Warde on Record: 10,000 More Seats (Hartford Business Journal)

[Carl Spackler]

The capacity issue is due to fire dept. regulations. The seating is @ 38,500. It's reported as capacity of 40k to account for all souls in the building at capacity. It includes both teams, volunteers manning the concession booths, maintainance staff, police & security details & any other service staff.

That's probably the best explanation I"ve ever seen/read/heard. Somebody knows the actual "permanent" seating capacity - and it's less than 40k. That I'm sure of. I believe the actual number is 38,110. Don't ask me why that number sticks in my head. I'm also 99.999% sure that the planned 50,000 in the original design was to be 50,000 permanent, which would be the additional 11k and change in that third tier.

To respond to the Hartford skyline comment, I agree. I could care less about seeing the buildings of Hartford from the stadium. What's important - is how the winds and weather would be affected by closing in the ends. Those winds often give a major change in complexion of a game for our home field.

 

[Dooley]

Personally, I think that the more expansion is talked about, the better it is for our conference standing. The more fans and, more importantly, leaders of P5 conferences learn what we already know about our stadium's easy ability to expand, the better.

With one phone call, we go up to least 50K, possibly more. The document says MINIMUM of 50,000. We could expand past that, if we needed to. The third deck behind the UCONN bench would be the quickest expansion. If we added a 2nd deck on the scoreboard side or a third deck behind the student section, I think that it would take longer to install support structure. At least, that's my understanding - footings were only installed behind the UCONN bench to add a 3rd deck there. If we added more seating to other areas, we'd have to add the support structures first.

 

[junglehusky]

Holding everything else static in the past few years, the stadium capacity was a none issue.

Rutgers/Maryland were added for cable boxes and access to recruits.

Ville as added because we were in the midst of the P era and they were on their way to winning the league.

If the B1G called and said expand the stadium and you're in - we'd do it in a second.

There's no sense in expanding when demand doesn't necessitate it and were already up against financial hurdles.

Do people want 20,000 empty seats or 10,000 for Memphis, Tulane etc or more money to retain coaches etc.

He's pretty clear in the article that Diaco needs to get wins in order for demand to increase, and then the demand will allow the increase in capacity to move forward, and the increase in revenue will allow us to pay the bills. Step by step process.

 

[Dooley]

If I had my way, here's how I'd expand the stadium (assuming we get a P5 invite):

- add a 3rd deck behind UCONN's sideline (10K) similar to Louisville's Papa Johns Stadium expansion look;

- add an elevated 2nd deck on the scoreboard side (5K). By elevated, I mean I'd like to see UCONN keep the party lounge area in tact. The elevated 2nd deck would cover the lounge area and allow for HDTVs to be installed (hung from the base of the 2nd deck) for those watching the game from the lounge. The lounge area should have a standing room area for fans to watch the game and also have a table seating area for people to eat (it should resemble a sports bar of sorts). The base of the 2nd deck could be used as a kitchen area to offer fans in the lounge more food and beer/spirits choices. Fans would need a game ticket to get in there and there would be a maximum capacity allowed based on fire codes. The 2nd deck would allow for seating of 5K additional fans (part can be distributed to visiting teams) and the HD video board should be elevated to the top of the 2nd deck;

- add a 3rd deck behind the student section (5K). They could follow the current design and simply connect the upper rows of the 2nd deck on the visitors and home sidelines for symmetry. Install a 2nd HD video board at the top of the 2nd deck behind the student section.

That would bring the total capacity to around 60K and would give the largest college stadium in New England and the tri-state area. If money/budget/foundation structure allows, they could cap the capacity at 60K but add to fan experience by covering the seating area of the stadium (similar to the way many English Premier League soccer stadiums do). Calling a spade a spade, UCONN football fans are a bit fair weathered (literally) and covering them from rain/snow would go a long way to eliminating excuses for not going to games while still allowing our home team to experience the home-field advantages of New England weather.

If I won PowerBall (one of those really big pots), this would be started the next day. So, rest assured.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Found it - what I was looking for. Rentschler seating (as of 2011). Not sure what the temporary seating that was installed for 2013 entailed when it comes to these numbers, but whatever fire/code regulations went into that most likely changed these numbers.

Actual current permanent seating is/was as of 2011 : 38,110. Stadium capacity per regulation/code Is (was prior to 2013) : 40,642.

Nobody as ever adequately explained what the "plaza" seating in this publication I'm pulling this from meant. (it's public domain). I'm going to go with coachcap's reasoning that the numbers involve all persons inside the stadium.

