(08-18-2019 04:46 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(08-18-2019 02:19 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(08-18-2019 01:29 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  Next years schedule will be a bit of a joke, but I’m sure the NCAA will give them all kinds of waivers to make it work

Why would the NCAA give them a waiver for something they voluntarily did themselves? They didn't get kicked out of the AAC, they chose to leave.

UConn isn’t likely to be competing for a playoff spot anytime soon, so it doesn’t seem like there’s much harm in letting them schedule one more FCS game or only have 4 home games. Why force them to drop football for a year

Yea, especially if UConn is able to secure an FBS-compliant schedule in the 2022 and on years there's really no harm in the NCAA green-lighting it but making UConn "ineligible" for bowls with that schedule, knowing the school won't fight the restriction since they wouldn't make a bowl anyway. Trying to force a school to FCS becomes a whole legal thing, and with all the looking the other way they do with the supposed attendance requirement I don't think the political will is there.

I’d petition the NCAA to get a week 0 waiver for the UMass game, freeing week 1 for another opponent.

I’d try to work with Maine to reschedule The week 3 game for October or November.

I’d also see if Liberty and WCU would be willing to let them play both sides of that game. WCU in week 11 and Liberty in week 14.

NMSU is free in week 13 and UConn could offer to play the first of a multi-year series in Las Cruces. They have the Hawaii exemption.

(08-18-2019 05:18 PM)Bogg Wrote:  

(08-18-2019 04:46 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(08-18-2019 02:19 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(08-18-2019 01:29 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  Next years schedule will be a bit of a joke, but I’m sure the NCAA will give them all kinds of waivers to make it work

Why would the NCAA give them a waiver for something they voluntarily did themselves? They didn't get kicked out of the AAC, they chose to leave.

UConn isn’t likely to be competing for a playoff spot anytime soon, so it doesn’t seem like there’s much harm in letting them schedule one more FCS game or only have 4 home games. Why force them to drop football for a year

Yea, especially if UConn is able to secure an FBS-compliant schedule in the 2022 and on years there's really no harm in the NCAA green-lighting it but making UConn "ineligible" for bowls with that schedule, knowing the school won't fight the restriction since they wouldn't make a bowl anyway. Trying to force a school to FCS becomes a whole legal thing, and with all the looking the other way they do with the supposed attendance requirement I don't think the political will is there.

Idk, but on the Boneyard, fans said in a nutshell independent scheduling would be far more appealing then going FB Only in the MAC with UMass and taking accentually no money. Can understand the point of view if it's realistic, but what you are describing makes me wonder.

(08-18-2019 05:29 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’d petition the NCAA to get a week 0 waiver for the UMass game, freeing week 1 for another opponent.

I’d try to work with Maine to reschedule The week 3 game for October or November.

I’d also see if Liberty and WCU would be willing to let them play both sides of that game. WCU in week 11 and Liberty in week 14.

NMSU is free in week 13 and UConn could offer to play the first of a multi-year series in Las Cruces. They have the Hawaii exemption.

There's not much benefit in scheduling more than one FCS school, since you can only count one home game vs. an FCS toward the 5-game minimum.

(08-18-2019 05:30 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  Idk, but on the Boneyard, fans said in a nutshell independent scheduling would be far more appealing then going FB Only in the MAC with UMass and taking accentually no money. Can understand the point of view if it's realistic, but what you are describing makes me wonder.

What I'm describing isn't really relevant for more than the first year or two. The kind of struggles I'm anticipating are a product of the timeline involved, not an every-year-as-an-indy thing. Once you get into a reasonable lead time for scheduling it shouldn't be too difficult to have a normal schedule.

(08-18-2019 05:37 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(08-18-2019 05:29 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’d petition the NCAA to get a week 0 waiver for the UMass game, freeing week 1 for another opponent.

I’d try to work with Maine to reschedule The week 3 game for October or November.

I’d also see if Liberty and WCU would be willing to let them play both sides of that game. WCU in week 11 and Liberty in week 14.

NMSU is free in week 13 and UConn could offer to play the first of a multi-year series in Las Cruces. They have the Hawaii exemption.

