B1G

[upstater]

The Financing for stadium expansion was $102M ($85M in bonds and remaining $17M in low interest commercial paper). Debt service is approximately $6.9M per year. The stadium expansion was done in 2 phases. 1st phase was 852 premium club level seats (28 luxury boxes) and the second phase was 11,412 additional seats. The 852 premium club level seats bring in approximately $2.5M of revenue per year. The corners of the upper deck may be empty, however, these club seats are almost always filled to capacity. Original estimates said ticket revenue due to expansion would generate $7.5M per year based on capacity rates of 85%. In addition at the same time Rutgers started to institute required donations for 6 premium sections (my guess is 4,800 seats). This is another approximately $1M per year. These seats are always sold out.

You're leaving out the part about how it went $19M over budget. What's the rate on $85M in bonds? What's the rate on the additional $19M? What's the rate on the $17M? Debt service at $6.9M? Good for you. Must be incredibly low rates, even though the $85M at least was prior to the meltdown.

Good point about the 800 premium club seats. I did not include those. My fault. Still, I thought I was generous in saying the 12,000 regular seats would be sold for $50. My guess, given the reports from Rutgers fans, is that they sell for a lot less. So, add $2.5M of revenue that I'd missed to my numbers above.

As for the $1M you mentioned last, enlighten me please. How does that figure into additional income to finance the build out? This was simply more capacity that was always there. In fact, one could argue that additional seating prevents Rutgers from charging an even higher amount on that premium seating. I wouldn't add that to the $6.4m you make from the club seats and all 12k seats being sold at $50 a pop (if indeed they are).

Finally, it will be interesting o see how Rutgers shows these costs in the future. If you're anything like the other schools that play this accounting game, you'll continue to show the revenues as accruing to football, while the academic side pays the whole bill. So, the AD says, look at all this money we make!! Meanwhile, not only are they heavily subsidized by the academic side, but the academic side also takes on the full brunt of servicing the bond.

So, it's great to say, we'll make $7M more a year which pays the bond. But if the revenue isn't used to pay the bond, then it's yet another accounting gimmick.

 

[RURM85]

You're leaving out the part about how it went $19M over budget. What's the rate on $85M in bonds? What's the rate on the additional $19M? What's the rate on the $17M? Debt service at $6.9M? Good for you. Must be incredibly low rates, even though the $85M at least was prior to the meltdown.

Good point about the 800 premium club seats. I did not include those. My fault. Still, I thought I was generous in saying the 12,000 regular seats would be sold for $50. My guess, given the reports from Rutgers fans, is that they sell for a lot less. So, add $2.5M of revenue that I'd missed to my numbers above.

As for the $1M you mentioned last, enlighten me please. How does that figure into additional income to finance the build out? This was simply more capacity that was always there. In fact, one could argue that additional seating prevents Rutgers from charging an even higher amount on that premium seating. I wouldn't add that to the $6.4m you make from the club seats and all 12k seats being sold at $50 a pop (if indeed they are).

Finally, it will be interesting o see how Rutgers shows these costs in the future. If you're anything like the other schools that play this accounting game, you'll continue to show the revenues as accruing to football, while the academic side pays the whole bill. So, the AD says, look at all this money we make!! Meanwhile, not only are they heavily subsidized by the academic side, but the academic side also takes on the full brunt of servicing the bond.

So, it's great to say, we'll make $7M more a year which pays the bond. But if the revenue isn't used to pay the bond, then it's yet another accounting gimmick.

Actually the Rutgers Stadium bids were $18M over budget based on the original plan. Rutgers originally planned for 14K additional new seats, additional concession stands, a recruiting lounge, elevator and a new entrance. Rutgers made the decision to scale back (did not get Board approval) by reducing the seats in the end zone section, no entrance, no elevator and took the recruiting lounge off the table (until G Brown donated $5M approximately 1 year later). The financing is for $102M and they did not go over budget.

