Dr. Daryl Gross Received $1.5M After NCAA Violations

[reedny]

The spend wasn’t even because a taxi placard in NYC is probably 10x more expensive than billboards in Buffalo, Rochester, Albany, and Syracuse combined.

I don’t agree with the myth that NYC exposure offers more of a return than actual arses in seats does. More people attend games from Upstate NY than NYC.

Brand value is more enhanced when the program succeeds on a national level. Edit - Jake C had the ACC bid locked up without purchasing a single taxi placard.

Maybe 750k of the NYC and tri-state population has any interest or connection to SU - including the 50k of alumni in NYC (50k pulled from SU alumni association).

In other words 99% of that metro region doesn’t give two figs about SU or SU sports. With all of the competing cultural attractions and pro sports offerings in NYC it’s a fool’s errand.

To me it’s in direct conflict with the axiom that ignoring existing customers to chase new ones kills a business.

Just about everything in that post is off-base. Jake C had little to do with the ACC. It wasn't until the last part of his tenure and beyond that we became interested in the Atlantic Conference - largely because of BE FB defections and the influence of FB as a revenue driver. SU considered the ACC at least once before we actually joined (although that time we remained loyal to the BE while BC opted for the money). But the writing was on the wall. My personal view is that Marone was the greatest contributor to our ACC offer - he elevated the FB program so that it was respectable. By that time the "NY's College Team" branding effort was well underway.

Further on that point, your assessment of the value of NYC as a vital marketing hub is naive', narrow-minded and statistically incorrect. Pro sports still rule, but It's also a hotbed for college sports, especially basketball. The garden serves as SU's second home along with the home court for St. Johns. Big crowds show up when we play there (Yukon, St. Johns, etc). It's by far the biggest population center in this state, with a substantial SU alumni base and priceless national media connections. The tri-state area is also an important source of FB and BB recruiting.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's not important.

 

[ForCuseSake]

It does offer more return because it’s new butts in seats. New butts with potentially more disposable income. New butts that can tell 10,000 people about what they saw, not 10. Game attendance is great, but TV exposure is way more lucrative. If you matter to NYC, then you’ll get the national exposure you want. We don’t have that, or even the potential with 45,000 upstate attendees. You improve that if you maintain the 25,000-30,000 and add 15,000 downstate eyes that tune in or tell their friends to watch because there’s something fun or special going on in the Dome. Then advertisers care. Then ad time goes up in value, then TV contracts go up. Then NYC metro area corporations are drawn to naming opportunities, or joint venture research grants. IBM, Pfizer, MetLife, etc.

I think the premise that advertising to well heeled NYCers will prompt them to travel the Dome to watch sports is misguided.

These wealthy NYCers are going to pass on all of their world class entertainment options in the tri State area to schlepp up to SU for ballgames!?!?!

The only ones who do that are the CTOs and MadNYs of the world. Alums who have the passion and coin to make that happen.

Instead of chasing NYC eyeballs, spend less and chase the 2-4M who live in a 3 hour radius and dont have as much competing options.

NYC tv eyeballs are only going to be drawn to SU sports when they’re nationally competitive. The AD spendig money on NYC advertising doesnt make the program nationally relevant.

A packed Dome does. It helps recruiting talent (both players and coaches) to compete on a national level.

And I applaud your vision of naming rights but none of the companies you mentioned would spend a dime on sponsoring SU athletics.

 

[ForCuseSake]

Totally disagree with you, on almost every point. Jake C had nothing to do with the ACC. It wasn't until the last part of his tenure and beyond that we became interested in the Atlantic Conference - largely because of BE FB defections and the influence of FB as a revenue driver. SU considered the ACC at least once before we actually joined (although that time we remained loyal to the BE while BC opted for the money). But the writing was on the wall. My personal view is that Marone was the greatest contributor to our ACC offer - he elevated the FB program so that it was respectable.

