UCAFANS.COM | GO UCA BEARS!

Are there any updates on Men's Soccer? I heard that the MVC had every intention of extending an invitation until they heard UCA had done away with there soccer program. Is the admin doing anything to try to rectify this or is this a closed issue? I would imagine that if there was any chance of getting an invite, UCA would be jumping on it....
Any info?

^^^^I have been wondering the same thing myself. I haven't heard anything about it since it happened.

I never saw these posted over here (from The Echo's Nov. 15 edition):


(This cartoon is from the 29th edition though)


· The Voice: Why weren't we consulted?

· Thompson should reconsider decision by Maximiliano Carranza, President of SGA

· Anything but speechless: Players respond to decision to eliminate soccer program

There is a letter, written by a supporter of UCA Soccer, that calls into serious question the whole decision making process by the UCA AD and its truthfulness. There is documentation to back up the claims. to wit: an email from the MVC that states in very clear terms that NO ONE from UCA, other than Chad Flanders on October 20th, ever contacted the MVC about UCA's admittance to that conference. It seems I read that there were "tireless" efforts to secure conference affiliations, or so said according to UCA's AD.
Here's the question: Did they really try to get in a conference, or did they just use that as an excuse to shut the program down because of other concerns and figure no one would be smart enough to check with the MVC?

A simple FOI request by the Echo could produce the entire contents of this letter as it was sent, with attachements, to all the Trustees, President Hardin, AD Thompson and Coach Flanders.

I would LOVE to see that. I had heard about it, but was not sure if it was real or just a rumor. The way I hear it, if it is true, this "letter" lays out some pretty serious ground work that John absolutely did not work on getting into a conference. It seems the person in charge of soccer for the MVC had never even heard of John Thompson until he heard that UCA no longer had men's soccer and THEN John made an attempt to contact the MVC.
I am sure this is only partially true, if true at all, but that letter getting published would probably stir people up pretty good...

hmmm...seems to be an interesting development!

Got this in a message on facebook...

Obviously, the BOT and SGA have combined their substantial funds with a generous donation from the Little Rock Futbol Club to purchase the Missouri Valley Conference. The whole damn thing. UCA will have home games galore.

Long live soccer.

Or, there's always this other scenario.

Let's go to the Facebook for assistance on this one.



Here's what I don't get ...

I thought the deal was if we get a conference we keep soccer. If we don't, we don't. It wasn't a financial decision, it was a matter of having a conference. Did that change somewhere along the way? If money wasn't the issue, what good does it do to increase the student fee? Did a conference say "hey, pay us $XXXXXX and we'll gladly accept your currently non-existent program"? Or is there now an agreement on the table that if more money is leeched from the students that soccer can keep on keepin' on regardless of conference affiliation?

I can't imagine the majority of 12,000 students being thrilled to pay up to an additional $15.00 a year to keep soccer around. Of course, the majority of the students don't really have a direct say in the matter. They've got to rely on their SGA reps to do what's in the best interest of the majority of the student body and not get caught up in an emotional play of a vocal minority.

Just to fiddle around with some math here ...

As of 6/9/06 (the latest numbers I could find. There could be more recent ones, but I don't care enough to dig deep) there were 9,708 full-time students and 1,607 part-time students.

Billing is capped at 15 hours, but I think you only have to have what ... 12 or 13 to be full time? Not everybody takes a full 15, so let's just average it out to 13 hours. 9,708 students at 13 hours is a total of 126,204 billable hours. At 50 cents an hour, that'd be an additional $63,102 of athletic fee to go toward funding soccer. With 1,607 part-time students ... I have no idea how they get billed. So I will just assume it's strictly a per-hour deal and we'll say an average of six hours, since that's halfway between 0 (no-time) and 12 (full-time). That's another 9,642 billable hours for $4,821 additional dollars.

In all, that's about $68,000 to be earmarked specifically for keeping the men's soccer program around.

Or is it? I mean, can that additional fee be allocated specifically for men's soccer, or will it just be put into the athletic dept. budget? If it's the former ... is that legal and does that set a dangerous precedent? Would that violate any sort of Title IX provision? I don't know that it would, but it might. And I figure that might cause an uproar among the other sports – both genders – that soccer would be getting such a boost to its budget.

And if that's the way things are going to go down, would not say, women's basketball (or any program, really), be better served going to the AD and pleading for him to announce the axing of that program? Then the SGA would, by all rights, need to step in and jack the athletic fee up another 50 cents for the express purpose of resurrecting women's basketball. You'd have to do that, right? Women's basketball isn't any less important than men's soccer. I would think you'd have to do for one what you do for the other, lest you get involved in messy legal action.

