Early Indications Are the New Viking Stadium

[orangecuse]

Just the opposite - increase capacity!

We should aspire to be a big time program with big home crowds.

Do we want to reduce BB capacity to say 15,000??

Of course not!

Large capacity is what made the BB Program.

Prior to the Dome, SU was a regional (northeastern) basketball power, which had also recently been to the FF in '75. Large capacity didn't make the hoops program, the additional and unforeseen further success of the hoops program was really good fortune (arguably pure happenstance) along with PERFECT timing as the Dome was clearly built for football in mind. The advent of ESPN along with the Big East basketball conference is what really launched SU into the stratosphere and placing it on the national stage. JB's continued success, longevity and status is what has kept SU there.

Major college football is a different beast all together, especially in today's environment and climate, and, for a small private institution. Yes, there are exceptions, but how many small private schools are powers on the gridiron? Not many. It's dominated by huge state schools that have practically an unlimited amount of resources & funds.

SU has done a good job in upgrading its facilities recently, albeit late to the game. The future Dome upgrades I believe will pay considerable dividends, however, it won't be by increasing overall capacity.

 

[dollarbill44]

Maybe we're looking at this all wrong. Instead of reducing capacity to 44,444 or increasing it to 50,000, we should blow it out of the water and increase capacity to 144,000! Make the Dome a tourist attraction. Maybe put in a retail promenade with some anchor tenants like Target, Best Buy, and Wegmans. If the game is too long or its a blowout, you can just go shopping! Add a roller coaster that swings out over the playing field. Call it "The Sound Wave". Have a Cirque du Soleil show. Make the whole game day experience some kind of surreal Vegas acid trip.

 

[TheCusian]

Maybe we're looking at this all wrong. Instead of reducing capacity to 44,444 or increasing it to 50,000, we should blow it out of the water and increase capacity to 144,000! Make the Dome a tourist attraction. Maybe put in a retail promenade with some anchor tenants like Target, Best Buy, and Wegmans. If the game is too long or its a blowout, you can just go shopping! Add a roller coaster that swings out over the playing field. Call it "The Sound Wave". Have a Cirque du Soleil show. Make the whole game day experience some kind of surreal Vegas acid trip.

Two words: Lazy River

 

[CuseCactus]

I love 44, but this just takes it too far. Unless we start giving it out again, it comes off as dwelling in the past.

Gotta agree. I can't frankly remember the last person to wear 44. Was it Michael Owens 30 years ago? With each year, the number recedes in meaning to me. Frankly, my best memories of 44 at this point for me is the old bar on M street having that name.

We suck at traditions. The legends field thing on the 50 yard line is cheesy. It's actually a little off putting - looks bush league.

Here's to a great reno - along with Babers, bringing the program into the present.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Just the opposite - increase capacity!

We should aspire to be a big time program with big home crowds.

Do we want to reduce BB capacity to say 15,000??

Of course not!

Large capacity is what made the BB Program.

This isn't PA. Even with McNabb, there we're empty seats more often than not. Getting 50K for FB would be opponent dependent.

 

[Eric15]

Gotta agree. I can't frankly remember the last person to wear 44. Was it Michael Owens 30 years ago?

I'll give you a hint, he's someone who doesn't exercise good judgement when boating/fishing.

 

[CuseGoose]

Love our reno plans but for the love of god , make the capacity 44,444. This smaller, but charming capacity has worked all across mlb and will increase the value of our home ticket once we get rolling.

MLB - 82 Home games
NCAAF - 6 or 7 (5 if you are an SU fan)
I do think capacity will be reduced however just based on armchair seating being installed if that is indeed still on the table.

 

[CuseCactus]

I'll give you a hint, he's someone who doesn't exercise good judgement when boating/fishing.

Rob Konrad?

 

[OrangePA]

This isn't PA. Even with McNabb, there we're empty seats more often than not. Getting 50K for FB would be opponent dependent.

I'm not sure what you man by empty seats.

I don't have the statistics handy but during the McNabb years we averaged nearly 49,000 per game. The place was essentially full.

And back then college football was nowhere near as popular as it is today.

And, back then we were not in the ACC.

With Dome AC, other upgrades and winning in the ACC, the fans will come.

Unless you plan to build superboxes/suites, you don't reduce capacity.

 

[OrangePA]

Prior to the Dome, SU was a regional (northeastern) basketball power, which had also recently been to the FF in '75. Large capacity didn't make the hoops program, the additional and unforeseen further success of the hoops program was really good fortune (arguably pure happenstance) along with PERFECT timing as the Dome was clearly built for football in mind. The advent of ESPN along with the Big East basketball conference is what really launched SU into the stratosphere and placing it on the national stage. JB's continued success, longevity and status is what has kept SU there.

Major college football is a different beast all together, especially in today's environment and climate, and, for a small private institution. Yes, there are exceptions, but how many small private schools are powers on the gridiron? Not many. It's dominated by huge state schools that have practically an unlimited amount of resources & funds.

