So Michigan doesn't want to play at the Rent

[Palatine]

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.

Of course we have leverage. god grief whta a bunch of Nancys.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Of course we have leverage. god grief whta a bunch of Nancys.

What leverage do we have?

There is a buyout in the contract. If Michigan wants to pony up the cash - they will.

What do you not understand?

 

[businesslawyer]

What do you not understand?

How much space do we have for the answer?

 

[mattp]

I must have read from at least 20 posters that Michigan can more than double the buyout with a home game against a 1-AA. If that were truly the case, then what are they waiting for???? The longer they wait, the more difficult it will be to schedule. Am I the only one who thinks if Michigan thought 2M was chump change they would have bought out the back end of the deal before UCONN got back on the plane in Ann Arbor. State University Athletic Departments still need to be fiscally responsible and the OOC road schedule for Michigan in 2013 is only UCONN. I think that all the recent chatter is simply posturing and reconnaissance. Michigan may very well be pushing for a neutral site game ... but why wouldn't they? What do they have to lose by asking???

i agree, i think if they were going to buy out they would have. they've obviously had the discussion. if the numbers made sense they'd have made the change. just because they're telling us they'd prefer a neutral site game doesn't mean they're not going to be playing at the Rent in 2013

 

[freescooter]

By the way, this has nothing to do with Rentschler Field. If you go back and read the first comments by the Michigan AD, he makes it clear that Michigan doesn't want to play road games. Plain and simple. they'll play Notre Dame and they'll play 1 PAC 12 game because they'll be obligated to play one every other year by the B-10-Pac12 contract. And they'll play the occassional neutral site game. But that is the extent of their interest in playing outside the confines of Michigan Stadium. the Renstschler Field capacity issue has become an excuse, but it isn't the reason Michigan is thinking about dropping this game. If the capacity doubled between now and 2013, they still would be balking at playing a road game. Part of it was that they will make more money playing Whatsamatter U at home, though a $2 million buyout will cut into that by a good amount, and part of it is an "ego" thing for want of a better discription. They see other big name schools angling to play 8 home games and they want the same. UCONN needs to make sure that the talking heads don't try and make us the bad guy because we won't play them in New Jersey. Simple as that. If they want to move the game, our answer should be "No." I fthey want to renegotiate the buyout, we should quote Jim Calhoun and say "Not one dime." I want to play Michigan. I want to beat Michigan. But I am not willing to bow down to Michigan. This will be big news when and if it happens, and I guarentee that Michigan will try and make it look like they were oh so willing to work it out and play us in New Jersey and UCONN was unreasonable. UCONN needs to be just as clear that a deal is a deal and Michigan chose to buy out the game, not UCONN. And that Michigan agreed to play in East Hartford, not East Rutherford. When they didn't want to do that, Michigan agreed to pony up the $2 million and not one dime less. Pretty simple. As an old politician I used to work for used to put it, friends is friends, but this is bidness.

 

[uc1974]

This is not a complicated situation. Michigan cancels the deal and starts from $2,750,000 to $3,000,000 in the hole. This is the $2,000,000 payout plus what they would have to pay Central SE Idaho to play at Michigan Stadium. They also lose some high ground, not worth much these days it seems. Michigan has no chance of losing to UConn. I don't know what Michigan makes for a home game against a slug but I would guess it's more than $3,000,000. A win and smallish (relative) profit. Michigan doesn't cancel the deal, it has no payout, it could lose to UConn. Michigan retains the high ground and makes no money. UConn and Michigan are not playing at a neutral site. Which one gets chosen? Not a clue.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Freescooter you're dead wrong. Games get bought out and series are cancelled in college football. It happens.

Why the hell would the college football world care that Michigan bought out a game, with a previously agreed upon buyout and feel bad for UConn?

College football fans don't give a that our conference was raided twice and we got screwed, but somehow the pity party for UConn is going to start because we lost a home game?

