Warde on Record: 10,000 More Seats (Hartford Business Journal)

[Pudge]

Horrible article. Poorly structured with ... as mentioned ... strange interspersing of Carstensen & Lawrence - the Global Spectrum guy, in what is actually a firm new statement.

First, this isn't Hathaway. This is Warde Manuel saying that we NEED to be at 50,000+ to compete where we want to be. I agree. While we have always been in a tough timeframe (given the quick evolution of the reconfiguration of P5 conferences), we should have forged forward with a Plan to expand 10,000 when Rutgers did. I certainly saw that. We have a far better economic situation than the band-aids, paperclips and fraudulent structure that Pernetti cobbled together with former Governor Corzine. But ... in hindsight ... they knew the way the wind blew. Schiano led them to a point & they needed to get over the bar while they had momentum. We have a far better stadium situation (structure & economics) but we ARE hesitant to move. Hathaway certainly was. Warde Manuel is saying: "I see we MUST do this". I totally wholeheartedly applaud the statement.

And you are right ... why the duck would a Global Spectrum Manager NOT want expansion. It's a FEE contract for him. What risk do they have? They get paid a percentage of revenue; a percentage of Total Cost to Construction manage; a percentage of concessions - probably. Win - Win for them. Why would Mr. Lawrence be Eee-ohhrr? I don't get his reaction at all.

And Mr. Carstensen? Who told this reporter to pull him & his comments in. Mostly quite obvious. But, I think we are just a laggard - but one with a great BRAND and a Market we can build. And, NO ... not all the B1G are part of the AAU. We know that here. I also believe he is overplaying the BC hostility. Really?

Manuel has to get this done. Diaco has to be good. Not at all easy ... but simply needed for our school.

 

[Carl Spackler]

We were poised for expansion any time from 2007-2008-2009 Pudge - for sure. It would have been a much easier sell to build then. Hathaway seemingly was sitting at his desk concerned about his payroll stubs and calculating what he would need to do to get his bonuses.

Getting this done, has got to be next top priority for the athletic department. The expansion plans were laid out a long time ago.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

@Pudge You've been by far the biggest proponent of expanding the rent on here since I can remember.

If we expanded when Rutgers did, do you think we'd still be where we are today?

I don't think anything changes except for a lot of empty seats.

 

[Carl Spackler]

It's possible that if the stadium was expanded in the late 2000s, and the school leadership demonstrated an understanding of the importance of football, that Randy Edsall never leaves and right now, the discussion is whether or not the field should be renamed "Edsall field".

All that article does, is reinforce that there are still academics at UConn that don't understand the importance of division 1A/FBS football for an institution like the University of Connecticut. That's no big deal though, there will always be academics that don't fully appreciate the importance of athletics to an academic institution, regardless of scale or size of institution. The guys from UCONN quoted in that article, most likely have taken 20-30 years to realize that UCONN basketball, indeed was the driving force to get the school to where it is now, and not what they do in the classrooms - and begrudgingly admit it now.

They clearly don't get that to continue, football is the thing that needs to drive.

 

[Pudge]

@Pudge You've been by far the biggest proponent of expanding the rent on here since I can remember.

If we expanded when Rutgers did, do you think we'd still be where we are today?

I don't think anything changes except for a lot of empty seats.

I see it this way ...

Don't freaking whine why we aren't in a Power 5 conference if you are going to start talking about empty seats. If I told you that this was the Price of Admission ... and Rutgers paid ... would you pay it (and parallel ... are you pissed that Hathaway didn't see it that way?)?

I think, in hindsight, Rutgers had no more momentum than us when they added 10,000 to their 100 year old stadium. We also - and I can go into the Bonding Structure again if everyone wants to - had the ability to easily refinance the bonds & reissue more to construct the additional 10,000. Rutgers bullshite the State Taxpayers and got a greased package put through on the sly. They had Schiano; we had Edsall. Schiano, I think, knew that the Stadium increase - the helicopter - the salesmanship - went to position them to be reviewed. I don't think the Cable TV sets alone hurt us in this comparison; I think it was PP and down football was a drag.

Rutgers didn't care about empty seats - see. They knew that ACTING Bigtime was important in Football (even if they chose to bugger up their record with Howard, Norfolk State, Texas Southern ... and never that Kryptonite foe - Villanova).

