Future Campus Framework Discussion

[chakka3421]

I received this email today.
Also I have heard the same as OX regarding a funding threshold being reached before any announcement.

They should set multiple levels like $50 million = O, $100 million = X, $200 million = OX! And keep a thermometer reading that updates periodically.

 

[Nick44]

New fields are like a roof on your house. If it needs to be replaced, you replace it but it doesn't make your house worth any more. Cause a roof is kinda a necessity.

Not necessarily true. In this instance, if you replace the archaic fabric roof with a translucent roof (aka the Vikings Stadium), you are adding to the game day experience. A better game day experience, increases fan support which leads to more revenue which leads to more value added to this program. Not to mention it's important that this coaching staff sees the value being added to this program. These are the actionable steps that keeps them in Syracuse.

 

[CuseLegacy]

They should set multiple levels like $50 million = O, $100 million = X, $200 million = OX! And keep a thermometer reading that updates periodically.

OX is worth $200 million. Hmmmmm.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

OX is worth $200 million. Hmmmmm.

It might take me a few days to raise that.

Longer if Tanaka is pitching.

 

[CuseOnly]

Not necessarily true. In this instance, if you replace the archaic fabric roof with a translucent roof (aka the Vikings Stadium), you are adding to the game day experience. A better game day experience, increases fan support which leads to more revenue which leads to more value added to this program. Not to mention it's important that this coaching staff sees the value being added to this program. These are the actionable steps that keeps them in Syracuse.

They could put up a roof made of solid gold, as long as it is an archaic 1980's era air supported roof on a concrete sarcophagus it will be viewed by EVERYONE as putting lipstick on a pig.

It's not a car, it doesn't become more classic the older it gets. It just get older and more out of date and in the end more expensive to change.

Still kicking the can down the road.

All we will hear during every game from talking heads will be "...they had a chance to do something really great with an iconic building...BUT... (insert media jabs here)"

Amazing that some including myself still have any faith at all in the decision makers on the hill. My patience is running out quite frankly, you can only take so many nut-punches before becoming Nut Punch Drunk.

 

[Chris02M]

I received the email as well.

 

[Toga]

Consider it a revenue center.

 

[tipphill]

They could put up a roof made of solid gold, as long as it is an archaic 1980's era air supported roof on a concrete sarcophagus it will be viewed by EVERYONE as putting lipstick on a pig.

It's not a car, it doesn't become more classic the older it gets. It just get older and more out of date and in the end more expensive to change.

Still kicking the can down the road.

All we will hear during every game from talking heads will be "...they had a chance to do something really great with an iconic building...BUT... (insert media jabs here)"

Amazing that some including myself still have any faith at all in the decision makers on the hill. My patience is running out quite frankly, you can only take so many nut-punches before becoming Nut Punch Drunk.

same ol same ol that we will hear for years to come. if they are really supportive they can make it happen. if they can bring academics to the top twenty,improve the law school and get a medical school then cheap out on the dome.
su is and has been just respectable academics wise(with a few excellent exceptions) they will never be high caliber for under graduates. faculty continues to complain and always will and do . many are pseudo wannabee ivy league etc etc etc. once you get them involved in the process, as i said before---it is an endless pseudo intellectual discussion. ' they have multiple agendas that go no where and they will never be happy.
very strong leadership is necessary and warranted. this is the real world something that gets lost in the academic process.
we need rodney dangerfield (back to school) to take over

 

[SUOrange44]

Academics on the Hill have a lot of sway. Doesn't help that they are fiercely anti-athletics especially in a time where SU is in the red (thanks Nancy).

If they haven't already, the athletic department needs to allocate a portion of revenue generated and ACC contracts strictly for the Dome renovation. It is odd that SU, doesn't have big time boosters or donors given how many successful and notable alumni they push out there.

I certainly understand the position to some extent but I would caution those in the academic community who minimize the impact of a major sports on a college or university perhaps now, more than ever.

Recent trends involving rising educational costs, decrease in the immediate impact of a four year degree, etc. are going to push these schools into a situation where there needs to be something unique that adds to the selling point of going to an expensive four year school, living on campus and the like.

So many kids these days (and their folks) seem extremely willing to start out at a two year school or so where else and transfer in. It reduces costs significantly, can often help a student mature since they are not jumping in right after high school along with a bunch of other reasons.