 

[buggsy]

You're leaving out the part about how it went $19M over budget. What's the rate on $85M in bonds? What's the rate on the additional $19M? What's the rate on the $17M? Debt service at $6.9M? Good for you. Must be incredibly low rates, even though the $85M at least was prior to the meltdown.

Good point about the 800 premium club seats. I did not include those. My fault. Still, I thought I was generous in saying the 12,000 regular seats would be sold for $50. My guess, given the reports from Rutgers fans, is that they sell for a lot less. So, add $2.5M of revenue that I'd missed to my numbers above.

As for the $1M you mentioned last, enlighten me please. How does that figure into additional income to finance the build out? This was simply more capacity that was always there. In fact, one could argue that additional seating prevents Rutgers from charging an even higher amount on that premium seating. I wouldn't add that to the $6.4m you make from the club seats and all 12k seats being sold at $50 a pop (if indeed they are).

Finally, it will be interesting o see how Rutgers shows these costs in the future. If you're anything like the other schools that play this accounting game, you'll continue to show the revenues as accruing to football, while the academic side pays the whole bill. So, the AD says, look at all this money we make!! Meanwhile, not only are they heavily subsidized by the academic side, but the academic side also takes on the full brunt of servicing the bond.

So, it's great to say, we'll make $7M more a year which pays the bond. But if the revenue isn't used to pay the bond, then it's yet another accounting gimmick.

 

[buggsy]

Your post is just so full of inaccuracies and assumptions...it's pure comedy to see you lying to try to make a point.

The stadium expansion was not hundreds of millions as you originally posted. It was not $121 million as you followed up with. It was $102 million. That's it.

http://news.rutgers.edu/medrel/news-releases/2008/12/rutgers-board-of-gov-20081212

the average ticket price at Rutgers this year was $87 dollars...not $50/ticket. That alone is $2.645 million a year you shortchanged the expansion (11k seats x 37 dollars x 6.6 games = 2.645mm.

http://www.tiqiq.com/tiqiqtop25/

Also, 11,000 new seats means an additional 3-4 thousand cars paying 20 bucks a game to park. That's an additional 500k a year. Then there's the additional revenue from seat donations, and concession and merchandise sales for 11,000 additional people, which adds up to several hundred thousand if not more.

Then there's are the additional sponsorships, like the deal Rutgers signed with Audi, for naming rights to the premium seating section. That deal began last year for 650K a year...and escalates to over 1mm a year in year 5 of a 10 year deal.

Finally, you convenently leave out that the expansion also included the construction of 25 corporate and private loge boxes, which brings in millions of additional dollars that we weren't getting before the renovation.

You just have no idea what you are talking about in this case. None. You think the only money gained is by the 11k seats themselves? That's embarrassingly foolish.

Finally, 85mm of the bonds are Tax Exempt Rutgers bonds, and only 17 mm are taxable, Commerical paper bonds.

I got news for you. We' owe less than 8mm a year on the debt service, bu we're paying off more than that. That is why we are ahead of schedule. A debacle? Hardly.

The Star-Leger, notorious for its animosity towards Rutgers, even wrote an article that the repayment is ahead of schedule.

The stadium is a big reason why we were ready and able to be invited into the Big Ten. We have a stadium worthy of joining the premier league in the country...and for that reason alone...it was worth every penny.

To call that a "debacle" is just uninformed.

 

[upstater]

Actually the Rutgers Stadium bids were $18M over budget based on the original plan. Rutgers originally planned for 14K additional new seats, additional concession stands, a recruiting lounge, elevator and a new entrance. Rutgers made the decision to scale back (did not get Board approval) by reducing the seats in the end zone section, no entrance, no elevator and took the recruiting lounge off the table (until G Brown donated $5M approximately 1 year later). The financing is for $102M and they did not go over budget.

My mistake. I thought the project went over budget by that much, not the initial bids.