Beyond that, I think your views on the value of NYC as an important marketing center are naive', narrow-minded and statistically incorrect. Pro sports are dominant, but It's also a hotbed for college basketball. The garden serves as SU's second home along with the home court for rival programs like St. Johns. Big crowds show up when we play Yokon, etc. It's by far the biggest population center in this state, with a substantial SU alumni base and vital national media connections. The tri-state area is also an important source of FB and BB recruiting.

Let me make sure I understand your post:

You disagree that Jake C had an ACC invitation locked up (despite his unwillingness to leave the BE and VA politics) but Doug Marrone’s .500 record drove the deal to completion 9 years later.

Jake - the AD who presided over one of the best stretches of success in school history had less to do with garnering an ACC invitation than Doug Marrone.

Good grief.

SU didn’t “consider” joining the ACC in 2003. They were going to the ACC until the VA governor interceded for BlahTech. Jake did this reluctantly but he was smart enough to read the tea leaves and know the Big East was toast.

You cite the once a year big crowds at MSG hoops games as proof spending millions for NYC advertising drives attendance.

And NYC football recruiting is laughable in the relative pittance they produce.

 

[Bayside44]

For the record the ACC first approached SU in the early 90s along with FSU. We said let's get back to you while FSU jumped like Carl Lewis to get it.

 

[Cusefan69]

For the record the ACC first approached SU in the early 90s along with FSU. We said let's get back to you while FSU jumped like Carl Lewis to get it.

Syracuse lax, hoops and football all doing well late 80s thru the mid 90s. A really good brand across a number of sports during that time.

 

[reedny]

Let me make sure I understand your post:

You disagree that Jake C had an ACC invitation locked up (despite his unwillingness to leave the BE and VA politics) but Doug Marrone’s .500 record drove the deal to completion 9 years later.

Jake - the AD who presided over one of the best stretches of success in school history had less to do with garnering an ACC invitation than Doug Marrone.

Good grief.

SU didn’t “consider” joining the ACC in 2003. They were going to the ACC until the VA governor interceded for BlahTech. Jake did this reluctantly but he was smart enough to read the tea leaves and know the Big East was toast.

You cite the once a year big crowds at MSG hoops games as proof spending millions for NYC advertising drives attendance.

And NYC football recruiting is laughable in the relative pittance they produce.

To review the history again, SU contemplated the ACC towards the end of JC's tenure (2003). He left in 2005. It wasn't the right decision then .. not just because of political influence. There were substantial financial consequences to leaving ... we had contractual commitments to the BE and five other conference teams filed a lawsuit. It was getting ugly and we ultimately decided to honor our commitments to the BE. We didn't join the ACC until 2013. That's 8 years into Gross' tenure at SU.

Whether it was Gross or Marone (or other factors) that ultimately netted SU an ACC offer is the subject of speculation. Personally, I think it was Marone's elevation of the program. You might remember that we were in the tank under G-Rob. By the time Marone left we had a winning record and were bowling. So yes, there are facts to support the argument that it was Marone's stewardship that contributed to our ACC offer.

But whatever your view of history, you're completely missing the value of NYC. Once again, it's a world-famous sports hub with a population of over 8 Million and it's part of our state. NY's also SU's second home (Garden). We own property there (Lubin House). We have had a presence there, recruited there, played and coached there for almost 2 generations. And we compete with a number of other college programs for exposure and dominance in NYC. Those are just some of the marketing reasons why it's good for us to continue a branding identity there.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

To review the history again, SU contemplated the ACC towards the end of JC's tenure (2003). He left in 2005. It wasn't the right decision then .. not just because of political influence. There were substantial financial consequences to leaving ... we had contractual commitments to the BE and five other conference teams filed a lawsuit. It was getting ugly and we ultimately decided to honor our contractual commitments to the BE. We didn't join the ACC until 2013. That's 8 years into Gross' tenure at SU.