I think expanding the stadium (in 2009) would have been good timing, with reference to construction costs. We, I believe, in the long run can build this Football Program. I do think Diaco is the right guy. But, now we have to play the games. I think 50,000 stadium gets us to a different level in terms of position. One more check.

 

[HuskyHawk]

It's possible that if the stadium was expanded in the late 2000s, and the school leadership demonstrated an understanding of the importance of football, that Randy Edsall never leaves and right now, the discussion is whether or not the field should be renamed "Edsall field".

All that article does, is reinforce that there are still academics at UConn that don't understand the importance of division 1A/FBS football for an institution like the University of Connecticut. That's no big deal though, there will always be academics that don't fully appreciate the importance of athletics to an academic institution, regardless of scale or size of institution. The guys from UCONN quoted in that article, most likely have taken 20-30 years to realize that UCONN basketball, indeed was the driving force to get the school to where it is now, and not what they do in the classrooms - and begrudgingly admit it now.

They clearly don't get that to continue, football is the thing that needs to drive.

Who is this Mr. Carstensen? He's certainly no expert, so I don't know why he is quoted as one. He mentions the "four" major conferences, so he's just parroting some stuff he has vague ideas about. Hell, he's probably NelsonMuntz.

As for academics and Basketball, don't oversell it Carl. What you have with academics, basketball success and football success, is a symbiotic relationship. High quality sports teams attract students, which allows UConn to be more selective, which bumps our SAT scores and quality (and size) of the student body. But that improved student body also drives more applications, as do strong programs lead by a well recognized faculty. Basketball helped create the exposure UConn needed, and convinced the state to make the investments needed in facilities, faculty and infrastructure. Now each side feeds off of the other. Football success will help only if it gets UConn into a well recognized conference, which also has a strong academic reputation (B1G or ACC). The Big XII can't really help UConn make that next leap. Association with Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina and Virginia can.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

At one point early on we had sold out something like 21 of our first 25 games at the Rent. That would have been by far the best time to at a minimum lay the groundwork for expansion by making statements such as what WM has. Unfortunately that would have required bold thinking on JH's part and JH was not exactly a bold thinker. His attitude (which far too many also adhered to) was that the capacity at the Rent was sufficient for our football program, an attitude that can and will destroy us as an athletic department.

We can add (either 10k; 12k or 15k; I've seen each number published some point in the past) another deck across from the pressbox/suites in one offseason as the footings are already in place. We can even extend the footings if necessary to put a larger deck than what was initially designed. Expansion also can include the two endzones, which were never initially part of the expansion (but I personally believe that the plan all along was to place two more towers with enclosed, theater seating as the design of the structure would easily allow for it).

I'm glad that someone is finally saying "Hey, we expect to a stadium equivalent to what the big boys have in the near future because we expect to be playing at a quality equivalent to the big boys in the very near future!". According to a couple of items posted on the CR board, one major concern the B1G has with us is the capacity of our stadium. If I were in charge that concern would be addressed immediately (as it is one thing that is fully within our control). It appears that WM is ahead of me on this.

 

[Dooley]

The one thing that has crushed UCONN in CR is Jeff friggin' Hathaway. Rutgers isn't the only school who proactively expanded. Louisville was knee deep in declining attendance under their Kragthorpe era and, yet, they saw the writing on the wall and expanded their stadium. When the stadium expansion was complete, Kragthorpe was axed and in came Charlie Strong. The rest is history.

Rutgers and Louisville read the landscape properly, at the time, and took advantage of other schools (ex - UCONN) not doing anything to improve its profile. I'd like to think that if Manuel was our AD when Edsall was here and had to make football decisions, he would have already expanded this stadium and, most importantly, NOT hire Paul Pasqualoni.

Playing in the AAC now makes it tough to justify expansion without incredible fan support. This is why it's vital for UCONN fans (ALL UCONN FANS) to buy tickets if they are able to do so. Sure, you might have to sit through some insufferable December games against 2-9 Memphis. But the only way out of this hell is through football and the fanbase perception.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Who is this Mr. Carstensen? He's certainly no expert, so I don't know why he is quoted as one. He mentions the "four" major conferences, so he's just parroting some stuff he has vague ideas about. Hell, he's probably NelsonMuntz.