Here's what Mccormick said when I did a search: "The board granted the university authority to issue additional debt obligations up to the $102 million limit, which will be financed by revenues generated by the 12,000 new seats and other revenues from the stadium itself." This is partially what buggsy was saying, that in addition to the 11k seats, they would charge premium prices on already extant seats. Questionable logic right there. But whatever.

I still wonder, and I'm asking you, whether Rutgers football finances the debt on that $102 million. if it does, good for them, because so many universities say they are gaining new revenue by building out facilities, but that money is never then used to pay the debt.

In other words, does the academic side service the debt AND subsidize the AD by $28.5m, or does the AD pay it?

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Rutgers fans: upstater will gladly aruge this point for the next 50 pages if you engage him.

Also, Rutgers fans, I posted this on your scout board, but congratulations on the B1G invite. I hate to lose our only real football rivalry, but hopefully we'll end up in the same conference someday.

 

[upstater]

Your post is just so full of inaccuracies and assumptions...it's pure comedy to see you lying to try to make a point.

The stadium expansion was not hundreds of millions as you originally posted. It was not $121 million as you followed up with. It was $102 million. That's it.

http://news.rutgers.edu/medrel/news-releases/2008/12/rutgers-board-of-gov-20081212

the average ticket price at Rutgers this year was $87 dollars...not $50/ticket. That alone is $2.645 million a year you shortchanged the expansion (11k seats x 37 dollars x 6.6 games = 2.645mm.

http://www.tiqiq.com/tiqiqtop25/

Also, 11,000 new seats means an additional 3-4 thousand cars paying 20 bucks a game to park. That's an additional 500k a year. Then there's the additional revenue from seat donations, and concession and merchandise sales for 11,000 additional people, which adds up to several hundred thousand if not more.

Then there's are the additional sponsorships, like the deal Rutgers signed with Audi, for naming rights to the section. That deal began last year for 650K a year...and escalates to over 1mm a year in year 5 of a 10 year deal.

Finally, you convenently leave out that the expansion also included the construction of 25 corporate and private loge boxes, which brings in millions of additional dollars that we weren't getting before the renovation.

You just have no idea what you are talking about in this case. None. You think the only money gained is by the 11k seats themselves? That's embarrassingly foolish.

Finally, 85mm of the bonds are Tax Exempt Rutgers bonds, and only 17 mm are taxable, Commerical paper bonds.

I got news for you. We' owe less than 8mm a year on the debt service, bu we're paying off more than that. That is why we are ahead of schedule. A debacle? Hardly.

The Star-Leger, notorious for its animosity towards Rutgers, even wrote an article that the repayment is ahead of schedule.

The stadium is a big reason why we were ready and able to be invited into the Big Ten. We have a stadium worthy of joining the premier league in the country...and for that reason alone...it was worth every penny.

To call that a "debacle" is just uninformed.

I already responded to the mistake I made about the over budget. But these are end zone seats, right? You're charging $87 for end zone seats? I don't think so. Your webpage says it costs $240 for season tickets for those seats. They go for $40 a game. I was generous when I multiplied them by $50.

As for the luxury boxes and donations, I included that above. I don't know why you're complaining about that.

As for the Star Ledger, read this and tell me how complimentary they are: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/12/despite_success_on_the_field_b.html

Regardless, you two aren't answering the main question. Are the revenues from the additions included as AD or football revenues? And, if they are, does Rutgers' AD pay that amount to the academic side (I checked your expenses and there is no line item there anywhere near the $7m range)? Or, does the revenue go directly to the academic side? Or, does the revenue get counted for football, with the academic side picking up the debt service?

 

[upstater]

Rutgers fans: upstater will gladly aruge this point for the next 50 pages if you engage him.

Also, Rutgers fans, I posted this on your scout board, but congratulations on the B1G invite. I hate to lose our only real football rivalry, but hopefully we'll end up in the same conference someday.

