Pitino: “That’s why next year, the only game we’re playing at Carnesecca is Connecticut. The rest, we’re gonna negotiate.”

[Tyler2Rings]

At times when viewing the boneyard, this is what I see:

No it isn't

 

[ConnHuskBask]

What are you basing your analysis that the 7.5 million in lost revenue is based upon a football stadium in Storrs. Pro tip: "my imagination" isn't an answer.


Excellent. If he's not lying, then he is telling the truth and the University of Connecticut playing games at sites managed by the CDRA cost the university 7.5 million annually in lost revenue. That's an awful lot to pay so that people who live to the west of Hartford don't have to drive an extra 30 minutes.

UConn athletics operates without an estimated $7.5 million in lost revenue potential by playing some basketball games, some hockey games and all football games off campus, per its agreement with the Capital Region Development Authority."

Do you understand revenue isn't net income? I'm perplexed by the bolded text in your post and your insistence of continually pointing to an revenue estimate while failing to acknowledge there are associated expenses that would greatly affect the bottom line (net income).

P.S. you dodged the two questions in my prior post. Any particular reason?

 

[CL82]

Do you understand revenue isn't net income?

Yes.

Is it your supposition that all the revenue will be offset by expenses? You seem to suggest that Benedict is being disingenuous in pursuit of a goal. What exactly do you think that goal might be, ultimately? Do you think he is seeking to run the department at a greater deficit? Seriously. I'd love to know the answer on that. I appreciate people being pedantic as much as the next guy, (who, in all honesty, probably doesn't appreciate it at all, most people don't) but you seem to be missing the forest for the trees.

It really is a uniquely entitled viewpoint in that you seem to be saying since you don't know every facet of the information, the statements of those who do have access to that information must be illegitimate. Kind of a silly thought process in my view. Or maybe it's just Internet posturing? At this point it's hard to tell.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Yes.

Is it your supposition that all the revenue will be offset by expenses? You seem to suggest that Benedict is being disingenuous in pursuit of a goal. What exactly do you think that goal might be, ultimately? Do you think he is seeking to run the department at a greater deficit? Seriously. I'd love to know the answer on that. I appreciate people being pedantic as much as the next guy, (who, in all honesty, probably doesn't appreciate it at all, most people don't) but you seem to be missing the forest for the trees.

It really is a uniquely entitled viewpoint in that you seem to be saying since you don't know every facet of the information, the statements of those who do have access to that information must be illegitimate. Kind of a silly thought process in my view. Or maybe it's just Internet posturing? At this point it's hard to tell.

We have a breakthrough! Your first acknowledgement that this fantasyland revenue is offset by expense. I'm proud of you.

I'm not sure how much of the $7.5M would be offset. Aside from the opex that an additional 30 or so games a year in Storrs that would cost, I think you'd have a pretty large number for the debt service on a new football stadium, in addition to the debt service on parking lots/garages and infrastructure work that be required in order to facilitate hosting 6 or 7 football games a year. This is of course doesn't account for any roadway work or improvements the state would have to pick up the tab for.

So, now that you've come around to acknowledging that there is an expense offset to the revenue number (which we can't quantify but surely the financial wizards at Stores can come up with) then isn't it rather odd the school only publicly states the the revenue "lost"? What is the school hiding?

As I said multiple times in this thread, Dave is publicly trying to paint the most favorable position publicly for UConn as it attempts to negotiate a better deal with the state for athletics in Hartford/East Hartford. He's not lying and he's doing his job pretty well as evidenced by you and others parroting the $7.5M "lost revenue" number continually.

As I've said multiple times in this thread as well, I don't have all the information, but due to UConn not disclosing it, my assumption is that it makes their case less compelling.

 

[CL82]

We have a breakthrough! Your first acknowledgement that this fantasyland revenue is offset by expense. I'm proud of you.

I'm not sure how much of the $7.5M would be offset. Aside from the opex that an additional 30 or so games a year in Storrs that would cost, I think you'd have a pretty large number for the debt service on a new football stadium, in addition to the debt service on parking lots/garages and infrastructure work that be required in order to facilitate hosting 6 or 7 football games a year. This is of course doesn't account for any roadway work or improvements the state would have to pick up the tab for.