As for academics and Basketball, don't oversell it Carl. What you have with academics, basketball success and football success, is a symbiotic relationship. High quality sports teams attract students, which allows UConn to be more selective, which bumps our SAT scores and quality (and size) of the student body. But that improved student body also drives more applications, as do strong programs lead by a well recognized faculty. Basketball helped create the exposure UConn needed, and convinced the state to make the investments needed in facilities, faculty and infrastructure. Now each side feeds off of the other. Football success will help only if it gets UConn into a well recognized conference, which also has a strong academic reputation (B1G or ACC). The Big XII can't really help UConn make that next leap. Association with Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina and Virginia can.

it's not an oversell. It's reality. There are three people, and the things they created, that UCONN owes it's entire current status in 2014 to, and the evolution over the past 30 years that led to it. None of the growth the University has experienced happens without it, and we would remain on par/level with our old, long time new England partners like URI, UMASS, UNH and Maine. Those people are Dave Gavitt, Jim Calhoun and Geno Auriemma, and the things they created - the Big East athletic conference, UCONN men's basketball and UCONN women's basketball respectively.

The Big East conference capitalized on a time / era in intercollegiate athletics that has since passed. UCONN basketball has developed into a national powerhouse unrivaled because of it, and needs to find a new way to continue to maintain it. The way to maintain it, is no different than it was in 1984.

Lew Perkins knew that UCONN football at the highest level of compeition, would be the key to success in maintaining the new growth and potential growth that UCONN could (and would) experience for the long term as a university and begain working toward it immediately upon becoming AD at UCONN. Hathaway was a pud. Manuel, has taken over where Lew left off.

It's only very recently that the entire school is coming around to what Lew knew - 25 years ago. Manuel has that advantage over what Lew did.

 

[upstater]

People continue to read the DOE income reports all wrong. If UConn football is more than bball teams combined at $11 million, then max for the revenue sports would be $20 million. So the writer just compares that $11m number to BC or Syracuse without taking into account departmental revenue which includes things like licensing and TV for football and bball.

 

[CTMike]

I'm not sure what Mr. Carstensen said that was so disagreeable to some? If he didn't sound like rainbows and roses... It's because the situation we are in isn't all rainbows and roses, and I thought he addressed that pretty matter of factly. We have a lot that needs to be fixed and I'm glad he was blunt about it. I've mentioned previously that old admins seem to have spent too long patting themselves on the back instead of getting out and fixing perceptions. There's much to do, but no need to kill the messenger.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

@Pudge You can't answer my question though. If we had expanded with Rutgers/Ville what would've changed? Nothing.

If you think Rutgers is in the Big even in part due to expanding their stadium, I'm not sure what to tell you.

If UConn continued post Edsall era with edsall level success (8 win seasons) I'm pretty sure we'd be in over Louisville.

You can wax poetic about how talk of an empty stadium isn't "big time" but that totally ignores the reality of the situation.

Just because Rutgers and Ville did it and got a life raft doesn't mean it's the right decision for UConn.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I'm not sure what Mr. Carstensen said that was so disagreeable to some? If he didn't sound like rainbows and roses... It's because the situation we are in isn't all rainbows and roses, and I thought he addressed that pretty matter of factly. We have a lot that needs to be fixed and I'm glad he was blunt about it. I've mentioned previously that old admins seem to have spent too long patting themselves on the back instead of getting out and fixing perceptions. There's much to do, but no need to kill the messenger.

Pretty sure it was the statement that UCONN either needs to become a member of a different conference or become a "basketball speciality" school. That statement demonstrates very little understanding of anything. It would certainly be better for UCONN to be in a different conference on the other side, but to abandon football as a priority and become a "basketball speciality" school, is dooming the school down a road that puts us back on the same level with our old Yankee conference partners as state publics, rather than the aspirations we currently have to join the state schools of a conference like the Big 10.

 

[Pudge]

@Pudge You can't answer my question though. If we had expanded with Rutgers/Ville what would've changed? Nothing.

If you think Rutgers is in the Big even in part due to expanding their stadium, I'm not sure what to tell you.

If UConn continued post Edsall era with edsall level success (8 win seasons) I'm pretty sure we'd be in over Louisville.

You can wax poetic about how talk of an empty stadium isn't "big time" but that totally ignores the reality of the situation.

Just because Rutgers and Ville did it and got a life raft doesn't mean it's the right decision for UConn.

It is never one thing ...