It's because no one ever bothers to look at actual statistics when they debate these things. Someone says, "Ooooooh, we made $100 million last year" and everyone believes them unequivocally. It pays to look behind the curtain once in a while. You should try it yourself sometime.

 

[Nostical]

When Buggsy says "The stadium is a big reason why we (Rutgers) were ready and able to be invited into the Big Ten. We have a stadium worthy of joining the premier league in the country...and for that reason alone...it was worth every penny."...he is absolutely right. Forget all the machinations about debt service and USN&WR rankings. The fact of the matter is this. Rutgers was willing to suffer all the slings and arrows over its expansion. It withstood political and media harangues. But in the end, it paid off with a Big 10 invite which will do much of what Buggsy says. The academic ranking will rise---you're known by the company you keep---and its donations will rise. The fact that the whole perception of Rutgers will soar is not a stretch. I heartily commend Rutgers for its foresight in the face of such a harsh backlash. They were on a mission with no guarantee of success. They took a huge risk and it paid off handsomely. I salute them.

 

[RURM85]

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Are you talking about the Rutgers stadium buildout? That was a massive debacle. The school took on hundreds of millions of debt, and had to start cutting academic programs. Its academic reputation took such a big hit that it dropped 20+ places in the rankings. UConn leapfrogged ahead of it. As it drops in reputation, it loses an amount of research money that dwarfs any gains from B10 football (which only go to sports anyway). They added 12k seats for hundreds of millions. do the math.

I do want to go back to the above correlation of Rutgers football expansion with reduced academic standing and I'm sorry to other posters for deviating from UConn B1G discussion which I believe would make an excellent addition. I understand that for every $1 invested in Athletics (whether football or other sport) takes away from investing in Professors salaries, research, classroom equipment, etc. Rutgers University 2012 - 2013 annual budget is $2.2B. Looking at the 20 year trend of New Jersey State Appropriations to Rutgers University, the Appropriation peaked in 2006 at approx. $339M and has steadily declined to a 2012 appropriation of $263M, second lowest in 20 years. Yes, of course tuition has been rising to compensate for NJ state budget cuts, the same as many other state schools. However, to equate a $6.9M annual debt service for stadium expansion directly resulting in loss of academic reputation for a state University with a $2.2B annual budget is crazy. The annual debt service is not even a blip on the radar. Yes, the media and politicians love to play up the blame game of costs to support Athletics (not mission critical to institutions of learning) especially when tuition is rising for the students at these levels and the taxpayer is tired of funding education of a State University. The truth of the matter is bad economy equals less tax revenue equals less State University funding resulting in lower quality.

The truth here is Rutgers University is entering the B1G with the smallest Athletic budget in the conference. Northwestern just invested in a $200M + practice facility that will be the jewel of the league. While everyone is calling for controlled athletic spending and cuts, these budgets are rising. With larger and rising budgets for the other B1G universities, I'm unable to correlate this with their academic reputation. If anything their reputations and standings have grown over the past 20 years.

 

[RURM85]

Rutgers fans: upstater will gladly aruge this point for the next 50 pages if you engage him.

Also, Rutgers fans, I posted this on your scout board, but congratulations on the B1G invite. I hate to lose our only real football rivalry, but hopefully we'll end up in the same conference someday.

Thanks. I'm a believer that UConn would be a good institutional fit for the B1G. I do hope you find your way and understand your frustration at the present moment. In time things will work out. There's more expansion coming.

