Key tweets, and it's all gone to Hell. | Page 961 | The Boneyard

Key tweets, and it's all gone to Hell.

Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
29,916
Reaction Score
49,033
Joined
Oct 11, 2011
Messages
5,560
Reaction Score
25,740
I think referring to this list:

61. Washington State
66. Oregon State
67. San Diego State

71. UConn

72. Boise State
73. East Carolina
74. South Florida
75/ Memphis
"The revenue figures are from the Department of Education’s Equity in Athletics Data Analysis and the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics for the fiscal year 2023. The list is reflective of the current enterprise value of each program, starting with a base revenue multiple of four for all institutions, and then adjusting the multiple for variables, including conference affiliation, estimated NIL spend, school subsidies, number of alumni and other factors that can catalyze future revenue growth and profitability".

So apparently it reflects when those schools were in the original PAC 12.

Have no idea why UConn Football would tweet that when it doesn't accurately reflect current conditions. Benedict should tell them to delete it.
 
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
5,531
Reaction Score
23,134
I don't understand San Diego State being that high but Washington St and Oregon St are understandable if you're including PAC12 TV revenue as well as PAC12 exit fees in their valuations.
I think the SD State numbers are skewed by building the new football stadium. It was financed with $85 million of donations/seat licenses and with $225 million of bonds which SD St. is responsible for. And, Snapdragon Stadium also houses men's and women's pro soccer, international soccer events, Holiday Bowl, Monster Jams, rugby, and concerts. Since SD St. owns the stadium, I think the reported revenues and expenses shot up to take into account the new stadium and the other events.

Total revenues 2022: $65.9 million
Total revenues 2023: $103.9 million

Here are the revenue outliers:
Donations: 2021: $10.8 million, 2022: $19.7 million, 2023: $38.4 million
Corp. sponsorships, advertising, Licensing: 2021: $1.9 million, 2022: $2.7 million, 2023: $10.9 million

On the spending side:
Facilities, debt service, equipment: 2021: $7.6 million, 2022: $19.7 million, 2023: $30 million

Football spending: 2022: $18.5 million, 2023: $20.1 million
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2014
Messages
18,164
Reaction Score
25,137
I think the SD State numbers are skewed by building the new football stadium. It was financed with $85 million of donations/seat licenses and with $225 million of bonds which SD St. is responsible for. And, Snapdragon Stadium also houses men's and women's pro soccer, international soccer events, Holiday Bowl, Monster Jams, rugby, and concerts. Since SD St. owns the stadium, I think the reported revenues and expenses shot up to take into account the new stadium and the other events.

Total revenues 2022: $65.9 million
Total revenues 2023: $103.9 million

Here are the revenue outliers:
Donations: 2021: $10.8 million, 2022: $19.7 million, 2023: $38.4 million
Corp. sponsorships, advertising, Licensing: 2021: $1.9 million, 2022: $2.7 million, 2023: $10.9 million

On the spending side:
Facilities, debt service, equipment: 2021: $7.6 million, 2022: $19.7 million, 2023: $30 million

Football spending: 2022: $18.5 million, 2023: $20.1 million
I suppose if the new stadium adds value to the athletic department, it adds value. Snapdragon for $310 million replaced Jack Murphy Stadium and is a great investment for the University. Rentschler Field is not a great investment. The Rent is built on an isolated airfield away from campus and they can't even host many events typically held in large stadiums. An on campus stadium would be an investment which benefits UConn and the AD. Rentschler Field does much more harm than good for the UConn AD, especially in perception.
 

prankster

Twister Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2011
Messages
4,474
Reaction Score
5,842
I suppose if the new stadium adds value to the athletic department, it adds value. Snapdragon for $310 million replaced Jack Murphy Stadium and is a great investment for the University. Rentschler Field is not a great investment. The Rent is built on an isolated airfield away from campus and they can't even host many events typically held in large stadiums. An on campus stadium would be an investment which benefits UConn and the AD. Rentschler Field does much more harm than good for the UConn AD, especially in perception.
I have felt, for decades, that Storrs is too isolated, and so an off campus stadium was always needed.

But not in Hartford. Too far.

Put it at the intersection of 84 and 195. Easy for fans, and a moderately short bus ride to bring students from campus.
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
7,524
Reaction Score
25,153
Put it at the intersection of 84 and I95. Easy for fans, and a moderately short bus ride to bring students from campus.

I think we pretty much already have this. I agree, the Rent is perfect.
 
Last edited:

Husky25

Dink & Dunk beat the Greatest Show on Turf.
Joined
Sep 10, 2012
Messages
18,744
Reaction Score
20,207
The Rent is built on an isolated airfield away from campus and they can't even host many events typically held in large stadiums.
Unless something has changed, The UCDA is hamstrung by the deal they have with UConn. So long as the stadium operates at a net loss UConn pays the first $250,000, but only if 100% of the non-UConn events make a profit. Also the UCDA and/or operator must know this in advance. Otherwise they could take more chances on what is booked at the venue.

This article is from 2020, but this has been the case for years.
"Rentschler’s heavy dependence on UConn football — the reason why the $92 million stadium was built in the first place — constrains the ability to book the field for other events. Rentschler’s lease with UConn prohibits the stadium from taking a loss on a concert or athletic event because essentially that would mean asking UConn to pay for other events with its $250,000 operating subsidy."

