Facility Investment Together Surcharge/Fee Coming This Year | Page 4 | The Boneyard
.-.

Facility Investment Together Surcharge/Fee Coming This Year

Chief00 said:
It's $5 per ticket per game - Do you buy season tickets? Have you sat through the last 6 years?
Expand ...
I have gone the last 40 years and sometimes it is tough to be a fan. I do believe we have some real leadership finally in the Athletic Department which hasn't been there in a long time. They are trying to make things happen. I believe they deserve my support.
 
TRUCONN76 said:
I have gone the last 40 years and sometimes it is tough to be a fan. I do believe we have some real leadership finally in the Athletic Department which hasn't been there in a long time. They are trying to make things happen. I believe they deserve my support.
Expand ...

Quite frankly, I agree the Athletic Dept finally has good leadership. Hathaway was not good at much and Warde was good with coaches and teams but a financial disaster.
 
Bootsthemonkey said:
If the football team is winning and putting an exciting product on the field nobody will care about the surcharge. If it continues to be like last year, the complaining will never cease.
Expand ...
Same with men's hoops and ice hockey.
 
.-.
Chief00 said:
These are the same people who say it's all about football - so we attach a surcharge on football tickets to pay for soccer, softball and baseball. How does that advance the almighty football?
Expand ...
Practical reasoning + basic math skills = higher/game football donation. Quite frankly, how do some people rationally ignore yuuuuge athletic department budgetary allocations + targeted fundraising heavily focused on getting 1-A/BCS up and running at the partial expense of Olympic sports/facilities and even UConn biggest bread winner, men's hoops? And, that ignores simple multiplication and the botched Hathaway abortion.
 
I think I'm more than pulling my weight in supporting UConn athletics by paying more than $500 for 2 football season tickets after the donation, not to mention what I'll pay for parking, rather than buying them for much cheaper on the secondary market.

Tacking another $60 on is pretty ballsy. At some point they're taking advantage.
 
$46M for 3 stadiums you don't need and will never come anywhere generating the revenue to make up for the cost, when already facing a $30M subsidy?

I have to be missing something.
 
the fewer the people that show up at an athletic event, means that those who do have to pay more.
 
ConnHuskBask said:
$46M for 3 stadiums you don't need and will never come anywhere generating the revenue to make up for the cost, when already facing a $30M subsidy?

I have to be missing something.
Expand ...
Perhaps an upgrade to substandard facilities improves our P5 profile?

That's all that I've got.
 
.-.
CL82 said:
Perhaps an upgrade to substandard facilities improves our P5 profile?

That's all that I've got.
Expand ...

Just seems odd. If you have $43M to spend, it is foolish to not go all in on improving football facilities and/or fixing up Gampel. (Assuming that this money couldn't be used towards The Rent).

I hate to be so callous towards soccer, baseball and softball, but if football doesn't improve, we all fail in the end.
 
ConnHuskBask said:
Just seems odd. If you have $43M to spend, it is foolish to not go all in on improving football facilities and/or fixing up Gampel. (Assuming that this money couldn't be used towards The Rent).

I hate to be so callous towards soccer, baseball and softball, but if football doesn't improve, we all fail in the end.
Expand ...
I don't know, improving 3 sub par facilities instead of dumping more cash into existing better quality facilities? It doesn't seem like a unreasonable decision to me.

The real fly in the ointment is whether P5 membership is a reasonable possibility. I'm doubtful at this point.
 
ConnHuskBask said:
Just seems odd. If you have $43M to spend, it is foolish to not go all in on improving football facilities and/or fixing up Gampel. (Assuming that this money couldn't be used towards The Rent).

I hate to be so callous towards soccer, baseball and softball, but if football doesn't improve, we all fail in the end.
Expand ...
Point noted, but those facilities have been need of significant upgrades for some time. Gampel ceiling is getting fixed and football facilities are in relatively great shape.
 
I'm not questioning football drives the bus in conference realignment, but there can be other factors at work. Quality soccer/baseball/softball facilities may not on their own get you a P-5 invite. However, I can definitely see the argument that grossly substandard facilities may very well prevent a school from getting such an invite. Such facilities suggests that a school is not all that serious about its overall athletic program. It helps explain why a school such as Louisville got into the ACC over UConn.
 
dbmill said:
I'm not questioning football drives the bus in conference realignment, but there can be other factors at work. Quality soccer/baseball/softball facilities may not on their own get you a P-5 invite. However, I can definitely see the argument that grossly substandard facilities may very well prevent a school from getting such an invite. Such facilities suggests that a school is not all that serious about its overall athletic program. It helps explain why a school such as Louisville got into the ACC over UConn.
Expand ...

While I agree to some extent that substandard facilities may be detractors when considering a school for P-5 invite, like you said, football still drives the bus. But our facilities had no bearing on our P-5 exclusion. We were not invited for the following reasons:
1. substandard success in football. Hence FSU and Clemson didn't want us, 2. Syracuse and Boston College conspired to keep us out because by elevating us their programs would become less. They wanted to own the limited recruiting that exists and be the dominant programs in the Northeast. Historically, Syracuse consistently plucked Connecticut's elite players from the state, e.g. Floyd Little 3. Boston College and Miami were still fuming over the Big East lawsuit that our then inept and short sighted Attorney General Dick Blumenthal filed., 4. Although we consistently allude to NYC and Boston as our backyard, (I do believe we carry those markets) the P-5 decision makers do not believe we carry those markets. They don't believe we are strong enough in TV marketshare to bring in the bucks.

Although I agree we need to upgrade our soccer, baseball, hockey and softball facilities, I don't believe it has held us back in a P-5 invite.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Online statistics

Members online
515
Guests online
9,629
Total visitors
10,144
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
165,307
Messages
4,431,044
Members
10,280
Latest member
DB50


p
p
Top Bottom