So Michigan doesn't want to play at the Rent

[Husky68]

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'd add that in addition Michigan must forfeit the 1st game played and Uconn be declared the winner.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

And, if the law is firmly in Michigan's corner and it is ruled that they legally can buy their way out (as even non BizLawyers can understand) it doesn't make it right. That's the way Michigan does business? Wow!!! Maybe UConn could at least get a judge who would agree this not in the best interest of the spirit of the contract and add one stipulation in it's ruling to allow Michigan to buy out". Would love a ruling that would enjoin Michigan from entering into any OOC contracts (with any programs) unless the other party is granted the first game at a site of their choosing with the Wolverines getting the second meeting for their home game. Why would anyone trust a program like Michigan. They obviously don't honor - or even intend to honor - their end of the deal.

You are out of your god damn mind.

If there wasn't an agreed upon buyout in the contract and Michigan wanted to buy the game out, then I could see negotiations getting sloppy and there being a story to this.

UConn signed the deal, signed the buyout. Did anybody force UConn to sign the deal? No.

Michigan "honors" there side if they opt out, by paying $2M.

You honestly come off as a raving lunatic trying to get Congress involved when a party (Michigan) exercises a previously agreed upon buyout, in a contract that was agreed and signed by both parties.

Bottom line is that UConn should have either:

1) Not signed up for the game at all.
2) Demanded a higher buyout initially from Michigan.
3) Not marketed all of the next 3 year season ticket cycle based on a game in which Michigan can legally and ethically buy their way out of for $2M.

 

[pj]

TDH, we don't live in a slave society and judges can't just order people to labor in service of others. They have to agree to do it in a contract, then the judges can enforce it. It's disturbing that you keep fantasizing about finding a corrupt judge who will compel the University of Michigan to behave in the way you wish, regardless of contract terms.

 

[Husky68]

Well, the Big East champion is going to the BCS the next two seasons, then it looks like the BCS will be no more.

I'm using our current #2 Bowl and moving it up to our #1 Bowl. Right now it is vs. the #3 team from the ACC.

If you feel like the Big East is going to get a better bowl lineup after losing our flagship program and two programs with a national name, then so be it.



I'm saying everyone on here that is saying it's The Rent or $2M and not willing to negotiate a deal to play in Giants Stadium is out of their god damn mind. We can say it's our way or the highway and Michigan could just as easily say, "here's $2M, thanks for doing business with you" and then what? We have to schedule another game that does nothing for our brand.

Nobody cares if you win consistently unless you do that and beat teams that are national brands.

Who on our imaginary 2013 schedule does that for you? Towson, Maryland, Buffalo, (MAC team for Michigan), Rutgers, USF, Ville, Cincy, Temple, Pick 3 (Boise, Houston, Memphis, SMU, SDSU, UCF).

Auburn obviously won a National Title with Cam Newton two years ago, but Auburn is not the same level as Michigan. That being said, you still remember USF beating Auburn from 5 years ago! Did you remember them beating Florida Atlantic that year? No.

I remember a lot of things, is this a test? So, you would rather beat Michigan in 2013 and go 1-11; than not play Michigan in 2013 and go 13-0 and win the national championship?

 

[huskymedic]

9 pages of "what if"... god it's going to be a long summer!

 

[Jimdish255]

Thank God we didn't go over the deep end on this thread. It's a contract and they can play us or pay us. The world doesn't end if we get $2 mil. How much does a really cool recruiting helicopter cost?

 

[ruskin]

Don't see the harm in trading 1 Rent game for a Meadowlands-NY-Gillette game every year. If it's good enough for Texas-Oklahoma, Florida-Georgia, and the teams in season kickoff games (LSU-Oregon, Mich-Bama) it's good enough for us. Hell, if I was king I'd play BC every year in Foxboro.

 

[Kgun7]

And, if the law is firmly in Michigan's corner and it is ruled that they legally can buy their way out (as even non BizLawyers can understand) it doesn't make it right. That's the way Michigan does business? Wow!!! Maybe UConn could at least get a judge who would agree this not in the best interest of the spirit of the contract and add one stipulation in it's ruling to allow Michigan to buy out". Would love a ruling that would enjoin Michigan from entering into any OOC contracts (with any programs) unless the other party is granted the first game at a site of their choosing with the Wolverines getting the second meeting for their home game. Why would anyone trust a program like Michigan. They obviously don't honor - or even intend to honor - their end of the deal.