So, now that you've come around to acknowledging that there is an expense offset to the revenue number (which we can't quantify but surely the financial wizards at Stores can come up with) then isn't it rather odd the school only publicly states the the revenue "lost"? What is the school hiding?

As I said multiple times in this thread, Dave is publicly trying to paint the most favorable position publicly for UConn as it attempts to negotiate a better deal with the state for athletics in Hartford/East Hartford. He's not lying and he's doing his job pretty well as evidenced by you and others parroting the $7.5M "lost revenue" number continually.

As I've said multiple times in this thread as well, I don't have all the information, but due to UConn not disclosing it, my assumption is that it makes their case less compelling.

You are sure posting a lot for a guy who said he was giving me the last word on the topic.

Do you even realize the logic fallacy in your post? It's kind of funny at this point. Again, stripping down the verbosity, your point is that since you don't know whether there could be any offsetting expense you believe that there is no benefit to the university having $7.5 million of additional revenue. Kind of a reach don't you think? In essence, your argument is that you're uninformed and therefore right. That is one heckuva hell to die on.

So do you realize you are the only person who is talking about building a stadium Storrs? I mean, seriously, I can't tell at this point.

 

[drayenob]

We have a breakthrough! Your first acknowledgement that this fantasyland revenue is offset by expense. I'm proud of you.

I'm not sure how much of the $7.5M would be offset. Aside from the opex that an additional 30 or so games a year in Storrs that would cost, I think you'd have a pretty large number for the debt service on a new football stadium, in addition to the debt service on parking lots/garages and infrastructure work that be required in order to facilitate hosting 6 or 7 football games a year. This is of course doesn't account for any roadway work or improvements the state would have to pick up the tab for.

So, now that you've come around to acknowledging that there is an expense offset to the revenue number (which we can't quantify but surely the financial wizards at Stores can come up with) then isn't it rather odd the school only publicly states the the revenue "lost"? What is the school hiding?

As I said multiple times in this thread, Dave is publicly trying to paint the most favorable position publicly for UConn as it attempts to negotiate a better deal with the state for athletics in Hartford/East Hartford. He's not lying and he's doing his job pretty well as evidenced by you and others parroting the $7.5M "lost revenue" number continually.

As I've said multiple times in this thread as well, I don't have all the information, but due to UConn not disclosing it, my assumption is that it makes their case less compelling.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

You are sure posting a lot for a guy who said he was giving me the last word on the topic.

Do you even realize the logic fallacy in your post? It's kind of funny at this point. Again, stripping down the verbosity, your point is that since you don't know whether there could be any offsetting expense you believe that there is no benefit to the university having $7.5 million of additional revenue. Kind of a reach don't you think? In essence, your argument is that you're uninformed and therefore right. That is one heckuva hell to die on.

So do you realize you are the only person who is talking about building a stadium Storrs? I mean, seriously, I can't tell at this point.

If all UConn athletics are to be played in Storrs, which is the premise behind the $7.5M of "lost revenue", then where in the absolute hell is the football team playing?

 

[CL82]

If all UConn athletics are to be played in Storrs, which is the premise behind the $7.5M of "lost revenue", then where in the absolute hell is the football team playing?

You assumed that that's the premise, no one else has. You seem to to struggle to differentiate between what you imagine to be true and what you know to be true. That's extraordinarily problematic if it extends to anything other than ranting about your sense of the disingenuousness of statements made by the athletic director at Connecticut.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

You assumed that that's the premise, no one else has. You seem to to struggle to differentiate between what you imagine to be true and what you know to be true. That's extraordinarily problematic if it extends to anything other than ranting about your sense of the disingenuousness of statements made by the athletic director at Connecticut.

What do you interpret the below to mean? To me it means, if we played the basketball, hockey, and football games on campus we estimate an additional $7.5M in annual revenue.

