Good news or bad?

[texasorange]

I don't think there's any question it's better to be in a power conference as opposed to a lesser conference. I don't share your pessimism about Syracuse chances in the ACC. Yes it's going to be very tough, especially guns Clemson and Florida State. But I'd rather be here than in the AAC.

 

[HtownOrange]

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.

That falls under the differences. I point out that the foundation spending is probably included under donations unless it is directly paying part of salaries, in which case it may not be included. Still, small differences in the grand scheme.

 

[anomander]

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.

In no way shape or form would I be for Syracuse dropping down to basically the FCS program similar to Colgate. I honestly would say that I would stop following the program. It would be pointless. I'd rather win 2 or 3 games a year playing big boy college football then going 14-0 and winning 1 or 2 FCS National titles a decade.

Not to mention Bud and the Manchild is the worst radio show I have ever attempted to listen to. I really question even their basic knowledge when it comes to Syracuse Football.

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

To be fair it's a whole new day and age. Those names while providing great history to the program that is all they are. They have little to no effect on our current football program. We have to start producing current names that we can fall back on. This isn't directed at you, but I know I cringe every time I see fans in a my school is better then yours argument and all we can rely on is our 1959 National Championship, and Ernie Davis Heisman trophy. I mean that's a solid foundation for our program, but we can't live off that forever. Army, GT, Cornell, Minnesota and others can all claim the same thing.

 

[retro44]

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.

man...I thought you might have been a rutgirls fan with the first part of your statement. Thanks for a little clarification

 

[dinosaurbbq]

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.

Big boys will impose realistic limits that all of the P5 can deal with, because they need teams to play to fill the schedule and they need entertaining games and not just lopsided kill jobs for a quick payout. Further, the big boys have the confidence to believe that they'll beat you with the same livable limits imposed on them and you.

 

[HtownOrange]

[QUOTE="anomander, post: 1108081, member: 2766"

To be fair it's a whole new day and age. Those names while providing great history to the program that is all they are. They have little to no effect on our current football program. We have to start producing current names that we can fall back on. This isn't directed at you, but I know I cringe every time I see fans in a my school is better then yours argument and all we can rely on is our 1959 National Championship, and Ernie Davis Heisman trophy. I mean that's a solid foundation for our program, but we can't live off that forever. Army, GT, Cornell, Minnesota and others can all claim the same thing.[/QUOTE]

I agree and understand what you are saying and it is appropriate that we need new names. However, these names build the brand and these names are the names people outside of the Syracuse fan circles that people in Ohio, Texas, California, Florida, etc. remember and think of. Yes, we need new names but we cannot forget the old names, they are the foundation of what makes Syracuse a nationally recognized name.

 

[billsin01]

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.

Is that really true, though? I mean, football obviously is playing in a different league at that point, but there are plenty of schools thriving in lax despite not being in power conferences. Loyola won a title a couple years ago and was No. 1 for a while this year and they basically play hoops in a high school gym and don't have football.

And everyone was laughing at UConn's demise until they won a title. No one knows, I guess, but I'd be surprised if they fall off in the next decade. I actually think the conference with the leftover BE teams will be among the most intriguing in the country year in and year out. We'll see I guess.

But we've also seen that moving to a power conference doesn't necessarily make you a relevant team in those sports. Depaul's program arguable got worse in the BE. It would be hard to argue that Vandy would somehow be less relevant playing in a non-P5 conference. Honestly, their head coach got a big job by virtue of winning a few recruiting battles and piling up some relatively ho-hum non-conference wins.

I'm fine with the ACC but I fear football is chasing a past it will never realize again.

 

[billsin01]

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.

I'm not sure I understand -- from my seat I see the best athletic programs spending wildly and ridiculously. It seems like that's what wins.

 

[billsin01]

In no way shape or form would I be for Syracuse dropping down to basically the FCS program similar to Colgate. I honestly would say that I would stop following the program. It would be pointless. I'd rather win 2 or 3 games a year playing big boy college football then going 14-0 and winning 1 or 2 FCS National titles a decade.