There's not much benefit in scheduling more than one FCS school, since you can only count one home game vs. an FCS toward the 5-game minimum.

They only need to find two more FBS schools to meet that requirement.

(08-18-2019 06:21 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(08-18-2019 05:37 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(08-18-2019 05:29 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’d petition the NCAA to get a week 0 waiver for the UMass game, freeing week 1 for another opponent.

I’d try to work with Maine to reschedule The week 3 game for October or November.

I’d also see if Liberty and WCU would be willing to let them play both sides of that game. WCU in week 11 and Liberty in week 14.

NMSU is free in week 13 and UConn could offer to play the first of a multi-year series in Las Cruces. They have the Hawaii exemption.

There's not much benefit in scheduling more than one FCS school, since you can only count one home game vs. an FCS toward the 5-game minimum.

They only need to find two more FBS schools to meet that requirement.

My point is: what does a second FCS game gain them? They'd probably lose money because they'd have to buy the FCS school.

(08-18-2019 02:49 PM)Bogg Wrote:  

(08-18-2019 02:35 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  Checked UConn schedule and all I can see adding is a 4th game for 2021, Purdue home game with a return game in 2025!. No future year has more than 4 games scheduled.


Boog, what is going on??

https://fbschedules.com/ncaa/uconn/

What's going on is basketball's taking the reins back and Uconn's getting back it its roots. Football set all-time records for futility last year, it's really the wrong school to threaten with the prospect of multiple FCS games. Quite frankly, they need to play some lower competition while they get back on track anyway.

The threat is not having to play 2 or even 4 FCS games. The threat is being out of compliance with the minimum FBS scheduling requirements (5 home games, 4 FBS home games plus 3-4 FBS road games)

That would put UConn on "restricted status", which if I remember right means a 10 year bowl ban.

(08-18-2019 05:37 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(08-18-2019 05:29 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’d petition the NCAA to get a week 0 waiver for the UMass game, freeing week 1 for another opponent.

I’d try to work with Maine to reschedule The week 3 game for October or November.

I’d also see if Liberty and WCU would be willing to let them play both sides of that game. WCU in week 11 and Liberty in week 14.

NMSU is free in week 13 and UConn could offer to play the first of a multi-year series in Las Cruces. They have the Hawaii exemption.

There's not much benefit in scheduling more than one FCS school, since you can only count one home game vs. an FCS toward the 5-game minimum.

You have to play I think 9 games, so you gotta get somebody.

(08-18-2019 07:03 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-18-2019 05:37 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(08-18-2019 05:29 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’d petition the NCAA to get a week 0 waiver for the UMass game, freeing week 1 for another opponent.

I’d try to work with Maine to reschedule The week 3 game for October or November.

I’d also see if Liberty and WCU would be willing to let them play both sides of that game. WCU in week 11 and Liberty in week 14.

NMSU is free in week 13 and UConn could offer to play the first of a multi-year series in Las Cruces. They have the Hawaii exemption.

There's not much benefit in scheduling more than one FCS school, since you can only count one home game vs. an FCS toward the 5-game minimum.

You have to play I think 9 games, so you gotta get somebody.

I had to dig through the DI bylaws, but I was able to confirm that 9 games is the minimum for football (20.9.6.3). I think UConn would be better off seeking buy games. I'm guessing they'd make more money that way than with a home game. So play the minimum number of home games and the rest are away.

(08-18-2019 07:00 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  The threat is not having to play 2 or even 4 FCS games. The threat is being out of compliance with the minimum FBS scheduling requirements (5 home games, 4 FBS home games plus 3-4 FBS road games)

That would put UConn on "restricted status", which if I remember right means a 10 year bowl ban.

So I went ahead and just read the bylaws. It appears there are no waivers for FBS requirements, but the first failure to meet FBS requirements results in a "Notice of Non-compliance" (20.9.9.5.1), which is functionally a written warning. Do it again within 10 years and you're put on restricted membership (defined in 20.2.5.1.3 and 20.9.9.5.2), basically a bowl ban for the duration of the restriction, for a minimum of one and a maximum of three years during which time you have to get in compliance. If I'm reading that correctly, it takes 5 straight years of non-compliance to get forcibly booted to FCS, and the postseason ineligibility only lasts for the duration of the non-compliance period.