If I were part of the SU academic group I would focus on how big a draw the athletic department is. The events, the camaraderie, the networking because of the "brand name" may not be easily quantifiable but play amajor role in the draw to a kid who is just graduating from high school. Those are things he or she will not get immediately or ever if they go the Community College route and may be something they never get at any one of a ton of other institutions of higher learning across the country.

Failure to nurture and adequately develop the SU sports program could have the exact opposite effect that some of those in academia are fighting for. Less students, less teachers, less monetary base to fund certain programs, less name recognition a and an overall quality decline.

I graduated from high school in 1989 and was (and am) a sports nut. I played a lot of baseball growing up but when it came down to it I applied to a bunch of different schools. They were SU, Indiana, Texas, Michigan, North Carolina, Purdue, Minnesota and SUNY Albany. I applied to Albany because that is where I lived and my parents told me I had to. Otherwise, you can see a common theme.

I value education tremendously. My folks did, my wife does and my children do. I can tell you though that if SU did not have a big time athletic program that has become a key element in my life once 1989 I probably would not have applied. I would not have graduated in '93, I would not have donated back to the University and I would not have moved back to Syracuse a few years after graduating from law school where I like to think we take advantage of Onondaga County.

Do we need a complete redo of the Dome...probably not. However, it try and push modifications and improvements to the side would be a major error in my opinion and I really think anybody on the inside who is pushing that is extremely short-sighted.

SUOrange44

 

[tipphill]

I certainly understand the position to some extent but I would caution those in the academic community who minimize the impact of a major sports on a college or university perhaps now, more than ever.

Recent trends involving rising educational costs, decrease in the immediate impact of a four year degree, etc. are going to push these schools into a situation where there needs to be something unique that adds to the selling point of going to an expensive four year school, living on campus and the like.

So many kids these days (and their folks) seem extremely willing to start out at a two year school or so where else and transfer in. It reduces costs significantly, can often help a student mature since they are not jumping in right after high school along with a bunch of other reasons.

If I were part of the SU academic group I would focus on how big a draw the athletic department is. The events, the camaraderie, the networking because of the "brand name" may not be easily quantifiable but play amajor role in the draw to a kid who is just graduating from high school. Those are things he or she will not get immediately or ever if they go the Community College route and may be something they never get at any one of a ton of other institutions of higher learning across the country.

Failure to nurture and adequately develop the SU sports program could have the exact opposite effect that some of those in academia are fighting for. Less students, less teachers, less monetary base to fund certain programs, less name recognition a and an overall quality decline.

I graduated from high school in 1989 and was (and am) a sports nut. I played a lot of baseball growing up but when it came down to it I applied to a bunch of different schools. They were SU, Indiana, Texas, Michigan, North Carolina, Purdue, Minnesota and SUNY Albany. I applied to Albany because that is where I lived and my parents told me I had to. Otherwise, you can see a common theme.

I value education tremendously. My folks did, my wife does and my children do. I can tell you though that if SU did not have a big time athletic program that has become a key element in my life once 1989 I probably would not have applied. I would not have graduated in '93, I would not have donated back to the University and I would not have moved back to Syracuse a few years after graduating from law school where I like to think we take advantage of Onondaga County.

Do we need a complete redo of the Dome...probably not. However, it try and push modifications and improvements to the side would be a major error in my opinion and I really think anybody on the inside who is pushing that is extremely short-sighted.

SUOrange44

please forward this to the chancellor, and he can distribute this to the schools and department heads. this should be an editorial in the post standard and published by the daily orange. this is the post of the year.

 

[jr4750]

I certainly understand the position to some extent but I would caution those in the academic community who minimize the impact of a major sports on a college or university perhaps now, more than ever.

Recent trends involving rising educational costs, decrease in the immediate impact of a four year degree, etc. are going to push these schools into a situation where there needs to be something unique that adds to the selling point of going to an expensive four year school, living on campus and the like.

So many kids these days (and their folks) seem extremely willing to start out at a two year school or so where else and transfer in. It reduces costs significantly, can often help a student mature since they are not jumping in right after high school along with a bunch of other reasons.

If I were part of the SU academic group I would focus on how big a draw the athletic department is. The events, the camaraderie, the networking because of the "brand name" may not be easily quantifiable but play amajor role in the draw to a kid who is just graduating from high school. Those are things he or she will not get immediately or ever if they go the Community College route and may be something they never get at any one of a ton of other institutions of higher learning across the country.

Failure to nurture and adequately develop the SU sports program could have the exact opposite effect that some of those in academia are fighting for. Less students, less teachers, less monetary base to fund certain programs, less name recognition a and an overall quality decline.

