Uconn spending $70 million on a hockey stadium after cutting Men's cross country for lack of budget

Luv2Run wrote:

I read the article. Yes it is $70M, but it is spread from several sources and is a requirement for the league it is in. Hockey can generate revenue for the athletic dept and that has to be a consideration.

$20M from a gift specifically for a hockey arena. Big chunk from bonds. Big chunk from the sale of a hotel that can only be used for capital projects.

Because there couldn't possibly be any other capital projects on a large college campus with lots of old buildings.

Bonds just means they'll be paying more money and for a longer period of time. This isn't free money. Even the $20 million gift will be subsidized by the state and feds through charitable tax deductions.

Makes financial sense wrote:

This place will seat 2,500 and will replace their ancient 20-year-old arena that seats a mere 2,000. But there'll be more seatbacks! That alone is worth $70 mil.

I'm sure they'll now sell out every home game with those fancy seatbacks. Let's assume $20 a ticket, zero freebies, no student discount, 12 games a season... that's $600,000 a year. They'll have that bond paid off in no time.

I looked into seeing a hockey game at a local college whose teams have decent success and tickets start at $40 for bad seats (upper corners) and range up to $90 and above for single games. I'd imagine UConn will price out well, especially in that small of an arena, as there's not a lot of competition for hockey fans between NYC and Boston without the Whalers around.

Ghost of Jason Rexing's Trainers wrote:

Makes financial sense wrote:

This place will seat 2,500 and will replace their ancient 20-year-old arena that seats a mere 2,000. But there'll be more seatbacks! That alone is worth $70 mil.

I'm sure they'll now sell out every home game with those fancy seatbacks. Let's assume $20 a ticket, zero freebies, no student discount, 12 games a season... that's $600,000 a year. They'll have that bond paid off in no time.

I looked into seeing a hockey game at a local college whose teams have decent success and tickets start at $40 for bad seats (upper corners) and range up to $90 and above for single games. I'd imagine UConn will price out well, especially in that small of an arena, as there's not a lot of competition for hockey fans between NYC and Boston without the Whalers around.

Is that a joke? You think people are going to pay $90 to see UConn Hockey? I can get nice seats at a Celtics game for that price.

BU and BC charge an average of $35-$40, with many seats going much cheaper than that. No way UConn generates anywhere near the interest those schools do. UMass is a much better comparison, they charge $12-$15 and they just won the national championship.

Even better comparison is Quinnipiac or Yale (both of whom played in national championships recently).

QU charges $20-25 for adults. Couldn't find Yale but I assume its similar.

Trust me, no one is going to go watch UCONN to get their hockey fix.

former husky xc wrote:

https://ctexaminer.com/2021/05/03/budget-outlook-brightens-for-uconn-as-plans-for-70-million-hockey-arena-advance/

The AD should be fired, outright lied on lack of money when he cut multiple sports during the pandemic including men's cross country. I am fed up as an ex husky I am turning my back on the school. Despite multiple efforts to keep the program going we were lied to and told long term funding was the issue. So disappointing.

Foolish to think that the people who would fire him weren't in on the gag. Of course they could afford to keep cross country, and of course they knew that. This hockey arena didn't happen overnight.

That being said, one third to half of the cross country teams in D1 are glorified club teams. I don't know how many scholarships were available at UConn, but I doubt they were fully funded. The only reason for a D1 school to keep a partially funded, mediocre team is if they believe the team brings in tuition-paying students with lofty atheltic goals who wouldn't otherwise attend. But this concept doesn't do much for state schools.

Women's CC/Track were/are fully funded. Men were fully funded and now are around 7 fulls after last years debacle.

eddie shore wrote:

Hockey is dope and running is boring. How many fights were in all of NCAA XC the last decade? There were six in the first five minutes of a nationally televised game tonight.

If runners start chuckin knucks on the reg, maybe they’ll get some funding.

PS - I’m a rich alum of another school and I’ve donated $0 to my team, and wouldn’t give a nickel to save the program if it’s on the block. I attribute zero percent of my success to running.

There is no fighting in college hockey.

