XL Center Update

[sledog]

Demolish and upgrade Gamble!

 

[zls44]

Demolish and upgrade Gamble!

Leave Phil out of this

 

[AzHusky]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't UConn get the approval for GP with the condition that it be smaller than the Civic Center, and some of the games each season had to be played at said Civic Center.

 

[CL82]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't UConn get the approval for GP with the condition that it be smaller than the Civic Center, and some of the games each season had to be played at said Civic Center.

As I recollect the deal it was that capacity be capped at like 8500, which it was originally. Within a couple years it had been pushed up to 10,000.

 

[CL82]

If you're asking do I think that the total amount of state aid that UConn gets is tied in to UConn being pliable as to the State's efforts to aid downtown Hartford, yes I do. Is it nearly as direct as "you sign this or we will cut $X from your budget?" No. But I do think OPM lets the University know that it views UConn's support of the XL Center as a "favor" that is in both side's interests.

And you view this as an unmodifiable “favor”? Perhaps as a “offer that the university can’t refuse“?

Again, these are serious questions because you have a bit of an insider‘s view and I know that you understand how negotiations work. From my perspective, my answer is the university would be “We can do that for you, but you need to pay for it. I would pitch my budget with a blank line item for Civic Center games XL Center games and whatever they paid for it I would use.

Another alternative is to cast the CDRA as the villain and say we want to play in Hartford this is the cost for us to play at other arenas. If XL Center will match that we’re all in.

 

[CL82]

I don't understand why anyone in the state would support pouring hundreds of millions into renovating XL. Outside of UConn basketball, it hosts a bunch of worthless events. And UConn basketball essentially plays there as a favor.

We'd be much better off spending that money renovating Gampel, who needs a pretty significant overhaul anyway.

The planned renovation of Gampel would be far less expensive.

 

[Chief00]

The thing Freimuth always misses the boat on is thinking of “revenue related” improvements in such a limited manner. For example, a meaningful expansion of restroom capacity would do more to help revenues than many direct revenue expenditures. If people are tied up in restroom lines during breaks that means they have less time to spend money. The understaffing of entrance lines before a game is the same thing. Those fans bogged down in the hapless lines, would otherwise be inside spending money. In short, he runs a poorly thought out and non customer centric operation.
His approach is more outdated than the building itself. If you start with the customer first, what they want, by definition the revenues flow from that approach. Freimuth is back in the 1950’s.

 

[uconnric]

And you view this as an unmodifiable “favor”? Perhaps as a “offer that the university can’t refuse“?

Again, these are serious questions because you have a bit of an insider‘s view and I know that you understand how negotiations work. From my perspective, my answer is the university would be “We can do that for you, but you need to pay for it. I would pitch my budget with a blank line item for Civic Center games XL Center games and whatever they paid for it I would use.

Another alternative is to cast the CDRA as the villain and say we want to play in Hartford this is the cost for us to play at other arenas. If XL Center will match that we’re all in.

As bus said, there is zero chance that UConn would stop playing in Hartford. That’s a political reality and also a reality that makes games much more accessible for 80% of the fan base.

 

[nadav]

You can't possibly know that a deal between UConn and the XL Center does or doesn't make sense without knowing how much of the state funding of UConn wouldn't be coming if the deal wasn't made. For the Athletic Department to refuse to absorb a few million dollar loss, if that is the case, and cost the university tens of millions in aid is what doesn't make sense.

The University is an arm of the State. It's trustees are appointed by the State and it receives substantial funding from the state. No matter how much some wish that could be separated from athletic decisions, it is not separate.

This is no place for sensibility

 

[businesslawyer]

And you view this as an unmodifiable “favor”? Perhaps as a “offer that the university can’t refuse“?

Again, these are serious questions because you have a bit of an insider‘s view and I know that you understand how negotiations work. From my perspective, my answer is the university would be “We can do that for you, but you need to pay for it. I would pitch my budget with a blank line item for Civic Center games XL Center games and whatever they paid for it I would use.

Another alternative is to cast the CDRA as the villain and say we want to play in Hartford this is the cost for us to play at other arenas. If XL Center will match that we’re all in.

How do you negotiate with an entity that appoints the people who control you, who gives you the right to exist and without whom you're bankrupt? You're treating this like it's a negotiation of unaffiliated parties. The Governor decides who calls the shots at UConn. What kind of leverage do you think that gives UConn in negotiations with the state?