That ignores that UConn already has 3 of the 5 games they need scheduled, and 1 of the remaining 2 games they need can be a neutral-site game anywhere that isn't someone's home stadium. My guess is they find a way to get one more home game and then somebody out there wants to play a game in either Fenway or Yankee Stadium.

(08-18-2019 08:32 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(08-18-2019 07:03 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-18-2019 05:37 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(08-18-2019 05:29 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’d petition the NCAA to get a week 0 waiver for the UMass game, freeing week 1 for another opponent.

I’d try to work with Maine to reschedule The week 3 game for October or November.

I’d also see if Liberty and WCU would be willing to let them play both sides of that game. WCU in week 11 and Liberty in week 14.

NMSU is free in week 13 and UConn could offer to play the first of a multi-year series in Las Cruces. They have the Hawaii exemption.

There's not much benefit in scheduling more than one FCS school, since you can only count one home game vs. an FCS toward the 5-game minimum.

You have to play I think 9 games, so you gotta get somebody.

I had to dig through the DI bylaws, but I was able to confirm that 9 games is the minimum for football (20.9.6.3). I think UConn would be better off seeking buy games. I'm guessing they'd make more money that way than with a home game. So play the minimum number of home games and the rest are away.

There will be some buy games, no doubt, but the single biggest determining factor regarding the future of UConn Football will be getting people back to going to the games. Filling the schedule with 50-point blowouts on the road won't do that. Some FCS wins aren't going to sell out Rentschler, but they will make it a little more enjoyable for the fans.

Regardless, students are not going to take the 90 minute bus ride and transfers to Rentschler. You will never build a fan base when students don't attend.

An important date to keep in mind June 30, 2023. That is when UConn's lease at Rentschler runs out. At that point they no longer need to write an annual check of $250K to the stadium to help it's losses. That also could be a good date to end FBS Football at UConn.

(08-18-2019 10:40 PM)Bogg Wrote:  

(08-18-2019 07:00 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  The threat is not having to play 2 or even 4 FCS games. The threat is being out of compliance with the minimum FBS scheduling requirements (5 home games, 4 FBS home games plus 3-4 FBS road games)

That would put UConn on "restricted status", which if I remember right means a 10 year bowl ban.

So I went ahead and just read the bylaws. It appears there are no waivers for FBS requirements, but the first failure to meet FBS requirements results in a "Notice of Non-compliance" (20.9.9.5.1), which is functionally a written warning. Do it again within 10 years and you're put on restricted membership (defined in 20.2.5.1.3 and 20.9.9.5.2), basically a bowl ban for the duration of the restriction, for a minimum of one and a maximum of three years during which time you have to get in compliance. If I'm reading that correctly, it takes 5 straight years of non-compliance to get forcibly booted to FCS, and the postseason ineligibility only lasts for the duration of the non-compliance period.

That ignores that UConn already has 3 of the 5 games they need scheduled, and 1 of the remaining 2 games they need can be a neutral-site game anywhere that isn't someone's home stadium. My guess is they find a way to get one more home game and then somebody out there wants to play a game in either Fenway or Yankee Stadium.

(08-18-2019 08:32 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(08-18-2019 07:03 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-18-2019 05:37 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(08-18-2019 05:29 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’d petition the NCAA to get a week 0 waiver for the UMass game, freeing week 1 for another opponent.

I’d try to work with Maine to reschedule The week 3 game for October or November.

I’d also see if Liberty and WCU would be willing to let them play both sides of that game. WCU in week 11 and Liberty in week 14.

NMSU is free in week 13 and UConn could offer to play the first of a multi-year series in Las Cruces. They have the Hawaii exemption.

There's not much benefit in scheduling more than one FCS school, since you can only count one home game vs. an FCS toward the 5-game minimum.

You have to play I think 9 games, so you gotta get somebody.

