Michigan coach Brady Hoke says he'd like to play SU

[007]

PedSt is a 1-1-1.

We'll save this post.

Sent using my Commodore 64

You will "save" CuseOnly's post to prove what? That SU will get only 1-1-1 arrangements going forward? SU wont need to play "home" games in NYC? I'm not trying to be a dick or call anyone out, just trying to better understand the reasoning behind the opinion.

At the end of the day, these kind of posts are ALL just opinions, no matter how forcefully they are stated.

 

[CuseOnly]

PedSt is a 1-1-1.

We'll save this post.

Sent using my Commodore 64

Yes Penn State was a 1-1-1, and the question is would it have still happened without the last "1" being in MetLife stadium and all of the money + exposure involved? My guess is that it wouldn't have.

Yes, please save this post so that after 5 years of winning seasons and we get a 1-1 with Michigan at the Dome, you can say I was wrong. In truth, this would be the "work to be done" and I will be proven right.

I am praying for 5+ winning seasons in a row so we can "demand" things like 1-1 with ND at home, believe me. I have been waiting just to be competitive/good/respectable again for a while now like the rest of the folks on this board.

The other question is, even when we are back to being a perennial top 25 team again, does SU move games away from MetLife and back to the dome? Good question. Or do they continue to play the big games there. I am guessing for the extra dollars and more importantly the exposure nationwide along with NYC, the big games will still stay down there. If it is successful after the 5+ years, why change? "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" will be the sentiment and games will still be in MetLife.

Once the athletic department/administration get used to that $5mil check every year for playing in MetLife stadium, regardless of the TV contract $'s, do you really think they are going to give it up? Short answer, NO. Just like you and I, if I was making 25% of my current income doing side jobs, would I stop doing side jobs after relying on that income even if I were just putting it in savings? Short answer, NO.

Please save this one as well, thanks.

 

[Crusty]

1:1:1 sounds perfect.

Face it, sports fans - we're going to play games in NYC. Might as well make 'em high profile.

Otto, when you are right - you are right. We have ten more games under contract so we might as well make them the best possible.

 

[Alsacs]

What's wrong with it is that he has stated it about 47,000 times on this forum and his opinion won't change the fact that SU plays these games for the money and exposure. Regardless if they are 1-1, 1-1-1 or 1 game arrangements, it is the vision of the AD and the school to be NY's college team and collect huge checks to play in NYC.

I am glad that you have determined that his opinion is "right" all on your own. Many might agree but the people in charge of the games disagree and that is all that matters.

If Alsacs thinks that we are now back to being "big time" after 2 successful seasons in 10 years then he is more delusional than I thought. There is much more work to be done before we can demand home & home game arrangements without the allure of NYC/Metlife and $5mil checks. Especially with the likes of Ped State, ND, Michigan and the real "big time" programs.

The truth is that when SU tried to get a home and home with Ped State and ND without MetLife, the answer was simple, they calmly answered NO and said they had bigger fish to fry. MetLife entered the picture and so did more dollars and the answer changed to YES. These are facts and all the griping and opinion isn't going to change it.

Your position is such a joke it infuriates me. Basically your saying and stop trying to force Gross to care about his season ticket holder base. Again, I have no problem with the Metlife series when Dr. Gross signed up for because he didn't know the ACC invitation was coming down the pipe and was operating in a Big East mindset with significantly less cash than the top conferences, but What is your point to saying stop talking about it. Our HOME FIELD is Carrier Dome NOT Metlife Stadium. If the big dogs won't play us in Syracuse THEN DON'T PLAY THE SERIES. Google Bobby Knight and rape because your position sounds a little like that to me.
Metlife ONLY entered the picture because the AD needed money that they weren't generating in the Big East. Our AD will now be getting close 4 times as much annual TV money than we were getting from the Big East going from 5 million a year to 20 million a year makes balancing the sheets A LOT easier. If Michigan, Ohio State, LSU, Florida, Alabama won't play us in the Dome then go and play Purdue, Illinois, Auburn, TCU, WVU, Ole Miss which will play us in the Dome. Your position is such a joke it makes me mad. People can agree to disagree and make their points telling me to stop bringing up a legitimate point isn't smart.
We can play 1 game series in Metlife, but DO NOT sacrifice the potentially best home game on your schedule to play a series that isn't necessary. We don't need to play Michigan unless its a good series for us and playing 1 game at Metlife and 1 game at the Big House in Ann Arbor IS NOT GOOD FOR SYRACUSE.

 

[CuseOnly]

Your position is such a joke it infuriates me. Basically your saying and stop trying to force Gross to care about his season ticket holder base. Again, I have no problem with the Metlife series when Dr. Gross signed up for because he didn't know the ACC invitation was coming down the pipe and was operating in a Big East mindset with significantly less cash than the top conferences, but What is your point to saying stop talking about it. Our HOME FIELD is Carrier Dome NOT Metlife Stadium. If the big dogs won't play us in Syracuse THEN DON'T PLAY THE SERIES. Google Bobby Knight and rape because your position sounds a little like that to me.
Metlife ONLY entered the picture because the AD needed money that they weren't generating in the Big East. Our AD will now be getting close 4 times as much annual TV money than we were getting from the Big East going from 5 million a year to 20 million a year makes balancing the sheets A LOT easier. If Michigan, Ohio State, LSU, Florida, Alabama won't play us in the Dome then go and play Purdue, Illinois, Auburn, TCU, WVU, Ole Miss which will play us in the Dome. Your position is such a joke it makes me mad. People can agree to disagree and make their points telling me to stop bringing up a legitimate point isn't smart.
We can play 1 game series in Metlife, but DO NOT sacrifice the potentially best home game on your schedule to play a series that isn't necessary. We don't need to play Michigan unless its a good series for us and playing 1 game at Metlife and 1 game at the Big House in Ann Arbor IS NOT GOOD FOR SYRACUSE.