People aside from Michigan fans and Uconn fans couldn't give a about our scheduling agreements and buyouts.

 

[Palatine]

This is not the same as buying out Western Michigan.

It costs three million to pass go.

This effects Michigan's future schedule. BCS teams will be wary of scheduling a home/home series with Michigan unless they get Michigan at home first.

UConn has some powerful carrots in the athletic department including series with our men and women basketball teams. Heck, a home and home with our women would produce the only sell out UM women's team ever has. A home/home with the men's basketball team means a healthy TV payday.

Warde has many arrows in his quiver. What's amazing to me is how little Boneyarders think of their own athletic program. There are posters comparing UConn to Buffalo. There are posters that are guaranteeing a Michigan win. There are posters who think that the season ticket holders should be screwed and the game moved. And this is the UConn board! YIKES!

 

[freescooter]

This is not the same as buying out Western Michigan.

It costs three million to pass go.

This effects Michigan's future schedule. BCS teams will be wary of scheduling a home/home series with Michigan unless they get Michigan at home first.

UConn has some powerful carrots in the athletic department including series with our men and women basketball teams. Heck, a home and home with our women would produce the only sell out UM women's team ever has. A home/home with the men's basketball team means a healthy TV payday.

Warde has many arrows in his quiver. What's amazing to me is how little Boneyarders think of their own athletic program. There are posters comparing UConn to Buffalo. There are posters that are guaranteeing a Michigan win. There are posters who think that the season ticket holders should be screwed and the game moved. And this is the UConn board! YIKES!

Pal you and I rarely agree on anything, but you're right on the money with this one!

 

[freescooter]

Freescooter you're dead wrong. Games get bought out and series are cancelled in college football. It happens.

Why the hell would the college football world care that Michigan bought out a game, with a previously agreed upon buyout and feel bad for UConn?

College football fans don't give a that our conference was raided twice and we got screwed, but somehow the pity party for UConn is going to start because we lost a home game?

People aside from Michigan fans and Uconn fans couldn't give a about our scheduling agreements and buyouts.

Of course CBS won't interrupt its Election night coverage to report it for heaven sakes, but within college football circles it will be significant, if only for the money involved. And I'm sorry, but UCONN can't flinch on this. Playing the game in Nutely New Jersey would be flinching.

 

[Husky68]

What leverage do we have?

There is a buyout in the contract. If Michigan wants to pony up the cash - they will.

What do you not understand?

On the same token, what leverage does Michigan have. It must either play or pay up. Must be a date certain by which they must assert their right to pay (even Uconn wouldn't write a contract without a "by" date). Time is tickn' on Michigan to decide. Uconn can just look for the check in the mail up until the "by" date, if "no checkie then Michigan Men better show up on the scheduled date". Uconn should not have signed the contract unless visit by Michigan and $2mm were both ok outcomes after the initial game in Michgan.

I'd schedule Alabama at their place in a heartbeat if the back end was a return game or $2mm (maybe hold out for $3mm given the SEC contract for TV).

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Of course CBS won't interrupt its Election night coverage to report it for heaven sakes, but within college football circles it will be significant, if only for the money involved. And I'm sorry, but UCONN can't flinch on this. Playing the game in Nutely New Jersey would be flinching.

Nutley, NJ? Is that supposed to be some slight on Giants Stadium? Brand new billion dollar stadium with I believe the 3rd biggest capacity in the NFL.

Yeah, playing the 2nd best college football brand in America in the shadows of NYC on a game on ABC most likely is a horrible move for the program.

Better to play hardball and get a home game vs a FCS or MAC oppponent. That will really show the college football world you don't mess with UConn.

This game needs to be played. I don't care where. If there's even a 1% chance it can be played at The Rent then we need to push for that as much as we can. However if its a choice of Michigan or some garbage opponent - we have to take Michigan.

This may be shocking to some - but after a decade of FBS football UConn can't dictate terms outside of what is contractually agreed upon to teams like Michigan.

