a set of corresponding goals and strategies
defining timelines, measurements, resource requirements and responsibilities aligned with the University’s
priorities.
E. UNIVERSITY STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

The foreword to the University’s Strategic Plan – 2017 describes, “propelling the University of Arkansas at Little Rock
into the future as a powerhouse university in the capital city. These planning endeavors are intended to improve the
stewardship of UA Little Rock and to increase the success in accomplishing the university’s noble goals”. The Plan’s
priorities are outlined by the following Goals:
• Goal 1 – UA Little Rock will prepare its students for success.
• Goal 2 – UA Little Rock will strengthen and support the human resources and infrastructure necessary
to fulfill its mission and vision.
• Goal 3 – UA Little Rock will encourage and support research and creative endeavors.
• Goal 4 – UA Little Rock will serve as an active partner in the community.
• Goal 5 – UA Little Rock will improve diversity, inclusion, equality, and global understanding in the
campus community.
F. ENROLLMENT IMPACT
In addition to its five Strategic Priorities, the University recently established a goal of increasing its total student
enrollment from approximately 11,000 to 15,000 in the next five years. Similar to the ways in which Athletics
contributes to Goals 1 - 5, the addition Football could aid in the University’s goal of enrollment growth.
In order to assess the potential impact that Football could have on University enrollment, The Project Team
reviewed historical freshman enrollment trends from six institutions that have started or reinstated FCS or FBS
Football in the last ten years, including Study peers University of North Carolina at Charlotte, University of Texas
at San Antonio and the University of South Alabama.
Table 2 below analyzes the freshman enrollment trends for these Universities five years before and approximately
five years after the introduction of their respective football programs. The data is organized by highest to lowest
percentage change in enrollment for this group of institutions.

UA LITTLE ROCK AND ATHLETICS

TABLE 2
FRESHMAN ENROLLMENT IMPACT
FOOTBALL AVERAGE FRESHMAN ENROLLMENT
INSTITUTION PROGRAM FIVE YEARS BEFORE PERCENT CHANGE
INCEPTION AFTER FOOTBALL
FOOTBALL
Kennesaw State University 2015 3,841 5,320 38.5%
University of South Alabama 2009 1,393 1,877 34.8%
Old Dominion University 2009 2,306 2,811 21.9%
Houston Baptist University 2013 525 564 7.3%
University of North Carolina at Charlotte 2013 3,194 3,399 6.4%
University of Texas at San Antonio 2011 7,352 5,894 (19.8%)
AVERAGE 2012 3,102 3,311 14.9%
UA LITTLE ROCK -- 745 856 14.9%
Note: UA Little Rock freshman enrollment is counted by first-time-entering, full-time undergraduates from 2012 to 2016.
Source: University offices of institutional research.
In these examples freshman enrollment increased, on average, 14.9 percent after the introduction of football. Over
the last five years of available data, UA Little Rock has averaged a full-time, fall-semester freshman enrollment of
745 students. Under the hypothetical assumption that UA Little Rock would be able to achieve enrollment growth
consistent with the above institutions, it would imply an increase to 856 students in the years after starting FCS or
FBS Football.
Using UA Little Rock’s current full-time equivalent undergraduate enrollment of 4,760 students (as of Fall 2016),
this analysis would imply an increase to approximately 5,500 students in the years after the institution of a football
program. Similarly, applied to the current total enrollment of 11,746 students (as of Fall 2016), it would suggest
an increase to around 13,500 students.
It should be noted that the introduction of Football, coupled with the desired gains in enrollment, would require
a substantial increase in new and recurring resources.
Note: An analysis of the impact of UA Little Rock football on enrollment growth is purely hypothetical and should not be
relied upon for the purposes of evaluating actual enrollment growth. Such trends are often based on many factors
beyond just the implementation of a football program.
G. UNIVERSITY INFRASTRUCTURE
UA Little Rock makes every effort to provide a variety of student support services but is challenged at times to
meet the needs of approximately 11,000 students, including student-athletes, due to resource constraints.
Football would add around 120 new student-athletes, along with a significant number of female student-athletes
to maintain Title IX compliance. These additions, combined with the current 200 student-athletes, or 255 with
Wrestling, would double the number of UA Little Rock student-athletes, requiring a commensurate growth in
University and Athletics student support services. University Administration has acknowledged student services,

such as Dining Services and the Student Center, are not equipped to accommodate the present student
population, nor a substantial influx of new students.
The lack of a centralized campus academic support unit necessitates the expansion of dedicated student-athlete
academic support, even if Football is not added. Further, the absence of personnel specifically assigned to
Athletics in the University Offices of Admissions, Financial Aid and Registrar is ineffective and atypical of Division
I best practices. Moreover, these assignments should be meaningful with formal position descriptions.
Additionally, demands on the greater UA Little Rock‘s infrastructure are compounded by eSTEM Charter School
(eSTEM) access to University services and facilities. eSTEM’s enrollment is projected to expand from approximately
460 to 800 by the end of the decade with an ultimate goal of 1,100.
H. INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL AND RESPONSIBILITY

The NCAA defines institutional control 9 as “control and responsibility for the conduct of intercollegiate athletics
shall be exercised by the institution itself and by the conference(s), if any, of which it is a member”. This
responsibility compels institutions to maintain, and consistently review formal internal policies and procedures
applicable to Institutional Control. Moreover, the scope of this accountability would be expanded exponentially
with the addition of FCS or FBS Football.
Athletics Compliance
Uncharacteristic of Division I best practices, Athletics’ Senior Associate Athletics Director for Compliance and
Student Support reports directly to an Athletics’ Senior Associate position. For example, acceptable standards
align Compliance to the institution’s Chief Executive Officer, or other senior university administrator, while
maintaining a concurrent report to the Director of Athletics. UA Little Rock’s present reporting structure is an
intrinsic weakness in the University’s institutional control of Athletics, with or without football.
Additionally, the above Sr. Associate Athletic Director for Compliance position is the only full-time Athletics staff
member who has specific responsibilities for NCAA and Conference Rules Compliance (Compliance). Limited
assistance is provided by the Senior Woman Administrator/Deputy Title IX Coordinator. Both positions have
routine contact with the University’s Offices of Admissions, Financial Aid and Registrar.
Athletics Compliance also assumes an atypical role in managing and assembling data for NCAA academic reports,
such as Academic Progress Rate (APR), Graduation Success Rate (GSR) and Graduation Rates. This should be the
responsibility of University offices in concert with Athletics.
Compliance Team
In advance of considering Football, and following best practices, the University’s Compliance oversight can be
broadened and strengthened by creating a formal Compliance Team comprised of University and Athletics
personnel. Formal job descriptions and flow charts depicting the appropriate structure and protocol are essential.
The Team should meet on a regular basis, with a set agenda and prescribed Compliance audit procedures. An
9 Bylaw 6.01.1 Institutional Control

institution’s legal counsel and college advisors are usually included in this design, as well. A structured, informed,
and engaged Compliance Team can enhance communications and streamline eligibility and investigative
processes, while helping avoid potential NCAA violations.
The functional components of a contemporary Division I Compliance Team are outlined in the following Attachments:
• UALR Attachment IV-1 Initial Eligibility Certification (Sample)

• UALR Attachment IV-2 Continuing Eligibility Certification (Sample)
• UALR Attachment IV-3 Financial Aid Certification (Sample)
Athletic Committee
Consideration of Football provides the University with an opportunity to enhance Institutional Control by
redefining the role of the Intercollegiate Athletic Committee (IAC) as well as the effectiveness of current
committees. Standard industry practices feature committee functions such as equity, student-athlete well-being,
rules compliance, sports-team scheduling, and missed class time, as well as NCAA and conference legislation.
Similar Division I committees also monitor university and athletics' procedures for student-athlete academic
success-to-graduation, as well as each team’s APR status.
I. ACADEMIC QUALITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY

UA Little Rock’s retention and graduation of its student-athletes is foundational to its Division I membership.
Likewise, the University is obligated to set and monitor academic policies, while providing effective student-
athlete academic support. The University’s exposure will only be heightened with Division I Football. As described
in the categories below, Division I student-athlete retention-to-graduation is primarily measured three ways:
Federal Graduation Rates (FGR), Graduation Success Rate (GSR), and Academic Progress Rate (APR). Of the three
metrics, GSR provides graduation data that most accurately represents the mobility of modern-era student-
athletes. Conversely, student-athlete Federal Graduation Rates are widely published and quoted, but they do not
account for students who take six or more years to graduate, or transfer to another college or university.
Federal Graduation Rates (FGR)
This calculation compares graduation rates of student-athletes and those of the general student body. As
illustrated in Table 3 below, UA Little Rock’s student-athletes are graduating at a rate substantially higher than the
University’s general student population. Conversely, 2017 data shows that the University’s student-athlete
graduation rates are considerably lower than those of all Division I student-athletes 10 (68%, and a Four-Class
Average 11 of 67%).
10 2017 Federal Graduation Rate Data, www.ncaa.org.

11 Four-Class Average calculates freshmen who entered the institution in 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11.

Graduation Success Rate (GSR)
This is the preferred measurement of enrolled student-athlete academic performance because it includes
calculations for transfer student-athletes, athletes who leave the institution in good academic standing, and those
student-athletes who transfer and graduate. UA Little Rock’s most recent GSR rating of 81% is slightly lower than
the latest overall Division I average of 86%. However, UA Little Rock has had the highest GSR among all Arkansas
Division I institutions for six of the last seven years.
Note: GSR only computes student-athlete rates; similar calculations are not available for general student
undergraduate peer groups.
Academic Progress Rate (APR)
This reporting process measures an institution’s student-athlete retention and eligibility, while meeting NCAA,
conference and institutional academic eligibility requirements. The APR is the best “real-time indicator” for
student-athlete retention. The major difference between Federal Graduation Rate reporting and the APR is the
potential of punitive sanctions by the NCAA. With APR measurements, sanctions can be applied to
underperforming teams, as well their respective coaches. Using the latest four-year average, UA Little Rock’s 14
sports exceeded the APR minimum score of 930.
TABLE 3 UA LITTLE ROCK AND ATHLETICS

FEDERAL GRADUATION RATES AND GSR SUMMARY
FEDERAL GRADUATION RATES
YEAR OF REPORT
(ENTERING STUDENT-ATHLETES STUDENT BODY STUDENT-ATHLETE GSR
ACADEMIC YEAR) STUDENT BODY RECEIVING FOUR-CLASS FOUR-CLASS
GRANTS-IN-AID AVERAGE AVERAGE
2017 (2010-11) 28% 47% 25% 51% 81%

2016 (2009-10) 27% 57% 23% 51% 81%
2015 (2008-09) 24% 56% 22% 49% 83%
2014 (2007-08) 21% 43% 21% 49% 79%
NCAA Division I Academics-Based Revenue Distribution
The recently approved NCAA Division I revenue distribution plan has major implications for UA Little Rock, both
financially and from a publicity standpoint. This plan reflects and enhances the Division's overarching values and
commitment to sound academic standards and student-athlete academic achievement.
In addition to current Division I distributions, effective spring 2020, institutions can achieve annual increases in
future years from the NCAA's new media rights agreement. Estimates range from approximately $50,000 in 2019-
20 to approximately $400,000 in 2024-25. 12
12 NCAA Division I Academics-Based Revenue Distribution Question and Answer Document; Updated: May 4, 2017

Institutions qualify by meeting one of the following criteria from the preceding academic year:
1. Institution’s NCAA Division I Academic Progress Rate (APR) for the previous year is equal to or greater
than 985;
2. Institution's Graduation Success Rate (GSR) for the most recently available year is equal to or greater
than 90 percent; or,
3. Difference between the institution's student-athlete and student-body rates for the most recently
published Federal Graduation Rate (FGR) is greater than or equal to 13 percentage points.
Note: UA Little Rock meets one of the three qualifying criteria (Federal Graduation Rate) for the latest reporting period.
J. INSTITUTIONAL AND COMMUNITY SUPPORT

The University as well as the greater Little Rock community’s capacity to provide sustainable financial support is
basic to any discussion of FCS or FBS Football.
Institutional Support
As described in XI. Financial Considerations, those revenues are comprised of direct Peer Benchmark Annual
institutional support, student fees, state funding, and/or income from auxiliaries or Football Student Fee
indirect institutional support, such as utilities and maintenance. For example, Study Allocations
benchmark institutions, University of North Carolina Charlotte (UNC Charlotte) and • UNC Charlotte: $8.3M
University of South Alabama (USA), committed substantial increases in Student - $5.2M Football
Fees dedicated to the introduction and maintenance of their Football programs. Operations
- $3.1M Football
Conversely, UA Little Rock has some inherent challenges with student-fees that are Stadium
the highest in the State of Arkansas. Additionally, the State limits the percentage of
Educational and General Funds used for intercollegiate athletics 13. Also, there are • University of South
no current or prospective opportunities for revenue from University auxiliaries. Alabama: $5.4M
Community Support
The results referenced in X. Market Surveys describe the importance of the Little Rock communities’ significant and
measurable interest in supporting the addition of UA Little Rock Football. The value of these initial findings was
emphasized by administrators at UNC Charlotte and USA who stated their “corporate base, donors, students,
alumni, fans and prospective ticket purchasers were committed to Division I Football”. Essentially, institutional
support coupled with their respective communities’ engagement enabled each institution to successfully
introduce Football, along with required facilities.
13
The amount allowed to be budgeted of unrestricted for intercollegiate athletic programs at state-supported institutions of higher education shall
be limited to an amount established by the Department of Higher Education for the fiscal year, or an amount of not more than two (2%) percent of
the actual total unrestricted educational and general revenues of the University.

K. SUMMARY
UA Little Rock will follow a deliberate and informed process to reach a decision on the potential addition of a
sustainable FCS or FBS Football program. A conclusion to proceed with this initiative would require the University
to thoroughly assess its current and future priorities. Similarly, precise calculations of University and community
support are requisite. A sizeable investment will also have to be made in the University infrastructure that
promotes student retention and success, including student-athletes. Finally, UA Little Rock’s processes, as defined
above in Institutional Control and Responsibilities, should be enhanced before proceeding with Football at any
level.
ATTACHMENTS
• UALR Attachment IV-1 Initial Eligibility Certification (Sample)
• UALR Attachment IV-2 Continuing Eligibility Certification (Sample)
• UALR Attachment IV-3 Financial Aid Certification (Sample)

ATTACHMENT IV- 1
The Eligibility Certification List certifies
INITIAL ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATION (SAMPLE)* student-athletes for practice and
competition, and affirms
Five University Departments are responsible for completing and approving the Eligibility Certification List in student-athletes’ meet the
the following sequence: following requirements:
STEP 1 Senior Associate Director of Athletics for Compliance and Student Support • Academic good standing
(Compliance Office): Directs head coaches to review rosters for accuracy prior to the • Initial eligibility qualification
beginning of each semester or term (or date of first competition). It is the responsibility of • Amateurism certification
the head coach to provide notice of any student-athlete that should be added or removed • Satisfactory progress
from the NCAA Eligibility Center Institutional Request List (IRL) or the roster by using the • Full-time enrollment
appropriate roster change process. • Good university standing
STEP 2 Office of Records and Registration (Registrar): Verifies NCAA initial eligibility as
determined by the NCAA Eligibility Center, enters all academic information required for
degree progress, and verifies student-athletes’ credits attempted/earned. Ensures that
transfer student-athletes are fulfilling satisfactory progress, which includes the verification of
regular term/summer credits earned, previous semester credits earned, and cumulative credits earned.
STEP 3 Senior Woman Administrator/Office of Undergraduate Academic Advising: Ensures that incoming student-athletes will be and are
receiving appropriate academic support necessary to fulfill satisfactory progress.
STEP 4 Office of the Dean of Students: Ensures that student-athletes are in “good standing” with respect to institutional policies and codes of
conduct. In addition to meeting academic standards to maintain athletic eligibility, a student-athlete must also maintain “good standing” in
the University community. A student-athlete may be declared ineligible if placed on disciplinary probation for violations of the institution’s
code of conduct.
STEP 5 Faculty Athletics Representative (FAR): Reviews the eligibility list to ensure that there are no errors or omissions. Once the FAR has signed
the eligibility list, all student-athletes on that list are eligible for practice and competition (unless otherwise noted). The completed and signed
eligibility list is returned to the Compliance Office, where copies are made and delivered to the respective Head Coach, Registrar’s Office, and
the Office of Academic Support Services/Success Center.
* This sequence assumes the institution wants the FAR to be the final certifying officer. Some institutions assign this responsibility to the Registrar’s Office. Also, Steps
2, 3 and 4 may vary depending on institutional policies and procedures. However, broadening the certification team to include all recommended members
enhances the institution’s exercise of NCAA required Institutional Control.
ATTACHMENT IV-1 INITIAL ELIGIBILITY CERTIFCATION Page | 1

Initial Eligibility Faculty Athletics Representative (FAR)

Certification Team • Promote academic integrity in intercollegiate athletics • Oversee the Initial Eligibility Certification Team
• Facilitate the integration of the athletics and academic components of the collegiate community • Approve Initial Eligibility Waiver Applications
• Promote institutional control of athletics on campus • Certify eligibility of all transfer student-athletes
• Serve as chairperson of the institutional faculty athletics board • Approve final eligibility certification lists
Senior Woman Administrator

Senior Associate Director of Athletics for Compliance and Student Support Office of the Dean
Office of Records and Registration (Registrar) and Office of Undergraduate
(Compliance Office) of Students
Academic Advising
• Coordinate, monitor, verify compliance with all NCAA and Conference rules and • Assist Compliance Office in coordinating the • Monitor full-time/part-time • Ensure that
regulations distribution of Eligibility Lists to appropriate enrollment or other status student-athletes
• Educate all constituencies of the University (e.g., coaches, administrators, faculty, University departments for approval changes affecting eligibility are in good
student-athletes, and alumni) regarding compliance issues • Approve eligibility lists verifying that transfer on a daily basis standing with
student-athletes are meeting satisfactory progress • Provide various reports to respect to
• Initiate, organize, coordinate, and manage initial eligibility certification team and institutional policy
process requirements, including the verification of regular Registrar and Compliance
term/summer credits earned, previous semester Office to ensure proper • Verify that a
• Serve as primary institutional contact with NCAA Eligibility Center credits earned, cumulative credits earned, and monitoring for certification student-athlete
• Maintain accurate rosters of all athletics programs and ensure that prospective percentage of degree requirements of eligibility should not be
student-athletes are added to the institution’s NCAA Eligibility Center Institutional • Monitor and provide reports regarding full- • Monitor eligibility of all declared ineligible
Request List time/part-time enrollment or other status changes student-athletes through for violating
affecting eligibility to Compliance Office, Senior communication with the institutional
• Provide regular NCAA Eligibility Center status updates to coaches
Woman Administrator, and Office of Registrar and review of policies, being
• Prepare initial eligibility waiver applications in conjunction with the Initial Eligibility placed on
Undergraduate Academic Advising on a daily basis student-athlete academic
Certification Team disciplinary
• Provide various reports to Compliance Office to records
• Obtain written permission to contact possible transfer prospective student-athletes probation, or for
ensure proper monitoring for certification of initial • Communicate with coach, other violation of
prior to the initiation of recruiting contact by coaching staff
eligibility Registrar, and Compliance the institution’s
• Obtain appropriate NCAA releases and eligibility information from original Office regarding all academic
• Serve as institutional leader in completion of NCAA code of conduct
institution to assure proper certification of eligibility of all transfer students eligibility matters
Eligibility Center Matriculation Letters when • Approve eligibility
• Prepare eligibility lists for review and approval by the Initial Eligibility Certification required for Initial Eligibility Certification • Assist in determining lists verifying
Team student-athletes needing
• Approve eligibility lists verifying that student- student-athlete
• Present eligibility lists to each member of the Initial Eligibility Certification Team for athletes meet full-time enrollment status summer courses or course standing with the
review and approval requirements changes to maintain institution
eligibility
• Present eligibility lists to FAR for final review and approval • Verify NCAA initial eligibility as determined by
• Retain the original completed eligibility list NCAA Eligibility Center
• Provide copies of the completed eligibility lists to Senior Woman • Communicate with coach, Senior Woman
Administrator/Office of Undergraduate Academic Advising Administrator, and Compliance Office regarding all
academic eligibility matters
• Continue daily monitoring of enrollment or other status changes affecting eligibility,
in conjunction with the Senior Woman Administrator, Office of Undergraduate
Academic Advising and Registrar
• Assist Registrar with verification of NCAA initial academic and amateurism eligibility,
as determined by NCAA Eligibility Center
ATTACHMENT IV-1 INITIAL ELIGIBILITY CERTIFCATION Page | 2

ATTACHMENT IV- 2
CONTINUING ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATION PROCESS DESCRIPTION student-athletes for practice and
(SAMPLE)* competition, and affirms
student-athletes’ meet the
Five University Departments are responsible for completing and approving the Eligibility Certification List: following requirements:
STEP 1 Senior Associate Director of Athletics for Compliance and Student Support (Compliance • Academic good standing
Office): Directs head coaches to review rosters for accuracy prior to the beginning of each • Initial eligibility qualification
semester or term (or date of first competition). It is the responsibility of the head coach to • Amateurism certification
provide notice of any student-athlete that should be added or removed from the roster by using • Satisfactory progress
the appropriate roster change process. • Full-time enrollment
STEP 2 Office of Records and Registration (Registrar): Enters all academic information required for • Good university standing
degree progress, verifies student-athlete’s credits attempted/earned, previous semester GPA,
cumulative GPA and declared major. Oversees that transfer student-athletes are maintaining
satisfactory progress, which includes the verification of regular term/summer credits earned,
previous semester credits earned, cumulative credits earned.
STEP 3 Senior Woman Administrator/Office of Undergraduate Academic Advising: Ensures that student-athletes are receiving appropriate academic
support necessary to fulfill satisfactory progress. Any information about potential changes to student-athlete academic plans or schedules is
forwarded to the Registrar’s Office for verification of consistency with eligibility rules.
STEP 4 Office of the Dean of Students: Ensures that student-athletes are in “good standing” with respect to institutional policies and codes of conduct. In
addition to meeting academic standards to maintain athletic eligibility, a student-athlete must also maintain “good standing” in the University
community. A student-athlete may be declared ineligible if placed on disciplinary probation for violations of the institution’s code of conduct.
STEP 5 Faculty Athletics Representative (FAR): Reviews the eligibility list to ensure that there are no errors and omissions. Once the FAR has signed the
eligibility list, all student-athletes on that list are eligible for practice and competition (unless otherwise noted).
* This sequence assumes the institution wants the FAR to be the final certifying officer. Some institutions assign this responsibility to the Registrar’s Office. Also,
Steps 2, 3 and 4 may vary depending on institutional policies and procedures. However, broadening the certification team to include all recommended members
enhances the institution’s exercise of NCAA required Institutional Control.
ATTACHMENT IV-2 CONTINUING ELIGIBILITY CERTIFCATION Page | 1

Continuing Eligibility Faculty Athletics Representative (FAR)

Certification Team • Promote academic integrity in intercollegiate athletics • Promote academic integrity in intercollegiate athletics
• Facilitate the integration of the athletics and academic components of the collegiate community • Facilitate the integration of the athletics and academic
• Promote institutional control of athletics on campus components of the collegiate community
• Promote institutional control of athletics on campus
Senior Woman
Senior Associate Director of Athletics for Compliance and Office of Records and Registration Administrator and Office Office of the
Student Support (Compliance Office) (Registrar) of Undergraduate Dean of Students
Academic Advising
• Coordinate, monitor, and verify compliance with all NCAA and • Assist Compliance Office in coordinating the distribution of • Monitor full-time/part-time • Ensure that
Conference rules and regulations Eligibility Lists to appropriate University departments for approval enrollment or other status student-athletes
• Educate all constituencies of the University (e.g., coaches, • Monitor eligibility of all student-athletes through communication changes affecting eligibility are in good
administrators, faculty, student-athletes, and alumni) regarding with Senior Woman Administrator and Office of Undergraduate on a daily basis standing in
compliance issues Academic Advising and review of student-athlete academic • Provide various reports to respect to
records Registrar and Compliance institutional policy
• Initiate, organize, coordinate, and manage continuing eligibility
certification team and process • Review credit hours, terms, academic standing, and degree Office to ensure proper • Verify that a
declaration for all student-athletes to verify continuing eligibility monitoring for certification student-athlete
• Maintain accurate rosters of all athletics programs of eligibility should not be
• Monitor the completion and submission of all required compliance • Monitor and provide reports regarding full-time/part-time declared ineligible
enrollment or other status changes affecting eligibility to • Monitor eligibility of all
forms by student-athletes student-athletes through for violating
Compliance Office, Senior Woman Administrator, and Office of institutional
• Prepare satisfactory progress waivers, in conjunction with the Undergraduate Academic Advising on a daily basis communication with the
Registrar’s Office and review policies, being
Continuing Eligibility Certification Team
• Provide various reports to Compliance Office to ensure proper of student-athlete academic placed on
• Coordinate Medical Hardship Waiver application process with monitoring for certification of eligibility disciplinary
records
appropriate institutional and conference officials probation, or for
• Enter all academic information required for degree progress, • Communicate with coach,
• Prepare eligibility lists for review and approval of the Continuing other violation of
verifying student-athlete’s credits attempted/earned, previous Senior Woman
Eligibility Certification Team the institution’s
semester GPA, cumulative GPA and declared major for Administrator, Registrar, and code of conduct
• Present eligibility lists to each member of the Continuing Eligibility certification by the continuing eligibility certification team Compliance Office regarding
Certification Team for review and approval all academic eligibility • Approve eligibility
• Approve eligibility lists verifying that student-athletes meet the
matters lists verifying
• Present eligibility lists to FAR for final review and approval full-time enrollment status requirement
student-athletes
• Retain the original completed eligibility list • Approve eligibility lists verifying that the student-athletes are • Assist in preparation of standing with the
meeting satisfactory progress requirements, including the satisfactory progress waivers institution
• Provide copies of the completed eligibility lists to Senior Woman
verification of regular term/summer credits earned, previous • Assist in determining
Administrator/Office of Undergraduate Academic Advising
semester credits earned, cumulative credits earned, and student-athletes needing
• Continue daily monitoring of enrollment or other status changes percentage of degree requirements summer courses or course
affecting eligibility, in conjunction with the Senior Woman
• Communicate with coach, Senior Woman Administrator, and changes to maintain
Administrator, Office of Undergraduate Advising and Registrar
Compliance Office regarding all academic eligibility matters eligibility
• Assist in preparation of satisfactory progress waivers
• Monitor enrollment or other status changes affecting eligibility
ATTACHMENT IV-2 CONTINUING ELIGIBILITY CERTIFCATION Page | 2

ATTACHMENT IV-3
FINANCIAL AID CERTIFICATION (SAMPLE)* student-athletes for practice and
competition, and affirms
Relying upon the completed Eligibility Certification List, three University Departments are responsible for student-athletes’ meet the
completing and approving the Financial Aid Certification List and NCAA Squad List: following requirements:
STEP 1 Associate Athletic Director/SWA: Directs head coaches to review rosters for accuracy of
• Academic good standing
athletics awards prior to the beginning of each semester or term. It is the responsibility of the
• Initial eligibility qualification
head coach to provide notice of any student-athlete that should be added or removed from the
• Amateurism certification
NCAA Eligibility Center Institutional Request List (IRL) or the roster by using the appropriate roster
• Satisfactory progress
change process. This position also prepares Financial Aid Certification Lists and NCAA Squad Lists,
verifying accuracy of NCAA counter status and equivalency status, as necessary. • Full-time enrollment
• Good university standing
STEP 2 Financial Aid Office: Verifies accuracy of all financial aid amounts listed on Financial Aid
Certification List and NCAA Squad Lists. Generates and provides notification of financial aid
award cancellations or reductions to student-athletes by NCAA required deadlines.
STEP 3 Faculty Athletics Representative (FAR): Reviews the financial aid list to ensure that there are no
errors or omissions. Once the FAR has signed the Financial Aid Certification List and NCAA Squad The Financial Aid Certification List
List, all student-athletes on those lists are eligible to receive countable athletics aid (unless certifies student-athletes for receipt
otherwise noted). of countable athletics and
* This sequence assumes the institution wants the FAR to be the final certifying officer. Some institutions assign nonathletic financial aid; it and
this responsibility to the Financial Aid Office. In addition, Steps 1, 2 and 3 may vary depending on institutional affirms the following:
policies and procedures. However, broadening the financial aid certification team to include all recommended
members of the larger Rules Compliance Team enhances the institution’s exercise of NCAA required Institutional • Student-athlete’s financial aid
Control. does not exceed permissible
NCAA individual limits
• Total countable financial aid
awarded by each athletics
program does not exceed
permissible NCAA team limits
• Total number of athletics
grants-in-aid per team do not
exceed NCAA initial or total
ATTACHMENT IV-3 FINANCIAL AID CERTIFICATION Page | 1

Financial Aid Faculty Athletics Representative (FAR)

Certification Team • Promote academic integrity in intercollegiate athletics • Oversee the Financial Aid Certification Team
• Facilitate the integration of the athletics and academic components of the collegiate community • Approve final Financial Aid Certification and NCAA Squad
• Promote institutional control of athletics on campus lists
• Serve as chairperson of the institutional faculty athletics board
Associate Athletic Director/SWA

Compliance Office Financial Aid Office
• Coordinate, monitor, verify compliance with all NCAA and Conference rules and regulations • Assist Compliance Office in detailed review of all information on the Financial Aid
• Educate all constituencies of the University (e.g., coaches, administrators, faculty, student-athletes, and alumni) Certification Lists and NCAA Squad Lists
regarding compliance issues • Monitor and provide reports regarding the receipt of outside scholarships to Compliance
• Initiate, organize, coordinate, and manage financial aid certification team and process Office on a daily basis
• Maintain accurate rosters of all athletics programs and ensure that prospective student-athletes are added to • Provide various reports to Compliance Office to ensure proper monitoring for certification of
the institution’s NCAA Eligibility Center Institutional Request List financial aid eligibility
• Confirm intended athletics aid awards to student-athletes and team equivalencies with coaches • Serve as institutional leader in completion of all official letters of cancellation or reduction of
athletics financial aid awards
• Prepare Financial Aid Certification and NCAA Squad Lists for presentation and review by Financial Aid Office
• Provide all cancellation or reduction letters to student-athletes according to NCAA required
• Present Financial Aid Certification and NCAA Squad Lists reviewed and approved by Financial Aid Office to FAR deadlines
for final review and approval
• Approve Financial Aid Certification and NCAA Squad Lists verifying that student-athletes
• Retain the original completed Financial Aid Certification and NCAA Squad lists receive no countable aid in excess of permissible cost of attendance
• Provide copies of the completed Financial Aid Certification and NCAA Squad lists to Coach/Sport Administrator • Communicate with coach, appropriate sport administrator, and Compliance Office regarding
• Continue daily monitoring of enrollment or other status changes affecting eligibility for financial aid, in all academic eligibility matters
conjunction with the Office of Academic Support Services/Success Center, Registrar, and Financial Aid
• Administer NCAA Student Assistance Fund
ATTACHMENT IV-3 FINANCIAL AID CERTIFICATION Page | 2

Equity and Diversity

CONTEXT
University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UA Little Rock) and its Intercollegiate Athletics Department (Athletics) are
committed to providing an inclusive campus environment that emphasizes the dignity and worth of
every member of its community and that is free from harassment and discrimination. In this section the
Project Team examines policies and procedures that best demonstrate Athletics’ dedication to these principles,
including a recent Title IX review.
In addition to Title IX, NCAA Division I (Division I) athletics’ equity and diversity activities are usually
measured through programs and reviews, as well as federal, state and institutional requirements.
This chapter compares Athletics’ current Title IX compliance position with a hypothetical June 1, 2018, timeline
for possible introduction of Division I scholarship Football. The impact of the planned addition of Men’s Wrestling
(Wrestling) is also considered.
Note: Both football scenarios also include the University’s plans to increase scholarship allocations for
Women’s Swimming and Diving (Women’s Swimming) along with Women’s Track and Cross Country (Women’s
Track).
Division I Football Championship Subdivision football (FCS): A Division I institution can
begin FCS membership by formally notifying the NCAA of its plans to include football as one of
its required 14 Division I sports during the summer prior to the first year of FCS Football
competition; for example, June 2018.
Division I Football Bowl Subdivision football (FBS): Reclassification requires 16 sports and a
two-year transition period. Hypothetically, UA Little Rock would achieve full FBS membership
effective Academic Year 2020-21.
TITLE IX AND DIVERSITY PLANNING

Title IX – Gender Equity: Title IX is a Federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in
education programs and activities. Further, discrimination based on sex, race, color, creed, national origin,
ancestry, citizenship, gender, gender identification, transgender, sexual orientation, religion, age, disability,
genetic information, and veteran status is prohibited.
• As mandated by the University of Arkansas System, the UA Little Rock Title IX Committee (Committee)
was established in 2014. The Committee was charged with designating a Title IX Coordinator and
developing a University Title IX Policy for the education and training of the campus community, as well
as the investigation and adjudication of alleged violations.
• The Committee is chaired by the Associate Vice Chancellor for University Advancement and includes
representatives from academic units (faculty), Campus Police, Human Resources, Athletics, students,
student-athletes and select University staff. Originally, Athletics’ Senior Woman Administrator (SWA) was
EQUITY AND DIVERSITY Page | V-44

the Senior Associate Athletic Director for Compliance and Student Support assumed that role on the
Committee.
• Athletics has provided the Committee with periodic reports on its compliance with the Accommodation
of Interests and Abilities and the other twelve components of Title IX. However, the Committee has not
been actively engaged in evaluating Athletics’ compliance status or developing any plans for
improvement.
Title IX – Harassment and Sexual Misconduct: The University is committed to the fair and equal treatment of all
students, faculty, and staff. UA Little Rock’s Office of Title IX, along with its Title IX Coordinator, administers policies,
procedures and education related to campus discrimination, harassment and sexual misconduct.
• The University Office of Title IX, under the leadership of its Title IX Coordinator, is designated with the
primary responsibility for coordinating the University’s compliance with Title IX. This includes providing
leadership for Title IX activities; providing consultation, education, and training; and helping to ensure
the University responds appropriately, effectively, and equitably to Title IX issues.
• The Title IX Coordinator is assigned three Title IX Deputy Coordinators to assist with Title IX compliance.
Athletics’ SWA is one of the Title IX Deputy Coordinators and is an integral part of assessing, maintaining,
and providing resources for Title IX compliance.
Diversity and Inclusion: UA Little Rock endeavors to improve diversity, inclusion, equality, and global
understanding within the campus community.
• The Office of the Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost (Provost) oversees programming and services to
meet the needs of a diverse student population. All University students have access to educational,
employment, residential, and/or social opportunities.
• The Provost recently reestablished the Diversity Council (Council) which promotes the UA Little Rock
Mission focused on “building a positive and welcoming culture for everyone who comes to campus-
whether they work, live, or learn here”.
• Athletics’ SWA was recently appointed to the Council, ensuring the structured integration of Athletics’
and University diversity and inclusion initiatives.
RECOMMENDATIONS ______________________________________________________________________
1. The Title IX Committee should establish Athletics’ Title IX compliance as a standard meeting agenda item.
The Committee’s charge should include assisting the University in evaluating and monitoring Athletics’
Title IX compliance. The Committee should meet at least twice a year (fall and spring semesters).
2. UA Little Rock Athletics should strategically incorporate the University’s Diversity Plan goals into Athletics’
policies and procedures.

