Future Campus Framework Discussion

[TheCusian]

Seed money is one thing. Tax incentives abound in energy, first oil and gas - now solar and wind, etc.

 

[Townie72]

Seed money is one thing. Tax incentives abound in energy, first oil and gas - now solar and wind, etc.

This conversation started with seed money (see above). That's where Government attempts to pick winners. An area they know absolutely nothing about.

 

[retro44]

Mice ... as in the thing you move around to position your cursor.

Oh you mean like the one I used to respond back at...Gotcha

I curse much better in person

 

[MaxwellCuse]

This conversation started with seed money (see above). That's where Government attempts to pick winners. An area they know absolutely nothing about.

NYS State did a pretty good job picking a winner when they decided to back a moribund SU team back in the late 1970s. By 1987, thanks in part to a shiny new Dome, the Orange enjoyed their first (and so far only) undefeated season since 1959.

Let's do it again.

 

[Townie72]

NYS State did a pretty good job picking a winner when they decided to back a moribund SU team back in the late 1970s. By 1987, thanks in part to a shiny new Dome, the Orange enjoyed their first (and so far only) undefeated season since 1959.

Let's do it again.

That's really the crazy thing about this whole new facilities discussion. Some think it's the Dome in it's current condition and configuration that is what is holding SU football. And since a better facility worked once --- although it took seven years --- we can have history repeat itself by building an even better one.

This theory is made even more attractive by the idea that someone else is paying for it (Tax dolllars? Major donations?).

It's a huge bet with no guarantee of success.

And believe me, nothing they could do to the Dome would come close to the amount of improvement the original Dome was over Archbold which was famous for frozen buns.

 

[TheCusian]

That's really the crazy thing about this whole new facilities discussion. Some think it's the Dome in it's current condition and configuration that is what is holding SU football. And since a better facility worked once --- although it took seven years --- we can have history repeat itself by building an even better one.

This theory is made even more attractive by the idea that someone else is paying for it (Tax dolllars? Major donations?).

It's a huge bet with no guarantee of success.

And believe me, nothing they could do to the Dome would come close to the amount of improvement the original Dome was over Archbold which was famous for frozen buns.

You're a bit in the weeds on all of this.

It's not that it will solve all of our problems. But there are two facts that need addressing:

1. The roof needs fixing not matter what.
2. The game day experience is important to the fan experience (how comfortable is is, how easy it is to get in and out, food, how clean it feels, modern amenities, etc).

The roof is an impending problem no matter how you slice it. The fan experience can drive the numbers, the perception, etc. of the university itself (it's the most steadily public facing anything from the university, so a full dome that looks great that people rave about - has a ton of value to the university).

It's really not a huge bet. There is real value in solving the roof so the value doesn't become a complete negative, or at worst a disaster. The public face of the university (lets say 90%) and the city itself (what 65% maybe?) has value.

To characterize this as just a "on the field" or "on the court" solution is crazy sauce.

 

[kcsu]

Mice ... as in the thing you move around to position your cursor.

That would be a mouse to you

 

[TheCusian]

This conversation started with seed money (see above). That's where Government attempts to pick winners. An area they know absolutely nothing about.

This is probably your bias showing. If you believe the government to be stupid and inept - you can say it's an area "they know nothing about"... How hard is it to bring in investors/people who know this stuff and are probably already dumping money into x idea to help the government make these choices?

Smells like a Fox News argument to me.

 

[Townie72]

That would be a mouse to you

And the plural of "mouse" is?

 

[Townie72]

That would be a mouse to you

And the plural of "mouse" is?

This is probably your bias showing. If you believe the government to be stupid and inept - you can say it's an area "they know nothing about"... How hard is it to bring in investors/people who know this stuff and are probably already dumping money into x idea to help the government make these choices?



Smells like a Fox News argument to me.

 

[Townie72]

This is probably your bias showing. If you believe the government to be stupid and inept - you can say it's an area "they know nothing about"... How hard is it to bring in investors/people who know this stuff and are probably already dumping money into x idea to help the government make these choices?