To be fair it's a whole new day and age. Those names while providing great history to the program that is all they are. They have little to no effect on our current football program. We have to start producing current names that we can fall back on. This isn't directed at you, but I know I cringe every time I see fans in a my school is better then yours argument and all we can rely on is our 1959 National Championship, and Ernie Davis Heisman trophy. I mean that's a solid foundation for our program, but we can't live off that forever. Army, GT, Cornell, Minnesota and others can all claim the same thing.

I couldn't agree more on your last part. Even Freeny and McNabb are way too old to be hanging your hat on as a program. In a weird way, all that does is highlight how far removed from success -- true success as in some whiff of national relevance -- this program is. And before people hyperventilate, I'm not saying DM or Shafer haven't done a nice job, but simply that 8-5 puts you in no-man's land. You need to start winning games and competing for ACC titles and that won't be easy.

 

[billsin01]

Big boys will impose realistic limits that all of the P5 can deal with, because they need teams to play to fill the schedule and they need entertaining games and not just lopsided kill jobs for a quick payout. Further, the big boys have the confidence to believe that they'll beat you with the same livable limits imposed on them and you.

I'm not sure I agree. I have no info to back it up but I'm pretty sure lopsided kill jobs and quick payouts would be exactly what the big boys would love. Some cupcakes to set up two or three huge games each year.

 

[billsin01]

I agree and understand what you are saying and it is appropriate that we need new names. However, these names build the brand and these names are the names people outside of the Syracuse fan circles that people in Ohio, Texas, California, Florida, etc. remember and think of. Yes, we need new names but we cannot forget the old names, they are the foundation of what makes Syracuse a nationally recognized name.

I live in DC and I'm fairly certain that of the sports fans who care about college football (relatively few vs. pro sports), about 1/10 actually ever think of Syracuse. I"m not trying to be a pr!ck, but simply stating that most college sports fans on the east coast at least think of SU as a hoops power and a lax power but probably couldn't begin to guess what SU's record in football was last season or who their head coach is. The history and tradition are cool for us as SU fans, but I'm not sure they're all that relevant outside of that scope.

 

[HtownOrange]

I live in DC and I'm fairly certain that of the sports fans who care about college football (relatively few vs. pro sports), about 1/10 actually ever think of Syracuse. I"m not trying to be a pr!ck, but simply stating that most college sports fans on the east coast at least think of SU as a hoops power and a lax power but probably couldn't begin to guess what SU's record in football was last season or who their head coach is. The history and tradition are cool for us as SU fans, but I'm not sure they're all that relevant outside of that scope.

I live in the Houston Metro. Many people follow college football. I have live in several states. When I mentioned that people know about Syracuse football, I am referring to people who actually follow college football, not the casual fan that cannot recall who won last weekend or who played who.

I agree that we need new talent and stars but to throw away the past for a presumably easy ride in Div. 1AA is notSyracuse is one of the d for the school nor from an economical aspect. Syracuse is poised to be at or above the $100MM mark for an AD budget. That is elite level.

 

[billsin01]

I live in the Houston Metro. Many people follow college football. I have live in several states. When I mentioned that people know about Syracuse football, I am referring to people who actually follow college football, not the casual fan that cannot recall who won last weekend or who played who.

I agree that we need new talent and stars but to throw away the past for a presumably easy ride in Div. 1AA is notSyracuse is one of the d for the school nor from an economical aspect. Syracuse is poised to be at or above the $100MM mark for an AD budget. That is elite level.

No, I'm with you on the IAA move. We certainly wouldn't be guaranteed success there anyway, at least not long-term. I simply feel it's a tough decision b/c we've never had a high-priced coach or state of the art facilities or pimped out players lounges or serious cache on the national stage. Will we have these now that there's an influx of cash? I really don't know. It seems these athletic programs are all dying to find new ways to spend huge coin. Makes me nervous.

