Random thoughts at the Bye | The Boneyard
.

Random thoughts at the Bye

A

AllHusky

Joined
Sep 14, 2015
Messages
2,252
Reaction Score
7,396
Nothing coherent here, just what comes to mind during my daily BY scans

1. With Joe Fagnano here courtesy of Nick Charlton, will we ever recruit(HS or Portal) a QB at the level of Dan O again? Me-Praying but have doubts. Excited about Farrar

2. If offered a FB only in the MAC would we or should we take it? Me-No

3. On Campus Stadium ever? Me- Nope, that's Revisionist History. See Hartford Civic Center for proof

4. Mora, Sammis and Brock here in 2026? Me-Yes, the coordinators need another year before they can fly the coop, Mora and Benedict help them stay

5. Final record-9-3+bowl Me-OC and DC's bringing their groups together while developing themselves as well. We are dangerous by years end
 
My thoughts to your thoughts:

1. Yes, but he will have to have the right opportunity. And keeping him for Year 2, 3, etc. will be difficult.
2. No. Should not take any MAC or Pac-X offer, financially it’s a bad move when you consider cost of travel vs. income from contract.
3. No. Even if you built a 50k on-campus stadium the towns of Storrs and Coventry would find ways to gatekeep/eliminate tailgating and all the fun. Would be very BC-like.
4. Yes.
5. Agree.
 
Regarding the QB question, it’s tough as A.) they need real game reps to develop & B.) guys with experience get gobbled up in the portal C.) its difficult to “rotate in” someone at QB, so you’re pretty much relegated to blow outs for changes to gain exp.

Two more positional thoughts:
1.) The O-line has been so good the past few years, we’re almost starting to take their play for granted. This year’s version hasn’t missed a beat despite losing both tackles. Hoeh is the only one set to graduate this year, so it’s looking like we will continue the consistency in the near future.

2.) While they seemed to have gotten their act together recently. Most of the DL will be gone next year. There are some underclassmen who play, but I think we will need to hit the portal hard there.
 
To be in a power conference we’ll need an on-campus stadium. It’s feasible (just ask GhatGPT - it actually puts together a great plan for it) and shows our commitment.

Doesn’t need to be 50k - 35 works fine.

It’s not our job to provide an economic boost for a city 45 minutes from our campus.
 
DawgEnjoyer said:
Regarding the QB question, it’s tough as A.) they need real game reps to develop & B.) guys with experience get gobbled up in the portal C.) its difficult to “rotate in” someone at QB, so you’re pretty much relegated to blow outs for changes to gain exp.

Two more positional thoughts:
1.) The O-line has been so good the past few years, we’re almost starting to take their play for granted. This year’s version hasn’t missed a beat despite losing both tackles. Hoeh is the only one set to graduate this year, so it’s looking like we will continue the consistency in the near future.

2.) While they seemed to have gotten their act together recently. Most of the DL will be gone next year. There are some underclassmen who play, but I think we will need to hit the portal hard there.
Expand ...
#2. I have been looking at Defensive losses after this year with trepidation, as it seems like it’s going to be deja VU all over again.
 
Last edited:
Mora4Prez said:
To be in a power conference we’ll need an on-campus stadium. It’s feasible (just ask GhatGPT - it actually puts together a great plan for it) and shows our commitment.

Doesn’t need to be 50k - 35 works fine.

It’s not our job to provide an economic boost for a city 45 minutes from our campus.
Expand ...
Not going to happen.
 
Mora4Prez said:
It’s not our job to provide an economic boost for a city 45 minutes from our campus.
Expand ...
And it's not the state's job to buy UConn another stadium. Or build up the roads to get there. Besides, college football is for the alumni not the undergrads.
 
Mora4Prez said:
College football teams are primarily for the students. We deprive them of the opportunity to easily and safely see their school play on campus in order to serve secondary stakeholders. It’s not cool to do that to the kids.
Expand ...

That’s so cute. You think college football is about the student body. You probably also believe that it’s about taking care of student athletes, Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny.

Sorry for being a dick, but I’m just too jaded at this point.
 
uconndogs said:
That’s so cute. You think college football is about the student body. You probably also believe that it’s about taking care of student athletes, Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny.

Sorry for being a dick, but I’m just too jaded at this point.
Expand ...
I mean yeah I would like to think the primary purpose is the students. 1) I presume we were all students at one point and that’s why we’re fans. 2) attracting and retaining students through a positive athletic experience is financially smart both in the near term and long term when they choose whether or not to donate TO athletics 3) yeah you are being kinda a dick.
 
uconndogs said:
That’s so cute. You think college football is about the student body. You probably also believe that it’s about taking care of student athletes, Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny.

Sorry for being a dick, but I’m just too jaded at this point.
Expand ...
Cmon, u know EVERY athletics decision that the universities, conferences, and NCAA make, is FIRST AND FOREMOST about the WeLlBeInG oF sTuDeNt AtHlEtEs.

