2024 Scheduling opportunities??????

[CL82]

no offense but this is a really stupid post. I think it cost 60 million to build a 2,500 seat Hockey Arena. What would it cost to build a new 45 thousand seat football stadium on campus? 200 Million 300 million? for 6 games?

I think it’s pretty likely it would cost more than $60 million, but keep in mind that there is no need to build much of the accessory space that normally come along with building a new stadium. We already have built Shankman, and Burton.

The question about whether or not to build in stores isn’t a decision between $200 million in nothing it’s a decision between $200 million and whatever it will cost to renovate Rentschler Field to keep it functional. It’s not happening within the next decade in any event, in my opinion. Oh and if we’re expanding capacity from Rentschler fields 40,000 to 45,000, that’s probably a good thing because it would seem to mean that there’s greater demand.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

I think it’s pretty likely it would cost more than $60 million, but keep in mind that there is no need to build much of the accessory space that normally come along with building a new stadium. We already have built Shankman, and Burton.

The question about whether or not to build in stores isn’t a decision between $200 million in nothing it’s a decision between $200 million and whatever it will cost to renovate Rentschler Field to keep it functional. It’s not happening within the next decade in any event, in my opinion. Oh and if we’re expanding capacity from Rentschler fields 40,000 to 45,000, that’s probably a good thing because it would seem to mean that there’s greater demand.

Quick question for you 82:

Knowing that renovations at the Rent will be at a minimum $63 million and will be part of the equation, what price for building an on-campus stadium would you consider too high to consider at the moment?

 

[CL82]

Quick question for you 82:

Knowing that renovations at the Rent will be at a minimum $63 million and will be part of the equation, what price for building an on-campus stadium would you consider too high to consider at the moment?

I don’t know that we know that the renovations for the rent are “a minimum of $63 million“. We do know that that’s the amount requested by the CDRA, but their history regarding what they consider “necessary improvements“ isn’t particularly better than their history of actually managing a venue.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

I don’t know that we know that the renovations for the rent are “a minimum of $63 million“. We do know that that’s the amount requested by the CDRA, but their history regarding what they consider “necessary improvements“ isn’t particularly better than their history of actually managing a venue.

Let me rephrase it then:

We can use R as the total expenditures for the current, needed upgrades to the Rent and X + R as the all-in cost to build an on-campus stadium. Where would you draw the line for X that the cost would be too high to consider at the moment?


(Example: if R ends up at $82 million and the total cost for an on-campus stadium would be $290 million, X would be $208 million)

 

[CL82]

Let me rephrase it then:

We can use R as the total expenditures for the current, needed upgrades to the Rent and X + R as the all-in cost to build an on-campus stadium. Where would you draw the line for X that the cost would be too high to consider at the moment?


(Example: if R ends up at $82 million and the total cost for an on-campus stadium would be $290 million, X would be $208 million)

So, what I think you’re asking is, in my opinion, how much additional cost would it be worth to build a brand new stadium on campus in Storrs, at some point in the future, rather than have a say 30 year old, 40 year old, etc. patchwork stadium in East Hartford. It is pretty tough to give a specific answer to that vague a hypothetical. Some of it will depend on the condition of Rentschler field at the time the decision is made, the demand of the program and the method of financing. Obviously, it’s not a question of, to use the figures you posed in your hypothetical, the University putting 200 million in cash down. It would probably be bonding over a minimum of 30 years. A cost of $6 2/3 million a year doesn’t seem prohibitive, especially when it is offset by the fact that the university would no longer be paying the CDRA rent for the use of Rentschler field, plus guaranteeing losses. Keep in mind, as well, that the university would also be earning concession in parking revenue, which it does not now.

Boy, as you start to break down the numbers, it does seem like it’s pretty feasible, doesn’t it?

 

[businesslawyer]

Let me rephrase it then:

We can use R as the total expenditures for the current, needed upgrades to the Rent and X + R as the all-in cost to build an on-campus stadium. Where would you draw the line for X that the cost would be too high to consider at the moment?


(Example: if R ends up at $82 million and the total cost for an on-campus stadium would be $290 million, X would be $208 million)

Is what you're asking how much delta one would be o.k. with in order to move from a renovated Rent to a new stadium in Storrs?

There's not a right answer to that question, it depends on factors including personal preference, personal convenience and what the legislature will think brings the most bang for the buck to the entire state. But my personal belief is that, in the near future, the delta that the legislature would support is close to zero. If the University wants to raise private funds and build the stadium without asking the State for more money than it would cost to renovate the Rent, that's a different question.

 

[CL82]

Is what you're asking how much delta one would be o.k. with in order to move from a renovated Rent to a new stadium in Storrs?

There's not a right answer to that question, it depends on factors including personal preference, personal convenience and what the legislature will think brings the most bang for the buck to the entire state. But my personal belief is that, in the near future, the delta that the legislature would support is close to zero. If the University wants to raise private funds and build the stadium without asking the State for more money than it would cost to renovate the Rent, that's a different question.