But I'd assume Houston probably has much better football fans than DC. That doesn't surprise me. I just feel like some folks here are so wrapped up in the cuse (a good thing by the way) and/or live in upstate NY and fail to understand that in a broader sense Syracuse football is largely viewed the way we might view Purdue or NC State or schools like that. Purdue, for example, has had some fun teams and really notable names the past 10-20 years. They also have an OK history and are in a big-time conference. Yet, by and large, I would doubt many of us know anything about them nor care about their history or prospects for this season. It just doesn't matter to us.

 

[dinosaurbbq]

I'm not sure I agree. I have no info to back it up but I'm pretty sure lopsided kill jobs and quick payouts would be exactly what the big boys would love. Some cupcakes to set up two or three huge games each year.

That won't get you into the playoff, my friend, which cuts you out of the National Championship chase.

 

[cuseinchina]

Big boys will impose realistic limits that all of the P5 can deal with, because they need teams to play to fill the schedule and they need entertaining games and not just lopsided kill jobs for a quick payout. Further, the big boys have the confidence to believe that they'll beat you with the same livable limits imposed on them and you.

THIS is the key point in this discussion. Viability of the weaker links in the Power 5 will be considered when these changes come through. I think it's likely that they changes are far less dramatic than some fear. Athletic directors at big schools are self-centered - but they are not stupid.

 

[baggerbob]

The other thing is the majority of the 65, are not at the top of the ladder in money so they will keep the big spenders in check. The punishment for breaking the rules among the Power 5 will be significant in my opinion. They won't have to wait for the NCAA, to go through some long process. Think of it this way, you break their rules, they can make the penalty a large sum of money, along with missing bowls, tournaments, reduction in scholarships, visits, etc so that it hurts.

 

[billsin01]

The other thing is the majority of the 65, are not at the top of the ladder in money so they will keep the big spenders in check. The punishment for breaking the rules among the Power 5 will be significant in my opinion. They won't have to wait for the NCAA, to go through some long process. Think of it this way, you break their rules, they can make the penalty a large sum of money, along with missing bowls, tournaments, reduction in scholarships, visits, etc so that it hurts.

I think this is a pretty good point but I'm not sure breaking the rules is anywhere near the concern that spending within the rules is. In fact, I'd argue that most teams would prefer Alabama simply pay a really good prospect as opposed to building a $5 kajillion players' lounge. A few players -- outside of the Mike Vicks and Dwight Freeneys -- you can deal with, but being dragged into a never-ending spend-a-thon doesn't work well for anyone.

 

[billsin01]

That won't get you into the playoff, my friend, which cuts you out of the National Championship chase.

You're in the championship chase as long as you're winning. Playing really good teams and having three losses by mid-October doesn't work. In fact, I'd argue that most fans would prefer their teams win 11 meaningless games and lose 3 than win 9 really good games and lose five against really good opponents.

So I don't disagree that playing straight cupcakes is ideal, I'm pretty sure schools like ND and USC and Texas would love nothing more than routing disadvantaged syracuse and purdue and Minnesota squads 8 times a year, playing a couple solid teams that would most often yield wins, and then playing 2-3 really good teams a season. I'm not suggesting this will happen, merely suggesting that the championship chase largely just means winning.

 

[suloyalfan]

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.

My opinion is that if this "power conference" thing happens, the talent level on all of the "haves" will be increased because the best recruits will all want to play for one of those teams. So, the talent pool currently spread across 130 teams (albeit, not evenly by any stretch) will now focus more on the ~60 teams in the power conferences. Since Syracuse will be in the middle or back end of that group, they will benefit more from that phenomenon than the "factory" schools that already get those players.

This is the same argument/point that I have when talking to people about expansion in the pro sports... MLB, NFL, NHL, NBA all have too many teams in my opinion. They've spread the talent too thin, so the product gets watered down. With less teams, the cream rises to the top and the talent level on the remaining teams increases significantly.

I know that the NFL is far too popular to ever eliminate teams at this point, but for argument sake, if you took away 4 teams, that would be roughly 212 players (100 starters) to divvy up between the remaining 28 teams. So, each team could in theory have 4 more starting caliber players to add onto their roster while purging 4 players from the roster who are far down the depth chart. Show me a GM or Head Coach that wouldn't take that in a heartbeat.