C. TITLE IX – GENDER EQUITY

The following is a summary analysis of UA Little Rock Athletics' current compliance with Title IX. The methodology
is as follows:
• A review of the thirteen Components of Title IX compliance
• An in-depth analysis of two of the thirteen Components: Effective Accommodation of Student Interests
and Abilities, and Athletic Financial Assistance
• Baseline data using Athletics' AY 2016-17 policies, procedures and data
D. EFFECTIVE ACCOMMODATION OF STUDENT INTERESTS AND ABILITIES

Compliance with the Effective Accommodation of Interests and Abilities section of Title IX is assessed in any one
of three “tests": Test 1 (Proportionality), Test 2 (History and Continuing Practice of Program Expansion) and Test 3
(Effective Accommodation of Interest and Abilities).
Test 1 (Proportionality)
“Whether intercollegiate level participation opportunities for male and female students are provided
in numbers substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments (proportionality).”

TABLE 1
NCAA Division I Without-Football
MEASUREMENT STUDENTS PERCENTAGE
Full-time Undergraduate Male Students (Fall 2016) 1,890 42.6%
Full-time Undergraduate Female Students (Fall 2016) 2,551 57.4%
Total 4,441 100%
Male Student-Athlete Participants (2016-2017) 110 44%
Female Student-Athlete Participants (2016-2017) 140 56%
Total 250 100%
TEST 1 COMPLIANCE STATUS
UA Little Rock is compliant with Test 1 (Proportionality). There is substantial proportionality between the rates
of participation of male and female student-athletes and the enrollment rates of male and female students.

• In AY 2016-17 there was a -1.4 % difference favoring the men between the participation rates of male and
female student-athletes and the enrollment rates of the student body. This disparity represents
approximately 8 participation opportunities and is not significant.
• Arguably, UA Little Rock provides intercollegiate-level participation opportunities for male and female
student-athletes in numbers substantially proportionate to the enrollment of male and female students.
Note: as described on page 3 UA Little Rock does not comply with Test 2 (History and Continuing Practice of Program
Expansion) or Test 3 (Accommodation of Interest and Abilities) with current sport offerings.
With NCAA Division I FCS Football
As a hypothetical consideration for the addition of Football at the FCS level, as well as Wrestling,
UA Little Rock would allow at least the Division I national averages of 105 Football and 33
Wrestling student-athletes. As calculated below, the increase of 105 male Football student-
athletes would result in a difference of 21.3% (approximately 192 participation opportunities)
favoring men. This variance is not acceptable within Title IX standards, and establishes the
argument for increasing women’s participation opportunities, if UA Little Rock adds
Football.

TABLE 2
NCAA Division I FCS
MEASUREMENT STUDENTS STUDENT PERCENTAGE
Total 4,441 100%
Male Student-Athlete Participants (FCS) 248 63.9%
Female Student-Athlete Participants 140 36.1%
Total 388 100%
With NCAA Division I FBS Football
At the FBS level, it is assumed that UA Little Rock would have at least the national averages of 120
Football and 33 Wrestling student-athletes resulting in a difference of 22.7% (215 participation
opportunities) favoring men. This difference is not acceptable within Title IX standards and
establishes the argument for increasing women’s participation opportunities, if UA Little Rock
adds Football.


TABLE 3
NCAA Division I FBS
STUDENT
MEASUREMENT STUDENTS
PERCENTAGE
Total 4,441 100%
Male Student-Athlete Participants (FBS) 263 65.3%
Total 403 100%
RECOMMENDATIONS/COMMENTS___________________________________________________________
1. AY 2016-17 data shows that UA Little Rock complies with Test 1 (Proportionality) of the Accommodation
of Interest and Abilities component of Title IX.
2. UA Little Rock does not comply with Test 2 (History and Continuing Practice of Program Expansion), or
Test 3 (Effective Accommodation of Interest and Abilities) with current sport offerings.
3. If UA Little Rock adds FCS or FBS football, compliance with Test 1 will be diminished; greater
consideration must be given to meeting the requirements for Test 2 and Test 3 (Effective Accommodation
of Interest and Abilities). See analysis on following pages.
Test 2 (History and Continuing Practice of Program Expansion)

“Where the members of one sex have been and are underrepresented among intercollegiate athletes,
whether the institution can show a history and continuing practice of program expansion which is
demonstrably responsive to the developing interests and abilities of the members of that sex;”
NCAA Division I Without-Football or With Football
UA Little Rock does not comply with Test 2 (History and Continuing Practice of Program Expansion)
standards/requirements for the Accommodation of Interest and Abilities: History and Continuing Practice
of program expansion for women.
• UA Little Rock began intercollegiate competition for women’s teams (Basketball, Swimming, Tennis, and
Volleyball) in 1970, and continued to add varsity teams for women until 1999 (Women’s Basketball), which
proves a history of expanding women’s programs. However, Women’s Tennis was eliminated in 2016, and
the last sport added for women was 19 years ago. The Office of Civil Rights (OCR) considers Test 2
noncompliant if there have been more than four years since the last women’s sport was added. It is also

difficult to claim compliance if a sport, or sports, for women has been eliminated during the history of
Athletics’ sponsorship.
• The elimination of Women’s Tennis and the last sport-addition for women being twenty-five years ago
does not allow UA Little Rock to comply with Test 2.
Test 3 (Effective Accommodation of Interest and Abilities)

“Where the members of one sex are underrepresented among intercollegiate athletes and the
institution cannot show a continuing practice of program expansion such as that cited above, whether it
can be demonstrated that the interests and abilities of the members of that sex have been fully and
effectively accommodated by the present program.”
NCAA Division I Without-Football or With Football
In making a determination if the interests and abilities of the members of the underrepresented sex have been
fully and effectively accommodated by the present program, three factors are considered. If all three factors are
met, a varsity team must be added, or noncompliance results. These factors are:
• Unmet interest in a particular sport;
• Sufficient ability to sustain a team in the sport; and,
• A reasonable expectation of competition for the team.
It would be difficult to argue that UA Little Rock complies with Test 3 (Effective Accommodation of Interest and
Abilities) since two regional prominent women’s sports (tennis and softball) meet all three factors. Likewise,
acrobatics/tumbling, bowling, beach volleyball, and lacrosse also meet the first two factors.
• UA Little Rock does not conduct interest surveys and does not have a traditional club-sport program
which would assist in determining interest in a particular sport(s) for women.
• The sports that met all three factors (tennis and softball) are popular sports for women at the
intercollegiate and interscholastic levels.
RECOMMENDATIONS/COMMENTS___________________________________________________________
1. Due to the emergence or growth of a number of women’s sports (acrobatics & tumbling, beach volleyball,
and lacrosse), along with the elimination of Women’s Tennis, and not offering Softball, UA Little Rock
should conduct an interest survey. The survey should be administered annually to University freshman
and transfer classes. The survey would assist in monitoring the interest of enrolled students in particular
sport(s) for women’s teams.
2. Since UA Little Rock complies with Test 1 (Proportionality) at this time, Test 3 (Effective Accommodation
of Interest and Abilities) is not considered. However, if Football is added, the University would no longer
comply with Test 1 and would need to increase women’s sports participation opportunities. Test 3
findings should be considered when determining the addition of women’s sports.

E. ATHLETIC FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

The percentage of financial assistance (scholarships) provided to women student-athletes should be within 1% of
the total female participation rate, using a non-duplicated count. The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) takes the
position that a difference in excess of 1% must be justified by nondiscriminatory reasons. Summer School and
“Bridge Program” financial aid is also considered under this section. However, per OCR procedures, it is not
included in the calculation below. The only criterion for compliance in this area is that access to Summer School
and “Bridge Program” athletic financial assistance is equal.
Again, using AY 2016-17 data, Table 4 provides a detailed UA Little Rock Athletics Financial Assistance Analysis.
Note: Financial aid data reflects UA Little Rock’s NCAA Division I Squad Lists.

TABLE 4
Title IX Financial Assistance Analysis (AY 2016-17)
MEN MEN WOMEN WOMEN
SPORT
ASSISTANCE PARTICIPANTS ASSISTANCE PARTICIPANTS
Baseball $391,827.11 35 NA NA
Basketball $399,059.50 17 $520,527.00 15
Golf $112,486.70 10 $184,627.00 8
Soccer NA NA $434,097.80 29
Swimming/Diving NA NA $375,478.00 27
Track/Cross Country $381,858.56 21 $457,520.52 20
Volleyball NA NA $321,912.25 13
TOTALS $1,285,231.87 83 $2,294,162.57 112
F. ATHLETIC FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE COMPLIANCE STATUS
UA Little Rock does not comply with the Financial Assistance component of Title IX. In AY 2016-17 men
represented 42.6% of the participants and received 35.9% of the available scholarships, while women represented
57.5% of the participants and received 64.1% of the available scholarships. This resulted in a 6.6 % difference
favoring women and is not within the 1% allowable by OCR. However, the following explanation for the
difference in excess of 1% is based on nondiscriminatory reasons and it can be asserted that UA Little Rock
does not discriminate against men when awarding athletic financial assistance.
• A difference above the 1% allowed is permissible if it is based on nondiscriminatory reasons. UA Little

Rock provides the maximum number of full scholarships allowed by Division I Financial Aid standards to
its men’s and women’s teams, except Men’s and Women’s Cross Country and Track, and Women’s
Swimming. Note: Athletics has developed a plan to fully fund scholarships for Women’s Cross Country and
Track and Women’s Swimming.
• In AY 2016-17 men’s teams were awarded 40.21 (96.2%) of the 41.8 scholarships available and allowed
under Division I Financial Aid maximums, and women’s teams were awarded 55.54 (70.3%) of 79. The

percentage of aid awarded to men’s and women’s teams favors the men, which indicates
nondiscriminatory distribution of athletic financial assistance.
• As established in Division I financial aid standards, for the sports sponsored by UA Little Rock Athletics
there are 23 additional scholarships available to its women’s teams. Additionally, UA Little Rock awarded
more out-of-state scholarships for women (87) than men (56). It can be asserted that the reasons for the
6.6% difference are nondiscriminatory and based on NCAA Financial Aid rules.
• While Summer School athletic aid is not a part of the above comparison, UA Little Rock’s male and female
student-athletes have had equivalent opportunities to receive Summer School financial aid.
With NCAA Division I FCS Football
The possibility of FCS Football coupled with the recent addition of Wrestling and well as
increased scholarships for Women’s Swimming and Women’s Track, would create a disparity of
approximately 7.8% favoring women, or 6.8% above the 1% difference allowable by OCR.
However, if this variation does not discriminate against male participants, UA Little Rock
could comply with the Financial Assistance component.
Table 5 illustrates the impact that the addition of two men’s teams and increasing scholarships for two women’s
teams would have on compliance with the Title IX Financial Assistance component.

TABLE 5
NCAA Division I FCS Financial Assistance Analysis*
MEN MEN NUMBER OF WOMEN WOMEN NUMBER OF
SPORT
ASSISTANCE PARTICIPANTS SCHOLARSHIPS ASSISTANCE PARTICIPANTS SCHOLARSHIPS
Baseball $391,827 35 11.7 NA NA NA
Basketball $399,059 17 13 $520,527 15 15
Football $1,801,170 105 63 NA NA NA
Golf $112,486 10 4.5 $184,627 8 6
Soccer NA NA $434,097 29 14
Swimming NA NA NA $400,260 27 14
Track/Cross
$381,858 21 12.6 $514,620 20 18
Country
Volleyball NA NA NA $321,912 13 12
Wrestling $283,041 33 9.9 NA NA NA
TOTALS $3,369,441 221 114.7 $2,376,043 112 79

*Financial Assistance (scholarship) calculations for Football, Wrestling, Women’s Swimming, and Women’s Track
assume an Academic Year 2016-2017 average of $28,590; in-state ($20,742) and out-of-state ($36,440). Academic
Year 2016-2017 actual expenses are presented for remaining sports.

Table 6 calculates the requirements (financial and participation) for compliance with the Financial Assistance
component for UA Little Rock with FCS Football and Wrestling.

TABLE 6
NCAA Division I FCS Financial Assistance Analysis
MEASUREMENT PARTICIPANTS PARTICPANT PERCENTAGE
Male Student-Athlete Participants 221 66.4%
Total 333 100%
MEASUREMENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PERCENTAGE OF FINANCIAL AID
Men – Total Financial Assistance Awarded $3,369,441 58.6%
Women – Total Financial Assistance Awarded $2,376,043 41.4% (7.8% difference)
Total $5,745,484 100%
With NCAA Division I FBS Football
The addition of FBS Football and the planned implementation of Wrestling, as well as increased
scholarships for Women’s Swimming and Women’s Track, would create a disparity of
approximately 5.2% favoring women, or 4.2% above the 1% difference allowable by OCR.
However, if this variation does not discriminate against male participants, UA Little Rock
could comply with the Financial Assistance component.
Table 7 illustrates the impact that the addition of two men’s teams and increasing the number
of scholarships for two women’s teams would have on compliance with the Title IX Financial Assistance
Component.

TABLE 7
NCAA Division I FBS Financial Assistance Analysis*
SPORT
Baseball $391,827 35 11.7 NA NA NA
Basketball $399,059 17 13 $520,527 15 15
Football $2,430,150 120 85 NA NA NA
Golf $112,486 10 4.5 $184,627 8 6
Soccer NA NA $434,097 29 14
Swimming NA NA NA $400,260 27 14


TABLE 7
NCAA Division I FBS Financial Assistance Analysis*
SPORT
Track/Cross
$381,858 21 12.6 $514,620 20 18
Country
Volleyball NA NA NA $321,912 13 12
Wrestling $283,041 33 9.9 NA NA NA
TOTALS $3,998,421 236 136.7 $2,376,043 112 79
*Financial Assistance (scholarship) calculations for Football, Wrestling, Women’s Swimming, and Women’s Track assume an Academic Year 2016-17
average of $28,590; in-state ($20,742) and out-of-state ($36,440). Academic Year 2016-17 actual expenses are presented for remaining sports.
Table 8 calculates the requirements (financial and participation) for compliance with the Financial Assistance
component for UA Little Rock with FBS Football and Wrestling.

TABLE 8
NCAA Division I FBS Financial Assistance Analysis
MEASUREMENT PARTICIPANTS PARTICIPANT PERCENTAGE
Male Student-Athlete Participants 236 67.4%
Total 348 100%
MEASUREMENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PERCENTAGE OF FINANCIAL AID
Men – Total Financial Assistance Awarded $3,998,421 58.6%
Women – Total Financial Assistance Awarded $2,376,043 37.3% (5.2% difference)

Total $6,374,464 100%
G. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND THE EQUIVALENCE STANDARD

Application of the remaining Components of Title IX, or Treatment, is not required, provided the overall effect of
any difference does not have an impact on one sex; institutions must provide equal athletic opportunities for
members of both sexes. Equality of opportunity is assessed by comparing the availability, quality, and kinds of
benefits, as well as opportunities and treatment of both sexes under each factor, or Component. If the
Components are found to be equivalent, then the institution will be in compliance. Equivalence means equal or
equal in effect; not necessarily identical benefits, budgets, opportunities, impact on one sex.

The remaining eleven Components are:
1. The Provision of Equipment and Supplies

1. Scheduling of Games and Practice Times
2. Travel and Per Diem Allowances
3. Opportunity to Receive Coaching and the Assignment and Compensation of Coaches
4. Opportunity to Receive Tutoring and the Assignment and Compensation of Tutors
5. Provision of Locker Rooms, Practice and Competitive Facilities
6. Provision of Medical and Training Facilities and Services
7. Provision of Housing and Dining Facilities and Services
8. Publicity
9. Recruitment of Student-Athletes
10. Support Services
Overall, the support services and funding of all eleven components appear to be equivalent. However, the
inclusion of FCS or FBS football would highlight the need for additional staff and funding for critical student-
athlete support services and sports operations.
While there were no Title IX compliance issues identified in this Title IX Assessment, there are several best practices
that will assist the University in improving its methods for maintaining compliance/equivalency in the treatment
of, and support for, male and female student-athletes.
1. Equipment and Supplies: The equipment and supplies provided to male and female participants is
equivalent. However, the absence of a centralized equipment operations unit does not allow for the
efficient, control of equipment purchasing, distribution, inventory, and storage.
RECOMMENDATION________________________________________________________________
Athletics’ should establish a centralized equipment-operations unit with certified personnel, risk
management, and formal policies and procedures.
2. Scheduling of Games and Practice Times: The scheduling of games and practice times is equivalent.
However, policies for funding and scheduling foreign-tour and nontraditional-season competition have
not been established.
RECOMMENDATION________________________________________________________________
To ensure equivalent opportunities for foreign-tour and nontraditional-season competition, Athletics’

should develop consistent policies and procedures for scheduling and funding team travel for both.
3. Travel and Per Diem Allowances: The provision of travel and per diem allowances is equivalent.
RECOMMENDATION________________________________________________________________
Athletics’ should review travel budgets for all men’s and women’s teams. Emphasis should be given to
ensuring equal opportunities for team travel, lodging and meals, traditional and nontraditional
competition, airline charters, and foreign-tour competition.

4. Opportunity to Receive Coaching and the Assignment and Compensation of Coaches: This provision
is equivalent.
5. Opportunity to Receive Tutoring and the Assignment and Compensation of Tutors: This opportunity
is equivalent.
6. Provision of Locker Rooms, Practice and Competitive Facilities: This provision is equivalent.
RECOMMENDATION________________________________________________________________
Athletics should review the assignment of locker rooms for men’s and women’s teams, other than Men’s
and Women’s Basketball. Attention should be given to the exclusive use and access to locker rooms, the
quality of locker rooms, and the absence of locker rooms for several teams.
7. Provision of Medical and Training Facilities and Services: This provision is equivalent.
8. Provision of Housing and Dining Facilities and Services: This provision is equivalent.
9. Publicity (Sports Information and Marketing and Promotions): This provision is equivalent.
10. Recruitment of Student-Athletes: This provision is equivalent.
11. Support Services (Administrative Organization, Clerical Support, and Office Equipment and
Location: This provision is equivalent.
H. SUMMARY
The following outlines the basic requirements for UA Little Rock’s current Athletics offerings including Wrestling
and the possible addition of Football.
1. INTEREST AND ABILITIES – UA Little Rock was found to be in compliance with Test 1 – Proportionality,
but did not meet the requirements for Test 2 – History and Continuing Practice of Program Expansion,
or Test 3 – Effective Accommodation of Interests and Abilities.
a. Test 1 - Proportionality: The assessment compared the undergraduate enrollment rates to the
athletic participation rates and found that there was a difference of 1.4% (8 participation
opportunities) between the female enrollment rate and female participation rate. UA Little Rock
should implement this Study’s recommended Roster Management Plan (RMP) to assist in
maintaining compliance with Test 1. In addition, if UA Little Rock adds Football, implementation
of the RMP and consideration of new sports for women is a requisite.
b. Test 2 - History and Continuing Practice of Program Expansion: Since Women’s Tennis was
eliminated, and the last sport-addition for women was twenty-five years ago, UA Little Rock
would not comply with Test 2.
If UA Little Rock adds Football, Test 2 compliance would be possible by; 1) reinstating Women’s
Tennis; and, 2) a clear, dated plan to add a sport for women is developed and implemented.
Based on several factors related to sports sponsorship within UA Little Rock’s competitive and
recruiting regions, most notably regional prominence, adding Softball is a possibility.

c. Test 3 - Effective Accommodation of Interest and Abilities: This Assessment determined that
Test UA Little Rock does not comply with Test 3; several women’s sports that meet all three
factors used in determining unmet interest have been identified.
However, if Football is added, and subsequently Test 1 (Proportionality) compliance is not

maintained, UA Little Rock should develop and implement Interest Surveys for female
undergraduate students. The Interest Surveys should be distributed to all first-year students
(freshman, two-and four-year transfers). Along with close monitoring of the Test 3 requirements,
the survey results will assist in determining potential women’s sport(s).
2. ATHLETIC FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE – UA Little Rock should continue to work toward providing the
maximum number of NCAA allowable scholarships to each of the current and future men’s and women’s
teams. If each team awards the maximum number of scholarships, compliance with the Title IX Financial
Component can be assumed even if there is a discrepancy above the 1% allowed by OCR.
3. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND THE EQUIVALENCE STANDARD (“LAUNDRY LIST”) – A specific plan
should be implemented to address the Laundry List identified in this Study, prior to a decision on Division
I Football.

NCAA Division I Legislation

with FCS and FBS Football
INTRODUCTION
This section presents important NCAA legislation and applicable requirements regarding sponsorship of NCAA
Division I athletics, as well as both Football Championship Subdivision Football (FCS) and Football Bowl
Subdivision Football (FBS).
2017-18 NCAA Division
SPONSORSHIP OF NCAA DIVISION I FOOTBALL Membership:
For any current NCAA Division I non-football sponsoring member • 351 full members
considering potential future addition of either NCAA Division I FCS or • 129 FBS
FBS football, it is crucial to understand the distinct nature of the sport • 126 FCS
of football at the NCAA Division I level. • 96 Without - Football
The Evolution of Division I Football
In 1973, the NCAA membership divided itself into Divisions I, II and III.
Division I required its members to commit to a high level of competitive
excellence with commensurate funding and investment of other FCS and FBS Scheduling
resources. Five years later, the Division I membership divided its • Effective with the 2016 football
football institutions into two sub-classifications, Division I-A and season, the Big Ten, Big XII, and
Division I-AA. In 2007, the NCAA renamed subdivision I-A the Football PAC-12 football have established
Bowl Subdivision: (FBS), and subdivision I-AA the Football nine game football scheduling; the
ACC and the SEC are the only
Championship Subdivision (FCS).
remaining Power Five Conferences
The major distinctions between the two subdivisions are summarized with eight-game schedules.
on the following pages. Institutions competing in the thirteen FCS
conferences are listed in UALR Attachment VI-1 2018-19 NCAA Division I • Opportunities for FCS schools to
appear on FBS schedules may
FCS Membership, while FBS members are listed in UALR Attachment VI-2
further erode if the ACC and SEC join
2018-19 NCAA Division I FBS Membership. the other Power Five Conferences by
implementing nine game
Developments Affecting FCS and FBS conference schedules.
In 2005, the NCAA drafted legislation that would lead to the
• Power Five members emphasizing
enhancement of FCS. One of the resulting rule changes allowed FBS “strength of schedule”, further
programs to use one win each year against an FCS opponent to count limiting scheduling opportunities
towards FBS bowl eligibility, provided the FCS opponent has averaged for FCS and other FBS institutions.
ninety percent of the permissible maximum grants-in-aid per year in
FCS football over a rolling two-year period. Further, it allowed the use
of one game each year against an FCS opponent to satisfy the five
home-game scheduling requirement for FBS membership. These
changes have enabled some FCS programs to gain lucrative away-
game contracts versus FBS teams.
NCAA DIVISION I LEGISLATION - FCS & FBS FOOTBALL Page | VI-58

FCS POSTSEASON, FBS BOWL SYSTEM AND REVENUE DISTRIBUTION
Division I Football Championship
FCS Postseason play consists of the 24-team Division I Football Championship. All rounds in
the Division I Football Championship Series are held at on-campus sites, with the exception
of the Championship Game, which is played at a pre-selected neutral site.
FCS Football Conferences with Automatic Qualification
The championship teams from the following ten FCS conferences receive automatic qualification to the Division I
Football Championship:
• Big Sky Conference • Big South Conference

• Colonial Athletic Association • Missouri Valley Football Conference
• Northeast Conference • Ohio Valley Conference
• Patriot League • Pioneer Football League
• Southern Conference • Southland Conference
At-Large Selections
The remaining fourteen participants are selected at-large by the Division I Football Championship Committee.
Note: As presented above, the two teams that advance to the Division I Football Championship Game play an additional
four or five games beyond their regular season, depending on seeding.
The FBS Bowl System, College Football Playoff, and Revenue Distribution
Postseason play in FBS consists of a prolific network of Bowl Games, highlighted by the College Football Playoff
(CFP), which is controlled and managed by the conferences rather than the NCAA.
POSTSEASON PLAY AND FBS BOWL ELIGIBILITY
• An FBS football team must win a minimum of six games against Division I FBS competition to be eligible
for post-season play.
• A team that is below .500 is eligible to play in bowl games provided the team is a member of a conference
that has an existing contractual affiliation with the sponsoring bowl organization or meets other
particular NCAA waiver criteria.
• An exception allows an FBS institution to count one victory against an FCS opponent to reach the
minimum victory threshold, provided the FCS opponent has averaged ninety percent of the permissible
maximum number of grants-in-aid per year in FCS football over a rolling two-year period.

