So Michigan doesn't want to play at the Rent

[Adios]

Times Square is one of the most visited tourist attractions in the US. What do people want to see there? Besides loads of bright lights, I have no idea. But the point is that it IS good to advertise there.

 

[businesslawyer]

People here live on false sense of bravado. It is many's reason for being.

 

[huskymedic]

Times Square is one of the most visited tourist attractions in the US. What do people want to see there? Besides loads of bright lights, I have no idea. But the point is that it IS good to advertise there.

 

[CTMike]

Clearly, UConn should advertise on his thong.

 

[whaler11]

We played that Miami team in 2001, in Miami. Never got a return game from them.

I'm looking forward to the return game from Michigan.

You didn't get a return game because UConn was required to play a free road game against every team in the Big Eat for free as part of being admitted to the league. You might have noticed that VPI and Boston College never played return games as well. UConn never played them all because the league fell apart.

 

[auggie22]

Jimmy - do you think Nike knows what it's doing when it comes to marketing and promotion?

Think about this, and then understand that Oregon football, was very successful for many years on the west coast. THe problem was, they played football in Oregon. THey virtually never made it anywhere in the popularity contest that developed in the 1990s for the college football rankings. In 1994 they won the Pac 10, went to the rose bowl, but never cracked the top 10 in the polls.

Two years later, when the BCS is created, and the polls become so damn important, and a national championship game (in name) is actually going to be played for the first time come 1998 - a certain fan of Oregon football, who happens to own Nike..... starts a TWO YEAR plan of advertising Oregon football..........where? 3,000 miles away - in the middle of New York City.

Two Years - of new york city bill boards advertising Oregon football in Manhattan, starting in the late 1990s.

I'm not going to post his quotes, b/c I've done it before. I'll paraphrase - if you want to be recognized, you have to advertise where it counts.

In 2000, (our first season as a 1-A program, 3-8) Oregon won the Pac 10 again, but this time was ranked in the top 10 in the country, as a tri-champion of the league.

IN 2001, Oregon won teh pac 10 again, and was ranked #2 iun the country in the popular media polls. AND got snubbed for the BCS championship game, in place of #4 ranked Nebraska - who lost to Miami.....the calculations of the BCS system were changed after that.

Two years of dropping big bucks on New York City publicity is what made Oregon football a nationally recognized product, and what made the controversy around Miami's national title in 2001, so important, and changed the BCS the first time.

IF you don't agree? Fine. The big east leadership at the time, was oblivious about it all too, being interviewed while a 250 tall billboard of Joey Harrington was on the building across from the entrance to MSG.

I don't know how much of this is true, but I will endorse any argument that leads to scheduling Michigan in NYC or anywhere else, assuming we cannot get them to come to E. Hartford.

 

[auggie22]

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!

Exactly. Doesn't that say something about how extreme your position is, that here, on the UCONN board, there are countless people who advocate for a game with Michigan on their terms, then none at all.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I don't know how much of this is true, but I will endorse any argument that leads to scheduling Michigan in NYC or anywhere else, assuming we cannot get them to come to E. Hartford.

Every word of it is true. In the summer of 2002, while the BCS leadership was meeting to restructure itself, because #2 in the country after regular season Oregon, was left out of the national championship game, that pitted #1 Miami vs. #4 Nebraska (Nebraska was also NOT a conference champion - when Miami and Oregon were).....and Miami won. The Big 12, the Pac 10, the entire college football world was ready to scrap the BCS, and it's ranking systems, Miami was getting raked over the coals, because they were champions of the Big East - a supposedly weak conference, and Nebraska played the title game as a non-champion of the big 12, (hello texas/oklahoma) and Oregon at #2 sat out in the west and didn't play. As the BCS ranking systems were being restructured in meetings that summer....

Mike Tranghese was interviewed in the New York Times about the state of college football, the Big East conference position in it as the current reigning national champion AND the two year plan that Nike had sponsored to advertise Oregon football in New York City....asked quote" what to you think about advertising Oregon 3,000 miles away in the heart of Big East country?"

Tranghese' response, instead of defending his cnference champion and national title, and dumping on a BCS system that had put Nebraska into game instead of Oregon.......said.....I you not....

Well, I'm more concerned about the decision that St. JOhn's is making about the names on the backs of their players basketball jerseys."

Miami was gone to the ACC by spring 2003.

