Dome Renovation

[Qbobby]

It sounds like some people look at it from a strictly selfish point of view. Which I totally understand when money is involved. But those people need to look at themselves honestly and think about what they want. Do they not want a season where they can go to every game and we languish with some sub-standard facilities that can be used against us in recruiting? Or we do something on the "cheap" that end up with cost overruns and costs only moderately less than something more significant and modern?

Would it be better to make the one year sacrifice and then have modern, more top of the line facilities to go with the rest of the campus in the redesign and use that as a springboard to move into the future with a new coaching staff, philosophy, and positive attitude?

Not that there is a right answer, but I would happily give up going to games for a year if after that I'd be going to a new, modern facility (RIP pee troughs and plowing through the crowds in the narrow concourse at halftime) with perhaps more/better parking/tailgating and the future looking very bright for the program.

 

[cpatrocks]

I guess you weren't a fan in 1979 when the team had ALL road games because the dome was under construction. BTW, Syracuse went to a bowl game and won it that year.

I'd be ok with a season of all road games, if the following year we can get a season of all home games.

 

[Scooch]

Well, if that's the case, the the cheapest option is the choice.
The University is enhanced by increased applications if the city is viewed was a cool place at which to go to college. An easy connection between campus, armory/downtown, inner harbor, the new concert center, Destiny, train station and airport, would be great.
How or if that could be done is beyond me.

Eh, I think there's not much quantitative evidence to suggest that it's all that important. I like Syracuse, but it's not Boston, or NYC, or DC, etc. Kids who prioritize going to college in a "cool city" aren't going to SU, generally speaking. Easier access to things that already exist really isn't moving the needle much. I doubt that the HS seniors and their parents who are thinking about SU are going to pick it over, say, Boston University, because there's a shuttle to the amphitheater.

I think people tend to get over their skis on this kind of stuff. There is so much evidence that new stadiums/arenas are not any kind of net positive to real economic growth.

If SU think replacing the Dome with a new facility either on South Campus or somewhere else in the city is the best option, for a number of tangible reasons, then they should do it. But pinning it to the idea that it'll be an economic generator is wishful thinking, and there's precious little data to suggest that'll happen.

 

[Toga]

Can't we just use a 3-D printed remodeled Dome? Maybe I don't understand 3-D printing.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

Can't we just use a 3-D printed remodeled Dome? Maybe I don't understand 3-D printing.

I'm going to buy a 3-D printer, and use it to make another 3-D printer.

Then I'll return the 1st one back to the store.

 

[Toga]

I'm going to buy a 3-D printer, and use it to make another 3-D printer.

Then I'll return the 1st one back to the store.

Must be a Steven Wright fan.

 

[RF2044]

Must be a Steven Wright fan.

Or Mitch Hedberg.

 

[jr4750]

Eh, I think there's not much quantitative evidence to suggest that it's all that important. I like Syracuse, but it's not Boston, or NYC, or DC, etc. Kids who prioritize going to college in a "cool city" aren't going to SU, generally speaking. Easier access to things that already exist really isn't moving the needle much. I doubt that the HS seniors and their parents who are thinking about SU are going to pick it over, say, Boston University, because there's a shuttle to the amphitheater.

I think people tend to get over their skis on this kind of stuff. There is so much evidence that new stadiums/arenas are not any kind of net positive to real economic growth.

If SU think replacing the Dome with a new facility either on South Campus or somewhere else in the city is the best option, for a number of tangible reasons, then they should do it. But pinning it to the idea that it'll be an economic generator is wishful thinking, and there's precious little data to suggest that'll happen.

This is well said. I would only offer that revenue (minus any costs associated with construction) has no where to go but up, if you consider the causal fan, and what he/she thinks about fan amenities, seating, convenience, excitement. Some moderate to bigger advancements either with the dome, or certainly if they built a new arena, would go a long way to convincing the on the fence individual to get off the couch and come check the game out in person. I agree that it probably wont move the needle to a kid who wants to play in LA, or live in Boston, but it might generate a bit more interest in those looking for a "college town," experience. Plus, the real people SU needs to bring back in are the locals. Sitting in a super hot arena, on hard metal bleachers, with cramped hallways, and 80/90's style vending options, aren't gonna cut it for much longer. Can gameday atmosphere, plus exciting football yield another 10k in the seats? Maybe all they need is that competitive team, and the dome can stay as it is.

I think I probably danced around your point too much, and I have no idea if a better dome yields developments on marshall street/downtown, etc. Unfortunately, a renovated dome being on campus doesn't allow for nearby development in the form of restaurants, bars, etc, directly alongside it. Nor would a south campus stadium. Imagine if they built an arena on Loguen Crossing it would generate substantial redevelopment and even more interest downtown.

 

[Macky44]

I dont get why the concern from out of town people over losing a season of FB games. if you drive from the east NYC/Albany you might actually get a game or 2 closer , same from the west if you come from Roch, Buffalo is a wash. the locals lose out and there are vastly more in the local area going to games. but a 1 yr washout for a new place is a no brainer to me.

I don't know a single local that is against losing a year for an upgraded stadium. Im talking about folks from Archbold days as well.

 

[Macky44]

Eh, I think there's not much quantitative evidence to suggest that it's all that important. I like Syracuse, but it's not Boston, or NYC, or DC, etc. Kids who prioritize going to college in a "cool city" aren't going to SU, generally speaking. Easier access to things that already exist really isn't moving the needle much. I doubt that the HS seniors and their parents who are thinking about SU are going to pick it over, say, Boston University, because there's a shuttle to the amphitheater.

I think people tend to get over their skis on this kind of stuff. There is so much evidence that new stadiums/arenas are not any kind of net positive to real economic growth.

If SU think replacing the Dome with a new facility either on South Campus or somewhere else in the city is the best option, for a number of tangible reasons, then they should do it. But pinning it to the idea that it'll be an economic generator is wishful thinking, and there's precious little data to suggest that'll happen.

Economic generator? Who is suggesting that? Its a need because of the arms race...

 

[Scooch]

Economic generator? Who is suggesting that? Its a need because of the arms race...

Welcome to the thread, Macky!

 

[Scooch]

This is well said. I would only offer that revenue (minus any costs associated with construction) has no where to go but up, if you consider the causal fan, and what he/she thinks about fan amenities, seating, convenience, excitement. Some moderate to bigger advancements either with the dome, or certainly if they built a new arena, would go a long way to convincing the on the fence individual to get off the couch and come check the game out in person. I agree that it probably wont move the needle to a kid who wants to play in LA, or live in Boston, but it might generate a bit more interest in those looking for a "college town," experience. Plus, the real people SU needs to bring back in are the locals. Sitting in a super hot arena, on hard metal bleachers, with cramped hallways, and 80/90's style vending options, aren't gonna cut it for much longer. Can gameday atmosphere, plus exciting football yield another 10k in the seats? Maybe all they need is that competitive team, and the dome can stay as it is.

I think I probably danced around your point too much, and I have no idea if a better dome yields developments on marshall street/downtown, etc. Unfortunately, a renovated dome being on campus doesn't allow for nearby development in the form of restaurants, bars, etc, directly alongside it. Nor would a south campus stadium. Imagine if they built an arena on Loguen Crossing it would generate substantial redevelopment and even more interest downtown.

To the bolded... my guess is maybe for a year. The affects of new stadiums/arenas on attendance have waned substantially over the past couple decades. Remember in the 90s when you could open up a new ballpark and basically count on it being full for a few years, just because it was new? Now those places are half-empty by the third week of the season unless the team is doing well.

I'm 1,000% for at least renovating the Dome. I'm less passionate about the build-new debate because I'm not a local and the impact on me and my tax dollars is basically nil. But I'm pretty confident that even if SU opened a shiny new place, with every imaginable bell and whistle, and super easy access and parking... it'd be less than capacity after the first season (at longest) if the team was going 6-6.

The world is a much different place than it used to be, in terms of entertainment. Being in my living room is MUCH different than going to a stadium, no matter how new and awesome it might be. I agree that SU needs to renovate/build to keep pace with the 21st century, but I don't think that in-and-of-itself is the solution to getting better attendance, and certainly not to attracting more/different students to SU.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Eh, I think there's not much quantitative evidence to suggest that it's all that important. I like Syracuse, but it's not Boston, or NYC, or DC, etc. Kids who prioritize going to college in a "cool city" aren't going to SU, generally speaking. Easier access to things that already exist really isn't moving the needle much. I doubt that the HS seniors and their parents who are thinking about SU are going to pick it over, say, Boston University, because there's a shuttle to the amphitheater.

I think people tend to get over their skis on this kind of stuff. There is so much evidence that new stadiums/arenas are not any kind of net positive to real economic growth.

If SU think replacing the Dome with a new facility either on South Campus or somewhere else in the city is the best option, for a number of tangible reasons, then they should do it. But pinning it to the idea that it'll be an economic generator is wishful thinking, and there's precious little data to suggest that'll happen.

There are all kinds of reasons kids are interested in schools ( 3 in 8 years). Is it a to an/city I want to hang out on is certainly one of them. Perception is a huge factor. Following the Sugar bowl/ final four, applications at the law school tripled. There were at least 5west coast kids in that class, kids who likely would not have considered SU otherwise.