Smells like a Fox News argument to me.

There's a whole high-risk industry around doing this. They are called Venture Capitalists.

And Government trying to play in this arena with the political overlay and it's slow processes is IMO ridiculous. It's tantamount to asking a pig to fly.

And I don't need TVnews to to tell me the Government at all levels is inefficient and that in an attempt to be fair and beyond criticism from any quarter that they have rules that the private sector could not survive with.

If you don't believe this it's your politics, not mine, that are driving you opinion. I have seen it from the IT viewpoint and the Construction viewpoint.

Try this test. This weekend make a list of everything you plan to buy or do. Then develop a minimum specification for each one. Then find the cheapest price for each of these things that meet that specification.

Let me know how you make out using how Government does things.

 

[Townie72]

You're a bit in the weeds on all of this.

It's not that it will solve all of our problems. But there are two facts that need addressing:

1. The roof needs fixing not matter what.
2. The game day experience is important to the fan experience (how comfortable is is, how easy it is to get in and out, food, how clean it feels, modern amenities, etc).

The roof is an impending problem no matter how you slice it. The fan experience can drive the numbers, the perception, etc. of the university itself (it's the most steadily public facing anything from the university, so a full dome that looks great that people rave about - has a ton of value to the university).

It's really not a huge bet. There is real value in solving the roof so the value doesn't become a complete negative, or at worst a disaster. The public face of the university (lets say 90%) and the city itself (what 65% maybe?) has value.

To characterize this as just a "on the field" or "on the court" solution is crazy sauce.

 

[Townie72]

Yup! The roof needs to be replaced. And if they have the money it's probably a good idea to replace it with something that is cheaper in the long run.

But the rest of the stuff like "fan experience" and Perception of the University" is very soft stuff and almost impossible to quantify.

Of course, if it's somebody else's money, go for it! No guts, no glory.

But I'll bet the University is cautious. The future for high-priced, private, medium quality schools like SU is unclear.

 

[Townie72]

While I am on this:

Dome attendance on average for football has ranged between 32K and 40K. For the sake of argument we can use the 32K and the 18K unsold seats as our baseline.

In order to do this planning exercise we have to keep football team performance at the same level. I think we can all agree that if SU was a Top Ten team that attendance would be greatly reduced as a problem .

Keeping team performance at the same level, how many more fans are attracted (or how much more would they pay) by:

Somewhat more comfortable seating?
Much more comfortable seating?
Luxurious seating?

Better lighting?

Easier Parking?

Etc?

Etc.

Now how much does each of these improvements cost? And what is the payback period?

Pretty hard to do, isn't it?

When you get to the number of improvements in the "fan experience" that drive an additional 18K (or 10K) of attendance you can quit. Beyond that you are spending money for no return unless you can raise prices.

 

[TheCusian]

There's a whole high-risk industry around doing this. They are called Venture Capitalists.

And Government trying to play in this arena with the political overlay and it's slow processes is IMO ridiculous. It's tantamount to asking a pig to fly.

And I don't need TVnews to to tell me the Government at all levels is inefficient and that in an attempt to be fair and beyond criticism from any quarter that they have rules that the private sector could not survive with.

If you don't believe this it's your politics, not mine, that are driving you opinion. I have seen it from the IT viewpoint and the Construction viewpoint.

Try this test. This weekend make a list of everything you plan to buy or do. Then develop a minimum specification for each one. Then find the cheapest price for each of these things that meet that specification.

Let me know how you make out using how Government does things.

Government can be inefficient. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't use resources (time, energy, money) into things that can make a difference. Do you know how much the government drives R&D? You can call it "seed money" or "tax incentives" or "partnering with private industry" - but the truth is that innovation has almost always been a mix of the two.

Side note: I personally know people whose work is almost entirely dependent on government money , while they work for a private company. Giving money and saying "here's a direction" happens all of the time. You suggesting that government involvement is tantamount to doing things automatically in the most inefficient manner is false and absolutely shows your bias.