I had to dig through the DI bylaws, but I was able to confirm that 9 games is the minimum for football (20.9.6.3). I think UConn would be better off seeking buy games. I'm guessing they'd make more money that way than with a home game. So play the minimum number of home games and the rest are away.

There will be some buy games, no doubt, but the single biggest determining factor regarding the future of UConn Football will be getting people back to going to the games. Filling the schedule with 50-point blowouts on the road won't do that. Some FCS wins aren't going to sell out Rentschler, but they will make it a little more enjoyable for the fans.

As Stugray points out, it's likely that UConn only needs to run out the clock. At this point, I don't think they're interested in investing any more than necessary into the football program.

The state of UConn football is not good. This is the only school however that gave a break down of the tickets distributed vs. turnstile count. The UMass game was the worst, with over 24K tickets distributed less than 4K attended. (So much for the idea UMass is a good partner for UConn in football)

https://www.courant.com/sports/uconn-foo...story.html

They are so desperate that this coming year they are making student tickets on the roadshow bus FREE. Although 4,000 seats are allocated, the students just don't like the hour long bus ride.

Basketball, both Men's and Women's, you have to get tickets in advance, as they expect every game to fill to the allocated student allotment. But Football students can walk up, with no fear of getting anywhere near the allocation limit.

Pretty grim. But were I UConn football I'd hate to not play 2023, as the four games they have scheduled include hosting Duke and Florida State, plus a Thanksgiving day game at BC. MOveing to an annual renewing lease in 2023 would probably be a better move, and getting rid of the $250K loss clause whcih is a negative for both the Stadium and UConn.

But no way would I invest in a stadium on campus for UConn until there is some positive turn in attendance. They are in a chicken and eggs situation with Football. You can't invest until it's worth investing in, but it can't much improve it's value until you invest in it.

Stugray2, you neglected to talk about the weather that day. I had tickets as many UMass fans and did not go. UConn got their money for the game. These were not phony sales.

(08-18-2019 11:06 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Regardless, students are not going to take the 90 minute bus ride and transfers to Rentschler. You will never build a fan base when students don't attend.

The funny thing is that there's a good-sized chunk of the students that currently make the trip, they just tailgate and leave. Make the team not be so godawful depressing and they'll actually come in the gate.

Keep in mind the last time UConn was decent they regularly sold out the stadium. It's not a stretch to say a decent independent team will pretty consistently have 20-30k in the stands.

(08-19-2019 01:32 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The state of UConn football is not good. This is the only school however that gave a break down of the tickets distributed vs. turnstile count. The UMass game was the worst, with over 24K tickets distributed less than 4K attended. (So much for the idea UMass is a good partner for UConn in football)

https://www.courant.com/sports/uconn-foo...story.html

As was pointed out, it was the worst weather day of the fall in the second half of the worst football season at the FBS level yet. The UMass game actually had more tickets distributed than the season opener against UCF (the most of the year, actually), so I'd like to see how it goes in normal weather during a season when they aren't setting all-time records for futility.

(08-19-2019 01:32 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  They are so desperate that this coming year they are making student tickets on the roadshow bus FREE. Although 4,000 seats are allocated, the students just don't like the hour long bus ride.

Basketball, both Men's and Women's, you have to get tickets in advance, as they expect every game to fill to the allocated student allotment. But Football students can walk up, with no fear of getting anywhere near the allocation limit.

Pretty grim. But were I UConn football I'd hate to not play 2023, as the four games they have scheduled include hosting Duke and Florida State, plus a Thanksgiving day game at BC. MOveing to an annual renewing lease in 2023 would probably be a better move, and getting rid of the $250K loss clause whcih is a negative for both the Stadium and UConn.

But no way would I invest in a stadium on campus for UConn until there is some positive turn in attendance. They are in a chicken and eggs situation with Football. You can't invest until it's worth investing in, but it can't much improve it's value until you invest in it.

Yea, this is why I don't totally get all the doom and gloom about how awful leaving the AAC is going to be for the football program. Things are already so awful they're on track to shut down the program! It literally can't get worse, things either get better or the program goes away, AAC or no AAC.