We did not do what Louisville and Rutgers did (parallel to each other). They advanced in Football ... and went to a higher level conference. We are NOT at that level because we thought narrowly. As you are doing now. We have a fundamental comparative advantage to either Louisville or Rutgers in this. Both (1.) it would have been far less cost because OUR new stadium was designed to be 50,000+ and Rutgers addition cost more than all of Rentschler in 2003; and (2.) our Bond Structure allowed us to easily collapse the first issue and re-finance the entire Stadium to the bigger number easily. And, WE had the income/revenue results to underwrite that additional debt. Easy Peazy.

WE had the easiest path of the 3. You can look back in hindsight ... and you conclude that we weren't elevated so it would have been lots of empty seats. I look back and say ... we are in the lower status because we didn't do it. We look small & that's on top of the fact that we have only 15 years history. That's not how Geno or JC have done anything. And, frankly, that's how you Win in College Sports. The Stadium is just a component of an ENTIRE attitude that fluffed up in the latter Hathaway era. We are way better than Rutgers as a Brand and in so many things.

And ... we continue to have folks here cry about Warde Manuel being in the Caribbean when he should have been making phone calls. NOPE. We needed a full on Football program ... with a vibrant Stadium plan to be AT B1G level. We needed a Coaching succession that worked.

 

[jostar1]

The Stadium was designed to meet or exceed NCAA Division 1-A requirements for football, and can also accommodate other grass-surface events such as soccer, rugby and lacrosse. Total stadium capacity is 40,642. The Stadium has been designed with expansion capacity for 50,000 seats.

http://crdact.net/rentschler_field.html

 

[CTMike]

Pretty sure it was the statement that UCONN either needs to become a member of a different conference or become a "basketball speciality" school. That statement demonstrates very little understanding of anything. It would certainly be better for UCONN to be in a different conference on the other side, but to abandon football as a priority and become a "basketball speciality" school, is dooming the school down a road that puts us back on the same level with our old Yankee conference partners as state publics, rather than the aspirations we currently have to join the state schools of a conference like the Big 10.

I guess I wasn't too bothered at the mention of that. I'm all in on making football the best it can be, and WM is too. If we don't turn things around and are in the same spot (or worse) in 5-10 years... Well that's a real problem. But I am much more optimistic than that.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

@Pudge Still avoiding the question.

Rutgers stadium could be 30,000 seats and they'd be in the B1G due to jerseys population. What don't you understand. If the Big never called, they'd be in a world of hurt financially.

You can't host build it and expect them to come because you watched field of dreams. That's insane.

I would love to have a 50k stadium. I really would. But with the financial peril we find ourselves soon to be facing, I find myself wanting to dump all resources into the staff then to seats that will be filled maybe once a year, if that.

How can you justify expanding a stadium that has seen attendance decrease EVEN WHEN we were winning with edsall?

It's not build it they will come, it's not win they will come - it's something other than that why people aren't showing up like they used to. Be it the economy or whatever, but I'm just not sure I want to throw a scarce resource ( money) at what I perceive to be a non issue.

If they want to do both ( retain coaches and expand) great - I just can't see one not affecting the other.

 

[CL82]

I rather he say it than not say it. Shows the issue is on his mind.

Well, I'd spin it a little different and say it shows that he recognizes the issue and has a plan to deal with it.

 

[UConn9604]

I don't think The Rent will ever exceed 50,000 in capacity, or that we should even try. In the era of hugescreen TVs and Internet-enabled content, stadiums are getting smaller, not larger.

The new Yankee Stadium is about 5,000-6,000 seats smaller than the old (capacity: approx. 50,100), and Stanford Stadium, which once hosted a Super Bowl and could hold about 80,000, now holds 50,000.

If we have a cozy 50,000 seat stadium that we fill from 80-95% of the capacity on a regular basis, we'll be in great shape.

 

[BoatShow]

I'll say this: I never really grasped how small the Rent is until I was down on the field after the Spring Game a weeks ago. Looking around at the seats from the field it just doesn't seem like where big time football is played.

 

[Pudge]

@Pudge Still avoiding the question.

Rutgers stadium could be 30,000 seats and they'd be in the B1G due to jerseys population. What don't you understand. If the Big never called, they'd be in a world of hurt financially.

You can't host build it and expect them to come because you watched field of dreams. That's insane.

I would love to have a 50k stadium. I really would. But with the financial peril we find ourselves soon to be facing, I find myself wanting to dump all resources into the staff then to seats that will be filled maybe once a year, if that.

