So Michigan doesn't want to play at the Rent

[uconnell]

We help them out and this is what we get. They wanted to buy out the contract last year. Surprise, surprise. Read Dez's blog today.

 

[Dann]

this game has uconn in a very tuff spot. i can see the arguement alot of ways and understand posters here taking sides. but i think we have to stand up and hold tight here. we CAN NOT let michigan run us to giants stadium or the razor. its play us at the rent like your supose to, buy out the game for 1.5 million not 2 and invite us back to michigan that same weekend for the game(some of you may not like this but its a smart option for us to pitch if we are at the point of ink on a check and a game at the rent 100% isn't happening), or buy out the game for 2 million(the contract) and you will never see a uconn basketball, soccer or baseball team on the same field as you so help me..... enjoy watching us play mich st....your choice michigan.

you CAN NOT let michigan boss you around. then tenn does the same and now we will never get a above average home occ game as result. have to stand tall here. have to.

i would rather us get another ooc home game if michigan buys out then play in a different stadium becuase we can not tell the college world that we are to small.

and also why i'm ranting. i love these contracts where we get great fball games with big names and we throw in bball and soccer and baseball games or w/e. but have we learned our lesson now? make the schedule so that the fball games happen first and the last game to be played as part of that contract is our mens bball team visiting the other team with a buyout $$. that will keep more in check.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Hold on a second, let's stop this crap. We've got a scheduling arrangement with Michigan, and nothing has happened that isn't already common knowledge, and Michigan hasn't done anything unexpected.

Here's the quotes from the Courant today.

http://courantblogs.com/uconn-football/props-to-uconn-sticking-to-its-guns-regarding-michigan/


I'm not going into time to find the links, but it's been common knowledge that the moment that Michigan changed leadership in their athletic department, (I believe they hired a new AD - over a year ago now, at about the same time Dick Rod was fired.....this game at UConn was an issue being discussed by the new leadeership. Common knowledge at the time that they were oging to look at the ocntracts and see what a buyout would be. This shouldn't have been surprising to anyone, now in 2012, that Michigan would be interested in a buyout of a 2013 game at Connecticut,back in 2011, especially after a transition in leadership in the athletic department involving both the AD and head football coach. If they watched the game film, they realize that if things had been differently managed, and a bounce here or there, UConn is program that they can potentially lose to, not a cupcake, especially on the road (obligatory former head coach, Michigan game comment)......

Anyway, they did look at the buyout, and they're still scheduled to play in Sept 2013 at Rentschler, as of now in June 2012, just over a year away. IF the game was going to be bought out, my guess is it would have been bought out a while ago now. ANything can happen in the next 12 months, but I highly doubt it will be bought out at this time.

Next.....our AD, like the AD before him, is firmly committed to having that contract honored and play the game at Rentschler. As it should be.

Michigan, again, common knowledge, is interested in playing football in New York City, as have the likes of Penn State, USC, Notre Dame, etc.. This game, if it was moved, would provide that opportunity to Michigan, without having to do anything to lift a finger, or change anything at all with future schedules when it comes to scheduling on their part.

Again - UConn side, in 2013, not interested.


My position, as it was in the past when this discussion surfaced, is that it is in our best interest, is to keep that 2013 game at home, and at the same time, while talking to Michigan, to do what we can to extend a scheudling relationship with Michigan football beyond the one time home and home and done. New York City, is a leverage we'd have at our disposal, to extend that relationship.

I'm excited about Michigan coming to Rentschler, just as excited, as I was about taking the field at the Big House. If it ends there, that would suck. Hopefully it doesn't.

THere's another discussion aroudn here about Warde Manuel and his Michigan game comments.

My interpretation of everything that's been documented, is that as of right now, when it comes to football scheduling with Michigan, the only thing we've got - is that game at Rentschler in 2013 - as of right now - and hopefully there will be more games against them in the future.

 

[Waquoit]

Dez added, "Now, there were several UConn officials at the breakfast today and regarding this is a prominent one told me “We can’t do that. The game is too important to people here to play it anywhere else but Rentschler.”

Good, that's the only way to be on this issue. Imagine if this official said something dopey like, "We're thinking about moving it to the Meadowlands because we would rather play our home game against a name team two states away than play Bowling Green at home."

 

[businesslawyer]

If you read these posts, it's not clear people are dealing with reality. We can not make Michigan play at the Rent. The only thing we can make Michigan do is pay us $2M if they elect not to. Period.

If they come to the Rent, fine. But between playing Michigan in the Meadowlands and not playing them, taking $1M of the $2M and paying Marshall to come to the Rent and pocketing the extra money, I would much rather play Michigan in the Meadowlands.

Ultimately, Manuel has to do the best he can with the hand he was dealt.

 

[uconndogs]

I doubt $2 mil is enough. My bet is this game gets played somewhere else or not at all. See this all the time in contracts. Break-up clauses are usually the last things negotiated and they can often be the most important. Hope I'm wrong.

 

[Husky68]

If you read these posts, it's not clear people are dealing with reality. We can not make Michigan play at the Rent. The only thing we can make Michigan do is pay us $2M if they elect not to. Period.