SU has done a good job in upgrading its facilities recently, albeit late to the game. The future Dome upgrades I believe will pay considerable dividends, however, it won't be by increasing overall capacity.

Sorry, but I disagree with some of what you have suggested.

You're right - before the Dome, the BB program was a "regional" power. It could not compete with KY, NC, UCLA or Kansas.

The Dome and the large crowds drew national talent. It was amazing crowds that transformed the program into national program.

The Dome was of course built for football but basketball was also part of the equation back then. Don't you remember the "Demi-Dome" configuration that was marketed to the public well before the Dome was opened in 1980?

Upgrades to the Dome along with the ACC competition and real success on the field will draw a lot of fans. And we should prepare for that.

 

[OrangePA]

When Baylor built their new stadium, they went from a capacity of 50K to 45K. Just sayin'

As I understand it, they built a new stadium.

They didn't reduce capacity of an existing stadium.

And, I suspect that in building the stadium they included Texas sized suites and clubs that probably will not be added to the Carrier Dome.

 

[Millhouse]

As I understand it, they built a new stadium.

They didn't reduce capacity of an existing stadium.

And, I suspect that in building the stadium they included Texas sized suites and clubs that probably will not be added to the Carrier Dome.

i don't see why that's a big difference

we're more like stanford and baylor than the megaschools you want us to be

 

[NineOneSeven]

i don't see why that's a big difference

we're more like stanford and baylor than the megaschools you want us to be

Some people are just stuck in the past. Probably like some Houston and UNLV basketball fans.

I'll take 6-8 win seasons, with some down years mixed in, with a chance at a bowl every year. We just won't be a consistent top 25 program that wins 8+ games yearly. It's okay.

 

[Millhouse]

Some people are just stuck in the past. Probably like some Houston and UNLV basketball fans.

I'll take 6-8 win seasons, with some down years mixed in, with a chance at a bowl every year. We just won't be a consistent top 25 program that wins 8+ games yearly. It's okay.

baylor and stanford are that good, i'm just talking about the size of the fan base

we need to make tickets harder to get. reduce the number of them, reduce the cost, and make the product better.

 

[omniorange]

I'm not sure what you man by empty seats.

I don't have the statistics handy but during the McNabb years we averaged nearly 49,000 per game. The place was essentially full.

And back then college football was nowhere near as popular as it is today.

And, back then we were not in the ACC.

With Dome AC, other upgrades and winning in the ACC, the fans will come.

Unless you plan to build superboxes/suites, you don't reduce capacity.

http://www.cuse.com/sports/2008/4/23/sufootballhomeattendance.aspx

Even years were better then because we had both Miami and VT at home.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[RF2044]

Some people are just stuck in the past. Probably like some Houston and UNLV basketball fans.

I'll take 6-8 win seasons, with some down years mixed in, with a chance at a bowl every year. We just won't be a consistent top 25 program that wins 8+ games yearly. It's okay.

If any coach can get us there, it's Dino Babers.

Wouldn't write off our program's potential so quickly. Give the process time, and I bet we'll be back in the top 25.

 

[OrangePA]

i don't see why that's a big difference

we're more like stanford and baylor than the megaschools you want us to be

I know that your intelligence rivals that of Mr. Spock, but I think you "Vulcan Mind Meld" is off.

I have never suggested that Syracuse University aspire to become a "megaschool."

Where did you come up with that?

I am simply encouraging the school to invest in the football program.

I would like to see Syracuse University aspire to be another Stanford or Notre Dame or Baylor academically, economically and athletically. That's a fair goal I think. Our school is not a public institution but a large, high profile, prominent private school that should strive to grow and develop.

Reducing the capacity of the Carrier Dome in anticipation of an improved product on the field - in an environment where the popularity of the sport continues to grow exponentially - is bad economic strategy.

And the Economics 101 "supply and demand" analysis of reducing capacity to spurn interest is just plain wrong in this instance.

Reducing the number of seats will not increase interest, but will reduce the potential for growth of the program in my judgment.

Back in 1977 when the Carrier Dome was being planned - and 12,000 to 15, 000 folks were attending games - those opposed to the project cited the attendance figures as proof that the Dome would fail - that the program would never attract crowds of 50,000.

And that of course turned out to be wrong.

It has been the case in CNY for as long as I have been around. You increase interest in the community by winning - consistently against the best competition.

You can add interest by improving the Dome amenities, etc. But the bottom line is winning. If this program were to go 11-0 and were to have a final game against Clemson at the Dome, you would need 60,000 seats.

So, that's what I would like to see - continued investment in the product along with investment in making the Dome more of a world class arena that can accommodate large crowds.

 

[CuseCactus]

I know that your intelligence rivals that of Mr. Spock, but I think you "Vulcan Mind Meld" is off.

I have never suggested that Syracuse University aspire to become a "megaschool."