UConn athletics operates without an estimated $7.5 million in lost revenue potential by playing some basketball games, some hockey games and all football games off campus, per its agreement with the Capital Region Development Authority.

 

[CL82]

What do you interpret the below to mean? To me it means, if we played the basketball, hockey, and football games on campus we estimate an additional $7.5M in annual revenue.

UConn athletics operates without an estimated $7.5 million in lost revenue potential by playing some basketball games, some hockey games and all football games off campus, per its agreement with the Capital Region Development Authority.

I interpret that as meaning that UConn athletics operates without an estimated $7.5 million in lost revenue potential by playing some basketball games, some hockey games and all football games off campus, per its agreement with the capital region development authority.

 

[GameTime]

Maybe Ricky P should add PC to his list?

 

[Chief00]

Except "the breakeven number" isn't 10,500. Connecticut pays the XL center $40,000 plus a three dollar per seat surcharge to play there. Even though it charges Connecticut that above fair market lease rate, it keeps all the concession money and all the parking money.

The cost to open up Gampel Is negligible by comparison and we keep concessions and parking monies. If we only have 10,500 fans showing up the XL center, we are losing money. But, you know all that, since we've had this conversation many times before.

Dan Benedict, who is in a better position than you or I to understand the financials says that playing at CDRA managed facilities costs UConn in excess of $7 1/2 million a year.

Well stated. It is an awful hill to climb. What value does CDRA add?

 

[Chief00]

"UConn athletics operates without an estimated $7.5 million in lost revenue potential by playing some basketball games, some hockey games and all football games off campus, per its agreement with the Capital Region Development Authority."

UConn isn't "losing" anything in that scenario. First off that $7.5M number is only revenue, and doesn't account for expense, and secondly (and most obviously) being the lack of a football stadium in Storrs?

I also estimate that I operate with a $7.5M in loss revenue by not having the UConn men basketball host their games in my driveway while were at it.

"According to the university, one basketball game at the XL Center costs UConn $60,000 to 70,000. UConn spent approximately $4 million competing at the XL Center and Pratt & Whitney Stadium in 2021-22."

Notice how when UConn frames their argument they only refer to revenue lost by not playing in Storrs and when playing in Hartford only refer to expense?

If the financials were so compelling why not just paint the full picture? My guess is because they aren't as drastic as made out to be.

This is all to arrive back at the fact that it's good that UConn maintains a presence in Hartford for political goodwill as well as making themselves more accessible to fans and corporate partners.

Loss revenue in this context, is lost revenue to the university. There is a huge profit margin for on campus games - at XL we make very little per patron.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

Maybe Ricky P should add PC to his list?

The announced attendance was 11,800. I'm not sure it makes sense to rent the Garden if you only reach 2/3 capacity.

 

[willie99]

Donations anyone? All this talk about XL vs GP and finances, and nobody mentions donations

Donations are far far far greater than the seat costs for the entire lower bowl

 

[Kolumbo]

I'm not a big fan of slick rick but he knows how to win and he knows what UConn basketball is about. He always tells the truth, even when he lies.

"I said this the other day, I don’t think Connecticut knows how to take a compliment. The fact we want to play them at Carnesecca is the ultimate compliment of all time, because the three best fan bases in all of college basketball for travel are Kentucky, Kansas and UConn. They travel the best, they have the best fans. They sell out at home, they have major crowds. We want a champion team, and if the Big East won’t give us a champion team, we’ll go out and get a non-conference gigantic opponent to honor Louie. Everything you hear about that is complementary to the [UConn] program.”

 

[CL82]

Donations anyone? All this talk about XL vs GP and finances, and nobody mentions donations

Donations are far far far greater than the seat costs for the entire lower bowl

This is the best point, financially, that XL center advocates can make. It's surprises me that people so seldom do. I don't think there's any public information on the amount.

 

[CL82]

I'm not a big fan of slick rick but he knows how to win and he knows what UConn basketball is about. He always tells the truth, even when he lies.