 

[pj]

This may be shocking to some - but after a decade of FBS football UConn can't dictate terms outside of what is contractually agreed upon to teams like Michigan.

This may be shocking to some, but we have contractually agreed upon terms with Michigan. And they involve playing at Rentschler Field.

Of course terms have to be agreeable. These contract terms were agreeable when they were negotiated and if Michigan regrets them now, they're free to make proposals for alteration to UConn. If they want to play in Giants Stadium, they could exercise the East Hartford game termination clause for $2 mn and then negotiate a new game on the same date at Giants Stadium. I expect UConn would be amenable.

 

[Dougsts]

I just can't figure our why so many folks in here get a hard on when somebody mentions playing in an NFL stadium. Play it at home or not at all.

 

[BlueMAB]

UConn has some powerful carrots in the athletic department including series with our men and women basketball teams. Heck, a home and home with our women would produce the only sell out UM women's team ever has. A home/home with the men's basketball team means a healthy TV payday.

I think you overstate this, you aren't alone, I think a lot of posters overstate this.

1) they play in the Big 10. they aren't struggling for attention/respect/quality (or what is perceived as quality) opponents. we can ridicule the big 10, but it isn't the pac 12. it's easily up there with the big east and acc as one of the top conferences. they also have the big 10/acc challenge.

2) even mentioning a home and home with the women is a complete waste of time. you think they'd even consider sacrificing a home game against anyone, or a nuetral site football game in NY/Boston media market for a women's basketball game? Can we stick to reality?

3) the payday from a home/home with the men's team is nothing compared to the payday from another home football game. they have the BTN and the highest conference revenues in the country (right?). they don't need to be concerned about TV revenues over an additional home football game and those revenues.

Those are not powerful bargaining chips. They barely even register as noteworthy from Michigan's perspective.

There are merits to both arguments. I'm not sure either is right or wrong, for me it's not as easy a choice as some make it out to be.

 

[CTMike]

I just can't figure our why so many folks in here get a hard on when somebody mentions playing in an NFL stadium. Play it at home or not at all.

Not a hard on. Just that, in the scheme of things :

Playing them at Home > Playing them in an alternate location > Not playing them at all

 

[BlueMAB]

I just can't figure our why so many folks in here get a hard on when somebody mentions playing in an NFL stadium. Play it at home or not at all.

Same reason that many were excited about the SNY deal. Exposure into major metropolitan markets to help grow the brand.

 

[brasssbonanzaa]

How some here cannot grasp the concept that if we give in and play them on a neutral site that we'll never get a big time home game ever again, is beyond me.

 

[Dann]

Get Michigan to the rent. Everyone is happy.

Michigan can buyout for 1.5(we lower it) and agree to play the game at giants. No fox because at that point it's all about NYC.

Michigan can buyout for 2 as the contract is and invite us back to Michigan for the game where we collect another nice check. Game is on abc great exposure etc.

Michigan buyout 2, and gets a Mac team at home. We are left looking for a team to add. Our ball teams will never be on the same court so help me god(NCAA game...). We then cal up mich st or ohio st and get a bball and fall series going where we get home game first.

 

[BlueMAB]

How some here cannot grasp the concept that if we give in and play them on a neutral site that we'll never get a big time home game ever again, is beyond me.

One could make the argument that if we beat both Tennessee and Michigan at home that we'll never get a big time home game ever again too.

 

[FAIRTIDES]

i agree, i think if they were going to buy out they would have. they've obviously had the discussion. if the numbers made sense they'd have made the change. just because they're telling us they'd prefer a neutral site game doesn't mean they're not going to be playing at the Rent in 2013

Time for what, I guess, will be considered heresy, traitorous and seditious, but here goes.

Almost on day-one, Ms. Herbst expressed the importance of UCONN becoming more recognizable and more popular in NYC and even Fairfield County. The same feelings have been expressed by contributors to this board. Since Ms. Herbst took office NYC inroads have become even more important as a factor that would add value to UCONN's tool box.