 

[upstater]

I do want to go back to the above correlation of Rutgers football expansion with reduced academic standing and I'm sorry to other posters for deviating from UConn B1G discussion which I believe would make an excellent addition. I understand that for every $1 invested in Athletics (whether football or other sport) takes away from investing in Professors salaries, research, classroom equipment, etc. Rutgers University 2012 - 2013 annual budget is $2.2B. Looking at the 20 year trend of New Jersey State Appropriations to Rutgers University, the Appropriation peaked in 2006 at approx. $339M and has steadily declined to a 2012 appropriation of $263M, second lowest in 20 years. Yes, of course tuition has been rising to compensate for NJ state budget cuts, the same as many other state schools. However, to equate a $6.9M annual debt service for stadium expansion directly resulting in loss of academic reputation for a state University with a $2.2B annual budget is crazy. The annual debt service is not even a blip on the radar. Yes, the media and politicians love to play up the blame game of costs to support Athletics (not mission critical to institutions of learning) especially when tuition is rising for the students at these levels and the taxpayer is tired of funding education of a State University. The truth of the matter is bad economy equals less tax revenue equals less State University funding resulting in lower quality.

The truth here is Rutgers University is entering the B1G with the smallest Athletic budget in the conference. Northwestern just invested in a $200M + practice facility that will be the jewel of the league. While everyone is calling for controlled athletic spending and cuts, these budgets are rising. With larger and rising budgets for the other B1G universities, I'm unable to correlate this with their academic reputation. If anything their reputations and standings have grown over the past 20 years.

This is the mistake people always make. They see a $2 billion budget, and assume it's fungible. Nevermind that 80% of the endowment is assigned to special projects, that the $500 million to $1 billion in research grants is totally fixed costs that can't be diverted, that buildings, tenured faculty pay, benefits, utilities, already present fixed costs. When I've gone through university budgets, the part of the budget that was fungible was closer to $100 million. This is precisely why a $10 million cut in state appropriations per SUNY sets everyone's hair on fire, leading to staff firings, department closings, the cancellation of classes. Even within a $1 billion budget, the $10 million cut has the impact of a 10% across the board cut. I believe Rutgers experienced a $60 million cut in 2009. That was incredibly hefty.

People are so blase about Rutgers losing $28.5 million in subsidy to the AD, because they compare it to the $2 billion budget, but the reality of the matter is that such a cut is like taking a knife to the gut.

 

[upstater]

When Buggsy says "The stadium is a big reason why we (Rutgers) were ready and able to be invited into the Big Ten. We have a stadium worthy of joining the premier league in the country...and for that reason alone...it was worth every penny."...he is absolutely right. Forget all the machinations about debt service and USN&WR rankings. The fact of the matter is this. Rutgers was willing to suffer all the slings and arrows over its expansion. It withstood political and media harangues. But in the end, it paid off with a Big 10 invite which will do much of what Buggsy says. The academic ranking will rise---you're known by the company you keep---and its donations will rise. The fact that the whole perception of Rutgers will soar is not a stretch. I heartily commend Rutgers for its foresight in the face of such a harsh backlash. They were on a mission with no guarantee of success. They took a huge risk and it paid off handsomely. I salute them.

We'll see. Have you looked at the B10 rankings? If CIC affiliation means schools rise, then what has it done for Michigan St, Iowa or Minnesota, all lower in the rankings. These are great schools, just like Rutgers, but they want to rise in the rankings as well. The competition is very stiff. I seriously doubt that, one, the stadium made that difference, and two, that anything but Jersey's TV eyeballs and the state's recruiting territory mattered to the B1G. We are talking about a 51,000 seat facility, right?

I'll say this again: you guys overestimate the athletic program's benefit to the academic side. What would have really prevented Rutgers from falling is retaining faculty, retaining research funding, retaining departments and programs, and all these things would have improved its ranking far more than any ancillary benefit from sports.

 

[upstater]

And by the way, this whole discussion started when Buggsy pulled out a map showing that UConn football is a money loser. It very well may be. But I pointed out to him that he was comparing apples to oranges, because in the figures he was using, he was including Rutgers' heavily subsidized football revenues and comparing them to UConn's football revenues which are not subsidized in the accounts. Only the AD is subsidized.

This is what started the conversation.

We need to compare apples to oranges.