Maybe Lt. Daniel Kaffee can get David Brandon on the witness stand and get him to say he ordered the buyout! Yeah ... he eats breakfast 300 miles away from 4000 Buckeye fans that are trained to kill him ...

 

[Srqhusky]

9 pages of "what if"... god it's going to be a long summer!

What if Maryland tries to buy out too?

 

[businesslawyer]

What if Maryland tries to buy out too?

Given the state of the Maryland Athletic Department, what you do is make sure you get a certified or bank check.

I would be surprised if Edsall coached the Terps at the Rent. If he does, it will be because the school simply can't afford to pay the buyout.

 

[huskymedic]

I knew I read an article back in April addressing this from the Michigan standpoint - but couldn't remember where. Found it:

http://www.annarbor.com/sports/um-f...-to-go-on-as-planned-expects-pac-12-opponent/

(if you go to the site - the comments are worth a read).

UConn controls site of 2013 football game against Michigan, Pac-12 opponent could be announced soon

Posted: Tue, Apr 24, 2012 : 5:58 a.m.

The Michigan football team still intends to play a previously contracted true road game at Connecticut in 2013. In front of a whopping 40,000 people.

Michigan athletic director Dave Brandon told reporters Monday that the school has every intention of playing the Huskies at Rentschler Field, which has a capacity of roughly 40,000.
"We have a contract with UConn to go to their campus and play that game," Brandon said. "That contract is one we're absolutely going to honor as we do all our contracts. That's all I can tell you about it right now."

At the moment, Michigan is set to travel to Hartford, Conn., to play the Huskies on Sept. 21, 2013 as part of a home-and-home contract that originated with Michigan hosting UConn at Michigan Stadium for its 2010 season opener. That game, a 30-10 Michigan win, brought in 113,090 fans -- nearly three times the capacity of Rentschler Field.

"Certainly there are ways to make that game bigger, in terms of venue, and we'll have conversations in that regard," Brandon acknowledged." But right now, UConn's in control of that decision." Michigan's other non-conference games in 2013 are home dates with Central Michigan (Aug. 31), Notre Dame (Sept. 7) and Akron (Sept. 14).


Also on Monday, Brandon said he expects Michigan to secure a non-league game against a Pac-12 opponent soon. In accordance with the new Big Ten-Pac-12 scheduling alliance, all football members must begin scheduling non-conference games with a Pac-12 school prior to 2017. In December, Brandon told AnnArbor.com he felt Michigan could secure an arrangement with a Pac-12 school prior to 2017, and he reaffirmed that stance Monday -- explaining that he believes the school could have something to announce on that front "soon."

Who, exactly? "Nice try," he replied.

Michigan currently has two open weeks on its 2014 schedule. The Wolverines' present non-league games in 2014 are vs. Appalachian State and at Notre Dame.

As far as the 2012 campaign goes, Brandon said he's very satisfied with how the lineup shakes out -- despite the fact that the Wolverines will play one of the more difficult non-conference slates in the country, with a neutral site game against defending national champion Alabama and a road game at Notre Dame highlighting the bill.

"Our schedule this year is one that will test our team every week," he said. "That's a challenge and there are some programs that don't want to be tested every week. But that's not Michigan. It's not me, it's not our coaches and I don't think it's our kids either. I think they're looking forward to the challenge of playing Alabama.

"I feel good about it, and as we look at scheduling going forward, we're looking to match up against teams that are going to challenge us and keep us playing at our best."

Nick Baumgardner covers Michigan sports for AnnArbor.com. He can be reached at 734-623-2514, by email at nickbaumgardner@annarbor.com and followed on Twitter

 

[John]

I guess its not a surpise, but still a disappointment that they might try to wiggle out of a Rent visit...especially annoying when the new 3-year contract was touted as "get your Michigan tickets locked in now" as another reason to sign up. In fact, IIRC, it was one of the cornerstones of the UConn sales literature.