EDIT: this is also the kind of thing that does show my bias too. I just think if we're all putting money into a big pool, it's a good idea to spend some of it on driving industry to areas that benefit us all. Too many people speak of the government as if it's not "we the people" ... like it's the enemy. It exists to pool our resources to do things we can't do individually.

 

[TheCusian]

Yup! The roof needs to be replaced. And if they have the money it's probably a good idea to replace it with something that is cheaper in the long run.

But the rest of the stuff like "fan experience" and Perception of the University" is very soft stuff and almost impossible to quantify.

Of course, if it's somebody else's money, go for it! No guts, no glory.

But I'll bet the University is cautious. The future for high-priced, private, medium quality schools like SU is unclear.

It's really not impossible to quantify. Banks do it all the time. Insurance companies and court rooms apply value to "perception" and things like it all of the time.

How is it someone else money? Tax money is our money. Unless you're making these comments outside of the taxable region? Are you railing against raising money and spending it? Because lats I checked there isn't a private university around that doesn't do this. Athletic departments spend other peoples money all the time.

 

[TheCusian]

While I am on this:

Dome attendance on average for football has ranged between 32K and 40K. For the sake of argument we can use the 32K and the 18K unsold seats as our baseline.

In order to do this planning exercise we have to keep football team performance at the same level. I think we can all agree that if SU was a Top Ten team that attendance would be greatly reduced as a problem .

Keeping team performance at the same level, how many more fans are attracted (or how much more would they pay) by:

Somewhat more comfortable seating?
Much more comfortable seating?
Luxurious seating?

Better lighting?

Easier Parking?

Etc?

Etc.

Now how much does each of these improvements cost? And what is the payback period?

Pretty hard to do, isn't it?

When you get to the number of improvements in the "fan experience" that drive an additional 18K (or 10K) of attendance you can quit. Beyond that you are spending money for no return unless you can raise prices.

Ha. Yeah - it's hard for us. I'd imagine they have the means to do a feasibility study and that it's already done or is being done. That's how you minimize the risk.

But yeah, if you wanted to go for zero risk, same perception, same game-day grumbles, same old problems - then don't fix everything else that's wrong and just go with a cheap roof.

Scared money don't make money, T.

 

[Townie72]

Government can be inefficient. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't use resources (time, energy, money) into things that can make a difference. Do you know how much the government drives R&D? You can call it "seed money" or "tax incentives" or "partnering with private industry" - but the truth is that innovation has almost always been a mix of the two.

Side note: I personally know people whose work is almost entirely dependent on government money , while they work for a private company. Giving money and saying "here's a direction" happens all of the time. You suggesting that government involvement is tantamount to doing things automatically in the most inefficient manner is false and absolutely shows your bias.

If it were economic to do so, the private sector would do so.

I think if you had more experience knowledge of how these thing work this would be a more productive discussion.

All you are doing is saying Government is good because Fox News says it's bad.

There can be no better example of the ineptitude of the Government than the introduction of the Healthcare.gov website. A colossal and very public failure to do what hundreds of commercial firms have done repeatedly and easily.

It's not this way everywhere. In France and Germany governments work well. In France, the best and the brightest work for the French Government. In the US it's the reverse.

 

[Townie72]

Ha. Yeah - it's hard for us. I'd imagine they have the means to do a feasibility study and that it's already done or is being done. That's how you minimize the risk.

But yeah, if you wanted to go for zero risk, same perception, same game-day grumbles, same old problems - then don't fix everything else that's wrong and just go with a cheap roof.

Scared money don't make money, T.

First of all, these things that can be answered by a feasibility survey cannot be. I spent a career trying to estimate the impacts on demand for product and pricing changes and we had a lot more and better information than SU will have in this.

No one can know for sure what the impacts of this spending will be on incremental attendance.

Easy to say "scared money don't make money" when it ain't your money.

 

[TheCusian]

If it were economic to do so, the private sector would do so. Exactly. There are times when the economics drive things in a way that makes more money, but may be at odds with what's good for the people. Think fossil fuels vs alternative energy. The government can "course correct" so that it makes money in ways that are good for most of the people.