The College FOOTBALL PLayoff and Revenue Distribution
The College Football Playoff (CFP), controlled and managed by the conferences rather than the
NCAA, the College Football Playoff will determine the FBS National Champion through at least the
2025-2026 season.
CFP Playoff Format
The CFP is a four-team playoff designed to produce an FBS National Champion. A selection committee chooses
the four teams based on their performance during the regular season, including strength of schedule, head-to-
head results, championships won, and other factors. This CFP structure rotates national semifinal games among
six bowl games on or around New Year’s Day.
CFP Locations and Bowl Agreements
The National Championship Game will be rotated among neutral sites

every year, and will be played on a Monday, at least six days after the last
semifinal game. The Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl featured semifinal games
in 2017-2018. In subsequent years, the semifinals will rotate among a
group of six bowls, consisting of the Sugar Bowl, Rose Bowl, Orange Bowl,
Cotton Bowl, Chick-fil-A Bowl, and Fiesta Bowl.
Revenue Distribution
Under terms of a twelve-year rights agreement with ESPN, the ten FBS Conferences will earn an approximate
average of $470 million annually. In 2014-2015, the CFP’s first year, total actual revenue was less than $400 million,
but in the CFP’s final year (2025-2026), revenues are expected to exceed $600 million.
Conference and Membership Distribution
• The Power Five Conferences: Atlantic Coast (ACC), Big 12, Big Ten, Pacific 12 (Pac-12), and Southeastern
(SEC), realize the greatest gains, sharing approximately 71.5% of the revenue annually.
• “Group of Five” Conferences: The American Athletic (The American), Conference USA (C-USA), Mid-
American (MAC), Mountain West (MW), and Sun Belt share 27% of the revenue. The University of Notre
Dame receives slightly less than 1% of the annual revenue, with the remaining FBS independent
institutions sharing 0.5%.
Academic Performance Pool
In 2017-2018, each conference received $300,000 for each of its member institutions football teams that met
NCAA APR thresholds for participation in postseason games. Each FBS independent institution that met the APR
standard also received $300,000.
FBS Conference Base Revenue Distribution
• The 10 FBS conferences: A base amount of CFP revenue is distributed among conference members at
the discretion of each conference. In 2017-2018, the base distribution amount for the ACC, Big 12, Big

Ten, Pac-12, and SEC was approximately $54 million per conference, inclusive of the potential full
Academic Performance Pool.
• “Group of Five” Conferences: Conference winners who do not have contracts for their champions to
participate in the Orange, Rose, or Sugar Bowls received approximately $81.32 million in an aggregate
base amount, inclusive of the full Academic Performance Pool. The “Group of Five” distributes this
aggregate revenue according to each conference’s respective formula. The University of Notre Dame
received a base amount of $2.65 million, including the Academic Performance Pool. The other three
independents shared $928,503.
• Revenue Distribution to CFP and Non-Playoff Bowl Participants
• CFP and Non-Playoff Bowls: Participants receive additional distributions from the overall CFP revenue.
In 2017-2018, conferences received $6 million for each team selected to participate in the CFP semifinal
games.
• CFP National Championship Game: There is no additional distribution for participants in the national
championship game.
o Conferences received an additional $4 million for teams participating in the non-playoff “New
Year’s Six” bowls (Chick-fil-A Bowl, Cotton Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, Peach Bowl, Rose Bowl, and Sugar
Bowl).
o Each conference whose team participated in a CFP semifinal, Chick-fil-A Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, Rose
Bowl, Sugar Bowl, or national championship game also received $2.25 million to cover expenses
for each game.
Revenue Distribution to FCS Institutions
• Similar to the prior BCS arrangement, although none of its teams are eligible to participate in
the College Football Playoff, in 2015-2016 select FCS conferences also received $2.34 million
in aggregate.
• Only FCS conferences providing the full NCAA-allowable complement of 63 scholarships are included in
the payout: Big Sky, Big South, Colonial, Mid-Eastern, Missouri Valley Football, Ohio Valley, Southern,
Southland, and Southwestern Athletic.
Note: Although the total amount of revenue involved has increased substantially with the launch of the CFP, the revenue
distribution computations illustrate an ever-growing revenue gap between the Power Five Conferences and the
remaining FBS schools. This revenue disparity establishes an even greater competitive separation among FBS
institutions.
NCAA Division I Autonomy and Council legislation
In addition to revenue disparity created by the College Football Playoff, restructuring of the NCAA Division I
Governance structure has altered the legislative process and increased the power disparity within Division I. The
financial implications of this practice are challenging for most current, as well as prospective, FCS and FBS
institutions. The Power Five Conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big XII, Pac-12, and SEC) now have the ability to sponsor

and vote on Autonomy legislation in specific legislative areas. Other Division I Conferences and institutions may
choose to apply adopted Autonomy legislation (permissive legislation) at their discretion.
For example, 2015 autonomy legislation redefined cost of a full scholarship to include “cost of attendance.” The
price of those calculations differs by institution, while having a substantial impact on athletic department budgets.
Further, the remaining proposed legislation is adopted through a council legislation process in which the Power
Five Conferences also hold additional power. For Division I Council legislative proposals, the Power Five holds
37.5% of the total voting power. The five other FBS conferences have 18.5% of the voting power. FCS institutions
and non-football schools share 37.5% of the voting power, with faculty and student-athlete representatives
sharing the remaining 6.5%
The result of this new governance structure is that, although every member of Division I may adopt Autonomy
legislation to “play by the same rules,” doing so could create significant financial hardship for some members of
Division I, while failing to adopt the legislation may simply widen the competitive gap.
SPONSORSHIP OF NCAA DIVISION I FOOTBALL – FCS AND FBS REQUIREMENTS

There is no material difference between what is required of all Division I institutions and standards for FCS
membership, except that FCS institutions must use football as one of their required 14 sports. The minimum
membership requirements for all Division I institutions, regardless of football classification, are outlined in Table 1.
UA Little Rock Athletics

TABLE 1
Summary: NCAA Division I Classification Requirements
FOOTBALL UALR ATHLETICS
SUBDIVISION NCAA REQUIREMENTS CURRENT POSITION
Required minimum number of contests or dates of Standard met

competition (applicable to all Division I classifications).
Required minimum number of participating student-athletes Standard met
in each sport (applicable to all Division I classifications).
Institution must sponsor at least 14 sports and award financial Standard met:
NCAA aid totaling either: 14 sports sponsored.
Division I 1. Minimum of 50% total grants allowed cumulatively in 86.83% of total grants
those sports. awarded across all 14 sports.
2. Minimum total expenditure of $1,555,808 in 2017-18 Total expenditure in 2017-18
(at least $777,904 in women’s sports), exclusive of of $2,741,307.81, exclusive of
grants in football and men’s and women’s basketball, men’s and women’s basketball
provided the value equals a minimum 38 full grants
(at least 19 full grants for women).


TABLE 1
Summary: NCAA Division I Classification Requirements
SUBDIVISION NCAA REQUIREMENTS CURRENT POSITION
3. Minimum equivalent of 50 full grants (with at least 25 Males, exclusive of basketball:

full grants in women’s sports), exclusive of grants in Equivalent of 25.18 full grants,
football and men’s and women’s basketball. totaling $1,351,446.94
Females, exclusive of
basketball: Equivalent of 56.18
full grants, totaling
$1,901,937.87
Other than potential scheduling considerations and specifics of sport sponsorship, FCS requirements are
consistent with standard NCAA Division I membership requirements outlined in Table 1. Table 2 on the following
page, provides a general description of important FCS considerations.

TABLE 2
Summary: NCAA Division I FCS Classification Requirements and Standards
NCAA REQUIREMENTS
SUBDIVISION CURRENT POSITION
FCS Scholarship Football: No national minimum for football Standard not met:
scholarships, but a maximum value of 63 scholarships awarded
to an annual limit of 85 counters.*
FCS Non-Scholarship Football: No athletic scholarships Standard met:
awarded.
Division I
No standards regarding game attendance or number of Standard not met:
FCS
scheduled home games, but must schedule and play more than
fifty percent of its football games against FBS or FCS members.
Number of Football Coaches: Each institution may employ a Standard not met:
maximum of 11 coaches, including any combination of head
coach, assistant, and graduate assistant coaches.
*Note: These numbers are important because FCS Football institutions that award an average of 90 percent of the permissible
maximum number of 63 scholarships per year to their football team over a rolling two-year period are more attractive for scheduling
away “guarantee games” versus Division I FBS opponents. Those teams meeting these scholarship requirements fulfill both FBS home
scheduling and bowl eligibility requirements for Division I FBS opponents.

In contrast, FBS football institutions must meet higher classification standards in three categories: level of
competition in football, resource allocation, and required show of public support (demonstrated by home game
attendance).

TABLE 3
Summary: NCAA Division I FBS Classification Requirements and Standards
SUBDIVISION
NCAA REQUIREMENTS CURRENT POSITION
Institution must sponsor at least 16 sports and award Standard not met:
a minimum of 200 athletics scholarships, or expend at 16 sponsored sports
least $4,000,000 on scholarships to student-athletes in
athletics programs. In 2017-2018, the institution only
awarded 163 athletics scholarships,
totaling $3,792,408.81
Minimum of 76.5 football scholarships over a rolling Standard not met:
two-year period, with a maximum of 85 in any one
year.
Division I FBS
Minimum annual average actual or paid game Standard not met:
attendance of 15,000 once every two years on a
rolling basis; at least 60% of scheduled games must be
against FBS teams; minimum of five home games
versus FBS.
Number of Football Coaches: Each institution is Standard not met:
limited to the employment of one head coach, ten
assistant coaches, and four graduate assistant
coaches.
Applications for Division I FCS Football
The process for an NCAA Division I non-football member institution to add FCS Football is uncomplicated:
• During the summer prior to the first year that the institution plays its first FCS Football schedule, the
institution must indicate on its annual NCAA sports sponsorship form that it intends to sponsor FCS
Football.
• The institution must comply with the scheduling requirements of NCAA Bylaws 20.9.4.3 and 20.9.8.2,
which state that the institution must schedule and play a minimum of 9 football contests and that 50%
of its total contests must be played against Division I FBS or FCS Football institutions.
• During the first year in which the institution satisfies this scheduling requirement, it is eligible to compete
for the Division I Football Championship.

• An FCS Football team is generally permitted to play a maximum of 11 regular season contests. However,
12 regular season games are permitted in years in which there are 14 regular-season Saturdays between
the first permissible playing date through the last playing date in November (e.g., 2019, 2024, and 2025).
Application for Division I FBS Football
Unlike FCS, where an institution must simply notify the NCAA of its sponsorship of FCS Football, an institution
wishing to transition from FCS to FBS must petition the NCAA for approval of this request. 14 Once the NCAA
receives written notice of an FCS institution’s intent to reclassify to FBS, the institution becomes ineligible to
participate in the Division I Football Championship. 15
General requirements for reclassifying from FCS to FBS are as follows:
• Reclassification from FCS to FBS: Before applying for reclassification to FBS, the institution must receive
a bona fide invitation for membership in a FBS conference or a conference that previously met the
definition of an FBS conference. 16
• Notification/Application Requirement: The institution’s chancellor or president shall submit written
notice of the institution’s intention to reclassify and a completed application to the NCAA national office
no later than June 1 two years prior to the August 1 when the institution intends to reclassify to FBS. Any
form received after June 1 must be postmarked no later than May 25. 17
1. The application must be accompanied by a $5,000 fee and a strategic plan addressing the
Division I philosophy statement (NCAA Bylaw 20.9.2) and any requirements set forth by the
Strategic Vision and Planning Committee. 18
2. Once the application has been received, an institution seeking to change its membership
classification from Division I FCS to Division I FBS must comply with the two-year
Reclassification Requirements. 19
Division I FBS Reclassification Requirements
• Year one: During year one of the transition process from FCS to FBS, the institution must satisfy the
following requirements: 20
1. The president or chancellor (or individual appointed by the chancellor or president with
executive status at the institution), the director of athletics representative, and the senior
compliance administrator must attend an orientation session conducted by NCAA staff related
to the application of FBS membership requirements.
14
NCAA Bylaw 20.4.2
15
NCAA Bylaw 20.4.3
16
NCAA Bylaws 20.4.2.1.1 and 20.02.6
17
NCAA Bylaw 20.4.2.1.2
18
19
20
NCAA Bylaw 20.4.2.1.4.1

2. By June 1 at the end of the first academic year, the institution must submit an annual report
and updated strategic plan based on feedback received from the previous year’s report.
3. The institution must report all violations to the Council as part of the required annual report.
• Year two: During year two of the process, the institution must satisfy the following requirements: 21
1. Comply fully with all FBS legislation and membership requirements.
2. Submit an annual report and updated strategic plan confirming compliance with all FBS
legislation and membership requirements.
3. Report all violations to the Council in its required annual report.
Compliance Review: The institution, at its own expense, must engage an authority outside of the
athletics department, subject to approval by the Council, to conduct a compliance review during
the reclassification period. A copy of the report must be on file with the institution, and another
must be submitted to the Council. 22
ATTACHMENTS
• UALR Attachment VI-1 2018-19 NCAA Division I FCS Membership
• UALR Attachment VI-2 2018-19 NCAA Division I FBS Membership
21
NCAA Bylaw 20.4.2.1.4.2
22

ATTACHMENT VI - 1
2018-19 NCAA DIVISION I FOOTBALL CHAMPIONSHIP SUBDIVISION (FCS)

MEMBERSHIP
As of fall 2018, the NCAA Division I Football Championship Subdivision will have 125 members.
2018-19 NCAA Division I Football Championship

TABLE 1
Subdivision Membership
BIG SKY CONFERENCE BIG SOUTH CONFERENCE
1. California Polytechnic State University 1. Charleston Southern University
(Football only} 2. Gardner-Webb University
2. California State University, Sacramento 3. Kennesaw State University
3. Eastern Washington University 4. Monmouth University
4. Idaho State University 5. Presbyterian College
5. Montana State University-Bozeman 6. Campbell University
6. Northern Arizona University
7. Portland State University
8. Southern Utah University
9. University of California, Davis
(Football only)
10. University of Idaho (2018 - 19)
11. University of Montana
12. University of Northern Colorado
13. Weber State University
COLONIAL ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION IVY GROUP

1. College of William and Mary 1. Brown University
2. Elon University 2. Columbia University
3. James Madison University 3. Cornell University
4. Stony Brook University (Football only) 4. Dartmouth College
5. Towson University 5. Harvard University
6. University at Albany (Football only) 6. Princeton University
7. University of Delaware 7. University of Pennsylvania
8. University of Maine, Orono 8. Yale University
(Football only)
9. University of New Hampshire
(Football only)
10. University of Rhode Island (Football only)
11. University of Richmond (Football only)
12. Villanova University (Football only)
ATTACHMENT VI-1
2018-19 NCAA DIVISION I FCS MEMBERSHIP Page | 1

TABLE 1
MID-EASTERN ATHLETIC CONFERENCE MISSOURI VALLEY FOOTBALL CONFERENCE
1. Bethune-Cookman University 1. Illinois State University
2. Delaware State University 2. Indiana State University
3. Florida A&M University 3. Missouri State University
4. Howard University 4. North Dakota State University
5. Morgan State University (Football only)
6. Norfolk State University 5. South Dakota State University
7. North Carolina A&T State University (Football only)
8. North Carolina Central University 6. Southern Illinois University at Carbondale
9. Savannah State University 7. University of Northern Iowa
10. South Carolina State University 8. University of South Dakota
9. Western Illinois University (Football only)
10. Youngstown State University
(Football only)
NORTHEAST CONFERENCE OHIO VALLEY CONFERENCE

1. Bryant University 1. Austin Peay State University
2. Central Connecticut State University 2. Eastern Illinois University
3. Duquesne University 3. Eastern Kentucky University
4. Robert Morris University 4. Jacksonville State University
5. Sacred Heart University 5. Murray State University
6. Saint Francis University (Pennsylvania) 6. Southeast Missouri State University
7. Wagner College 7. Tennessee State University
8. Tennessee Technological University
9. University of Tennessee at Martin
PATRIOT LEAGUE PIONEER FOOTBALL LEAGUE

1. Bucknell University 1. Butler University
2. Colgate University 2. Davidson College
3. College of the Holy Cross 3. Drake University
4. Fordham University 4. Jacksonville University
5. Georgetown University 5. Marist College
6. Lafayette College 6. Morehead State University
7. Lehigh University 7. Stetson University
8. University of Dayton
9. University of San Diego
10. Valparaiso University
ATTACHMENT VI-1

TABLE 1
SOUTHERN CONFERENCE SOUTHLAND CONFERENCE
1. East Tennessee State University 1. Abilene Christian University
2. Furman University 2. Houston Baptist University
3. Mercer University 3. Lamar University
4. Samford University 4. McNeese State University
5. The Citadel 5. Nicholls State University
6. University of Tennessee at Chattanooga 6. Northwestern State University
7. Virginia Military Institute 7. Sam Houston State University
8. Western Carolina University 8. Southeastern Louisiana University
9. Wofford College 9. Stephen F. Austin State University
10. University of Central Arkansas
11. University of the Incarnate Word
SOUTHWESTERN ATHLETIC CONFERENCE DIVISION I FCS INDEPENDENTS

1. Alabama A&M University 1. Hampton University
2. Alabama State University 2. University of North Alabama
3. Alcorn State University 3. University of North Dakota
4. Grambling State University
5. Jackson State University
6. Mississippi Valley State University
7. Prairie View A&M University
8. Southern University
9. Texas Southern University
10. University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff
ATTACHMENT VI-1
ATTACHMENT VI - 2
2018-19 NCAA DIVISION I FOOTBALL BOWL SUBDIVISION (FBS) MEMBERSHIP

As of fall 2018, the NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision will have 129 members. The following table presents
the current and future members of each FBS conference.
2018-19 NCAA Division I Football Bowl

TABLE 1
AMERICAN ATHLETIC CONFERENCE ATLANTIC COAST CONFERENCE
1. East Carolina University 1. Boston College
2. Southern Methodist University 2. Clemson University
3. Temple University 3. Duke University
4. Tulane University 4. Florida State University
5. United States Naval Academy 5. Georgia Institute of Technology
6. University of Central Florida 6. North Carolina State University
7. University of Cincinnati 7. Syracuse University
8. University of Connecticut 8. University of Louisville
9. University of Houston 9. University of Miami
10. University of Memphis 10. University of North Carolina
11. University of South Florida 11. University of Pittsburgh
12. University of Tulsa 12. University of Virginia
13. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University
14. Wake Forest University
BIG 12 CONFERENCE BIG TEN CONFERENCE

1. Baylor University 1. Indiana University
2. Iowa State University 2. Michigan State University
3. Kansas State University 3. Northwestern University
4. Oklahoma State University 4. Ohio State University
5. Texas Christian University 5. Pennsylvania State University
6. Texas Tech University 6. Purdue University
7. University of Kansas 7. Rutgers University
8. University of Oklahoma 8. University of Illinois
9. University of Texas 9. University of Iowa
10. West Virginia University 10. University of Maryland
11. University of Michigan
12. University of Minnesota
13. University of Nebraska
14. University of Wisconsin
ATTACHMENT VI-2
2018-19 NCAA DIVISION I FBS MEMBERSHIP Page | 1

TABLE 1
CONFERENCE USA MID-AMERICAN CONFERENCE
1. Florida Atlantic University 1. Ball State University
2. Florida International University 2. Bowling Green State University
3. Louisiana Tech University 3. Central Michigan University
4. Marshall University 4. Eastern Michigan University
5. Middle Tennessee State University 5. Kent State University
6. Old Dominion University 6. Miami University
7. Rice University 7. Ohio University
8. University of Alabama at Birmingham 8. Northern Illinois University
9. UNC Charlotte 9. University of Akron
10. University of North Texas 10. University of Buffalo
11. University of Southern Mississippi 11. University of Toledo
12. University of Texas at El Paso 12. Western Michigan University
13. University of Texas San Antonio
14. Western Kentucky University
MOUNTAIN WEST CONFERENCE PACIFIC-12 CONFERENCE

1. Boise State University 1. Arizona State University
2. California State University, Fresno 2. Oregon State University
3. Colorado State University 3. Stanford University
4. San Diego State University 4. University of Arizona
5. San Jose State University 5. University of California, Berkeley
6. University of Hawaii (Football only) 6. University of California, Los Angeles
7. University of Nevada Las Vegas 7. University of Colorado at Boulder
8. United States Air Force Academy 8. University of Oregon
9. University of New Mexico 9. University of Southern California
10. University of Nevada 10. University of Utah
11. University of Wyoming 11. University of Washington
12. Utah State University 12. Washington State University
SOUTHEASTERN CONFERENCE SUN BELT CONFERENCE

1. Auburn University 1. Appalachian State University
2. Louisiana State University 2. Arkansas State University
3. Mississippi State University 3. Coastal Carolina University
4. Texas A&M University 4. Georgia State University
5. University of Alabama 5. Georgia Southern University
6. University of Arkansas 6. Texas State University
7. University of Florida 7. Troy University
8. University of Georgia 8. University of Louisiana at Lafayette
9. University of Kentucky 9. University of Louisiana at Monroe
10. University of Mississippi 10. University of South Alabama
11. University of Missouri
12. University of South Carolina
13. University of Tennessee
14. Vanderbilt University
ATTACHMENT VI-2

TABLE 1
INDEPENDENT
1. Brigham Young University
2. Liberty University
3. United States Military Academy
4. University of Massachusetts
5. University of Notre Dame
6. New Mexico State (Football Only)
ATTACHMENT VI-2
Football Implementation Considerations

A. INTRODUCTION
This section presents hypothetical timelines for implementing Intercollegiate NCAA Division I Football: Football
Championship Series (FCS) or Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS). Possible FCS and FBS conference options are
presented, as well.
B. METHODOLOGY
Table 1 of this section describes possible expedited timelines for adding FCS or FBS Football at UA Little Rock. This
process is guided by the following assumptions:
• Formal deliberations would begin in Academic Year 2018-19 (Decision Year).
• Each activity would be accomplished within the context of NCAA legislation presented in VI. NCAA
Division I Legislation with FCS and FBS Football.
• Implementation would follow a strategic introduction of personnel, facilities, football scheduling

and scholarships.
• One or more new women’s sports would be added during the football implementation period.
• Resource requirements would be aligned sequentially with this Study’s Financial Pro Formas.
• Conference membership would be comprised primarily of regional FCS or FBS institutions.
C. HYPOTHETICAL FOOTBALL IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE

Table 1 on the following page provides a hypothetical timeline delineating the basic processes for adding FCS or
FBS Football beginning in Academic Year 2018-19 (Decision Year.)
FOOTBALL IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS Page | VII-67


TABLE 1
Hypothetical Football Implementation Timeline
YEAR FCS FBS COMMENTS
Academic • A decision on FCS

Decision Year or FBS
Year
• University of Arkansas Board of Trustees and the UA Little classification could
2018-19 Rock Administration review Study and take action on UA Little be determined
Rock Football. during this period.
• Chancellor will convene a working group to review Study and • Proceed with FCS
make recommendations. classification;
• Review Market Assessment; empirical evaluation of the assume option of
potential support for adding FCS or FBS Football. reclassifying to FBS
after two years.
• Explore FCS and FBS Football conference options.
• Confirm Title IX
• Agree on sustainable financial model(s) and respective compliance
pro forma(s). implications.
• UA Little Rock Administration makes recommendation(s)
regarding Football.
• University of Arkansas Board of Trustees act on
recommendation(s) regarding Football.


TABLE 1
Academic Preparation Year • Hire Head Coach,

Year • Develop strategic implementation plan for Football with Assistant Coaches
and Support
2019-20 appropriate timeline(s).
Services Personnel
• Prepare preliminary designs for Football facilities. after January 1,
2020.
• Secure site and begin construction of Football facilities.
• Develop and
• Hire Head Coach, Offensive Coordinator, Defensive
execute Title IX
Coordinator, Recruiting Coordinator/Assistant Coach, Director
compliance plan.
of Football Operations and Administrative Assistant
• Update Football
• Hire additional key Support Services personnel as appropriate:
Financial Pro
o Compliance Forma.
o Strength and Conditioning
o Sports Medicine
o Equipment Operations
• Enhance University infrastructure as appropriate:
o Registrar
o Financial Aid
o Admissions
o Academic Advising
• Recruit players for Academic Year 2020-21.
• Conduct try-outs for enrolled students.
• Conduct no organized practices.
Academic Practice Year • Update Football

Year • Notify NCAA of the addition of FCS Football, effective Fall 2021. Financial Pro
Forma.
2020-21
• Hire maximum number of FCS allowable Assistant Coaches.
• Conduct first FCS practice when school starts; type
and scope TBD.
• Conduct intra-squad scrimmages only.
• Recruit players for Academic Year 2021-22.
• Conduct try-outs for enrolled students.
• Hire additional Support Services staff by July 1.
• Pursue construction of Football facilities.
Note: Notify NCAA of intent to reclassify to FBS before June 1, 2021


TABLE 1
Academic Play Year 1 - FCS Play Year 1 - FBS • Once the NCAA
Year receives written
• Play a conference or Declared notice of an FCS
2021-22 independent FCS schedule. • Play a conference or
institution’s intent
• Meet scheduling independent FCS to reclassify to FBS,
requirements; minimum of schedule. the institution
nine (9) football contests o Secure an official letter becomes ineligible
with 50 percent of total of invitation for FBS to participate in
contests against Division I membership in the the Division I FCS
FBS or FCS Football Sun Belt Conference. Championship.
institutions.
o Begin two-year FBS • Update Football
• Recruit for Academic Year transition process. Financial Pro
2022-23. Forma per FCS or
o Satisfy NCAA Year One
FBS membership
• Conduct try-outs for FBS transition
objectives.
enrolled on-campus requirements.
students.
• UA Little Rock ineligible
• Continue construction of to participate in the
Football facilities. Division I FCS
Championship.
• UA Little Rock eligible to
compete in the Division I
FCS Championship.


TABLE 1
Academic Play Year 2 - FCS Play Year 2 - FBS • FCS Football

Year institutions must
• Play a conference or Declared award an average
2022-23 independent FCS schedule. • Play a conference or
of 90 percent (57
• Meet football scheduling independent FCS ½) of the
requirements; minimum of schedule. permissible
nine (9) contests with 50 o Satisfy NCAA Year maximum number
percent of total contests Two FBS transition of 63 scholarships
against Division I FBS or FCS requirements. per year over a
Football institutions. rolling two-year
• UA Little Rock ineligible period to fulfill FBS
• UA Little Rock eligible to to participate in the home scheduling
compete for the Division I Division I FCS and bowl eligibility
FCS Championship. Championship. requirements for
• Recruit for Academic Year Division I FBS
2022-23. opponents.
• Complete Football facilities. • Update Football
Financial Pro
• UA Little Rock eligible for Forma
post-season in FCS. commensurate
with FBS
transition.
Academic • Begin FBS

Play Year 3 - FBS requirement of
Year
• Satisfy NCAA FBS achieving annual
2023-24 requirements. average actual or
• Hire maximum number paid game
of FBS assistant coaches. attendance of
15,000 once every
• Play a full or partial Sun two years.
Belt Conference
schedule. • Update Football
Financial Pro
• Play at least 60 percent of Forma.
games against FBS
teams; minimum of five
home games against FBS.
• Recruit for Academic
Year 2024-25.
• UALR eligible for post-
season in FBS.

D. DIVISION I FCS AND FBS CONFERENCE MEMBERSHIP

Consistent with this Study’s two Division I football classification possibilities, two FCS and two FBS Conferences,
along with an Independent status are briefly described in this section. While Independent competition is
presumable for an institution adding FCS Football, it is not a practical alternative for most FBS institutions.
Division I FCS
Option 1: Establish Independent Status in FCS Football

Both the University of South
• Long-term Independent status is possible, but not the most Alabama and University of
North Carolina Charlotte, with
desirable membership option. The lack of access to the FCS National
guaranteed membership in
Championship as an automatic qualifier representing a conference the FBS Sun Belt Conference
is a significant detriment and would negatively impact recruiting and Conference USA,
and retention of top-quality student-athletes and coaches. respectively, played two-year
FCS Independent schedules.
Scheduling the required number of contests against Division I
opponents would be difficult, as well.
• Moving to FBS could require UA Little Rock to maintain FCS
Independent status during its required two-year transition.
Option 2: Join an Existing FCS Football Conference
• In this scenario, UA Little Rock would join an FCS football conference. Member profiles of two
regional FCS benchmark conferences, the Southland Conference and Ohio Valley Conference
are provided in Tables 2 and 3.

TABLE 2
Southland Conference
NCAA Division I FCS Member Profiles
UNDERGRADUATE TOTAL DISTANCE FROM
UNIVERSITY CATEGORY
ENROLLMENT ENROLLMENT LITTLE ROCK
Abilene Christian University

Private 3,758 4,910 500
Abilene, TX
Houston Baptist University

Private 2,332 3,270 463
Sharpstown, TX
Lamar University
Public 9,308 15,001 420
Beaumont, TX
McNeese State University

Public 6,894 7,621 362
Lake Charles, LA
Nicholls State University

Public 5,636 6,255 416
Thibodaux, LA
Northwestern State University

Public 8,832 9,819 290
Natchitoches, LA


TABLE 2
Southland Conference
UNIVERSITY CATEGORY
Sam Houston State University

Public 17,902 20,477 404
Huntsville, TX
Southeastern Louisiana
University Public 13,544 14,483 391
Hammond, LA
Stephen F. Austin State
Nacogdoches, TX
University of Central Arkansas
Public 9,616 11,487 32
Conway, AR
University of the Incarnate Word

Private 8,906 10,189 610
San Antonio, TX

TABLE 3
Ohio Valley Conference
UNIVERSITY CATEGORY
Austin Peay State University

Public 9,513 10,344 347
Clarksville, TN
Eastern Illinois University

Public 5,957 7,415 480
Charleston, IL
Eastern Kentucky University

Public 14,293 16,881 568
Richmond, KY
Jacksonville State University

Public 7,561 8,514 447
Jacksonville, AL
Morehead State University

Public 9,752 10,746 621
Morehead, KY
Murray State University

Public 8,877 10,486 295
Murray, KY


TABLE 3
Ohio Valley Conference
UNIVERSITY CATEGORY
Southeast Missouri State University

Public 10,693 11,978 292
Cape Girardeau, MO
Tennessee State University

Public 7,014 8,760 345
Nashville, TN
Tennessee Technological University

Public 9,438 10,493 424
Cookeville, TN
University of Tennessee at Martin

Public 6,279 6,705 277
Martin, TN
Division I FBS
Four of the five current FBS
One of the primary considerations for UA Little Rock in adding FBS Football is securing Independent football
optimal FBS conference membership. Note: The NCAA requires that institutions programs held FBS status
prior to the most recent
reclassifying to FBS must have secured an invitation for membership in an FBS conference NCAA legislation. In 2017,
before submitting an FBS application 23. Liberty University was
granted a waiver of the
Member profiles of two regional FBS conferences, the Sun Belt Conference and current FBS conference
Conference USA are described in the following tables.

TABLE 4 Sun Belt Conference - NCAA Division I FBS
Member Profiles
UNIVERSITY CATEGORY
Appalachian State University
Public 16,595 18,295 682
Boone, NC
Arkansas State University
Public 9,839 14,085 103
Jonesboro, AR
Coastal Carolina University
Public 9,747 10,479 867
Conway, SC
Georgia Southern University
Public 18,005 20,673 727
Statesboro, GA
23
NCAA Bylaws 20.4.2.1.1 and 20.02.6


TABLE 4 Sun Belt Conference - NCAA Division I FBS
Member Profiles
UNIVERSITY CATEGORY
Georgia State University
Public 25,228 32,237 518
Atlanta, GA
Texas State University
Public 34,244 38,808 556
San Marcos, TX
Troy University
Public 14,144 17,855 511
Troy, AL
University of Arkansas at Little
Rock Public 4,441 11,746
Little Rock, AR
University of Louisiana at
Lafayette Public 15,998 17,519 352
Lafayette, LA
University of Louisiana at
Monroe Public 7,778 9,038 163
Monroe, LA
University of South Alabama
Public 11,761 16,443 448
Mobile, AL

TABLE 5 Conference USA - NCAA Division I FBS
Member Profiles
UNDERGRADUATE TOTAL DISTANCE
UNIVERSITY CATEGORY
ENROLLMENT ENROLLMENT FROM LITTLE ROCK
Florida Atlantic University
Public 25,402 30,541 1141
Boca Raton, FL
Florida International University
Public 45,856 55,003 1189
University Park, FL
Louisiana Tech University
Public 11,281 12,672 170
Ruston, LA
Marshall University
Public 9,615 13,647 681
Huntington, WV
Middle Tennessee State
Murfreesboro, TN
Old Dominion University
Public 19,793 24,322 1050
Norfolk, VA


TABLE 5 Conference USA - NCAA Division I FBS
Member Profiles
UNDERGRADUATE TOTAL DISTANCE
UNIVERSITY CATEGORY
ENROLLMENT ENROLLMENT FROM LITTLE ROCK
Rice University
Private 3,893 6,855 451
Houston, TX
Southern Mississippi University
Public 11,779 14,552 352
Hattiesburg, MS
University of Alabama at
Birmingham Public 12,369 19,535 360
Birmingham, AL
University of North Carolina at
Charlotte Public 23,404 28,721 754
Charlotte, NC
University of North Texas
Public 31,241 38,145 332
Denton, TX
University of Texas at El Paso
Public 20,521 23,922 955
El Paso, TX
University of Texas at San
Antonio Public 24,724 28,959 610
San Antonio, TX
Western Kentucky University
Public 17,595 20,271 407
Bowling Green, KY
E. SUMMARY
The timelines presented herein provide UA Little Rock with an expedited yet practical sequence per NCAA
legislation for adding FCS or FBS Football. Nevertheless, each institution must determine the best schedule to fit
its priorities.
UA Little Rock would appear to be a geographically appealing fit to its regional FCS and FBS benchmark
Conferences. Likewise, the University’s membership in the Sun Belt offers a unique pathway of transition for FBS
membership.