I do know that the planned expansion design was meant to increase that 38,110 to approximately 50,000 - in permananent, numbered, marked seats. That would mean that the actual capacity at that point would be approximate 52,542 or so - with the number discrepancy as of 2011.

None of that is new info though - this info goes back to 1999.

The new info, and interesting question is where those 2,500 additional temporary seats installed in September 2013 fit in to all this. My guess, would be that with the originally planned expansion, and the temporary seating that was put into effect in 2013, we've got the capability to relatively quickly go from 40,642 total capacity to between 55k and 56k capacity very quickly.

Anything beyond that, certainly is possible and doable given the specs of the facility, but would require construction from scratch, where as getting to 55k and change, would be relatively quick and easy.

http://www.ct.gov/opm/lib/opm/secre...landingrentschlerfieldannualreportfeb2010.pdf

 

[Pudge]

Horrible article. Poorly structured with ... as mentioned ... strange interspersing of Carstensen & Lawrence - the Global Spectrum guy, in what is actually a firm new statement.

First, this isn't Hathaway. This is Warde Manuel saying that we NEED to be at 50,000+ to compete where we want to be. I agree. While we have always been in a tough timeframe (given the quick evolution of the reconfiguration of P5 conferences), we should have forged forward with a Plan to expand 10,000 when Rutgers did. I certainly saw that. We have a far better economic situation than the band-aids, paperclips and fraudulent structure that Pernetti cobbled together with former Governor Corzine. But ... in hindsight ... they knew the way the wind blew. Schiano led them to a point & they needed to get over the bar while they had momentum. We have a far better stadium situation (structure & economics) but we ARE hesitant to move. Hathaway certainly was. Warde Manuel is saying: "I see we MUST do this". I totally wholeheartedly applaud the statement.

And you are right ... why the duck would a Global Spectrum Manager NOT want expansion. It's a FEE contract for him. What risk do they have? They get paid a percentage of revenue; a percentage of Total Cost to Construction manage; a percentage of concessions - probably. Win - Win for them. Why would Mr. Lawrence be Eee-ohhrr? I don't get his reaction at all.

And Mr. Carstensen? Who told this reporter to pull him & his comments in. Mostly quite obvious. But, I think we are just a laggard - but one with a great BRAND and a Market we can build. And, NO ... not all the B1G are part of the AAU. We know that here. I also believe he is overplaying the BC hostility. Really?

Manuel has to get this done. Diaco has to be good. Not at all easy ... but simply needed for our school.

 

[Carl Spackler]

We were poised for expansion any time from 2007-2008-2009 Pudge - for sure. It would have been a much easier sell to build then. Hathaway seemingly was sitting at his desk concerned about his payroll stubs and calculating what he would need to do to get his bonuses.

Getting this done, has got to be next top priority for the athletic department. The expansion plans were laid out a long time ago.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

@Pudge You've been by far the biggest proponent of expanding the rent on here since I can remember.

If we expanded when Rutgers did, do you think we'd still be where we are today?

I don't think anything changes except for a lot of empty seats.

 

[Carl Spackler]

It's possible that if the stadium was expanded in the late 2000s, and the school leadership demonstrated an understanding of the importance of football, that Randy Edsall never leaves and right now, the discussion is whether or not the field should be renamed "Edsall field".

All that article does, is reinforce that there are still academics at UConn that don't understand the importance of division 1A/FBS football for an institution like the University of Connecticut. That's no big deal though, there will always be academics that don't fully appreciate the importance of athletics to an academic institution, regardless of scale or size of institution. The guys from UCONN quoted in that article, most likely have taken 20-30 years to realize that UCONN basketball, indeed was the driving force to get the school to where it is now, and not what they do in the classrooms - and begrudgingly admit it now.

They clearly don't get that to continue, football is the thing that needs to drive.

 

[Pudge]

@Pudge You've been by far the biggest proponent of expanding the rent on here since I can remember.

If we expanded when Rutgers did, do you think we'd still be where we are today?

I don't think anything changes except for a lot of empty seats.

I see it this way ...

Don't freaking whine why we aren't in a Power 5 conference if you are going to start talking about empty seats. If I told you that this was the Price of Admission ... and Rutgers paid ... would you pay it (and parallel ... are you pissed that Hathaway didn't see it that way?)?