I graduated from high school in 1989 and was (and am) a sports nut. I played a lot of baseball growing up but when it came down to it I applied to a bunch of different schools. They were SU, Indiana, Texas, Michigan, North Carolina, Purdue, Minnesota and SUNY Albany. I applied to Albany because that is where I lived and my parents told me I had to. Otherwise, you can see a common theme.

I value education tremendously. My folks did, my wife does and my children do. I can tell you though that if SU did not have a big time athletic program that has become a key element in my life once 1989 I probably would not have applied. I would not have graduated in '93, I would not have donated back to the University and I would not have moved back to Syracuse a few years after graduating from law school where I like to think we take advantage of Onondaga County.

Do we need a complete redo of the Dome...probably not. However, it try and push modifications and improvements to the side would be a major error in my opinion and I really think anybody on the inside who is pushing that is extremely short-sighted.

SUOrange44

So you're saying this girl is being sarcastic about her $60,000 + debt?

 

[NJCuse97]

I think there are too many lenses to look at this through. Here is what I think is happening. They rendering was created to get big donors on board (again, it wasn't meant to be public). They wanted to see what kind of funds they could raise from that first and foremost. I think they had to acknowledge that they fell well short of their goals (otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion). They are now at a point where they need to broaden the base of the fundraising to include the rest of the alumni (outside the typical large money donors, alumni and otherwise). As CL mentioned above, the donors can direct the money to any venue/venture they choose, after all it's their money. Typically they will have a pre-selected choice of boxes to direct your donation which includes one to leave it to the school's discretion. I agree there is a donation threshold they are looking to reach in order to make an announcement. As for the school ponying up that money, consider these "Rutgers like" optics: the school just announced a fairly substantial tuition increase. How does it look for the school to raise tuition and then announce a $250 million stadium renovation? Dear parents, your $45k a year just went to $50k so we can fix our stadium. Good luck on that second mortgage. We will not be doing anything to improve your child's education or teaching facilities as funds are just too tight.

Think of this viewing angle; without the donors, the roof replacement with the "same 'ole same 'ole" is inevitable. Maybe they are doubling down that saying this out loud will get more people to buy in (we can't let this happen with our current momentum) than opt out.

 

[tipphill]

I think there are too many lenses to look at this through. Here is what I think is happening. They rendering was created to get big donors on board (again, it wasn't meant to be public). They wanted to see what kind of funds they could raise from that first and foremost. I think they had to acknowledge that they fell well short of their goals (otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion). They are now at a point where they need to broaden the base of the fundraising to include the rest of the alumni (outside the typical large money donors, alumni and otherwise). As CL mentioned above, the donors can direct the money to any venue/venture they choose, after all it's their money. Typically they will have a pre-selected choice of boxes to direct your donation which includes one to leave it to the school's discretion. I agree there is a donation threshold they are looking to reach in order to make an announcement. As for the school ponying up that money, consider these "Rutgers like" optics: the school just announced a fairly substantial tuition increase. How does it look for the school to raise tuition and then announce a $250 million stadium renovation? Dear parents, your $45k a year just went to $50k so we can fix our stadium. Good luck on that second mortgage. We will not be doing anything to improve your child's education or teaching facilities as funds are just too tight.

Think of this viewing angle; without the donors, the roof replacement with the "same 'ole same 'ole" is inevitable. Maybe they are doubling down that saying this out loud will get more people to buy in (we can't let this happen with our current momentum) than opt out.

fix the stadium, win, generate better attendance,generate more revenue for school and students. it needs to be sold as an investment. where does all the money go that the basketball program generates?????
you know what su costs going in. you also know or should know there will be tuition increases. i sent my daughter to upenn and knew up front what i would be paying, and there would be increases. i also knew i would be working two jobs to do it.
if you can't afford su don't send them there. there are plenty of equal or better schools that would be half the price.
i look at education as a business. it needs to be operated as such. one could also point out how much the hoops program generated and where that has enhanced the educational facilities.
the football program could sold in the same vein. where does the money go now? how has it enhanced the school?
to do nothing is very myopic. this is planning for the future.

 

[Toga]

One has to believe there have been professional attempts to quantify the benefits of strong sports programs to a university. Intuitively what you say rings true although I'm sure there is some point of expenditure where the law of diminishing return kicks in. SU is so fortunate to be P5 - the University should maximize that value.

I certainly understand the position to some extent but I would caution those in the academic community who minimize the impact of a major sports on a college or university perhaps now, more than ever.