 

[YankeeinFla]

People are missing the point on the big 10. Fair or not UConn will never get an invite to this conference and it has nothing to do with the sports teams. The big ten has three primary criteria. 1) AAU membership (UConn is not a member and not close to becoming one) 2) large number of tv sets (UConn easily qualifies) 3) Be a LARGE land grant research facility ( while UConn is improving it has not reached this level yet. While I would love to be part of the Big 10 realistically it just won't happen.

 

[UConnDan97]

People are missing the point on the big 10. Fair or not UConn will never get an invite to this conference and it has nothing to do with the sports teams. The big ten has three primary criteria. 1) AAU membership (UConn is not a member and not close to becoming one) 2) large number of tv sets (UConn easily qualifies) 3) Be a LARGE land grant research facility ( while UConn is improving it has not reached this level yet. While I would love to be part of the Big 10 realistically it just won't happen.

I love how you make these claims with absolutely nothing to back it up. "AAU membership (UConn is not a member and not close to becoming one)"??? Based on what? Your gut?

Here's a fellow Boneyarder that actually did the homework and at least provided some numbers on the issue. The numbers may surprise you. Next time you come here and make a negative statement like that, be prepared to back it up...

Because lack of AAU membership seems to be the biggest "con" in UConn's corner concerning B1G 10 acceptance, I did a Google search on UConn and AAU and came across these:

http://provost.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/2012-November-7-Department-Head-Presentation.pdf


The University of Connecticut was ranked:
•#40 in the nation in awarded doctoral degrees - UConn is ranked higher than 26 of the 61 AAU members;
•#49 in the nation for doctoral student enrollment - UConn is ranked higher than 23 of the 61 AAU members;
•#77 in the nation for research expenditures - UConn is ranked higher than 10 of the 61 AAU members
Along with another interesting nugget (a quote I found embedded in an article from June regarding UConn's faculty hiring program...the quote and *who said it* are of most interest):
http://articles.courant.com/2012-06-06/health/hc-uconn-hiring-faculty-0607-20120606_1_university-plans-full-time-faculty-tuition-increase-plan
The university's hiring strategy runs counter to what is happening at many universities and

colleges ​

around the country, according to Gwendolyn Bradley, senior program officer for the American Association of University Professors.
"We haven't heard of any other large-scale hiring plans for large

public universities​

or really anywhere," Bradley said. She noted that large public universities have been particularly hard-hit by the recession and tend to be cutting faculty rather than adding."
Susan Herbst is definitely positioning UConn for a potential B1G invite and I love her for it.

 

[Adios]

People are missing the point on the big 10. Fair or not UConn will never get an invite to this conference and it has nothing to do with the sports teams. The big ten has three primary criteria. 1) AAU membership (UConn is not a member and not close to becoming one) 2) large number of tv sets (UConn easily qualifies) 3) Be a LARGE land grant research facility ( while UConn is improving it has not reached this level yet. While I would love to be part of the Big 10 realistically it just won't happen.

You do realize we have a better athletic department than Maryland and Rutgers combined?

 

[mikeinmanila]

As Pres Herbst said in her recent interview, UConn needs about $90-100M more in research grants, which she said is "doable", to be well positioned for an AAU invite (indicating she is serious and knows EXACTLY what is required). In addition she is trying to get UConn's endowment to $1B, which seems to be the treshold for large land grant universities. Last time I checked UConn's endowment was around $350M, but they were shooting for $600M in the next 2 years.

My guess is that it will take 2-3 years to get the $90-100M more in research grants. The endowment will take about 5+years of concerted effort to get to $1B. So we have to hope the B1G isn't moving to 16 teams for another 2-5 years, which seems reasonable. In the meantime, MBB needs to return to its top 25 status and the football team needs to be turned around and get to 9+ wins per season on a consistent basis (i.e., we can only afford 1 more bad year in football, if that).

