Rentschler Field managers urge state to upgrade the stadium | The Boneyard

Rentschler Field managers urge state to upgrade the stadium

Status
Not open for further replies.
This slanted piece really ticked me off. Let's show the Rent before kickoff with only a thousand people inside. (Not that there were many more who came in...). Let's report from empty bleachers. Let's talk about the crappy football being played. Let's report the score of the last miserable game.

Then when we're done building our case, let's put up a poll of opinion on whether the state should reinvest in Rentschler.

There are more events held at Rentschler every year than home football games. In fact, UConn football is a small percentage of the total event schedule.

When you build a three hundred thousand dollar house, you do so understanding that as time goes on, you'll be replacing things...appliances, flooring, roof, windows. Why is it surprising that a ten million dollar stadium would need the same after almost 20 years?

Less talking, more caulking.
 
I don't think it was slanted. If anything it was fair. The building needs improvements regardless of how the team is playing and how many fans they currently draw. The stadium and the FB program have a resemblance. After the Fiesta Bowl every possible wrong decision that could be made has been made culminating with bringing back Edsall on what they thought was a bargain contract. What that cheap "investment" created was further rusting of the beams of the program. Do it right.
 
noeynox said:
I don't think it was slanted. If anything it was fair. The building needs improvements regardless of how the team is playing and how many fans they currently draw.
Expand ...
I'm with @HuskiesFan1014 on this one. It felt like they did things intentionally to make it appear worse. You said yourself it needs improvements regardless of the team play, so why did they go through the exercise of showing this year's futility? The improvements are for now and the future. Will they revisit this story if we average 30K next year? I know we won't unless we hire Saban, just making an absurd example.
As for the stadium, fix everything that needs to be fixed. As far as actual upgrades, I'd do the wi-fi as they noted. Everything else, including the TV electronics, will have to wait if it can. Keep the true "upgrades" to a minimum.
 
I find it slanted, but in a different way.

CRDA is coming in, asking for "upgrades," when many of these things are deferred maintenance items that have been left to rot.
Using the XL center is a hoot, too, given that the same thing happened, with the same people.

F the CRDA. Upgrade the Rent by getting them out first.
 
.-.
Fairfield_1st said:
I'm with @HuskiesFan1014 on this one. It felt like they did things intentionally to make it appear worse. You said yourself it needs improvements regardless of the team play, so why did they go through the exercise of showing this year's futility? The improvements are for now and the future. Will they revisit this story if we average 30K next year? I know we won't unless we hire Saban, just making an absurd example.
As for the stadium, fix everything that needs to be fixed. As far as actual upgrades, I'd do the wi-fi as they noted. Everything else, including the TV electronics, will have to wait if it can. Keep the true "upgrades" to a minimum.
Expand ...
The onfield play is PART of the story. In order for the building to become profitable you cannot continue with this level ineptitude. If they wanted to go cheap after Diaco the move had to be go hire someone for 450k, with aspirations of using the job as a stepping stone. Instead you gave someone 4x as much to basically go through the motions and as bad as things looked at the end of Diaco's time here the perception of the program is worse now.
 
I know hindsight is 20/20, and i actually thought Edsall could get to 6-6, but us fans aren't paid to make the decisions. The decision makers have to have a vision and a plan. Losing our spot in the BCS left us floundering and no one here has known how to move forward from that.
 
noeynox said:
I know hindsight is 20/20, and i actually thought Edsall could get to 6-6, but us fans aren't paid to make the decisions. The decision makers have to have a vision and a plan. Losing our spot in the BCS left us floundering and no one here has known how to move forward from that.
Expand ...
Out of our three bed coaching hires, Pasqualoni was the worst decision on paper, yet he left the team in the best position. The idea was that his connection to Connecticut high school coaches would help us keep decent kids home. Apparently, decent kids also want competent engaged coaching. Who knew?

Diaco, on paper, was exactly the guy you want to hire. He was a young, up and coming coordinator, fresh off a Broyles award, who appeared to be ready to take the next step. Instead, the Peter principle raised it’s head, And we got a coach who was not only professionally incompetent, but, in all likelihood legally incompetent as well.