Athletics Support Services

A. INTRODUCTION
This section provides a concise analysis of the UA Little Rock Athletics Support Services (Support Services) that
would be significantly impacted by adding FCS or FBS Football (Football) and accompanying women's sports.
Particular attention is given to those units that champion UA Little Rock student-athlete well-being and
achievement. Support Services can be formal internal departments, cost centers, or select activities. While there
is a wide range of NCAA Division I (Division I) Support Services, there are four consistent operational categories:
Personnel, Facilities, Equipment/Information Technology, and Budget.
As noted below, the University and UA Little Rock Athletics (Athletics) have made a substantial commitment to
adding much-needed personnel for the Support Services described here, as well as those critical to Internal
Operations and revenue generation.
Recommendations assume the following:

• The inclusion of Men’s Wrestling (Wrestling) as a new varsity sport in FY 2018-19 along with additional
scholarships for Women’s Swimming and Women’s Track and Field;
• The addition of Wrestling along with an estimated 25 new female athletes (attributed to an increase in
women’s sports scholarships) would increase the number of UA Little Rock student-athletes to 255 –
without Football.
• The implementation of planned increases in new Athletics administrative and Support Services
personnel to augment current staffing deficiencies and benefit the addition of Wrestling;
• The University’s commitment to the welfare of its student-athletes, with an emphasis on academic
success leading to graduation;
• Provisions for contemporary Athletics facilities for practice, competition and Support Services to
maintain a competitive position within NCAA Division I and the Sun Belt Conference (Sun Belt) – with or
without FCS and FBS Football;
• The addition of a minimum of 30 female student-athletes to maintain compliance with Title IX; this is
inherent to incorporating FCS or FBS Football;
• The incorporation of applicable financial requirements into this Study’s Financial Pro Formas; and,
• Additional expenditures are dependent on availability and/or reallocation of resources.
B. OBSERVATIONS
Similar to other Division I athletic programs, UA Little Rock Athletics infrastructure requires continuous strategic
upgrades to stay competitive with peers, while effectively providing for the health, safety, well-being and
academic preparation of its 230 student-athletes (with Wrestling). Likewise, most facilities have reached their
maximum capacity to support operations of the University’s 15 sports. Additionally, several key Support Services
ATHLETICS SUPPORT SERVICES Page | VIII-77

do not have a dedicated budget, which inhibits planning. An annual zero-based budgeting process would provide
greater delineation of strategic line-item allocations.
Further, best practices demonstrate that the assimilation of select Athletics Support Services into comparable
University departments maximizes resources and services, while enhancing communication. For example,
Athletics Support Services, such as Compliance, Academic Services, and Life Skills, should be considered for
further integration with appropriate campus counterparts.
Planned Support Services Positions – Without Football
Proactively, the University has planned for near-term enhancements to Athletics Support Services staffing along
with two critical, new Assistant Coach positions. Those personnel and respective implantation dates are outlined
below (with Fiscal Year designations).
• Assistant Athletic Trainer (2018-19) • Director of Internal Operations (2018-19)
• Assistant Athletic Performance Coach • Assistant Business Manager (2018-19)
(2018-19) • Graduate Assistant Communications
• Assistant Director - Communications Video (2019-20)
Coordinator (Part-time) (2018-19) • Assistant Track and Field Coach (2018-19)
• Assistant Academic Coordinator (2018-19) • Graduate Assistant Women's Swimming
• Assistant Compliance Coordinator (2018-19) (2019-20)
• Account Executive - Ticket Sales (2018-19) • Higher Ed. Program Coordinator (2018-19)
Support Services Positions – With FCS or FBS Football
The Project Team recommends that the following personnel be included with any discussion of Division I Football.
Assistant Athletic Trainer - Football
• Assistant Athletic Trainer - Football • Assistant Athletic Performance Coach -

• Assistant Athletic Trainer - Women’s Sports Football
• Assistant Athletic Trainer (Intern) - Football • Assistant Athletic Performance Coach

(Graduate Assistant)
• Assistant Academic Coordinator/Learning
Specialist • Equipment Manager
• Life Skills Coordinator/Director of • Assistant Equipment Manager

Career Preparation • Assistant Director - Communications/Graphic
• Assistant Compliance Coordinator Design
• Director of Football Operations

C. SUPPORT SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Project Team’s analysis of Athletics Support Services and recommendations follow.
ACADEMIC SERVICES
OBSERVATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS________________________________________________________
Athletics' academic support services are integrated into the University's Undergraduate Academic Advising (UAA).
This unit primarily provides academic support for the University’s undergraduate student population (freshmen,
transfers, and enrollees with up to 45 credit hours). UAA Staff also connect students including student-athletes
with other University academic and support services such as tutoring, career guidance, counseling, and computer
labs.
By industry standards, the above model is unprepared to meet the needs of the University’s growing number of
student-athletes, and particularly Football. Deficiencies are underscored by having only one full-time, assigned
Athletics position as well as the lack of a dedicated operating budget. In the absence of a centralized University
Academic Services, the addition of any student-athletes would require Athletics to expand its present Academic
support activities with additional personnel, tutors, career planning, study areas, and operating budget, as well as
computer and technology access. Likewise, Athletics current academic facilities in the Stephens Center are
crowded and would not accommodate a sizeable increase in student-athletes or necessary staff.
ATHLETIC COMMUNICATIONS
Athletic Communications (Communications) operates at a functional level for Division I - supporting 15 sports, as
well as Athletics Broadcasting and public relations entities. However, the addition of Wrestling, as well as
ESPN/Sun Belt mandated video streaming of all Conference sports, will require additional specialized staff. Further,
Communications is being challenged to effectively support growing demands for website, social media, and video
programming, even without the addition of a Football program.
ATHLETIC PERFORMANCE
Athletics demonstrates best practices by centralizing its Strength and Conditioning (Athletic Performance)
activities under the Director of Athletic Performance. However, even with the one new planned position, current
personnel do not satisfy staff-to-student-athlete ratio requirements. Staff coverage limitations are magnified by a
new Wrestling facility as well as the onset of year-round training coupled with the contemporary expectation for
staff-led warm-ups and stretching for team practices. Supervision would become even more difficult with the
addition of Football and more women's sports. The present budget is insufficient to cover equipment repair and
replacement as well as certification/continuing education.
Not unlike many Athletic Departments, the addition of Football would demand a substantial investment in
additional training space and specialized equipment.

ATHLETIC TRAINING
UA Little Rock’s Athletic Training unit (Athletic Training) also operates at a functional capacity. Similar to Athletic
Performance, Athletic Training duties have expanded beyond general Training Room functions. Industry
standards, along with risk management requirements, demand Trainer coverage at practices and competitions.
Again, year-round practice and training by most sports have stretched many Division I Athletic Training
departments to capacity. UA Little Rock’s need for more certified Athletic Training personnel is further exacerbated
by industry changes in Athletic Training certification which limit the use of some current personnel.
Athletic Training services are further hampered by space restrictions. The Athletic Training Room in the Stephens
Center is maximizing its current space and cannot accommodate additional sports. The Field House Training Room
will have to be updated. However, some overcrowding will be alleviated by the addition of a satellite Training
Room in the new Wrestling facility. Athletic Training's budget is currently functional except for allowances for
repair and replacement of capital equipment - especially rehabilitation equipment.
Finally, consideration should be given to developing more formal (contractual) agreements with Athletics’ health
service providers. For example, it is important to establish a regularly scheduled on-campus physician-led “clinic”
or visitation arrangement.
BUSINESS OPERATIONS
Emblematic of Division I best practices, Athletics Business Operations (travel, personnel, purchasing, and budget
management) is formally managed by an Athletics Senior Staff position (Senior Associate Athletic Director/Chief
Financial Officer). Fiscal management is coordinated with the University’s Office of Finance and Administration.
The planned addition of an Assistant Business Manager will improve the effectiveness of Athletics Business
Operations while allowing the Senior Associate more time for financial planning.
Even though Business Operations’ expenses are minimal compared to other Support Services, it too should have
a dedicated operating budget.
COMPLIANCE AND ELIGIBILITY
As emphasized in the University Preparedness section of this Study, the University’s Rules Compliance
(Compliance) and broader Institutional Control mechanisms need to be restructured. In addition to improving
organizational design and embracing best practices, Compliance’s effectiveness can be enhanced by establishing
a dedicated operating budget and integrating the use of Compliance software with other University departments
that hold Institutional Control responsibilities. Again, the adoption of these processes is fundamental to
entertaining Football.

EQUIPMENT OPERATIONS
Atypical of Division I best practices, Athletics does not have a centralized Equipment Operations unit. While this
structure is not imperative, most contemporary models include full-time certified personnel, quality control of
inventory and purchasing, equipment maintenance and repair, storage, laundry services for all, or select, sports,
and more importantly, a dedicated operating budget. Assistance is customarily provided by student help.
Section IX. Facilities Considerations allocates 5,000 square feet within a new Football Operations Center for Football
Equipment Operations and possibly other sports. Space for these services is not available within existing Athletics
facilities.
LIFE SKILLS
RECOMMENDATIONS/OBSERVATIONS________________________________________________________
Under its current framework, Athletics' Life Skills (Life Skills) component operates at a functional capacity, but with
limited opportunity for expanded services. Current oversight is essentially part-time and assigned to the Head
Swimming Coach. Life Skills also operates without a dedicated budget. Consistent with best practices, Athletics
achieves efficiencies in student-athlete personal development, career development, and community service by
partnering with other University units such as Career Services and Counseling Services. Ultimately, a Life Skills
Coordinator position and dedicated budget should be considered, even if Football is not introduced.
D. SUMMARY
The range at which most Athletics Support Services operate varies from informal to functional. Again, the
University continues to make major investments into the well-being of its student-athletes. However, various
infrastructure upgrades are required - with or without Football. Typically, student-athlete well-being is measured
by access to quality coaching, academic support, medical care, housing, dining, team travel, and facilities.
As described earlier, six new critical student-athlete Support Services positions are planned for implementation
over the next two Fiscal Years. Conversely, while the addition of the Stephens Center has alleviated some
overcrowding, most Support Services have reached their capacity to support modern student-athlete services.
Also, several units, such as Athletic Performance and Athletic Training, need additional funds for scheduled repair
and replacement of training equipment.
Uncharacteristic of Division I best practices, some units do not have individual operating budgets. Effective
strategic planning necessitates dedicated operating budgets for all primary cost centers. Lastly, preliminary zero-
based budgeting identified differing levels of funding shortfalls for all of Athletics Support Services. Precise
funding requirements should be included in any discussion of adding Football.

Facilities Considerations
A. INTRODUCTION
In this section of the Study, The Project Team assessed the physical needs of adding football at the Football
Championship Subdivision (FCS) and Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) levels; examined the potential location of
Football operations facility and practice fields; and, reviewed the physical needs of Men’s Wrestling (Wrestling),
which is being added in fall 2019.
As part of this analysis, the Project Team toured existing Athletic facilities, including the Jack Stephens Center,
Gary Hogan Field - Kris Wheeler Complex, Coleman Sports & Recreation Complex, and the Donaghey Student
Center. In addition, the presumed competition facility, War Memorial Stadium, was evaluated as part of a separate
feasibility study conducted in 2017 24 and was found to be a satisfactory option for UA Little Rock home events.
These observations, while encompassing numerous sports and other Athletics functions, were made in the
framework of adding FCS or FBS Football at UA Little Rock.
B. CONTEXT
University
With the addition of Wrestling, UA Little Rock will sponsor 15 sports - six men’s and nine women’s for a total of
approximately 250 student athletes. Most sports participate in the Sun Belt Conference. Wrestling is anticipated
to have a new stand-alone training facility and will compete in the Jack Stephens Center. Generally, the UA Little
Rock’s current Athletic facilities are already stretched beyond capacity to accommodate existing Athletics’ needs
associated with student-athlete academic preparedness, performance along with coaches and staff offices.
NCAA Division I FCS or FBS Football
The growth of UA Little Rock Athletics to include FCS or FBS Football would require extensive new facilities,
including space for practice, football operations, and support services. In the event that War Memorial Stadium
would not serve as the home for UA Little Rock home football games, a new stadium would also be required. The
addition of Football, along with the more women’s sports to comply with Title IX, would further expand UA Little
Rock’s student-athlete population and place additional strain on existing facilities.
Table 1 on the following page provides a detailed description of FCS Football facility requirements, including an
expanded academic center and training table facility.
24
War Memorial Stadium Feasibility Study Brief
FACILITIES CONSIDERATIONS Page | IX-82

Football Facilities
FCS or FBS Football would require the construction, and/or use, of the following facilities:
• Use of War Memorial Stadium, or construction of a 15,000-seat stadium, expandable to 30,000 seats.
• A new Football Operations building would contain locker rooms, Sports Medicine, coaches’ offices,
equipment areas, Strength and Conditioning, and team meeting rooms.
• Since all current Athletic facilities are at or above capacity, academic support would also need to be
expanded and could be accommodated in a Football Operations facility.
• A minimum of two new practice fields (one natural turf and one artificial turf).
• An indoor multi-purpose practice facility as a long-term competitive requirement.
With the current limitations of the existing facilities and on-campus land constraints, UA Little Rock would need
to consider the creation of a new Football Operations center with at least two practice fields to accommodate FCS
or FBS Football. As presented in Table X.II Program Area Tabulation (on the following page), the Project Team
estimates these needs at approximately 71,600 gross square feet (“gsf”). A smaller, expandable facility of 55,000
gsf could serve as an alternative if funding is an issue.
War Memorial Stadium is considered the logical choice for UA Little Rock home Football competitions, eliminating
the need for a new stadium in the foreseeable future. Table XIII, within this section, identifies six alternate locations
for a potential Football operations center: Two are at War Memorial Stadium, and four are on the UA Little Rock
main campus.
The location of a Football Operations building at the campus Track and Field site would require a facilities master
plan review, as Baseball is currently planned to relocate to this site. Initial UA Little Rock FCS Football facilities cost
estimates provided by the Project Team are shown in Table 1 below. The ranges represent a 55,000 to 71,000 gsf
range and a cost range of $300 to $400 per gsf. The total cost assumes a soft cost addition of 30%.

TABLE 1
Summary of Estimated Football Facility Costs
BASE FACILITIES COST RANGES TOTAL COSTS
Football Operations Facility $16,500,000 $28,400,000 $21,450,000 $36,920,000
Two Outdoor Lighted Practice Fields $1,500,000 $1,700,000 $1,950,000 $2,210,000
Total Base Facilities $23,400,000 $39,130,000
Additional Indoor Practice Facility $12,967,200 $19,161,800 $16,857,000 $24,910,000

Note: Total costs are in 2018 dollars and include construction, infrastructure, fees, furnishings and equipment plus contingencies; estimates do not include land
acquisition or off- site utilities.

C. SUMMARY
UA Little Rock Athletics has achieved periodic success within the Sun Belt Conference, despite increasing demands
on its facilities and limited financial resources. Continued growth requires strategic improvements to facilities,
regardless of whether FCS or FBS Football is added.
Accordingly, both the University’s and Athletics’ master plan should be revised to include the assumed expansion
Athletics facilities even Football is not added. Further, Athletics’ facilities projects should be aligned with the
priorities outlined in Athletics’ strategic planning. Considerations should also include year-round training, Title IX,
Americans with Disabilities Act, enhanced fan amenities, along with campus and community multi-use
capabilities.
While Memorial Stadium affords and attractive opportunity for FCS or FBS game competition, this location, as well
as campus sites would require the development of a Football Operations Center (Football Operations) and
practice fields. A Football Operations facility also offers some potentially shared facilities such as academic services
and a training table along with proximity to future indoor practice facilities.
TABLE X.II
Football Program - Program Area Tabulation
N et Square
BGSF Total
Space C ategory Quantity Assignable Occupancy F eet (N SF ) N SF Subtotal N SF Total SC GF SF GSF Total Bldg GF BGSF Total
Program
Each
L ocker Suite
Locker Area 1 Yes 120 31 3,720 3,720 12% 446 4,166 20% 833 5,000
Lounge/Display/Game Room 1 Yes 50 42 2,100 2,100 12% 252 2,352 20% 470 2,822
Showers 30 Yes 1 30 30 900 15% 135 1,035 20% 207 1,242
Drying Area 1 Yes 10 15 150 150 15% 23 173 20% 35 207
Toilets 8 Yes 1 24 24 192 15% 29 221 20% 44 265
Urinals 9 Yes 1 15 15 135 15% 20 155 20% 31 186
Lavs/Grooming Area 1 Yes 8 25 200 200 15% 30 230 20% 46 276
Vestibule 1 Yes 1 68 68 68 15% 10 78 20% 16 94
Subtotal 7,465 945 8,410 1,682 10,092
Janitor 1 1 60 60 60 15% 9 69 20% 14 83

Mud Room Entry/Exit 1 Yes 1 224 224 224 15% 34 258 20% 52 309
Mud Room Wash Dry 1 Yes 1 240 240 240 15% 36 276 20% 55 331
Mud Room Tank 1 Yes 1 600 600 600 15% 90 690 20% 138 828
Mud Room Tank Equip 1 Yes 1 375 375 375 15% 56 431 20% 86 518
Mud Room On-Off 1 Yes 1 392 392 392 15% 59 451 20% 90 541
Housekeeping 1 Yes 1 60 60 60 15% 9 69 20% 14 83
Vestibules 2 No 12 20 240 480 15% 72 552 20% 110 662
Subtotal 2,371 356 2,727 545 3,355
Coaches Locker Suite

Locker Area 1 Yes 24 28 672 672 15% 101 773 20% 155 927
Showers/Drying Rooms 6 Yes 1 27 27 162 15% 24 186 20% 37 224
Toilets 3 Yes 1 23 23 69 15% 10 79 20% 16 95
Urinals 2 Yes 1 12 12 24 15% 4 28 20% 6 33
Lavs/Grooming Area 1 Yes 3 20 60 60 15% 9 69 20% 14 83
Subtotal 987 1,135 1,362
Staff Men GAs & Interns Locker Suite

Locker Area 1 Yes 20 15 300 300 20% 60 360 20% 72 432
Toilets/Showers/Lavs 1 Yes 6 50 300 300 22% 66 366 20% 73 439
Subtotal 600 726 871
Staff Women Locker Suite

Locker Area 1 Yes 7 15 105 105 20% 21 126 20% 25 151
Student Manager Changing

Changing Area 1 Yes 20 10 200 200 20% 40 240 20% 48 288
NFL Alumni Men Locker Room

Locker Area Men 0 Yes 15 20 300 0 20% 0 0 20% 0 0
Subtotal 0 0 0
Department Total 12,008 13,705 16,529

TABLE X.II
N et Square
BGSF Total
Program
Each
Streng th & Conditioning
Open Floor 1 Yes 1 4,030 4,030 4,030 10% 403 4,433 20% 887 5,320
Turf/Plyo Area 1 Yes 1 2,800 2,800 2,800 10% 280 3,080 20% 616 3,696
Head S&C office 1 Yes 1 140 140 140 12% 17 157 20% 31 188
FT Staff Office 2 Yes 1 80 80 160 12% 19 179 20% 36 215
GA's Office 1 Yes 3 48 144 144 12% 17 161 20% 32 194
S&C Locker Area Men/Women 1 Yes 8 10 80 80 15% 12 92 20% 18 110
Toilets/Showers Men/Women 1 Yes 1 40 40 40 15% 6 46 20% 9 55
Conference 0 Yes 10 22 220 0 15% 0 0 20% 0 0
Vistors Viewing Area 0 Yes 15 15 225 0 15% 0 0 20% 0 0
Subtotal 0 Yes 0 7,454 15% 763 8,217 20% 1,643 9,861
Janitor 1 Yes 1 60 60 60 15% 9 69 20% 14 83

Nutrition 1 Yes 32 23 736 736 15% 110 846 20% 169 1,016
Nutrition Storage 1 Yes 1 220 220 220 15% 33 253 20% 51 304
Dedicated Unisex Rest Room 2 No 1 60 60 120 15% 18 138 20% 28 166
Storage 1 No 1 400 400 400 15% 60 460 20% 92 552
Cardio Mezz 1 Yes 14 45 630 630 15% 95 725 20% 145 869
Subtotal Yes 0 2,106 316 2,422 20% 484 2,906
Training
Reception/Entry 1 Yes 2 35 70 70 15% 11 81 20% 16 97
Janitor 1 Yes 1 60 60 60 15% 9 69 20% 14 83
Exam Room 1 Yes 1 100 100 100 15% 15 115 20% 23 138
Head Physician 0 Yes 1 160 160 0 15% 0 0 20% 0 0
Taping Tables 10 Yes 1 32 32 320 12% 38 358 20% 72 430
Treatment Tables 7 Yes 1 45 45 315 12% 38 353 20% 71 423
Fabrication/Casting Room 0 Yes 1 120 120 0 15% 0 0 20% 0 0
Head Office/Staff Conf (4) 1 Yes 1 220 220 220 15% 33 253 20% 51 304
Assistant Office 1 Yes 1 120 120 120 22% 26 146 20% 29 176
Office/Treatment Room 0 Yes 1 90 90 0 22% 0 0 20% 0 0
Massage Therapy 0 Yes 4 30 120 0 22% 0 0 20% 0 0
Procedure/Minor Surgery Room 0 Yes 3 60 180 0 22% 0 0 20% 0 0
Waiting Area 0 4 30 120 0 22% 0 0 20% 0 0
Work Area 1 1 100 100 100 22% 22 122 20% 24 146
Rehab (some shared with S&C ?) 1 Yes 1 300 300 300 22% 66 366 20% 73 439
Unisex Toilets -Drug Testing 1 No 1 60 60 60 22% 13 73 20% 15 88
X-ray Room 1 No 1 108 108 108 22% 24 132 20% 26 158
Conference 0 Yes 10 22 220 0 22% 0 0 20% 0 0
Storage - General 1 No 1 150 150 150 22% 33 183 20% 37 220
Ice/Cooler Storage 1 No 1 240 240 240 22% 53 293 20% 59 351
Garage (2 Gators) 2 1 80 80 160 22% 35 195 20% 39 234
Locked Storage 1 1 50 50 50 22% 11 61 20% 12 73
Hot Plunge - 15p 0 Yes 15 30 450 0 15% 0 0 20% 0 0
Cold Plunge - 15p 0 Yes 15 30 450 0 15% 0 0 20% 0 0
Steam 1 6 20 120 120 15% 18 138 20% 28 166
Sauna 1 6 20 120 120 15% 18 138 20% 28 166
Appendage Pools 2 1 50 50 100 15% 15 115 20% 23 138
Hydro 2000 1 Yes 1 391 391 391 15% 59 450 20% 90 540
Break Room 0 Yes 8 30 240 0 15% 0 0 20% 0 0
Change/Rinse Shower 1 Yes 1 40 40 40 22% 9 49 20% 10 59
Equip Pits 1 1 1,500 1,500 1,500 22% 330 1,830 20% 366 2,196

TABLE X.II
N et Square
BGSF Total
Program
Each
Equipm ent
Office 1 Yes 1 160 160 160 15% 24 184 20% 37 221
Manager Office 1 Yes 1 125 125 125 15% 19 144 20% 29 173
Player Compartment 1 Yes 150 2 300 300 15% 45 345 20% 69 414
Mannequins Display (in lobby) 0 Yes 1 12 12 0 15% 0 0 20% 0 0
Conference/Break 0 Yes 1 150 150 0 15% 0 0 20% 0 0
Laundry (3 washers & 4 dryers - commercial) 1 Yes 1 920 920 920 15% 138 1,058 20% 212 1,270
Drink Cooler 1 Yes 1 24 24 24 22% 5 29 20% 6 35
Issue Window 1 Yes 1 60 60 60 15% 9 69 20% 14 83
Cubbies 1 Yes 125 2 250 250 15% 38 288 20% 58 345
Laundry Cart Storage 1 Yes 8 7 56 56 22% 12 68 20% 14 82
Trunks 1 Yes 24 12 288 288 22% 63 351 20% 70 422
Gator Room 1 1 100 100 100 22% 22 122 20% 24 146
Work Area (with benches) 1 Yes 1 400 400 400 15% 60 460 20% 92 552
Space Saver 1 Yes 1 600 600 600 22% 132 732 20% 146 878
Archive Storage 0 Yes 1 300 300 0 22% 0 0 20% 0 0
Promotional Storage 0 Yes 1 150 150 0 22% 0 0 20% 0 0
Covered Dock 1 240 1 240 240 22% 53 293 20% 59 351
General Storage 1 Yes 1 600 600 600 15% 90 690 20% 138 828
Laundry Chutes 3 Yes 1 4 4 12 15% 2 14 20% 3 17
Helmet/Pads Room (1 pad + 3 helmets per player) 1 Yes 1 252 252 252 15% 38 290 20% 58 348
Shoe Room (4 sets/player) 1 Yes 1 128 128 128 15% 19 147 20% 29 177
Cloth Jersey Room (3 sets/player) 1 Yes 1 300 300 300 15% 45 345 20% 69 414
Truck Trailer 0 Yes 55 10 550 0 15% 0 0 20% 0 0
F ootball Staff Offices

Lobby/Waiting (8 people) 1 Yes 8 24 192 192 22% 42 234 20% 47 281
Football Receptionist 1 Yes 1 100 100 100 22% 22 122 20% 24 146
Lounge/Game Room 0 Yes 10 40 400 0 22% 0 0 20% 0 0
Lobby Reception 1 Yes 1 100 100 100 20% 20 120 20% 24 144
Head Coach's Office (seating for 8) 1 Yes 1 224 224 224 20% 45 269 20% 54 323
Head Coach's Recruiting Conf 1 Yes 1 224 224 224 20% 45 269 20% 54 323
Head Coach's Toilet/Shower 1 Yes 1 120 120 120 32% 38 158 20% 32 190
Head Coach's Pantry 0 Yes 1 150 150 0 32% 0 0 20% 0 0
Head Coach's General Storage 1 Yes 1 40 40 40 32% 13 53 20% 11 63
Head Coach's Autographing Area 0 Yes 1 110 110 0 32% 0 0 20% 0 0
Head Coach's Covered Balcony 1 Yes 20 10 200 200 10% 20 220 20% 44 264
Head Coach's/All-Staff Conference Room 1 Yes 24 24 576 576 25% 144 720 20% 144 864
Head Coach's Reception 1 Yes 8 20 160 160 25% 40 200 20% 40 240
Head Coach's Assistant Office 1 Yes 1 100 100 100 25% 25 125 20% 25 150
Coordinators (Off & Def) 2 Yes 1 200 200 400 25% 100 500 20% 100 600
Coordinators (Off & Def) Recruiting (seating for 6) 2 Yes 1 100 100 200 25% 50 250 20% 50 300
Admin Assistant (Off & Def) 1 Yes 1 100 100 100 25% 25 125 20% 25 150
Assistant Coaches Office 1 of 8 7 Yes 1 200 200 1,400 25% 350 1,750 20% 350 2,100
Assistant Coaches Office - Auxillary 1 Yes 1 200 200 200 25% 50 250 20% 50 300
Coordinators (Off & Def) Meeting Room (10 people) 2 Yes 10 28 280 560 25% 140 700 20% 140 840
Grad Assistants 2 Yes 4 170 680 1,360 25% 340 1,700 20% 340 2,040
Football Ops Dir 1 Yes 1 200 200 200 25% 50 250 20% 50 300
Football Ops Dir Conf Seating 1 Yes 1 100 100 100 25% 25 22% 20% 0 0
Recruiting Work Room w/ GAs & Interns 1 Yes 6 64 384 384 25% 96 480 20% 96 576
Head Recruiting Offices 1 Yes 1 200 200 200 25% 50 250 20% 50 300
Assistant Recuiting Offices 4 Yes 1 125 125 500 25% 125 625 20% 125 750
Student Workers 0 Yes 6 64 384 0 25% 0 0 20% 0 0
General Work/Copy Room 1 Yes 1 323 323 323 25% 81 404 20% 81 485
General Storage 1 Yes 1 120 120 120 25% 30 150 20% 30 180
File Storege 1 Yes 1 120 120 120 25% 30 150 20% 30 180
Staff Conf Balcony 0 Yes 1 200 200 0 25% 0 0 20% 0 0
Family/Recruiting Room 1 Yes 8 40 320 320 25% 80 400 20% 80 480
Break/Kitchenette 1 8 33 264 264 25% 66 330 20% 66 396
Individual/Player Film Room 1 Yes 2 65 130 130 25% 33 163 20% 33 195

TABLE X.II
N et Square
BGSF Total
Program
Each
Team M eeting
Tiered Auditorium 1 Yes 150 20 3,000 3,000 12% 360 3,360 20% 672 4,032
Auditorium A/V Room 1 Yes 1 60 60 60 22% 13 73 20% 15 88
Auditorium Support/Storage 1 Yes 1 120 120 120 22% 26 146 20% 29 176
Large Meeting Room 1 Yes 60 20 1,200 1,200 15% 180 1,380 20% 276 1,656
Large Position Room 1 of 2 1 Yes 20 23 460 460 15% 69 529 20% 106 635
Medium Position Room 1 of 6 6 Yes 12 24 288 1,728 15% 259 1,987 20% 397 2,385
Small Meeting Room 2 Yes 8 25 200 400 22% 88 488 20% 98 586
Video - Coaches
Video Office 1 Yes 1 120 120 120 22% 26 146 20% 29 176
Video Work Area 1 Yes 3 80 240 240 15% 36 276 20% 55 331
Video Server Space 1 Yes 1 200 200 200 15% 30 230 20% 46 276
Video Storage 1 Yes 1 100 100 100 15% 15 115 20% 23 138
Video Equipnent Storage (locked) 1 Yes 1 80 80 80 15% 12 92 20% 18 110
Department Total 740 859 1,031
L obby / F acility Support

Main Entry and Lobby East - Welcome Vestibule 1 Yes 1 100 100 100 15% 15 115 20% 23 138
Pubic Restrooms - Men 1 No 1 60 60 60 22% 13 73 20% 15 88
Pubic Restrooms - Women 1 No 1 60 60 60 22% 13 73 20% 15 88
Vestibule 1 No 1 100 100 100 15% 15 115 20% 23 138
Lounge Seating 1 No 12 20 240 240 15% 36 276 20% 55 331
Hall of Fame/Display 1 No 1 500 500 500 15% 75 575 20% 115 690
Receptionist 1 No 1 120 120 120 15% 18 138 20% 28 166
Reception Area 1 No 25 10 250 250 15% 38 288 20% 58 345
Uniform Display 1 No 3 30 90 90 22% 20 110 20% 22 132
Housekeeping Closet 1 No 1 300 300 300 22% 66 366 20% 73 439
Back of H ouse
Trash and Recycling 1 No 1 360 360 360 22% 79 439 20% 88 527
Coaches Parking 1 350 350 0 22% 0 0 20% 0 0
Loading Dock 1 No 1 750 750 750 15% 113 863 20% 173 1,035
Daily Semi Truck Bays 1 No 1 720 720 720 15% 108 828 20% 166 994
Total Net = 51,382 Total Gross Area 71,652

TABLE X.II
N et Square
BGSF Total
Program
Each
Academ ics
Reception, C heck -In, Study Hall 0
Check-in 150 1 150 25% 38 188 25% 47 234
AC Reception 225 1 225 25% 56 281 25% 70 352
Study Hall 900 1 900 25% 225 1,125 25% 281 1,406
AC Restroom - Men 240 1 240 25% 60 300 25% 75 375
AC Restroom - Women 320 1 320 25% 80 400 25% 100 500
1,835 459 2,294 573 2,294
0
Tutor Room s
Tutor Room 150 8 1,200 25% 300 1,500 20% 300 1,800
Small Tutor Room 100 12 1,200 25% 300 1,500 20% 300 1,800
Group Lab - Group Study 300 1 300 25% 75 375 20% 75 450
Group Lab - Math Lab 600 1 600 25% 150 750 20% 150 900
Group Lab - Language/Writing Lab 600 1 600 25% 150 750 20% 150 900
Conference 360 1 360 25% 90 450 20% 90 540
Library/Resource Room 200 1 200 25% 50 250 20% 50 300
4,460 1,115 5,575 1,115 6,690
0
Com puter L abs
Computer Lab 540 3 1,620 25% 405 2,025 25% 506 2,531
1,620 405 2,025 506 2,531
Student Developm ent

