No Tenn game in 2015 more to come

[Confident Carl]

I agree that regional rivalries are needed. However, all of our geographic "neighbors" won't schedule us for they are dead set to see us rot in the AAC. To them, scheduling us is giving us one extra day on life support. It's a stupid notion and one that will cause lots of empty seats across the Northeast and continue to keep college football interest at a minimum around here. However, it's very clear where BC and Syracuse stand on us. I can't see Rutgers feeling the need to play us and Pitt, well I guess that might happen but who knows. It's a flipping shame but the only regional team that we have to schedule is UMass and we play Temple in conference.

In the long run, this continued neglect of regional rivalries, especially BC-UConn (I don't care what BC fans claim, this would be an awesome rivalry and one that they'd care about sooner rather than later) is going to kill off any interest in college football in the Northeast. It's already low and empty seats at BC and Syracuse, even for big name schools in the ACC, prove that.

UCFB - Couldn't agree more. BC will be playing Holy Cross -Elon - Maine - UMASS, Looks like they want to develop UMASS into their natural rivalry. That is what makes UCONN special. We are the only game in town (State of CT that is!) UMASS is an easy mark now but who knows, one day they could possibly get their program to UCONN's level and the instate rivalries would be good for MA football. I still think BC a UCONN series would be great for our region.

 

[jrazz12]

NHRJimFuller6:08pm via TweetDeck
Word is that #UConn football program is close to announcing home and home series with high-profile program for later this decade

NHRJimFuller6:08pm via TweetDeck
#UConn is still talking to teams to fill slots in 2015 and 2016 left by suspension of series with Tennessee

Dude, I'm sorry but tweets like this are absolutely ridiculous. Because we're accommodating a friendly AD in football scheduling, clearly our entire athletic program is falling apart, our football team will be kicked out of the AAC and resigned to playing the Southern New Hampshire flag football team every week, and it probably might snow again in Connecticut some time in February. Get your realistic, logical bulls*it out of here.

 

[Exit 4]

Home had better not be the Yale Bowl. I'll accept the Meadowlands, Foxboro and even consider (although its capacity isn't ideal) Yankee Stadium.

I've never been the Yale Bowl....I'll take your word its not suitable...

Sometimes I worry about us doing the return game at Gillette or MetLife because I am afraid the fan base wont travel. That said, its more important at this point to schedule some marque games than to sweat the attendance.

 

[Husky25]

Yale Bowl is unsuitable based on current standards. Plus it only seats about 50k.

Isn't UConn contractually obligated to play all home games at the Rent until 2018? The state will probably will not waive that clause so UConn can play a "home" game that won't benefit the state.

Edit: "Un" in Unsuitable was missing.

 

[CL82]

HJ - Well put. We all want to win. The past three years have no doubt hurt the program. Personally, I like
Paul Pasqualoni. Unfortunately he didn't win and the program was in a downward spiral. Mack Brown ran into a similar situation at TX. I applaud the actions Ward Manual took to stop the bleeding. We are all hoping that Diaco has the secret sauce to reinstate a winning atmosphere at UCONN

Not much to go on so far, but the energy level is completely different. I am optimistic.

 

[FAIRTIDES]

Yale Bowl is suitable based on current standards. Plus it only seats about 50k.

Isn't UConn contractually obligated to play all home games at the Rent until 2018? The state will probably will not waive that clause so UConn can play a "home" game that won't benefit the state.

Don't call it "home." Use "neutral site."

 

[History Geek]

The Yale Bowl is nowhere near suitable. No way they play there.

I think it would be great if someone could make it work. However, having been born/raised/a resident of the greater New Haven area I know the folks living in Westville would shoot it down, like they have any huge event for the Bowl since the concert goers of the late 70s/early 80s peed all over their lawns and generally trashed the area. Traffic flow in and out isn't great either. When Yale filled the Bowl back in its heyday people would take mass transit (trolley/light rail) to the area. That doesn't even exist any more.

 

[Husky25]

Substance over form. It doesn't matter what you call it, context will be drawn from the terms of the deal and in football someone has to give up a "home" game.

Let m put it a different way...lets say UConn is working on a 4 game series with Georgia. We give the Bulldog all 4 games at home, but two have to be played in the Northeast (one at MetLife and one at Gillette). How do those "home games" benefit the Bulldogs more than playing the games in Athens? Typically you only give up something to get something in return and even if The Bulldogs gets most of the gate, it's pretty clear that UConn enjoys much more of the benefit.

Even if they don't win in the end, the state could file suit and hold the game up (which I would expect, especially if the game was held out of state).

In 2018 that clause expires, so it becomes moot. Probably why the tweet indicated a major series later this decade.

