One damning number ...

[Pudge]

In the linked LostLetterman article:

"Case Against: Traveling from Storrs, CT, to Glendale, AZ, is not easy. But that barely cloaks the embarrassment of UConn losing $1.8 million on its Fiesta Bowl appearance when the school sold just 2,771 out of 17,500 allotted tickets. And the Huskies’ football program has gone into a nosedive in recent seasons, winning a combined 13 games in the last three seasons. Connecticut isn’t ready to bankroll the expenses — or generate fan interest — that comes with big-time college football."

Maybe this was the worst ever. It certainly was a very challenging game for our fan base. And, I'd say we mostly took the "smart" buy & didn't purchase through our school. In BCS planets, that Bowl attendance & their money was ALL important. If we bought 75% of our tickets on StubHub at 40% of the Bowl sponsor price, we've not played the Game.

To me, this is one bullet point - like Robert Griffin's comment about how loud a Rentschler night game got. But I suspect that these type comments are our albatross for the conventional wisdom. This is why someone in Starkville or Pullman can say that we are not worthy.

I blame Jeff Hathaway (as usual).

Our push back: we are only 15 years at this level. Our fan base is not that snapshot. We can grow far beyond BC or Cuse. Our AD is excellence. There is not a snapshot in business. You buy a stock based on its Growth (discounted by the appropriate risk/return rate). It's just stupid to look at wealthy CT and NE - with NY potential - and think that this Program is not far more valuable than 25 of the 65. I think, though, that there are a handful who just don't care. But OUR narrative needs to change. And that began when PP left. The good news started & I agree with the statement that Diaco is transformative. That started with, what I believe, is an extraordinary coaching staff. I say this watching us, RU, Cuse & BC form staffs. (I'm impressed)

That's the State of our Program. Got to show up on the field.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Everytime this is brought up I wonder why VaTech gets a pass with the ticket sales argument.

 

[DoctorWho85]

Everytime this is brought up I wonder why VaTech gets a pass with the ticket sales argument.

Don't forget that VaTech looked a lot worse against Stanford than we did against Oklahoma. At least we were able to move the ball past the 50 yard line and had opportunities to put points on the board if Edsall didn't decide go for it on 4th down a couple times.

I always argued that UConn-Virginia Tech and Stanford-Oklahoma would have been a better match up for everyone. The games would have looked more competitive and both Stanford and Uconn's fan base would have a significantly shorter distance to travel. But the bowl selection committee just didn't care at all. I fully believe they set these matches up just to make that UConn team look bad both on the field and in traveling fan base.

 

[freescooter]

In the linked LostLetterman article:

"Case Against: Traveling from Storrs, CT, to Glendale, AZ, is not easy. But that barely cloaks the embarrassment of UConn losing $1.8 million on its Fiesta Bowl appearance when the school sold just 2,771 out of 17,500 allotted tickets. And the Huskies’ football program has gone into a nosedive in recent seasons, winning a combined 13 games in the last three seasons. Connecticut isn’t ready to bankroll the expenses — or generate fan interest — that comes with big-time college football."

Maybe this was the worst ever. It certainly was a very challenging game for our fan base. And, I'd say we mostly took the "smart" buy & didn't purchase through our school. In BCS planets, that Bowl attendance & their money was ALL important. If we bought 75% of our tickets on StubHub at 40% of the Bowl sponsor price, we've not played the Game.

To me, this is one bullet point - like Robert Griffin's comment about how loud a Rentschler night game got. But I suspect that these type comments are our albatross for the conventional wisdom. This is why someone in Starkville or Pullman can say that we are not worthy.

I blame Jeff Hathaway (as usual).

Our push back: we are only 15 years at this level. Our fan base is not that snapshot. We can grow far beyond BC or Cuse. Our AD is fat. There is not a snapshot in business. You buy a stock based on its Growth (discounted by the appropriate risk/return rate). It's just stupid to look at wealthy CT and NE - with NY potential - and think that this Program is not far more valuable than 25 of the 65. I think, though, that there are a handful who just don't care. But OUR narrative needs to change. And that began when PP left. The good news started & I agree with the statement that Diaco is transformative. That started with, what I believe, is an extraordinary coaching staff. I say this watching us, RU, Cuse & BC form staffs. (I'm impressed)

That's the State of our Program. Got to show up on the field.