To be honest, had I been at the arguing table during negotiations, I would have proposed having the game in NYC (no Meadowlands please) from day-one. Now, it seems, UCONN is being handed a huge opportunity to promote and sell the hell out of itself and, finally, to play Broadway. It's an opportunity worth a lot more than $2.0 Million and certainly worth more than an under-attended game, against a less than attractive pyrhicc victory team, at the Rent. I would actually recommend that UCONN schedule one game a season, in NYC, (and adjust ticket scenarios) against very attractive and well-known schools. Again, I look at playing MI, or any other "big-time" opponent in NYC, as a significant opportunity to promote the school in an important, and very necessary, market.

It's not enough to say NYC is really important. NYC wants to touch, kick tires and test drive. It takes work, not stealth.

Be gentle, please.

 

[brasssbonanzaa]

One could make the argument that if we beat both Tennessee and Michigan at home that we'll never get a big time home game ever again too.

Far lower risk of that happening. Did teams stop scheduling the basketball program when we jumped from mid level Big East team to national powerhouse, or even when we regularly started beating the likes of Syracuse and Georgetown? If we beat them, that means the program is gaining more legitimacy and moving up. Teams that perform well consistently tend not to have trouble scheduling games, unless they're someone like a Boise, stuck in the middle of nowhere. If we cave and set a precedent that we'll do anything to play a big time program, including playing them at a neutral site on their terms, where their fans can buy up 50% of the tickets will mean no one will ever come play us at home, with that option on the table.

 

[Dougsts]

Same reason that many were excited about the SNY deal. Exposure into major metropolitan markets to help grow the brand.

I guess I don't fully buy into playing a "home" game for MI, ND or anybody else in NJ gives us that much of a boost. (It will not be a home game for UCONN) I do think that if it takes away real home games from us, there will also be some folks who just might give up on their season tickets.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I wish the title of this thread would go away. Michigan, has not, and by eveyrthing I can gather, has no intention, of paying the backout fee on the contract. They've already looked at that option, and they're still scheduled to play.

 

[brasssbonanzaa]

Time for what, I guess, will be considered heresy, traitorous and seditious, but here goes.

Almost on day-one, Ms. Herbst expressed the importance of UCONN becoming more recognizable and more popular in NYC and even Fairfield County. The same feelings have been expressed by contributors to this board. Since Ms. Herbst took office NYC inroads have become even more important as a factor that would add value to UCONN's tool box.

To be honest, had I been at the arguing table during negotiations, I would have proposed having the game in NYC (no Meadowlands please) from day-one. Now, it seems, UCONN is being handed a huge opportunity to promote and sell the hell out of itself and, finally, to play Broadway. It's an opportunity worth a lot more than $2.0 Million and certainly worth more than an under-attended game, against a less than attractive pyrhicc victory team, at the Rent. I would actually recommend that UCONN schedule one game a season, in NYC, (and adjust ticket scenarios) against very attractive and well-known schools. Again, I look at playing MI, or any other "big-time" opponent in NYC, as a significant opportunity to promote the school in an important, and very necessary, market.

It's not enough to say NYC is really important. NYC wants to touch, kick tires and test drive. It takes work, not stealth.

Be gentle, please.

No. Just no. And if not at the Meadowlands, where? Yankee Stadium after the baseball season ends and it's 40 degrees outside? Yeah, we'll really fill that up. PLAY AT HOME. Why does everyone here think that just because we play a game at Yankee Stadium or the Meadowlands that we're going to all of a sudden start claiming NYC? We have to be a legitimate program first before anyone there will start to care! Build up the program at home, become a big time winner, THEN start playing the games in NYC where our fans there and from CT will flock to buy up all of the tickets because they can't wait to see our team play. Anyone who thinks that a game against Michigan at the Meadowlands would not have 30-40K Michigan fans in the stadium is putting their head squarely in the sand.