 

[Chin Diesel]

How do you negotiate with an entity that appoints the people who control you, who gives you the right to exist and without whom you're bankrupt? You're treating this like it's a negotiation of unaffiliated parties. The Governor decides who calls the shots at UConn. What kind of leverage do you think that gives UConn in negotiations with the state?

So why don't other state BoT's, legisaltures and executives branches use the UConn model to force the most visible state funded basketball program to play a fixed number of games off campus. UConn is not the only state U that is located away from the highest concentrations of population within the state?

You are correct in saying that the state government has UConn by the balls on this. The question is why do they do it? Every other state chooses not to leverage the same capabilities. It's garbage elected people and the people staffing the agencies.

 

[CL82]

As bus said, there is zero chance that UConn would stop playing in Hartford. That’s a political reality and also a reality that makes games much more accessible for 80% of the fan base.

Just curious. How do you know it’s a political reality?

 

[CL82]

How do you negotiate with an entity that appoints the people who control you, who gives you the right to exist and without whom you're bankrupt? You're treating this like it's a negotiation of unaffiliated parties. The Governor decides who calls the shots at UConn. What kind of leverage do you think that gives UConn in negotiations with the state?

Hypothetically? Well, off the top of my head, step one is asking. Step two would be explaining why the current policy is net negative to the state. Assuming that neither of those is productive, step three is probably to reach out to your own power centers and ask them to express an interest. If one of those happens to be the governor, I think you’re probably in pretty good shape.

Respectfully, of the two of us you were the one who is imagining that this is two independent parties negotiating and all the power wise in one of the two entities. That’s not the case. Appointed commissioners are answerable to legislators and or the executive branch. And both of them are ultimately answerable to the voters.

But I note that you didn’t answer my question. Do you want to now? Do you seriously believe that the state of Connecticut would stop funding its land grant university over their decision not to play games at a loss in a publicly owned venue? I do not.

 

[Chief00]

The elephant in the room is Mohegan Sun. UConn could likely keep 100% of the ticket revenue with no overhead. Mohegan would monitize the ticketholder in other ways.

 

[Chief00]

Hypothetically? Well, off the top of my head, step one is asking. Step two would be explaining why the current policy is net negative to the state. Assuming that neither of those is productive, step three is probably to reach out to your own power centers and ask them to express an interest. If one of those happens to be the governor, I think you’re probably in pretty good shape.

Respectfully, of the two of us you were the one who is imagining that this is two independent parties negotiating and all the power wise in one of the two entities. That’s not the case. Appointed commissioners are answerable to legislators and or the executive branch. And both of them are ultimately answerable to the voters.

But I note that you didn’t answer my question. Do you want to now? Do you seriously believe that the state of Connecticut would stop funding its land grant university over their decision not to play games at a loss in a publicly owned venue? I do not.

Who owns what seems to be a recurring $40m + Athletic Dept annual deficit? Of course, the problem is there seems to be no one held accountable for it. The guy on paper responsible for it, we just gave a big raise to. And the only way to solve it, is to make structural changes that for whatever reason never get addressed.

 

[Platt81]

The elephant in the room is Mohegan Sun. UConn could likely keep 100% of the ticket revenue with no overhead. Mohegan would monitize the ticketholder in other ways.

There is literally ZERO chance they go to an arena that A) is even further from Storrs than Hartford, B) has the same capacity as Gampel, C)is inconvenient to 95% of fans to get to and D) is a casino, they’re not going to play regularly in an arena where all activities around it you need to be 21 and busing a bunch of students under that age to. We might as well say Webster Bank Arena is an elephant in the room too if we’re just listing other Arenas in the state…

 

[Chief00]

There is literally ZERO chance they go to an arena that A) is even further from Storrs than Hartford, B) has the same capacity as Gampel, C)is inconvenient to 95% of fans to get to and D) is a casino, they’re not going to play regularly in an arena where all activities around it you need to be 21 and busing a bunch of students under that age to. We might as well say Webster Bank Arena is an elephant in the room too if we’re just listing other Arenas in the state…

You realize both the women and the men have already played there.

 

[businesslawyer]

So why don't other state BoT's, legisaltures and executives branches use the UConn model to force the most visible state funded basketball program to play a fixed number of games off campus. UConn is not the only state U that is located away from the highest concentrations of population within the state?