The Randy Edsel move was and attempt to get us back to competent football. The notion was that the idiot Diaco left us so gutted that we needed someone who could build the program back up to competency and handed off to our next coach. The fact FUCHCRE was willing to do it cost effectively made it more attractive while we paid off lunatic Diaco. It turned out that Randy’s three yards and a cloud of dust offense, which was a throwback during his first tenure here, was unworkable in the modern era. Further, Randy refused to adjust and handcuffed his assistants. Finally, a guy who never was all that likable, ended up being even less likable in his second tenure, driving off the people who might otherwise have been able to help him make a success of it.

All of that got us to the current point where Connecticut football is a steaming pile of dog poop. We have to get this next hire right. Based on our history, I’m not entirely confident that we will. Still, I feel like Benedict understands football, understands that this hire will need the basis that his tenure here will be judged and is invested in getting right.

We will see.
 
Last edited:
Needs an upgraded tenant...ba dum bump.

I'm sure there is maintenance necessary, but you'd be a fool to do a major overhaul while the team is this bad. The most expensive thing is the scoreboard and those are brand new.

IMO the Rent is in pretty good shape for it's age. Any upgrades should be for a next gen fan experience that would be wasted on our current attendance levels.

It's not like the Rent has a ton of moving parts. It's a giant concrete bowl. The only update I see is the bench seats. When it comes time to replace those, make sure the new ones don't blind or fry you from the reflected sun when they are empty.
 
pepband99 said:
I find it slanted, but in a different way.

CRDA is coming in, asking for "upgrades," when many of these things are deferred maintenance items that have been left to rot.
Using the XL center is a hoot, too, given that the same thing happened, with the same people.

F the CRDA. Upgrade the Rent by getting them out first.
Expand ...
I'll just win one of the multibillion dollar lotteries and buy the stadium and give it to UConn. Problem solved.
 
.-.
DoctorWho85 said:
I'll just win one of the multibillion dollar lotteries and buy the stadium and give it to UConn. Problem solved.
Expand ...

Just build a new one in Storrs. If you name it “The Boneyard” you will be my hero.

(It occurs to me that that would be an ironically fitting name for the Rent since it is, apparently, where coaching careers go to die.)
 
Connecticut is so fricking backwards. Most other states jump at the chance build something cool because it equals economic development and a higher quality of life.

They are building a $70M women’s soccer stadium in downtown KC. No stupid editorials no hand wringing. CT has WWIII over a minor baseball stadium.

And people wonder why we can’t have a good football team! We can’t even do basic periodic maintainenance and updates on a tiny stadium.
 
SubbaBub said:
Needs an upgraded tenant...ba dum bump.

I'm sure there is maintenance necessary, but you'd be a fool to do a major overhaul while the team is this bad. The most expensive thing is the scoreboard and those are brand new.

IMO the Rent is in pretty good shape for it's age. Any upgrades should be for a next gen fan experience that would be wasted on our current attendance levels.

It's not like the Rent has a ton of moving parts. It's a giant concrete bowl. The only update I see is the bench seats. When it comes time to replace those, make sure the new ones don't blind or fry you from the reflected sun when they are empty.
Expand ...

Scope of services for the Stadium Building Assesment are in this link (Section III on pg 4):

Addendum #1
Addendum #2
Addendum #3

… “Need to have”, “nice to have”, “wow - that would be really cool to have”.
 
ZooCougar said:
Connecticut is so fricking backwards. Most other states jump at the chance build something cool because it equals economic development and a higher quality of life.

They are building a $70M women’s soccer stadium in downtown KC. No stupid editorials no hand wringing. CT has WWIII over a minor baseball stadium.

And people wonder why we can’t have a good football team! We can’t even do basic periodic maintainenance and updates on a tiny stadium.
Expand ...

Yes...but the owners of the Kansas City NWSL are paying for it....privately funded...

The owners signed a 50-year lease for a 7-acre site in Kansas City, with the $70 million construction set to be privately funded through the ownership group. Chris Long, who co-owns the franchise with his wife Angie and Kansas City Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes’ fiancée Brittany Matthews, said the investment was focused on the players and fans of the newly-franchised team.
 