 

[huskymedic]

Yale Bowl is suitable based on current standards. Plus it only seats about 50k..

This debate comes up every year on here when talking about a larger venue ( last was when UM was balking about coming to the Rent).

The current seating capacity of the Yale Bowl is 61,400+/- a few. At that capacity think Michigan Stadium elbow/knee room.

Having spent many an afternoon in the Bowl growing up and in my career - it is a nostalgic place to watch a game. Nothing more, nothing less. It is only suitable because it has a nice, well maintained grass football field. It lacks all amenities that "now-a-day" casual fans have come to expect (especially visiting fans). There are wood bench seats that are falling into disrepair (paint peeling and wood splintering) and no boxes other than a few for very, very VIP's in the press box area. Tailgating has been significantly curtailed in recent years (no where close to the UConn/Yale games of yore).

It's not what most people think it is (anymore).

P.S. HG - very valid point on neighbor perspective/hurdle.

 

[Husky25]

...There are wood bench seats that are falling into disrepair (paint peeling and wood splintering)...

So you are saying that a Michigan fan would have felt right at home?

 

[Pudge]

Considering where Va Tech is located, where Bristol; is and the potential capacity for a football game at that venue it is a bit surprising (sight lines be damned) that the Tennessee-Va Tech game there hadn't been considered earlier.

Yes, it puts us in a very difficult position but we unfortunately are in a position where our choices would be to suspend the series with Tennessee or have Tennessee cancel it (I imagine that there would be no financial penalty if a home and home were cancelled as this has happened many times in the past with many schools with no penalty announced).

There was a great line a few years back in The Big Bang Theory where Howard told Leonard (who was contemplating breaking up with Penny) "She'll have a new boyfriend tomorrow. You'll have a new girlfriend when you figure out how to build one". At the moment this is us. It sucks but we will need to deal with it. Spackler was in part correct about Edsall but the greater point is that Edsall never had the personality to sell the program to the press (the aftermath of Jasper Howard's murder was the one time he did succeed in this venue) and while the college football world was knocking and mocking us up to and through the Fiesta Bowl, not only did Edsall do nothing to defend and promote the program, his immediate departure confirmed (at least in the eyes of the college football pundits) that they were correct in their view of us all along.

One thing that pisses me off is the few stray comments I've seen along the lines of "the only reason we moved up was to play big name schools". We have no birthright to a quality athletic conference and the idea that we decided in 1999 to pursue football at the highest level should put us ahead of many schools who have been trying this for many decades is insulting. We blast Tulane yet ignore the fact that during the college football season that ended shortly after the basketball season when we won our first men's national title (something most of us claim was a recent event) Tulane went undefeated and finished something like #8 nationally (we happened to have our only 1-AA playoff run that same year). Schools like Houston, Tulane, Tulsa and Cincinnati all have valid reason to be offended by our belief that we deserve better. SMU may also have valid reason but the Death Penalty, which was their own damned fault damages their position.

The reality is that we have a struggle and as a fan base we need to demonstrate that we are enough of a fan base that we aren't entirely dependent on the marquee value of the visiting team to get our fans interested. We will get some nice names here but we won't have a sufficient home schedule (at least while we are in the AAC) to draw the numbers we want (and need, if we are to gain attention of a P5 conference) unless the fans are there because of UConn, not who UConn is playing.

This may succinctly summarize my feeling better than I could ever express:

We are going to be fine. But, as a Fanbase, we need to be patient. All the criteria that raised BC, SU, Pitt sucked ... and was based on more gut grabs by Swofford than what I see as potential Market/Brand value. Many many of our AAC peers have better Football pedigree than UConn. We have potential and I LOVE the Diaco hire. But, this has to be a building process that included an real excellent plan on how to grow our fanbase. I think with Kevin Ollie, Geno and now Diaco ... we are going to rise and get to a good place. But, I refuse to whine and blame Warde Manual as some have here. It shows a lack of understanding of how instutional college sports work.

 

[rich1122]

This may succinctly summarize my feeling better than I could ever express:

We are going to be fine. But, as a Fanbase, we need to be patient. All the criteria that raised BC, SU, Pitt sucked ... and was based on more gut grabs by Swofford than what I see as potential Market/Brand value. Many many of our AAC peers have better Football pedigree than UConn. We have potential and I LOVE the Diaco hire. But, this has to be a building process that included an real excellent plan on how to grow our fanbase. I think with Kevin Ollie, Geno and now Diaco ... we are going to rise and get to a good place. But, I refuse to whine and blame Warde Manual as some have here. It shows a lack of understanding of how instutional college sports work.

Yes we have to blame everybody else for the fact that only 20K show up for games. They come late and leave early.