But that kind of leadership is all over now in the conference. The conference nearly died for it to happen. We have new leadership moving forward, and a whole new outlook, and a realistic grasp now on the intercollegiate landscape, unfortunate that it took so long, but once again, if not for the way the big east handled things over the years, UConn would still be at the level of our former new england partners in intercollegiate athletics.

 

[Carl Spackler]

BTW:

The restructure of the BCS system that happened in 2002, certainy has benefitted the SEC, when it comes to how certain coaches polls and the like were factored in.

THe leadership in the SEC had, and has, no qualms about making sure that their votes for rankings systems were biased toward their own conference.

What happens this summer with the BCS is very important. It's essential that the leadership of the Big East, and the other former non-AQ conferences go in there with a full and complete understanding of college football nationally from 1984-2012.

I think they will.

Now back to this ridiculous thread.

Once again, I wish the title wuld go away. Michigan has not paid the backdoor exit fee for this game, they have looked at the option since changing leadership in both their athletic department and football program, and they're still scheduled to play at Rentschler in Sept. 2013, as of June 2012.

The game is on - at Rentschler field.

As for NYC, I believe it would behoove UConn, to start building the necessary connections to turn a NYC venue into a place where UConn can play football, and have such that it's a scheduling tool in our tool box, that does't have to come at the cost of home game at Rentschler.

 

[Carl Spackler]

You didn't get a return game because UConn was required to play a free road game against every team in the Big Eat for free as part of being admitted to the league. You might have noticed that VPI and Boston College never played return games as well. UConn never played them all because the league fell apart.

No sh(t.

 

[whaler11]

No sh(t.

Well your post implies your lack of understanding as to why Miami didn't return the game.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Every word of it is true. In the summer of 2002, while the BCS leadership was meeting to restructure itself, because #2 in the country after regular season Oregon, was left out of the national championship game, that pitted #1 Miami vs. #4 Nebraska (Nebraska was also NOT a conference champion - when Miami and Oregon were).....and Miami won. The Big 12, the Pac 10, the entire college football world was ready to scrap the BCS, and it's ranking systems, Miami was getting raked over the coals, because they were champions of the Big East - a supposedly weak conference, and Nebraska played the title game as a non-champion of the big 12, (hello texas/oklahoma) and Oregon at #2 sat out in the west and didn't play. As the BCS ranking systems were being restructured in meetings that summer....

Mike Tranghese was interviewed in the New York Times about the state of college football, the Big East conference position in it as the current reigning national champion AND the two year plan that Nike had sponsored to advertise Oregon football in New York City....asked quote" what to you think about advertising Oregon 3,000 miles away in the heart of Big East country?"

Tranghese' response, instead of defending his cnference champion and national title, and dumping on a BCS system that had put Nebraska into game instead of Oregon.......said.....I you not....

Well, I'm more concerned about the decision that St. JOhn's is making about the names on the backs of their players basketball jerseys."

Miami was gone to the ACC by spring 2003.

But that kind of leadership is all over now in the conference. The conference nearly died for it to happen. We have new leadership moving forward, and a whole new outlook, and a realistic grasp now on the intercollegiate landscape, unfortunate that it took so long, but once again, if not for the way the big east handled things over the years, UConn would still be at the level of our former new england partners in intercollegiate athletics.

Do honestly think that Oregon's rise is tied to some billboard in NYC? For real?

 

[Carl Spackler]

Well your post implies your lack of understanding as to why Miami didn't return the game.

If Miami were in the conference when we were supposed to join in 2005, we would have gotten a home game on the schedule - conference home game. Sorry I didn't hold your hand on that conclusion.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Do honestly think that Oregon's rise is tied to some billboard in NYC? For real?

NO - they actually have had a perennial conference champion competiting, and winning team. That's pretty important. Please think a little bit. What I"m saying is that their rise to being a nationally recognized program, high up in the popularity polls, and in the media....is absolutely directly related to the millions and millions of dollars that were dumped into two year intensive advertising campaign that was based in Manhattan.

I laid it out pretty clear. Mid 1990's. Pac-10 Champion. Never cracked the top 10 in the media and polling rankings. Two year advertising happens. 2000-2001. Pac-10 champs. Top 5 in the country in the media polls. Rise as high as #2 in 2001 in the media polls, get snubbed for a national championship game in the BCS system - for a Nebraska team with a lot more history of national publicity.

