Future Campus Framework Presentation...

[TheCusian]

I just want to know when we're going to hear something tangible about the Dome. This has been strung out way too long. Rumors, whispers, theories... enough! Someone please just tell us when we should check back to this thread? Next summer? 2020?

When due diligence is done, I'd bet.

 

[retro44]

When due diligence is done, I'd bet.

Bingo and I am enjoying all the inside speculations as gossip.
Nothing has been decided or bid packages have gone out

 

[rrlbees]

When due diligence is done, I'd bet.

Severud had said by the end of the academic year. That would be in a couple weeks.

 

[SU68]

Severud had said by the end of the academic year. That would be in a couple weeks.

Agree. The BOT meets in conjunction with Commencement (May 15th).

 

[TexanMark]

My best guess is too get a clarifying course after the BoT MTG...however, the sense I get is they won't announce until certain

 

[Whitey23]

 

[jr4750]

The drumbeat continues to beat. Hope there are actual answers coming. As others continue to note, it is too quiet on this front. Can't believe the University of Washington gets $4.1 a year from Alaska Airlines just for their football stadium naming rights! Thats awesome for them.

 

[Whitey23]

The drumbeat continues to beat. Hope there are actual answers coming. As others continue to note, it is too quiet on this front. Can't believe the University of Washington gets $4.1 a year from Alaska Airlines just for their football stadium naming rights! Thats awesome for them.

$1mm seems very conservative for the dome considering it's multi sport and the basketball program is very popular. Washington got $4.1m for a mediocre top 30 program with 6-7 home games?

 

[djorange1989]

$1mm seems very conservative for the dome considering it's multi sport and the basketball program is very popular. Washington got $4.1m for a mediocre top 30 program with 6-7 home games?

Seattle is a much bigger city, that alone will push the price up. A lot more eyeballs driving/boating by their stadium. But I agree that $1 mil seems a bit conservative.

 

[xc84]

The drumbeat continues to beat. Hope there are actual answers coming. As others continue to note, it is too quiet on this front. Can't believe the University of Washington gets $4.1 a year from Alaska Airlines just for their football stadium naming rights! Thats awesome for them.

That article presented nothing new.

 

[longtimefan]

That article presented nothing new.

There are "expert" opinions quoted in the piece--people who should know what the going rate would be. Also, an educated legal opinion as to whether the original contract might be broken.

 

[Franz69]

We should tell Carrier we want $5 million a year plus air conditioning for the naming rights or else we go to the mattresses.

 

[xc84]

There are "expert" opinions quoted in the piece--people who should know what the going rate would be. Also, an educated legal opinion as to whether the original contract might be broken.

But nothing new.

"A pair of sports law experts, Michael McCann and Glenn Wong, said the ability to break the deal, or use a significantly renovated stadium as leverage to re-negotiate, would likely depend on the exact wording of the contract."

No kidding! We need legal experts to tell us that? We've been saying that for years here.

And..

"Given those realities, their model estimated that the value of a new naming rights deal at the Carrier Dome would be more than $1 million annually, a number that Popp considers conservative."

Again, no kidding! It does not take an expert to tell us that. We can just look at other deals and guess...like they did.

Now, if someone knew the wording of the contract, that would be new information. This fluff is not.

The writer even said Ernie Davis died 6 years before the dome opened. I guess that's news to all of us.

"At the time, the deal was met with dismay from a number of Syracuse students, who wanted the dome to be named after Heisman Trophy winner Ernie Davis, who died six years earlier from leukemia. "

 

[longtimefan]

But nothing new.

"A pair of sports law experts, Michael McCann and Glenn Wong, said the ability to break the deal, or use a significantly renovated stadium as leverage to re-negotiate, would likely depend on the exact wording of the contract."

No kidding! We need legal experts to tell us that? We've been saying that for years here.

And..

"Given those realities, their model estimated that the value of a new naming rights deal at the Carrier Dome would be more than $1 million annually, a number that Popp considers conservative."

Again, no kidding! It does not take an expert to tell us that. We can just look at other deals and guess...like they did.

Now, if someone knew the wording of the contract, that would be new information. This fluff is not.

The writer even said Ernie Davis died 6 years before the dome opened. I guess that's news to all of us.

"At the time, the deal was met with dismay from a number of Syracuse students, who wanted the dome to be named after Heisman Trophy winner Ernie Davis, who died six years earlier from leukemia. "

The screw-up on Ernie Davis has nothing to do with whether or not there was anything else in the piece that was edifying.

I say there was, because we got educated opinions from people who study this stuff for a living. Rather than the often slanted ravings we can get on this topic on this, or any other, board.

 

[orange79]

The screw-up on Ernie Davis has nothing to do with whether or not there was anything else in the piece that was edifying.

I say there was, because we got educated opinions from people who study this stuff for a living. Rather than the often slanted ravings we can get on this topic on this, or any other, board.

Exactly - opinions are all that article provided. With absolutely no information that would give anyone any idea of what is in the original deal. Waste of time.

 

[retro44]

this complicates this a lot as COR was beyond knee deep in trying to get university work.