How can you justify expanding a stadium that has seen attendance decrease EVEN WHEN we were winning with edsall?

It's not build it they will come, it's not win they will come - it's something other than that why people aren't showing up like they used to. Be it the economy or whatever, but I'm just not sure I want to throw a scarce resource ( money) at what I perceive to be a non issue.

If they want to do both ( retain coaches and expand) great - I just can't see one not affecting the other.

You are getting annoying. You imply that I am not answering your question. Basically ... you don't like my answer (and then you feel justified in a rude retort).

Financial peril? WE ARE IN FINANCIAL PERIL NOW.

We had the low cost/best structure of the Three Universities. They expanded ... and they did the things that needed to be done to look attractive for selection. We did not. Stadium is clearly one of the key - largely unwritten criteria - and we took the Edsall momentum & we flushed it. Hathaway did. And our respective Fanbase is not what we were a mere 3 years ago. The only way forward, IMHO, is to go hard at Fully building out the program. You assume that we are going to lose. Guess what ... friends ... Louisville & Rutgers took that bet and they WON. And I can make a case that we were better positioned ... and we can buff our Football again for (what I believe is) the next round.

Of course ... many will moan ... this is over. We will be stuck. I say that "Cartels" always leak (that is Economics 101). This will open up again and there will be more in the P5. This isn't like the NFL. There are more 30,000 State Universities growing. As much as the top elite want exclusivity, I say that gives lots of avenues for this to break. You see us as Temple. I see us as a Bigger Better Rutgers/Louisville/Arizona/NC State/Iowa/Arkansas ... a Program that can have a BRAND in New England & find its way to play at the highest level. We are not that far ... we aren't UMass. We can chin ourselves over the bar. And ... you are worried about 10,000 empty seats ... and that is probably $50m in cost. (Rutgers, by the way, spent more than $110m & Louisville more). We can use the existing Connecticut Public Authority and do the bonds easily in a low interest rate environment. I don't think that's a big deal. Insane? Dropping to a level that plays a regional MAC schedule ... or this AAC level should not be our zenith.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Cartels do leak.

UCONN simply needs to continue to work to build upon our status as the premier public state university in the Northeast and Tri-State region.

The simple economics of football and ticket sales revenue is that you can generate more revenue in only two ways - raising ticket prices and/or selling more tickets.

The concept of waiting until a stadium is sold out regularly to generate more seats, when the political/social/and economic climate can support it, is just dumb, small time, backwards save a penny now, instead of making a million later thinking.

It's better to have 50,000 seats to sell in the future, rather than 40,000 - it's that simple. The cost of doing it now, the investment that it would take right now, is well worth the returns that can be generated in the future.

UCONN only generated 22,000 or so on average for the season - actually through the gates last year. That includes high points and low points in the entire lifespan of the stadium so far with regards to attendance - in a 3-9 season, that started 0-9.

A winning program, even with our new scheduling, will do quite well in a 50,000 seat arena. UCONN has that. To not capitalize on it - well....

on the back of dual national titles in basketball, it would seem that now would be an ideal time to push it through the CT state legislative and beaurocratic process it would take.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I don't think The Rent will ever exceed 50,000 in capacity, or that we should even try. In the era of hugescreen TVs and Internet-enabled content, stadiums are getting smaller, not larger.

The new Yankee Stadium is about 5,000-6,000 seats smaller than the old (capacity: approx. 50,100), and Stanford Stadium, which once hosted a Super Bowl and could hold about 80,000, now holds 50,000.

If we have a cozy 50,000 seat stadium that we fill from 80-95% of the capacity on a regular basis, we'll be in great shape.

It doesn't need to be bigger, really. At 50,000 permanent seating (with an actual reported capacity that would be somewhere in the 52-53k range), Rentschler would hold the title of being the biggest dedicated FBS stadium in New England and New York State, and the scheduling and recruiting advantages that would go with that title - and the capability to easily expand beyond that should any other competitor in the region decide they would like to be the top dog in the d---k measuring contest. ;-)

 

[ConnHuskBask]

@Pudge Your basis for expanding the stadium isn't in reality.

You take Rutgers for example and their expansion was widely panned as financially irresponsible and without merit.

They won the B1G lottery due to their state size. Period.