We were ONE vote away from getting an ACC invite in 2003, an invite we would have gladly accepted.

It was Virginia politics that kept us in the Big East in 2003, not contractural obligations.

Funny that Miami, Va Tech and BC had no hangups about leaving when they were called.

And the ACC kept our name at the top of the list for the next wave of expansion in 2013.

 

[Bayside44]

To review the history again, SU contemplated the ACC towards the end of JC's tenure (2003). He left in 2005. It wasn't the right decision then .. not just because of political influence. There were substantial financial consequences to leaving ... we had contractual commitments to the BE and five other conference teams filed a lawsuit. It was getting ugly and we ultimately decided to honor our commitments to the BE. We didn't join the ACC until 2013. That's 8 years into Gross' tenure at SU.

Whether it was Gross or Marone (or other factors) that ultimately netted SU an ACC offer is the subject of speculation. Personally, I think it was Marone's elevation of the program. You might remember that we were in the tank under G-Rob. By the time Marone left we had a winning record and were bowling. So yes, there are facts to support the argument that it was Marone's stewardship that contributed to our ACC offer.

But whatever your view of history, you're completely missing the value of NYC. Once again, it's a world-famous sports hub with a population of over 8 Million and it's part of our state. NY's also SU's second home (Garden). We own property there (Lubin House). We have had a presence there, recruited there, played and coached there for almost 2 generations. And we compete with a number of other college programs for exposure and dominance in NYC. Those are just some of the marketing reasons why it's good for us to continue a branding identity there.

Your first paragraph is completely incorrect. We were gone til Mark Warner decided otherwise and gave Duke / UNC an opening to kill it. We had a friggin press conference on campus with the ACC reps during it. They learned their lesson to go behind closed doors after. BC got in first because it's Boston.

When the ACC was given a presentation on value years later, well, the right people gave it. The rest is all noise.

 

[ForCuseSake]

To review the history again, SU contemplated the ACC towards the end of JC's tenure (2003). He left in 2005. It wasn't the right decision then .. not just because of political influence. There were substantial financial consequences to leaving ... we had contractual commitments to the BE and five other conference teams filed a lawsuit. It was getting ugly and we ultimately decided to honor our commitments to the BE. We didn't join the ACC until 2013. That's 8 years into Gross' tenure at SU.

Whether it was Gross or Marone (or other factors) that ultimately netted SU an ACC offer is the subject of speculation. Personally, I think it was Marone's elevation of the program. You might remember that we were in the tank under G-Rob. By the time Marone left we had a winning record and were bowling. So yes, there are facts to support the argument that it was Marone's stewardship that contributed to our ACC offer.

But whatever your view of history, you're completely missing the value of NYC. Once again, it's a world-famous sports hub with a population of over 8 Million and it's part of our state. NY's also SU's second home (Garden). We own property there (Lubin House). We have had a presence there, recruited there, played and coached there for almost 2 generations. And we compete with a number of other college programs for exposure and dominance in NYC. Those are just some of the marketing reasons why it's good for us to continue a branding identity there.

Your grasp of historical facts related to ACC expansion in 2003 is tenuous at best.

You should read OX’s concise summary of what happened to delay SU’s inevitable invitation.

And all of the attributes you list about NYC being a world famous sports hub don’t support chasing their fans. If SU wants to market itself in NYC to recruit students then go for it.

Marketing its sports in NYC, in an attempt to expand the fan base and fill the Dome (as implied by NJCuse97), isn’t a winning proposition.

 

[corpjet]

Sorry to say this but sometimes I wonder if the hatred of gross is more than just because he hired the worst football coach ever.

It is for me, he could never dig himself out of that hole as far as Im concerned......I also truly think its his arrogance that caused D Marrone to leave when he did......theres a lot to that story that has never been made public....