Receptionist 150 672 1 150 15% 23 173 20% 35 207
Assistant Director 120 24 1 120 15% 18 138 20% 28 166
Student Life Coordinator 120 12 1 120 15% 18 138 20% 28 166
Career Development 120 12 1 120 15% 18 138 20% 28 166
Career Center 225 12 1 225 15% 34 259 20% 52 311
GA Storage, Office 80 12 3 240 15% 36 276 20% 55 331
Communication Center 225 12 1 225 15% 34 259 20% 52 311
Conference Room 200 12 1 200 15% 30 230 20% 46 276
Cubbies/Coat Area 80 12 1 80 15% 12 92 20% 18 110
1,480 222 1,702 340 2,042
Staff Offices
Director’s Office 150 672 1 150 15% 23 173 20% 35 207
Offices 120 24 6 720 15% 108 828 20% 166 994
Psychologist Office (Wellness) 120 12 1 120 15% 18 138 20% 28 166
Nutritionist 120 12 1 120 15% 18 138 20% 28 166
Graduate Assistants 80 12 4 320 15% 48 368 20% 74 442
Copy Room 100 12 1 100 15% 15 115 20% 23 138
Conference 375 12 1 375 15% 56 431 20% 86 518
Staff Break Room 150 12 1 150 15% 23 173 20% 35 207
Open IT Office 480 12 1 480 15% 72 552 20% 110 662
Storage 100 12 1 100 15% 15 115 20% 23 138
2,635 395 3,030 606 3,636

TABLE X.II
N et Square
BGSF Total
Program
Each
Training Table
Entry/Check-in 1 Yes 1 150 150 150 15% 23 173 20% 35 207
Seating 1 Yes 150 15 2,250 2,250 12% 270 2,520 20% 504 3,024
Serving/Action Stations 1 Yes 1 800 800 800 12% 96 896 20% 179 1,075
Grab n Go 1 Yes 1 40 40 40 15% 6 46 20% 9 55
Kitchen Cooking/Prep 1 Yes 1 400 400 400 22% 88 488 20% 98 586
Cooler 1 Yes 1 150 150 150 22% 33 183 20% 37 220
Freezer 1 No 1 80 200 200 22% 44 244 20% 49 293
Pantry 1 No 1 250 500 500 22% 110 610 20% 122 732
Office 1 No 1 120 120 120 22% 26 146 20% 29 176
Public Toilet 2 No 4 20 80 160 22% 35 195 20% 39 234
Dining Storage 1 No 1 200 200 200 22% 44 244 20% 49 293
Staff Locker/Break 1 No 12 10 120 120 22% 26 146 20% 29 176
Staff Toilet 2 No 1 50 50 100 22% 22 122 20% 24 146
General Storage 1 No 1 150 150 150 22% 33 183 20% 37 220
Dishwashing 1 No 1 600 600 600 22% 132 732 20% 146 878
0 0 22% 0 0 20% 0 0
Dock Recieveing 2 No 1 300 300 600 22% 132 732 20% 146 878
Housekeeping 1 No 1 60 60 60 22% 13 73 20% 15 88
Can Wash 1 No 1 100 100 100 22% 22 122 20% 24 146
Subtotal 6,700 1,156 7,856 1,571 9,427
Kitchen Cooking/Prep 1 Yes 1 400 400 400 22% 88 488 20% 98 586
Cooler 1 Yes 1 150 150 150 22% 33 183 20% 37 220
Freezer 1 No 1 70 200 200 22% 44 244 20% 49 293
Pantry 1 No 1 250 500 500 22% 110 610 20% 122 732
Trash Dumpster/Compactor 1 No 1 200 200 200 22% 44 244 20% 49 293
Recycle 1 No 1 200 200 200 22% 44 244 20% 49 293
Subtotal 1,450 319 1,769 354 2,123

TABLE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT LITTLE ROCK

X.III Possible Football Operations Locations
On campus: 1-5
War Memorial Stadium: 6 & 7


X.IV Football Operations Location - Alternates 1 & 2
Pros:
- Athletes on campus
- Possible sharing of facilities
- Centralized administration
Cons:
- Reduces parking
- Impacts green area
- Cost of replacement parking
- End to end practice not ideal


X.V Football Operations Location - Alternate 3
Pros:
- Possible local sharing of facilities
- Local site central administration
Cons:
- Needs revised master plan to
address Baseball


X.VI Football Operations Location - Alternate 4
Pros:
- Can work around non-campus
property
Cons:
- Use of prime campus site
- Takes some green area


X.VII Football Operations Location - Alternate 5
Pros:
- Can work around non-campus
property
- Leaves prime street frontage on
HWY 5
- Leaves existing green space
Cons:
- Use of prime campus site
- Demolition of some existing
structures


X.VIII Football Operations Location - Alternate 6
Pros:
- Football practice & competition at
one location
- Highly visible building location
- One practice field + competition
field
Cons:
- Reduces green space
- Athletes off campus
- No sharing of facilities with other
sports
- Possible stadium schedule
conflicts


X.IX Football Operations Location - Alternate 7
Pros:
- Football practice & competition at
one location
- Two practice fields + competition
field
Cons:
- No sharing of facilities with other
sports
- Reduces green space/golf area
- Athletes off campus

Market Surveys
To measure community support for the implementation of a UA Little Rock football program and marching band,
an online survey was conducted to gather input from of a variety of UA Little Rock constituents, including athletic
donors, season ticket holders, corporate sponsors, university donors, students, university faculty/staff, alumni and
others.
Survey topics included:
• Trojan Athletic Association awareness; • Football program fundraising potential;
• Athletic Department effectiveness; • Football program corporate sponsorship

potential;
• Attitude towards potential football
program; • Attitude towards marching band
implementation; and,
• Preferred football subdivision affiliation;
• Other such topics.
• Interest in attending home football games;
• Interest in priority and premium seating for

home football games;
Survey respondents were categorized based on their current association with UA Little Rock athletic, academic
and community groups. Table 1 presents a summary of the number of survey respondents per category and the
overall percentage of each category’s population that completed the survey.

TABLE 1
SURVEY RESPONDENT STATUS
COMPLETED % POPULATION MARGIN OF
SURVEY GROUP POPULATION
SURVEYS SURVEYED ERROR***
Current Athletics Patrons* 264 1,947 13.6% 5.6%

University Donors 155 4,697 3.3% 7.7%
Students 995 10,860 9.2% 3.0%
Alumni 987 86,933 1.1% 3.1%
Faculty/Staff 337 2,666 12.6% 5.0%
Others** 353 15,091 2.3% 5.2%
TOTAL 3,091 122,194 2.5% 1.7%
*Includes donors to Athletics, season ticket holders for other UA Little Rock sports and corporate sponsors.
**Includes family members of UA Little Rock students and other members of the local community.
***Based on a confidence interval of 95%.
Overall, a total of 3,091 surveys were completed across a broad spectrum of UA Little Rock constituents, providing
a relatively reliable statistical basis from which to infer potential support and demand for a football program and
marching band.
MARKET SURVEYS Page | X-97

Market survey results are considered together with historical data from comparable football programs and
demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of the local area to estimate potential demand and revenue
support for a football program at UA Little Rock as well as opinions regarding marching band implementation.
A. UA LITTLE ROCK ATHLETICS

To gain an understanding of constituent sentiment regarding the current state of UA
61% of all respondents
have a positive opinion Little Rock’s athletic programs, survey respondents were asked a variety of questions
regarding the current regarding the advancement of Trojan athletics over the past five years and attitude
state of UA Little Rock towards future contributions to the Trojan Athletic Association (“TAA”), the fundraising
athletics
arm of UA Little Rock athletics. Chart 1 details respondent group opinions regarding
the current state of UA Little Rock athletics.

CHART 1 WHAT IS YOUR OPINION REGARDING THE
CURRENT STATE OF UA LITTLE ROCK ATHLETICS?
More Current Athletics Patrons 34% 47% 12% 6% 1%

Positive
Others 26% 38% 29% 5% 2%
University Donors 19% 42% 31% 6% 1%
Alumni 24% 36% 32% 6% 2%
Students 26% 32% 33% 7% 2%
Less Faculty/Staff 1%
20% 36% 36% 7%
Positive
Opinion
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Very Positive Somewhat Positive Neutral Somewhat Negative Very Negative

As shown, current athletic patrons, including season ticket holders for various UA Little
Rock sports teams and current TAA donors, have the most positive opinion regarding the 47% of all
respondents have a
current state of UA Little Rock athletics, with approximately 81 percent responding
more positive
“Somewhat Positive” or “Very Positive”. UA Little Rock faculty and staff members have the opinion of UA Little
least positive opinion of those groups surveyed, with approximately 56 percent indicating Rock athletics relative
they have a “Somewhat Positive” or “Very Positive” opinion regarding the current state of to five years ago
UA Little Rock athletics.
While respondent group opinions vary in terms of the level of positive opinions, each
surveyed group exhibits low levels of negative sentiment towards the current state of UA Little Rock athletics, with
only 7 to 9 percent of each surveyed group indicating “Somewhat Negative” or “Very Negative” opinions.
Survey respondents were asked to characterize how their opinion of UA Little Rock athletics has changed over the
past five years. Chart 2 details specified changes in respondent group opinions over the past five years.
As shown, the majority of UA Little Rock constituents have either the same or a more positive opinion of UA Little
UA LITTLE ROC K ATHLETIC S
CHART 2 HOW HAS YOUR OPINION OF UA LITTLE ROCK ATHLETICS
CHANGED OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS?
Trending Current Athletics Patrons 34% 38% 18% 9% 1%

More
Others 18% 33% 43% 5% 1%
Alumni 16% 30% 49% 5% 1%
Students 16% 29% 50% 4% 1%
University Donors 13% 30% 52% 6%
Trending Faculty/Staff 9% 29% 54% 7% 1%

Less
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Much More Positive Now More Positive Now No Change More Negative Now Much More Negative Now
Rock athletics currently than they did five years ago.
Approximately 72 percent of current athletics patrons have “Somewhat More Positive” or “Significantly More
Positive” opinions of UA Little Rock athletics. UA Little Rock faculty and staff exhibit the least positive trend, with
approximately 38 percent indicating a “Somewhat More Positive” or “Significantly More Positive” opinion
regarding UA Little Rock athletics. While these constituents exhibit the least positive trend, approximately 54
percent of faculty and staff respondents indicated that their opinion of UA Little Rock athletics has remained the

same over the past five years, with only 8 percent indicating that their opinion is “Somewhat More Negative” or
“Significantly More Negative” now relative to five years ago.
Survey respondents who are not current TAA donors were asked to indicate their interest in making future annual
donations to the TAA to help support Trojan athletics. Chart 3 details respondent group interest in TAA giving.

CHA R T 3 HOW WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE YOUR INTEREST
IN MAKING AN ANNUAL DONATION TO THE TAA?
More
Interest Current Athletics Patrons* 9% 16% 37% 63%
Alumni 6% 10% 37% 53%
University Donors 10% 10% 23% 43%
Others 4% 6% 30% 41%
Faculty/Staff 4% 7% 25% 36%

Less
Interest
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Definitely Interested Likely Interested Possibly Interested
*Does not include those patrons who are current TAA members.
Approximately 48 percent of survey respondents who do not currently donate to the

48% of all non-TAA
TAA are interested in making future contributions. Current athletic patrons who are
donor respondents
presently not TAA donors are most interested in making annual TAA donations, with reported an interest in
approximately 62 percent of group respondents indicating some levels of interest. UA making future
Little Rock faculty and staff members indicated the least amount of interest in future contributions
TAA donations, with approximately 36 percent of respondents indicating various levels
of interest in making contributions.

Table 2 details the various levels of TAA support at which respondents indicated they would be willing to give.

TABLE 2 AT WHICH ANNUAL CONTRIBUTION LEVEL
ARE YOU LIKELY TO PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR THE TAA?
CURRENT
UNIVERSIT FACULTY / ALL
GIVING LEVEL ATHLETICS ALUMNI OTHER
Y DONORS STAFF RESPONDENTS
PATRONS
Trojan
Lower 27% 23% 31% 21% 26% 27%
($99 to $249)
Silver
Donation 6% 7% 6% 2% 3% 5%
($250 to $499)
Maroon
9% 3% 4% 1% 2% 4%
($500 to $999)
Varsity
7% 3% 2% 1% 2% 2%
($1,000 to $2,499)
Captain
2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0%
($2,500 to $4,999)
MVP
1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
($5,000 to $9,999)
All-Conference
($10,000 to 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
$14,999)
Higher All-American
($15,000 to 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Donation $24,999)
Champion
0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0%
($25,000 or above)
Approximately 27 percent of respondents are most interested in giving at the “Trojan - $99 to $249” level.
Approximately 5 percent are most interested in giving at the “Silver - $250 to $499” level, and 4 percent are most
interested in giving at the “Maroon - $500 to $999” level. A limited number of respondents are also interested in
giving at the “Varsity - $1,000 to $2,499” to “MVP $5,000 to $9,999” levels. In total, approximately 62 percent of
respondents are not interested in providing annual contributions at the levels provided.

B. FOOTBALL IMPLEMENTATION
In addition to respondents’ attitude towards the current state of UA Little Rock athletics, survey respondents were
asked to indicate their overall attitude towards the potential addition of a football program at UA Little Rock.
Chart 4 presents a summary of responses by respondent group.

CHART 4 HOW WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE YOUR ATTITUDE
TOWARDS STARTING A FOOTBALL PROGRAM AT UA LITTLE ROCK?
More
Positive Students 64% 12% 6% 6% 12%
Attitude
Alumni 51% 19% 7% 6% 17%
Others 46% 15% 13% 10% 16%
Current Athletics Patrons 38% 22% 9% 17% 15%
Faculty/Staff 29% 19% 11% 13% 27%
Less University Donors 39%

26% 15% 8% 12%
Positive
Attitude
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Very Positive Somewhat Positive Neutral Somewhat Negative Very Negative
As shown, current UA Little Rock students indicated the most positive attitude towards
the implementation of a football program, with approximately 76 percent indicating a 67% of all respondents
“Very Positive” or “Somewhat Positive” attitude. University donors (i.e. donors whose indicated a positive
past financial support of UA Little Rock was directed to non-athletic attitude towards the
implementation of a
initiatives/programs) indicated the least positive attitude amongst respondent groups,
football program
with approximately 41 percent indicating a “Very Positive” or “Somewhat Positive”
attitude. In total, approximately 67 percent of all survey respondents indicated a
positive attitude towards the implementation of a UA Little Rock football program,
while 26 percent expressed a negative attitude.

To provide additional context from which to understand respondent support towards the implementation of a
UA Little Rock football program, respondents were asked how they believe a football program would impact UA
Little Rock. Aspects tested included:
• UA Little Rock’s image; • UA Little Rock student recruitment;
• Campus life at UA Little Rock; • Likelihood to recommend UA Little Rock to

prospective students/family;
• Alumni engagement with UA Little Rock;
• UA Little Rock donor growth; and,
• Student, faculty/staff and alumni pride in UA
Little Rock; • Perceived value of a degree earned from UA
Little Rock.
• Academic integrity of UA Little Rock;
• Community support of a UA Little Rock

football program;
Chart 5 details respondent group opinions.

CHART 5 HOW DO YOU FEEL A FOOTBALL PROGRAM
WOULD IMPACT THE FOLLOWING ELEMENTS OF UA LITTLE ROCK?
More Alumni Engagement 49% 29% 17% 2% 2%

Positive
Impact
Donor Growth 43% 35% 16% 3% 3%
Campus Life 51% 26% 12% 6% 5%
Student Recruitment 49% 28% 19% 2% 2%
Community Pride 52% 24% 15% 5% 4%
University Image 51% 26% 12% 7% 5%
Recommend UALR to
Potential Students
35% 19% 36% 4% 6%
Perceived Value of Degree 25% 22% 44% 5% 3%

Less
Positive Academic Integrity 25% 19% 32% 13% 11%
Impact
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Strong Positive Impact Positive Impact No Impact Negative Impact Strong Negative Impact
Overall, the vast majority of UA Little Rock constituents believe a football program would positively impact alumni
engagement (78 percent), donor growth (78 percent), campus life (77 percent), student recruitment (77 percent),
community pride (76 percent) and the University’s image (77 percent).

While many constituents believe that a football program would enhance the value of a UA Little Rock degree and
the institution’s academic integrity, the potential positive impacts were less pronounced with nearly a quarter of
constituents concerned that a football program could have a negative impact on the academic integrity of the
institution.
C. FOOTBALL CLASSIFICATION PREFERENCES

If UA Little Rock were to start a football program, it would initially compete in the
Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) and, after a period of time, could reclassify to
the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) if the institution desired. are aware of the
differences between
To understand the classification preference for a potential UA Little Rock football
FBS and FCS
program, survey respondents were asked a variety of questions regarding FCS and FBS.
Chart 6 details respondents’ current knowledge regarding the basic differences
between the FCS and FBS.
Overall, approximately 57 percent of all respondents are aware of the basic differences between FBS and FCS.
Current UA Little Rock athletics patrons are the most aware of the basic differences between the subdivision
classifications (80 percent), while faculty/staff and students are the least aware (50 percent and 47 percent,
respectively.)
CHART 6
DO YOU KNOW THE BASIC DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FBS AND FCS?
More Current Athletics Patrons 80% 20%

Aware
Others 62% 38%
Alumni 61% 39%
University Donors 53% 47%
Faculty/Staff 50% 50%
Less Students 47% 53%

Aware
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Yes No

After being provided a summary of subdivision attributes, all respondents were asked which football subdivision
they would prefer the potential UA Little Rock football program to compete in. As shown in Chart 7, approximately
35 percent of respondents have no preference regarding program subdivision, while 34 percent would prefer the
FBS and 31 percent the FCS.
Regardless of program subdivision preference, the majority of respondents indicated they would provide the
same level of football program support if the team participated in the other subdivision (68 percent of those
preferring FBS membership and 71 percent of those preferring FCS membership.)

CHART 7 WHICH FOOTBALL SUBDIVISION WOULD YOU
PREFER THE UA LITTLE ROCK FOOTBALL PROGRAM COMPETE IN?
If UA Little Rock did not compete in your preferred

subdivision, how would this impact your decision to support
the program?
No FBS
Preference 34%
35%
15% 68% 15% 3%
14% 71% 5% 10%

FCS
31%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
More likely to support Same level of support

Less likely to support Would not support

D. FOOTBALL ATTENDANCE
The ability of UA Little Rock to attract attendance to home football games would
impact the game-day environment and revenue-generating capabilities of the indicated an interest in
football program. Therefore, constituents were asked their likelihood to attend UA attending home
Little Rock home football games. For purposes of this study, it was assumed that a UA football games
Little Rock football program would play its home games off-campus at nearby War
Memorial Stadium.
Chart 8 details each respondent group’s specific likelihood to attend.
Overall, approximately 76 percent of all respondents indicated an interest in attending UA Little Rock home
football games, with approximately 34 percent indicating they would “Definitely Attend”, approximately 22
percent indicating they would “Likely Attend” and approximately 20 percent indicating they would “Possibly
Attend”.
Current athletic patrons indicated the highest interest in attending UA Little Rock home football games, with
approximately 89 percent indicating some level of interest in attending. Current university donors indicated the
lowest interest of attendance at UA Little Rock football games, with approximately 58 percent indicating some
level of interest in attending.

Ticket Type
Chart 9 details the type of ticket respondent groups indicated they would likely purchase for UA Little Rock home
football games (season ticket or individual game ticket).
As shown, the majority of respondents are interested in purchasing individual game tickets, with current athletic
patrons and alumni most interested in season ticket purchases. Students were asked a separate purchase intent
question that will be detailed in F. Student Football Program Interest and are therefore not included in this chart.

CHART 9 WHAT TYPE OF TICKET WOULD YOU LIKELY
PURCHASE FOR UA LITTLE ROCK HOME FOOTBALL GAMES?
Current Athletics Patrons 44% 42% 14%
Students N/A
Alumni 20% 57% 23%
Others 16% 56% 28%
Faculty/Staff 14% 52% 34%
University Donors 19% 37% 44%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Season Tickets Individual Game Tickets Would Not Buy Tickets
Note: 'Would Not Buy Tickets' includes those respondents who previously indicated that they would not attend UA Little Rock home football games.
E. FOOTBALL TICKET PRICE SENSITIVITY

Based on preferred ticket type (i.e. individual or season tickets), respondents were asked to indicate their preferred
seat location and willingness to purchase tickets (“Definitely Purchase”, “Likely Purchase”, “Possibly Purchase” or
“Would Not Purchase”) at three (3) potential price points. Sensitivities across ticket type and pricing are detailed
over the following pages.

Individual Game Tickets
Those interested in individual game tickets were asked their likelihood to pay for an individual game ticket at $35,
$25 or $15 per game. Chart 10 details respondent price sensitivity.

CHART 10 HOW WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE YOUR WILLINGNESS
TO PAY SELECT PRICES PER GAME YOU CHOOSE TO ATTEND?
$35 21% 32% 31% 85%

(44%)
$25 37% 32% 23% 92%

(48%)
$15 64% 23% 12% 99%

(52%)
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Definitely Pay Likely Pay Possibly Pay
Note: Reflects responses of those interested in single game tickets only. The total percentage in parenthesis represents the overall effective percentage of respondents
inclusive of those that do not have an interest in attending football games or purchasing individual game tickets.
Overall, the vast majority of respondents interested in attending select home games for UA Little Rock would
consider paying $15 to $35 per ticket.
It should be noted that the total percentage in parenthesis represents the overall effective percentage of
respondents that would consider paying the tested price, inclusive of those that do not have an interest in
attending football games or purchasing individual game tickets.
Respondents willing to pay for individual game tickets indicated that they would attend an average of 2.8 UA Little
Rock football home games per season, purchasing an average of 2.7 tickets per game.
Priority Season Tickets
Priority seating reserves the seats in the best locations of the stadium for those who donate to the TAA in addition
to the purchase of a season ticket.
Respondents interested in season tickets were asked to indicate their interest in purchasing priority season tickets
for UA Little Rock football home games, understanding that a qualifying TAA donation per seat in addition to the

season ticket price would be necessary to secure these seats. Chart 11 details the level of interest by respondent

CHART 11 HOW INTERESTED ARE YOU IN
PURCHASING PRIORITY SEASON TICKETS?
More
Interest Others 40% 30% 30% 100% (16%)
University Donors 37% 30% 30% 97% (19%)
Current Athletics
36% 37% 23% 96% (42%)
Patrons
Alumni 35% 32% 28% 94% (19%)
Faculty/Staff 30% 28% 34% 91% (8%)

Less
Interest
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
group.
Note: Reflects responses of those interested in season tickets only.
Overall, approximately 95 percent of those expressing an interest in purchasing season

interested in season tickets for UA Little Rock football games indicated an interest in purchasing priority
tickets are interested in season tickets.
priority seating
The total percentage in parenthesis represents the overall effective percentage of
respondents that would consider paying the tested price, inclusive of those that do not
have an interest in attending football games or purchasing season tickets. Overall, approximately 14 percent of
all survey respondents indicated an interest in purchasing priority season tickets before the introduction of
pricing.
These respondents were asked for which section(s) they would consider purchasing priority season tickets,
understanding that locations with the best field views would be more expensive (e.g. between the 40-yard lines
would be more expensive than the end zone to the 20-yard line). Chart 12 details respondents’ preferred seat
location before prices were shown.


CHART 12
WHICH SECTION(S) WOULD YOU CONSIDER PURCHASING PRIORITY SEASON TICKETS FOR?
100%
75%
61%
50%
34%
23%
25%
0%
Between the 40s Between the 20s and 40s End Zone to 20s
As illustrated, the vast majority of potential priority seating patrons desire to sit between midfield and the 20-
yard lines.
Respondents interested in select priority season ticket locations were asked to indicate their likelihood of
purchasing priority season tickets at three (3) different price points. Chart 13 details the price sensitivity of
respondents at various price points and locations.

CHART 13
HOW WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE YOUR WILLINGNESS TO PAY SELECT PRICES PER SEASON?
$300 61% 30% 9% 99% (7%)

BETWEEN
THE 40S $250 72% 23% 5% 100% (7%)
$200 84% 13% 3% 100% (7%)
$200 48% 39% 13% 100% (13%)

BETWEEN
THE 20S $150 64% 30% 6% 100% (13%)
AND 40S
$100 81% 15% 3% 100% (13%)
$100 47% 35% 18% 100% (5%)
END ZONE $75 62% 33% 5% 100% (5%)

TO 20S
$50 81% 15% 4% 100% (5%)
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Definitely Purchase Likely Purchase Possibly Purchase

Note: The total percentage in parenthesis represents the overall effective percentage of respondents inclusive of those that do not have an interest in attending football games or purchasing
priority season tickets.

As tested prices decrease, the likelihood of purchase intent increases for each tested ticket location. The
percentage of respondents indicating they would “Definitely Purchase” tickets increased from 61 percent to 84
percent when tested prices shifted from $300 to $200 for tickets between the 40-yard lines, increased from 48
percent to 81 percent when tested prices shifted from $200 to $100 for tickets between the 20-yard lines and 40-
yard lines and increased from 47 percent to 81 percent when tested prices shifted from $100 to $50 for tickets
from the end zone to 20-yard lines. Overall, total positive responses and relative strength of the responses indicate
that a UA Little Rock football program could support a priority seating program.
Respondents willing to purchase priority season tickets located between the 40-yard lines indicated that they
would purchase an average of 3.2 tickets, while those interested in priority season tickets between the 20- and 40-
yard lines indicated that they would purchase 2.8 tickets and those interested in priority season tickets from the
end zone to 20-yard lines indicated that they would purchase 3.2 tickets.
Premium Seating
War Memorial Stadium, the presumed home of a potential UA Little Rock football program, includes (or could
include with renovations) a number of premium seating options and enhanced fan amenities offering some of the
best sightlines to the playing field for UA Little Rock football games.
Premium seating could include access to amenities such as preferred parking, upgraded food and beverage
options, a private stadium entrance, exclusive space for dining and socializing and other such amenities. Survey
respondents interested in purchasing season tickets were asked to describe their level of interest in purchasing
premium seating for UA Little Rock home football games before prices were introduced. Chart 14, on the following
page, details level of interest by respondent group.


CHART 14
HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE YOUR INTEREST IN
More
Interest University Donors 33% 37% 23% 93% (18%)
Current Athletics Patrons 31% 29% 32% 92% (41%)
Alumni 39% 22% 30% 90% (18%)
Others 33% 17% 40% 90% (14%)
Faculty/Staff 23% 21% 38% 83% (11%)

Less
Interest
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Note: Asked only of respondents expressing an interest in season tickets. The total percentage in parenthesis represents the overall effective percentage of respondents inclusive of those that do not
have an interest in attending football games or purchasing season tickets.
As shown, current University donors and athletics patrons with an interest in season
tickets had the highest level of initial interest (before pricing was shown) in purchasing
interested in season
tickets are interested in premium seating for UA Little Rock home football games, with 93 percent and 92
premium seating percent interested, respectively.
The total percentage in parenthesis represents the overall effective percentage of

respondents that would consider paying the tested price, inclusive of those that do not have an interest in
attending football games or purchasing premium seating. Overall, approximately 11 to 41 percent of all survey
respondents, depending on group, indicated an interest in purchasing priority season tickets before the
introduction of pricing.
Those showing an initial interest in premium seating were then asked to characterize their interest in a number of
premium seating concepts for UA Little Rock home football games, including club seats, loge boxes and luxury
suites (before prices were shown for each concept.)

Chart 15 details respondent interest for each concept before prices were shown.

CHART 15 HOW WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE YOUR INTEREST IN THE FOLLOWING PREMIUM SEATING
CONCEPTS FOR UA LITTLE ROCK HOME FOOTBALL GAMES?
Club Seats 27% 20% 35% 82% (12%)
Loge Boxes 21% 18% 30% 69% (9%)
Luxury Suites 8% 6% 24% 39% (5%)
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Note: Asked only of respondents expressing an interest in premium seating. The total percentage in parenthesis represents the overall effective percentage of respondents inclusive
of those that do not have an interest in attending football games or purchasing premium seating.
Overall, approximately 82 percent of those interested in purchasing premium seating are interested in club seats,
approximately 69 percent are interested in purchasing loge boxes and approximately 39 percent are interested in
purchasing luxury suites.
The total percentage in parenthesis represents the overall effective percentage of respondents interested in given
concepts, inclusive of those that do not have an interest in attending football games or purchasing premium
seating. The effective percentage of respondents indicating an interest in purchasing premium seating before
prices were shown (approximately 12 percent interested in club seats, 9 percent interested in loge boxes and 5
percent interested in luxury suites) is similar to studies performed for other institutions assessing the feasibility of
implementing a football program.

Respondents interested in various premium seating concepts were asked to indicate their likelihood of purchasing
season tickets at three (3) different price points. Chart 16 details the price sensitivity of these respondents.
CHART 16
HOW WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE YOUR WILLINGNESS TO PAY SELECT PRICES PER SEASON?
$1,500 11% 17% 37% 65% (7%)

CLUB
SEATS
$1,000 17% 22% 31% 70% (7%)
$500 40% 20% 25% 85% (9%)
$5,000 11% 10% 34% 55% (5%)
LOGE
$4,000 12% 12% 33% 57% (5%)
BOXES
$3,000 17% 20% 30% 67% (7%)
$25,000 9% 6% 28% 43% (2%)
LUXURY $20,000 9% 3% 32% 44% (2%)

SUITES
$15,000 10% 12% 31% 53% (4%)
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Definitely Purchase Likely Purchase Possibly Purchase

Note: Asked only of respondents expressing an interest in select premium seating concepts.The total percentage in parenthesis represents the overall effective percentage of respondents inclusive of
those that do not have an interest in attending football games or purchasing premium seating.
Overall, approximately 65 percent to 85 percent of interested respondents indicate some level of interest to
purchase club seats at various price points, approximately 55 percent to 67 percent indicate some level of interest
to purchase loge boxes at various price points and approximately 43 percent to 53 percent indicate some level of
interest to purchase luxury suites at various price points.
As tested prices decrease, the strength of purchase intent increases for each tested ticket location. The percentage
of respondents indicating they would “Definitely Purchase” tickets increased from 11 percent to 40 percent when
tested prices shifted from $1,500 to $500 for club seats, increased from 11 percent to 17 percent when tested
prices shifted from $5,000 to $3,000 for loge boxes and increased from 9 to 10 percent when tested prices shifted
from $25,000 to $15,000 for luxury suites.
Respondents indicating a willingness to pay for various premium seating concepts were asked to indicate their
sharing preferences for each concept. Approximately 36 percent of those interested in club seats indicated they
would prefer to share tickets with others, while 60 percent of those interested in loge boxes and 79 percent of
those interested in luxury suites would prefer to share premium options with others.
For those looking to share their leases, potential club seat holders indicated that they would prefer an average of
2.6 parties per account, potential loge box holders an average of 2.5 parties per account and potential luxury suite
holders an average of 2.6 parties per account.

