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

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

UConn Dan said:
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
Expand ...
"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.
 
upstater said:
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.
Expand ...
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
 
UConnJim said:
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
Expand ...
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.
 
Kolumbo said:
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.
Expand ...
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.
 
prankster said:
Put it at the intersection of 84 and I95. Easy for fans, and a moderately short bus ride to bring students from campus.
Expand ...

I think we pretty much already have this. I agree, the Rent is perfect.
 
Last edited:
Kolumbo said:
The Rent is built on an isolated airfield away from campus and they can't even host many events typically held in large stadiums.
Expand ...
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:
Husky25 said:
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.
Expand ...
Isn't it more the neighborhood having noise concerns the biggest reason for no concerts?
 
CTFAN4LIFE said:
Isn't it more the neighborhood having noise concerns the biggest reason for no concerts?
Expand ...
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.
 
Husky25 said:
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.
Expand ...
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.
 
Husky25 said:
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.
Expand ...
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.
 
FfldCntyFan said:
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.
Expand ...
That is what is in the agreement.
 
CTFAN4LIFE said:
Isn't it more the neighborhood having noise concerns the biggest reason for no concerts?
Expand ...
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.
 
Husky25 said:
That is what is in the agreement.
Expand ...
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.
 
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
 
FfldCntyFan said:
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.
Expand ...
I don't disagree and I'm on record as saying it's a terrible provision, but it is what it is. I don't write the contracts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Online statistics

Members online
285
Guests online
2,992
Total visitors
3,277
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Share This Page

Forum statistics

Threads
163,997
Messages
4,377,991
Members
10,169
Latest member
ctfb19382


.
..
Top Bottom