Dr. Daryl Gross Received $1.5M After NCAA Violations

[orange79]

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.

No one said there weren't legal and conference considerations. We said we didn't care.

 

[ForCuseSake]

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.

NJCuse97 implied the NYC campaign, which we were debating the value of, impacted the ACC invitation:

"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 disagreed with this position and you chimed in citing lawsuits and contracts as evidence the invitation wasn't a foregone conclusion.

It was. The school's brand (academics and athletics) always made it attractive to the ACC. So much so that Chancy Nancy cratering the academic ranking AND Gerg cratering the football program didn't damage SU's stature enough to make it an expansion afterthought (i.e. Yukon).

 

[elimunelson]

No one said there weren't legal and conference considerations. We said we didn't care.

We were going in 2003. Is this even remotely controversial or something that can be debated? Jake BUILT the Big East. I got his less than enthusiastic reaction to seeing something incredible being destroyed. We handled the entire process and ultimate no invite with maximum class and professionalism. We kept the light on when conference realignment started up again. I would attribute Gross/Marrone to this at about 2%. The school has/had national appeal. People know Syracuse in LA, NYC, Miami. It's a brand with successful athletics, actors, television personalities, etc. It was something the ACC wanted. Our incredible hoops program and historical football program were huge additives.

The part where there is some debate is whether Jake was the impetus to bring Penn St to the Big East. That was the only thing that could have delayed the destruction of the Big East and made them the hunter instead of the hunted.

 

[reedny]

No one said there weren't legal and conference considerations. We said we didn't care.

Then why bother posting? Obviously, I was responding to someone else anyway. You're baffling sometimes.

 

[reedny]

NJCuse97 implied the NYC campaign, which we were debating the value of, impacted the ACC invitation:

"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 disagreed with this position and you chimed in citing lawsuits and contracts as evidence the invitation wasn't a foregone conclusion.

It was. The school's brand (academics and athletics) always made it attractive to the ACC. So much so that Chancy Nancy cratering the academic ranking AND Gerg cratering the football program didn't damage SU's stature enough to make it an expansion afterthought (i.e. Yukon).

To clear up all the unnecessary confusion ... I was not suggesting that NYC branding had a role in the 2003 or the 2013 decisions to join the ACC. I was responding to different parts of your previous post before the board interventionists/reductionists chimed in. Hope that's clear to everyone now.

 

[OttoMets]

I am not sure why everyone seems to think Wildhack is so great?

1) He used to post here, so presumably at least a few people know him personally and think highly of him.
2) Hope. If we can't convince ourselves that he's great, we can't convince ourselves to keep spending crazy amounts of time and money watching these teams and thinking that better times are around the corner.

 

[ForCuseSake]

To clear up all the unnecessary confusion ... I was not suggesting that NYC branding had a role in the 2003 or the 2013 decisions to join the ACC. I was responding to different parts of your previous post before the board reductionists chimed in. Hope that's clear to everyone now.

I don't think it was ever unclear to those who responded to your grossly (no pun intended) inaccurate claims about who and what was responsible getting SU into the ACC.

 

[reedny]

I don't think it was ever unclear to those who responded to your grossly (no pun intended) inaccurate claims about who and what was responsible getting SU into the ACC.

Obviously it was unclear or they wouldn't have posted that there was no connection (duh). I'd suggest re-reading NYCuse97's posts on NYC. The rest is noise.

 

[ForCuseSake]

Obviously it was unclear or they wouldn't have posted that there was no connection (duh). You're no closer to the truth than you were before this discussion started. I'd suggest re-reading NYCuse97's posts on NYC.

You struggle mightily with basic reading comprehension.

You inserted yourself in a debate I was having with NJCuse97. In the process of making an argument you misstated facts regarding SU's ACC invitation. Other posters replied to these inaccuracies to correct you.

And your response to their corrections is to claim something nobody ever suggested ("I was not suggesting that NYC branding had a role in the 2003 or the 2013 decisions to join the ACC.")

Edit - Nobody posted anything accusing you of saying NYC marketing got SU into the ACC. People posted corrections to your absurd claims like:

1.) Jake C had nothing to do with getting SU into the ACC before you edited the post to say Jake had little to do with it.

2.) Doug Marrone was the greatest contributor to SU's ACC offer.

3.) Contractual obligations, lawsuits and financial considerations were why SU didn't join in 2003.

These are Baghdad Bob esque.

 

[SkyTopBus44]

1) He used to post here, so presumably at least a few people know him personally and think highly of him.
2) Hope. If we can't convince ourselves that he's great, we can't convince ourselves to keep spending crazy amounts of time and money watching these teams and thinking that better times are around the corner.

Wildhack gets very little criticism here which makes sense given what you stated. I just feel like he has not done all that much in the past few years.

 

[orange79]

Then why bother posting? Obviously, I was responding to someone else anyway. You're baffling sometimes.

Because it's an internet message board?

 

[reedny]

Because it's an internet message board? View attachment 130286

Well either you care or you don't. If you don't, stop here. If you do, then you should realize that: 1) you took parts of my response to ForCuseSake out of context (i wasn't positing NYC branding as a reason we wanted to leave the BE, either time); 2) I realize we wanted to leave in 03 and that we left in '13; but 3) our decision calculus at those two times was totally different because our conference situations were totally different - and that was part of what I was commenting on in response to FCS.

 

[orange79]

Well, either you care or you don't. If you don't, stop here. If you do, then you should realize that: 1) you took parts of my response to ForCuseSake out of context (i wasn't positing NYC branding as a reason we wanted to leave the BE, either time); 2) I realize we wanted to leave in 03 and that we left in '13; but 3) our decision calculus at those two times was totally different because our conference situations were totally different.

1) I know you weren't posting about branding. You said "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." Nothing in there has anything to do with branding. We did not 'decide to honor our commitments to the BE' - it was decided for us. There was really no other choice. If you want to spin that situation into 'deciding', ok. But there was really no decision. We were out the door.

3) I contend that the conference calculus was essentially the same in both situations - the hybrid solution just wasn't viable, and even if it was, given who was leaving we would not have been able to make anywhere near the amount of money in the BE as we would in the ACC.

Done here.

 

[reedny]

1) I know you weren't posting about branding. You said "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." Nothing in there has anything to do with branding. We did not 'decide to honor our commitments to the BE' - it was decided for us. There was really no other choice. If you want to spin that situation into 'deciding', ok. But there was really no decision. We were out the door.

3) I contend that the conference calculus was essentially the same in both situations - the hybrid solution just wasn't viable, and even if it was, given who was leaving we would not have been able to make anywhere near the amount of money in the BE as we would in the ACC.

Done here.

I stand by "1" (my opinion) and still disagree on "3" -- by 2013 the BE was falling apart. But okay. I don't care.