UConn athletic budget trending in right direction (Dom Amore @Courant)

[CL82]

I guess I'm over this part of the math. Any informed person knows the shell game between state agencies makes UConn's AD look worse and the CRDA look better. The solution isn't really a solution because the its same politicians you need to work over to make the AD look better who will also look worse if the CRDA numbers look worse.
My hope is that anyone who looks at UConn for expansion or membership in to the P4 has enough brains to look beyond the headlines. I might be hoping for too much.

We do know that in the last round of big 12 expansion some of the criticism of Connecticut involved the amount of our annual deficit. Logically, then, decreasing that deficit would seem to be helpful to our, admittedly, precarious realignment hopes.

Independent of that, though, it's more accurate to have the CDRA's annual persistent losses show up on their balance sheet rather than trying to hide them in the athletic department via above market lease scheme. The only point of that scheme seems to be continuing the existence of the CDRA which, at best, can be characterized as an political patronage position that has produced extraordinarily bad results in every venture it undertakes and loses money every single year and every one of them.

 

[Mr. Wonderful]

We do know that in the last round of big 12 expansion some of the criticism of Connecticut involved the amount of our annual deficit. Logically, then, decreasing that deficit would seem to be helpful to our, admittedly, precarious realignment hopes.

Independent of that, though, it's more accurate to have the CDRA's annual persistent losses show up on their balance sheet rather than trying to hide them in the athletic department via above market lease scheme. The only point of that scheme seems to be continuing the existence of the CDRA which, at best, can be characterized as an political patronage position that has produced extraordinarily bad results in every venture it undertakes and loses money every single year and every one of them.

I can't understand why Hartford fans won't just admit what an awful deal it is for our athletic department.

Not to mention how short-sighted the whole plan is. It's fiscal irresponsibility, yet that's ok somehow in this case? What's wrong with you people?

 

[How Sway?!]

I can't understand why Hartford fans won't just admit what an awful deal it is for our athletic department.

Not to mention how short-sighted the whole plan is. It's fiscal irresponsibility, yet that's ok somehow in this case? What's wrong with you people?

There's 0 financial impact from playing in Hartford to the school. The money they pay to play in Hartford goes to the state which then partially funds the university, who then covers the "deficit".

Sure, they might miss on concessions and such, but that is more than made it up with the extra season tickets and general tickets the school sells due to a higher capacity.

 

[UConn Dan]

It's well established that the large majority of Boneyarders do not give any money to UConn. And they consider themselves just as good fans as people that do. So the answer is clearly Yes.

I didn't say "you have to donate in order to be fan". I said if you're a donor and your reason to stop donating is that they move all games to campus, are you really fan? Is the reason one donates because they play games in Hartford or because they're a fan? That's the stopper? It's bull, just like those people that say they'll stop being a fan if UConn leaves the Big East for the Big 12.

 

[Chin Diesel]

We do know that in the last round of big 12 expansion some of the criticism of Connecticut involved the amount of our annual deficit. Logically, then, decreasing that deficit would seem to be helpful to our, admittedly, precarious realignment hopes.

Independent of that, though, it's more accurate to have the CDRA's annual persistent losses show up on their balance sheet rather than trying to hide them in the athletic department via above market lease scheme. The only point of that scheme seems to be continuing the existence of the CDRA which, at best, can be characterized as an political patronage position that has produced extraordinarily bad results in every venture it undertakes and loses money every single year and every one of them.

That's where I was going with my comment about the same politicians who need to change policy to show the UConn in better light are the same politicians who will look bad if the CDRA all of a sudden looks bad.

I completely agree any "normal" organization would better show who is producing and who is leeching. I just think that ship has sailed.

 

[CL82]

That's where I was going with my comment about the same politicians who need to change policy to show the UConn in better light are the same politicians who will look bad if the CDRA all of a sudden looks bad.

I completely agree any "normal" organization would better show who is producing and who is leeching. I just think that ship has sailed.

It's possible that is correct, but are any current politicians actually benefiting from the CDRA arrangement? If that's true, it would seem to be problematic. Very problematic.

 

[uconngb]

It's that extra XL Center revenues doing the trick. More fans buying in.

I figured it was the $2 beer nights

 

[Mr. Wonderful]

There's 0 financial impact from playing in Hartford to the school.

Wrong. This is a myth that speaks to the short-sightedness of the arrangement.

The University has been harmed by the Athletic Department's public financial statements that hide the CRDA's financial incompetence. Those financial statements have been used by University peers to paint a picture of our athletic department as mismanaged, or grossly underfunded at best.

Who are the parties who insist on this relationship anyway? Who are the politicians behind this farce answering to?

 

[How Sway?!]

Wrong. This is a myth that speaks to the short-sightedness of the arrangement.

The University has been harmed by the Athletic Department's public financial statements that hide the CRDA's financial incompetence. Those financial statements have been used by University peers to paint a picture of our athletic department as mismanaged, or grossly underfunded at best.

Who are the parties who insist on this relationship anyway? Who are the politicians behind this farce answering to?

You got any proof for those claims?

 

[Mr. Wonderful]

You got any proof for those claims?

You gonna take me to court if I start posting links?

 

[Chin Diesel]

Wrong. This is a myth that speaks to the short-sightedness of the arrangement.

The University has been harmed by the Athletic Department's public financial statements that hide the CRDA's financial incompetence. Those financial statements have been used by University peers to paint a picture of our athletic department as mismanaged, or grossly underfunded at best.

Who are the parties who insist on this relationship anyway? Who are the politicians behind this farce answering to?

Follow the money. Always follow the money.