So if the money isn't specifically earmarked for men's soccer and is just there to allow the athletic department more funds with which to work, is there any way of guaranteeing that is where the money – all the money – is spent? Couldn't the dept. then take the money and give none or a small percentage of it to soccer and then crank the rest into a different sport, facility upgrades, salary upgrades, etc.? That's obviously a coup for the athletic department if so, but maybe not such a great deal for soccer or the students.

And what is the exact language of the legislation at hand? Is this a permanent fee? Is it conditional that it will only be enforced so long as the soccer program exists and will not be enacted at all if the program is not immediately revived? And again, going back to the specific allocation line of questioning, if this rate is a permanent increase, does that money go specifically to soccer every year? On the surface, that seems troublesome.

Anyhow, I'm not a genius in these matters, but if the situation affected me those are some of the questions I would be asking. There may very well be simple explanations to everything I brought up ... but if I were on a rulemaking body or was a poor student or an athletic dept. administrator or a coach of any sport or anybody else directly affected by this situation, I would want to have it all explicitly outlined.

Personally, not being a fee-paying student, I'm all for it. It potentially brings soccer back, and pours more money into the athletic department. And, lord knows, the athletic department can't get enough funding. And it doesn't cost me one red cent. I get to reap the benefits free of charge. Woohah!

If I were a fee-paying student, I might or might not be for it. I'd want to know exactly what it is I'm paying for and why it's necessary when it's been said before the decision wasn't a financial one. Obviously if I liked soccer I'd be down and, conversely, if I didn't like soccer I would be up at that SGA meeting raising hell.

And, if word gets out, you can bet there will be some people doing just that. A lot of people (cash-strapped students, those in academia, and – for lack of better terminology – "the haters") have no use for athletics on a college campus and will start demanding to know why we can't get 50 cent fee increases for lab equipment or musical instruments or god knows what. Things like that tend to get messy in a hurry.

Unfair as it may be, people who don't support athletics don't simply believe athletes shouldn't get preferential treatment, they wish ill will upon them because they're eaten up with jealousy and/or contempt. They view athletes as pampered individuals who don't deserve what they get, and the athletic department as an unnecessary albatross that drains money that could be used for more important things like French faculty or Turtle mating-habit research.

I no longer remember my original point. I don't know if this is a good deal or a bad deal, I just know it's an intriguing one.

Whew That wore me out. All good points, however.

It's amazing how much knowledge and inquisitve questions us early risers have, ain't it?

Early risers? What kind of stuff are you on? That's late-nighter all the way, baby.

Oops, my mistake. I haven't been able to stay up all night since I was about 25. Next question is what kind of stuff are you on cause I could sure use some. Most nights I'm asleep before the dog is.
Well, whether it was early morning genius or late night madness, you still made some good points!

This whole soccer situation appears to be being handled in a questionable manner. The Lu and Thompson have told the public the removal was due to no conference and not over money.

Here is where Lu's political savvy is coming into play. If the admin was the party to initially come up with the idea to force a tuition hike/athletic funds increase to support athletics than the students would have been in an uproar over money. But by saying they are doing away with the program they have created student sympathy/support for the soccer program.

Now SGA members are outraged how the admin could just do that to their fellow students. Regardless of whether they want to raise fees or not there will not be on single member that is not going to feel pressured and uneasy telling fellow students/friends that they can't commit another $15 dollars a semester to save their program.

They will clearly vote yes because why would the SGA waste their time voting no for a program that has already been dissolved?

Now both Lu and the students will walk away with the soccer program reinstated, student-supported raise in athletic fees, both Admin/students happy with the results and still no SOCCER CONFERENCE Lu pulled the wool over the sheeps eyes and played the SGA to come up with the "solution" of raising funds and that is what I call a political genius at work!

Now what I clearly don't understand is that if we anticipated that we may have some budget issues than why the decision to add a track & field program? Is the addition of this sport something we did or are doing to make us more attractive to the Southland or other possible D1 conferences? I just have a hard time understanding why we would be willing to eliminate a relatively inexpensive program with huge success recently to create a new program?

No T&F, no SLC...no Div I...simple as that.

T&F is representative of four sports (M/W Indoor and M/W Outdoor). Throw in the XC...you got up to six sports of those needed to qualify for NCAA Division I.

Get rid of the track program, you got 13 programs (included mens soccer and both XCs). Doesn't make the cut...cut soccer, add the four T&F, your 16 and fine...

was not aware of that...interesting. Thanks for the info!