"I said this the other day, I don’t think Connecticut knows how to take a compliment. The fact we want to play them at Carnesecca is the ultimate compliment of all time, because the three best fan bases in all of college basketball for travel are Kentucky, Kansas and UConn. They travel the best, they have the best fans. They sell out at home, they have major crowds. We want a champion team, and if the Big East won’t give us a champion team, we’ll go out and get a non-conference gigantic opponent to honor Louie. Everything you hear about that is complementary to the [UConn] program.”

View attachment 95005

This is spin by him. His original comment was that he didn't like the lack of St. John's fan support at the Garden and that he didn't like Hurleys sideline antics.

For what it's worth, if you recognize Louis at a packed MSG ovation/crowd response would be huge particularly in front of Connecticut fans who are knowledgeable about the history of the big east and have fond memories of him as an opposing coach.

 

[Kemba Time]

Donations anyone? All this talk about XL vs GP and finances, and nobody mentions donations

Donations are far far far greater than the seat costs for the entire lower bowl

Ding, ding, ding. This is the correct answer. AD David Benedict knows this, which is why he doubled-down on donations in the last season-ticket price increase.

XL has 10,000+ season ticket holders and if you want to say the average donation is even 200-300 (I’d guess it’s a little higher now), that’s 2-3 million dollars annually in pure income that has nothing to do with CRDA or where UConn plays home football games.

Between arena capacities, fans who would drop their seasons because of the added distance or unwillingness to double their financial commitment and decreased incentive for corporations to buy blocks of tickets with donations the farther the games are played from their offices and where their workers live, going to an all-Gampel or Gampel-first model becomes much less than double the Gampel games, double the donations and a great deal of that money would disappear.

The other thing that seems to be consistently overlooked in this conversation is UConn’s huge attendance increase in recent seasons.

Making the XL Center math work is very dependent on huge season-ticket numbers and sold-out games. During the end of the KO era and Hurley’s first season the average XL attendance was at 9 to 10k. Then there was a pandemic. This season, we’re going to average 15k+ at XL. Those additional seats purchased and donations are absolutely the difference between the model working or spitting out those lost revenue numbers over recent seasons.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Loss revenue in this context, is lost revenue to the university. There is a huge profit margin for on campus games - at XL we make very little per patron.

Chief, how about you take a crack at this.

The $7.5M "lost revenue" by playing basketball, hockey, and football off campus.

To evaluate an alternative, an alternative choice has to exist, right? So I'm seeing this as all basketball games in Gampel, all hockey games at their new arena, and all football games....where?

 

[CL82]

Chief, how about you take a crack at this.

The $7.5M "lost revenue" by playing basketball, hockey, and football off campus.

To evaluate an alternative, an alternative choice has to exist, right? So I'm seeing this as all basketball games in Gampel, all hockey games at their new arena, and all football games....where?

You realize that another option exists, right? The other option is we could play football in the Rent but not get charged the ridiculous rates we do by the CDRA. The CDRA always runs a multimillion dollar loss, which is ultimately picked up by the state. It runs that loss despite the fact that the university of Connecticut pays it above market lease rates for men's basketball, women's basketball, hockey, and football. Essentially, the CDRA is offloading some of its ineptitude to the UConn athletic department's balance sheet. It makes far more sense, in my opinion, to eliminate the excessive lease rates to the university so that all of the CDRA's financial and aptitude is reflected on its own balance sheet and the athletic department's balance sheet shows a more realistic picture of its profitability. that would allow our finances to be viewed on an apples to apples basis with virtually every other major university in the country.

As I've noted repeatedly in this thread the only one who is talking about the "we have to build a football stadium in Storrs" is you. It is a strawman argument that you've locked onto, apparently, at least subliminally, you recognize that there is no way to justify paying the salaries of a bunch of inept bureaucrats who have never been able to run a single thing at a profit.

I hope that helped.