.-.
OK, I'm about to save the State a lot of money:

1) Civil - Paving, walkways, underground utilities. They're fine. minor and spot maintenance fixes only.

2) Architectural - After 20 years, the tower and some of the outbuildings probably need some roof repairs/replacements. Some of the entry/exit door systems may need replacements (non-security related). Interior finishes is decoration. Not spending a lot of time inside, it either needs a refresh or it doesn't, but it's not super critical in most back of house areas.

3) Security - Are we talking facial recognition, ticketing systems, lot cameras? Do we really need a huge investment here? Probably not. I could see upgrading that are vulnerable to online attacks.

4) IT, networking, video, and sound. This should be the main focus as ours were subpar on opening and even moreso now.

5) Food service equipment. Depending on replacement cycle, it may be at the end of it's service life and an opportunity to enhance the fan experience. Need to huddle with the operations team on what their model will be going forward. Continue with generic stadium fare or franchise out the venues that will customize space. Given the number of dates and attendance, I'm ruling out the latter.

6) Field - turf, irrigation, and drainage. The field is fine anything above regular maintenance is a waste of money.

7) Field and parking lot lighting. I'm sure there are some lot lights that need replacing and perhaps a dark zone or two given the number of configuration changes over the years, but this should be minimal. We don't use most of the lots anymore.

The field lighting is another story, it sucks, as if they ran out of money in 2003. Time to fix it. This is probably one of the most bush league aspects of the Rent and has been for a long time.

8) MEP-HVAC. There should not need to be major upgrades here unless things are broken. The energy audit is likely driving this. A hard look as the cost savings of an upgrade is necessary.

9) Life Safety - Emergency power, fire alarms, sprinklers. Whatever maintenance is necessary for code compliance. This should not be a huge refit.

10) Elevators. Same as 9. Shouldn't need more than regular maintenance.

As for operational efficiencies. This isn't necessary, we won't have to deal with large crowds in the near future so anything learned would be theoretical. If this is about how to use few people (or fewer concession stands) due to the reduced crowds, people need to be fired. They don't belong here.

If you want to pay me to do a walk through to point out specifics, I will for a nominal fee. Tell me where to send the bill.
 
J187Money said:
I would just go buy a small university in Texas and upgrade it to FBS - much easier :)
Expand ...
Ironically, this is the appropriate answer. They built a stadium 30 miles from campus because residents were irate about potential traffic 6 days a year. Regardless of conditions, the admin is just as likely to fill a stadium in Texas as they are in Hartford.
 
lsuconnman said:
Ironically, this is the appropriate answer. They built a stadium 30 miles from campus because residents were irate about potential traffic 6 days a year. Regardless of conditions, the admin is just as likely to fill a stadium in Texas as they are in Hartford.
Expand ...
this is not an accurate statement, at all. We built in East Hartford hard on the heels of the plans to build a stadium in Hartford for the patriots. The legislature was reactionary and jumped on the offer of “free land“ in East Hartford. It was a dumb decision. it had nothing to do with the Peoples’ Republic of Mansfield opposing a stadium being built in stores, though they undoubtedly would have.
 
.-.
I just don't understand why people keep saying we can't fill our stadium because of the location. That's absurd. We used to fill it all the time when we were slightly above average. We have been horrible for 10 years. that's why it isn't full. Major football schools like FSU have abysmal attendance when they suck---and they've never sucked like us. If we win, the Rent will fill right back up.
 
Hoophound said:
I just don't understand why people keep saying we can't fill our stadium because of the location. That's absurd. We used to fill it all the time when we were slightly above average. We have been horrible for 10 years. that's why it isn't full. Major football schools like FSU have abysmal attendance when they suck---and they've never sucked like us. If we win, the Rent will fill right back up.
Expand ...
Agreed and the Rent is gives us a great home-field advantage when it’s packed.