 

[orange79]

To review the history again, SU contemplated the ACC towards the end of JC's tenure (2003). He left in 2005. It wasn't the right decision then .. not just because of political influence. There were substantial financial consequences to leaving ... we had contractual commitments to the BE and five other conference teams filed a lawsuit. It was getting ugly and we ultimately decided to honor our commitments to the BE. We didn't join the ACC until 2013. That's 8 years into Gross' tenure at SU.

Whether it was Gross or Marone (or other factors) that ultimately netted SU an ACC offer is the subject of speculation. Personally, I think it was Marone's elevation of the program. You might remember that we were in the tank under G-Rob. By the time Marone left we had a winning record and were bowling. So yes, there are facts to support the argument that it was Marone's stewardship that contributed to our ACC offer.

But whatever your view of history, you're completely missing the value of NYC. Once again, it's a world-famous sports hub with a population of over 8 Million and it's part of our state. NY's also SU's second home (Garden). We own property there (Lubin House). We have had a presence there, recruited there, played and coached there for almost 2 generations. And we compete with a number of other college programs for exposure and dominance in NYC. Those are just some of the marketing reasons why it's good for us to continue a branding identity there.

If you think SU 'decided' not to go in '03, I don't know what to tell you. We had one and a half feet out the door until VA politics got involved. 'Commitments' to the BE didn't seem to matter in 2013, did they? We didn't 'decide' to stay in the BE, we had no place to go once the offer got pulled. Then, we tried to make the best of it, and got blindsided by Fredo. I would gladly have accepted all BC fans calling US Fredo.

 

[NJCuse97]

And all of the attributes you list about NYC being a world famous sports hub don’t support chasing their fans. If SU wants to market itself in NYC to recruit students then go for it.

Marketing its sports in NYC, in an attempt to expand the fan base and fill the Dome (as implied by NJCuse97), isn’t a winning proposition.

Marketing to NYC was not in an attempt to fill the Dome. You have entirely missed my point. Do you think Pitt was invited into the ACC because of all the full seats they have? TV is the game now. You don't have to drive 4 hours to watch a game on TV. Winning is important, but Memphis wins, as does Boise St. and for that matter, NDSU or Mount Union. Why aren't they getting big money in Power 5 conferences or monster TV deals? The answer is ratings and size of market. The more SU can claim the largest market in the US, the more it can command inclusion and large TV revenue. Houston is a big market (#8 in the US), that is the reason they get mentioned in conference expansions. Philly is #4 and that is why people keep trying to resuscitate Temple. Boston is #9 and that is why BC was invited. VT sued the ACC, but was invited over us due to politics. Those politics trumped our market because the ACC didn't have faith in our grip on the #1 TV market. We kept neutral and as such were not plaintiff or defendant in any lawsuits. The ACC still saw the market value and jumped to invite us for 2013 because our profile better matched theirs than the other options, and because they didn't want to wait for the B1G to beat them to it. The B1G immediately invited Rutgers. I suppose that was because they fill the stadium and win.

You mention marketing to a three hour radius of Syracuse to get seats filled, because the NYC area has too many other options. You not only suggest that we should throw in the towel and not market to the largest metropolitan area in the US, which happens to be 4 hours from our stadium, but neglect to recognize that if we can't get the NYC market, as you say, that the same 3 hour radius overlaps that same 3 hour radius of NYC by 2 hours, or in other words, by your strategy we should only market a 1.5 hour radius of Syracuse because otherwise we are equidistant to "better" or "professional" markets in Buffalo, Toronto, NYC, and Boston to name a few. According to you, when given a choice to go to a good college game on Saturday or an NFL game on Sunday, the entire 8.5 million in NYC will choose the NFL, forget that they can't easily get tickets, or may like a change of pace. Our attendance at hoops games exceeds the Knicks by a lot on a per game average, but does that mean that our hoops program has a higher income or TV value? Attendance and even success will not guarantee the all important TV numbers we need to enhance. Ask ND if they did better before or after the NBC deal and if NBC would have come to them if they had a very good following in South Bend only.