Louisville went through a period of great success with Strong and Bridgewater while we fell off the map with P. This couldn't have happened at a worse time for UConn athletics.

So now with the athletic dept in peril, you want to expand a stadium by 10,000 seats when we averaged nearly 20,000 less people than that a game with a schedule that is likely to become much worse going forward.

All available resources should be going into things that affect the on field performance of the team. Adding 10,000 that won't be needed nearly ever? Foolish.

This premise also operates under the idea idea that with one phone call the B1G can't call and say you're in - just expand the stadium.

Out of curiosity if UConn makes it back to a fringe top 25 program and competes for AAC Titles, who are we playing that will draw 50,000k?

 

[UConnJim]

Bottom line is UConn needs to expand the Rent as soon as possible and put pressure on the football program and athletic department to fill it. Why? At this juncture, we need to show everyone that we are committed to football and committed to improving our football program. In addition, if we ever hope to schedule big time football programs, we need a bigger stadium. As it stands right now, if a conference is looking at schools to add, UConn would have the smallest stadium in the Big 10, the 3rd smallest in the ACC, and the smallest in the Big 12. In my opinion, a 50k stadium is the minimum to be considered an attractive target. Also, for all of you who say that we could expand the stadium if we get an invite, we already have enough doubters out there. We need to continue to make UConn more attractive to conferences.

 

[Carl Spackler]

@Pudge Your basis for expanding the stadium isn't in reality.

You take Rutgers for example and their expansion was widely panned as financially irresponsible and without merit.

They won the B1G lottery due to their state size. Period.

Louisville went through a period of great success with Strong and Bridgewater while we fell off the map with P. This couldn't have happened at a worse time for UConn athletics.

So now with the athletic dept in peril, you want to expand a stadium by 10,000 seats when we averaged nearly 20,000 less people than that a game with a schedule that is likely to become much worse going forward.

All available resources should be going into things that affect the on field performance of the team. Adding 10,000 that won't be needed nearly ever? Foolish.

This premise also operates under the idea idea that with one phone call the B1G can't call and say you're in - just expand the stadium.

Out of curiosity if UConn makes it back to a fringe top 25 program and competes for AAC Titles, who are we playing that will draw 50,000k?

I know you're not writing to me, but you're thinking is exactly that backwards mentality that has led us to where we're at now.

is it better to buy a stock or commodity or something when it's at it's periodic high point or low point? Never mind. That will just confuse things.

There are only 6,7,max 8 home games a year. If just one of those games in the next 4-5 years has the potential to sell 50,000 seats, and we do not have 50,000 seats to sell - the university and it's leadership has done no better than Hathaway's regime did.

 

[WestCoastHusky]

Pudge is right, we should have expanded the stadium years ago. I was one of those guys who have been screaming for years that our stadium needs to be at minimal 50k. It is just not only about attendance today, it is about perception how seriously we take football going forward. Anything less than 50k is simply viewed as small time.

We need to have a plan today to go to 50k+ to garner any interest from p5 conferences. It is not even a choice anymore.

 

[Nostical]

Whoever said the number of chairbacks was reduced to accomodate the higher than planned cost for an upgraded audio/visual system, etc. is correct. I was told exactly that by the stadium's head construction project manager. He never mentioned the "soft concrete". He also said the structure is ready for expansion and it would not be a huge effort to get it done.
I have a feeling that WM's comments about how the team's performance will trigger any stadium expansion means we are moving rather quickly toward expansion. Look for an announcement much sooner than his comments may immediately imply. It's just a feeling on my part but it feels right. WM and especially SH know how high the stakes are.

 

[junglehusky]

If money/budget/foundation structure allows, they could cap the capacity at 60K but add to fan experience by covering the seating area of the stadium (similar to the way many English Premier League soccer stadiums do). Calling a spade a spade, UCONN football fans are a bit fair weathered (literally) and covering them from rain/snow would go a long way to eliminating excuses for not going to games while still allowing our home team to experience the home-field advantages of New England weather.

I can't recall where I read it, but there was a recent stadium project where they drew it up with the covering / partial roof but took it out since it was very costly. Like, an additional 30-40% on top of the original cost.

 

[Dooley]

I can't recall where I read it, but there was a recent stadium project where they drew it up with the covering / partial roof but took it out since it was very costly. Like, an additional 30-40% on top of the original cost.

Well if I win the PowerBall, we aint's gotz to worry about cost!