Naming Rights to the Rent? | Page 3 | The Boneyard
.-.

Naming Rights to the Rent?

Status
Not open for further replies.
How the hell do we need an additional 25 acres of parking?! The parking lots are rarely full as it is... ? Unless it's for further economic development.
 
Irish Loop said:
How the hell do we need an additional 25 acres of parking?! The parking lots are rarely full as it is... ? Unless it's for further economic development.
Expand ...

Reading between the lines, the extra space for parking has nothing to do with current attendance. It has to do with expectations that attendance will surge in the coming years (read: stadium expansion because of new conference???).
 
Dooley said:
Reading between the lines, the extra space for parking has nothing to do with current attendance. It has to do with expectations that attendance will surge in the coming years (read: stadium expansion because of new conference???).
Expand ...

Stadium expansion 200%. 40,000 to 55,000 sounds good to me.
 
Dooley said:
"As part of the stadium agreement, UTC will donate 10 acres of land to the State of Connecticut for additional stadium parking. UTC also will provide an easement for the use of an additional 15 acres adjacent to existing stadium parking, further expanding the parking available to UConn fans. In return, UTC's stadium naming rights will be extended through 2030. Since its opening, the stadium has been known simply as Rentschler Field. - See more at: http://www.noodls.com/view/01FB1823...6A3F73?4714xxx1437001964#sthash.mextBnlB.dpuf"

25 additional acres for parking. Does anyone know how many cars that can fit and how many acres the Rent currently has? Gotta think that this is a long-term move to secure additional parking spots for a potential stadium expansion.
Expand ...


Ask and you shall receive. How many spots? It depends, but somewhere between 135-165 per acre.

https://ag.tennessee.edu/cpa/Information Sheets/CPA 222.pdf
 
Have you guys seen the renderings that Pratt put out at this shin-dig? This looks like such a mess. For starters, that old P&W logo doesn't fit at all with the stadium, and they're keeping the old Rent logo. Pratt should have hired a legit design firm to do the design work right. This "Stadium" logo is garbage IMO.
 

Attachments

  • Capture.JPG
    Capture.JPG
    23.7 KB · Views: 80
.-.
Selling naming rights after the worst attended season in the stadium's history seems...questionable.
 
So will we get 20K ST? Maybe we can grow corn on the extra 25 acres.
 
This may sound harsh, but based on the timing and the general renderings on the stadium, not sure how they could have generated any less interest in this story. Wow... From a marketing standpoint, its too bad a consumer product or services company didn't sign on (Dunkin Donuts, Insurance.co., etc...). A company that largely is a defense contractor gets nothing out of this but goodwill (maybe) for their workforce, and engines they sell to for-profit companies. Nothing here looks or spells big-time college football to me. I can't imagine the dollars here are anything huge either. What a wasted opportunity for the State of Connecticut.
 
SonsOfNutmeg said:
This may sound harsh, but based on the timing and the general renderings on the stadium, not sure how they could have generated any less interest in this story. Wow... From a marketing standpoint, its too bad a consumer product or services company didn't sign on (Dunkin Donuts, Insurance.co., etc...). A company that largely is a defense contractor gets nothing out of this but goodwill (maybe) for their workforce, and engines they sell to for-profit companies. Nothing here looks or spells big-time college football to me. I can't imagine the dollars here are anything huge either. What a wasted opportunity for the State of Connecticut.
Expand ...
Pretty hot take for someone who likely knows none of the contract terms.

Also, I'm not sure "interesting" naming rights exactly spells out "big-time college football." Prestige and blue blood are not the first ideas to pop into my head when I think of a hypothetical Dunkin Donuts Field.
 
.-.
Chin Diesel said:
Ask and you shall receive. How many spots? It depends, but somewhere between 135-165 per acre.

https://ag.tennessee.edu/cpa/Information Sheets/CPA 222.pdf
Expand ...

Thanks Chin! Let's just keep it as simple as possible because I sahq at math. 150 cars x 25 acres = roughly 3750 cars. When you figure that most cars have multiple people in them for tailgating, I'd say that the additional parking acreage was acquired to accompany around 10K additional fans. Hmmm...I wonder why 10K??
 
SonsOfNutmeg said:
This may sound harsh, but based on the timing and the general renderings on the stadium, not sure how they could have generated any less interest in this story. Wow... From a marketing standpoint, its too bad a consumer product or services company didn't sign on (Dunkin Donuts, Insurance.co., etc...). A company that largely is a defense contractor gets nothing out of this but goodwill (maybe) for their workforce, and engines they sell to for-profit companies. Nothing here looks or spells big-time college football to me. I can't imagine the dollars here are anything huge either. What a wasted opportunity for the State of Connecticut.
Expand ...

Sorry, but I could not possibly disagree more. This bit of news is probably the single biggest and most interesting bit of news to be announced by UConn for its football program since Pasqualoni was finally canned. The added parking acreage that could, potentially, provide room for an additional 10,000 fans points in the direction that UConn still believes in itself, its football program, and its chances at getting into a power conference. There is no need to expand the stadium while still playing in the AAC. The only reason to expand the stadium is if UConn gets into a power conference. The added land provided by UTC will now allow for the stadium to be expanded up to 50-55K.
 