SO let's do this again Alsacs.

Read this article, this is why the university will NEVER turn down the MetLife money and games with big opponents.

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2013/04/who_will_pay_syracuse_universi.html

A little excerpt for you in case you don't read it like last time.
"Most people believe that athletics generates money and helps support the university. That's not so," said Robert van Gulick, a member of the University Senate budget committee. “You’ve got 35 or 40 sports and only two of them (football and men’s basketball) are making money. Athletic scholarships are paid by financial aid, which is entirely financed by schools and colleges. If the athletics department had to pay for athletic scholarships, they’d be bankrupt.”

Even with the $5mil from Metlife and the $20mil a year from the ACC, the athletics department is still a net loser when the cost of scholarships comes into play as far as the university is concerned. On to the fact that 21% OF ALL ATHLETICS REVENUE GOES TO THE COMMON UNIVERSITY FUND before the AD gets to keep anything. So... from that 25mil, around 5.5 mil goes away immediately.

The University looks at the athletic department as a whole, not just at football.

My point is simple and is pure fact. Answer the questions below for your self...and then think of someone at the university who is looking for revenue sources for SU in their words a "fiscally challenged" time for the university.

Which would you rather have?
BE revenue $5-7 million OR BE revenue $5-7 million + $5million from MetLife
ACC revenue $20million OR ACC revenue + $5million from Metlife

Did the athletic department send out a voting form to you and the season ticket holders to check with us? Because I didn't get one either. This is not a democracy as I stated in my previous post more or less.

 

[Alsacs]

SO let's do this again Alsacs.

Read this article, this is why the university will NEVER turn down the MetLife money and games with big opponents.

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2013/04/who_will_pay_syracuse_universi.html

A little excerpt for you in case you don't read it like last time.
"Most people believe that athletics generates money and helps support the university. That's not so," said Robert van Gulick, a member of the University Senate budget committee. “You’ve got 35 or 40 sports and only two of them (football and men’s basketball) are making money. Athletic scholarships are paid by financial aid, which is entirely financed by schools and colleges. If the athletics department had to pay for athletic scholarships, they’d be bankrupt.”

Even with the $5mil from Metlife and the $20mil a year from the ACC, the athletics department is still a net loser when the cost of scholarships comes into play as far as the university is concerned. On to the fact that 21% OF ALL ATHLETICS REVENUE GOES TO THE COMMON UNIVERSITY FUND before the AD gets to keep anything. So... from that 25mil, around 5.5 mil goes away immediately.

The University looks at the athletic department as a whole, not just at football.

My point is simple and is pure fact. Answer the questions below for your self...and then think of someone at the university who is looking for revenue sources for SU in their words a "fiscally challenged" time for the university.

Which would you rather have?
BE revenue $5-7 million OR BE revenue $5-7 million + $5million from MetLife
ACC revenue $20million OR ACC revenue + $5million from Metlife

Did the athletic department send out a voting form to you and the season ticket holders to check with us? Because I didn't get one either. This is not a democracy as I stated in my previous post more or less.

"Most people believe that athletics generates money and helps support the university. That's not so," said Robert van Gulick, a member of the University Senate budget committee. “You’ve got 35 or 40 sports and only two of them (football and men’s basketball) are making money. Athletic scholarships are paid by financial aid, which is entirely financed by schools and colleges. If the athletics department had to pay for athletic scholarships, they’d be bankrupt

First a LOT OF SCHOLARSHIPS are endowed by donors.

Second, if the university schools and colleges are exclusively paying for the scholarships and the AD doesn't have to share in those costs where the hell do the profits from football and basketball go? There is no way the AD doesn't reimburse the university or share in funding the athletic scholarships or the AD office WOULD be FLUSH in cash with tons of profits. Expenses for the facilities, and coaches salaries do not eat up the profits from football and basketball. The premise that the AD doesn't pay for the scholarships one way or another is completely laughable.

Third, the link you provided was to the Big East exit fee. I don't care who pays for it and honestly nobody outside of current students should care because either they will be paying an additional fee in their tuition or not.

Fourth, if the AD is giving 21% of its revenue to the general fund what the hell does that have to do with the fact the AD is HURTING its season ticket base by moving GOOD games 250 miles away. My god do you honestly think Dr. Gross is going to open his books to the University Fund or Faculty Senate? If you think the AD is hemorrhaging money now that it will be making 4 times more in TV money than it was before the move to the ACC your crazy. There is more than one way to skin a cat. You can make "expenses" higher in balancing the books so you gross profit and net profit are different. The Dome staff which I am sure operates with the AD helps Gross with expenses if he wants to fudge the numbers so LESS money goes to the general fund and more stays with the AD.

Fifth, your position is still LAUGHABLE we drew 39k people for the USC game in Metlife if that game was in the Dome we sell more season tickets to get people to see #2 USC and build a higher season ticket base for the FUTURE. