Does Syracuse football spend enough to win the ACC?

[CousCuse]

They are going to win the ACC this year. Dino and Dungey will it to be .

 

[HtownOrange]

SU has already upped it's game by increasing staff. Wildhack has let it be know SU will spend more. HCDB will earn a bigger check once his system is running smoothly.

We don't need to spend $50MM to have a good team. Besides, the top end of the spending is on frivilous stuff (whiffle ball field, etc.). The staffs at the top end schools earn the bigger pay, HCDB and crew will do the same.

 

[sutomcat]

That is true. But I wonder how many “millions” it would be for 6 football games. And although less, I wonder if and how much other schools charge for the use of their facilities.

I doubt the charges are based on the number of game days for football. For one, football uses the Dome more than just on game days. Especially back in the time period we are referencing here, pre IPF.

They probably did an allocation along these lines:

Team/Days of use
Football/35 = 33%
Men's basketball/35 = 33%
Men's lacrosse/35 = 33%

So if it cost $10 million to operate the Carrier Dome for the year, split the charges 3 ways among the tenants with money. No charges for the ROTC. the SUMB, or the Ultimate Frisbee team.

I don't think the women's basketball or lacrosse teams played in the Dome at all in those days but I could be wrong.

 

[NJCuse97]

The ranking in the article is % of increase. If we were one of the top spenders in 2003 (wow) then it stands to reason that we would have a lower % of increase to stay "on par". The question of course is how do we get under par. That to me seems to be driven by staff salaries, coaches and support staff. Coaches are getting more and support staffs are getting larger. I think we'll spend more in time. Other than Pitt and Louisville, we are the last one to join the conference, and Louisville and Pitt are the beneficiaries of low spending in 2003 on a list like this. We spent almost twice what UL spent in 2003 vs a what 12% difference in their favor now? If we spent $3-$5 million more on salaries and staff, we'd be near the top of the conference in spending (somewhere between #3-#6). Who cares how that compares to 2003?

 

[sufandu]

The one cost the Syracuse football and basketball programs have that most do not is the cost of operating the Carrier Dome. I believe the university charges the sports programs that use it a lot of money, mainly for heating, maintenance and insurance.

Why don't other programs have that cost? Do they not get charged by their schools for use of the facilities? I would think it should be more economical at SU with multiple programs using one facility.

I wonder what the maintenance costs are for an outdoor football facility and a basketball/other indoor sport facility versus a do it all facility like the dome.

 

[skurey]

Hot take we should be spending the money on getting good players.

 

[blizz]

The ranking in the article is % of increase. If we were one of the top spenders in 2003 (wow) then it stands to reason that we would have a lower % of increase to stay "on par". The question of course is how do we get under par. That to me seems to be driven by staff salaries, coaches and support staff. Coaches are getting more and support staffs are getting larger. I think we'll spend more in time. Other than Pitt and Louisville, we are the last one to join the conference, and Louisville and Pitt are the beneficiaries of low spending in 2003 on a list like this. We spent almost twice what UL spent in 2003 vs a what 12% difference in their favor now? If we spent $3-$5 million more on salaries and staff, we'd be near the top of the conference in spending (somewhere between #3-#6). Who cares how that compares to 2003?

I think the % increase is significant as it reflects an increase in the commitment of resources within an environment of rising costs. Add the correlation of each program's relative performance over that same time period and I think it's telling and jives with what alot of people complaining about the level of investment compared to our peers (pointing the finger at myself here) have been whining about.

 

[DomeStranger]

So Louisville spent 7.1M in 2003 while being a member of the CUSA, seems a bit far fetched.

 

[Moontan]

Why don't other programs have that cost? Do they not get charged by their schools for use of the facilities? I would think it should be more economical at SU with multiple programs using one facility.

I wonder what the maintenance costs are for an outdoor football facility and a basketball/other indoor sport facility versus a do it all facility like the dome.

• No other FBS stadium, nor basketball arena, requires 24x7 inflation of a roof.
• Some (many? most?) State schools treat a stadium like a park. The State pays for park maintenance.

 

[sufandu]

• No other FBS stadium, nor basketball arena, requires 24x7 inflation of a roof.
• Some (many? most?) State schools treat a stadium like a park. The State pays for park maintenance.

I wonder how much it costs to keep the roof inflated and how that compares to total maintenance costs? I guess it won't matter in a couple years.

Does that mean teams don't get charged for using them? That would seem odd since most, maybe all, major AD budgets are separate from the rest of the school.

 

[elimunelson]

SU has already upped it's game by increasing staff. Wildhack has let it be know SU will spend more. HCDB will earn a bigger check once his system is running smoothly.

We don't need to spend $50MM to have a good team. Besides, the top end of the spending is on frivilous stuff (whiffle ball field, etc.). The staffs at the top end schools earn the bigger pay, HCDB and crew will do the same.

We need to be in line with our peer programs in the Northeast. Period. We won't win an arm's race with the southern quadrant ever. BC/Pitt we need to be in line w these guys yearly facility wise, staff wise, etc. Those are our peers and we need to find a way to be in front of them with progressive measures as well. I think people underestimate how novel our pro option was in the 90s. It kept us relevant and exciting.

 

[HtownOrange]

We need to be in line with our peer programs in the Northeast. Period. We won't win an arm's race with the southern quadrant ever. BC/Pitt we need to be in line w these guys yearly facility wise, staff wise, etc. Those are our peers and we need to find a way to be in front of them with progressive measures as well. I think people underestimate how novel our pro option was in the 90s. It kept us relevant and exciting.

With a Coach that understands the advantages of the Dome and will make the best use of it, just staying ahead of our northeast peers is low-balling expectations. Just my opinion, but I recall a time when all the big boys knew they could not ignore Syracuse nor could they avoid them. We are on the verge of another great football resurgence. Keep the Chancellor, AD and HC together as long as SU can.