If they come to the Rent, fine. But between playing Michigan in the Meadowlands and not playing them, taking $1M of the $2M and paying Marshall to come to the Rent and pocketing the extra money, I would much rather play Michigan in the Meadowlands.

Ultimately, Manuel has to do the best he can with the hand he was dealt.

Not a single post here states that Uconn can make Michigan play at the Rent, nor is it implied by anyone.

 

[mattp]

IIRC in previous writings the Michigan AD said it wouldn't make fiscal sense to buy the game out, so they wanted us to move it(which we didnt do). i don't recall exactly what the buy out was, but if they said it didn't make fiscal sense then, it probably won't now. KIM they don't just need to pay the buyout, but also the 750k or so pay SWMichiganTech to come play the role of patsy. i think we'll be ok here.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I hope my post didn't come off that way BL. I fully grasp the concept that if Michigan doesn't want to play at UConn, there's a price to pay, and that's that. I just think that it's a lot less likely that they'll buy the game out b/w now and sept 2013 as time goes by, than it was back in 2011,when they brought in new leadership to the athletic department and football program, AND that it's pretty naive to think that buying out the game, with all that has happened in the past 3 years aroudn college football, the big 10 conference, and their own scheduling in that conference...that buying out the game is somethign that Michigan would NOT have realistically considered by now. Of course they've considered buying it out. THey were talking about buying it out in Michigan over a year ago. It hasn't happened. I hope it doesn't, and I"m more confident now in 2012, that they won't buy it out, than I was in June 2011.

 

[Waquoit]

If you read these posts, it's not clear people are dealing with reality. We can not make Michigan play at the Rent. The only thing we can make Michigan do is pay us $2M if they elect not to. Period.

If they come to the Rent, fine. But between playing Michigan in the Meadowlands and not playing them, taking $1M of the $2M and paying Marshall to come to the Rent and pocketing the extra money, I would much rather play Michigan in the Meadowlands.

Ultimately, Manuel has to do the best he can with the hand he was dealt.

Though we may not be as sharp as you bl, that doesn't mean we aren't dealing with reality. We get it, Michigan can pay their way out. But it's not like we have zero hand here. What I see as leverage (albeit slight), is the UM self-image as a blueblood. Are they the type of institution back out of a deal after getting what they wanted or do they have integrity and class? They can press to have the game moved out of The Rent and UConn can acquiesce. Joint decision. Or UConn can have some self-respect and insist on having the game in Connecticut. UM would be in the position of classlessly (is that a word) backing out of the game unilaterally. I understand that you would much rather play Michigan in the Meadowlands. I'm glad the powers that be at UConn don't agree.

 

[PRHusky]

Would it be better to play vs Michigan at either NJ or MA than vs a MAC school at The Rent? Of course it would. But this is a business and the smart business decision is to hold firm or get paid. If we allow Mich to change the venue of the game, we will never be able to play any of the "big schools" at home OOC.

 

[businesslawyer]

Would it be better to play vs Michigan at either NJ or MA than vs a MAC school at The Rent? Of course it would. But this is a business and the smart business decision is to hold firm or get paid. If we allow Mich to change the venue of the game, we will never be able to play any of the "big schools" at home OOC.

Here is the problem with that analysis: the landscape has changed considerably since we signed the deals with UT and Michigan. I am not sure either of those institutions would sign those deals today, and I don't think you can assume that more of those deals will be coming so long as we hold firm

I hope you are right and I am wrong. But money is much more of a brazenly open factor than it was just a few years ago.

 

[Carl Spackler]

The game stays at Rentschler in 2013. I would love to see the Michigan scheduling arrangement extended, and ideally at home, but if NYC had to come into play to make it happen, I'm not against it. But you never know. They're not going to want to come back if we kick the out of them, so just in case, I hope that if an extension is in the works, it gets done before 2013.

 

[Nostical]

But this is a business and the smart business decision is to hold firm or get paid.

Football is more like show business. You may be a great singer, but until you have a big enough following or enough star power, you won't be smart booking any huge stadium venues. One of the ways to get better known is to expose your talent to a much larger audience ---as the opening act for the star headliner at one of those venues. Or you can become indignant about never being an "opening act" and stay home and play the smaller local place trying to become better known via word of mouth or Youtube postings.

While not the most ideal arrangement, if the choice is no Michigan or playing Michigan in New York, I'd opt for NY. When we have a few more hit songs, we can add seats to our place and see if we can be a headliner and attract the throngs on our own. In the meantime let's not let unfounded hubris get in the way of smart decision making.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

We have no leverage - NONE.

If Michigan wants to buy the game out they will.

If Michigan will still plays us at Giants Stadium we jump on that in a heartbeat.

You can grasp reality and realize playing one of the true bloods is good for the program or you can try and be tough guys and play Toledo at the Rent.

This isn't just a big name opponent - its Michigan. Arguably the 2nd most popular team in America behind ND. You want UConn to be big time - you make these games happen, wherever they want them to be.

Think Boise State got respect by playing Montana State at home?

No - they went to DC and played VT, they went to Georgia to play the Dawgs.