I think if you had more experience knowledge of how these thing work this would be a more productive discussion. Likewise, if you weren't so biased, you'd see past basic talking points. Don't believe my candor belies a misunderstanding of the facts.

All you are doing is saying Government is good because Fox News says it's bad. Nope. I'm saying too many people who rely on Fox for news are unable to process information outside of their drum beating. Government can be good, bad, inefficient, efficient, etc. Nuance matters.

There can be no better example of the ineptitude of the Government than the introduction of the Healthcare.gov website. A colossal and very public failure to do what hundreds of commercial firms have done repeatedly and easily. Like most private and public ventures, there are missteps and the need to fix things that don't work right. Don't look now, but that website has been just fine. Unless you watch Fox. Then you probably don't know the truth.

It's not this way everywhere. In France and Germany governments work well. In France, the best and the brightest work for the French Government. In the US it's the reverse. That's cool. We should spend money on those jobs so they are competitive with the private sector jobs.

 

[TheCusian]

First of all, these things that can be answered by a feasibility survey cannot be. I spent a career trying to estimate the impacts on demand for product and pricing changes and we had a lot more and better information than SU will have in this. I'm not talking about ticket sales, alone.

No one can know for sure what the impacts of this spending will be on incremental attendance.

Easy to say "scared money don't make money" when it ain't your money. It is my money - I pay taxes and make donations.

 

[Townie72]

Sure, you are a fan. You expect to benefit so you are glad to have your tax bill go up a few bucks.

But what about the majority of NYers who don't care about SU sports? Raising their tax bills is almost like stealing money.

The case for the City of Syracuse might be different. There's a lot of benefit there. But every study I have seen about the actual benefits City's have received from these stadium investments has shown the promises made before hand didn't work out as promised.

But let's be honest here. What you want are new facilities because you think they will (or might) lead to better teams. And you don't care who pays for it as long as you get
them.

Right?

 

[TheCusian]

Sure, you are a fan. You expect to benefit so you are glad to have your tax bill go up a few bucks.

But what about the majority of NYers who don't care about SU sports? Raising their tax bills is almost like stealing money.

The case for the City of Syracuse might be different. There's a lot of benefit there. But every study I have seen about the actual benefits City's have received from these stadium investments has shown the promises made before hand didn't work out as promised.

But let's be honest here. What you want are new facilities because you think they will (or might) lead to better teams. And you don't care who pays for it as long as you get
them.

Right?

Yes and no. Yeah, I'm a fan and biased towards both the fan experience and fielding good teams. And no, I don't mind my tax dollars going up a touch to something that will bring financial benefit and a needed perception boost to upstate NY. Just like my tax dollars going to parks I'll use once or twice or bike paths in areas I'll never ride on, etc. When we pool our money we get to do good things - sometimes altruistically.

It's a bit like telling some old single guy with no kids that he needs to pay school taxes, while seeing no real tangible benefit to himself. You'll find people on both sides of these discussions... and typically why they get put to a vote (either at the school board level, or sometimes even a special vote with all taxpayers). And ultimately - having educated kids graduate and stay in the are does provide the old guy with some residual value.

As for the the city - It's not like it's a new building. They can kind of already tell what kind of tax dollars and economic value they'll get (as you've stated).

We'll see - I just don't see it as risky as you do.

 

[SU68]

Sure, you are a fan. You expect to benefit so you are glad to have your tax bill go up a few bucks.

But what about the majority of NYers who don't care about SU sports? Raising their tax bills is almost like stealing money.

The case for the City of Syracuse might be different. There's a lot of benefit there. But every study I have seen about the actual benefits City's have received from these stadium investments has shown the promises made before hand didn't work out as promised.

But let's be honest here. What you want are new facilities because you think they will (or might) lead to better teams. And you don't care who pays for it as long as you get
them.

Right?

There are many things that I don't care about that the politicos are spending my tax dollars on.

 

[CuseLegacy]