Where did you come up with that?

I am simply encouraging the school to invest in the football program.

I would like to see Syracuse University aspire to be another Stanford or Notre Dame or Baylor academically, economically and athletically. That's a fair goal I think. Our school is not a public institution but a large, high profile, prominent private school that should strive to grow and develop.

Reducing the capacity of the Carrier Dome in anticipation of an improved product on the field - in an environment where the popularity of the sport continues to grow exponentially - is bad economic strategy.

And the Economics 101 "supply and demand" analysis of reducing capacity to spurn interest is just plain wrong in this instance.

Reducing the number of seats will not increase interest, but will reduce the potential for growth of the program in my judgment.

Back in 1977 when the Carrier Dome was being planned - and 12,000 to 15, 000 folks were attending games - those opposed to the project cited the attendance figures as proof that the Dome would fail - that the program would never attract crowds of 50,000.

And that of course turned out to be wrong.

It has been the case in CNY for as long as I have been around. You increase interest in the community by winning - consistently against the best competition.

You can add interest by improving the Dome amenities, etc. But the bottom line is winning. If this program were to go 11-0 and were to have a final game against Clemson at the Dome, you would need 60,000 seats.

So, that's what I would like to see - continued investment in the product along with investment in making the Dome more of a world class arena that can accommodate large crowds.

Great post. I'd add Southern Cal to the comps listed above. When I applied to Syracuse, we were a peer to USC - in virtually every respect. Now? Not so much. I have faith in Syverud and Babers. A bit worried about the Mike Hopkins part. But I like where things seem to be trending in just about every respect.

 

[Millhouse]

I know that your intelligence rivals that of Mr. Spock, but I think you "Vulcan Mind Meld" is off.

I have never suggested that Syracuse University aspire to become a "megaschool."

Where did you come up with that?

I am simply encouraging the school to invest in the football program.

I would like to see Syracuse University aspire to be another Stanford or Notre Dame or Baylor academically, economically and athletically. That's a fair goal I think. Our school is not a public institution but a large, high profile, prominent private school that should strive to grow and develop.

Reducing the capacity of the Carrier Dome in anticipation of an improved product on the field - in an environment where the popularity of the sport continues to grow exponentially - is bad economic strategy.

And the Economics 101 "supply and demand" analysis of reducing capacity to spurn interest is just plain wrong in this instance.

Reducing the number of seats will not increase interest, but will reduce the potential for growth of the program in my judgment.

Back in 1977 when the Carrier Dome was being planned - and 12,000 to 15, 000 folks were attending games - those opposed to the project cited the attendance figures as proof that the Dome would fail - that the program would never attract crowds of 50,000.

And that of course turned out to be wrong.

It has been the case in CNY for as long as I have been around. You increase interest in the community by winning - consistently against the best competition.

You can add interest by improving the Dome amenities, etc. But the bottom line is winning. If this program were to go 11-0 and were to have a final game against Clemson at the Dome, you would need 60,000 seats.

So, that's what I would like to see - continued investment in the product along with investment in making the Dome more of a world class arena that can accommodate large crowds.

don't build a church for easter sunday. other schools would build a million seat stadium for that type of game.

you've talked about how large capacity stadiums bring players. i think that's kinda goofy. bigtime schools can build everything else for those players because they have huge fan bases. we're never going to have a big fan base, we need to accept it

empty seats don't attract players

 

[Millhouse]

don't build a church for easter sunday. other schools would build a million seat stadium for that type of game.

you've talked about how large capacity stadiums bring players. i think that's kinda goofy. bigtime schools can build everything else for those players because they have huge fan bases. we're never going to have a big fan base, we need to accept it

empty seats don't attract players

and fwiw, it's way easier and cheaper to fix the pricing first before doing anything even more expensive.

we have to get people on the sidelines even if old donors sit next to someone who didn't donate. they'll live

 

[xc84]

empty seats don't attract players

Neither do little stadiums.

 

[Millhouse]

Neither do little stadiums.

plenty of schools have been better than us with smaller stadiums
cincy, bc, baylor, houston, uconn, boise, duke

people think 50 is some magic number

oregon has been in title games with 53, it won't kill us to go to 40-44

 

[Bayside44]

Neither do little stadiums.

If SU follows through it will be a state of the art deal. Parents of players will love it too.

 

[xc84]

plenty of schools have been better than us with smaller stadiums
cincy, bc, baylor, houston, uconn, boise, duke

people think 50 is some magic number

oregon has been in title games with 53, it won't kill us to go to 40-44

Either way, small stadiums don't attract recruits. You can be good with a smaller stadium...but they are good for other reasons...not because their small stadiums attracted good recruits.

 

[xc84]

If SU follows through it will be a state of the art deal. Parents of players will love it too.

I am all for the renovations. Sound great to me. Capacity will likely be reduced due to the addition of real seats in a fixed area...not because they want less capacity.