 

[Toga]

I would like to be teleported to my comfortable seat if that's not asking too much.

 

[jr4750]

To the bolded... my guess is maybe for a year. The affects of new stadiums/arenas on attendance have waned substantially over the past couple decades. Remember in the 90s when you could open up a new ballpark and basically count on it being full for a few years, just because it was new? Now those places are half-empty by the third week of the season unless the team is doing well.

I'm 1,000% for at least renovating the Dome. I'm less passionate about the build-new debate because I'm not a local and the impact on me and my tax dollars is basically nil. But I'm pretty confident that even if SU opened a shiny new place, with every imaginable bell and whistle, and super easy access and parking... it'd be less than capacity after the first season (at longest) if the team was going 6-6.

The world is a much different place than it used to be, in terms of entertainment. Being in my living room is MUCH different than going to a stadium, no matter how new and awesome it might be. I agree that SU needs to renovate/build to keep pace with the 21st century, but I don't think that in-and-of-itself is the solution to getting better attendance, and certainly not to attracting more/different students to SU.

Fair argument.

 

[upperdeck]

if you improve the wireless you could do some pretty cool VR replays that would really be cutting edge and if you did it only at the dome be an incentive to be there live. several new stadiums are looking at the multi angle replays and dynamic control. imagine watching 3d replays with thousands of people live

 

[OrangeXtreme]

if you improve the wireless you could do some pretty cool VR replays that would really be cutting edge and if you did it only at the dome be an incentive to be there live. several new stadiums are looking at the multi angle replays and dynamic control. imagine watching 3d replays with thousands of people live

It's a shame the Dome doesn't let you bring in ipads and tablets. Oh Lord

 

[CuseOnly]

I don't care about any of this debate...announce it and get it done for God Sakes.

I will travel to every away game the entire year if I have to...looking forward to the better weather away.

Just need to start looking for a camper, just need to know when.

 

[upperdeck]

It's a shame the Dome doesn't let you bring in ipads and tablets. Oh Lord

not really sure why though? what do they do that phones dont?

 

[orange79]

not really sure why though? what do they do that phones dont?

Block my view! SIT DOWN!!!

 

[OrangeXtreme]

not really sure why though? what do they do that phones dont?

I was told by one of the security guards before a LAX game that they don't want fans to have internet access so they can "broadcast" the game.

Yet there's free wifi, and fans are encouraged to tweet selfies during every game. :crazy:

Believe me, when I filled out that "fan survey" a while ago, this was at the top of my list.

Perhaps one of our Cuse Council members will follow up.

Makes about as much sense as the time Doritos had a booth set up on the Quad before a football game handing out free bags of chips ... and Dome Security wouldn't let anyone into the game with the chips, because it's "contraband food". :noidea:

 

[longtimefan]

if you improve the wireless you could do some pretty cool VR replays that would really be cutting edge and if you did it only at the dome be an incentive to be there live. several new stadiums are looking at the multi angle replays and dynamic control. imagine watching 3d replays with thousands of people live

How about watching the game and enjoying the arena experience?

Drives me crazy when droves of people at an event pull out their cameras to record the action for later viewing. Be in the moment!

 

[DoubleDee]

How about watching the game and enjoying the arena experience? Drives me crazy when droves of people at an event pull out their cameras to record the action for later viewing. Be in the moment!

At concerts I feel like I'm the only one not viewing it through my phones camera.

 

[HtownOrange]

I was told by one of the security guards before a LAX game that they don't want fans to have internet access so they can "broadcast" the game.

Yet there's free wifi, and fans are encouraged to tweet selfies during every game. :crazy:

Believe me, when I filled out that "fan survey" a while ago, this was at the top of my list.

Perhaps one of our Cuse Council members will follow up.

Makes about as much sense as the time Doritos had a booth set up on the Quad before a football game handing out free bags of chips ... and Dome Security wouldn't let anyone into the game with the chips, because it's "contraband food". :noidea:

Many stadiums reject outside food so they can overcharge for the inside fare. I was at an OU game and attended the officially sanctioned tailgate where massive quantities of samples were provided. As we walked to the gates, all of the snacks and drinks were confiscated. The TSA could have taken lessons from the confiscated! I hope they were at least decent enough to give it to a charity.

 

[oldpinepoint]

Many stadiums reject outside food so they can overcharge for the inside fare. I was at an OU game and attended the officially sanctioned tailgate where massive quantities of samples were provided. As we walked to the gates, all of the snacks and drinks were confiscated. The TSA could have taken lessons from the confiscated! I hope they were at least decent enough to give it to a charity.

I understand that, I wish SU had outside vendors in the Dome because their food is garbage. Both in the concessions and the suites, it's embarrassing