Look - publicity and the media is a huge part of college football, and has been since day 1 in the 1800s. The only way it ever changes is with a true post season based on competition on the field to determine a champion. THe BCS isn't it, and the first ever so called "national championship" game was played in 1998. Before then - for over 110 years, the media annointed the national champ. Sports purists, that's why they don't like college football. Who says some schmuck up in the broadcast booth gets to have a say in who the best team down in the field is in any givenn year? But it is what it is.

And Oregon, after getting on the winning track in the late 80s and early 1990s again, recognized it, realized that they could win the Pac 10 conference, and go to the rose bowl, and never be ranked higher than 10 in the country in the polls, b/c of their media market presnece, and never be in champoinship contention for the BCS title to begin in 1998, unless they were ranked higher in the polls.

So, they've got the guy with the funding to do it, and the knowledge and experence it recognize all of it, and they put a two year plan together of advertising in the heart of the media capital of the world. Drop MILLIONS AND MILLIONS on it. They played the system, and they played a title game recently, that without the national media profile they built, they most likely never get to.

 

[Waquoit]

People here live on false sense of bravado. It is many's reason for being.

A false sense of bravado is many's reason for being? Talk about a high horse. The view up there must be great.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Jimmy - try to take what I just wroteabout publicity and Oregon football, and apply it to UConn. THe basic fact is that publicity adn the media is an essential part of college football (whter you like that or not - irrelevant) - it's fact.

Then look at what the leadership of htis university has done as far as publicity and media relations for the entire existence at 1-A from 2000-2010.

We've won a lot of games, and played on some big stages, just like oregon did in the late 80s and early 1990s, but we have just barely, barely - begun to actually play the game.

Our leadership has changed. The Big East leadership has changed - we're looking good for the future.

I fully expect that come fall, we're going to see a MAJOR media blitz, long term, about big east football, and all those things that an ESPN blogger pointed out about the reality of big east football on the field.

and again - Michigan is scheduled to play at Rentschler field in 2013, and nothing has changed, nor does it appear it will.

 

[freescooter]

Some people on here are so beyond clueless, it's almost hard to fathom how they get out of the bed in the morning.

Nobody is advocating the game be voluntarily moved to Giants Stadium. We all want the game at The Rent. Stop insinuating that is the debate - it's not.

Michigan is either going to play us at The Rent, buy the game out, or try and work out an arrangement where we play at Giants Stadium.

It's not 'giving in' if we move the game to NYC. It will be making the best of the situation.

If Michigan says we'll buy you out for $2M or play at Giants Stadium, you have two options:

a) Play the 2nd most storied college football team in America, in NYC and have a nationally televised game.
or
b) Play Toledo at Rentschler Field on SNY.

For the absolute life of me I cannot fathom how a fan of UConn Football would select the ladder.

Again, how is playing Michigan in Giants Stadium "small time" and playing a home game vs. Toledo "big time" ? Swallow this false sense of bravado and just go out and do what's best for the program.

I haven't had season tickets as long as some of you ( only 8 years ) but guess what? If I 'have' to go to Giants Stadium and get to watch UConn take on Michigan instead of another boring game that does nothing for UConn's national brand - I'm going to be pretty pumped up about.

You win your way into the big boy club by beating name brand teams. Period.

This is an opportunity for that. In case you haven't been paying attention to the new scheduling arrangements between the 'big boys' and the new bowl lineups - these opportunities may come few and far between.

You have the general concept right, but your simply wrong on the details...you win your way into the "big boy club" as you call it by winning football games...year after year. Getting to the point where 8-4 is considered a rebuilding year. It doesn't matter all that much who you play...Bosie State has done that, and Virginia Tech is the poster child for that approach. In fact, Beamer had a term for it...Scheduling for success...And while a regular season win against Michigan in September would be nice and exciting for UCONN fans, the wins you want are over name opponents in bowl games. The win over Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl is more important in boise being taken seriously than any 5 other wins they've had. Had UCONN somehow figured out a way to beat Oklahoma in our Fiesta Bowl trip, we'd be on a very different plane, and likely in a very different conference, right now.

 

[BlueMAB]

Had UCONN somehow figured out a way to beat Oklahoma in our Fiesta Bowl trip, we'd be on a very different plane, and likely in a very different conference, right now.

You were mostly right, but then you make a crazy statement like this.

Pitt got embarrassed in their BCS game, and Saracuse hasn't even sniffed one. If you were right about this, Louisville would have been invited to the ACC over Pitt or Cuse.

Cincy, Ville, UConn all have had more recent success by far than Cuse/Pitt but were not invited to the ACC. One BCS bowl win doesn't get you an invite.