Agree, BL, in the near term. The Rent is in too good shape to abandon and the cost to keep it operational are relatively small. That won’t always be the case.

 

[businesslawyer]

Agree, BL, in the near term. The Rent is in too good shape to abandon and the cost to keep it operational are relatively small. That won’t always be the case.

Yes, but it's more than that. I remember the two sessions I worked in the General Assembly, it was important to members that basketball games be in Hartford to be more easily accessable to both them and their constituents, and to UConn this was an easy concession to make in return for broader support for funding. I doubt much has changed in this regard over 40 years. Add to that donor convenience and I just don't see this changing any time in the foreseeable future.

 

[CL82]

Yes, but it's more than that. I remember the two sessions I worked in the General Assembly, it was important to members that basketball games be in Hartford to be more easily accessable to both them and their constituents, and to UConn this was an easy concession to make in return for broader support for funding. I doubt much has changed in this regard over 40 years. Add to that donor convenience and I just don't see this changing any time in the foreseeable future.

I remember you talking about this in the past. Was it before or after Gampel was built?

 

[businesslawyer]

I remember you talking about this in the past. Was it before or after Gampel was built?

Before. But there was a reason why building Gampel didn't move all the games out of Hartford.

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

Yes, but it's more than that. I remember the two sessions I worked in the General Assembly, it was important to members that basketball games be in Hartford to be more easily accessable to both them and their constituents, and to UConn this was an easy concession to make in return for broader support for funding. I doubt much has changed in this regard over 40 years. Add to that donor convenience and I just don't see this changing any time in the foreseeable future.

I agree. And, everyone that says UConn should build a 40-50k stadium in Storrs I think dismisses the reality of whether or not that project would be economically prudent. Isn't there a reason why Gampel is only 10,000 seats and often has a couple thousand seats go empty? It's because much of the state can't fathom making the trek up and over to Storrs. Would 30-40,000 people make the trek? I am skeptical. Would it be amazing to have that kind of environment with 10,000 students packing an on-campus stadium? Yes. But it might be 10,000 students and 15,000 non-students and if so that seems similar to the Rent in terms of environment. I think we'd have to be a consistent top-50 team to have a very good shot at putting 35,000+ people in the seats on-campus. And while I think we can re-attain that status, I think it would be difficult to get the Legislature to buy into it. IMO, it would take a large donor campaign to make this happen. I'm not pessimistic - just trying to be realistic. I would love to be wrong about this one day.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

Back to my earlier question, which I rephrased as I was attempting to get an actual answer:

I imagine that there would be some dollar amount that 82 would view as too high to build an on-campus stadium. My question: what would that number be?

 

[UCFBfan]

Ok so back on topic....I'd take a payday game at Penn St and call it a day. Give me an excuse to go to Happy Valley for a game, plus have our team get paid? Sign me up.

Plus if you've never been there, it's an amazing place to watch a game and visit for a football weekend. It's also an easy trip that's just over 4 hours IIRC. Straight down 84, then 81, then 80, then you're there. Plus, construction season should be almost over by then!

 

[billybud]

You can travel almost anywhere for one-off games as a visitor.

But the home and home games are what you want to schedule.

Travelling for one and done games can be a successful strategy for entering the national football consciousness.

 

[billybud]

Re costs for a stadium...

Costs can be huge and takes committment from boosters, especially if those costs can not be state tax revenue supported.

And...can be never ending.

Even recognized upper end stadiums will swallow more money every decade or so.

 

[Coult45]

I agree. And, everyone that says UConn should build a 40-50k stadium in Storrs I think dismisses the reality of whether or not that project would be economically prudent. Isn't there a reason why Gampel is only 10,000 seats and often has a couple thousand seats go empty? It's because much of the state can't fathom making the trek up and over to Storrs. Would 30-40,000 people make the trek? I am skeptical. Would it be amazing to have that kind of environment with 10,000 students packing an on-campus stadium? Yes. But it might be 10,000 students and 15,000 non-students and if so that seems similar to the Rent in terms of environment. I think we'd have to be a consistent top-50 team to have a very good shot at putting 35,000+ people in the seats on-campus. And while I think we can re-attain that status, I think it would be difficult to get the Legislature to buy into it. IMO, it would take a large donor campaign to make this happen. I'm not pessimistic - just trying to be realistic. I would love to be wrong about this one day.

