21 Aug

Frank Broyles On John Barnhill & The Threat of Arkansas State University

Good stuff from a Mike Irwin and Frank Broyles interview back in 2007. The below excerpt is from around the 13-15 minute mark.

Mike Irwin: Now one of the things that I’ve also been told is that when you came in here, you were especially initially very respectful of the traditions that were already here. You didn’t come in and say “Well, that’s nice, but we have to do this, we have to do that.” You listened to what [Barnhill] had to say about why things are done the way they are around here. One of the things he told you was “We don’t play Arkansas State here.” There were just all these traditions and reasons why things are done the way they are and you, may have put your own stamp on the program, but initially you were very respectful of.

Frank BroylesHe had built—where Arkansas wasn’t very successful—he had built [a wall] around the state. He had gotten the eastern Arkansas people interested by starting to play more games in Little Rock. And we’ve developed a fan base from one border of the state to the other, which we had to have if we were going to be a national power. We had to have the fan base, where other schools had it close by, ours was going to be 250, 300 miles away—some of it… The one thing I learned from him is “We are not successful without a fan base from all over the state.”
They could support other universities and other colleges at that time. But when the Razorbacks played, everybody stopped and listened. And he had developed that and it was a wonderful opportunity for me. I took the job with the intention of staying. So It’s been 54 years.
Mike Irwin: Jeff Long still has that same philosophy. I mean he’s the A.D. now, but he didn’t change that. I mean you know there’s been constant pressure and constant talk about “When are you gonna play other schools? Other schools do this, other states do that.” The policy is still the same.
Frank Broyles: …The wonderful thing is that the [state] legislature has let us decide that… Right now our philosophy is that we don’t play so fans can support both of us—or three of us, or four of us. Whatever schools they want to support, they support us and them. And that’s why we’ve been successful.
04 Nov

Dead Horse A-Twitchin’: Arkansas State’s success breathes new life into old debate, Part 2

 

In Part 1, we rehashed some of the latest attacks on the University of Arkansas’ long-standing policy of not playing other in-state colleges. The main reasons for those seeking to maintain this policy haven’t changed much through the decades, but the lines of argument for changing the policy have evolved.
And Arkansas State’s football success this season adds new weight to some of these arguments.

To start with, let’s cast naivete aside:  No way Arkansas plays Arkansas State simply because it would be fun for fans, or because playing in-state competition would theoretically pour more money into the state government’s coffers, which would benefit all public universities in Arkansas.

Nope, if Jeff Long’s gonna entertain even the slightest sliver of this possibility, he’d better believe the game would help the UA’s athletic program bottom line now and in the future. This fall, he unveiled plans for a shining football palace which is part of a $320 million plan. This project isn’t touted as a luxury, though. Taking a long view, Arkansas’ AD understands that keeping up with the Jones in the SEC means financing expensive stuff to attract the nation’s best coaches, trainers and players.


Could replacing Troy or North Texas with ASU  on the football schedule help the UA achieve this faster?

Without developing additional streams of revenue and fundraising, Arkansas can’t afford to keep up with far bigger SEC rivals like LSU and Alabama.

Arkansas leaves money on the table every time it plays any Sun Belt team not named Arkansas State. Here’s why:

1) Arkansas paid $900,000 to play a Sun Belt team, Troy, earlier this season in a “rent-a-win”, or guarantee game. Meanwhile, in a similar David vs. Goliath type setup, Illinois paid ASU $850,000. It stands to reason that UA would have the financial upper hand in multiple ways if negotiating a contract to play ASU, including the actual guarantee game fee. It’s likely UA possible could get away with paying ASU even less than what Illinois would pay them. Either way, UA could save $50,000 to $100,000 by playing ASU.

2) No matter how good Arkansas or Arkansas State are playing, an early-season match-up between the programs would sell out the 72,000 seats of Fayetteville’s Razorback Stadium, where the game would likely be played every time. If necessary, the stadium’s seating could be expanded to nearly 80,000 and this would be needed for at least the first time the game was played. A solid Sun Belt team like Troy usually brings around 70,000 people but another 10,000 helps the bottom line, especially if each of the tickets are sold for more than usual. Which, for this game, would make sense.
General admission tickets could be sold at an elevated price ($100, as suggested on a local sports talk show) and if UA fans hesitated to pay that amount, ASU fans would certainly make up the difference.

3) At least for the first couple of times the programs played, there would be a veritable trough-ful of licensing and merchandising opportunities for UA athletics to wallow in. Just conjure up a nice “Natural State Showdown” logo involving the helmets or mascots of both programs, then milk that sucker for all its worth through T-shirts, cakes, commemorative videos, calendars, key-chains – whatever you can stamp. There’s no doubt this stuff would fly off the racks for at least the first couple games.

Read More