Again, all these goals are "doable", but it's going to take a sustained all out effort over the next 2-5 years to get there. I've starting giving to the endowment on a monthly basis and I'd encourage others to do so as well, if they can (any amount is appreciated). Just contact the Alumni Association and they'll help you out.

 

[upstater]

People are missing the point on the big 10. Fair or not UConn will never get an invite to this conference and it has nothing to do with the sports teams. The big ten has three primary criteria. 1) AAU membership (UConn is not a member and not close to becoming one) 2) large number of tv sets (UConn easily qualifies) 3) Be a LARGE land grant research facility ( while UConn is improving it has not reached this level yet. While I would love to be part of the Big 10 realistically it just won't happen.

I know it would be impossible to read this entire thread, but all these have been much discussed. I don't think UConn fans are really worried about any of the three. The biggest requirement has to do with things related to football.

 

[Marty Jackson]

todays espn gem

"Who could have foreseen this?" Swarbrick asks...
It seems that everyone saw this coming. ND was probably in the discussions.
ND is proving to be nothing but a greedy back-stabbing institution, just like another eastern school with a two letter logo.

 

[ctchamps]

I love how you make these claims with absolutely nothing to back it up. "AAU membership (UConn is not a member and not close to becoming one)"??? Based on what? Your gut?

Here's a fellow Boneyarder that actually did the homework and at least provided some numbers on the issue. The numbers may surprise you. Next time you come here and make a negative statement like that, be prepared to back it up...

A little harsh with the initial response. He's a UConn fan with inaccurate info as oppose to a flamer. And since he's new to the forum we might want to welcome him and have dialogue instead of berating him. There are enough of us veterans to The Boneyard that you can go toe to toe with including myself.

 

[ctchamps]

People are missing the point on the big 10. Fair or not UConn will never get an invite to this conference and it has nothing to do with the sports teams. The big ten has three primary criteria. 1) AAU membership (UConn is not a member and not close to becoming one) 2) large number of tv sets (UConn easily qualifies) 3) Be a LARGE land grant research facility ( while UConn is improving it has not reached this level yet. While I would love to be part of the Big 10 realistically it just won't happen.

Welcome to the Boneyard! This thread is one about optimism. Some of us see the glass half full, some see there is still that one drop still preventing us from dying from thirst. So we aren't declaring death yet. Of course there are those that want us to change our minds and suffer until we die.

I know that wasn't your intention. From my own experiences I've seen too many incredible things that developed out of literally nothing and I've seen sure things never pan out. So hope may be misplaced, but no one really knows for sure unless they have the capabilities of a god.

There are a lot of things that President Herbst is implementing that are pointing UConn in the AAU direction. And the B!G had invited Nebraska even as many of the B!G universities were in the process of removing Nebraska from the AAU. There are a lot of good points in this thread. None of them guarantee admission to the B!G, but I wouldn't dismiss them either.

 

[UConnDan97]

A little harsh with the initial response. He's a UConn fan with inaccurate info as oppose to a flamer. And since he's new to the forum we might want to welcome him and have dialogue instead of berating him. There are enough of us veterans to The Boneyard that you can go toe to toe with including myself.

Perhaps my tone was a little harsh. I just get easily set off when people say things like "ain't gonna happen" without any data or reason to support it. In this case, his statement of "UConn isn't a member and is not close to becoming one" is literally a half truth. The half that we aren't a member is not debatable. The argument that we aren't close to becoming one is a silly argument without basis in fact.

Again, apologies for the tone, but I really really dislike negative comments, especially pertaining to my university, that aren't based in any fact...

 

[ctchamps]

Perhaps my tone was a little harsh. I just get easily set off when people say things like "ain't gonna happen" without any data or reason to support it. In this case, his statement of "UConn isn't a member and is not close to becoming one" is literally a half truth. The half that we aren't a member is not debatable. The argument that we aren't close to becoming one is a silly argument without basis in fact.

Again, apologies for the tone, but I really really dislike negative comments, especially pertaining to my university, that aren't based in any fact...