 

[ForCuseSake]

Marketing to NYC was not in an attempt to fill the Dome. You have entirely missed my point. Do you think Pitt was invited into the ACC because of all the full seats they have? TV is the game now. You don't have to drive 4 hours to watch a game on TV. Winning is important, but Memphis wins, as does Boise St. and for that matter, NDSU or Mount Union. Why aren't they getting big money in Power 5 conferences or monster TV deals? The answer is ratings and size of market. The more SU can claim the largest market in the US, the more it can command inclusion and large TV revenue. Houston is a big market (#8 in the US), that is the reason they get mentioned in conference expansions. Philly is #4 and that is why people keep trying to resuscitate Temple. Boston is #9 and that is why BC was invited. VT sued the ACC, but was invited over us due to politics. Those politics trumped our market because the ACC didn't have faith in our grip on the #1 TV market. We kept neutral and as such were not plaintiff or defendant in any lawsuits. The ACC still saw the market value and jumped to invite us for 2013 because our profile better matched theirs than the other options, and because they didn't want to wait for the B1G to beat them to it. The B1G immediately invited Rutgers. I suppose that was because they fill the stadium and win.

You mention marketing to a three hour radius of Syracuse to get seats filled, because the NYC area has too many other options. You not only suggest that we should throw in the towel and not market to the largest metropolitan area in the US, which happens to be 4 hours from our stadium, but neglect to recognize that if we can't get the NYC market, as you say, that the same 3 hour radius overlaps that same 3 hour radius of NYC by 2 hours, or in other words, by your strategy we should only market a 1.5 hour radius of Syracuse because otherwise we are equidistant to "better" or "professional" markets in Buffalo, Toronto, NYC, and Boston to name a few. According to you, when given a choice to go to a good college game on Saturday or an NFL game on Sunday, the entire 8.5 million in NYC will choose the NFL, forget that they can't easily get tickets, or may like a change of pace. Our attendance at hoops games exceeds the Knicks by a lot on a per game average, but does that mean that our hoops program has a higher income or TV value? Attendance and even success will not guarantee the all important TV numbers we need to enhance. Ask ND if they did better before or after the NBC deal and if NBC would have come to them if they had a very good following in South Bend only.

I believe the root of our disagreement is how much influence SU has on its conference tv deal.

I don’t believe any individual marketing campaign by SU will significantly increase the value of ACC tv rights.

A resurgent nationally competitive SU football program certainly gives the conference another bargaining chip during negotiations but I don’t think it moves the needle as much as your comparisons suggest.

I never said SU should ignore NYC. My original post was that DG wasted too much money emphasizing NYC.

I thought the Yankee sign was a slick move. Fantastic brand association and placement (I hate baseball). SUAD cherry picking opportunities like that is smart.

The focus should be on the 3 hour radius (of which only about 1/4th overlaps with NYC) from Syracuse. You are one of a few who treks from NJ to CNY for games.

There are probably 2-3 times as many who drive from Buffalo, Rochester, Albany, Oswego, Binghamton, etc.

 

[NJCuse97]

I believe the root of our disagreement is how much influence SU has on its conference tv deal.

I don’t believe any individual marketing campaign by SU will significantly increase the value of ACC tv rights.

A resurgent nationally competitive SU football program certainly gives the conference another bargaining chip during negotiations but I don’t think it moves the needle as much as your comparisons suggest.

I never said SU should ignore NYC. My original post was that DG wasted too much money emphasizing NYC.

I thought the Yankee sign was a slick move. Fantastic brand association and placement (I hate baseball). SUAD cherry picking opportunities like that is smart.

The focus should be on the 3 hour radius (of which only about 1/4th overlaps with NYC) from Syracuse. You are one of a few who treks from NJ to CNY for games.

There are probably 2-3 times as many who drive from Buffalo, Rochester, Albany, Oswego, Binghamton, etc.