F. STUDENT FOOTBALL PROGRAM INTEREST

The majority of intercollegiate athletic programs, including UA Little Rock, receive an allocation of student fees to
subsidize the cost of sponsoring sports programs. With the potential implementation of football at UA Little Rock,
it is possible that University officials could consider increasing student fees to offset start-up and operating costs
of a football program.
To determine if students would be willing to support a football program at UA Little Rock through an increase in
student fees, various student fee increases were tested. Chart 17 details student respondent support for potential
student fee increases of $100, $50 and $25 per semester.

CHART 17 HOW WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE YOUR SUPPORT FOR A POTENTIAL INCREASE IN
STUDENT FEES SPECIFICALLY TO SUPPORT A UA LITTLE ROCK FOOTBALL PROGRAM?
$100 34% 16% 11% 61%
$50 47% 12% 5% 64%
$25 54% 8% 2% 64%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Definitely Support Likely Support Possibly Support
Approximately 61 percent of student respondents indicated they would possibly, likely or definitely support a
student fee increase of $100 per semester, while 64 percent indicated they would possibly, likely or definitely
support an increase of $50 or $25. Based on the strength of the responses, it appears that up to a $50 per-semester
fee would likely pass in a student referendum.
As an alternative to increasing student fees, but still recognizing the need to generate revenues to support a UA
Little Rock football program, students could be required to pay for student tickets to home football games.

As shown in Chart 18, Students were asked to characterize their interest in paying per-game student ticket prices
for access to UA Little Rock football games.

CHART 18 HOW WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE YOUR WILLINGNESS
TO PAY SELECT PRICES PER GAME YOU CHOOSE TO ATTEND?
$15 30% 17% 18% 65%
$10 42% 17% 11% 70%
$5 62% 7% 4% 72%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Definitely Pay Likely Pay Possibly Pay
Approximately 65 percent of respondents would potentially pay $15 per game for student tickets, while
approximately 70 percent would potentially pay $10 per game and approximately 72 percent would pay $5 per
game. Students with an interest in paying for student tickets indicated that they would attend, on average, 3.6
home football games per season. Overall, student respondents indicated slightly higher levels of support for
paying for per-game student tickets rather than increases in student fees.
G. FOOTBALL TICKET DEMAND ESTIMATES

As a means of estimating demand for tickets to UA Little Rock home football games at War Memorial Stadium, the
Project Team utilized the following methodology:
1. Following an introduction of all available seating concepts, respondents were asked to select the seating
concept they would most likely purchase at War Memorial Stadium for UA Little Rock home football
games (“True Interest”).
2. Based on the respondent’s True Interest, the Project Team considered the strength of their willingness to
purchase that concept (i.e. “Definitely”, “Likely”, “Possibly” or “Would Not” purchase) when shown the
various ticket prices.
3. The Project Team applied various conversion rates to estimate the likelihood of respondents following
through with their intended True Interest purchase. Higher conversion rates were applied to stronger
levels of purchase intent (i.e. “Definitely Purchase” has stronger weight than “Possibly Purchase”).

4. The Project Team extrapolated the results to the database of those groups providing survey links to
constituents, which totaled approximately 122,000. Population reduction factors were applied to these
groups, with lower reduction rates applied to groups with more proven interest in UA Little Rock Athletics
(i.e. Current Athletic Patrons).
5. Utilizing the average number of seats respondents indicated they would purchase at each seat location,
the Project Team projected the total number of seats that could be sold at each seat location.
6. As the ticket price continues to decrease, demand for seating in each area increases. At the lowest seat
ticket prices tested, the Project Team identified the maximum number of seats that could be sold in each
location.
7. Following identification of the total inventory that could be sold in each location, the Project Team made
recommendations regarding ticket pricing for each seat location.
Table 3 presents a summary of the estimated demand at derived price points for each concept.

TABLE 3 TICKET DEMAND AND ANNUAL REVENUE POTENTIAL
SURVEY RESULTS
TOTAL POTENTIAL ANNUAL
PRIORITY SEATING TOTAL DEMAND TESTED PRICE
REVENUE
Between the 40s 870 $300 $261,000

Between the 20s and 40s 1,450 $200 $290,000
End Zone to 20s 270 $100 $27,000
PREMIUM SEATING
Club Seats 500 $1,500 $750,000

Loge Boxes* 35 $5,000 $175,000
Sellable Suites* 10 $25,000 $250,000
SEASON TICKETS
General Public 630 $90 $56,700

INDIVIDUAL GAME TICKETS**
General Admission 4,000 $15 $360,000

Student Admission 2,840 $15 $42,600
TOTAL DEMAND 10,815 $2,212,300
*Demand and tested price shown on a per-unit basis.

**Demand and tested price on a per-game basis, annual revenue assumes equal demand distribution across 6 games.
As shown, the survey results indicated demand for 10,815 tickets per game (including seasonal and individual
game purchases) with a total potential revenue of approximately $2.2 million.

Understanding that extrapolated demand may not align with building constraints (e.g. War Memorial Stadium
does not currently have loge boxes), the Project Team made calculated adjustments to product demand utilizing
the following methodology:
1. Following the extrapolation of estimated ticket demand from survey results, the Project Team identified
those concepts that were oversubscribed relative to the current War Memorial Stadium inventories (i.e.
demand was greater than available inventory).
2. Concept inventories that were oversubscribed were “waterfalled” or reallocated to concepts that were
undersubscribed at lower price points, to the extent a lower-priced concept was available and the survey
respondents showed some level of interest in the lower-priced seating area.
Table 4 presents a summary of the estimated ticket demand at derived price points for each concept, accounting
for the Project Team’s adjustments.

TABLE 4 TICKET DEMAND & ANNUAL REVENUE POTENTIAL:
PROJECT TEAM ESTIMATES
ESTIMATED TOTAL POTENTIAL

PRIORITY SEATING TOTAL INVENTORY TOTAL PRICE
SELL-THROUGH ANNUAL REVENUE
Between the 40s 1,807 1,092 $300 $327,600

Between the 20s and 40s 3,330 1,450 $200 $290,000
End Zone to 20s 7,887 270 $100 $27,000
PREMIUM SEATING
Club Seats 492 490 $1,500 $735,000

Sellable Suites* 2 2 $25,000 $50,000
SEASON TICKETS
General Public 40,504 630 $90 $56,700

INDIVIDUAL GAME TICKETS**
General Admission 4,000 $15 $360,000

40,504
Student Admission 2,840 $0 $0
TOTAL ANNUAL REVENUE 10,580 $1,846,300
Note: Given current stadium building program.
*Inventory and pice shown on a per-unit basis.
*Demand and tested price on a per-game basis, annual revenue assumes equal demand distribution across 6 games.
Based on the results of the survey, the Project Team’s consideration of War Memorial Stadium’s inventories and
extrapolations to the population of approximately 122,000 in the various constituent databases, there is demand
for approximately 2,800 priority season tickets, 490 club seats, 2 suites, 630 general season tickets and 6,800 per-
game individual tickets (including 2,840 complimentary student tickets). It is estimated that this demand could
result in a total of approximately $1.8 million in annual ticket revenue.

H. FOOTBALL PROGRAM FUNDRAISING

A critical component to the success of a football program is the depth and breadth of its donor base. Revenue
generated from constituent giving is typically one of the largest revenue sources for an intercollegiate football
program.
The implementation of a Division I football program at UA Little Rock (FCS or FBS) will
27% of respondents are
interested in making a require significant financial resources. There could be a variety of opportunities for
start-up capital interested individuals to help fund football implementation through start-up capital
contribution contributions that could be used to start a head coach position endowment, help fund
the construction of a football operations facility, provide program support staff salaries
and provide other general program needs. Understanding the substantial financial
commitment it will require to start a football program at UA Little Rock, survey respondents were asked to indicate
their interest in making start-up capital contributions to the program. Chart 19 details interest by respondent
group (excluding students, who were not asked this question).
Approximately 27 percent of all survey respondents are interested in making a start-up capital contribution for a
UA Little Rock football program. As shown, current athletic patrons and alumni are the most interested in giving
(37 percent), while University faculty and staff are least interested (17 percent).

CHA R T 19
WOULD YOU BE INTERESTED IN MAKING A START-UP CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION
More
Interest Current Athletics Patrons 37% 63%
Alumni 29% 71%
University Donors 24% 76%
Others 22% 78%
Faculty/Staff 17% 83%

Less
Interest
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Yes No

Those interested in contributing to a UA Little Rock football program capital campaign were asked to indicate
their likely level of support, detailed in Chart 20.
The majority of respondents (approximately 78 percent) are most interested in giving between $100 and $500,
while approximately 15 percent are interested in giving between $5,000 and $10,000.
Respondents interested in contributing to the start-up of a new UA Little Rock football program were asked if they
wanted their donations directed to benefit a named head coach position endowment, a football operations
facility, football program support staff salaries or general program costs.

CHART 20 WHAT LEVEL OF CONTRIBUTION WOULD YOU CONSIDER TO SUPPORT THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW UA LITTLE ROCK FOOTBALL PROGRAM?
$10,000 to
2%
$25,000
$5,000 to
15%
$10,000
$100 to $500 78%
None 8%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Approximately 70 percent of those interested in giving would be most interested in contributing to general
program costs, while 15 percent would be most interested in contributing to a football operations facility, and 6
percent would be most interested in contributing to a named head coach endowment and/or support staff
salaries.
It is important to understand whether donations dedicated to starting a football program could come at the
expense of other UA Little Rock donor programs. Given this, those indicating an interest in giving to TAA through
seat donation requirements or a football program capital campaign were asked how these donations would affect
their current donation levels to UA Little Rock athletics and University donor programs.

Chart 21 details the donation impact for those that currently give to TAA.
As shown, approximately 58 percent of respondents indicated that any donation towards a UA Little Rock football
program would be in addition to their current TAA donation, while 33 percent indicated their donation level would
remain the same, and 8 percent indicated the necessary donations would take the place of their current donation.

CHART 21 WOULD YOUR DONATION BE IN ADDITION TO YOUR CURRENT TAA CONTRIBUTION, TAKE THE PLACE
OF YOUR CURRENT TAA CONTRIBUTION, OR WOULD YOUR CONTRIBUTION REMAIN THE SAME?
100%
75%
58%
50%
33%
25%
8%
0%
In Addition To Remain The Same Take The Place Of

Survey respondents who indicated that they have made non-athletic donations to UA Little Rock in the past were
also asked how any future donations made towards a UA Little Rock football program would impact their decision
to make future non-athletic donations to the school, as shown in Chart 22.
Approximately 86 percent of respondents indicated that football donations would have no impact on their non-
athletic giving levels, while approximately 9 percent said it would reduce future gifts, and approximately 5 percent
said it would replace future gifts.

CHART 22 HOW WOULD ANY FUTURE FOOTBALL DONATION YOU MAKE IMPACT YOUR
DECISION TO MAKE NON-ATHLETIC DONATIONS TO UA LITTLE ROCK?
Replace
Future Gifts
Reduce 5%
Future Gifts
9%
No Impact
86%

I. FOOTBALL PROGRAM CORPORATE SPONSORSHIP

Approximately 11 percent of survey respondents indicated that they were answering the survey on behalf of their
business or both their business and family. These respondents were asked to indicate their company’s interest in
advertising or sponsorship opportunities related to a potential UA Little Rock football program, as detailed
in Chart 23.
Approximately 51 percent of survey respondents answering on behalf of their business indicated an interest in
advertising and/or sponsorship opportunities. Of those interested in advertising and/or sponsorship
opportunities, approximately 91 percent indicated an interest in opportunities costing below $7,500 on an annual
basis.

CHART 23 HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE YOUR COMPANY'S INTEREST IN ADVERTISING OR SPONSORSHIP
OPPORTUNITIES RELATED TO A POTENTIAL UA LITTLE ROCK FOOTBALL PROGRAM?
Interest Level 12% 14% 26% 49%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Definitely Interested Likely Interested Possibly Interested Not Interested

J. MARCHING BAND IMPLEMENTATION

72% of respondents believe marching In addition to interest in the implementation of a UA Little Rock football
band implementation is important if a program, survey respondents were asked their interest in the
football program is established, and 46%
implementation of a University marching band. In order to provide a
believe marching band implementation
is important if a football program is not holistic examination of constituent interest, respondents were asked the
established importance of marching band establishment under a scenario assuming
UA Little Rock starts a football program and a scenario where UA Little
Rock does not start a football program.

CHART 24 HOW IMPORTANT IS IT THAT A UNIVERSITY MARCHING BAND BE ESTABLISHED
TO SUPPORT UA LITTLE ROCK ATHLETIC AND ACADEMIC EVENTS?
Students 53% 24% 14% 9% 26% 27% 23% 23%
Others 48% 27% 10% 15% 24% 20% 25% 30%
Alumni 46% 27% 15% 12% 19% 25% 25% 31%
Current
Athletics 35% 36% 18% 11% 14% 20% 28% 38%
Patrons
Faculty/Staff 36% 27% 19% 17% 17% 23% 33% 27%
University
37% 20% 27% 16% 12% 29% 30% 30%
Donors
0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Overall, survey respondents believe marching band is more important if a UA Little Rock football program is
established, with level of implementation importance decreasing from 27 percent (current athletic patrons) to 10
percent (faculty/staff) by respondent group.
To provide additional context regarding constituent support of marching band implementation, respondents
were asked how they believe a marching band program would impact various aspects of the current UA Little
Rock experience. Chart 25 details respondent group opinions.
As shown, respondents believe that a marching band will have a positive impact on various elements of UA Little
Rock, including student recruitment, community pride, campus life and university image. Approximately 27

percent of current and former students would have been interested in joining a marching band program if it was
established during their tenure at UA Little Rock.

CHART 25
HOW WOULD A MARCHING BAND PROGRAM IMPACT THE FOLLOWING ELEMENTS OF UA LITTLE ROCK?
More
Positive
Impact Student Recruitment 32% 42% 24% 0%1%
Community Pride 31% 40% 27% 1% 1%
Campus Life 32% 39% 27% 1% 1%
University Image 31% 39% 28% 1% 1%

Less
Positive
Impact
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Strong Positive Impact Moderate Positive Impact No Impact

Financial Considerations
A. INTRODUCTION
The Project Team was asked to determine the financial impact of Division I FCS or FBS Football (Football) on the
University and UA Little Rock Athletics (Athletics). Inherent to this analysis are the projected revenues and
expenses associated with current sports sponsorship, as well as Football.
Financial Pro Forma
The Project Team developed two Financial Pro Formas (Pro Forma), with companion Assumptions: the first, as a
baseline for assessing Athletics’ current financial position without Football; the second, to illustrate the
implementation of Football at the FCS and FBS levels, respectively.
• UALR Attachment XI-1 UA Little Rock Athletics Division I Pro Forma FY’s 2016-17 through FY 2022-23
(Division I – Without Football Pro Forma)
• UALR Attachment XI-2 UA Little Rock Athletics Division I Pro Forma With Football FY’s 2016-17 through
FY 2024-25 (Division I Football Pro Forma)
Essential data included the following:

• Athletics’ FY 2016-17 actual revenues and • Recent benchmark data from Division I
expenses, as well as forecasting assumptions FCS and FBS Football members;
provided by Athletics and the University • Inclusion of two additional women’s sports -
Office of Finance and Administration; with approximately 30 female student-
• Market Survey generated data; athletes;
• Revenues and expenses associated with the • Football home games at War Memorial
planned inclusion of Men’s Wrestling Stadium;
(Wrestling) in FY 2018-19; • Expenses for a Football Operations facility and
• Planned addition of Athletics’ personnel and practice facilities; and,
student-athlete scholarships Without Football; • Marching Band implementation.
B. UA LITTLE ROCK ATHLETICS FISCAL ENVIRONMENT:

NCAA DIVISION I – WITHOUT FOOTBALL
Allocated Revenues
The NCAA defines Allocated Revenues for Intercollegiate Athletics as those revenues coming from direct
institutional support, student fees, state funding, or indirect institutional support - such as utilities and
maintenance. Athletics receives Allocated Revenues primarily from direct institutional support as well as
funding from Student Fees.
Athletics’ annual budget received approximately 67 % of its funding from Allocated Revenues in FY 2016-17,
which is considerably less than the median of Division I - Without Football programs. However, the University’s
Allocated Revenues are projected to grow to approximately 70% over the next several Fiscal Years.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS Page | XI-126

The table below compares UA Little Rock Athletics’ Allocated Revenues with Division I peer groups. Only a few NCAA
Division I programs generate net revenues; all such programs (24) are at the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) level.

TABLE 1 Median NCAA Division I Allocated Revenues Per Subdivision
FY2016-17
UALR ATHLETICS NCAA DIVISION I NCAA DIVISION I NCAA DIVISION I

WITHOUT FOOTBALL WITHOUT FOOTBALL FCS FOOTBALL FBS FOOTBALL
67% 77% 71% 19%
UA Little Rock’s reliance on direct institutional support to fund Athletics is challenging, especially with the State
of Arkansas’ limits on the percentage of Educational and General Funds (E&G) allocated for intercollegiate
athletics. As stated earlier in this Study, the University’s Athletics student-fee per credit hour is already the highest
in the State. Also, prospects for revenue from University auxiliaries directed to Athletics are nonexistent.
In spite of these impediments, the University, supported by a generous donation, is adding Wrestling this fall.
More scholarships are also being awarded to Women’s Swimming and Women’s Track and Field. Additionally, the
University has committed to funding several new positions essential to student-athlete health, safety, and
performance. That commitment also includes staffing to assist with Athletics’ revenue generation and Internal
Operations. Much-needed upgrades to the Donaghey Student Center are also planned to better accommodate
other sports.
This funding model may not be sustainable unless there is a consistent increase in the percentage of Allocated
Revenues, combined with substantial growth in Athletics Generated Revenues (Generated Revenues).
Generated Revenues
The above table illustrates the disparity of Generated Revenues between institutions within benchmarked Division
I FCS, FBS, and Without Football programs. The balance of most Division I athletic departments’ Generated
Revenues come from gate receipts, donations, conference distributions, and miscellaneous sources (such as
NCAA, television, radio, corporate sponsorships, and special events). However, only the most mature Division I -
Without Football and FCS Football programs produce substantial Generated Revenues.
The Division I - Without Football Pro Forma projects Athletics’ Generated Revenues increasing from about $3.3
million in FY 2017-18 to $4.3 million in FY 2022-23. This is a favorable forecast since recent NCAA data shows
median Generated Revenues for Division I - Without Football at $2.9 million.
Athletics' greatest opportunities for increasing Generated Revenues are in the areas of ticket sales and
contributions.
• Sizable inventory exists for Men's and Women's Basketball - season and single game tickets.
• Trojan Athletic Association (TAA) contributions should be a key target, especially in the area of priority
seating and unrestricted gifts.
• Opportunities for substantial increases in traditional external resources such as concessions, NCAA and
Conference distributions, and licensing royalties are negligible. Pro Forma Assumptions do project sizable
annual income from Men's Basketball away game guarantees.

Revenue and Expense Projections

TABLE 2
ATHLETIC BUDGET (FY 2017)
From the current year (FY 2017-18) Peer FCS & FBS Institutions
through the life of the Division I - Football Championship Subdivision

Without Football Pro Forma, Rank Institution Budget Rank Institution Budget
Athletics' expenses are estimated to 1 University of the Incarnate Word* $18,629,846 1 Eastern Kentucky University $17,020,000
2 Sam Houston State University $18,320,000 2 Murray State University $16,010,000
increase from approximately $10.6 3 Lamar University $17,660,000 3 Austin Peay State University $15,120,000
4 Stephen F. Austin State University $16,870,000 4 Tennessee Technological University $14,250,000
million to $12.8 million. During this 5 Houston Baptist University* $16,060,012 5 Jacksonville State University* $13,579,563
6 Abilene Christian University* $13,701,403 6 Tennessee State University $12,480,000
period, Athletics expects to achieve a 7 Southeastern Louisiana University $13,460,000 7 Southeast Missouri State University $12,470,000
8 University of Central Arkansas $12,840,000 8 Morehead State University $12,150,000
balanced budget through modest 9 Northwestern State University $12,560,000 9 Eastern Illinois University $12,090,000
10 University of Arkansas at Little Rock $10,637,740 10 University of Arkansas at Little Rock $10,637,740
increases in Allocated Revenues and 11 McNeese State University $11,650,000 11 University of Tennessee at Martin $11,310,000
12 Nicholls State University $8,330,000
conservative Generated Revenue AVERAGE $14,552,842 AVERAGE $13,647,956
MEDIAN $13,701,403 MEDIAN $13,029,782
estimates. However, as pointed out in
VIII. Athletics Support Services, the Sun Belt Conference Conference USA
above model will not support Rank Institution Budget Rank Institution Budget
essential student-athlete services nor 1

2
Arkansas State University
Texas State University
$39,460,000
$35,920,000
1
2
Old Dominion University*
Rice University*
$46,180,000
$39,125,169
achieve a more competitive position 3

4
Appalachian State University
Troy University
$35,070,000
$29,960,000
3
4
University of North Texas
Florida Atlantic University
$36,360,000
$34,100,000
in the Sun Belt or Division I. The 5

6
Georgia State University
Coastal Carolina University*
$29,860,000
$28,936,464
5
6
Middle Tennessee State University
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
$34,040,000
$33,250,000
benchmark table illustrates Athletics' 7

8
Georgia Southern University
University of South Alabama
$28,760,000
$27,950,000
7
8
Florida International University
University of Texas at El Paso
$33,000,000
$32,040,000
9 University of Louisiana at Lafayette $27,410,000 9 Western Kentucky University $30,440,000
financial position among Sun Belt and 10 University of Louisiana at Monroe $15,480,000 10 Marshall University $30,340,000
11 University of Arkansas at Little Rock $10,637,740 11 University of Texas at San Antonio $30,100,000
regional Division I peer institutions 12 University of Southern Mississippi $25,250,000
that sponsor Football. 14 University of Alabama at Birmingham $23,800,000
15 University of Arkansas at Little Rock $10,637,740
AVERAGE $29,880,646 AVERAGE $32,275,369
MEDIAN $29,398,232 MEDIAN $32,520,000

C. NCAA DIVISION I FOOTBALL ASSUMPTIONS

Overview
The introduction of Division I FCS or FBS Football will have a significant impact on Athletics’ revenues and
expenses. The revenue and expense Assumptions presented in this Study’s Football Pro Forma are based on
discussions with UA Little Rock administration, Athletics staff, benchmark data from peer institutions supporting
and implementing Division I Football programs, results of the market surveys, and the Project Team’s experience
with similar projects.
Key Football Assumptions
Estimated game-day revenues and expenses result from the market survey, peer institution benchmarking, and a
review of lease terms associated with universities playing in municipally owned stadiums; e.g., UA Little Rock and
War Memorial Stadium (Stadium). Key financial assumptions pertinent to introducing UA Little Rock Football
include, but are not limited to:
• A UA Little Rock will play six (6) home games • UA Little Rock Football will be aggressively
per year at War Memorial Stadium and will pay marketed to current students, faculty and staff,
annual rent to Stadium management; University alumni, athletic donors, the local and
• UA Little Rock will retain all revenue from ticket regional corporate community, and the general
sales associated with home games at War public; and,
Memorial Stadium; • The local and regional market will generate
• UA Little Rock will retain all revenue from the spending on tickets, concessions, merchandise,
sale of luxury suites and club seats associated parking and sponsorships consistent with
with home games at War Memorial Stadium; survey results and experiences of peer
conference-institution football programs.
• UA Little Rock will retain all revenue from the
sale of merchandise associated with home
games at War Memorial Stadium;
• War Memorial Stadium will manage and retain
all revenue from the sale of concessions for UA
Little Rock home games;
• War Memorial Stadium will manage and retain
all revenue from parking for UA Little Rock
home football games;
• UA Little Rock will have access to select areas of
War Memorial Stadium for the purposes of
game-day sponsorship sales;
• Permanent signage revenue generated at War
Memorial Stadium will be retained by Stadium
management;
• UA Little Rock Football will be competitive
within its conference and will schedule non-
conference games against teams that appeal to
its fan base;

Game-Day Revenues
Based on the results of the market survey, it is estimated that UA Little Rock Football could generate $1.8 million
in annual ticket revenue for home games at War Memorial Stadium, which would be retained by UA Little Rock
Athletics. This would include the sale of priority season tickets, general admission season tickets, luxury suite sales,
club seat sales, and occasional game tickets. UA Little Rock students are assumed to be able to attend home
football games for free, consistent with other peer institutions.
In addition to ticket revenue, UA Little Rock is also anticipated to generate revenue from game-day sponsorships
and the sale of merchandise during home games at War Memorial Stadium. A brief description of these revenue
sources is provided below.
• Game-Day Sponsorships
Game-day sponsorship sales are derived from the sale of signage related to scoreboards, bowl interior
banners, and other promotions. It is estimated UA Little Rock will have access to select areas of War
Memorial Stadium for the purposes of game-day sponsorship sales (i.e. temporary signage). Temporary
signage access is anticipated to include bowl banners and access to the video scoreboard, among others.
Based on a review of comparable universities playing in municipally-owned stadiums, UA Little Rock is
estimated to generate $120,000 in game-day sponsorship sales in the first year of Football, increasing by
3% annually thereafter.
Note: Revenue generated from permanent signage at War Memorial Stadium, including in concourses,
vomitories, outdoor marquee displays, stadium naming rights, field naming rights, and other permanent
signage, is assumed to be retained by War Memorial Stadium management.
• Merchandise
Merchandise revenue consists of clothing, souvenirs, programs, and other merchandise item sales during
UA Little Rock home football games at War Memorial Stadium. Gross merchandise revenues are
estimated based on projected turnstile (or actual) attendance and per capita merchandise spending. Per
capita merchandise spending assumptions were based on an analysis of per capita spending for
comparable football programs, discussions with national merchandisers, and industry standards. A 15%
margin has been assumed for merchandise sales after accounting for product, labor costs, and other
expenses. UA Little Rock is estimated to retain all net merchandise proceeds from home football games
at War Memorial Stadium.
Net merchandise revenue generated during UA Little Rock home football games is estimated to be
$26,000 in the first year of Football, increasing by 3% annually thereafter.
Game-Day Expenses
Expenses associated with UA Little Rock home football games are estimated to include Stadium rent and game-
day expenses; a brief description is provided below.
• Stadium Rent
It is anticipated that UA Little Rock will make an annual rental payment for the use of War Memorial
Stadium, in exchange for using the facility as the University’s home football venue. The estimated rental
payment from UA Little Rock was determined through a review of comparable collegiate football
programs playing in municipally-owned stadiums. For purposes of this Study, it is estimated that UA Little

Rock will pay an annual fee of $122,000 to War Memorial Stadium management in the first year of
Football, increasing by 3% annually thereafter.

• Game-Day Expenses
Game-day expenses consist of expenses incurred in the production of UA Little Rock home football
games at War Memorial Stadium and include expenses such as ticket takers, ushers, security personnel,
emergency medical services, rentals, video board personnel, custodial services, and other such costs.
Based on review of comparable collegiate football programs playing in municipally-owned stadiums, it is
estimated that annual game day expenses for UA Little Rock home games would approximate $258,000
in the first year of Football, increasing by 3% annually thereafter.
D. NCAA DIVISION I FCS FOOTBALL

Revenue
With an introduction of FCS Football, this Study assumes that

The gap in FCS Generated
direct institutional support would continue to be the primary
Revenues ranges from $899K at
source of Athletics' revenue. Based on national trends, it is
the low end to $22.1M at the
unrealistic to expect Athletics to generate the necessary
high. 60% of programs
revenues to offset the expenses of FCS Football. As presented in the previous
generated less than $4.8M in
table, 71% of FCS athletics' revenues come from institutional support. The
revenues.
implications of these projections are demonstrated by the margin between
Athletics' FY 2016-17 Fiscal Year budget of $10.6 million and the median Total Expenses for FCS range
expenditures for all FCS institutions at $15.1 million. from $4.1M to $49.6M.
Expenses
Table 3 depicts gross expenses for UA Little Rock FCS Football growing from approximately $1.6 million in the
Preparation Year (FY 2019-20) to $4.4 million at full implementation (FY 2022-23). The sequence of
implementation years for FCS and FBS Football is presented in VII. Football Implementation Considerations.

TABLE 3 Summary Four-Year Expense Projections
Implementation of FCS Football
GROSS PREPARATION PRACTICE PLAY PLAY

EXPENSES YEAR YEAR YEAR 1 FCS YEAR 2 FCS
Salaries/Benefits (Football Coaching) $488,400 $876,800 $885,568 $894,424

Salaries/Benefits (Non-Coaching) $320,448 $323,652 $326,889 $330,158
Scholarships $00.00 $428,600 $874,320 $1,404,648
Football Operations $550,000 $685,000 $1,504,142 $1,545,439
Support Services (Non-Football) $239,370 $241,764 $244,181 $246,623
Total $1,598,218 $2,555,816 $3,835,100 $4,421,292
As described in IX. Facilities Considerations, initial estimated FCS Football functional facility costs for a Football
Operations Center and practice fields are estimated from $23.4M to $39.1M - excluding land acquisition.

E. NCAA DIVISION I FBS FOOTBALL

Overview
Though the introduction of Football at UA Little Rock requires basic investments regardless of FCS or
FBS classification, the resource commitment for operating a successful FBS Football program is
dramatically greater than at the FCS level. Table 4, illustrates the financial impact UA Little Rock would
realize following a hypothetical timeline transitioning from a Football Preparation Year, meeting the
two-year FCS membership requirement, and ramping up resources as an FBS member in Play Year 2.
Revenue
As described earlier in this section, the percentage of institutional support funding for FBS athletic departments is
less than that of those institutions with FCS membership. The implications of required revenues are demonstrated
by the margin between Athletics' FY 2016-17 budget of $10.6 million and the median expenditures for all FBS
institutions at $66 million. Conversely, the Sun Belt membership operates at a lower level of this FBS benchmark,
with median expenditures of $26.2 million. Conference USA’s median is slightly higher at $29.3 million.
Expenses
Table 4 shows gross expenses for UA Little Rock FBS Football growing from approximately $1.6 million in the
Preparation Year to $8.3 million at full implementation in FY 2024-25.

TABLE 4 Summary Four-Year Expense Projections
Implementation of FBS Football
PREPARATION PRACTICE PLAY PLAY PLAY PLAY

GROSS EXPENSES
YEAR YEAR YEAR 1 FCS YEAR 2 FCS YEAR 3 FBS YEAR 2 FBS
Salaries/Benefits
$488,400 $876,800 $885,568 $894,424 $2,528,800 $2,554,088
(Football Coaching)
Salaries/Benefits
$320,448 $323,652 $326,889 $330,158 $333,459 $336,794
(Non-Coaching)
Scholarships $00.00 $428,600 $874,320 $1,404,648 $2,088,150 $2,337,500
Football Operations $550,000 $685,000 $1,504,142 $1,545,439 $2,773,094 $2,827,556
Support Services
$239,370 $241,764 $244,181 $246,623 $249,089 $251,580
(Non-Football)
Total $1,598,218 $2,555,816 $3,835,100 $4,421,292 $7,972,592 $8,307,518
As described in IX. Facilities Considerations, initial estimated FCS Football-functional facility costs for a Football
Operations Center and practice fields are estimated from $23.4M to $39.1M - excluding land acquisition.