Recent trends involving rising educational costs, decrease in the immediate impact of a four year degree, etc. are going to push these schools into a situation where there needs to be something unique that adds to the selling point of going to an expensive four year school, living on campus and the like.

So many kids these days (and their folks) seem extremely willing to start out at a two year school or so where else and transfer in. It reduces costs significantly, can often help a student mature since they are not jumping in right after high school along with a bunch of other reasons.

If I were part of the SU academic group I would focus on how big a draw the athletic department is. The events, the camaraderie, the networking because of the "brand name" may not be easily quantifiable but play amajor role in the draw to a kid who is just graduating from high school. Those are things he or she will not get immediately or ever if they go the Community College route and may be something they never get at any one of a ton of other institutions of higher learning across the country.

Failure to nurture and adequately develop the SU sports program could have the exact opposite effect that some of those in academia are fighting for. Less students, less teachers, less monetary base to fund certain programs, less name recognition a and an overall quality decline.

I graduated from high school in 1989 and was (and am) a sports nut. I played a lot of baseball growing up but when it came down to it I applied to a bunch of different schools. They were SU, Indiana, Texas, Michigan, North Carolina, Purdue, Minnesota and SUNY Albany. I applied to Albany because that is where I lived and my parents told me I had to. Otherwise, you can see a common theme.

I value education tremendously. My folks did, my wife does and my children do. I can tell you though that if SU did not have a big time athletic program that has become a key element in my life once 1989 I probably would not have applied. I would not have graduated in '93, I would not have donated back to the University and I would not have moved back to Syracuse a few years after graduating from law school where I like to think we take advantage of Onondaga County.

Do we need a complete redo of the Dome...probably not. However, it try and push modifications and improvements to the side would be a major error in my opinion and I really think anybody on the inside who is pushing that is extremely short-sighted.

SUOrange44

 

[NJCuse97]

fix the stadium, win, generate better attendance,generate more revenue for school and students. it needs to be sold as an investment. where does all the money go that the basketball program generates?????
you know what su costs going in. you also know or should know there will be tuition increases. i sent my daughter to upenn and knew up front what i would be paying, and there would be increases. i also knew i would be working two jobs to do it.
if you can't afford su don't send them there. there are plenty of equal or better schools that would be half the price.
i look at education as a business. it needs to be operated as such. one could also point out how much the hoops program generated and where that has enhanced the educational facilities.
the football program could sold in the same vein. where does the money go now? how has it enhanced the school?
to do nothing is very myopic. this is planning for the future.

Not sure you see my point. I agree that college is a business, and I also agree that parents know the cost going in and probably can safely assume it will increase before their kids are done. My point is in this vein. As a business, you have to know who your most important customers are and I've got news for you, it isn't the basketball and football fans, its the students and their tuition paying parents. They are the ones who pay now but also raise the academic profile of the school and become the alumni donors we are looking for later. When basketball season tickets start at $30k/season ($2k about per home game) and football matches that at $5k per game to get to $30k/season then they can consider themselves on par with the tuition paying as important customers. Keep in mind that the current average attendance is pretty equivalent to the enrollment. As the most important customers, money should be spent to improve their experience. I think most of those paying customers put things like living facilities, classrooms, specialized learning spaces, and quality educators before student life elements (which the hoops and football teams fall to to everyone but the student athletes themselves). In that they have to compete with renovations to Archbold, or building a new health and student service center once that is taken down by the Veterans' Center and other local initiatives (dorms). There are a lot of moving parts and priorities.

I too see the value of the athletic programs. Among other things, it has been proven to increase applications, which helps improve enrollment and allows the University to be more selective in its acceptance of applicants, all of which helps improve the school's academic standing. As to revenue generated by the sports teams, you'd have to ask the AD where those proceeds go, but I am certain that if all their league transfer fees were paid and they were sitting on a large sum of money, then it would be put forward for considered inclusion. Instead, the AD had to fight for the $11 million for the construction of the IPF and they didn't get a naming donor until the thing was built.

 

[CuseOnly]

One has to believe there have been professional attempts to quantify the benefits of strong sports programs to a university. Intuitively what you say rings true although I'm sure there is some point of expenditure where the law of diminishing return kicks in. SU is so fortunate to be P5 - the University should maximize that value.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/07/...ama-crimson-tide-football-marketing.html?_r=0

The Magic Of Nick Saban: Everyone Wants To Go To Alabama

Yes, It's Alabama but nobody wanted to go there from out of state until Saban arrived and started to win.