I know this because they say it every time they announce the next change.
 
Last edited:
CTBasketball said:
My thoughts to your thoughts:

1. Yes, but he will have to have the right opportunity. And keeping him for Year 2, 3, etc. will be difficult.
2. No. Should not take any MAC or Pac-X offer, financially it’s a bad move when you consider cost of travel vs. income from contract.
3. No. Even if you built a 50k on-campus stadium the towns of Storrs and Coventry would find ways to gatekeep/eliminate tailgating and all the fun. Would be very BC-like.
4. Yes.
5. Agree.
Expand ...
I generally agree though I would seriously consider a football only membership from the AAC or the PAC 12. Not the MAC.

An on-campus stadium would be great. It wouldn’t be 50,000. Probably in the 30-40000 range. I guess the low end.
 
The stadium should have been built on the campus, but it wasn't. Pittsburgh isn't on campus, UCLA isn't on campus, nor is the University of Miami.
 
uconnbill said:
The stadium should have been built on the campus, but it wasn't. Pittsburgh isn't on campus, UCLA isn't on campus, nor is the University of Miami.
Expand ...
Would have gotten $0M for an on-campus stadium before the Rent was built. No one is privately self-funding a stadium, nor will the state. Not even in the distant future.
freescooter said:
I generally agree though I would seriously consider a football only membership from the AAC or the PAC 12. Not the MAC.

An on-campus stadium would be great. It wouldn’t be 50,000. Probably in the 30-40000 range. I guess the low end.
Expand ...
We spent almost $10M on annual travel as an athletic department during the AAC days. Football travel was roughly half of that. Assuming travel costs are up, you’d need probably over $10M from the football-only conference to make it a smart financial move. I don’t think you find that anywhere.
 
freescooter said:
I generally agree though I would seriously consider a football only membership from the AAC or the PAC 12. Not the MAC.

An on-campus stadium would be great. It wouldn’t be 50,000. Probably in the 30-40000 range. I guess the low end.
Expand ...
Yes, if we were to get a football only invite from a top level G-5 conference we would take it. Many of you have your head in the sand as to how much harder it’s going to be to schedule P-4 opponents in the next few years.
 
CTBasketball said:
Would have gotten $0M for an on-campus stadium before the Rent was built. No one is privately self-funding a stadium, nor will the state. Not even in the distant future.

We spent almost $10M on annual travel as an athletic department during the AAC days. Football travel was roughly half of that. Assuming travel costs are up, you’d need probably over $10M from the football-only conference to make it a smart financial move. I don’t think you find that anywhere.
Expand ...
Where did you come up with those travel numbers? If we had 6 travel games that would approximate $800,000 per trip. 100 hotel rooms @ $200 per is only $20,000. Meals might be another $20,000. Charter flight perhaps $150,000. That’s a long way from $800,000.
 
CTBasketball said:
Would have gotten $0M for an on-campus stadium before the Rent was built. No one is privately self-funding a stadium, nor will the state. Not even in the distant future.

We spent almost $10M on annual travel as an athletic department during the AAC days. Football travel was roughly half of that. Assuming travel costs are up, you’d need probably over $10M from the football-only conference to make it a smart financial move. I don’t think you find that anywhere.
Expand ...
Rentschler Field cost $90M so the state was willing to pay. It's a moot point now and at the time it seemed like a good decision financially and logistically.

UConn Football does have some regional games at Syracuse, DE, Buffalo, BC but it also has to travel to Rice and FAU. The AAC is not a bad conference with Army, Navy, Temple, USF, ECU, Memphis for competition and location. I don't think travel is a big issue for football only. The AAC wouldn't let us keep football there 6 years ago so I don't think it would work now. I'm surprised if there haven't been discussions between the AAC and UConn. But it may become necessary to join a conference very soon.

uconnbill said:
The stadium should have been built on the campus, but it wasn't. Pittsburgh isn't on campus, UCLA isn't on campus, nor is the University of Miami.
Expand ...
I hate when people compare UConn's situation to Miami and UCLA. just stop. Those are major cities. And the folks at Pittsburgh regret tearing down Pitt Stadium

1760017022716.png
 
businesslawyer said:
Yes, if we were to get a football only invite from a top level G-5 conference we would take it. Many of you have your head in the sand as to how much harder it’s going to be to schedule P-4 opponents in the next few years.
Expand ...

I think this is right. DB cut the right deal to get out of the AAC to protect the basketball programs. Sustainability of the football program as an independent is still a question. On the other hand, I don't think major college athletics are on a sustainable path for the vast majority of athletic department including many in the P4. There will be major upheaval at some point and that may present UCONN and lots of others a much more rational approach to funding athletics.
 

Online statistics

Members online
313
Guests online
5,322
Total visitors
5,635
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
164,672
Messages
4,405,971
Members
10,221
Latest member
abbbb


.
..
Top Bottom