off the field... Game Day at Cougar Town

[BurntOrangeGuy]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[majorwhiteapples]

BOG:

I think that UCLA game is a one time game. It is not tied to a home a home. I may be wrong, unless we are getting a ton of money we are not giving up a home game.

We get a check for playing in the Cotton Bowl, I wonder if we will get anything for playing in Jerry World, or are we going to have to pay to play?

 

[Lone Star]

Gasman --

Thanks for the perspective. Makes sense.

 

[notanative]

Didn't we manage to host at DKR-TMS while north end zone construction was going on?

 

[krayon]

Gasman,

You clearly do not recall the reasons for the move to Robertson. UT/UH had a long standing contract that was expiring. UH's home field WAS the Dome until that particular year. The contract was agreed to long before Robertson was ever considered UH's home venue.

In fact the contract was written in such a way that it was meant to exclude Robertson by requiring a seating capacity that far exceeded its capacity. Acceptable venues in Houston would be the Dome or Rice. UH used the construction of temporary bleachers as a loophole for meeting the minimum seating capacity of the contract not as a compromise to UT. Only problem was that they couldn't deliver on that promise. UH was contractually obligated to provide far more than 2,500 seats to UT, so your statement about what UH could have done is a complete fallacy. Statements like yours are what lead to misconceptions about "bleachergate".

UT always made that game a "home away from home" game. Even with bleachergate, that year was no different. UT far and away outnumbered UH fans even after thousands of UT fans were subtracted from the equation just days before the game. The Dome was a viable option as construction would have been planned differently to facilitate its use. Rice was a viable venue. Robertson was too small.

UH screwed UT. UH did not uphold its end of the contract. UH's decision cost them dearly as that move blackballed them from any future games with UT. A&M had already done the same years before. UH's loss was Rice's gain. UT was unaffected save for that one game where thousands of fans found themselves without a seat to a game on just a few days notice because UH did not deliver on its contractual obligations.

End of story.

 

[BurntOrangeGuy]

Krayon,

Your version is also the way I remember "bleachergate." I was in Robertson that evening and I too remember the stands being mostly burnt orange. I was in Robertson because I bought uh season tickets to insure that I would get a seat for our game. uh had to spend a lot of money for Robertson to host the game. In addition to the condemned seating that was built, they had to build a temporary press box on the east side to accommodate the TV crew because the Robertson press box was woefully inadequate in size and technology. Additionally temporary stadium lights were installed on both sides to have adequate lighting for the TV cameras. The TV press box caused another expense in that the interlocking uh logo at the 50 had to be turned around to face the TV press box instead of the home stands. The whole process was nothing more than uh's desire to show "the bully" that they could do it. Pure envy. When Gasman asks why another school should change the venue to accommodate the opponent the answer is and always has been "because you are contractually obligated to do so." The only downside to the Astrodome was the playing surface. Had uh not made the decision to play in Robertson, the construction equipment and materials would have been in a more consolidated space because the Houston Sports Authority would have demanded that in order to make more money from parking. Plenty of other events took place there during construction. Like I said in an earlier post, regardless of the issues at the Astrodome area or Rice stadium, either venue would have been more accommodating for fans, players, and workers. uh just had another priority in choosing where to play the game.