While international friendly soccer matches dot the schedule, there hasn't been a notable concert since The Police reunion in 2007. Besides most big acts book the Meadows in the summer.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 17, 2013
Messages
2,931
Reaction Score
9,815
Unless something has changed, The UCDA is hamstrung by the deal they have with UConn. So long as the stadium operates at a net loss UConn pays the first $250,000, but only if 100% of the non-UConn events make a profit and the UCDA and/or operators must know this in advance. Otherwise they could take more chances on what is booked at the venue.

This article is from 2020, but this has been the case for years.
"Rentschler’s heavy dependence on UConn football — the reason why the $92 million stadium was built in the first place — constrains the ability to book the field for other events. Rentschler’s lease with UConn prohibits the stadium from taking a loss on a concert or athletic event because essentially that would mean asking UConn to pay for other events with its $250,000 operating subsidy."

While international friendly soccer matches dot the schedule, there hasn't been a notable concert since The Police reunion in 2007. Besides most big acts book the Meadows in the summer.
Isn't it more the neighborhood having noise concerns the biggest reason for no concerts?
 

Husky25

Dink & Dunk beat the Greatest Show on Turf.
Joined
Sep 10, 2012
Messages
18,744
Reaction Score
20,207
Isn't it more the neighborhood having noise concerns the biggest reason for no concerts?
Disregarding any disparity in rent, I believe a significant driver is The Meadows is a better environment for concerts and an equivalent capacity, when considering stage setup and sound production at Rentschler. Most municipalities have noise ordinances that typically kick in at 11:00.
 
Joined
Mar 16, 2013
Messages
2,315
Reaction Score
6,842
Disregarding any disparity in rent, I believe a significant driver is The Meadows is a better environment for concerts and an equivalent capacity, when considering stage setup and sound production at Rentschler. Most municipalities have noise ordinances that typically kick in at 11:00.
The acts that played at the rent would not have played at the Meadows. Noise was a big issue for some of the neighbors instead of enjoying a free concert. I believe they were also complaints from Glastonbury.
 

FfldCntyFan

Texas: Property of UConn Men's Basketball program
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
13,565
Reaction Score
49,355
Unless something has changed, The UCDA is hamstrung by the deal they have with UConn. So long as the stadium operates at a net loss UConn pays the first $250,000, but only if 100% of the non-UConn events make a profit. Also the UCDA and/or operator must know this in advance. Otherwise they could take more chances on what is booked at the venue.

This article is from 2020, but this has been the case for years.
"Rentschler’s heavy dependence on UConn football — the reason why the $92 million stadium was built in the first place — constrains the ability to book the field for other events. Rentschler’s lease with UConn prohibits the stadium from taking a loss on a concert or athletic event because essentially that would mean asking UConn to pay for other events with its $250,000 operating subsidy."

While international friendly soccer matches dot the schedule, there hasn't been a notable concert since The Police reunion in 2007. Besides most big acts book the Meadows in the summer.
I don't see why it should be the school's responsibility to subsidize losses from non-UConn events held at a facility the school does not own.
 

Husky25

Dink & Dunk beat the Greatest Show on Turf.
Joined
Sep 10, 2012
Messages
18,744
Reaction Score
20,207
I don't see why it should be the school's responsibility to subsidize losses from non-UConn events held at a facility the school does not own.
That is what is in the agreement.
 

Waquoit

Mr. Positive
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
34,287
Reaction Score
92,105
Isn't it more the neighborhood having noise concerns the biggest reason for no concerts?
Urban myth. There was a lot of belly aching after the first Springsteen concert. It died down after some adjusments for the second one. They had two big concerts subsequently with minimal bitching. I think the issue is that there aren't a ton of acts that can fill a stadium and the ones might be ticketed to The Rent are at Fenway these days.
 

FfldCntyFan

Texas: Property of UConn Men's Basketball program
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
13,565
Reaction Score
49,355
That is what is in the agreement.
The CRDA then has two options:

1 - accept that they are "hamstrung" (as it was presented) and live with it.

2 - seek to modify the agreement (this happens all of the time in business) so that they can attempt to hold more events in an arrangement that the school would not object to.


As things currently stand, nothing about the Rent (good or bad) can be viewed as the school's fault.
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2014
Messages
18,164
Reaction Score
25,137
The big picture is this.

SDSU built Snapdragon Stadium on the edge of campus in SD. It looks to be a great investment and will be used throughout the year for all kinds of events. Remarkably it only cost $310 mill

Renschler Field was built way off campus but not in Hartford. It made sense at the time because it was relatively cheap for the state and UConn needed a new stadium with its move to D1. $91 million in 2003

We will continue to fund this limited use venue with all of its restrictions because it will be the cheapest route to keeping a stadium, in the short term. The ROI will never be very good but that's how we roll in CT
 

Online statistics

Members online
417
Guests online
5,494
Total visitors
5,911

Forum statistics

Threads
161,865
Messages
4,281,624
Members
10,118
Latest member
melissa14


.
..
Top Bottom