F. SUMMARY
The difference between UA Little Rock’s current Athletics budget and the median FCS and FBS public institution’s
Football budget accentuates the challenge of UA Little Rock’s considerations for Football. In advance of a decision
to sponsor Football, the University would need to develop a sustainable funding model that identifies all revenue
sources, especially Allocated Revenues. Incremental increases in Allocated Revenues would have to keep pace
with funding requirements for Football at either level.
Financial forecasts must include capital outlay pro forma(s) depicting revenues and expenses for essential Football
facilities as well as growing requirements for current Athletics Support Services. Likewise, Athletics would need to
accelerate the maturity of Athletics’ revenue generating units (External Affairs) and programs to achieve this
Study’s Football Pro Forma projections.
ATTACHMENTS
• UALR Attachment XI-1 UA Little Rock Athletics Division I Pro Forma FY’s 2016-17 through
FY 2022-23 (Division I – Without Football Pro Forma)
• UALR Attachment XI-2 UA Little Rock Athletics Division I Pro Forma With Football FY’s 2016-17
through FY 2024-25 (Division I Football Pro Forma)

FOOTBALL FEASIBILITY STUDY
UALR Attachment XI-1
UA Little Rock Athletics Division I Pro Forma

FY’s 2016-17 through FY 2022-23
FINANCIAL ASSUMPTIONS ATTACHMENT XI - I
FY’s 2016-17 through FY 2022-23 2 OF 8
(Division I – Without Football Pro Forma) FY 2017 - 2023
REVENUE EXPENSE
Ticket Sales Scholarships
Single event and season tickets are sold forM/W Basketball; Baseball; Men's Wrestling; and
Tuition/Fee increases based on 1% increase
Volleyball.
Students are provided free admission on a first come basis. Scholarship costs are in state tuition
Men's Basketball projects Single game ticket revenue to increase 5% annually (based on increased Projections will include additional expenses associated with new NCAA regulations enacted to allow for full
ticket single game and group sales efforts ). cost of attendance.
Basketball Arena Ticketing Sales inventory include: Reserved, General Admission & Suites Athletics has priority scheduling for classes
Men's Basketball projects season ticket revenue to increase 3% annually (based on increased Athletics receives non-resident tuition waivers for all students who meet the criteria of being on a full tuition
season tickets sales efforts ).WBB season tickets are combined with Men. scholarship.
Pro forma reflects basketball season ticket sales of 1320 in FY 18 with a goal of 2500 season tickets
sold by FY21. Ticket prices are projected to remain flat. An additional account executive for sales Tuition & Fees costs are projected to increase at 1-2% annually
will be hired in the summer 2018.
Guarantees Summer school priority given to student-athlete with academic or eligibility needs.
FY’s 2016-17 through FY 2022-23 3 OF 8
REVENUE EXPENSE
Historically Baseball generates between $4,000 to $6,000 from away game guarantees. Room and Board costs are expected to increase at 4% to 4.5% annually
Historically Men's Basketball is plays three guarantee away games each year. These games
Salaries and Benefits - Coaches & Administrative Staff
generate approximately $150,000 to $200,000 annually
Volleyball typically only receives rooms as guarantees for use on the trip Salaries are projected to increase at 1%, with benefits projected at 28% per year.
Contributions Not all sports receive the number of coaching positions allocated by NCAA guidelines
Contributions are received in the form of Club Annual Fund (scholarships) and Restricted (IE:
The department will develop a staffing plan. The plan will contain a list of new positions and possibly changes
Booster Clubs, Capital Project, etc.), Endowments, and a portion of Skyboxes rent that is classified
to existing positions with projected dates for each. Dates will be selected based on priority and funding.
as preferred seating.
Currently Gift in Kind is being projected to remain steady at $325,000 ($105K comp tickets, $2200K
actual GIK) annually. Decreases in complimentary tickets could reduce the Gift-In-Kind totals as Beginning in FY 2017 some full-time positions became funded totally/ or shared through University support.
the department looks to reduce this area.
Unrestricted giving projects an annual increase of 5% We are adding one full time assistant to the Athletic Training department.
In FY 19 the AF has committed to hiring a new Gifts Officer to increase athletic fundraising efforts. NCAA - SA Opportunity Fund
FY’s 2016-17 through FY 2022-23 4 OF 8
REVENUE EXPENSE
SAOF funds currently being used to support student-athletes that require to be charged international tax and
Sponsorships are already on a full grant-in-aid. Funds are also being used for student-athlete medical financial aid and some
summer school situations.
Sports Properties annual sponsorship renewal target is 95%. Historically they have been in excess
Sports Operations
of 90% renewal.
Sports operations include equipment, team travel, game expense, memberships/dues, non team travel meals,
Sports Properties revenue projects revenues to increase at a rate of 5% annually
recruiting, and other operating expenses.
Pouring rights (Pepsi) revenues are projected to be flat at $75,000. Projections are based on a 2% annual increase, unless exact amounts can be predicted.
For FY18 the athletic department is scheduled to receive a guarantee of $285,000. This guarantee
increases annually by $15,000, except for FY19 which will be a $20,000 increase. There is a
potential for revenue sharing but would probably not kick in until FY22 or FY23. It will be a 50/50 In Basketball, the Conference plays a mirror (when men at home, women on the road-beginning in 18-19).
split over an agreed upon threshold that increases by $40,000 each year beginning at $975,000 in
FY18.
Coaches are responsible for all areas of their budget that they can control directly. Financial Aid and Payroll is
Annual expenses for Sports Properties are zero.
projected and tracked seperately.
Concessions Guarantees (payable to visiting teams)
Historically Men's Basketball has had a guarantee budget of $9,000 to "buy in" games. For the FY19 season this
Concessions are managed by Athletics
amount is $9,000 guaranteeing 3 home games
FY’s 2016-17 through FY 2022-23 5 OF 8
REVENUE EXPENSE
Proceeds are used for Athletic expenses Support Systems Operations
Athletics also rents out the JSC, or a portion thereof, for outside events. Examples of such are
Support System expenses are projected to increase at 1% annually
Cheer and gymnastic competitions, high school wrestling and fundraising events.
Facility Rentals / Parking Support area budgets are developed by athletic administration.
Athletic facilities are managed by Athletics Athletics will begin to implement a zero base budget process all administrative units for FY19
Athletics does currently charge for parking at events. Season tickets holders receive free parking.
Agency Service Charge
Others pay $5 per game.
Facility Fee Revenue The Foundation charges 4% on all gifts received via credit card
There is no facility fee assessed on tickets sold. Game Management
Camp Revenue Athletics manages all home athletic events.

FY’s 2016-17 through FY 2022-23 6 OF 8
REVENUE EXPENSE
Camp revenue is kept by head coach to distribute to himself and assistants at his sole discretion. Facilities Management
NCAA/ Conference University pays all utility costs, approximately $250,000 and $70,000 for facility maintenance of the JSC.
NCAA revenue projected to increase by one additional sport sponsored in FY20 - Men's Wrestling.
Conference Membership Expenses
We project 65 additional student athletes for GIA distribution at that time.
Conference Revenue projected to be flat. The annual Conference membership fee is $105,000 and is paid for by the University
University Allocation Capital Projects(debt service)
Allocation is regulated by the state. It is currently set at 2% of the University E&G budget for the The current Athletic debt service is $70,387 in FY 18 and is paid by the University. Total repayment for existing
period two fiscal years previous. debt service is scheduled to be completed by 2033.
Brand royalties are collected by the University and completely retained by them.
UA Little Rock Athletics Division I Pro Forma FINANCIAL PRO FORMA ATTACHMENT XI - I
FY’s 2016-17 through FY 2022-23 7 OF 8
FY 2017 - 23
ACTUAL BUDGETED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED

PRO FORMA
FY 2016-2017 FY 2017-2018 FY 2018-2019 FY 2019-2020 FY 2020-2021 FY 2021-2022 FY 2022-2023
REVENUES:
Ticket Sales:
Total Basketball - Men's $ 509,568 $ 427,000 $ 473,500 $ 550,000 $ 700,000 $ 721,000 $ 742,630
Total Basketball - Women's $ 106,669 $ 50,000 $ 40,000 $ 80,000 $ 100,000 $ 103,000 $ 106,090
Total Baseball $ 6,571 $ 9,000 $ 7,000 $ 9,000 $ 7,000 $ 9,000 $ 7,000
Total Volleyball $ 6,911 $ 5,144 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000
Total Group tickets $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Total Ticket Sales $ 629,719 $ 491,144 $ 525,500 $ 644,000 $ 812,000 $ 838,000 $ 860,720
Guarantees:
Basketball - Men's $ 143,000 $ 225,000 $ 220,000 $ 220,000 $ 220,000 $ 220,000 $ 220,000
Basketball - Women's $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Other Sports $ 30,500 $ 13,500 $ 10,500 $ 10,500 $ 10,500 $ 10,500 $ 10,500
Total Guarantees $ 173,500 $ 238,500 $ 230,500 $ 230,500 $ 230,500 $ 230,500 $ 230,500
Contributions:
Contributions - Non Specific $ 390,496 $ 420,000 $ 441,000 $ 463,050 $ 486,203 $ 510,513 $ 536,038
Contributions - Specific $ 273,334 $ 275,000 $ 463,750 $ 393,188 $ 393,347 $ 419,264 $ 425,977
Gift In Kind $ 149,035 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000
3rd Party Support $ 167,435 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 175,000
Athletic Endowment $ 65,296 $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ 70,000
Total Contributions $ 1,045,596 $ 1,090,000 $ 1,299,750 $ 1,251,238 $ 1,274,550 $ 1,324,777 $ 1,357,015
Sponsorships:
Media Rights - Sports Properties $ 616,604 $ 285,000 $ 305,000 $ 320,000 $ 335,000 $ 350,000 $ 365,000
Pouring Rights - Pepsi $ - $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,000
Total Sponsorships $ 616,604 $ 360,000 $ 380,000 $ 395,000 $ 410,000 $ 425,000 $ 440,000
Conference Revenue: Conference $ 541,335 $ 300,000 $ 285,000 $ 285,000 $ 285,000 $ 285,000 $ 285,000
NCAA Revenue: $ 834,807 $ 210,787 $ 210,787 $ 212,883 $ 412,766 $ 413,266 $ 413,266
Other Revenue: $ 744,626 $ 650,000 $ 680,000 $ 720,000 $ 730,000 $ 740,000 $ 750,000
Total Athletic Generated Revenue $ 4,586,187 $ 3,340,431 $ 3,611,537 $ 3,738,621 $ 4,154,816 $ 4,256,543 $ 4,336,501
Precent of total revenues 33% 26% 28% 28% 30% 30% 30%
University Support
Direct Institutional Support $ 4,250,484 $ 4,300,000 $ 4,386,000 $ 4,500,000 $ 4,590,000 $ 4,654,458 $ 4,747,547
Tuition Waivers $ 825,206 $ 825,000 $ 825,000 $ 850,000 $ 875,000 $ 900,000 $ 925,000
Indirect Institutional Support $ 70,388 $ 70,388 $ 70,388 $ 70,388 $ 70,388 $ 70,388 $ 70,388
Student Fee Support $ 4,097,307 $ 4,120,566 $ 4,182,374 $ 4,245,110 $ 4,308,787 $ 4,373,419 $ 4,439,020
Total University Support $ 9,243,385 $ 9,315,954 $ 9,463,762 $ 9,665,498 $ 9,844,175 $ 9,998,265 $ 10,181,955
Percent of total revenues 67% 74% 72% 72% 70% 70% 70%
TOTAL REVENUES $ 13,829,572 $ 12,656,385 $ 13,075,299 $ 13,404,119 $ 13,998,991 $ 14,254,808 $ 14,518,456
UA Little Rock Athletics Division I Pro Forma FINANCIAL PRO FORMA ATTACHMENT XI - I
FY’s 2016-17 through FY 2022-23 8 OF 8
FY 2017 - 23
ACTUAL BUDGETED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED

PRO FORMA
FY 2016-2017 FY 2017-2018 FY 2018-2019 FY 2019-2020 FY 2020-2021 FY 2021-2022 FY 2022-2023
EXPENSES:
Scholarships:
Tuition & Fee's $ 3,344,013 $ 2,586,419 $ 2,792,499 $ 3,005,443 $ 3,117,619 $ 3,150,959 $ 3,184,676
Cost of Attendance $ 132,776 $ 138,000 $ 138,000 $ 138,000 $ 138,000 $ 138,000 $ 138,000
Tution Waivers
Total Scholarships $ 3,476,789 $ 2,724,419 $ 2,930,499 $ 3,143,443 $ 3,255,619 $ 3,288,959 $ 3,322,676
Percent of total expenses 31% 26% 25% 26% 26% 26% 26%
Salaries and Benefits: Coaches $ 2,408,384 $ 2,323,813 $ 2,569,761 $ 2,668,174 $ 2,813,631 $ 2,704,697 $ 2,723,393
Salaries and Benefits: Administration $ 1,445,850 $ 1,492,527 $ 1,670,133 $ 1,847,525 $ 1,863,116 $ 1,880,883 $ 1,898,828
Total Salaries $ 3,854,234 $ 3,816,340 $ 4,239,894 $ 4,515,699 $ 4,676,747 $ 4,585,580 $ 4,622,221
Sport Operations $ 2,844,922 $ 2,892,000 $ 3,151,000 $ 3,322,039 $ 3,392,899 $ 3,465,411 $ 3,539,617
Support System Operations $ 1,066,854 $ 1,106,668 $ 1,139,783 $ 1,151,181 $ 1,162,693 $ 1,174,320 $ 1,186,063
Capital Projects - Debt Service $ 98,244 $ 98,313 $ 98,431 $ 98,176 $ 98,428 $ 98,236 $ 98,335
Total Expenses $ 11,341,043 $ 10,637,740 $ 11,559,607 $ 12,230,538 $ 12,586,386 $ 12,612,506 $ 12,768,912
Net Revenue (Expense) $ 2,488,529 $ 2,018,645 $ 1,515,692 $ 1,173,581 $ 1,412,605 $ 1,642,302 $ 1,749,544
FOOTBALL AND MARCHING BAND FEASIBILITY STUDY
UALR Attachment XI-2
UA Little Rock Athletics Division I Pro Forma With Football

FY’s 2016-17 through FY 2024-25
(Division I Football Pro Forma)
FY’s 2016-17 through FY 2024-25
FINANCIAL ASSUMPTIONS ATTACHMENT XI - 2
2 of 15
FY 2017 - 2025
REVENUE EXPENSE
Ticket Sales Scholarships
Single event and season tickets are sold forM/W Basketball; Baseball; Men's
Tuition/Fee increases based on 1% increase
Wrestling; and Volleyball.
Students are provided free admission on a first come basis. Scholarship costs are in state tuition
Men's Basketball projects Single game ticket revenue to increase 5% annually Projections will include additional expenses associated with new NCAA regulations
(based on increased ticket single game and group sales efforts ). enacted to allow for full cost of attendance.
Basketball Arena Ticketing Sales inventory include: Reserved, General Admission &
Athletics has priority scheduling for classes
Suites
Men's Basketball projects season ticket revenue to increase 3% annually (based on Athletics receives non-resident tuition waivers for all students who meet the criteria
increased season tickets sales efforts ).WBB season tickets are combined with Men. of being on a full tuition scholarship.
Pro forma reflects basketball season ticket sales of 1320 in FY 18 with a goal of 2500
season tickets sold by FY21. Ticket prices are projected to remain flat. An additional Tuition & Fees costs are projected to increase at 1-2% annually
account executive for sales will be hired in the summer 2018.
Guarantees Summer school priority given to student-athlete with academic or eligibilty needs.
Historically Baseball generates between $4,000 to $6,000 from away game

Room and Board costs are expected to increase at 4% to 4.5% annually
guarantees.
Histocially Men's Basketball is plays three guarantee away games each year. These
Salaries and Benefits - Coaches & Administrative Staff
games generate approximately $150,000 to $200,000 annually
Volleyball typically only receives rooms as guarantees for use on the trip Salaries are projected to increase at 1%, with benefits projected at 28% per year.
FY’s 2016-17 through FY 2024-25
3 of 15
FY 2017 - 2025
REVENUE EXPENSE
Not all sports receive the number of coaching positions allocated by NCAA
Contributions
guidelines
Contributions are received in the form of Club Annual Fund (scholarships) and The department will develop a staffing plan. The plan will contain a list of new
Restricted (IE: Booster Clubs, Capital Project, etc.), Endowments, and a portion of positions and possibly changes to existing positions with projected dates for each.
Skyboxes rent that is classified as preferred seating. Dates will be selected based on priority and funding.
Currently Gift in Kind is being projected to remain steady at $325,000 ($105K comp
Beginning in FY 2017 some full-time positions became funded totally/ or shared
tickets, $2200K actual GIK) annually. Decreases in complimentary tickets could
through University support.
reduce the Gift-In-Kind totals as the department looks to reduce this area.
Unrestricted giving projects an annual increase of 5% We are adding one full time assistant to the Athletic Training department.
In FY 19 the AF has commited to hiring a new Gifts Officer to increase athletic

NCAA - SA Opportunity Fund
fundraising efforts.
SAOF funds currently being used to support student-athletes that require to be

Sponsorships charged international tax and are already on a full grant-in-aid. Funds are also being
used for student-athlete medical financial aid and some summer school situations.
Sports Properties annual sponsorship renewal target is 95%. Historically they have
Sports Operations
been in excess of 90% renewal.
Sports operations include equipment, team travel, game expense,
Sports Properties revenue projects revenues to increase at a rate of 5% annually memberships/dues, non team travel meals, recruiting, and other operating
expenses.
Projections are based on a 2% annual increase, unless exact amounts can be
Pouring rights (Pepsi) revenues are projected to be flat at $75,000.
predicted.
For FY18 the athletic department is scheduled to receive a guarantee of $285,000.
This guarantee increases annually by $15,000, except for FY19 which will be a
In Basketball, the Conference plays a mirror (when men at home, women on the
$20,000 increase. There is a potential for revenue sharing but would probably not
road-beginning in FY19).
kick in until FY22 or FY23. It will be a 50/50 split over an agreed upon threshold that
increases by $40,000 each year beginning at $975,000 in FY18.
FY’s 2016-17 through FY 2024-25
4 of 15
FY 2017 - 2025
REVENUE EXPENSE
Coaches are responsible for all areas of their budget that they can control directly.
Annual expenses for Sports Properties are zero.
Financial Aid and Payroll is projected and tracked seperately.
Concessions Guarantees (payable to visiting teams)
Historically Men's Basketball has had a guarantee budget of $9,000 to "buy in"
Concessions are managed by Athletics
games. For the FY19 season this amount is $9,000 guaranteeing 3 home games
Proceeds are used for Athletic expenses Support Systems Operations
Athletics also rents out the JSC, or a portion thereof, for outside events. Examples of
such are Cheer and gymnastic competions, high school wrestling and fundraising Support System expenses are projected to increase at 1% annually
events.
Facility Rentals / Parking Support area budgets are developed by athletic administration.
Athletics will begin to implement a zero base budget process all administrative units
Athletic facilities are managed by Athletics
for FY19
Athletics does currently charge for parking at events. Season tickets holders receive
Agency Service Charge
free parking. Others pay $5 per game.
Facility Fee Revenue The Foundation charges 4% on all gifts received via credit card
There is no facility fee assessed on tickets sold. Game Management
Athletics manages all home athletic events.

FY’s 2016-17 through FY 2024-25
5 of 15
FY 2017 - 2025
REVENUE EXPENSE
Camp Revenue Facilities Management
Camp revenue is kept by head coach to distribute to himself and assistants at his University pays all utility costs, approximately $250,000 and $70,000 for facility
sole discretion. maintenance of the JSC.
NCAA/ Conference Conference Membership Expenses
NCAA revenue projected to increase by one additional sport sponsored in FY20 -

Men's Wrestling. We project 65 additional student athletes for GIA distributionat The annual Conference membership fee is $105,000 and is paid for by the University
that time.
Conference Revenue projected to be flat. Capital Projects(debt service)
The current Athletic debt service is $70,387 in FY 18 and is paid by the University.
University Allocation
Total repayment for existing debt service is scheduled to be completed by 2033.
Allocation is regulated by the state. It is currently set at 2% of the University E&G

budget for the period two fiscal years previous.
Brand royalties are collected by the University and completely retained by them.
UA Little Rock Athletics Division I Pro Forma With Football FINANCIAL PRO FORMA ATTACHMENT XI - 2
FY’s 2016-17 through FY 2024-25 FY 2017 - 25 6 of 15
ACTUAL BUDGETED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED

PRO FORMA
FY 2016-2017 FY 2017-2018 FY 2018-2019 FY 2019-2020 FY 2020-2021 FY 2021-2022 FY 2022-2023 FY 2023-2024 FY 2024-2025
REVENUES: Decision Year Preparation Year Practice Year FCS FCS FBS FBS
Ticket Sales:
Total Basketball - Men's $ 509,568 $ 427,000 $ 473,500 $ 550,000 $ 700,000 $ 721,000 $ 742,630 $ 742,630 $ 742,630
Total Basketball - Women's $ 106,669 $ 50,000 $ 40,000 $ 80,000 $ 100,000 $ 103,000 $ 106,090 $ 106,090 $ 106,090
Total Baseball $ 6,571 $ 9,000 $ 7,000 $ 9,000 $ 7,000 $ 9,000 $ 7,000 $ 7,000 $ 7,000
Total Volleyball $ 6,911 $ 5,144 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000
Total Group tickets $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Total Ticket Sales $ 629,719 $ 491,144 $ 525,500 $ 644,000 $ 812,000 $ 838,000 $ 860,720 $ 860,720 $ 860,720
Guarantees:
Basketball - Men's $ 143,000 $ 225,000 $ 220,000 $ 220,000 $ 220,000 $ 220,000 $ 220,000 $ 220,000 $ 220,000
Basketball - Women's $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Other Sports $ 30,500 $ 13,500 $ 10,500 $ 10,500 $ 10,500 $ 10,500 $ 10,500 $ 10,500 $ 10,500
Total Guarantees $ 173,500 $ 238,500 $ 230,500 $ 230,500 $ 230,500 $ 230,500 $ 230,500 $ 230,500 $ 230,500
Contributions:
Contributions - Non Specific $ 390,496 $ 420,000 $ 441,000 $ 463,050 $ 486,203 $ 510,513 $ 536,038 $ 562,840 $ 590,982
Contributions - Specific $ 273,334 $ 275,000 $ 463,750 $ 393,188 $ 393,347 $ 419,264 $ 425,977 $ 425,977 $ 425,977
Gift In Kind $ 149,035 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000
3rd Party Support $ 167,435 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 175,000
Athletic Endowment $ 65,296 $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ 70,000
Total Contributions $ 1,045,596 $ 1,090,000 $ 1,299,750 $ 1,251,238 $ 1,274,550 $ 1,324,777 $ 1,357,015 $ 1,383,817 $ 1,411,959
Sponsorships:
Media Rights - Sports Properties $ 616,604 $ 285,000 $ 305,000 $ 320,000 $ 335,000 $ 350,000 $ 365,000 $ 365,000 $ 365,000
Pouring Rights - Pepsi $ - $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,000
Total Sponsorships $ 616,604 $ 360,000 $ 380,000 $ 395,000 $ 410,000 $ 425,000 $ 440,000 $ 440,000 $ 440,000
Conference Revenue: Conference $ 541,335 $ 300,000 $ 285,000 $ 285,000 $ 285,000 $ 285,000 $ 285,000 $ 285,000 $ 285,000
NCAA Revenue: $ 834,807 $ 210,787 $ 210,787 $ 212,883 $ 412,766 $ 413,266 $ 413,266 $ 413,266 $ 413,266
Other Revenue: $ 744,626 $ 650,000 $ 680,000 $ 720,000 $ 730,000 $ 740,000 $ 750,000 $ 750,000 $ 750,000
Football Generated Revenue $ 2,085,900 $ 2,252,934 $ 3,789,531 $ 4,152,999
New Women's Sport #1 Revenue $ 40,690 $ 46,257 $ 50,492 $ 53,992 $ 53,992
Total Athletic Generated Revenue $ 4,586,187 $ 3,340,431 $ 3,611,537 $ 3,738,621 $ 4,238,491 $ 6,440,035 $ 6,697,615 $ 8,269,765 $ 8,661,375
Precent of total revenues 33% 26% 28% 28% 30% 37% 38% 44% 45%
University Support
Direct Institutional Support (E&G/Gender Equity) $ 4,250,484 $ 4,300,000 $ 4,386,000 $ 4,500,000 $ 4,590,000 $ 4,654,458 $ 4,747,547 $ 4,747,547 $ 4,747,547
Tuition Waivers $ 825,206 $ 825,000 $ 825,000 $ 850,000 $ 875,000 $ 900,000 $ 925,000 $ 925,000 $ 925,000
Indirect Institutional Support $ 70,388 $ 70,388 $ 70,388 $ 70,388 $ 70,388 $ 70,388 $ 70,388 $ 70,388 $ 70,388
Student Fee Support $ 4,097,307 $ 4,120,566 $ 4,182,374 $ 4,245,110 $ 4,308,787 $ 4,373,419 $ 4,439,020 $ 4,439,020 $ 4,439,020
Total University Support $ 9,243,385 $ 9,315,954 $ 9,463,762 $ 9,665,498 $ 9,844,175 $ 9,998,265 $ 10,181,955 $ 10,181,955 $ 10,181,955
Percent of total revenues 67% 74% 72% 72% 69% 58% 58% 54% 53%
Additional Tuition & Fees
Football Tuition & Fees $ 719,128 $ 492,519 $ 374,106 $ 270,250
New Women's Sport #1 Tuition & Fees $ 39,480 $ 70,505 $ 71,913 $ 73,354 $ 74,821 $ 74,821
Total Additional Tuition & Fees $ - $ - $ - $ 98,700 $ 151,082 $ 873,227 $ 649,706 $ 534,437 $ 430,581
TOTAL REVENUES $ 13,829,572 $ 12,656,385 $ 13,075,299 $ 13,502,819 $ 14,233,748 $ 17,311,527 $ 17,529,276 $ 18,986,157 $ 19,273,911
ACTUAL BUDGETED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED

PRO FORMA
EXPENSES: Decision Year Preparation Year Practice Year FCS FCS FBS FBS
Scholarships:
Tuition & Fee's $ 3,344,013 $ 2,586,419 $ 2,792,499 $ 3,005,443 $ 3,117,619 $ 3,150,959 $ 3,184,676 $ 3,214,272 $ 3,244,163
Football Tuition & Fee's $ 428,600 $ 874,320 $ 1,404,648 $ 1,705,650 $ 1,955,000
New Women's Sport #1 Tuition & Fee's $ 84,000 $ 171,440 $ 174,864 $ 178,368 $ 181,936 $ 181,936
Marching Band Tuition & Fees $ 35,250 $ 35,603 $ 35,959 $ 36,318 $ 36,681 $ 37,048
Cost of Attendance* $ 132,776 $ 138,000 $ 138,000 $ 138,000 $ 138,000 $ 138,000 $ 138,000 $ 138,000 $ 138,000
Football Cost of Attendance $ 382,500 $ 382,500
Tution Waivers
Total Scholarships $ 3,476,789 $ 2,724,419 $ 2,930,499 $ 3,388,693 $ 4,148,422 $ 4,636,398 $ 5,209,562 $ 5,931,943 $ 6,211,551
Percent of total expenses 31% 26% 25% 21% 25% 26% 28% 26% 27%
Salaries/Benefits: Coaches $ 2,408,384 $ 2,323,813 $ 2,569,761 $ 2,668,174 $ 2,813,631 $ 2,704,697 $ 2,723,393 $ 2,767,150 $ 2,794,822
Salaries/Benefits: Football $ 488,400 $ 876,800 $ 885,568 $ 894,424 $ 2,528,800 $ 2,554,088
Salaries/Benefits: New Women's Sport #1 $ 69,781 $ 71,177 $ 72,600 $ 74,052 $ 75,533 $ 77,044
Salaries and Benefits: Administration $ 1,445,850 $ 1,492,527 $ 1,670,133 $ 1,847,525 $ 1,863,116 $ 1,880,883 $ 1,898,828 $ 1,933,976 $ 1,953,316
Salaries/Benefits: Non Coaching Football $ 320,448 $ 323,652 $ 326,889 $ 330,158 $ 333,459 $ 336,794
Salaries/Benefits: Marching Band $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 275,000 $ 275,000 $ 275,000 $ 275,000
Total Salaries $ 3,854,234 $ 3,816,340 $ 4,239,894 $ 5,877,414 $ 6,436,124 $ 6,388,140 $ 6,443,208 $ 8,166,218 $ 8,248,410
Sport Operations $ 2,844,922 $ 2,892,000 $ 3,151,000 $ 3,322,039 $ 3,392,899 $ 3,465,411 $ 3,539,617 $ 3,615,558 $ 3,693,275
Football Operations $ 550,000 $ 685,000 $ 1,504,142 $ 1,545,439 $ 2,773,094 $ 2,827,556
New Women's Sport #1 Operations $ 70,184 $ 71,588 $ 73,019 $ 74,480 $ 75,969 $ 77,489
Marching Band Operations $ 535,000 $ 147,500 $ 147,850 $ 160,704 $ 161,061 $ 161,421
Total Sport Operations $ 2,844,922 $ 2,892,000 $ 3,151,000 $ 4,668,244 $ 4,491,828 $ 5,389,160 $ 5,522,953 $ 6,832,449 $ 6,970,644
Support System Operations $ 1,066,854 $ 1,106,668 $ 1,139,783 $ 1,151,181 $ 1,162,693 $ 1,174,320 $ 1,186,063 $ 1,197,923 $ 1,209,903
Support System Operations: Football $ - $ - $ 237,000 $ 239,370 $ 241,764 $ 244,181 $ 246,623 $ 249,089 $ 251,580
Support System: Football One Time Expense $ - $ - $ - $ 402,300 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Total Support System Operations $ 1,066,854 $ 1,106,668 $ 1,376,783 $ 1,792,851 $ 1,404,457 $ 1,418,501 $ 1,432,686 $ 1,447,012 $ 1,461,483
Capital Projects - Debt Service $ 98,244 $ 98,313 $ 98,431 $ 98,176 $ 98,428 $ 98,236 $ 98,335 $ 98,335 $ 98,335
Total Expenses $ 11,341,043 $ 10,637,740 $ 11,796,607 $ 15,825,378 $ 16,579,259 $ 17,930,435 $ 18,706,744 $ 22,475,957 $ 22,990,423
Net Revenue (Expense) $ 2,488,529 $ 2,018,645 $ 1,278,692 $ (2,322,559) $ (2,345,512) $ (618,908) $ (1,177,468) $ (3,489,800) $ (3,716,512)
*Football calculations only; does not include COA allocations for women's sports
Football Implementation Revenues & Expenses FY 2016-2017 FY 2017-2018 FY 2018-2019 FY 2019-2020 FY 2020-2021 FY 2021-2022 FY 2022-2023 FY 2023-2024 FY 2024-2025
Revenue Decision Year Preparation Year Practice Year FCS FCS FBS FBS
Football Generated Revenue $ 2,085,900 $ 2,252,934 $ 3,789,531 $ 4,152,999
Football Tuition & Fees $ 719,128 $ 492,519 $ 374,106 $ 270,250
Total Direct Football Revenue $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,805,028 $ 2,745,453 $ 4,163,637 $ 4,423,249

