Good news or bad?

[SWC75]

I called into Bud and the Manchild show and asked what the impact of the changes would be on SU football. Won't we go from being a mid-level team: Division 1A and in a power conference but not a powerhouse to a bottom-feeder in a division that consists of only the power conferences and in an environment of deregulation? Somehow this morphed into a discussion of would be better off not being in a power conference, which is a separate question. I was comparing now to the future, not being in a power conference to not being in one. We'll make more money but also need more, trying to keep up with the big state schools that dominate the power conferences and who will now be able to do more without the NCAA rule book. The deep end of the pool just got deeper.

To Bud's question about being in a power conference vs. not being in one, we'd make less money and might have fewer fans, (although we don't have enough of them). But we'd probably also have fewer academic and disciplinary problems and be able to spend more money on educating students. Those wouldn't necessarily be bad things. And we might be able to go 11-1 or 12-0 rather than 6-6 or 7-5. Bud asked would I rather be a Colgate fan or a Syracuse fan. I might ask: would your rather be a North Dakota State fan, (they've won three straight 1AA titles), or, say,a Colorado fan?

We're in a power conference to the second question is just a rhetorical one but the question of whether SU will be better or worse off with all the changes that are happening is an interesting one.

 

[dasher]

I called into Bud and the Manchild show and asked what the impact of the changes would be on SU football. Won't we go from being a mid-level team: Division 1A and in a power conference but not a powerhouse to a bottom-feeder in a division that consists of only the power conferences and in an environment of deregulation? Somehow this morphed into a discussion of would be better off not being in a power conference, which is a separate question. I was comparing now to the future, not being in a power conference to not being in one. We'll make more money but also need more, trying to keep up with the big state schools that dominate the power conferences and who will now be able to do more without the NCAA rule book. The deep end of the pool just got deeper.

To Bud's question about being in a power conference vs. not being in one, we'd make less money and might have fewer fans, (although we don't have enough of them). But we'd probably also have fewer academic and disciplinary problems and be able to spend more money on educating students. Those wouldn't necessarily be bad things. And we might be able to go 11-1 or 12-0 rather than 6-6 or 7-5. Bud asked would I rather be a Colgate fan or a Syracuse fan. I might ask: would your rather be a North Dakota State fan, (they've won three straight 1AA titles), or, say,a Colorado fan?

We're in a power conference to the second question is just a rhetorical one but the question of whether SU will be better or worse off with all the changes that are happening is an interesting one.

Easy answer. It is a fact that it is better to have the worst house on a great street than the best house on a bad street. Same idea. I want Syracuse to always play in the big time. The changes make no difference. We were always behind the big schools, Mich., Ohio St., Alabama. But from time to time we could play with and beat them. That is where I want to be.

 

[HtownOrange]

Syracuse is an historically good football school. People respect the name and follow Syracuse as a team to watch. Syracuse has played with and beat top teams. As a private school, lows may be longer than the powerhouses but not one power school overlooks Syracuse over the long haul. Some refuse to play because Syracuse can win.

We are on the upswing. We are an all time winning program. We have very notable stars. Better to be in with the big boys where we belong than to strive to the biggest fish in the small pond.

 

[kcsu]

Just ask Jim Brown, Ernie, Floyd, Zonk, Dwight, Donovan

 

[Upstate]

Better to be in a power conference. How many games of South Dakota St. have been available in the last 10 years?

 

[oldpinepoint]

Wow! You listen to Bud and the Manchild?!

 

[WickedOrange]

I could have this same discussion about my career.

 

[Full_Rebar]

Syracuse is in the right place. It will cost more to keep up, but if money is distributed in the right manner, it will be possible for SU to be competitive.

 

[orangeinjersey]

If the big boys at the top keep alienating themselves at the top, they'll find themselves with no one to play but each other. Its the same reason i cant stand the SEC circle jerk. I rarely watch SEC football, i just can't.