 

[Mr. Wonderful]

Follow the money. Always follow the money.

It was mostly a rhetorical question.

 

[huskymedic]

That's where I was going with my comment about the same politicians who need to change policy to show the UConn in better light are the same politicians who will look bad if the CDRA all of a sudden looks bad.

I completely agree any "normal" organization would better show who is producing and who is leeching. I just think that ship has sailed.

I just think folks forget that CRDA is much, much more than just the XL Center and Pratt & Whitney Stadium: OLR Backgrounder: Capital Region Development Authority.

 

[Chin Diesel]

I just think folks forget that CRDA is much, much more than just the XL Center and Pratt & Whitney Stadium: OLR Backgrounder: Capital Region Development Authority.

And each of those entities it manages should be able to show how much they bring in and how it costs to run them.

 

[How Sway?!]

You gonna take me to court if I start posting links?

Still waiting on that proof

 

[Mr. Wonderful]

I just think folks forget that CRDA is much, much more than just the XL Center and Pratt & Whitney Stadium: OLR Backgrounder: Capital Region Development Authority.

The CRDA represents the interests of the city of Hartford and "seven surrounding towns."

Why those towns get to bend UConn over a barrel is a mystery.

 

[Mr. Wonderful]

Still waiting on that proof

Hang on, it's coming.

 

[Duncan Idaho]

Well, if that's the case then why not do it in a way that reflects the economics of the CDRA's losses by letting them occur in that institution rather than trying to hide them in the athletic departments budget?

Truth be told, however, it does matter. Part of the criticisms that the university of Connecticut receives regarding its status as a conference realignment partner is it annual losses. Hiding part of the CDRA's losses In the athletic department budget creates a narrative that our university isn't a good investment as a partner.

For what it's worth, I've always believed your firsthand impressions. Where you and I disagree is that "the way things are is the way they will always be." I've never been a believer in that mindset as it comes across as an excuse to me more than anything else. The current problem isn't insurmountable. It will just take some time and effort to fix. Check your PMs if you want more detail.

IIRC, Toscano said he wants to address this very thing. Eliminating a source of confusion.

 

[CTBasketball]

Wrong. This is a myth that speaks to the short-sightedness of the arrangement.

The University has been harmed by the Athletic Department's public financial statements that hide the CRDA's financial incompetence. Those financial statements have been used by University peers to paint a picture of our athletic department as mismanaged, or grossly underfunded at best.

Who are the parties who insist on this relationship anyway? Who are the politicians behind this farce answering to?

Bringing it back to the financial report release…why are we broadcasting a 35% reduction in costs for FY23?

Unless I’m on crack didn’t FY22 include the KO payout of 13M? Should we be comparing a projected “No Ollie” FY22 value to FY23? That 35% would come down and look normal. FY24 is going to be a let down if you compare year over year results. Will be an outlier unless spending/revenue drastically changes.

 

[CL82]

IIRC, Toscano said he wants to address this very thing. Eliminating a source of confusion.

From the AD annual report:

Arrangement with Capital Region Development Authority (CRDA)​

UConn men's and women's basketball has competed in the XL Center since 1975 and Pratt & Whitney Stadium since 2003. More recently, UConn men's ice hockey has also competed in the XL Center since it joined Hockey East in 2014. Arrangements to play in these facilities are currently managed by the CRDA, and cost UConn a significant dollar amount per game and diminish many revenue-generating opportunities that our competitors enjoy. It is estimated that these additional opportunities would generate a minimum of $3.5 million in revenue if UConn basketball, hockey, and football competed under a more typical structure.

UConn spends approximately $4 million annually competing at the XL Center and Pratt & Whitney Stadium.

Between the total rent costs and unrealized revenues, UConn's total opportunity cost of playing off-campus is $7.5 million annually.

 

[willie99]

Still don't see any discussion about donations anywhere

Lower bowl sideline donation $ 1,400 per seat

Lower bowl sideline ticket cost approximately $ 400 per seat (maybe less, don't think it averages $ 50 per game)

From where I'm sitting, no pun intended, it's all going into the same pockets. It's all going to the state, not sure why we choose to differentiate between state agencies. Donations or taxes or user fees or rents.... same thing at the end of the day

You taketh here, you giveth there

 

[stickybuddy]

Odd you say the top teams don't do this, given that since 2011, 5 of 12 NCAA titles have been won by teams playing a mix of home games in a smaller on-campus arena and bigger NBA sized arena off campus.

A full quarter of them have the same exact geographic split as our boys……makes you think

 

[CL82]

Still don't see any discussion about donations anywhere

Lower bowl sideline donation $ 1,400 per seat

Lower bowl sideline ticket cost approximately $ 400 per seat (maybe less, don't think it averages $ 50 per game)

From where I'm sitting, no pun intended, it's all going into the same pockets. It's all going to the state, not sure why we choose to differentiate between state agencies. Donations or taxes or user fees or rents.... same thing at the end of the day

You taketh here, you giveth there

Of course that same argument would support letting Connecticut use CDRA facilities cost free, right? I mean, if it's all the same pot, why have the athletic departments financials look bad? In many ways they are the only ones that matter.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Of course that same argument would support letting Connecticut use CDRA facilities cost free, right? I mean, if it's all the same pot, why have the athletic departments financials look bad? In many ways they are the only ones that matter.

The only thing I can think of, is the university is managing a $1.5bn budget and the state is what $25bn? So $4M of CDRA expenses is immaterial to those that could enact change to account for it differently.

 

[Waquoit]

Hang on, it's coming.

This reminds me of "Free Beer Tomorrow"