You are correct in saying that the state government has UConn by the balls on this. The question is why do they do it? Every other state chooses not to leverage the same capabilities. It's garbage elected people and the people staffing the agencies.

Sometimes, something just happens historically and patterns get locked in for no one reason. That might have been the case here. But if you want nothing more than a WAG, UConn, for a number of historical reasons peculiar to the northeast, had less state support for the flagship university then many other states did. And the University was happy to play the Hartford game in the late 70s and early 80s to play games in front of legislators and get more support from downstate. And the University rode this arrangement to a much improved level of statewide support than it traditionally had.

I’m not going to keep going on this. I’ve said my piece and folks can believe it or not and accept it or not. But one last time — the Governor appoints and removes the trustees at UConn and the Governor is the starting point for all state budget funding decisions. The thought that UConn is going to tell him “no” when he wants something is fantasy

 

[Waquoit]

Demolish and upgrade Gamble!

I know this is meant to funny but it needs to happen. Gampel has been obsolete and awful for 30 years.

 

[Kolumbo]

I know this is meant to funny but it needs to happen. Gampel has been obsolete and awful for 30 years.

The architectural design became outdated very quickly, imo, and this just seems like a bad design if this is the maintenance it requires. No windows at all. A crane collapsed over the side of the building during construction. A sign, perhaps.

 

[superjohn]

The architectural design became outdated very quickly, imo, and this just seems like a bad design if this is the maintenance it requires. No windows at all. A crane collapsed over the side of the building during construction. A sign, perhaps.

View attachment 73890

It was a terrible troll job and you're trying to give it life.

 

[HuskyHawk]

So why don't other state BoT's, legisaltures and executives branches use the UConn model to force the most visible state funded basketball program to play a fixed number of games off campus. UConn is not the only state U that is located away from the highest concentrations of population within the state?

You are correct in saying that the state government has UConn by the balls on this. The question is why do they do it? Every other state chooses not to leverage the same capabilities. It's garbage elected people and the people staffing the agencies.

Can you find similar examples? Penn State doesn't play in Philly, but the 76ers do. Pitt plays in Pittsburgh. Colorado doesn't play in Denver, but it doesn't need to - the Nuggets do. So a state with no NBA or NHL tenant and a U that is away from the main city. I haven't found another one. Louisville is in the main city and does use the public arena. So is U Washington and it doesn't afaik. Kansas and Nebraska don't have arenas in state (KC would love more KU games, but it's in Missouri). URI doesn't use the dunk, because PC does and is a bigger draw. I briefly though IU fit...and remembered the Pacers.

So I found one. Missouri. Two arenas. One still has NHL, the other (KC) lost its NBA team and has no top tier tenant. They play Illinois at St. Louis (for obvious reasons) but no games in KC. So the T-Mobile center (way nicer than XL) isn't used. KU does play there once a season. T-Mobile Center - Wikipedia

 

[CL82]

Sometimes, something just happens historically and patterns get locked in for no one reason. That might have been the case here. But if you want nothing more than a WAG, UConn, for a number of historical reasons peculiar to the northeast, had less state support for the flagship university then many other states did. And the University was happy to play the Hartford game in the late 70s and early 80s to play games in front of legislators and get more support from downstate. And the University rode this arrangement to a much improved level of statewide support than it traditionally had.

I’m not going to keep going on this. I’ve said my piece and folks can believe it or not and accept it or not. But one last time — the Governor appoints and removes the trustees at UConn and the Governor is the starting point for all state budget funding decisions. The thought that UConn is going to tell him “no” when he wants something is fantasy

Tell the governor no? Of course not. Only a fool would tell him, rather than ask him.

Respectfully, the thought that the way things are is the way they will always be is the refuge of small minds.

 

[CL82]

The architectural design became outdated very quickly, imo, and this just seems like a bad design if this is the maintenance it requires. No windows at all. A crane collapsed over the side of the building during construction. A sign, perhaps.

View attachment 73890

But it was “innovative“. If I recall correctly one of the purported benefits of the design was the ease of swapping out panels for repairs. [eyeroll]

 

[HuskyHawk]

It was a terrible troll job and you're trying to give it life.

As someone who watched it being built...we students dubbed it the "U condome", for obvious reasons. It's an ungainly design overly focused on some kind of exterior and interior aesthetic at the cost of practicality. It was a mistake. Build a rectangle, include suites and proper concourses. Maybe some windows for natural light. I fear they are making a similar mistake with the undersized hockey arena.