 

[Kemba Time]

You realize that another option exists, right? The other option is we could play football in the Rent but not get charged the ridiculous rates we do by the CDRA. The CDRA always runs a multimillion dollar loss, which is ultimately picked up by the state. It runs that loss despite the fact that the university of Connecticut pays it above market lease rates for men's basketball, women's basketball, hockey, and football. Essentially, the CDRA is offloading some of its ineptitude to the UConn athletic department's balance sheet. It makes far more sense, in my opinion, to eliminate the excessive lease rates to the university so that all of the CDRA's financial and aptitude is reflected on its own balance sheet and the athletic department's balance sheet shows a more realistic picture of its profitability. that would allow our finances to be viewed on an apples to apples basis with virtually every other major university in the country.

As I've noted repeatedly in this thread the only one who is talking about the "we have to build a football stadium in Storrs" is you. It is a strawman argument that you've locked onto, apparently, at least subliminally, you recognize that there is no way to justify paying the salaries of a bunch of inept bureaucrats who have never been able to run a single thing at a profit.

I hope that helped.

And this is why this Hartford/XL Center discussion always becomes this same circular conversation (although the lumping of football and men's basketball, which are entirely different situations, is quite a twist on this edition).

Two things can be, and are, true: UConn should have a better deal, ideally without the CRDA involvement, for use of the XL Center and the current situation is not nearly as dreadful as some make it out to be (and actually is beneficial for a variety of reasons).

This will be true as long as UConn keeps selling boatloads of season tickets with a hefty donation attached and filling the building. And given the current state of the program, I'll take that bet.

 

[CL82]

And this is why this Hartford/XL Center discussion always becomes this same circular conversation (although the lumping of football and men's basketball, which are entirely different situations, is quite a twist on this edition).

Two things can be, and are, true: UConn should have a better deal, ideally without the CRDA involvement, for use of the XL Center and the current situation is not nearly as dreadful as some make it out to be (and actually is beneficial for a variety of reasons).

This will be true as long as UConn keeps selling boatloads of season tickets with a hefty donation attached and filling the building. And given the current state of the program, I'll take that bet.

I'm inclined to agree. If you fix CDRA lease deal, and schedule XL games during break plus one or two games that's will sell out the place, you've got a workable situation. Hurley and the players don't particularly like playing there and it also involves the additional cost of having the team stay overnight in Hartford, but it's workable. To me the smartest thing to do is get rid of the CDRA in its entirety. All it does is add an extra layer of cost to pay for bureaucrats to hire a management company. It would be different, if they had ever run a profit at anything they ever did. They haven't. it is a political perk paid for at UConn's expense.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

You realize that another option exists, right? The other option is we could play football in the Rent but not get charged the ridiculous rates we do by the CDRA. The CDRA always runs a multimillion dollar loss, which is ultimately picked up by the state. It runs that loss despite the fact that the university of Connecticut pays it above market lease rates for men's basketball, women's basketball, hockey, and football. Essentially, the CDRA is offloading some of its ineptitude to the UConn athletic department's balance sheet. It makes far more sense, in my opinion, to eliminate the excessive lease rates to the university so that all of the CDRA's financial and aptitude is reflected on its own balance sheet and the athletic department's balance sheet shows a more realistic picture of its profitability. that would allow our finances to be viewed on an apples to apples basis with virtually every other major university in the country.

As I've noted repeatedly in this thread the only one who is talking about the "we have to build a football stadium in Storrs" is you. It is a strawman argument that you've locked onto, apparently, at least subliminally, you recognize that there is no way to justify paying the salaries of a bunch of inept bureaucrats who have never been able to run a single thing at a profit.

I hope that helped.

Why do you think that the rates we're charged by the CDRA for playing at The Rent are relevant when estimating " lost revenue"?

 

[Redmen9194]

The announced attendance was 11,800. I'm not sure it makes sense to rent the Garden if you only reach 2/3 capacity.

Hey guys - nice win against X last night. St. John's breaks even on the Garden at 8,000 tickets. After 8,000, it's all profit to the school. They only lose money if sales are under 8,000. In Mullin's last two seasons as coach, they averaged over 15k for their Garden games and sold out almost all in 2019. It ebbs and flows with how the team is. Not sure what the break even point is for UConn at XL but assume it would be less?