There won't be an on-campus stadium. They're going to sink or swim with Rentschler.

(08-18-2019 11:06 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  An important date to keep in mind June 30, 2023. That is when UConn's lease at Rentschler runs out. At that point they no longer need to write an annual check of $250K to the stadium to help it's losses. That also could be a good date to end FBS Football at UConn.

(08-18-2019 11:32 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  As Stugray points out, it's likely that UConn only needs to run out the clock. At this point, I don't think they're interested in investing any more than necessary into the football program.

Maybe! Things aren't good. I just hope everyone's ready to own their predictions over the next few months, because I have a feeling Uconn's going to announce some series that extend past 2022 during the coming academic year and there should be a round of "I was wrong"s in here if so.

(08-19-2019 08:08 AM)Bogg Wrote:  

(08-18-2019 11:06 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  An important date to keep in mind June 30, 2023. That is when UConn's lease at Rentschler runs out. At that point they no longer need to write an annual check of $250K to the stadium to help it's losses. That also could be a good date to end FBS Football at UConn.

Maybe! Things aren't good. I just hope everyone's ready to own their predictions over the next few months, because I have a feeling Uconn's going to announce some series that extend past 2022 during the coming academic year and there should be a round of "I was wrong"s in here if so.

I didn't say they would shut it down. I just noted the date. I also said 2023 has a good core set of games. Move Lafayette deep in the season and you have 2 free September dates, which can be on the road since your already hosting Duke and Florida State in September, providing great value for another set of P5 series.

That is definitely not the year I'd want to shut down. That is an opportunity year, where you could see a 5 or 6 P5 schools playing UConn.

I do see the lease terms being very different. UConn off the hook for covering losses, the stadium free to run many more types of events than they do now. But UConn will probably have to pay a higher rent for the games they do play there.

The State of Connecticut made a huge mistake in locating the stadium where they did. It's the same mistake the State of California made when trying to set up the High Speed rail, locating large chunks of it far from anywhere anyone would want to go, rather than running directly from San Jose to Los Angeles (San Francisco connects to San Jose via express already and those are now electrified). But right now the section they wasted all the funding on will go from Merced to Bakersfield. (I guess DavidSt would use this as proof that UC Merced will go D1 and join the Big West). Any sane person would have run the train down 101 straight to Santa Barbara. But Politicians in the Valley had more power and wanted to revitalize the Central Valley. Same thing happened in Connecticut, secondary objectives (revitalizing a declining area far from the primary need for the project) decided the location. So it's a boondoggle (at least it's a lot cheaper than our train)
https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/art...621347.php



UConn football will forever be handicapped by this. It loses probably more than 50% of the students who would attend otherwise. I am sure the bus ride is fun, but it has way more restrictions on students that the UCLA to Pasadena and you don't have southern California weather. I strongly suspect the location of the stadium was one of the primary reasons UConn football has been bad after the initial start went well. Even bad stadiums wont stop a good launch of a product in demand. But after the first few years of novelty wears off, the first downturn in the program the stadium becomes such a negative nobody wants to go to it.

But since I didn't say I expect the program to shut down after 2022 (but maybe sometime before 2030 it could well happen), you can't put me in that list. If the program doesn't start making money, that is a date to watch. But you don't want to pay Duke and Florida State $1.5M each to cancel the games. So I see June 30, 2023 as more likely a shift to an annual renewal arrangement than a shut down. But with that set up, shutting down is easier after that.

(08-18-2019 05:29 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’d petition the NCAA to get a week 0 waiver for the UMass game, freeing week 1 for another opponent.

I’d try to work with Maine to reschedule The week 3 game for October or November.

I’d also see if Liberty and WCU would be willing to let them play both sides of that game. WCU in week 11 and Liberty in week 14.

NMSU is free in week 13 and UConn could offer to play the first of a multi-year series in Las Cruces. They have the Hawaii exemption.

The 13th NMSU game at the end their season is interesting for NMSU as it can be a bowl for them and give the university a chance to make couple extra bucks at the end of the season to help support their independent program.