 

[DoubleDee]

New fields are like a roof on your house. If it needs to be replaced, you replace it but it doesn't make your house worth any more. Cause a roof is kinda a necessity.

I was responding to someone saying we've had one replacement in 30 some odd years. When in fact we've had two in the last 12-13 years.

 

[CuseOnly]

I was responding to someone saying we've had one replacement in 30 some odd years. When in fact we've had two in the last 12-13 years.

Yep, that was me. Point still stands, a new field is like a new roof on your house or new tires on your car. Without it yer kinda screwed but your house isn't worth any more no matter how many new ones you put on.

With a bad one yer screwed, just like when we had the old carpet. Teams complained it was dangerous, when we had it changed out to fieldturf we didn't get accolades. Cause it is necessary.

 

[SWC75]

Maybe these guys could help:
Exclusive: Oneida Nation to build a $40 million-plus casino near Onondaga County line

they seem to have a lot of cash, (and I hear some of it is JB's ).

 

[tipphill]

Not sure you see my point. I agree that college is a business, and I also agree that parents know the cost going in and probably can safely assume it will increase before their kids are done. My point is in this vein. As a business, you have to know who your most important customers are and I've got news for you, it isn't the basketball and football fans, its the students and their tuition paying parents. They are the ones who pay now but also raise the academic profile of the school and become the alumni donors we are looking for later. When basketball season tickets start at $30k/season ($2k about per home game) and football matches that at $5k per game to get to $30k/season then they can consider themselves on par with the tuition paying as important customers. Keep in mind that the current average attendance is pretty equivalent to the enrollment. As the most important customers, money should be spent to improve their experience. I think most of those paying customers put things like living facilities, classrooms, specialized learning spaces, and quality educators before student life elements (which the hoops and football teams fall to to everyone but the student athletes themselves). In that they have to compete with renovations to Archbold, or building a new health and student service center once that is taken down by the Veterans' Center and other local initiatives (dorms). There are a lot of moving parts and priorities.

I too see the value of the athletic programs. Among other things, it has been proven to increase applications, which helps improve enrollment and allows the University to be more selective in its acceptance of applicants, all of which helps improve the school's academic standing. As to revenue generated by the sports teams, you'd have to ask the AD where those proceeds go, but I am certain that if all their league transfer fees were paid and they were sitting on a large sum of money, then it would be put forward for considered inclusion. Instead, the AD had to fight for the $11 million for the construction of the IPF and they didn't get a naming donor until the thing was built.

then it would be interesting to know where the money generated by the sports programs goes. IDEALLY and hypothetically, lets say su gets to 45000-50000 fans a game, goes to a decent bowl game, is already getting a good share of acc money,where does all that money go?????
before we talk about the student customers it would be nice to know how those customers benefit in terms of enhanced facilities and education that are a result of successful athletic teams.
further as pointed out by suorange44, the students experience is also enhanced in terms of socialization,commonality,and other intangibles.
again, this is an investment. to do nothing is like holding a stock that remains status quo or losing money.
to follow your plan,if su does not want to invest in growth, then drop from division 1 and go to to division 2 or 3. university of rochester for example has no div 1 programs and is far more successful than su in terms of academic standing, as are many other schools.
su needs to stop the identity crisis and make tough decisions.
su has been mired in mediocrity for years, the price tag is outrageous for it. it has been essentially leaderless for years---hopefully this new chancellor will help.
several privates have been successful such as wake forest,boston college, rice duke, smu, etc. what holds su back??? why don't our alumni donate???? thats one question question i would be asking. a second question would be, historically who have been the biggest donors over the years.
i am also intimately familiar with su costs as my daughter also has a jd/mpa from there. she loved maxwell.

 

[SWC75]

I always figured that when I paid that "preferred seating" charge, that was a donation to the athletic program. Am I wrong?

 

[DoubleDee]

Maybe these guys could help:
Exclusive: Oneida Nation to build a $40 million-plus casino near Onondaga County line

they seem to have a lot of cash, (and I hear some of it is JB's ).

Saltine Warrior Dome

 

[UnknownOrange]

I always figured that when I paid that "preferred seating" charge, that was a donation to the athletic program. Am I wrong?

I was told that the reason I couldn't receive commission on the donation portion was tax purpose and it being 'university' money. Take that FWIW.

However I believe it is mostly athletic $$ and they fed me that second part so I'd leave it alone. There is some serious questions about donation money though. Box office vs. Orange club is quite interesting.

