On January 27, 1990 Gampel Pavilion opened its doors to the public for the first time. Plans for the gleaming arena had been intermittently discussed, shelved and revamped for 15 years before finally being adopted as part of a five year plan for rejuvenating the basketball program that included the hiring of a new coach, Jim Calhoun.
Somewhat lost in the scope of history is that the opening night of Gampel, against St. John’s, was the first Big East game in Storrs of Calhoun’s tenure as the conference had decided that the Field House, UConn’s home court prior to Gampel, was unsuitable for games of that magnitude. Prior to Gampel’s completion every game was played in Hartford at the (then) Civic Center. “It’s important that Big East basketball make its reappearance on our campus as soon as possible,” then Athletic Director Todd Turner told the Associated Press in 1990.
Which brings us to today, 24 years later.
On Monday evening, #12 UConn pulled off a thrilling victory over #15 Florida in front of a sellout crowd of 10,167 on campus in Gampel. The atmosphere was electric and appreciated by UConn players and coaches, including senior guard Shabazz Napier, who hit the game winning buzzer-beater and was not shy about telling the press of his affinity for playing on-campus. It’s a common sentiment that is frequently shared by players, both past and present. The XL Center holds more people (16,294 to be exact), but does so in a sterile, borderline-decrepit arena that is 30 miles from where the players and their student fans reside.
As recently as 2011, former Hartford Whalers owner Howard Baldwin proposed a $105 Million overhaul of the XL Center — transforming the arena and the space around it into a modern entertainment venue that would accommodate foot traffic and perhaps lure a professional hockey team back to the capitol city. Baldwin’s proposal was, if not mocked, almost immediately discarded. In this economic climate — and with a recent national trend of taxpayer-financed privately-owned stadiums failing to return the investment — the appetite was not there for the state to foot the bill, and Baldwin lacked any financial support of his own.
Despite the failure of Baldwin’s proposal, it did spur a conversation about the dismal state of the arena that quite literally did collapse once in the past. When Global Spectrum was chosen as the new managing entity of the XL Center (and Rentschler Field) earlier this year, they became contractually obligated to begin capital improvements to the building. Renovations have started, slated at $2.5 M, that are aimed at keeping the arena functioning while financing their basic operations on the backs of UConn basketball. While Global Spectrum’s management contract runs for ten years, UConn recently signed a new contract with the XL Center that grants them leniency to play at other venues — such as the Webster Bank Arena in Bridgeport.
Sources have said that UConn was unhappy with the process by which Global Spectrum was selected to run XL and the Rent. Coupled with UConn’s demands of alternate venues, the relationship between the university and Hartford seems as strained as ever.
Adding to the intrigue are several feasibility studies. One declares XL’s future lifespan capped at around 10 years. In September, Michael Freimuth, executive director of the Capitol Region Development Authority — the quasi-public agency in charge of negotiating with Global Spectrum — told the Hartford Courant, “the thought here is this is what we have to do to make sure the building has 10 years of productivity left,” in response to a study recommending the state’s investment in renovations. That same study explored the feasibility of building a new arena in downtown Hartford, possibly at a price tag upwards of $400 Million.
In 1974, the first plans for Gampel Pavilion were laid out at an estimated price of $6-7 Million — less than Caron Butler’s 2013 salary. By the time a plan was settled on, a bid was approved and the money was handed over by the state legislature, the total costs amounted to just under $25 Million. Over the past several decades, enhancements have been made to Gampel — including adding additional seats. However, the once glimmering building in the center of campus is beginning to show its age. The interior of its trademark dome is peeling like a sunburn, a constant reminder of the maintenance required of an arena. Its 10,167 seats do not account for any luxury boxes. Alcohol-free concessions limit both earning potential and appeal to adult fans. The students are shoehorned into three sections — under one basket, and the two uppermost ends of the stadium — barely visible on television. Millions of dollars of repairs are required, and will soon be necessary at the same time their auxiliary arena in Hartford is crumbling.
***
There is little sense in paying to maintain two flawed arenas. While it’s noble for UConn to bandage the failed managerial and financial decisions that have doomed the XL Center, it is hardly their responsibility. Hartford should be a market for a professional sports team. And its stadium should be built, funded and maintained by that team’s ownership group — not the state’s taxpayers, and not the state’s university.
Gampel Pavilion is a state-owned building, and whenever its replacement is erected, that will be state-owned as well. The sound financial move would be to start exploring the feasibility of abandoning the XL Center when this current contract expires and playing most UConn home games in a new on-campus arena.
UConn’s relationship with Webster Bank Arena is a smart one. It exposes them to a Fairfield County crowd that supports the team but will rarely travel to Storrs. The same reasoning applies to UConn’s games at Madison Square Garden in Manhattan and the Barclay’s Center in Brooklyn. This season, UConn plays eight games while their students are home for winter break. One is in Hartford. One is in Bridgeport. Two are in Gampel. Four are on the road.
If that breakdown becomes: One in Bridgeport, one in Hartford, one at Mohegan Sun and one on campus — UConn could continue to market themselves across the state while minimizing the students’ absence from campus.
Attendance is an immediate concern. If the university builds a 13,000 seat arena (we’ll split the difference between XL and Gampel), could they fill it? The program has shown it can pack both arenas for big games (like Monday’s), but it has also shown a recent tendency to have massive swaths of seats unsold for minor games. You have to wonder if the crutch of having two venues is actually a deterrent.
There’s not a lot of incentive to travel from Storrs the 30 miles to Hartford to see an exhibition game against Concordia. Or to travel from Hartford to Storrs to see Detroit, or SCSU, if a game will be played in your neighborhood later in the week.
This gets into another issue that UConn needs to resolve immediately, regardless of their home venue, and that is the quality of competition that arrives in Connecticut. The game against Florida was a prime example of what UConn’s program can deliver at its best. If Gampel Pavilion had another 5,000 seats, they would have been filled. The same will be true when Louisville arrives in Storrs in January. Filling the home schedule with high-caliber opponents is crucial to the future success of the program.
The American Athletic Conference will not guarantee sold out arenas. With Louisville departing for the ACC next season, really only Memphis (maybe Cincinnati) is an appealing enough draw to fill either Gampel or the XL Center. A talented and fun UConn squad will fill some of those seats on their own, but the out-of-conference schedule needs to bolster the attendance numbers that will inevitably sag during conference play. Detroit, Yale, Loyola and Maine aren’t going to cut it. The athletic department needs to reach out again to Texas and North Carolina. Continuing series against Florida and Stanford would also be worthwhile. UConn quite honestly needs to have the toughest out-of-conference in the country to maintain both their attendance and their presence on national television.
Expanding upon Gampel, or building a new on-campus arena, would be in keeping with the state’s recent investments in the university. Millions of dollars have been spent over the past few years — if you go back a decade or so and include the UConn 2000 funds, the sum balloons even higher. The goal of all of that funding is to establish the university as a top tier public school that can rival the likes of Michigan and Virginia in both academics and facilities. Not only do athletic buildings factor into that model, when capitalizing on the marketability of the men’s and women’s basketball teams, they have the potential to be an immediate economic driver for the school and the state.
There is a fairly high probability that conversations similar to this have already been happening within UConn’s athletic department. As a high level college program, they are in a unique position to fundraise heavily from wealthy donors and use that money for projects in this vein in the future. It may be several years before this debate truly becomes public, but rest assured it will come eventually.
An arena that has expanded, modern seating, luxury boxes for high rollers, a prominent place for students and genuine ties to the campus makes sense. At least as much sense as spending $400 Million on an XL Center sequel.
Two other issues. One, the access to campus must be improved if Gampel is expanded. Rt 195 and 44 from 84 and 384 would cost billions in state and fed dollars.
Two, state politics control all u conn athletic dept. Decisions. Politicians will not vote to allow state u to abandon a full commitment to the city. U CONN is Connecticut ‘ s pro team
Road access is a very good point. Depending on where and when an on-campus solution would take when, parking may be a concern as well. While UConn will absolutely be dependent on the state for money, the state has no say in the basketball program renewing their lease at XL Center. They could certainly prod them in that direction, but they lack the authority to make that determination — for whatever that’s worth.
While the state doesn’t have formal control of the programs renewing their leases, don’t think for two seconds that they don’t have control in some informal fashion. I’m sure there is little motivation for the Athletic Department to play games in Hartford when Gampel is obviously a better place to play. There is and will continue to be pressure from the state… Just like with the hockey program. That said, any renovations to or replacement of Gampel needs to include hockey if the program is to ever thrive.
The incentive is money. It’s absolutely feasible that the state would fight to keep UConn in Hartford but the university does it now because they can sell more tickets.
A point I was attempting to make in this piece (poorly, perhaps) is that XL is going to cost so much money to keep standing that it will be hard to justify the investment politically — especially without public outrage at the prospect of abandoning Hartford.
The state government funds the University of Connecticut. President Herbst is well aware of who, in the legislature she must consult to have budgets approved and expenditures appropriated. If there is no will in the legislature to play all games on campus they will not be played there, period. The athletic programs are a bargaining chip in the budgetary process. The State will not let Hartford be abandoned by the State University because it is the one enterprise that continues to draw suburban residents into Hartford to spend money. State government recently convinced taxpayers that a riverfront and science and convention center were worth spending hundreds of millions of dollars on because it would draw ,tourists, and state resident into Hartford, and bring in many businesses to the central city. None of this happened to the degree necessary, so it becomes even more necessary to keep the huskies in Hartford. Fan’s wishes are not a big part of this equation. They know the Hard core fans will attend wherever the huskies are ordered to play and as long as the product continues to be excellent, enough fans will reluctantly trek into Hartford to keep it viable as a venue. The Pols will cross the XL bridge when they come to it, possibly using the huskies as a reason to build a new arena next to the convention center down by the river to hold that boondogle together.
We are in perilous times athletically. Great basketball programs with a fan base with deep roots. Unfortunately, basketball cannot successfully support the entire athletic program. The elephant in the room is the floundering, fledgeling football program. It is the tail that wags the dog. In 2011 the Big East conference grossed 113 million. Our Fiesta bowl appearance was 23 million of that total. Football excellence and profitability are necessary for the rest of the athletic department to maintain their excellence. As much as we love college basketball it simply doesn’t generate the revenue necessary to pay for a new on campus arena that would serve as its only home. We might be better served by figuring out how to attract enough football fans to be able to increase Rentchler capacity to 55,000. That would cost very little and would greatly increase revenue, making us more attractive to ACC or B1G. Problem there is CT doesn’t love college football and has never even liked UConn football. The B1G ave attendance is 75,000. ACC is mid 50’s We are in low 30’s. The hard truth is UConn needs the conference the conference doesn’t need UConn.
Having said all this, nothing made me happier than being in Gampel and feeling the electricity as young Shabazz put the dagger in the heart of the gators and immediately race downcourt to embrace his fellow students. we are all #huskies4ever.