I hear you about the negativity. No need to apologize to me or anyone for that matter. YankeeinFla is the dude you may want to clarify things with. Personally I'm prone to knee jerk reactions. Only the most controlled amongst us aren't. And I'm not sure that's healthy for them. In the end, when we act prematurely or find out we over reacted, it behooves us to try to correct the mistake. But this is just my opinion and not a moral obligation.

 

[Oxford Bob]

"Who could have foreseen this?" Swarbrick asks...
It seems that everyone saw this coming. ND was probably in the discussions.
ND is proving to be nothing but a greedy back-stabbing institution, just like another eastern school with a two letter logo.

But BCU is 3 letters!!!

 

[CL82]

Perhaps my tone was a little harsh. ...

Stop, just stop. The Boneyard has a tradition of beating up on inaccurate posts. Newbies lick there wounds and put more thought in their posts on an ongoing basis. Eventually they become productive members of the forum, (or sit in the corner weeping silently.)

I, for one, don't want us to adapt the the feel good, never step on anyone's toes, never be critical of an opponent, etc. culture that can be found... elsewhere. Yes we need a modicum of civility to be an effective forum, but your post was not even close to that line. IMHO.

 

[The Funster]

As Pres Herbst said in her recent interview, UConn needs about $90-100M more in research grants, which she said is "doable", to be well positioned for an AAU invite (indicating she is serious and knows EXACTLY what is required). In addition she is trying to get UConn's endowment to $1B, which seems to be the treshold for large land grant universities. Last time I checked UConn's endowment was around $350M, but they were shooting for $600M in the next 2 years.

My guess is that it will take 2-3 years to get the $90-100M more in research grants. The endowment will take about 5+years of concerted effort to get to $1B. So we have to hope the B1G isn't moving to 16 teams for another 2-5 years, which seems reasonable. In the meantime, MBB needs to return to its top 25 status and the football team needs to be turned around and get to 9+ wins per season on a consistent basis (i.e., we can only afford 1 more bad year in football, if that).

Again, all these goals are "doable", but it's going to take a sustained all out effort over the next 2-5 years to get there. I've starting giving to the endowment on a monthly basis and I'd encourage others to do so as well, if they can (any amount is appreciated). Just contact the Alumni Association and they'll help you out.

It's wiki so take it FWIW, neither Rutgers nor MD have an endowment of 1B. They are both larger than ours, so we have some work to do, but maybe the number isn't 1B.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Ten_Conference#Endowments

 

[Dann]

Stop, just stop. The Boneyard has a tradition of beating up on inaccurate posts. Newbies lick there wounds and put more thought in their posts on an ongoing basis. Eventually they become productive members of the forum, (or sit in the corner weeping silently.)

I, for one, don't want us to adapt the the feel good, never step on anyone's toes, never be critical of an opponent, etc. culture that can be found... elsewhere. Yes we need a modicum of civility to be an effective forum, but your post was not even close to that line. IMHO.

simply put, if that poster didn't like it- em

 

[UConnDan97]

Stop, just stop. The Boneyard has a tradition of beating up on inaccurate posts. Newbies lick there wounds and put more thought in their posts on an ongoing basis. Eventually they become productive members of the forum, (or sit in the corner weeping silently.)

I, for one, don't want us to adapt the the feel good, never step on anyone's toes, never be critical of an opponent, etc. culture that can be found... elsewhere. Yes we need a modicum of civility to be an effective forum, but your post was not even close to that line. IMHO.

Well said! I had better start acting like I belong on this beautiful boat called the USS Connecticut!!!

Plus, don't nobody say some bad $#it about my university on my watch!

 

[ctchamps]

Well said! I had better start acting like I belong on this beautiful boat called the USS Connecticut!!!

Plus, don't nobody say some bad $#it about my university on my watch!

All I was doing was throwing the guy a life raft. We could cut the line anytime!