So Michigan doesn't want to play at the Rent

[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.

 

[Palatine]

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.

We need to consistently sell out the Rent before trying to expand into NYC. A healthy season ticket base is critical to the growth of the program. By setting a precedent that every game against a top notch opponent won't be at the Rent, you actually disincentivize season ticket sales.

So, in effect, you hurt the program.

 

[CTMike]

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.

Haha... I wont rake you over the coals. I really want this game at the Rent, as stipulated in our contract. Moving forward... would I sacrafice a home game for some NYC exposure?... personally, I'd consider it once every other year. And I would also say that, if this ever happened, I would want UConn to provide round-trip bus transportation from Rentschler for essentially the cost of game day parking.

 

[brasssbonanzaa]

Haha... I wont rake you over the coals. I really want this game at the Rent, as stipulated in our contract. Moving forward... would I sacrafice a home game for some NYC exposure?... personally, I'd consider it once every other year. And I would also say that, if this ever happened, I would want UConn to provide round-trip bus transportation from Rentschler for essentially the cost of game day parking.

You play a game there once every year or two when the program is at the point where it's a privilege for the other team to play us in NYC, not where it's a privilege for us to play the other team, and it can only occur in NYC so they can fill up half the stadium with their fans.

 

[BlueMAB]

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.

Apples and oranges. From number of games played and scheduling requirements, to the amount of money involved it is not worth even mentioning basketball in this discussion.

As far as a Michigan fan is concerned (and many other fans of traditional powerhouse program) Uconn is no different than Boise in that respect. Other than losing to Boise would be a lot more respectable.

One of the reasons that it's been so hard to schedule big name programs is the risk/reward for them, combined with the limited OOC games they are willing to schedule against BCS programs because they have more conference games than we do.

 

[pj]

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.

This is where having a good conference TV deal helps. You have the financial flexibility to buy home games from MAC teams instead of trading home-for-home, so you get an extra home game each year. You can use that for a NYC game and still have a full home schedule. ... It's true NYC will be a neutral site against Mich, Ohio State, ND, Penn State, but that's just another opportunity to compete, both on the field for points and off the field for fan support.

 

[BlueMAB]

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.

As I said in another post, there are merits to both sides of the argument.

But a win against a Michigan team at home or in NYC is big for us. It will register more in a market where we are trying to gain access to if we do it in NYC. Even if we lose, we got the exposure.

I'm not arguing that it's worth it, just pointing out there are benefits.

 

[freescooter]

to me it is amazing how little our fans think of our program. Good grief, as palatine noted we have people comparing UCONN to Buffalo and a 1AA program. Sorry but you don't build your program by agreeing to move home games that have already been agreed to. Michigan has an option if it doesn't want to play at the Rent. But make no mistake, this is not about the size of Rentschler field. This is about a new AD and a philosophy that Michigan doesn't want to play non-conference road games.

 

[BlueMAB]

to me it is amazing how little our fans think of our program.

It's amazing to me that people think we can use a women's basketball game as leverage for a football game with Michigan.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

to me it is amazing how little our fans think of our program. Good grief, as palatine noted we have people comparing UCONN to Buffalo and a 1AA program. Sorry but you don't build your program by agreeing to move home games that have already been agreed to. Michigan has an option if it doesn't want to play at the Rent. But make no mistake, this is not about the size of Rentschler field. This is about a new AD and a philosophy that Michigan doesn't want to play non-conference road games.

There's a lot of middle ground between Chicken Little and Delusions of Grandeur. Most of us are there.

 

[FAIRTIDES]

A

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.

NYC, in terms related to selling one's self, company or anything else including UCONN football is damn difficult and costly. NYC doesn't typically offer opportunities on platters. When it does, advantage is taken. No one said one game in NYC would allow UCONN to "CLAIM NYC." To me, a game with MI is a good start that would have to be promoted and followed with more information and similar future annual games. You are correct. "One-offs" don't work. Do you remember the huge animated BE display at one of the most cherished advertising locations in Times Square? Few do. It was worthless because it was a one-off with no connection or logical follow-up.

Ad hoc, of course the MI game is not even close to the "answer." But it's a hell of a starting point and foundation. Recognition creates interest and the ability to carve out (not CLAIM) a piece of NYC significant enough to add value and attractiveness to UCONN football. Of course, a UCONN presence in NYC can be wished for. It's been tried before by people who balked at the price and effort. Didn't and won't work. Passive doesn't work in the City. A reasonable, but big enough, UCONN presence in NYC is incredibly important for reasons I don't have to explain. A game like the MI game is a chance to start a long-term program with a real splash.

On the other hand, please explain market and financial benefits, and the long-term positive effects that accrue to UCONN by stubbornly bowing necks and beating chests in order to have the game at the Rent.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

A

NYC, in terms related to selling one's self, company or anything else including UCONN football is damn difficult and costly. NYC doesn't typically offer opportunities on platters. When it does, advantage is taken. No one said one game in NYC would allow UCONN to "CLAIM NYC." To me, a game with MI is a good start that would have to be promoted and followed with more information and similar future annual games. You are correct. "One-offs" don't work. Do you remember the huge animated BE display at one of the most cherished advertising locations in Times Square? Few do. It was worthless because it was a one-off with no connection or logical follow-up.

Ad hoc, of course the MI game is not even close to the "answer." But it's a hell of a starting point and foundation. Recognition creates interest and the ability to carve out (not CLAIM) a piece of NYC significant enough to add value and attractiveness to UCONN football. Of course, a UCONN presence in NYC can be wished for. It's been tried before by people who balked at the price and effort. Didn't and won't work. Passive doesn't work in the City. A reasonable, but big enough, UCONN presence in NYC is incredibly important for reasons I don't have to explain. A game like the MI game is a chance to start a long-term program with a real splash.

On the other hand, please explain market and financial benefits, and the long-term positive effects that accrue to UCONN by stubbornly bowing necks and beating chests in order to have the game at the Rent.

This is too Spackler like for my taste. Although, you did acknowledge what a joke those billboards in Times Square were.

Here's the thing about NYC though.......VERY FEW PEOPLE GIVE A RAT'S ABOUT COLLEGE FOOTBALL THERE!

 

[freescooter]

There's a lot of middle ground between Chicken Little and Delusions of Grandeur. Most of us are there.

When did saying live up to your agreement become "delusions of granduer?' I want to play Michigan, but not at any cost. If they don't want to play at Rentschler Field as they previoulsy agreed to do, there is a provision that allows them to get out of that game. They should exercise that provision. I personally don't think it is in UCONN's interest to move the game. For all the reasons various people have listed. It screws over our fans, it makes us look small time, it sets a horrible precident for future negotiations among the reasons. It isn't the end of the world if UCONN and Michigan don't play. It will be disappointing but not the end of the world. Boise State didn't get it rep because it played a road game and won. It got its rep because it won games and because it won a bowl game against Oklahoma in dramatic fashion. TCU got its rep, and its Big 12 invite because it won a lot of games, and because it beat Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl. UCONN will get its rep when it wins a lot of games and beats a big name in some bowl game...even if Michigan walks away from this one.

 

[Carl Spackler]

This is too Spackler like for my taste. Although, you did acknowledge what a joke those billboards in Times Square were.

Here's the thing about NYC though.......VERY FEW PEOPLE GIVE A RAT'S ABOUT COLLEGE FOOTBALL THERE!

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.

 

[Carl Spackler]

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.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

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.