 

[metsfan2323]

I would rather see UCONN play Mountain West teams at the Rent than P5 teams at the Meadowlands or Gillette. The Syracuse neutral sight game against USC was a disaster. They lost the game and the atmosphere was lousy, it seems like a very overrated experience and I hope UCONN avoids it.

 

[WestHartHusk]

Yes we have to blame everybody else for the fact that only 20K show up for games. They come late and leave early.

Your schtict is so obnoxious.

 

[Colt house75]

I think it would be great if someone could make it work. However, having been born/raised/a resident of the greater New Haven area I know the folks living in Westville would shoot it down, like they have any huge event for the Bowl since the concert goers of the late 70s/early 80s peed all over their lawns and generally trashed the area. Traffic flow in and out isn't great either. When Yale filled the Bowl back in its heyday people would take mass transit (trolley/light rail) to the area. That doesn't even exist any more.

I take exception to this.....-it really started back in the late 60's.\early 70's first off. I think it was Grand Funk RR concert (crawled in under the fences)-can't rightly remember much. But the state of CT was to blame because the drinking age was 18....and besides- we had to go somewhere.....

 

[History Geek]

I take exception to this.....-it really started back in the late 60's.\early 70's first off. I think it was Grand Funk RR concert (crawled in under the fences)-can't rightly remember much. But the state of CT was to blame because the drinking age was 18....and besides- we had to go somewhere.....

Point well taken about the timing. I didn't hit concert-going age until the late 70s. However, the drinking age thing is really a moot. Heavy partying at outdoor venues pre-dated the rise in the drinking age and continues today (been to the Meadows or whatever they call it now lately?). And the reason there has never been any alcohol-friendly huge event at Yale Bowl in a generation is because the neighborhood won't let it happen. Heck, they were happy when the Yale-UConn football series ended in 1998.

 

[Confident Carl]

Yale Bowl is suitable based on current standards. Plus it only seats about 50k.

Isn't UConn contractually obligated to play all home games at the Rent until 2018? The state will probably will not waive that clause so UConn can play a "home" game that won't benefit the state.

Yale Bowl is suitable based on current standards. Plus it only seats about 50k.

Isn't UConn contractually obligated to play all home games at the Rent until 2018? The state will probably will not waive that clause so UConn can play a "home" game that won't benefit the state.

H25 - Beg to differ- Yale Bowl seats 61,446. Up until 1993 it held 10,000 more.
20,000 more than Rentschler field. Deals can always be made. If it means getting an LSU or Florida to CT, they can make it happen. If we filled the Yale Bowl it would also help justify expansion of the Rent down the road.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale_Bowl

 

[Husky25]

You can beg to differ all you like. That is fine. That is what message boards are for. Yale Bowl in unsuitable for todays standards, given lack of luxury boxes, suitable parking, and other considerations. Have you noticed that neutral site games today are played at state of the art venues (AT&T Stadium, FedEx Field, MetLife, etc.)? Even Fenway Park fits the mold better than Yale Bowl for the novelty, if not anything else.

Deals can be made, no doubt, both both sides must agree. Whether true or not, an upper echelon P5 team would think they are already doing UConn a favor. Playing at Yale Bowl would be doing UConn 2 favors with nothing in return.

Oh this is also discounting that UConn and its opponent would be disrupting a completely separate third party academic instituition.

 

[Confident Carl]

You can beg to differ all you like. That is fine. That is what message boards are for. Yale Bowl in unsuitable for todays standards, given lack of luxury boxes, suitable parking, and other considerations. Have you noticed that neutral site games today are played at state of the art venues (AT&T Stadium, FedEx Field, MetLife, etc.)? Even Fenway Park fits the mold better than Yale Bowl for the novelty, if not anything else.

Deals can be made, no doubt, both both sides must agree. Whether true or not, an upper echelon P5 team would think they are already doing UConn a favor. Playing at Yale Bowl would be doing UConn 2 favors with nothing in return.

Oh this is also discounting that UConn and its opponent would be disrupting a completely separate third party academic instituition.

I am not a promoter for the Yale Bowl, just trying to think outside the box re getting another Big P5 team to CT. Although dated and no sky boxes 20,000 more tickets is significant. Gillette probably makes sense because it's modern and up to date but it only holds 68,756. If it came down to the two venues the 7,300 seat difference along with history and prestige of Yale and keeping the game in CT could swing a potential big game to New Haven. I just can't see a significant number of CT fans traveling to the Meadowlands.