(08-19-2019 11:50 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(08-19-2019 08:08 AM)Bogg Wrote:  

(08-18-2019 11:06 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  An important date to keep in mind June 30, 2023. That is when UConn's lease at Rentschler runs out. At that point they no longer need to write an annual check of $250K to the stadium to help it's losses. That also could be a good date to end FBS Football at UConn.

Maybe! Things aren't good. I just hope everyone's ready to own their predictions over the next few months, because I have a feeling Uconn's going to announce some series that extend past 2022 during the coming academic year and there should be a round of "I was wrong"s in here if so.

I didn't say they would shut it down. I just noted the date. I also said 2023 has a good core set of games. Move Lafayette deep in the season and you have 2 free September dates, which can be on the road since your already hosting Duke and Florida State in September, providing great value for another set of P5 series.

That is definitely not the year I'd want to shut down. That is an opportunity year, where you could see a 5 or 6 P5 schools playing UConn.

I do see the lease terms being very different. UConn off the hook for covering losses, the stadium free to run many more types of events than they do now. But UConn will probably have to pay a higher rent for the games they do play there.

The State of Connecticut made a huge mistake in locating the stadium where they did. It's the same mistake the State of California made when trying to set up the High Speed rail, locating large chunks of it far from anywhere anyone would want to go, rather than running directly from San Jose to Los Angeles (San Francisco connects to San Jose via express already and those are now electrified). But right now the section they wasted all the funding on will go from Merced to Bakersfield. (I guess DavidSt would use this as proof that UC Merced will go D1 and join the Big West). Any sane person would have run the train down 101 straight to Santa Barbara. But Politicians in the Valley had more power and wanted to revitalize the Central Valley. Same thing happened in Connecticut, secondary objectives (revitalizing a declining area far from the primary need for the project) decided the location. So it's a boondoggle (at least it's a lot cheaper than our train)
https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/art...621347.php



UConn football will forever be handicapped by this. It loses probably more than 50% of the students who would attend otherwise. I am sure the bus ride is fun, but it has way more restrictions on students that the UCLA to Pasadena and you don't have southern California weather. I strongly suspect the location of the stadium was one of the primary reasons UConn football has been bad after the initial start went well. Even bad stadiums wont stop a good launch of a product in demand. But after the first few years of novelty wears off, the first downturn in the program the stadium becomes such a negative nobody wants to go to it.

But since I didn't say I expect the program to shut down after 2022 (but maybe sometime before 2030 it could well happen), you can't put me in that list. If the program doesn't start making money, that is a date to watch. But you don't want to pay Duke and Florida State $1.5M each to cancel the games. So I see June 30, 2023 as more likely a shift to an annual renewal arrangement than a shut down. But with that set up, shutting down is easier after that.

Fair enough. To be clear, I'm no big defender of Rentschler's location - as a former student who went to the majority of the football games there during my four years, it's absolutely a pain to coordinate everything for the kids.

For what it's worth, I think it's NC State coming to Rentschler that year, not Florida State, but point taken - you're right that it's the start of a good schedule.

(08-19-2019 11:50 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The State of Connecticut made a huge mistake in locating the stadium where they did. It's the same mistake the State of California made when trying to set up the High Speed rail, locating large chunks of it far from anywhere anyone would want to go,

That's the exact opposite of what Connecticut did with the stadium. The stadium is right off the interstate, in the metro of the state capital, which is centrally located and is the population center of the state.

Quote:UConn football will forever be handicapped by this. It loses probably more than 50% of the students who would attend otherwise.

Naah. UConn basketball does just fine in Hartford. The problem is that UConn is in a part of the country that DGAF about college football. There was marginal support for a program at the top level, competing with the Syracuse and Pitt and West Virginia (and Miami and BC, in the original plans). A second-level program competing with the Temples and East Carolinas and Tulsas is a hard sell.

Quote: Even bad stadiums wont stop a good launch of a product in demand. But after the first few years of novelty wears off, the first downturn in the program the stadium becomes such a negative nobody wants to go to it.

That's what FBS UConn and UMass lack. The stadium location isn't the problem.