Final football chat of the season with Stephen Bailey... Thursday at 8 pm...

[SmilinBob]

Is the SBC the Syracuse Budget Committee? Or something else?

 

[Crusty]

I disagree that this is all bad for SU and I think tomcat's point is very accurate. With the right person running the SUAD, you can have fiscal responsibility as well as continued (and in football's case improved) support. The committee can't see the actual SUAD budget numbers, which leads to the distrust. We can all read what money is coming from the ACC, so when the AD says not only is that money gone, but it didn't cover all our expenses, people are going to be concerned.

Reading the report the tone is very negative. I have no crystal ball, but as I said, until the BE exist fees are absorbed there can't be much spare change hanging around. What happens after another year or two is anybody's guess, but the short term looks tight.

I read somewhere where Syverud wants to have the AD revenue neutral. That does not automatically means being run independently. If the AD starts making lots of money, I imagine SU is going to use a lot of it elsewhere.

 

[Crusty]

Is the SBC the Syracuse Budget Committee? Or something else?

Its name is the SU Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Affairs so I imagine it is the budget committee.

 

[Chip]

It doesn't necessarily bother me that SU is going on the cheaper end of staff.

It bothers me that given those constraints, they go cheap on a defensive minded head coach when they play in a Dome.

If you're going to go the unproven route, then use your facility to your advantage. We were 3-9 anyway. I'd rather be 3-9 and score points doing it. At least I won't feel like the game is over by halftime if we're down 2 scores.

 

[Full_Rebar]

Reading the report the tone is very negative. I have no crystal ball, but as I said, until the BE exist fees are absorbed there can't be much spare change hanging around. What happens after another year or two is anybody's guess, but the short term looks tight.

I read somewhere where Syverud wants to have the AD revenue neutral. That does not automatically means being run independently. If the AD starts making lots of money, I imagine SU is going to use a lot of it elsewhere.

In the 90s, the AD gave back to the University in terms of money for upgrades in classrooms, and there used to be a van that was purchased with some bowl money. I think the AD could invest revenue back into facilities while contributing back to campus as has been done. I don't think Syverud is asking them to turn over all profits.

If the Dome plan is accurate, I could see AD revenues going into a fund to be used towards those improvements. To me, that's a lot different than taking AD revenues and using them to build a new bookstore.

 

[Crusty]

In the 90s, the AD gave back to the University in terms of money for upgrades in classrooms, and there used to be a van that was purchased with some bowl money. I think the AD could invest revenue back into facilities while contributing back to campus as has been done. I don't think Syverud is asking them to turn over all profits.

If the Dome plan is accurate, I could see AD revenues going into a fund to be used towards those improvements. To me, that's a lot different than taking AD revenues and using them to build a new bookstore.

I agree. However, we shouldn't get carried away and think that as the ACC money grows the AD can just spend it as they see fit.

It would make me warn and fuzzy if we got a new stadium with some of the big bank fine money that is filling the state coffers. I think TGC would love to have the state foot the bill for a new retractable stadium that he could lease allowing him to use the Dome location for other academic buildings.