 

[RedSoloCup]

I am not a promoter for the Yale Bowl, just trying to think outside the box re getting another Big P5 team to CT. Although dated and no sky boxes 20,000 more tickets is significant. Gillette probably makes sense because it's modern and up to date but it only holds 68,756. If it came down to the two venues the 7,300 seat difference along with history and prestige of Yale and keeping the game in CT could swing a potential big game to New Haven. I just can't see a significant number of CT fans traveling to the Meadowlands.

I can't see CT fans traveling to the Yale bowl either. While this keeps coming up as a venue, I keep thinking there is no way I am heading down to that pit to see a game. We have been talking about how to increase our attendance and this won't do it.

I would actually not attend there so I would not have to fight my way in, and I am a bit of a tailgater. My guess is many CT locals would feel the same way. With easy access to the parking and to space for tailgating in EH, I don't see them signing up for an urban adventure in NH on Rt 34.

Also, not many here would know the tailgating scene or what they could expect. At a large, modern arena the tailgating and organization would be easier, allowing to make the game and game day an event people will attend.

I see us in the Meadowlands so that we get a New York footprint and give that traveling school a destination, and let that help drive interest in the contest.

 

[Husky25]

I have nothing against the Yale Bowl. In fact, a year or so ago, I was a proponent of the Yale Bowl to keep an "neutral" site game for the benefit of the state. I now understand how it just can't happen.

Pros of the Yale Bowl begin and end at capacity.

Cons: It is antiquated, and uncomfortable. A visiting team cares nothing about the history of the Yale Bowl and UConn portion of that history is pretty much limited to students arriving by the busload, getting tanked and high in the parking lot, and never watching more than a quarter of meaningful football. Yeah, let's relive that. It's just one more concession for which a meaningful visitor would get nothing in return.

It is owned and operated by an institution that has their own football team who routinely plays on Saturday Afternoons. To me this is the biggest obstacle. Why would Yale agree to rent it out, even on an off weekend? If they did, my guess is it would be cost prohibitive, because the event is not primarily for the benefit of their institution.

Finally, if a "neutral site" home game were to occur prior to 2018, UConn would have to pay out the Rent as well. Any deal does not come without a penalty clause. These games have to scheduled in 2015-2016.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

Finally, if a "neutral site" home game were to occur prior to 2018, UConn would have to pay out the Rent as well. Any deal does not come without a penalty clause. These games have to scheduled in 2015-2016.

I'm sure that the penalty clause would be the easiest thing to work around. There have been seasons where we've had six home games at the Rent and seasons where we've had seven. In a year where we had five true road games, six true (Rentschler Field) home games and a neutral site at either the Meadowlands or Foxboro it would be difficult for either the operators of the Rent or the State to claim that we've violated an agreement.

 

[Husky25]

I'm sure that the penalty clause would be the easiest thing to work around. There have been seasons where we've had six home games at the Rent and seasons where we've had seven. In a year where we had five true road games, six true (Rentschler Field) home games and a neutral site at either the Meadowlands or Foxboro it would be difficult for either the operators of the Rent or the State to claim that we've violated an agreement.

On the contrary, it very well could be the hardest thing to work around. Whether the State would end up winning in a court of law is beside the point. They could sue for an injunction and prevent the game from being played. Then it puts UConn at odds with its landlord and primary benefactor (by a significant margin). Not a desirable position in which to be, IMO.

 

[Confident Carl]

On the contrary, it very well could be the hardest thing to work around. Whether the State would end up winning in a court of law is beside the point. They could sue for an injunction and prevent the game from being played. Then it puts UConn at odds with its landlord and primary benefactor (by a significant margin). Not a desirable position in which to be, IMO.

interesting discussion but I will leave in the hands of the folks who get paid to produce a successful football product. I believe the purpose of discussion was contracting another Michigan type opponent. If the Rent is too small, then whatever venue works best, I will go with. As far as contractual obligations go, again that is outside of my paygrade. I will leave that one to Ward and staff.

 

[huskymedic]

I'm sure that the penalty clause would be the easiest thing to work around. There have been seasons where we've had six home games at the Rent and seasons where we've had seven. In a year where we had five true road games, six true (Rentschler Field) home games and a neutral site at either the Meadowlands or Foxboro it would be difficult for either the operators of the Rent or the State to claim that we've violated an agreement.

On the contrary, it very well could be the hardest thing to work around. Whether the State would end up winning in a court of law is beside the point. They could sue for an injunction and prevent the game from being played. Then it puts UConn at odds with its landlord and primary benefactor (by a significant margin). Not a desirable position in which to be, IMO.

I have no firsthand knowledge if the lease has been "amended" since this OLR document:

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0223.htm

I tend to agree w/ FCF that as long as 6 home games are played @ the Rent - a 7th "off site" game can be negotiated w/ State of CT/OPM.