 

[Santini35]

Don't see the harm in trading 1 Rent game for a Meadowlands-NY-Gillette game every year. If it's good enough for Texas-Oklahoma, Florida-Georgia, and the teams in season kickoff games (LSU-Oregon, Mich-Bama) it's good enough for us. Hell, if I was king I'd play BC every year in Foxboro.

Totally different situation. In those cases the entire series are neutral sites, not home game for one team one year, neutral site the next. I don't think many of the detractors would be apposed to true neutral site games in NYC or Foxboro if neither team gets a home game out the deal, but that's not what we're talking about.

 

[TouchdownHusky]

Totally different situation. In those cases the entire series are neutral sites, not home game for one team one year, neutral site the next. I don't think many of the detractors would be apposed to true neutral site games in NYC or Foxboro if neither team gets a home game out the deal, but that's not what we're talking about.

Jackpot! Absolutely on target. Great post. If Oregon was interested in increasing their recruiting exposure on the east coast and wanted to play a neutral site game every other year in Washington DC, I would be excited for UConn to jump at that opportunity.

 

[mattp]

"We have a contract with UConn to go to their campus and play that game," Brandon said. "That contract is one we're absolutely going to honor as we do all our contracts. That's all I can tell you about it right now."


"Certainly there are ways to make that game bigger, in terms of venue, and we'll have conversations in that regard," Brandon acknowledged." But right now, UConn's in control of that decision."

i don't see how this thread got to 10 pages when there was an article in April that pretty much closes the discussion. i guess taking the buy out is still technically honoring the contract but it sure sounds like he intends to play here.

 

[pj]

What if Maryland tries to buy out too?

Is Randy Edsall so unpopular in Maryland that they want to buy out of a home game and play in Connecticut? If so let's take the deal!

 

[FAIRTIDES]

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".

If UCONN were to do what you've described, it would become a college football pariah. It wouldn't be a case of UCONN scaring big-time schools out of buy outs or venue changes. UCONN would be shunned. The OOC schedule would include flag football games against Vassar and Mt. Holyoke. Litigation is only used as a last, last, very last resort; especially if the entity being sued is one of a group (right now, BCS schools) on which the entity bringing suit is, to a great extent, dependent. Not a way to insure a future in big-time college FB.

 

[pepband99]

i don't see how this thread got to 10 pages when there was an article in April that pretty much closes the discussion. i guess taking the buy out is still technically honoring the contract but it sure sounds like he intends to play here.

It's fairly simple, except for TDH:

1) Michigan will honor its contract, at least according to them.
2) Michigan will ask nicely if venue can be switched, likely for some %age of the buyout or some gate concession (which is probably where the disussions on this topic are centered)
3) If 2 doesn't lead anywhere, Michigan will likely play @ the Rent.

 

[spsct]

This is the funnest train wreck of a thread I've read in a long time. Some people are completely off their rockers!

 

[J187Money]

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.

It is a magical experience when we play at Temple in front of 10% capacity.

 

[J187Money]

Thank God we didn't go over the deep end on this thread. It's a contract and they can play us or pay us. The world doesn't end if we get $2 mil. How much does a really cool recruiting helicopter cost?

There were those that said we shouldn't have played the BCS game because we lost money on it. Those people should e praying for the buyout.

 

[mattp]

It is a magical experience when we play at Temple in front of 10% capacity.

say what you will but i had a great time at the Linc against Temple a few years ago. where else do i get the opportunity to sit in the front row at the 50 yard line for $50?

 

[Waquoit]

say what you will but i had a great time at the Linc against Temple a few years ago. where else do i get the opportunity to sit in the front row at the 50 yard line for $50?

At the Hartford Colonials?

 

[BlueMAB]

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.

Not one sentence in that entire run-on paragraph explains why a BCS bowl win over Oklahoma would have "very likely" put UConn into a different conference.

 

[ruskin]

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.

Yeah, if we can play Penn State at Meadowlands or BC at Gillette we should take a pass. . . .could you imagine Florida State in 80s or Boise State now if they'd taken that approach? We've got to earn our way into the big boy club to gain leverage and that means accepting terms not always to our liking. That means 1-game-contract road games against Top 25 programs and if we can get a neutral site we can drive to all the better. It sucks that Michigan is trying to back out but I'd rather save the matchup than play a MAC team.