And please don't bring up Utah or TCU. They both made a lot of sense in terms of market, performance, investment, etc, etc, etc. They weren't invited based on a singular BCS win. It took the Big East being decimated before we considered Boise State, and they were passed over for Utah by a conference that is a more natural fit. They also won their conference 9 out of the last 11 years.

 

[whaler11]

If Miami were in the conference when we were supposed to join in 2005, we would have gotten a home game on the schedule - conference home game. Sorry I didn't hold your hand on that conclusion.

Yet you related it to Michigan... So that makes a lot of sense.

 

[freescooter]

You were mostly right, but then you make a crazy statement like this.

Pitt got embarrassed in their BCS game, and Saracuse hasn't even sniffed one. If you were right about this, Louisville would have been invited to the ACC over Pitt or Cuse.

Cincy, Ville, UConn all have had more recent success by far than Cuse/Pitt but were not invited to the ACC. One BCS bowl win doesn't get you an invite.

And please don't bring up Utah or TCU. They both made a lot of sense in terms of market, performance, investment, etc, etc, etc. They weren't invited based on a singular BCS win. It took the Big East being decimated before we considered Boise State, and they were passed over for Utah by a conference that is a more natural fit. They also won their conference 9 out of the last 11 years.

here's the reason that UCONN, and Boise State for that matter, are different from Syracuse and Pittsburgh. VaTech got embarassed too, and Clemson got not just embarrassed but humiliated...But the difference is that UCONN and Boise State are virtual unknowns in the world of big time football. UCONN would have vaulted into the national consciousness as a football program with that win, just as Boise did with its win. But we have no history...Pitt, agains twhom we're 4-4 since joining the Big East, is being hailed as a great addition. Syracuse, agaisnt whom we're 6-2, is considered a good one. Yet on the field UCONN is at least as good, arguably with a higher upside than either one, certainly than Syracuse. As for why Boise State was skipped over in favor of Utah by the PAC, there are a host of reasons, including that Utah was seen as "or equal" due to its recent performances. And it was better located, had better fans and better markets, and frankly a far better institution.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Here's the thing - there was an chance of playing the SEC or Big12 champion in the current BCS model. Right now our champion is going to be playing the ACC #3 in the Champs Sports Bowl-which we'll share with ND.

Point being even if we do have a 10 win season we still be facing a 9-3 Georgia Tech as opposed to an 11-1 Texas or USC.

By all indications Michigan is going to be a pretty damn good team as Hoyke has turned the program around. Getting an opportunity to get on the field with a top 10 ranked blue blood program just isn't going to happen much with 9 game conf schedules and scheduling alliances between conferences.

And yet people would rather be tough guys and demand the buyout or nothing and play some no name school.

Beating Michigan in 2013 won't make UConn a national name in football. But you beat a top 25 ranked Michigan team anywhere it becomes the all time signature win in UConn Football history. Right now we have an unranked ND road win, a 7-5 USCe win, a ranked win vs USF and an unranked WVU win.

A ranked Michigan win trumps all of those! Yet people don't want to budge because apparently "scheduling for success" wins vs Kent State are more important and being tough guys with our contract mean more to them.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Here's the thing - there was an chance of playing the SEC or Big12 champion in the current BCS model. Right now our champion is going to be playing the ACC #3 in the Champs Sports Bowl-which we'll share with ND.

Point being even if we do have a 10 win season we still be facing a 9-3 Georgia Tech as opposed to an 11-1 Texas or USC.

By all indications Michigan is going to be a pretty damn good team as Hoyke has turned the program around. Getting an opportunity to get on the field with a top 10 ranked blue blood program just isn't going to happen much with 9 game conf schedules and scheduling alliances between conferences.

And yet people would rather be tough guys and demand the buyout or nothing and play some no name school.

Beating Michigan in 2013 won't make UConn a national name in football. But you beat a top 25 ranked Michigan team anywhere it becomes the all time signature win in UConn Football history. Right now we have an unranked ND road win, a 7-5 USCe win, a ranked win vs USF and an unranked WVU win.

A ranked Michigan win trumps all of those! Yet people don't want to budge because apparently "scheduling for success" wins vs Kent State are more important and being tough guys with our contract mean more to them.

Huh? What bowl lineup are you looking at?

 

[Husky68]

Here's the thing - there was an chance of playing the SEC or Big12 champion in the current BCS model. Right now our champion is going to be playing the ACC #3 in the Champs Sports Bowl-which we'll share with ND.