Lets see how big the TV contracts are when the top 10-15 just play each other

 

[Crusty]

What gives those two any special insight into the business of D-1 football? These are essentially uncharted waters and they have no better idea than the rest of us.

Nobody knows all the unintended consequences that will arise. For example, the only way players are going to be able to earn money for their likenesses is if they play. That may very well place an even greater premium on playing time, which may help create some player parity.

I just know that we are in the game and that means something - something big. Our recruiting is unquestionably better in the ACC and the excitement around the program is growing.

That is just my opinion and I certainly could be wrong!

 

[dinosaurbbq]

As to the first question -- splitting off from the NCAA doesn't mean there will be no limits. It likely means a more workable and straightforward set of rules that penalize the big stuff that ought to be penalized and getting rid of the ticky tack stuff. It likely also means quicker and more powerful investigations (actual subpoena powers as crazy as that may seem) into misconduct so that a Reggie Bush doesn't finally get resolved 4 years after the investigation was started. It also then doesn't necessarily mean the richest schools will have an advantage and rules will likely be imposed that allow expenditures at a rate that SU and all the other P5 can keep pace with.

As to the second question -- given that we just two years ago escaped from that very predicament by leaving the now-AAC for the P5 ACC, I would venture a guess that most of us are firmly convinced we are better off in a P5 conference.

 

[billsin01]

I just know that we are in the game and that means something - something big.

I don't disagree with your points but I'd counter that I also believe there are arguments to be made on the other side of the coin. A key point, IMO, is this above -- how much does simply 'being in the game' count? I agree it's generally a good thing. But if we are constantly playing catchup and dealing with an athletics department attempting to operate in a somewhat fiscally responsible fashion, while everyone else is dropping $60K from a fund designed to assist students in need for an insurance policy, I truly wonder how relevant SU is ever likely to be.

 

[billsin01]

It also then doesn't necessarily mean the richest schools will have an advantage and rules will likely be imposed that allow expenditures at a rate that SU and all the other P5 can keep pace with.

I have to disagree with this part -- why in the world would the big boys grant anything but minor concessions to everyone else? Yeah, they need some teams to beat up on, but creating parity or even a slightly more even playing field is absolutely not in the best interest of universities, which not only enjoy all their football revenue, but often depend on it.

 

[billsin01]

Easy answer. It is a fact that it is better to have the worst house on a great street than the best house on a bad street. Same idea. I want Syracuse to always play in the big time. The changes make no difference. We were always behind the big schools, Mich., Ohio St., Alabama. But from time to time we could play with and beat them. That is where I want to be.

I think it's actually an interesting discussion. I could absolutely get into a D-IAA team playing for titles every year. It would be fun. I'm not, obviously, advocating for SU to drop down, but if the gap doesn't narrow (or even gets bigger) between SU and the big boys, I'm not sure what we root for. 8-5 with a bowl appearance/victory is a really solid season and I enjoy it ... but it's also completely irrelevant to the larger world of college football.

 

[HtownOrange]

I think it's actually an interesting discussion. I could absolutely get into a D-IAA team playing for titles every year. It would be fun. I'm not, obviously, advocating for SU to drop down, but if the gap doesn't narrow (or even gets bigger) between SU and the big boys, I'm not sure what we root for. 8-5 with a bowl appearance/victory is a really solid season and I enjoy it ... but it's also completely irrelevant to the larger world of college football.

I get your points, but please realize that Syracuse will probably be in or around the top 25 school AD budgets annually. Syracuse just started getting ACC money and just increased their media package along with increased ticket sales. Add this to the nearly $80MM budget pre-ACC (when they were not receiving Big East money, too). Syracuse will be competing quite well. Clemson's budget was approximately $15MM less than Syracuse' budget, though this is not a perfect comparison, it is a good indicator (Clemson was already receiving ACC money in this time frame).

 

[TexanMark]

BLUF: We all know more about college football than Bud.