I agree with all of this with a single exception. I fixed it for you.

 

[06029]

But the bowl selection committee just didn't care at all. I fully believe they set these matches up just to make that UConn team look bad both on the field and in traveling fan base.

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get you.

Uconn was relegated the lowest option because that was the site of the NC game. The other bowls tried to pick the teams that would give the highest return. Uconn was the weakest BC

 

[mikedog10]

Don't forget that VaTech looked a lot worse against Stanford than we did against Oklahoma. At least we were able to move the ball past the 50 yard line and had opportunities to put points on the board if Edsall didn't decide go for it on 4th down a couple times.

I always argued that UConn-Virginia Tech and Stanford-Oklahoma would have been a better match up for everyone. The games would have looked more competitive and both Stanford and Uconn's fan base would have a significantly shorter distance to travel. But the bowl selection committee just didn't care at all. I fully believe they set these matches up just to make that UConn team look bad both on the field and in traveling fan base.

I love a good conspiracy theory, I'm on board. This should elicit the "UConn football again!?" eyerolls I'm used to getting at the water cooler in record time.

 

[Dooley]

Not just Va Tech but OKLAHOMA had a hard time selling tickets through the school for that same game. The reason they aren't thrown under the same bus as we are is because the B12 covered all of the schools' losses while the Big East didn't help UCONN out at all.

This myth REALLY p1sses me off. I researched this a few years ago and wrote the following piece: http://www.uconnfactorfiction.com/2012/12/fact-or-fiction-uconn-only-had-3000.html.

OU sold 5,567 tickets through the school;
UCONN sold 2,771 tickets through the school;

The B12 bought the remaining 10,403 unsold tickets from OU's allotment and covered the schools' $1.9M loss;
The Big East bought 0 unsold tickets, sticking UCONN with a $2.9M loss (and national headlines as an undeserving BCS school)

If you go to that link, I found pictures of BOTH sides of the stadium. You can clearly tell which side is the OU side and which side is the UCONN side. Tickets on StubHub for that game were selling for around $20. If you take a look at both pictures, can anyone with a pair of working eyes and a reasonable mind honestly say that only 2,771 fans showed up to support UCONN?? It's amazing to me that OU (and other schools who have had similar issues selling their tickets) gets a free pass while UCONN is made out to be some sort of black eye on the BCS system.

It's amazing what a couple of ill-informed comments made by a few morons at ESPiN can do to tarnish a school's reputation.

 

[freescooter]

Don't forget that VaTech looked a lot worse against Stanford than we did against Oklahoma. At least we were able to move the ball past the 50 yard line and had opportunities to put points on the board if Edsall didn't decide go for it on 4th down a couple times.

I always argued that UConn-Virginia Tech and Stanford-Oklahoma would have been a better match up for everyone. The games would have looked more competitive and both Stanford and Uconn's fan base would have a significantly shorter distance to travel. But the bowl selection committee just didn't care at all. I fully believe they set these matches up just to make that UConn team look bad both on the field and in traveling fan base.

I agree with the basic idea here, though I doubt there was a concerted effort ot make UConn look bad. The bowls are guaranteed their ticket sales, so they don't really care if anyone shows up. UConn was the team that nobody wanted, and without a bowl tie-in. Happened before to Big East Champs, too. UConn VaTEch would in the Orange bowl would have been good for all concerned as would Stanford to the Fiesta (Stanford didn't sell any tickets either)

 

[Carl Spackler]

Everytime this is brought up I wonder why VaTech gets a pass with the ticket sales argument.

Really? The answer is that UCONN football had no positive PR machine, and was tied to the Big East conference, which as a conference had no positive PR machine. We had an athletic director, and ticket marketing and sales staff, that was absolutetly clueless on what it meant after Dave Teggart hit that kick against USF, and we would have benefitted from having NO PR rather than the negative, adversarial relations with local writers in the Hartford Courant, and elsewhere that had built up over the years through basketball.

Bottom line is that college football success on a national scale, is intertwined and related with positive public relations and positive media promotion - and we had none of that.