Total Indirect Football Revenue $ - $ - $ - $ 98,700 $ 234,757 $ 251,691 $ 265,367 $ 277,262 $ 277,262
Expenses Decision Year Preparation Year Practice Year FCS FCS FBS FBS
Football Tuition & Fee's $ 428,600 $ 874,320 $ 1,404,648 $ 1,705,650 $ 1,955,000
Football Cost of Attendance $ - $ - $ - $ 382,500 $ 382,500
Salaries/Benefits: Football $ 488,400 $ 876,800 $ 885,568 $ 894,424 $ 2,528,800 $ 2,554,088
Salaries/Benefits: Non Coaching Football $ 320,448 $ 323,652 $ 326,889 $ 330,158 $ 333,459 $ 336,794
Football Operations $ 550,000 $ 685,000 $ 1,504,142 $ 1,545,439 $ 2,773,094 $ 2,827,556
Support System Operations: Football $ 237,000 $ 239,370 $ 241,764 $ 244,181 $ 246,623 $ 249,089 $ 251,580
Support System One Time Expense: Football $ 402,300
Total Direct Football Expenses $ - $ - $ 237,000 $ 2,000,518 $ 2,555,816 $ 3,835,100 $ 4,421,292 $ 7,972,592 $ 8,307,518
Marching Band Tuition & Fees $ 35,250 $ 35,603 $ 35,959 $ 36,318 $ 36,681 $ 37,048
Marching Band Operations $ 535,000 $ 147,500 $ 147,850 $ 160,704 $ 161,061 $ 161,421
Total Indirect Football Expenses $ - $ - $ - $ 1,344,322 $ 1,187,057 $ 1,207,829 $ 1,241,540 $ 1,263,151 $ 1,276,091
Total Football Revenues $ - $ - $ - $ 98,700 $ 234,757 $ 3,056,719 $ 3,010,820 $ 4,440,899 $ 4,700,511
Total Football Expenses $ - $ - $ 237,000 $ 3,344,840 $ 3,742,873 $ 5,042,929 $ 5,662,832 $ 9,235,743 $ 9,583,609
Delta $ (237,000) $ (3,246,140) $ (3,508,116) $ (1,986,210) $ (2,652,012) $ (4,794,844) $ (4,883,098)
UA Little Rock Athletics Division I Pro Forma With Football FOOTBALL ASSUMPTIONS ATTACHMENT XI - 2
FY’s 2016-17 through FY 2024-25 9 of 15
FY 2017 - 2025
REVENUE EXPENSE
General Scholarships
UA Little Rock will play six (6) home games per year
Begin providing minimal number of scholarships (20FTE) to student-athletes

UA Little Rock will play all home games at War Memorial Stadium coming on campus fall 2020. At FCS level scholarships are divided among student-
athletes
UA Little Rock will retain all revenue from the sale of Luxury Suites at War
Increase scholarship FTE's to 40 in Fall 2021. Still dividing scholarships
Memorial Stadium
UA Little Rock will retain all revenue from the sale of Club Seats at War Memorial
Increase scholarship FTE's to 63 in Fall 2022. Still dividing scholarships
Stadium
The UA Little Rock football program will be competitive within its conference and Increase scholarship FTE's to 75 in Fall 2023. Still dividing scholarships. First year to
will schedule non-conference games against teams that appeal to its fan base. be a countable opponent for FBS bowl eligibility
The UA Little Rock football program will be aggressively marketed to current

Increase scholarship FTE's to 85 (FBS Maximum allowable) in Fall 2024. All FTE are
students, faculty and staff, University alumni, athletic donors, the local and
awarded as full scholarships. No longer dividing scholarships
regional corporate community and the general public.
The local and regional market will generate spending on tickets, concessions,
merchandise, parking and sponsorships consistent with survey results and Salaries and Benefits - Coaches & Administrative Staff
experiences of peer conference institution football programs.
Ticket Sales Head coach and select staff to be hired in spring of FY 20
Football ticket sales inventory include: Priority Seating, General Admission, Club Full coaching staff and select support staff hired in summer/fall/spring 2020 &
Seats, and Luxury Suites 2021
Tickets are sold on a seasonal and single game basis Salary projections based on median of SunBelt Conference
FY’s 2016-17 through FY 2024-25 10 of 15
FY 2017 - 2025
REVENUE EXPENSE
Students are provided free admission on a first come basis. NCAA - SA Opportunity Fund
Single game tickets are sold for $20 per game Increased NCAA funding will begin in FY 2023
General admission season tickets are sold for $90 per season Guarantees (payable to visiting teams)
Priority season ticketed are sold for $100 to $300 per game depending on their First two years of FCS level competition pay guarantees to Division II and FCS
location programs
Club seats are sold for $1,500 annually including a $1,200 donation to the TAA and First two years of FBS level competition pay guarantees for FCS and Group of 5
a $300 season ticket price programs
Luxury suites are leased for $25,000 annually including $21,400 donation to the
No competitions against Power 5 programs planned in the financial pro forma
TAA and a per seat season ticket price of $300 ($3,600 total for 12 seats in a suite)
Ticket sales are projected to increase 3% annually (based on increased season

Support Systems Operations
tickets sales efforts)
Pro forma reflects football season ticket sales of for the first four years of program Projections provided from UALR support system unit directors through a zero
operations based budgeting process
Guarantees Receivable Game-Day Expenses
Only receive FCS guarantees during two years of FCS level competition War Memorial manages all home football games at War Memorial Stadium
UA Little Rock will reimburse War Memorial Stadium for costs incurred to manage
Year one of FBS receive one FCS guarantee and one FBS guarantee
home football games at a cost of approximately $37,000 per game
FY’s 2016-17 through FY 2024-25 11 of 15
FY 2017 - 2025
REVENUE EXPENSE
No Power 5 level game guarantee's projected in pro forma
Contributions
Donations from the sale of priority season tickets, club seats, and luxury suites will
include required donations to the TAA
FY’s 2016-17 through FY 2024-25 12 of 15
FY 2017 - 2025
REVENUE EXPENSE
Sponsorships
UA Little Rock will have access to select areas of War Memorial Stadium for game-
day sponsorship
UA Little Rock will generate game-day sponsorship sales of $20,000 per game
Temporary signage revenue would not conflict with current Learfield agreement
and could be used by UA Little Rock to directly offset operating costs
Permanent signage revenue at War Memorial Stadium will be retained by the

stadium
Concessions
Concessions are managed by War Memorial Stadium
Revenue is retained by War Memorial Stadium
Merchandise
Game-day merchandise is managed by UA Little Rock
UA Little Rock retains net proceeds from merchandise sales

FY’s 2016-17 through FY 2024-25 13 of 15
FY 2017 - 2025
REVENUE EXPENSE
Facility Rentals / Parking
Athletic facilities are managed by Athletics
Parking charges for football games is managed by War Memorial Stadium/local lot
holders with proceeds from the sale of parking retained by these entities
Facility Fee Revenue
Revenue from facility fees assessed on each ticket sold will be retained by War
Memorial Stadium
UA Little Rock Athletics Division I Pro Forma With Football FOOTBALL REVENUE AND EXPENSE PROJECTIONS ATTACHMENT XI - 2
FY’s 2016-17 through FY 2024-25 14 of 15
FY 2017 - 2025
Sports Operations Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected

Budget FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25
Football Decision Year Preparation Year Practice Year FCS FCS FBS FBS
Revenues: 40 / 70 63 / 47 75 / 35 85 / 25
T/F for Additional Student-Athletes $ - $ - $ - $ 1,530,060 $ 1,047,912 $ 795,970 $ 575,000
T/F Average Discount Rate 53% $ - $ - $ - $ 810,932 $ 555,393 $ 421,864 $ 304,750
Net T/F for Additional Student-Athletes $ - $ - $ - $ 719,128 $ 492,519 $ 374,106 $ 270,250

Athletics Revenues
Ticket Sales (Student Tickets) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Ticket Sales (Individual Game Tickets) $ - $ - $ - $ 360,000 $ 370,800 $ 381,924 $ 393,382
Ticket Sales (General Season tickets) $ - $ - $ - $ 56,700 $ 58,401 $ 60,153 $ 61,958
Ticket Sales (Priority Season Tickets -
Between 40's) $ - $ - $ - $ 327,600 $ 337,428 $ 347,551 $ 357,977
Between 20's - 40's) $ - $ - $ - $ 290,000 $ 298,700 $ 307,661 $ 316,891
Between Goal line - 20's) $ - $ - $ - $ 27,000 $ 27,810 $ 28,644 $ 29,504
Ticket Sales (Premium Season Tickets) $ - $ - $ - $ 154,200 $ 158,826 $ 163,591 $ 168,499
Ticket Facility Fee's $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Club Seats (Premium Seating) $ - $ - $ - $ 531,600 $ 547,548 $ 563,974 $ 580,894
Loge Boxes $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Luxury Suites (Premium Seating) $ - $ - $ - $ 42,800 $ 44,084 $ 45,407 $ 46,769
Concessions (General) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Concessions (Premium) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Parking $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Reserve Tailgating $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Merchandise, Net $ - $ - $ - $ 26,000 $ 27,000 $ 27,000 $ 28,000
Sponsorship and Naming Rights $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Game Day Sponsorship $ - $ - $ - $ 120,000 $ 124,000 $ 127,000 $ 131,000
Other Revenue $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Guarantee Receiveable $ - $ - $ - $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 850,000 $ 1,100,000
NCAA Disbursements (GIA) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 72,237 $ 150,526 $ 202,025
NCAA Disbursements (Sport
Sponsorship) $ 36,100 $ 36,100 $ 36,100
Gifts for Football $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Conference Disbursements $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 700,000 $ 700,000
Total Athletics Generated Revenues $ - $ - $ - $ 2,085,900 $ 2,252,934 $ 3,789,531 $ 4,152,999
University Direct Support
University Indirect Support
Total Revenues $ - $ - $ - $ 2,085,900 $ 2,252,934 $ 3,789,531 $ 4,152,999
UA Little Rock Athletics Division I Pro Forma With Football FOOTBALL REVENUE AND EXPENSE PROJECTIONS ATTACHMENT XI - 2
FY’s 2016-17 through FY 2024-25 15 of 15
FY 2017 - 2025
Sports Operations Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected

Budget FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25
Expenses
Salaries/Benefits (Football Coaching
Staff) $ - $ 488,400 $ 876,800 $ 885,568 $ 894,424 $ 2,528,800 $ 2,554,088
Salaries/Benefits (Non-Coaching
Support Staff) $ - $ 320,448 $ 323,652 $ 326,889 $ 330,158 $ 333,459 $ 336,794
Scholarships $ - $ - $ 428,600 $ 874,320 $ 1,404,648 $ 1,705,650 $ 1,955,000
Cost of Attendance $ 382,500 $ 382,500
Operations Expenses*
Team Travel $ - $ - $ - $ 235,670 $ 239,205 $ 767,110 $ 778,617
Recruiting $ - $ - $ 135,000 $ 137,025 $ 139,080 $ 182,988 $ 185,733
Game Day Expenses $ - $ - $ - $ 258,000 $ 266,000 $ 274,000 $ 282,000
Supplies and Equipment $ - $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 365,000 $ 383,250 $ 397,617 $ 417,498
Facility Expenses $ - $ - $ - $ 18,481 $ 18,758 $ 81,404 $ 85,474
Medical Expense $ - $ - $ - $ 11,966 $ 12,146 $ 20,689 $ 20,999
Other Operating Expense $ - $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 100,000 $ 105,000 $ 263,286 $ 267,235
Guarantee Payable $ - $ - $ - $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 650,000 $ 650,000
Stadium Rent $ - $ - $ - $ 128,000 $ 132,000 $ 136,000 $ 140,000
Total Operations Expenses $ - $ 550,000 $ 685,000 $ 1,504,142 $ 1,545,439 $ 2,773,094 $ 2,827,556
NCAA & Sun Belt Dues for Football $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Support System Football Operational
Expense $ 237,000 $ 239,370 $ 241,764 $ 244,181 $ 246,623 $ 249,089 $ 251,580
Support System Football One Time
Expense $ 402,300
Total Football Combined Expenses $ 237,000 $ 2,000,518 $ 2,555,816 $ 3,835,100 $ 4,421,292 $ 7,972,592 $ 8,307,518
Total Football Combined Revenues $ - $ - $ - $ 2,085,900 $ 2,252,934 $ 3,789,531 $ 4,152,999
Variance $ (237,000) $ (2,000,518) $ (2,555,816) $ (1,749,200) $ (2,168,358) $ (4,183,061) $ (4,154,519)
Economic Impact Analysis

While many of the perceived benefits of UA Little Rock Football (Football) are considered intangible, including
providing additional entertainment opportunities for local residents, more community exposure, and enhanced
community pride, team operations could provide quantifiable benefits to the local economy as well. Quantifiable
measurements of the effects that Football could have on the local economy are characterized in terms of
economic and fiscal impacts, as summarized in the remainder of this analysis.
A. DIRECT SPENDING
Direct spending represents the initial primary spending that would occur as a result from operations of Football
Direct spending occurs in three ways:
• Construction Spending – Construction materials, supplies, labor, professional fees, and other soft cost
spending will be generated during the planning and construction of facilities necessary to host Football
activities. Construction-related impacts are estimated based on the mid-point of the costs presented in
the Facilities Consideration section of the study.
• Team Operations Spending – Direct spending will be generated by team and University spending on
equipment and personnel, and by patron spending on tickets, concessions, and merchandise at UA Little
Rock home games. Team operations will also generate direct spending through sponsorships, premium
seating sales, and other such sources.
• Ancillary Community Spending – Direct spending will also be generated within the City of Little Rock
by game patrons, event personnel, visiting teams and others. Ancillary community spending will likely
include lodging, food and beverages, retail, entertainment, transportation, and other items in connection
with Football operations and home games.
Figure 1 on the following page illustrates the primary sources of direct spending anticipated to be associated
with the operations of Football.

FIGURE 1
DIRECT SPENDING SOURCES
CONSTRUCTION SPENDING OPERATIONS SPENDING
Construction Spending: Game Day Spending: Ancillary Spending:

• Materials • Ticket Sales • Lodging
• Supplies • Premium Seats • Restaurants
• Labor • Concessions • Residential
• Professional Fees • Merchandise • Offices
• Sponsorship • Retail
• Other • Entertainment
• Other
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS Page | XII-135

Gross direct spending would flow to various economic entities, including UA Little Rock, War Memorial Stadium,
service providers, restaurants, hotel operators, retail businesses and other such entities. However, some of the
spending that occurs in connection with the ongoing operations of Football would not fully impact the local
economy. As such, reductions must be made to gross direct spending to reflect the amount of direct spending
associated with the program that is considered net new to the economy. These adjustments include:
• Leakage – Leakage represents the portion of gross spending estimated to occur outside the measured
economy (i.e. the City of Little Rock). Immediate leakage occurs when initial direct expenditures occur
outside the local area, such as an out-of-town fan who patronizes a hotel or restaurant located outside
the measured economy’s boundaries. Leakage also occurs when initial local spending is used
immediately to pay for non-local goods and services, etc.
• Displacement – Displacement refers to spending that would have likely occurred anyway in the local
market without the presence of UA Little Rock Football. Examples of displaced spending would include
spending by local residents in connection with their attendance at home football games that would have
been spent within the local area anyway on other items if they did not patronize the game (e.g. movies,
restaurants, shopping, etc.). Another example of displaced spending would include out-of-stadium
spending by game patrons visiting from outside the local area whose primary purpose for visiting the
area was something other than patronizing the game and who would have spent their money locally in
some other form. This concept of displacement is oftentimes referred to as the substitution effect.
As illustrated in Figure 2 below, the flow of gross direct spending is adjusted to reflect only the spending that is
considered net new to the local economy. The resulting spending, after all adjustments, is referred to throughout
the remainder of this analysis as net new direct spending.

FIGURE 2
Direct Spending Adjustments
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS Page | XII-136

B. MULTIPLIER EFFECTS
Economic impacts are further increased through re-spending of the direct expenditures. The total impact is
estimated by applying an economic multiplier to initial direct spending to account for the total economic impact.
The total output multiplier is used to estimate the aggregate total spending that takes place beginning with direct
spending and continuing through each successive round of re-spending.
Successive rounds of re-spending are generally discussed in terms of their indirect and induced effects on the area
economy, as follows:
• Indirect Effects – consist of the re-spending of the initial or direct expenditures. These indirect impacts
extend further as the dollars constituting the direct expenditures continue to change hands. This process,
in principle, could continue indefinitely. However, recipients of these expenditures may spend all or part
of it on goods and services outside the market area, put part of these earnings into savings, or pay taxes.
This spending halts the process of subsequent expenditure flows and does not generate additional
spending or impact within the community after a period of time. This progression is termed leakage and
reduces the overall economic impact.
Indirect impacts occur in a number of industries, including the following:
• The wholesale industry, as purchases of food and merchandise products are made;
• The transportation industry, as products are shipped from purchaser to buyer;
• The manufacturing industry, as products used to service the team, vendors, and others are
produced;
• The utility industry, as the power to produce goods and services is consumed; and,
• Other such industries.
• Induced Effects – consist of the positive changes in spending, employment, earnings, and tax collections
generated by personal income associated with the operations of UA Little Rock Football. Specifically, as
the economic impact process continues, wages and salaries are earned, increased employment is
generated, and spending occurs in virtually all business, household, and governmental sectors. This
represents the induced spending impacts generated by direct expenditures.
ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Page | XII-137

Figure 3 below illustrates the flow of direct spending through the successive rounds of re-spending, including the
indirect and induced effects.

FIGURE 3
The Multiplier Effect
Indirect and induced effects are calculated by applying the appropriate multipliers to the net new direct spending
estimates. The appropriate multipliers to be used are dependent upon certain regional characteristics and also
the nature of the expenditure. Generally, an area which is capable of producing a wide range of goods and services
within its borders will have high multipliers, a positive correlation existing between the self-sufficiency of an area’s
economy, and the higher probability of re-spending occurring within the region. If a high proportion of the
expenditures must be imported from another geographical region, lower multipliers will result.
The multiplier estimates used in this analysis are based on the IMPLAN system and are specific to Little Rock.
IMPLAN, which stands for Impact Analyses and Planning, is a computer software package that consists of
procedures for estimating local input-output models and associated databases. Input-output models are a
technique for quantifying interactions between firms, industries, and social institutions within a local economy.
IMPLAN was originally developed by the U.S. Forest Service in cooperation with the Federal Emergency
Management Agency and the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management to assist in land are
resource management planning. Since 1993, the IMPLAN system has been developed under exclusive rights by
the Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. which licenses and distributes the software to users. Currently, there are
thousands of licensed users in the United States including universities, government agencies, and private
companies.
The economic data for IMPLAN comes from the system of national accounts for the United States based on data
collected by the U.S. Department of Commerce, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, and other federal and state

governmental agencies. Data is collected for 440 distinct producing sectors of the national economy
corresponding to the Standard Industrial Categories (SICs).
Industry sectors are classified on the basis of the primary commodity or service produced. Corresponding data
sets are also produced for each county and zip code in the United States, allowing analyses at both the city and
county level and for geographic aggregations, such as clusters of contiguous cities, counties, individual states, or
groups of states.
Data provided for each industry sector includes inputs and outputs from other sectors; value added, employment,
wages, and business taxes paid; imports and exports; final demand by households and government; capital
investment; business inventories; marketing margins and inflation factors (deflators). These data sets are provided
both for the 440 producing sectors at the national level and for the corresponding sectors at the local level. Data
on the technological mix of inputs and levels of transactions between producing sectors is taken from detailed
input-output tables of the national economy. National and local level data are the basis for IMPLAN calculations
of input-output tables and multipliers for geographic areas. The IMPLAN software package allows the estimation
of the multiplier effects of changes in final demand for one industry on all other industries within a local economic
area.
The multiplier effects estimated in this analysis include:
• Total Output – represents the total direct, indirect, and induced spending effects generated by UA Little
Rock Football. Total output is calculated by multiplying the appropriate total output multiplier by the
estimated direct spending within each industry.
• Employment – expressed in terms of total full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs and includes both full- and part-
time jobs. Employment is calculated by dividing the appropriate employment multiplier by one million
and then multiplying by the estimated direct spending within each industry.
• Personal Earnings – represent the wages and salaries earned by employees of businesses impacted by
UA Little Rock Football. Personal earnings are calculated by multiplying the appropriate personal
earnings multiplier by the estimated direct spending within each industry.
C. NET NEW FISCAL IMPACTS

In addition to the economic impacts expected to be generated by the operations of Football,, the public sector
will also benefit from increased tax revenues. In preparing estimates of these fiscal impacts, tax revenues
attributable to the net new direct, indirect, and induced spending were estimated. Tax revenues are based on the
current applicable tax rates. Future changes in these rates would have an impact on the resulting tax collections.
Taxes specific to the City of Little Rock considered in this analysis include:
• 1.5% city sales tax;
• 51% of a 1.0% Pulaski County sales tax; and,
• 2.0% city advertising and promotion tax.
Based on the estimated utilization and financial projections previously presented, the net economic and fiscal
benefits of UA Little Rock Football for the City of Little Rock were estimated and are summarized in Table 1 on the
following page.

D. SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC AND FISCAL BENEFITS

The net new economic and fiscal benefits to the City of UA LITTLE ROCK ATHLETICS
TABLE 1
Little Rock from the operations of UA Little Rock Economic and Fiscal Impact Summary
Football were estimated and are summarized in City of
Little Rock
Table 1. It should be noted that incremental benefits
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
are also expected to accrue to other tax jurisdictions
such as Pulaski County and the State of Arkansas, but Net New Annual Operations Impacts:
these benefits have not been analyzed herein. Direct Spending $1,330,442
Total Output $2,321,893
Total net new output to the City of Little Rock over 30 Jobs (FTEs) 30
years is estimated to be approximately $53.9 million, Earnings $958,107
supporting 28 new full-time equivalent jobs. These
NPV 30-Year Operations Impacts:
new jobs are estimated to generate net new personal
Direct Spending $32,032,875
earnings of approximately $21.5 million over 30 years
Total Output $53,944,230
of team operations. Jobs (FTEs) 28
Net new fiscal benefits to the City of Little Rock are Earnings $21,520,450
estimated at approximately $554,000 over 30 years of FISCAL IMPACTS

team operations. These benefits include city sales and
Net New Annual Operations Impacts:
advertising and promotion tax revenues that accrue
Sales Taxes $19,701
from direct, indirect, and induced economic activity
Advertising and Promotion Tax $5,689
within the City of Little Rock. Total $25,390
NPV 30-Year Operations Impacts:

E. NON-QUANTIFIABLE BENEFITS Sales Taxes $449,860
In addition to the quantifiable benefits generated from Advertising and Promotion Tax $104,044
the operations of Football, some benefits cannot be Total $553,905
quantitatively measured. Potential qualitative benefits for the local area could include:
• Enhancing University and community pride, image, exposure and reputation;
• New advertising opportunities for local businesses; and,
• Other such benefits.

Marching Band
INTRODUCTION
This section of the commissioned Study addresses relevant considerations and data for the organization, funding,
and operation of a marching band (Marching Band) at UA Little Rock if NCAA Division I Football (Football) is added.
The traditional American combination of college football, supported by an institutional marching band, provides
a multitude of opportunities for academic growth and the enhancement of campus life. Across the breadth of
Intercollegiate Athletics, institutions determine their own priorities and resources for sponsorship of such auxiliary
spirit groups as marching band, cheerleading, and/or spirit squads that can enhance student, alumni, and fan
game-day/special event experiences to strengthen personal and group affinity, as well as institutional branding.
Sponsoring Marching Band requires significant institutional commitments in key areas such as academics and a
sufficient allocation of resources, including dedicated, recurring funding, leadership, and facilities. The most
relevant and sustaining component of a successful Marching Band program is a comprehensive and highly
developed departmental music program with large student enrollments and scholarship opportunities at all levels
of undergraduate and graduate offerings. These complementary programs provide essential infrastructure, talent,
and expertise to enable the establishment and operation of a vibrant marching band with corresponding auxiliary
groups, such as a drum and bugle corps, color guard, and majorettes.
PROFILES OF RECENT MARCHING BAND

INITIATIVES IN FBS AND FCS UNIVERSITIES
Since 2009, four peer-benchmark institutions - Georgia State University, University of North Carolina Charlotte,
University of South Alabama, and University of Texas San Antonio - have initiated FCS Football and have advanced
to FBS. Each has added a marching band designed to reflect each university’s philosophy, curriculum, and
finances.
In addition, since 2015 two Study peer institutions have instituted Football and remained in the FCS classification
- East Tennessee State University and Kennesaw State University. In the case of East Tennessee State, Football and
Marching Band were actually ‘restored’, given that they were previously discontinued due to financial constraints.
Another FCS university, the University of Tennessee Martin, has recently “restructured” its marching band program
to achieve a more informal, less demanding format.
Accordingly, the table below presents key data points depicting the initiatives of the aforementioned FBS peers,
who in recent years have added a marching band program.
MARCHING BAND Page | XIII-141


TABLE 1
Marching Band Profiles
FBS BENCHMARK UNIVERSITIES
CATEGORIES UNIVERSITY OF NORTH
GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS
CAROLINA AT
UNIVERSITY ALABAMA AT SAN ANTONIO
CHARLOTTE
History/ Founded in 2010 Founded in 2015 Founded in 2009 Founded in 2011

Traditions “The Sound of “Pride of Niner Nation” “Building on a tradition “Spirit of San Antonio”
Downtown” (For FY’s 2013-14 and of excellence” (Participate in Pregame
2014-15 only used a 25 “We Are South!” and Halftime shows)
member drumline)
Number of 4 Full-time; 2 Full-time; 11 Total 5 Full-time

Faculty and 8 Part-time; 6 Part-time
Staff 5 Graduate Assistants
Students in 250 150 250 260

Marching (Total goal is 300) in FY 2016-17; in FY 2016-17
Band started with 140
Academic All Marching Band 1 credit hour class 1 credit course; 1 credit hour class
Credit students required to to participate in students required to required to participate
enroll in Marching Marching Band enroll in 15 total credits in Marching Band
Band credit course to participate in
Marching Band
Scholarships All students in the Scholarships are Scholarships are Scholarships for
Panther Marching Band provided; students talent/need based: Talent/Service awards
receive a performance must audition. $1600 for Marching for Marching Band
stipend. Additional Band participants; participants.
funds may be available $1500 for equipment
depending on the managers
audition and need of
the ensemble.
Football All Panther Band No away game travel Travel full Marching Only select regional
Game Travel members attend all Band to road games in games
home football games Alabama
and 1 or 2 away games.
Bowl travel is also
possible.
Other Instruments provided Annual State Funding: Performed at Alabama Members purchase
Features to all Marching Band $90,000 Governor’s their performance
members. $10 per year. Inauguration in 2015 shoes
Student Fee generates
$350,000 annually

UA LITTLE ROCK MARCHING BAND CONSIDERATIONS

The UA Little Rock Department of Music offers degrees only at the bachelor’s-level, but Departmental leadership
has expressed an eagerness to explore the possibility of expanding its academic and band ensemble programs, if
proper revenues and support systems are instituted. Another source of encouragement is the University’s urban
location in the State’s capital city with a heightened level of interest and participation in the arts and music.
There is a wide range of factors available in the design and creation of a new Marching Band model. Factors, such
as academic and leadership structure, operating policies, facilities, funding streams, and expense categories, will
all also play a part in creating successful outcomes for UA Little Rock.
Based on research developed as part of this Study, the following information is a reasonable guide for initiating a
Marching Band at UA Little Rock:
• Increased University commitment and funding are crucial and will have the greatest impact on
program development, growth, and sustainability.
• It is vital that the UA Little Rock Department of Music expands both its academic credit offerings at
the undergraduate level and considers the addition of graduate-level offerings to expand and
enhance the musical leadership and talent pool necessary to sustain Marching Band.
• Facility needs must be considered to accommodate the significant numbers associated with
Marching Band membership.
• Color Guard and Twirlers enhance a Marching Band’s performance and are an expected feature of
most modern marching ensembles.
• Additional faculty and support staff specific to Marching Band will be required.
• Scholarships should be considered as a component of Marching Band participation: Band members

make a serious commitment, as would be expected of any intercollegiate-level sports team. All peer
schools reviewed offer scholarship variations through their respective Departments of Music.
• Provisions for transportation and storage of instruments and other equipment for a fully-functional
marching band are a necessity.
• Existing facilities are limited in size and quality to support a Division I Marching Band program.
However careful scheduling would require small group participation.
• A sound-treated rehearsal hall for practice plus storage of equipment equaling 5,000 square feet is a
long-term requisite; construction and soft costs are estimated at $3.1 million.
• Initial participant numbers are suggested at 100 instrumentalists and 25 color guard/twirlers for a
total of 125 participants.
• Start-up costs, including equipment, partial instrumentation and full uniforms, as well as copyrighted
music acquisition, are estimated at $500,000.
• Once outfitted, operating expenses for a Marching Band of this size are approximated at $200,000 to
$300,000 annually.

SUMMARY
If UA Little Rock chooses to add Football at any level, the University will have other important decisions to make,
including the sponsorship of Marching Band. Beyond a doubt, the traditional American combination of college
football, supported by an institutional Marching Band, provides a multitude of opportunities for academic growth
and the enhancement of campus life. The University will need to identify and establish the proper structure,
policies, scale and funding of its Band operations to best fit the needs and interest levels of the campus and Little
Rock community.

UA-Little Rock Football and Marching Band Feasibility Study

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

UA-Little Rock Football and Marching Band Feasibility Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT LITTLE ROCK

Football and Marching Band Feasibility Study – July 20, 2018

UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT LITTLE ROCK

Football and Marching Band

July 20, 2018

Mr. Chasse Conque

Dear Mr. Conque:

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page | 3

C. Title IX – Gender Equity............................................................................................................................................................... V-46

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page | 4

D. Football Attendance ................................................................................................................................................................. X-106

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page | 5

Key assumptions included the University’s continued commitment to the

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page | 6

B. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page | 7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page | 8

Similar to the University, Athletics has experienced a significant evolution. Sport

INTRODUCTION Page | I-9

Phase I. Football Implementation Analysis

• Evaluate impact of football on gender equity/Title IX compliance;

• Determine institutional, academic and athletic support infrastructure required to maintain

• Identify facility and campus master plan considerations;

INTRODUCTION Page | I-10

Phase II. Market Assessment

Phase III. Strategic Plan

E. KEY STUDY RESOURCES

• University of Arkansas at Little Rock Mission

• UA Little Rock Organizational Chart

• UA Little Rock Office of Title IX

• Sun Belt Conference

• War Memorial Stadium Feasibility Study Brief

INTRODUCTION Page | I-11

F. FEASIBILITY STUDY FORMAT

II. Feasibility Study Assumptions

III. Peer Institution Benchmarking

IV. University Preparedness

V. Equity and Diversity

VI. NCAA Division I Legislation with FCS and FBS Football

VII. Football Implementation Considerations

VIII. Athletics Support Services

IX. Facilities Considerations

XI. Financial Considerations

XII. Economic Impact Analysis

XIII. Marching Band

INTRODUCTION Page | I-12

Feasibility Study Assumptions

6. The University emphasizes student-athlete academic success leading to graduation. Likewise, UA

FEASIBILITY STUDY ASSUMPTIONS Page | II-13

17. Enhancements or additions to Athletics are resource-dependent and will be implemented

FEASIBILITY STUDY ASSUMPTIONS Page | II-14

Peer Institution Benchmarking

Institutional Characteristics: Local Market Characteristics:

• Student enrollment • Population

• Living alumni base • Age

• Athletic budget • Household income

• Football budget • Cost of living

• Athletic donors • Corporate base

• Football attendance • Competition

PEER INSTITUTION BENCHMARKING Page | III-15

UA LITTLE ROCK ATHLETICS

FOOTBALL CHAMPIONSHIP SUBDIVISION

Southland Conference Ohio Valley Conference

FOOTBALL BOWL SUBDIVISION