I think, in hindsight, Rutgers had no more momentum than us when they added 10,000 to their 100 year old stadium. We also - and I can go into the Bonding Structure again if everyone wants to - had the ability to easily refinance the bonds & reissue more to construct the additional 10,000. Rutgers bullshite the State Taxpayers and got a greased package put through on the sly. They had Schiano; we had Edsall. Schiano, I think, knew that the Stadium increase - the helicopter - the salesmanship - went to position them to be reviewed. I don't think the Cable TV sets alone hurt us in this comparison; I think it was PP and down football was a drag.

Rutgers didn't care about empty seats - see. They knew that ACTING Bigtime was important in Football (even if they chose to bugger up their record with Howard, Norfolk State, Texas Southern ... and never that Kryptonite foe - Villanova).

I think expanding the stadium (in 2009) would have been good timing, with reference to construction costs. We, I believe, in the long run can build this Football Program. I do think Diaco is the right guy. But, now we have to play the games. I think 50,000 stadium gets us to a different level in terms of position. One more check.

 

[HuskyHawk]

It's possible that if the stadium was expanded in the late 2000s, and the school leadership demonstrated an understanding of the importance of football, that Randy Edsall never leaves and right now, the discussion is whether or not the field should be renamed "Edsall field".

All that article does, is reinforce that there are still academics at UConn that don't understand the importance of division 1A/FBS football for an institution like the University of Connecticut. That's no big deal though, there will always be academics that don't fully appreciate the importance of athletics to an academic institution, regardless of scale or size of institution. The guys from UCONN quoted in that article, most likely have taken 20-30 years to realize that UCONN basketball, indeed was the driving force to get the school to where it is now, and not what they do in the classrooms - and begrudgingly admit it now.

They clearly don't get that to continue, football is the thing that needs to drive.

Who is this Mr. Carstensen? He's certainly no expert, so I don't know why he is quoted as one. He mentions the "four" major conferences, so he's just parroting some stuff he has vague ideas about. Hell, he's probably NelsonMuntz.

As for academics and Basketball, don't oversell it Carl. What you have with academics, basketball success and football success, is a symbiotic relationship. High quality sports teams attract students, which allows UConn to be more selective, which bumps our SAT scores and quality (and size) of the student body. But that improved student body also drives more applications, as do strong programs lead by a well recognized faculty. Basketball helped create the exposure UConn needed, and convinced the state to make the investments needed in facilities, faculty and infrastructure. Now each side feeds off of the other. Football success will help only if it gets UConn into a well recognized conference, which also has a strong academic reputation (B1G or ACC). The Big XII can't really help UConn make that next leap. Association with Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina and Virginia can.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

At one point early on we had sold out something like 21 of our first 25 games at the Rent. That would have been by far the best time to at a minimum lay the groundwork for expansion by making statements such as what WM has. Unfortunately that would have required bold thinking on JH's part and JH was not exactly a bold thinker. His attitude (which far too many also adhered to) was that the capacity at the Rent was sufficient for our football program, an attitude that can and will destroy us as an athletic department.

We can add (either 10k; 12k or 15k; I've seen each number published some point in the past) another deck across from the pressbox/suites in one offseason as the footings are already in place. We can even extend the footings if necessary to put a larger deck than what was initially designed. Expansion also can include the two endzones, which were never initially part of the expansion (but I personally believe that the plan all along was to place two more towers with enclosed, theater seating as the design of the structure would easily allow for it).

I'm glad that someone is finally saying "Hey, we expect to a stadium equivalent to what the big boys have in the near future because we expect to be playing at a quality equivalent to the big boys in the very near future!". According to a couple of items posted on the CR board, one major concern the B1G has with us is the capacity of our stadium. If I were in charge that concern would be addressed immediately (as it is one thing that is fully within our control). It appears that WM is ahead of me on this.

 

[Dooley]

The one thing that has crushed UCONN in CR is Jeff friggin' Hathaway. Rutgers isn't the only school who proactively expanded. Louisville was knee deep in declining attendance under their Kragthorpe era and, yet, they saw the writing on the wall and expanded their stadium. When the stadium expansion was complete, Kragthorpe was axed and in came Charlie Strong. The rest is history.

Rutgers and Louisville read the landscape properly, at the time, and took advantage of other schools (ex - UCONN) not doing anything to improve its profile. I'd like to think that if Manuel was our AD when Edsall was here and had to make football decisions, he would have already expanded this stadium and, most importantly, NOT hire Paul Pasqualoni.