Once again, I've said this umpteen million times. UCONN football has had success on the field in division 1A, won bowl games, been to the BCS, had multiple sell out games at home and on the road, contrary to public opinion, we travelled very well to Arizona - but if a tree falls in the woods and nobody sees it.........but we didn't have the media and publicity and positive promotion to go with it, on both the university level and the conference level.

We've got the publicity and visibility and positive movement now at the university and conference level (the BCS is gone, and we are on the wrong side of the money equation - and that makes things more difficult than they would have been before - for sure) but we haven't had a winnign football program.

BIg time success - national type of success - depends on both together. PR/Media - and winning. Basketball purists, despise that - but so what. This is football.

Until I see with my own eyes otherwise, I believe that a winning football program at UCONN that pushes itself into the top 25 rankings, combined with the positive PR, adequate promotion, from both the university and conference level - will be HUGE.

 

[UConn9604]

Don't forget that VaTech looked a lot worse against Stanford than we did against Oklahoma. At least we were able to move the ball past the 50 yard line and had opportunities to put points on the board if Edsall didn't decide go for it on 4th down a couple times.

I always argued that UConn-Virginia Tech and Stanford-Oklahoma would have been a better match up for everyone. The games would have looked more competitive and both Stanford and Uconn's fan base would have a significantly shorter distance to travel. But the bowl selection committee just didn't care at all. I fully believe they set these matches up just to make that UConn team look bad both on the field and in traveling fan base.

One time I was on a conference call with the director of the Orange Bowl from that season. I immediately jumped all over him for not taking us, thereby leaving two bowls at less than full capacity, and he returned the favor. Basically, they were not turning down the opportunity to take Andrew Luck for anything.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Really? The answer is that UCONN football had no positive PR machine, and was tied to the Big East conference, which as a conference had no positive PR machine. We had an athletic director, and ticket marketing and sales staff, that was absolutetly clueless on what it meant after Dave Teggart hit that kick against USF, and we would have benefitted from having NO PR rather than the negative, adversarial relations with local writers in the Hartford Courant, and elsewhere that had built up over the years through basketball.

Bottom line is that college football success on a national scale, is intertwined and related with positive public relations and positive media promotion - and we had none of that.

Once again, I've said this umpteen million times. UCONN football has had success on the field in division 1A, won bowl games, been to the BCS, had multiple sell out games at home and on the road, contrary to public opinion, we travelled very well to Arizona - but if a tree falls in the woods and nobody sees it....but we didn't have the media and publicity and positive promotion to go with it, on both the university level and the conference level.

We've got the publicity and visibility and positive movement now at the university and conference level (the BCS is gone, and we are on the wrong side of the money equation - and that makes things more difficult than they would have been before - for sure) but we haven't had a winnign football program.

BIg time success - national type of success - depends on both together. PR/Media - and winning. Basketball purists, despise that - but so what. This is football.

Until I see with my own eyes otherwise, I believe that a winning football program at UCONN that pushes itself into the top 25 rankings, combined with the positive PR, adequate promotion, from both the university and conference level - will be HUGE.

So you are saying that VaTech's PR machine prevented ESPN and others from creating the same narrative they created about us?

 

[Carl Spackler]

So you are saying that VaTech's PR machine prevented ESPN and others from creating the same narrative they created about us?

Don't be a yahoo. UCONN was not prepared in any way for that BCS game, outside of the football team itself, and had no conference support, and no PR support. At best, the PR was negative, in pointing out all the flaws with the BCS system, which then got propogated nationally, with a team like UCONN - being invited to play against Oklahoma at 8-4. We had no history in that division of football, and instead of pointing out all the positive that happened, everything publicity nationally went to every flaw in the BCS system. Frankly, the boneyard itself is probably partly responsible for it all, since the majority of football stories being written locally, were being driven by the local writers all reading the fans here, and people here on the boneyard were begging fans to buy tickets through the school, because we understood the system. I do not for a second believe that guys like Jacobs, Conner, etc.... had any idea about the BCS really was, or what positive it had done for college athletics - to go with the negative - until they started reading about our UCONN situation right here in the boneyard.

Whatever - ancient history. dont' be a yahoo.

I'm looking forward, to the result of the combined equation - publicity/positive PR/promotions - and winning. Game time in 2 weeks.