It sucks but the general population for some reason seems to feel like a winning college football team somehow makes their own life more meaningful.

mathematics wrote:

SleepyGRun wrote:

An outsider take:

Viewing athletics as a business or profit making venture at a university/college is the root of the dissidence here. Educational institutions should focus on developing excellence in all aspects of life including sports but the business management culture that has taken over the 'leadership' positions in all parts of society including higher education do not care about an abstract concept like 'excellence'. So, this is the regrettable situation we are all in and I don't see how to fix it without a revaluating of the role of higher education first and asking what we want from our colleges and universities. Until that happens the status quo is towards ever more business driven decisions that will destroy funding/interest in anything but the most lucrative sports/activities.

Sad but true.

Bro you just described capitalism.

Yes, but the point was should those goals be the sole determiner of the purpose or a college/university education or the role of sports to that education? I hope not.

This is pretty frustrating since most college hockey programs lose a good bit of $$$. I can't think there's a good reason out there to justify this.

Embarrassing. Cross country requires almost no budget and is great for the student quality and the lifelong health outcomes, whereas hockey has a lot of marginal students and concussions.

Where did the AD lie? If you just spent 70 million on hockey, would you have any money left over for XC? One hockey game probably gets more fans than a season of XC....

Former husky here... They can just convert gampel pavilion to be dual use. But yes American economy based on building developments.

Makes financial sense wrote:

Ghost of Jason Rexing's Trainers wrote:

I looked into seeing a hockey game at a local college whose teams have decent success and tickets start at $40 for bad seats (upper corners) and range up to $90 and above for single games. I'd imagine UConn will price out well, especially in that small of an arena, as there's not a lot of competition for hockey fans between NYC and Boston without the Whalers around.

Is that a joke? You think people are going to pay $90 to see UConn Hockey? I can get nice seats at a Celtics game for that price.

BU and BC charge an average of $35-$40, with many seats going much cheaper than that. No way UConn generates anywhere near the interest those schools do. UMass is a much better comparison, they charge $12-$15 and they just won the national championship.

That wasn't my exact suggestion, but UConn will price their tickets to the local market (interest, scarcity, etc.) To be fair, the example I used is one a top 5 program going back decades, isn't in a major conference for the rest of their athletic department, has a larger (far older) arena than UConn will have, and is in the same city with an NHL franchise though the college program predates the pro team's presence there. Its a storied program with a very loyal following, which makes it difficult for casual fans to attend games. I may have been shopping the secondary market at the time, to boot, I don't recall exactly.

Funding for these construction projects typically made possible through the philanthropy of alumni and it’s not money that’s just there.

Cross country runners need to be more successful in regular life, until that happens they won’t get any endowments to build a successful program.

San Diego Hobby Jogger wrote:

Former husky here... They can just convert gampel pavilion to be dual use. But yes American economy based on building developments.

I don't think Gampel could be converted very easily, and the seating arrangement would be very sub-par... it's funny though, Gampel was built for $55 million in 2021 dollars, now that doesn't even buy you a 2500 seat arena.

Apparently they're currently playing in the 16,000 seat NHL-grade XL Center and averaging over 4,000 fans per game. So they're going to spend $70 million, shut out at least 1,500 fans per game, make the average fan drive a lot further to games, and make games a lot less affordable for families, all so they can have their games on campus. And if the team is at all successful, they'll be back to having half their games in Hartford in a few years anyway.

Runner10287 wrote:

eddie shore wrote:

Hockey is dope and running is boring. How many fights were in all of NCAA XC the last decade? There were six in the first five minutes of a nationally televised game tonight.

If runners start chuckin knucks on the reg, maybe they’ll get some funding.

PS - I’m a rich alum of another school and I’ve donated $0 to my team, and wouldn’t give a nickel to save the program if it’s on the block. I attribute zero percent of my success to running.

There is no fighting in college hockey.

Thanks pheasant.

Makes financial sense wrote:

Apparently they're currently playing in the 16,000 seat NHL-grade XL Center and averaging over 4,000 fans per game. So they're going to spend $70 million, shut out at least 1,500 fans per game, make the average fan drive a lot further to games, and make games a lot less affordable for families, all so they can have their games on campus. And if the team is at all successful, they'll be back to having half their games in Hartford in a few years anyway.

Finances aside, this really highlights how dumb this arena is. I live near Hartford and will occasionally go to a UConn hockey game at the XL center because it's close, cheap, and something entertaining to do in the middle of the winter. I've gotten friends and coworkers with no UConn affiliation or interest in hockey out just because it's convenient and interesting. This must be the case for at least half of the crowd at those games - no way will most people travel to the boonies in Storrs to watch a college game. I know I won't.