Playing in the AAC now makes it tough to justify expansion without incredible fan support. This is why it's vital for UCONN fans (ALL UCONN FANS) to buy tickets if they are able to do so. Sure, you might have to sit through some insufferable December games against 2-9 Memphis. But the only way out of this hell is through football and the fanbase perception.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Who is this Mr. Carstensen? He's certainly no expert, so I don't know why he is quoted as one. He mentions the "four" major conferences, so he's just parroting some stuff he has vague ideas about. Hell, he's probably NelsonMuntz.

As for academics and Basketball, don't oversell it Carl. What you have with academics, basketball success and football success, is a symbiotic relationship. High quality sports teams attract students, which allows UConn to be more selective, which bumps our SAT scores and quality (and size) of the student body. But that improved student body also drives more applications, as do strong programs lead by a well recognized faculty. Basketball helped create the exposure UConn needed, and convinced the state to make the investments needed in facilities, faculty and infrastructure. Now each side feeds off of the other. Football success will help only if it gets UConn into a well recognized conference, which also has a strong academic reputation (B1G or ACC). The Big XII can't really help UConn make that next leap. Association with Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina and Virginia can.

it's not an oversell. It's reality. There are three people, and the things they created, that UCONN owes it's entire current status in 2014 to, and the evolution over the past 30 years that led to it. None of the growth the University has experienced happens without it, and we would remain on par/level with our old, long time new England partners like URI, UMASS, UNH and Maine. Those people are Dave Gavitt, Jim Calhoun and Geno Auriemma, and the things they created - the Big East athletic conference, UCONN men's basketball and UCONN women's basketball respectively.

The Big East conference capitalized on a time / era in intercollegiate athletics that has since passed. UCONN basketball has developed into a national powerhouse unrivaled because of it, and needs to find a new way to continue to maintain it. The way to maintain it, is no different than it was in 1984.

Lew Perkins knew that UCONN football at the highest level of compeition, would be the key to success in maintaining the new growth and potential growth that UCONN could (and would) experience for the long term as a university and begain working toward it immediately upon becoming AD at UCONN. Hathaway was a pud. Manuel, has taken over where Lew left off.

It's only very recently that the entire school is coming around to what Lew knew - 25 years ago. Manuel has that advantage over what Lew did.

 

[upstater]

People continue to read the DOE income reports all wrong. If UConn football is more than bball teams combined at $11 million, then max for the revenue sports would be $20 million. So the writer just compares that $11m number to BC or Syracuse without taking into account departmental revenue which includes things like licensing and TV for football and bball.

 

[CTMike]

I'm not sure what Mr. Carstensen said that was so disagreeable to some? If he didn't sound like rainbows and roses... It's because the situation we are in isn't all rainbows and roses, and I thought he addressed that pretty matter of factly. We have a lot that needs to be fixed and I'm glad he was blunt about it. I've mentioned previously that old admins seem to have spent too long patting themselves on the back instead of getting out and fixing perceptions. There's much to do, but no need to kill the messenger.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

@Pudge You can't answer my question though. If we had expanded with Rutgers/Ville what would've changed? Nothing.

If you think Rutgers is in the Big even in part due to expanding their stadium, I'm not sure what to tell you.

If UConn continued post Edsall era with edsall level success (8 win seasons) I'm pretty sure we'd be in over Louisville.

You can wax poetic about how talk of an empty stadium isn't "big time" but that totally ignores the reality of the situation.

Just because Rutgers and Ville did it and got a life raft doesn't mean it's the right decision for UConn.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I'm not sure what Mr. Carstensen said that was so disagreeable to some? If he didn't sound like rainbows and roses... It's because the situation we are in isn't all rainbows and roses, and I thought he addressed that pretty matter of factly. We have a lot that needs to be fixed and I'm glad he was blunt about it. I've mentioned previously that old admins seem to have spent too long patting themselves on the back instead of getting out and fixing perceptions. There's much to do, but no need to kill the messenger.

Pretty sure it was the statement that UCONN either needs to become a member of a different conference or become a "basketball speciality" school. That statement demonstrates very little understanding of anything. It would certainly be better for UCONN to be in a different conference on the other side, but to abandon football as a priority and become a "basketball speciality" school, is dooming the school down a road that puts us back on the same level with our old Yankee conference partners as state publics, rather than the aspirations we currently have to join the state schools of a conference like the Big 10.

 

[Pudge]

@Pudge You can't answer my question though. If we had expanded with Rutgers/Ville what would've changed? Nothing.