 

[ZooCougar]

It doesn't matter what your PR is when you lose by a significant margin.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Don't be a yahoo. UCONN was not prepared in any way for that BCS game, outside of the football team itself, and had no conference support, and no PR support. At best, the PR was negative, in pointing out all the flaws with the BCS system, which then got propogated nationally, with a team like UCONN - being invited to play against Oklahoma at 8-4. We had no history in that division of football, and instead of pointing out all the positive that happened, everything publicity nationally went to every flaw in the BCS system. Frankly, the boneyard itself is probably partly responsible for it all, since the majority of football stories being written locally, were being driven by the local writers all reading the fans here, and people here on the boneyard were begging fans to buy tickets through the school, because we understood the system. I do not for a second believe that guys like Jacobs, Conner, etc.... had any idea about the BCS really was, or what positive it had done for college athletics - to go with the negative - until they started reading about our UCONN situation right here in the boneyard.

Whatever - ancient history. dont' be a yahoo.

I'm looking forward, to the result of the combined equation - publicity/positive PR/promotions - and winning. Game time in 2 weeks.

Carl, there was a national narrative out there that was designed to bury us. We could've had world class PR people on board. It wouldn't have mattered.

 

[coachcap]

Not just Va Tech but OKLAHOMA had a hard time selling tickets through the school for that same game. The reason they aren't thrown under the same bus as we are is because the B12 covered all of the schools' losses while the Big East didn't help UCONN out at all.

This myth REALLY p1sses me off. I researched this a few years ago and wrote the following piece: http://www.uconnfactorfiction.com/2012/12/fact-or-fiction-uconn-only-had-3000.html.

OU sold 5,567 tickets through the school;
UCONN sold 2,771 tickets through the school;

The B12 bought the remaining 10,403 unsold tickets from OU's allotment and covered the schools' $1.9M loss;
The Big East bought 0 unsold tickets, sticking UCONN with a $2.9M loss (and national headlines as an undeserving BCS school)

If you go to that link, I found pictures of BOTH sides of the stadium. You can clearly tell which side is the OU side and which side is the UCONN side. Tickets on StubHub for that game were selling for around $20. If you take a look at both pictures, can anyone with a pair of working eyes and a reasonable mind honestly say that only 2,771 fans showed up to support UCONN?? It's amazing to me that OU (and other schools who have had similar issues selling their tickets) gets a free pass while UCONN is made out to be some sort of black eye on the BCS system.

It's amazing what a couple of ill-informed comments made by a few morons at ESPiN can do to tarnish a school's reputation.

What bent me out of shape about opposing teams arguments on UConn's attendance at the Fiesta Bowl was, when I argued with s Syracuse fan that UConn had @ 15,000 fans in attendance. His rebuttal was posting a picture from across the field of the UConn sideline. It showed the wrong side of the 50 yard line to the opposite end zone from which the bands were seated.

 

[Palatine]

Don't be a yahoo. UCONN was not prepared in any way for that BCS game, outside of the football team itself, and had no conference support, and no PR support. At best, the PR was negative, in pointing out all the flaws with the BCS system, which then got propogated nationally, with a team like UCONN - being invited to play against Oklahoma at 8-4. We had no history in that division of football, and instead of pointing out all the positive that happened, everything publicity nationally went to every flaw in the BCS system. Frankly, the boneyard itself is probably partly responsible for it all, since the majority of football stories being written locally, were being driven by the local writers all reading the fans here, and people here on the boneyard were begging fans to buy tickets through the school, because we understood the system. I do not for a second believe that guys like Jacobs, Conner, etc.... had any idea about the BCS really was, or what positive it had done for college athletics - to go with the negative - until they started reading about our UCONN situation right here in the boneyard.

Whatever - ancient history. dont' be a yahoo.

I'm looking forward, to the result of the combined equation - publicity/positive PR/promotions - and winning. Game time in 2 weeks.

You say UConn was not prepared but it falls square on Hathaway.

And here's the proof, the 2011 final four under Hathaway was as big an embarrassment as the 2010 Fiesta Bowl. The same stories about UConn's empty fan section ran after 2011.

2014. No Hathaway. And those stories disappeared.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Carl, there was a national narrative out there that was designed to bury us. We could've had world class PR people on board. It wouldn't have mattered.