I guess the argument people are making is that making it easier for college kids to get to the game makes it easier to fill the stadium. They aren’t wrong but we did pack the place during Edsal’s first stint and will do it again as soon as we start putting out a competent product.
 
pepband99 said:
I find it slanted, but in a different way.

CRDA is coming in, asking for "upgrades," when many of these things are deferred maintenance items that have been left to rot.
Using the XL center is a hoot, too, given that the same thing happened, with the same people.

F the CRDA. Upgrade the Rent by getting them out first.
Expand ...
Quite frankly, we can agree on that.
 
noeynox said:
I don't think it was slanted. If anything it was fair. The building needs improvements regardless of how the team is playing and how many fans they currently draw. The stadium and the FB program have a resemblance. After the Fiesta Bowl every possible wrong decision that could be made has been made culminating with bringing back Edsall on what they thought was a bargain contract. What that cheap "investment" created was further rusting of the beams of the program. Do it right.
Expand ...
I don’t either. If you had a car with 180,000 miles on it that needed $10,000 in repairs, would you fix it or just buy a new one. I say build a new stadium and do it right this time.
 
CONN78SEJ said:
I don’t either. If you had a car with 180,000 miles on it that needed $10,000 in repairs, would you fix it or just buy a new one. I say build a new stadium and do it right this time.
Expand ...
For this to be analogous, they need to say how much in repairs are needed or you need to identify the car. The site cost $91 Million ($128 Million in 2020 dollars) to develop. Do you think this study will come back with a recommendation for $30-50 Million in renovations? I hope not.

To me, this is the most important part of the article:
"While the emphasis may be on UConn football, Swords and other experts say a more holistic approach is necessary to attract a wide variety of events and accommodate different kinds of crowds.

“Football at this level will not make enough money to supply the school with what it needs, therefore the stadium must be a destination venue to attract bids to host other types of events,” Patty Raube Keller, program director of sports administration at Boston College."

I recall the clause in the UConn lease is that UConn will pay the first $250,000 in losses, only provided that each and every other event is in the black. Whoever at the CDRA agreed to the second part of that clause should dangle from section 241 by their thumbs. This hamstrings bookings to virtually no end. Who can guarantee 100% that a given event will make money on it's own before the event? They should be able to book concerts, festivals, private occasions, and other events such as Monster Jam, without UConn hanging 1/4 $mil over them. They are losing $500k with that stipend already. Greater volume, carrying even significantly less certainty means astronomically better odds of being in the black as a whole, even if some dates lost money on the event level.

UConn can still be the main anchor tenant, but if they are the only tenant (which is basically the case), the CDRA should just turn management over to them.
 
Last edited:
Husky25 said:
For this to be analogous, they need to say how much in repairs are needed or you need to identify the car. The site cost $91 Million ($128 Million in 2020 dollars) to develop. Do you think this study will come back with a recommendation for $30-50 Million in renovations? I hope not.

To me, this is the most important part of the article:
"While the emphasis may be on UConn football, Swords and other experts say a more holistic approach is necessary to attract a wide variety of events and accommodate different kinds of crowds.

“Football at this level will not make enough money to supply the school with what it needs, therefore the stadium must be a destination venue to attract bids to host other types of events,” Patty Raube Keller, program director of sports administration at Boston College."

I recall the clause in the UConn lease is that UConn will pay the first $250,000 in losses, only provided that each and every other event is in the black. Whoever at the CDRA agreed to the second part of that clause should dangle from section 241 by their thumbs. This hamstrings bookings to virtually no end. Who can guarantee 100% that a given event will make money on it's own before the event? They should be able to book concerts, festivals, private occasions, and other events such as Monster Jam, without UConn hanging 1/4 $mil over them. They are losing $500k with that stipend already. Greater volume, carrying even significantly less certainty means astronomically better odds of being in the black as a whole, even if some dates lost money on the event level.

UConn can still be the main anchor tenant, but if they are the only tenant (which is basically the case), the CDRA should just turn management over to them.
Expand ...
That clause always struck me as so odd. Why should UConn have to subsidize the bad scheduling of the CDRA?
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,535
Messages
4,581,099
Members
10,491
Latest member
7774Forever


Top Bottom