 

[Fly Rodder]

It's unfortunate that politics, petty "requirements", and corrupt developers make this so much more unlikely to be completed. I think they're spending waaaay too much money to try and put a lipstick on a pig just 1) not knock down the existing dome, 2) keep it on campus for whatever reason, and 3) keep SU in the sports arena management and semi-professional athletics business. There's a massive opportunity to tie in a new multi-purpose sports/rec arena to the I-81 reconstruction project. Let the county manage it and sign SU as the priority tenant.

Either that (like Rodney Dangerfield in Caddyshack, I think the two biggest wastes of prime real estate are golf courses and cemeteries) move half of Oakwood and build the new arena there.

 

[NJCuse97]

then it would be interesting to know where the money generated by the sports programs goes. IDEALLY and hypothetically, lets say su gets to 45000-50000 fans a game, goes to a decent bowl game, is already getting a good share of acc money,where does all that money go?????
before we talk about the student customers it would be nice to know how those customers benefit in terms of enhanced facilities and education that are a result of successful athletic teams.
further as pointed out by suorange44, the students experience is also enhanced in terms of socialization,commonality,and other intangibles.
again, this is an investment. to do nothing is like holding a stock that remains status quo or losing money.
to follow your plan,if su does not want to invest in growth, then drop from division 1 and go to to division 2 or 3. university of rochester for example has no div 1 programs and is far more successful than su in terms of academic standing, as are many other schools.
su needs to stop the identity crisis and make tough decisions.
su has been mired in mediocrity for years, the price tag is outrageous for it. it has been essentially leaderless for years---hopefully this new chancellor will help.
several privates have been successful such as wake forest,boston college, rice duke, smu, etc. what holds su back??? why don't our alumni donate???? thats one question question i would be asking. a second question would be, historically who have been the biggest donors over the years.
i am also intimately familiar with su costs as my daughter also has a jd/mpa from there. she loved maxwell.

To the point about Bowl Games:
Do The Economics Of Bowl Games Make Sense For Schools, Sponsors?
And for the record, when's the last time we were consistently involved in Bowls, let alone the major BCS ones?

I agree and agreed in my previous post that the student experience is enhanced. I do see the value of a high profile athletics program. Is that student experience worth $250 million? Even if taken over the life of the building, about 35 years, that is about $7.25 million a year. That's not including the other work already done to the Dome over the course of its life. That's at least two roofs prior to this, as well as two new carpets, new video signage, new sound systems, etc. To suggest that would put us over the $10 million per year life cost here is not that far fetched. There are about 25k students. That's $400/student per year just for the Dome if we include this roof. I see the investment, and that really doesn't seem like a lot, but that is an extraordinarily large percentage of the student activity fee. If they spent nothing but the cost to have a team, they'd still have that commonality and community within the school and amongst alumni. What are they investing in? $100 million would buy a substantial new academic building that could bring new programs, and new revenue streams in the form of grants, and new applicants, and potentially part of a patent or two that could raise funds for a new building.
Princeton unveils chemistry lab financed by cancer drug proceeds

Again, I am all for doing this work and I see the potential value, however intangible but I can also see the other facets of the discussion. Your point about other schools with Div. 2 or 3 teams having better academic profiles is only making the point of the nay sayers. Your pointing to Wake Forest or Boston College, Rice, Duke makes even less sense as those are schools with similar or lesser athletic profiles than we have, (really only Duke compares) older smaller stadiums in greater need of attention, and all with academic profiles that are in all honesty higher than that of Syracuse. The aspirant private institution is Notre Dame. Maybe what holds alumni back from donating (just conjecture here) is that they never went to the school for athletics, and yet watched the school's reputation tarnished by it, or saw it held up as the reason the classrooms were not renovated while the Melo Center gets built. I know that's not truly fair, especially if there are donors directing their dollars to that effort, but it seems to me that isn't typically happening. The feeling about the administration when I was on the hill was that they didn't care about us, and on a personal ratifying note, when they called me about a week after I graduated, after five years in a professional degree, and asked for a donation, I said yes, put me down for $50 at this time (I still didn't have a job). They told me they wouldn't take less than $500. I told them they just took about $160K and they could lose my number if that was their attitude. It hasn't been until recently that they started accepting smaller donations. Think of the dollars lost and the feelings of animosity and disrespect they generated. Think of the volume of alumni they alienated.

Congratulations to your daughter. She is a part of a great program. Does she donate? Serious question, not a snide comment.