I disagree. Very much so, and I will not continue on this argument other to say that I disagree.

I am concerned about the future, not the past, and I am of the mindset that you set goals, self-evaluate performance on a regular basis, learn from both what works, and more importantly - what doesn't, and then apply what you have learned as you work toward your next goals.

I am 100% positive that we have a university leadership from the BOT, to the president, down through the AD's office to the ticketing, promotion and marketing that is both knowledgeable and experienced in the subject, and has learned from the past and is poised to do things properly the next time we have enough success on the field to reach a national platform of a game like that bowl game on Jan. 1, 2011.

There is a big step in reaching such a game in 2 weeks, and we have 11 more after that.

 

[Dooley]

What bent me out of shape about opposing teams arguments on UConn's attendance at the Fiesta Bowl was, when I argued with s Syracuse fan that UConn had @ 15,000 fans in attendance. His rebuttal was posting a picture from across the field of the UConn sideline. It showed the wrong side of the 50 yard line to the opposite end zone from which the bands were seated.

I think that's your problem right there. Those nitwits couldn't bring 15,000 to METLIFE a few years ago to watch their team play against US friggin' C (the good West coast USC program)! Of course they aren't going to think logically or accept any crystal-clear evidence proving UCONN had at least 15K in Arizona that night.

 

[businesslawyer]

Don't forget that VaTech looked a lot worse against Stanford than we did against Oklahoma. At least we were able to move the ball past the 50 yard line and had opportunities to put points on the board if Edsall didn't decide go for it on 4th down a couple times.

I always argued that UConn-Virginia Tech and Stanford-Oklahoma would have been a better match up for everyone. The games would have looked more competitive and both Stanford and Uconn's fan base would have a significantly shorter distance to travel. But the bowl selection committee just didn't care at all. I fully believe they set these matches up just to make that UConn team look bad both on the field and in traveling fan base.

Just a little paranoid?

The Fiesta didn't want us. The Orange had the choice of UConn or Stanford, and went for what was undoubtedly the better team.

 

[Dooley]

Same as Oklahoma and the B12, the ACC has an agreement in place to share/cover all expenses that its members incur during bowl season. If you read through it, even though Va Tech lost money on the game, they weren't thrown under the same negative microscope as UCONN was because the ACC shares all member postseason expenses (including unsold tickets).

http://regressing.deadspin.com/teams-in-the-orange-bowl-dont-make-any-money-and-othe-1494130032

"According to the 2010-11 Virginia Tech bowl report, the team had $1.725 million in expenses that the ACC covered. Virginia Tech treats this as revenue (because effectively the ACC sends them a check) but for us to look at the pure Orange Bowl/Virginia Tech transaction, we're going to ignore that money because it has nothing to do with the Orange Bowl deal and everything to do with Virginia Tech's deal with the ACC. Actual expenses include just a shade over $500,000 for transportation, a little under $700,000 for meals and lodging, and another approximately $225,000 to cover Entertainment ($43,000), Promotion (9,000), Awards ($87,000), Equipment and Supplies ($40,000), and Administrative costs ($44,000). Combined, those costs total something very close to $1.425 million. Then Virginia Tech also list another approximately $700,000 in "other" expenses, which the school describes as consisting of "insurance, supplemental compensation, wages, and FICA," so this sounds like where all the bonuses paid out to coach Frank Beamer and his staff are hidden. So that brings the total expenses up to $2.1 million. And then finally, Virginia Tech states that it had just under $1.25 million in unsold tickets that it (and the ACC) had to pay for. While the out-of-pocket cost to Virginia Tech for this item was only $46,301, that's only because of the ACC subsidy (which we want to keep out), so including the full cost of those tickets brings the total Orange Bowl expenses up to a bit over $3.3 million.3"

 

[businesslawyer]

This was not primarily PR, because PR can't stop the press from running with the story it wants.

Look, if you were there you know that there were at least 10,000 hard core UConn fans, wearing blue, at the game. The vast majority of them bought tickets through the secondary market. What Hathaway needed to do, which he could have done, is sell 1 or 2 thousand tickets at full price to the diehard supporters who wouldn't mind overpaying to help UConn, and then sell the rest for half or two thirds of face given the travel costs. UConn could have lost the exact same amount of money, but announced higher sales, just by discounting.