If we want to have a spot in the Big Ten, Northwestern's stadium holds the smallest capacity at approx. 47k. Minnesota, Rutgers and Indiana are all somewhere between 50-53k which is where I'd imagine they'd like to see UConn at given the size of the university student body/alumni base. We may not have the demand for a 50k seat stadium at the moment, but that's kind of paradoxical in the first place because without a large enough stadium we won't be able to book serious P5 teams and thus generate consistent fan interest beyond die-hard season ticket holders. Building a larger stadium may very well drive ticket demand by bringing better opponents and HOPEFULLY a better conference to play in. With this conference schedule, UConn could go back to the 8-4 Edsall era days and still have a very hard time packing 40,000 people in to watch USF, Memphis, ECU, etc. I say we expand the stadium first and the benefits will come.
 
uconnphil2016 said:
If we want to have a spot in the Big Ten, Northwestern's stadium holds the smallest capacity at approx. 47k. Minnesota, Rutgers and Indiana are all somewhere between 50-53k which is where I'd imagine they'd like to see UConn at given the size of the university student body/alumni base. We may not have the demand for a 50k seat stadium at the moment, but that's kind of paradoxical in the first place because without a large enough stadium we won't be able to book serious P5 teams and thus generate consistent fan interest beyond die-hard season ticket holders. Building a larger stadium may very well drive ticket demand by bringing better opponents and HOPEFULLY a better conference to play in. With this conference schedule, UConn could go back to the 8-4 Edsall era days and still have a very hard time packing 40,000 people in to watch USF, Memphis, ECU, etc. I say we expand the stadium first and the benefits will come.
Expand ...

At the very least, it is easier to tell Jim Delany and B1G leaders that we can expand the stadium by 10-15,000 seats when we now have the land needed to accompany the parking traffic (to go with the pre-constructed footings already put in place at the stadium itself to handle an expansion). This is exciting news indeed.
 
Kevin Caliendo said:
Selling naming rights after the worst attended season in the stadium's history seems...questionable.
Expand ...

Agreed, but I'm guessing the move is rooted in financial desperation rather than a lack of business savvy. The Rent has been bleeding money for years and probably aren't in a financial position to wait for the revenue from naming rights.
 
Dooley said:
At the very least, it is easier to tell Jim Delany and B1G leaders that we can expand the stadium by 10-15,000 seats when we now have the land needed to accompany the parking traffic (to go with the pre-constructed footings already put in place at the stadium itself to handle an expansion). This is exciting news indeed.
Expand ...

Oh, for sure. It's a good thing any way that you cut it (besides the lame corporatization of college sports and the dreadful stadium names that come along with it). All I'm saying is that while winning will certainly bring more fans to the games, we're going to have issues filling the stadium like we did when we were a winning team playing a Big East schedule. The best remedy for that IMO is to expand the stadium in hopes of attracting solid OOC opponents and a ticket to the ball with the Big 10 or ACC (not a Big 12 fan, personally, so I won't include them in my wish list. We're one Texas-to-the-SEC/PAC 10 away from a Big East-esque catastrophe all over again if we get involved in that conference imo).
 
.-.
List found on Manuel's desk:

My "Big" to do list:
  1. Improve research profile of the university - check
  2. Improve endowment - check
  3. Hire promising up and coming assistant Coach to replace Jim Calhoun- check
  4. Show presence in NYC by having a good turnout for MSG NCAA games - Double check Baby!
  5. Win another Men's basketball natty - check
  6. Get rid of Pasqualoni, fire if possible, hire hitman if needed - check
  7. Hire promising up and coming assistant to replace that old goat. - check
  8. Upgrade hockey to Hockey East, hire promising up and coming assistant to coach- check
  9. Show intention and capability to expand Rent if demand warrants -check
  10. Lose that stupid dog eye helmet - check
  11. Acquire land for expanded parking at the Rent - check ....
580x385


"Heh, heh, heh... It's all coming together, heh, heh, heh..."
 
Last edited:
SonsOfNutmeg said:
This may sound harsh, but based on the timing and the general renderings on the stadium, not sure how they could have generated any less interest in this story. Wow... From a marketing standpoint, its too bad a consumer product or services company didn't sign on (Dunkin Donuts, Insurance.co., etc...). A company that largely is a defense contractor gets nothing out of this but goodwill (maybe) for their workforce, and engines they sell to for-profit companies. Nothing here looks or spells big-time college football to me. I can't imagine the dollars here are anything huge either. What a wasted opportunity for the State of Connecticut.
Expand ...
Well if Dunkin Donuts or The Hartford were the sponsor there'd be somebody here complaining about how those are too small time (similar to Providence, Yard Goats stadiums) or boring (Dan Shaughnessey's "File Cabinet of America" line) the sponsors were.
 
TheDoggPound said:
They subcontract to Global Spectrum. I don't think the hate for CRDA is warranted, they've been a great asset for the entire region.
Expand ...
The CRDA is another point you and I will agree to disagree on.
 
.-.
My own number has always been 57,500-60,000 final build out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
308
Guests online
14,148
Total visitors
14,456
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
165,376
Messages
4,433,751
Members
10,285
Latest member
gypster


p
p
Top Bottom