Point being even if we do have a 10 win season we still be facing a 9-3 Georgia Tech as opposed to an 11-1 Texas or USC.

By all indications Michigan is going to be a pretty damn good team as Hoyke has turned the program around. Getting an opportunity to get on the field with a top 10 ranked blue blood program just isn't going to happen much with 9 game conf schedules and scheduling alliances between conferences.

And yet people would rather be tough guys and demand the buyout or nothing and play some no name school.

Beating Michigan in 2013 won't make UConn a national name in football. But you beat a top 25 ranked Michigan team anywhere it becomes the all time signature win in UConn Football history. Right now we have an unranked ND road win, a 7-5 USCe win, a ranked win vs USF and an unranked WVU win.

A ranked Michigan win trumps all of those! Yet people don't want to budge because apparently "scheduling for success" wins vs Kent State are more important and being tough guys with our contract mean more to them.

:

Why is it being a tough guy to say : we wrote a contract which requires Uconn to perform 1st (which it did) and now you need to perform per the contract? Michigan has a choice, play at Uconn home field of pay $2mm. Seems pretty easy for Michigan to decide and Uconn needs to just wait for the "by" date to see what it needs to do. Would Michigan be acting like a tough guy by saying either play in NYC or we buy you out?

Would you as Uconn have signed a contract with Michigan to play there and then in NYC instead of the contract signed?

Winning one game doesn't make you a force in football, winning consistently does. If Uconn is good enough to beat a good Michigan team next year there should be plenty of notches on Uconn's belt for 2013, if not, who cares if upset a big name school and then go 3-4 in the BE (sounds like USF the year they beat Auburn).

 

[TouchdownHusky]

Michigan must be made to honor its contract and play the game at Rentscheler. The game is TOO important to the perception of UConn football to ignore how damaging this would be. If need be-take it to court. Hopefully some judge will have the fortitude to compel Michigan to honor its agreement or endure a extremely stiff remedy, for example:

Michigan can either play UConn at Rentschler Field on that date or NOT PLAY at all. The game would be forfeited to UConn with the following stipulations: 1.) UConn could go about scheduling a replacement game (giving them a shot at 13 regular season wins and a guarantee of no worse than a 1-12 record) AND Michigan would furthermore be prohibited from scheduling a replacement twelvth game. Bottom line for the Wolverines . . . play UConn at Rentschler or forfeit the game and be restricted to an 11 game regular season that year. How bad could a trip to East Hartford be.

The only exception to this should be IF Michigan uses its "clout" and gets UConn a BiG Ten acceptance in return for UConn voluntarily agreeing to allow them to opt out of the commitment. Then . . . they'll have to come to East Hartford every few years anyway.

 

[FAIRTIDES]

Do honestly think that Oregon's rise is tied to some billboard in NYC? For real?

I didn't know about the totality of Nike's NYC campaign. Assuming Carl is correct in his account, Nike must have spent tens of millions on NYC based ads. You can discount their impact, but I think it's relevant that the advertising and promotion are closely juxtaposed to the beginning of Oregon's prominence on the national scene.

I also think it's appropriate to point out that at least one of the PAC-12's expansion announcements was made in NYC by the PAC-12 Commissioner. According to the NYC Newspapers, he had no other reason to be in NYC.

By the way, the agency to which Nike awarded the project did not win by simply saying "because it's NYC." It (the agency) had to provide rational business data and assumptions that supported the desired and expected result. Nike is many things, none of which are labeled "stupid." I can say it though. Nike was successful because it's New York City.

 

[businesslawyer]

Michigan must be made to honor its contract and play the game at Rentscheler. The game is TOO important to the perception of UConn football to ignore how damaging this would be. If need be-take it to court. Hopefully some judge will have the fortitude to compel Michigan to honor its agreement or endure a extremely stiff remedy, for example:

Michigan can either play UConn at Rentschler Field on that date or NOT PLAY at all. The game would be forfeited to UConn with the following stipulations: 1.) UConn could go about scheduling a replacement game (giving them a shot at 13 regular season wins and a guarantee of no worse than a 1-12 record) AND Michigan would furthermore be prohibited from scheduling a replacement twelvth game. Bottom line for the Wolverines . . . play UConn at Rentschler or forfeit the game and be restricted to an 11 game regular season that year. How bad could a trip to East Hartford be.