If you think Rutgers is in the Big even in part due to expanding their stadium, I'm not sure what to tell you.

If UConn continued post Edsall era with edsall level success (8 win seasons) I'm pretty sure we'd be in over Louisville.

You can wax poetic about how talk of an empty stadium isn't "big time" but that totally ignores the reality of the situation.

Just because Rutgers and Ville did it and got a life raft doesn't mean it's the right decision for UConn.

It is never one thing ...

We did not do what Louisville and Rutgers did (parallel to each other). They advanced in Football ... and went to a higher level conference. We are NOT at that level because we thought narrowly. As you are doing now. We have a fundamental comparative advantage to either Louisville or Rutgers in this. Both (1.) it would have been far less cost because OUR new stadium was designed to be 50,000+ and Rutgers addition cost more than all of Rentschler in 2003; and (2.) our Bond Structure allowed us to easily collapse the first issue and re-finance the entire Stadium to the bigger number easily. And, WE had the income/revenue results to underwrite that additional debt. Easy Peazy.

WE had the easiest path of the 3. You can look back in hindsight ... and you conclude that we weren't elevated so it would have been lots of empty seats. I look back and say ... we are in the lower status because we didn't do it. We look small & that's on top of the fact that we have only 15 years history. That's not how Geno or JC have done anything. And, frankly, that's how you Win in College Sports. The Stadium is just a component of an ENTIRE attitude that fluffed up in the latter Hathaway era. We are way better than Rutgers as a Brand and in so many things.

And ... we continue to have folks here cry about Warde Manuel being in the Caribbean when he should have been making phone calls. NOPE. We needed a full on Football program ... with a vibrant Stadium plan to be AT B1G level. We needed a Coaching succession that worked.

 

[jostar1]

The Stadium was designed to meet or exceed NCAA Division 1-A requirements for football, and can also accommodate other grass-surface events such as soccer, rugby and lacrosse. Total stadium capacity is 40,642. The Stadium has been designed with expansion capacity for 50,000 seats.

http://crdact.net/rentschler_field.html

 

[CTMike]

Pretty sure it was the statement that UCONN either needs to become a member of a different conference or become a "basketball speciality" school. That statement demonstrates very little understanding of anything. It would certainly be better for UCONN to be in a different conference on the other side, but to abandon football as a priority and become a "basketball speciality" school, is dooming the school down a road that puts us back on the same level with our old Yankee conference partners as state publics, rather than the aspirations we currently have to join the state schools of a conference like the Big 10.

I guess I wasn't too bothered at the mention of that. I'm all in on making football the best it can be, and WM is too. If we don't turn things around and are in the same spot (or worse) in 5-10 years... Well that's a real problem. But I am much more optimistic than that.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

@Pudge Still avoiding the question.

Rutgers stadium could be 30,000 seats and they'd be in the B1G due to jerseys population. What don't you understand. If the Big never called, they'd be in a world of hurt financially.

You can't host build it and expect them to come because you watched field of dreams. That's insane.

I would love to have a 50k stadium. I really would. But with the financial peril we find ourselves soon to be facing, I find myself wanting to dump all resources into the staff then to seats that will be filled maybe once a year, if that.

How can you justify expanding a stadium that has seen attendance decrease EVEN WHEN we were winning with edsall?

It's not build it they will come, it's not win they will come - it's something other than that why people aren't showing up like they used to. Be it the economy or whatever, but I'm just not sure I want to throw a scarce resource ( money) at what I perceive to be a non issue.

If they want to do both ( retain coaches and expand) great - I just can't see one not affecting the other.

 

[CL82]

I rather he say it than not say it. Shows the issue is on his mind.

Well, I'd spin it a little different and say it shows that he recognizes the issue and has a plan to deal with it.

 

[UConn9604]

I don't think The Rent will ever exceed 50,000 in capacity, or that we should even try. In the era of hugescreen TVs and Internet-enabled content, stadiums are getting smaller, not larger.

The new Yankee Stadium is about 5,000-6,000 seats smaller than the old (capacity: approx. 50,100), and Stanford Stadium, which once hosted a Super Bowl and could hold about 80,000, now holds 50,000.

If we have a cozy 50,000 seat stadium that we fill from 80-95% of the capacity on a regular basis, we'll be in great shape.

 

[BoatShow]

I'll say this: I never really grasped how small the Rent is until I was down on the field after the Spring Game a weeks ago. Looking around at the seats from the field it just doesn't seem like where big time football is played.