The NYC campaign we are talking about was prior to our ACC invite, that is where it's value was. It had value in getting that second invite salted. I have heard recently that our "brand", or our "footprint" is too small to warrant any corporate sponsor wanting to challenge Carrier for the naming rights, or put in for even a smaller naming for the field, the lower tier, or the concourse for example. TV market and the potential for "new eyes" (there is full confidence that we have the CNY audience. The problem is that nobody cares about that market).

 

[ForCuseSake]

The NYC campaign we are talking about was prior to our ACC invite, that is where it's value was. It had value in getting that second invite salted. I have heard recently that our "brand", or our "footprint" is too small to warrant any corporate sponsor wanting to challenge Carrier for the naming rights, or put in for even a smaller naming for the field, the lower tier, or the concourse for example. TV market and the potential for "new eyes" (there is full confidence that we have the CNY audience. The problem is that nobody cares about that market).

That NYC campaign had no impact on an ACC invite that was almost a decade in the making. This is a myth. The SU brand was strong enough to warrant interest from the ACC; even during the abysmal football downturn.

I agree that SU has the CNY audience and that nobody cares about that market. Sports sponsorship deals and advertising is usually best targeted to local or regional businesses unless you’re a national or global sports brand.

 

[NJCuse97]

That NYC campaign had no impact on an ACC invite that was almost a decade in the making. This is a myth. The SU brand was strong enough to warrant interest from the ACC; even during the abysmal football downturn.

I agree that SU has the CNY audience and that nobody cares about that market. Sports sponsorship deals and advertising is usually best targeted to local or regional businesses unless you’re a national or global sports brand.

I for one liked the campaign. I think the targeted regional market can include NYC. Everyone has said that when we were firing on all cylinders, we owned NJ. We can’t take it back unless we market there. This was part of the thinking behind high profile MetLife Stadium games too. I don’t think it hurt the ACC negotiations. I couldn’t be happier about the Rutgers series, but we’d better win

 

[ForCuseSake]

I for one liked the campaign. I think the targeted regional market can include NYC. Everyone has said that when we were firing on all cylinders, we owned NJ. We can’t take it back unless we market there. This was part of the thinking behind high profile MetLife Stadium games too. I don’t think it hurt the ACC negotiations. I couldn’t be happier about the Rutgers series, but we’d better win

I agree. Especially with your point about NJ talent. Gotta get NJ recruiting closer to 90s level talent to be nationally relevant again.

I enjoyed your posts, thanks for helping kill time on a lazy Sunday!

 

[Shrmdougluvr]

That NYC campaign had no impact on an ACC invite that was almost a decade in the making. This is a myth. The SU brand was strong enough to warrant interest from the ACC; even during the abysmal football downturn.

The ACC inviting Syracuse in 2004, and thus making an invitation inevitable in 2011, is a presupposition. The landscape changed a lot during that time. Rutgers and Connecticut were both now viable in football, with Connecticut being a National power in basketball. Notre Dame's national football presence was diminishing, calling into question its status as an independent. Our football program had been irrelevant for almost a decade, and downright dreadful for most of that time. We are a relatively small private school without a really concentrated alumni base and lacking in legislative clout. Superconferences were all the discussion, and with Nebraska shaking up the Big 12, our place at the big boy table was not assured. NYC is the largest media market in the Country by far, and what's driving conference revenues certainly isnt lacrosse. Being relevant in NYC was important (otherwise why wouldnt the ACC just have grabbed a directional Florida with a better geographic fit).

Despite all this, i am not saying Gross got us in. I think we were the best fit for the ACC at the time as you note. But, let's not act like this was a foregone conclusions because we were offered in 2004.