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index...._paid_him_at_least_50k.html#incart_river_home

Think about this and the deal that was supposed to be done earlier. Just little birdies speaking,that's all

 

[Whitey23]

Seattle is a much bigger city, that alone will push the price up. A lot more eyeballs driving/boating by their stadium. But I agree that $1 mil seems a bit conservative.

Personally, if I was a large national company I'd pay more for national exposure on tv/streaming/internet then I would for the local exposure on the side of a stadium.

 

[CuseOnly]

Personally, if I was a large national company I'd pay more for national exposure on tv/streaming/internet then I would for the local exposure on the side of a stadium.

I think that paying for the rights to name the Dome is most definitely national advertising and I would pay a hell of a lot more for that than the name on the side of the Dome, no question in anyone's mind I don't think. That is where the dollar value is, local exposure is not worth much I wouldn't think comparatively.

 

[sutomcat]

Seattle is a much bigger city, that alone will push the price up. A lot more eyeballs driving/boating by their stadium. But I agree that $1 mil seems a bit conservative.

IMHO, population is a small criterion here. The key things that should be considered are

how many people annually attend events in the facility

and how many events at the facility are televised

These are the areas where the naming gift gets traction and has meaning.

I submit that there is no facility in college athletics that gets the combination of fans in the seats and events televised as the Carrier Dome. The only venues that are more valuable are baseball stadia and some of the large domes.

 

[CuseLegacy]

I'm not so sure that after the BOT meeting much is decided about the Dome. It may be more of a discussion and decision on which of the renovation plans will be approved for Archbold. :noidea:

 

[Moontan]

I submit that there is no facility in college athletics that gets the combination of fans in the seats and events televised as the Carrier Dome.

Throw in an NCAA regional every 6-7 years or so.

 

[OttoMets]

The screw-up on Ernie Davis has nothing to do with whether or not there was anything else in the piece that was edifying.

I say there was, because we got educated opinions from people who study this stuff for a living. Rather than the often slanted ravings we can get on this topic on this, or any other, board.

With all due respect to the Carolina guy, that struck me as a wild guess.

You can't look at Syracuse as a piece of data on a list or chart; there are real factors that go into negotiating naming rights. And the Central New York market is not the kind of place -- regardless of how often SU plays televised games -- that's going to command a lucrative deal. It's easy to say that "SU's famous, the Dome's famous, SU should fetch well above the mean of this list of venues." But that's just not how it works, and this economist probably knows better (my guess is that the writer asked leading questions and misrepresented things a bit, but maybe I'm giving too much credit to the economist).

The best point made (and maybe lost): like Mile High and the Boston Garden, facilities with established names can be (but not necessarily are) less attractive naming opportunities for potential corporate sponsors.

Beyond that, everything in the article was stuff we all know, supplemented by some unreasonable opinions from a couple experts, and flavored by the usual journalistic and editorial clumsiness we expect from the Sub-Standard.

 

[sutomcat]

Agree with you, though if the university choses a transformative build of a new dome over the old dome, where much of the old dome is removed as part of the renovation (seats, roof, outside walls, concourses, etc.), I think the established name part becomes much less of a problem. We would in essence have a new building, with a dramatically different look, different entrances./exits, air conditioning, etc. The new look would be even more stunning and fundamentally different from the outside.

Heck, even the field would probably be lowered and rebuilt from scratch as part of the major renovation on the table.

If it happens, I can't see where Carrier has a leg to stand on regarding the name of the facility. It would be a different building.

The interesting thing to me if whether a major Fortune 500 type company without a huge presence in CNY would be willing to pay naming rights, or whether we would be limited to companies with a local presence (Wegman's, Fucillo, Turning Stone, Carrier again, etc.).

I think this could happen. There aren't many buildings around like the Dome...the visibility for a naming give is extraordinary.

 

[OrangePA]

With all due respect to the Carolina guy, that struck me as a wild guess.

You can't look at Syracuse as a piece of data on a list or chart; there are real factors that go into negotiating naming rights. And the Central New York market is not the kind of place -- regardless of how often SU plays televised games -- that's going to command a lucrative deal. It's easy to say that "SU's famous, the Dome's famous, SU should fetch well above the mean of this list of venues." But that's just not how it works, and this economist probably knows better (my guess is that the writer asked leading questions and misrepresented things a bit, but maybe I'm giving too much credit to the economist).

The best point made (and maybe lost): like Mile High and the Boston Garden, facilities with established names can be (but not necessarily are) less attractive naming opportunities for potential corporate sponsors.

Beyond that, everything in the article was stuff we all know, supplemented by some unreasonable opinions from a couple experts, and flavored by the usual journalistic and editorial clumsiness we expect from the Sub-Standard.

I am just a lay person when it comes to marketing but it seems to me that the value in the naming of the Dome is not at all the local exposure - it's the national exposure afforded by television/streaming/radio/etc.

Carrier I'm sure cares more about the blanket exposure it receives during basketball season than it does about the relatively few number of fans who see the "Carrier Dome" sign on the building.

So, with that in mind, it seems to me that the value of the naming rights is substantial.

 

[retro44]

Just as I mentioned in post #440 and read between the lines here.

http://www.syracuse.com/state/index...ts_under_investigation.html#incart_river_home

Corrupt little Andy might have fubared everything about a real nice do-over.