Coaching means a bunch in college football...we have great coaching we'll get into the Top 10-20. EoD

 

[WickedOrange]

I get your points, but please realize that Syracuse will probably be in or around the top 25 school AD budgets annually. Syracuse just started getting ACC money and just increased their media package along with increased ticket sales. Add this to the nearly $80MM budget pre-ACC (when they were not receiving Big East money, too). Syracuse will be competing quite well. Clemson's budget was approximately $15MM less than Syracuse' budget, though this is not a perfect comparison, it is a good indicator (Clemson was already receiving ACC money in this time frame).

True, but NY costs more... not apples to apples, but in general.

This Map Shows What $100 Is Actually Worth In Your State
http://www.businessinsider.com/value-of-100-dollars-by-state-2014-8

 

[TexanMark]

NYC and downstate skews that link Wicked

 

[baggerbob]

Being out of the power conferences, would eventually kill both the basketball, and lacrosse programs, besides the football program. So there really is no discussion of where we need to be, at least we will be relevant occasionally in football, and relevant most all the time in basketball, and lacrosse.

 

[HtownOrange]

True, but NY costs more... not apples to apples, but in general.

This Map Shows What $100 Is Actually Worth In Your State
http://www.businessinsider.com/value-of-100-dollars-by-state-2014-8

That is why I conceded the comparison was not perfect. The net point is that Syracuse was up around $15MM without ACC $$$ and without the new IMG deal and without increased ticket sales. These more than make up the difference in costs.

 

[Full_Rebar]

SU will only be in good shape financially if Syverud has put a stop to DG's spending. No one knows for sure if this has happened. I haven't heard anything about any changes

As for Clemson, one of their posters pointed out that the published Athletics budget doesn't include the fundraising done by their foundation.

 

[PeteCalvin]

Everyday we're not Rutgers is a good day.

 

[Crusty]

I think the main point is that nobody knows how all this will play out. We certainly can be competitive with Pitt, BC, Wake Forest, Louisville, NC State, Chapel Hill, Duke, Miami, UVA, GTU and Va Tech.

Clemson has been on a roll lately but they will fall back to earth like everyone else. They are the same size as SU and, over time, we will be able to play with them as well. FSU is the only real monster in the conference.

Football is profitable and SU won't kill the golden goose. We were prepared to jump to the ACC years ago and we jumped at the last opportunity. The school just built an IPF and is studying a new stadium. Sounds to me like a school that is willing to compete.

I don't think we will do anything stupid with all the money at stake.

 

[Opus]

I would have told Bud I am glad to be a Syracuse fan. Hard nosed. Bleed Orange

 

[SU68]

I called into Bud and the Manchild show and asked what the impact of the changes would be on SU football. Won't we go from being a mid-level team: Division 1A and in a power conference but not a powerhouse to a bottom-feeder in a division that consists of only the power conferences and in an environment of deregulation? Somehow this morphed into a discussion of would be better off not being in a power conference, which is a separate question. I was comparing now to the future, not being in a power conference to not being in one. We'll make more money but also need more, trying to keep up with the big state schools that dominate the power conferences and who will now be able to do more without the NCAA rule book. The deep end of the pool just got deeper.

To Bud's question about being in a power conference vs. not being in one, we'd make less money and might have fewer fans, (although we don't have enough of them). But we'd probably also have fewer academic and disciplinary problems and be able to spend more money on educating students. Those wouldn't necessarily be bad things. And we might be able to go 11-1 or 12-0 rather than 6-6 or 7-5. Bud asked would I rather be a Colgate fan or a Syracuse fan. I might ask: would your rather be a North Dakota State fan, (they've won three straight 1AA titles), or, say,a Colorado fan?

We're in a power conference to the second question is just a rhetorical one but the question of whether SU will be better or worse off with all the changes that are happening is an interesting one.

I listened to the exchange on the internet. You must be "Steve from North Syracuse." lol