The only exception to this should be IF Michigan uses its "clout" and gets UConn a BiG Ten acceptance in return for UConn voluntarily agreeing to allow them to opt out of the commitment. Then . . . they'll have to come to East Hartford every few years anyway.

With all due respect, you are not near reality here. The contract says that Michigan can buy out the return trip to the Rent for a specified number of dollars. UConn can not ask a judge to enforce the contract and make Michigan play at the Rent, because the contract allows Michigan to buy its way out of the obligation..

 

[TouchdownHusky]

Well then maybe Uconn can ask Vermont to reinstate football and get that whole Yankee Conference thing going again. This whole business is so not what people were led to believe way back when UConn was trying to generate support for upgrading. People were not jumping at the vision of UConn v Western Michigan or UConn v Kent State. UConn may need to get some Orrin Hatch types (worked for Utah) that will lobby congress hard to look into all this nonsense if the Huskies can't get a better crack at becoming a legitmate D-1/BCS-esque program. And for its part, Congress would do well to spend less time on whether Bobby Bonds's and Mark Mac's (of the A's) records were steriod induce or should not be allowed to count because poor old Hank Aaron didn't use 'em and spend time on a growing oligopoly TV and a shrinking number of college programs.

 

[businesslawyer]

Well then maybe Uconn can ask Vermont to reinstate football and get that whole Yankee Conference thing going again. This whole business is so not what people were led to believe way back when UConn was trying to generate support for upgrading. People were not jumping at the vision of UConn v Western Michigan or UConn v Kent State. UConn may need to get some Orrin Hatch types (worked for Utah) that will lobby congress hard to look into all this nonsense if the Huskies can't get a better crack at becoming a legitmate D-1/BCS-esque program. And for its part, Congress would do well to spend less time on whether Bobby Bonds's and Mark Mac's (of the A's) records were steriod induce or should not be allowed to count because poor old Hank Aaron didn't use 'em and spend time on a growing oligopoly TV and a shrinking number of college programs.

Congress should be involved because UConn signed a contract that gave Michigan a buy out right? Congress should be involved because UConn can't develop a passing game? Are you o.k?

 

[FAIRTIDES]

Michigan must be made to honor its contract and play the game at Rentscheler. The game is TOO important to the perception of UConn football to ignore how damaging this would be. If need be-take it to court. Hopefully some judge will have the fortitude to compel Michigan to honor its agreement or endure a extremely stiff remedy, for example:

Michigan can either play UConn at Rentschler Field on that date or NOT PLAY at all. The game would be forfeited to UConn with the following stipulations: 1.) UConn could go about scheduling a replacement game (giving them a shot at 13 regular season wins and a guarantee of no worse than a 1-12 record) AND Michigan would furthermore be prohibited from scheduling a replacement twelvth game. Bottom line for the Wolverines . . . play UConn at Rentschler or forfeit the game and be restricted to an 11 game regular season that year. How bad could a trip to East Hartford be.

The only exception to this should be IF Michigan uses its "clout" and gets UConn a BiG Ten acceptance in return for UConn voluntarily agreeing to allow them to opt out of the commitment. Then . . . they'll have to come to East Hartford every few years anyway.

I will bet you a week's pay that the remedies you propose are not anywhere in the document that defines the agreement between the two schools, and I don't think UCONN is going to be allowed to add them. It seems pretty simple really. If MI decides it doesn't want to play at the Rent, UCONN gets paid. That's the only remedy available to UCONN, unless I'm missing something.

As far as "perception" is concerned, the result might be devastating for UCONN. The talking heads, at least those outside a 50-mike radius from UCONN (doesn't include ESPN) are almost guaranteed to provide an MI spin. Tell me. When have the opinion makers to the rubes ever given UCONN FB the benefit of the doubt?

 

[TouchdownHusky]

As for the law and the contract, seems like there should be a way to get around Michigan's leverage. Law didn't quite work out as it should have back when the old USFL days (i.e., Jim Kelly, Steve Young, Herschel, Steve Spurrier, et al) when they prevailed in an anti-trust case against the NFL and was award $3 as "treble damages". They win a friggin antitrust case against a monopolistic business that they were beginning to compete pretty well with (lot of stars came out of that league by the time it ended) and some judge? Some legal scholar? Some agent of the court? Some Jerk decides to play with the intent of the law and "punish" the NFL with a $3 penalty. Why not just ridicule the law and make a proclaimation in court that the US is NOT the land of opportunity. So much for the law, they made a perversion out it back then. Talk about the "fix being in".