Though I do think success breeds more success and getting students to come regularly (which I think they would with a team of current caliber and an on campus field) is a great step in keeping the team relevant, would there be any possibility for a split schedule like with basketball? Get some of the lower tier games on campus to keep students interested in coming to the games and if there are bigger games that could be put in the rent that is also an option? I do not think this is a long term solution and would be more on a temporary basis because the home of a great football team should be where it's students are. In my opinion the additional travel time from Hartford to Storrs would not be that significant especially if it results in a better environment and better on field product. However, I am aware that this may be more of a younger alumni bias, but for any alumni would you not mind taking a trip to where you spent your college years on the occasional fall Saturday as opposed to east Hartford for just a couple extra minutes drive? However, costs and fan decision aside this possibility is even less probable as it would also likely require some form of surrounding town approval in addition to major expansions of Storrs road to allow for travelers, neither of which seem like a likelihood at this point.

 

[huskymedic]

 

[ConnHuskBask]

We haven't had 20k butts in seats consistently in what a decade?

I think you fix up The Rent and see if another round of conference realignment occurs.

There is 0 reason to try and allocate time and money to a 30k (let alone 40k) seat football stadium as an Indy - and I'm probably one of the few that thinks Indy can be a successful and worthwhile venture.

 

[DoctorWho85]

Stupid...REALLY? It's a facility that is past it's useful life, requires $63 Million in upgrades which we KNOW will wind up being $163 Million, all to bandage up a bald tire that was built in the wrong location to begin with.

So you're saying that UCLA and Miami can't schedule either because they play on off campus stadiums too? Don't see UCLA having a problem being 17 Miles for the Rose Bowl. Or Miami also being 17 miles from their stadium. That's a whole extra 5 minutes more UConn students are driving from Storrs.

And by your logic, the XL Center should be torn down and built on campus, because it's well past it's prime. Also by you logic the majority of building in the state need to be torn down because they're over 20 years old.

 

[billybud]

Plant an orchard of money trees.

After already having a stadium billed as the biggest brick continuous structure in the US...FSU spent $280 million in 2018 on upgrades...and now has $100 million in pledges for a "fan experience upgrade" and a $20 million in governmental bond money for infrastructure repairs.

$400 million to an existing stadium since 2018, almost all born by boosters....It has to stop....

I suspect that a new on campus stadium's cost in Storrs could not be done unless payed for by the state.

 

[shizzle787]

I'm going to make a prediction: we will be joining the ACC on July 1, 2036. I think the SEC will raid the ACC leaving us a spot. This means that we can and should be an independent until then. 2023 to 2035 is 13 seasons. This is what Benedict needs to schedule for.

2023 is already complete.
24-25 both need two games.
26 needs one game.
27 needs three games.
28 needs five.
29 needs nine.

We can do this. It is imperative that we get aggressive and schedule in advance and we will be fine.

For the next three years, we need five games.
In 24, we still get to schedule a home FCS game.
The other game that year could be part of a H/H with a P5 school on the road with the return game in 25.
Speaking of 25, we could get another H/H with the home game that year and the road game in 27.
In 26, a H/H with the home game, and the road game in 27.
The final game in 27 could be a home FCS game (7 home games that year).

 

[freescooter]

Let me rephrase it then:

We can use R as the total expenditures for the current, needed upgrades to the Rent and X + R as the all-in cost to build an on-campus stadium. Where would you draw the line for X that the cost would be too high to consider at the moment?


(Example: if R ends up at $82 million and the total cost for an on-campus stadium would be $290 million, X would be $208 million)

I think if you go back and read the report, it isn’t exactly saying you need to spend $63 million all at once. What it says is over the next five plus years you need to spend money replacing stuff that is either worn out, (think the roof) or no longer the meeting today’s standards (communication and technology). It is basically normal maintenance on a twenty year old building. In the private sector, you likely would have a replacement reserve to address it, or some of it at least. Or you would recapitalize the property. In the public sector, that rarely works, because legislators, tax payers and officials would scream bloody murder. They would want that money turned over to the General Fund with the idea that the state will come up with the money when required. Indeed, for a while you weren’t allowed by state law to have such funds for publicly owned entities. Not sure if they are permitted now. So the end result is that the State Legislature needs to appropriate money for that purpose. But it isn’t like you need to do $63 million on Tuesday. You basically put together a capital plan and maybe it is $10 million/year over 6 years, and you fund that and in an ideal world, it becomes a regular thing so you avoid these big numbers in the future.

 

[billybud]

The $63 million is mainly for general maintenance needed...roofing, HVAC, elevator replacement, plumbing, etc.

As posted above, normally there is a maintenance schedule that is carried out throughout a long term ownership...The Rent appears to have not had a regular upgrade schedule so a lot of work needs to be done relarively soon...can not neglect roofing, elevators, HVAC, plumbing, wiring...the tech upgrades might be the few things visble to fans.

And, it appears, that the rental contract with the Rent will be renewed next year, come hell or roof leaks.

 

[shizzle787]

Also, whatever happened with Benedict hinting there would be three more P5 (ACC) games in the next few years.

 

[storrsroars]

Also, whatever happened with Benedict hinting there would be three more P5 (ACC) games in the next few years.

Have faith. If you can't trust AD David Benedict by now, you never will.