 

[ForCuseSake]

The ACC inviting Syracuse in 2004, and thus making an invitation inevitable in 2011, is a presupposition. The landscape changed a lot during that time. Rutgers and Connecticut were both now viable in football, with Connecticut being a National power in basketball. Notre Dame's national football presence was diminishing, calling into question its status as an independent. Our football program had been irrelevant for almost a decade, and downright dreadful for most of that time. We are a relatively small private school without a really concentrated alumni base and lacking in legislative clout. Superconferences were all the discussion, and with Nebraska shaking up the Big 12, our place at the big boy table was not assured. NYC is the largest media market in the Country by far, and what's driving conference revenues certainly isnt lacrosse. Being relevant in NYC was important (otherwise why wouldnt the ACC just have grabbed a directional Florida with a better geographic fit).

Despite all this, i am not saying Gross got us in. I think we were the best fit for the ACC at the time as you note. But, let's not act like this was a foregone conclusions because we were offered in 2004.

All of what you point out in your first paragraph is noise that never impacted SU’s brand attractiveness to the ACC.

Nothing material changed between 2003 and 2011 to knock SU off its #1 pick status in the eyes of the ACC. The football program falling off a cliff didn’t dent the brand enough to make us less attractive to conference expansion (which ironically was driven by football).

That’s a pretty damn strong brand.

 

[reedny]

Your first paragraph is completely incorrect. We were gone til Mark Warner decided otherwise and gave Duke / UNC an opening to kill it. We had a friggin press conference on campus with the ACC reps during it. They learned their lesson to go behind closed doors after. BC got in first because it's Boston.

When the ACC was given a presentation on value years later, well, the right people gave it. The rest is all noise.

The history has been debated since 2003. I think we wanted to go, but it didn't happen. All that is besdie the point .. which is that we benefit significantly from a branding presence in NYC.

The rest is all noise.

 

[reedny]

If you think SU 'decided' not to go in '03, I don't know what to tell you. We had one and a half feet out the door until VA politics got involved. 'Commitments' to the BE didn't seem to matter in 2013, did they? We didn't 'decide' to stay in the BE, we had no place to go once the offer got pulled. Then, we tried to make the best of it, and got blindsided by Fredo. I would gladly have accepted all BC fans calling US Fredo.

I think there was interest in joining the ACC, and I think we would have left and eaten the $5M penalty if the offer had been made. Probably true. As to the wisdom of it, there were all kinds of opinions and considerations -- because the BE was still a viable conference. Nonetheless, FB was the revenue driver and with UM and BC leaving the writing was on the wall. So I don't really disagree with that part of your post - I was mostly responding about the branding value of NYC.

However, your point about it "mattering" in 2013 is off base. Contractual commitments and conference loyalties weren't considerations in 2013 because it was a totally different situation. By that time (8 years later) the BE was splintering and the ACC was expanding. Different story.

 

[orange79]

However, your point about it "mattering" in 2013 is off base. Contractual commitments and conference loyalty weren't considerations in 2013 because it was a totally different situation. By that time (8 years later) the BE was splintering and the ACC was expanding. Different story.

Not in my opinion. Contractual commitment or not, we were out the door.

 

[Bayside44]

The history has been debated since 2003. I think we wanted to go, but it didn't happen. All that is besdie the point .. which is that we benefit significantly from a branding presence in NYC.

The rest is all noise.

It's not a debate, it's just what happened. The "branding" had nothing to do with it either.

 

[reedny]

It's not a debate, it's just what happened. The "branding" had nothing to do with it either.

Leaving the BE was a big deal, and there was a massive internal debate about it. As far as branding, who said that was a basis? It's a separate subject.

 

[reedny]

Not in my opinion. Contractual commitment or not, we were out the door.

Just because we decided to leave (if offered) doesn't mean there weren't legal and conference considerations. There was turmoil, a big lawsuit was filed. The league, at that point (2003) was still viable. Totally different calculation than in 2013 - when the BE was reforming as BB only. I don't know why you keep over-simplifying this. It wasn't simple or easy in 03. But whatever ... I was mostly responding to a separate issue regarding NYC.