College football isn't fair and right now were on the side getting the shaft. People that want to take some stance about UConn plays at the Rrent only - get off your high horse and just play the damn game wherever and win.

 

[thatguyed]

Let the decision live with Michigan. We hope to keep the game at the Rent or they buy it out - full price - no discounts - if they absolutely don't want to play us here. If the former, we're all buddies and we then coolaborate to put future games in play, including the possibility of football in NY. If the latter, none of their teams are welcome within 30 miles of Storrs or Hartford for the next 10 years and we fill the open football date as best we can.

Pretty simple - out of our hands.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Here is the problem with that analysis: the landscape has changed considerably since we signed the deals with UT and Michigan. I am not sure either of those institutions would sign those deals today, and I don't think you can assume that more of those deals will be coming so long as we hold firm

I hope you are right and I am wrong. But money is much more of a brazenly open factor than it was just a few years ago.

This is another reason we need that Hockey East invite ASAP. Our leverage in these deals is based on other sports, women's hoops possibly most of all. But let's get the home football games first, and start the hoops games on the road. I get BL's point that Michigan in NJ is better than a MAC team at the Rent, it's true. But I think Dan is right that we should try to call the bluff on this and play chicken to the very end, just to show that we can't be bullied. Then consider a Meadowlands game when discussed up front. Maybe 2 in Ann Arbor one in NJ and one at the Rent...in the next deal.

 

[Dann]

jim calhoun played some hard ball and look where we are now in bball.

cincy bended for ok visiting the nfl stadium instead of the on campus spot (its different because of the distance/state there vs here) but what did that win them? they are barley even talked about in b12 talks.

 

[businesslawyer]

This is another reason we need that Hockey East invite ASAP. Our leverage in these deals is based on other sports, women's hoops possibly most of all. But let's get the home football games first, and start the hoops games on the road. I get BL's point that Michigan in NJ is better than a MAC team at the Rent, it's true. But I think Dan is right that we should try to call the bluff on this and play chicken to the very end, just to show that we can't be bullied. Then consider a Meadowlands game when discussed up front. Maybe 2 in Ann Arbor one in NJ and one at the Rent...in the next deal.

I'm fine with playing chicken until the end. Unfortunately, the $2M gave us leverage when the deal was signed, but it gives us much less leverage today. That is the reality of the runaway inflation that has hit college football.

 

[brasssbonanzaa]

The game stays at Rentschler in 2013. I would love to see the Michigan scheduling arrangement extended, and ideally at home, but if NYC had to come into play to make it happen, I'm not against it. But you never know. They're not going to want to come back if we kick the out of them, so just in case, I hope that if an extension is in the works, it gets done before 2013.

There is no "scheduling agreement" with Michigan, it was a one off home and home deal. You honestly think they're going to continue playing us yearly? They've already got a yearly game with ND, and they're going to fill up the other third of their open games playing us? Not a chance.

As for the other poster's point about Cincinnati playing OU at Paul Brown, that's a completely different bear, that's a different stadium in the same city a few miles down the street from campus, we're talking about moving the game out of state, 2+ hours away. If we theoretically played in a very small on campus stadium and there was an NFL place 15 minutes from campus and OU said we'll play you there, that's a deal I'd take in a heartbeat. If they said, we'll play you 150 miles from your campus in a facility we know you can't fill with your own fans and we'll end up with a 50/50 crowd split, that's a definite no.

 

[mcs333]

One thing in our favor for playing the game at the Rent is that Michigan already has 7 home games schedule for 2013. We are their only OOC road game. They play Western Mich., Akron and ND at home. This year they also have 7 home games with only ND on the road. Note they play 4 road and 4 home conference games. My guess is the game will be played at the Rent.

 

[Srqhusky]

Next time we sign a home n home. We go first

 

[pj]

I think playing marquee games in Giants Stadium is a great idea. But those can be done as one-offs, not as the "home" part of a home-and-home. Syracuse is playing teams like USC in the Meadowlands and correct me if I'm wrong, they're not traveling to California to make the game happen. The fact is, teams with national followings want the exposure in NYC. While there they want to play teams with followings in NYC, and UConn is among the top 7-8 (Mich, Ohio State, ND, Penn State, Rutgers, UConn, maybe Alabama, maybe Texas, maybe Syracuse) in NYC fan following. So games will be available. The smart thing, I think, is to hang firm, get the game at the Rent or collect $2 mn, and look to schedule a marquee game at Giants Stadium or Yankee Stadium each year without giving away 2 games to get it, which would cut into the home calendar.

 

[pj]

Next time we sign a home n home. We go first

The marquee teams are not going to let UConn go first, nor should UConn make that a sticking point. The option value of withdrawing is worth far more to the big-name program, and UConn will get the best contract terms if it assigns that right to the party who values it most highly. This is business 101.

 

[Jerry27]

The marquee teams are not going to let UConn go first, nor should UConn make that a sticking point. The option value of withdrawing is worth far more to the big-name program, and UConn will get the best contract terms if it assigns that right to the party who values it most highly. This is business 101.

we go first in the tennessee series