Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="OttoMets, post: 1792656, member: 716"]
A few thoughts:

Manley's 1978 and 2009 renovations (to say nothing of all the mechanicals they've upgraded, new track, new hardwood, several additions) cost way more than 9 times the 1962 construction cost. One could say the same for many old buildings on campus. Should George Manley's name be removed for the highest bidder? Would anyone argue that the field house is a 'different building' than it used to be?

I disagree that Carrier 'scored.' And I don't think 'rights' is even the correct word choice here. This was a naming gift, a philanthropic gesture, not a quid pro quo. It's been mentioned a number of times in previous threads, but this is common in naming academic buildings and shouldn't be treated differently (because it's not different in any substantive way).

Not that it's relevant to this discussion, but a point of accuracy: Carrier's still got a presence in Central New York, a presence that employs thousands (and probably supports that many households). I think the 'Carrier wronged CNY meme' is a little tired, whether or not we agree with outsourcing (and I'm with you on that one).

And that leads into the last point, without getting into an argument about who's committed to CNY and to what degree. There aren't many (if any) corporate sponsors who'd make it worth the university's while to put their name on a stadium. That sort of corporate largesse (sadly, the sort demonstrated by Carrier in 1979 that's being underappreciated right now) doesn't exist to that extent in this community anymore.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?