That having been said, people here also need to accept that we -- the core fanbase -- bear a good part of the responsibility. The trip was ungodly expensive, I get it. But more of us needed to go, and more of us who went needed to suck up the extra cost and buy the tickets from the school to shape the narrative. Rather than just complain about why the narrative was unfair.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Same as Oklahoma and the B12, the ACC has an agreement in place to share/cover all expenses that its members incur during bowl season. If you read through it, even though Va Tech lost money on the game, they weren't thrown under the same negative microscope as UCONN was because the ACC shares all member postseason expenses (including unsold tickets).

http://regressing.deadspin.com/teams-in-the-orange-bowl-dont-make-any-money-and-othe-1494130032

"According to the 2010-11 Virginia Tech bowl report, the team had $1.725 million in expenses that the ACC covered. Virginia Tech treats this as revenue (because effectively the ACC sends them a check) but for us to look at the pure Orange Bowl/Virginia Tech transaction, we're going to ignore that money because it has nothing to do with the Orange Bowl deal and everything to do with Virginia Tech's deal with the ACC. Actual expenses include just a shade over $500,000 for transportation, a little under $700,000 for meals and lodging, and another approximately $225,000 to cover Entertainment ($43,000), Promotion (9,000), Awards ($87,000), Equipment and Supplies ($40,000), and Administrative costs ($44,000). Combined, those costs total something very close to $1.425 million. Then Virginia Tech also list another approximately $700,000 in "other" expenses, which the school describes as consisting of "insurance, supplemental compensation, wages, and FICA," so this sounds like where all the bonuses paid out to coach Frank Beamer and his staff are hidden. So that brings the total expenses up to $2.1 million. And then finally, Virginia Tech states that it had just under $1.25 million in unsold tickets that it (and the ACC) had to pay for. While the out-of-pocket cost to Virginia Tech for this item was only $46,301, that's only because of the ACC subsidy (which we want to keep out), so including the full cost of those tickets brings the total Orange Bowl expenses up to a bit over $3.3 million.3"

The Big East conference didn't do this. on top of the Black Sheep rep the conference leadership let develop in the football media nationally over the course of 20 years.

I have no idea what the AAC conference arrangments are regarding the football bowl season, and ticket sales and all that. I don't actually know if it's ever been published as to what the playoff system si going to entail either - are there guaranteed/contractual ticket sales for teams that make it? I'm pretty sure the other conference contract bowls have kept the same model.

Whatever - UCONN has people in place that understand these things now - unlike when Hathaway was running things, so I'm not concerned. I'm more concerned again, about the game in 2 weeks, and taking the steps to get to the post season, as it should be for us fans.

 

[Carl Spackler]

This was not primarily PR, because PR can't stop the press from running with the story it wants.

Look, if you were there you know that there were at least 10,000 hard core UConn fans, wearing blue, at the game. The vast majority of them bought tickets through the secondary market. What Hathaway needed to do, which he could have done, is sell 1 or 2 thousand tickets at full price to the diehard supporters who wouldn't mind overpaying to help UConn, and then sell the rest for half or two thirds of face given the travel costs. UConn could have lost the exact same amount of money, but announced higher sales, just by discounting.

That having been said, people here also need to accept that we -- the core fanbase -- bear a good part of the responsibility. The trip was ungodly expensive, I get it. But more of us needed to go, and more of us who went needed to suck up the extra cost and buy the tickets from the school to shape the narrative. Rather than just complain about why the narrative was unfair.

PR is only part of the whole thing. Clearly. But it's an important part, that can undermine everything else. and therefore a high priority part .

 

[Rondogg]

During the last few years of the BCS ESPN was openly campaigning for a College Football Playoff. We were the Patsy they used to explain everything wrong with the BCS. They now have their College Football Playoff.

Now they are openly campaigning to margianalize anyone not in the P5.

 

[Carl Spackler]

During the last few years of the BCS ESPN was openly campaigning for a College Football Playoff. We (allowed ourselves to be) the Patsy they used to explain everything wrong with the BCS. They now have their College Football Playoff.

Now they are openly campaigning to margianalize anyone not in the P5 (which we will no longer allow them to marginalize us).

Fixed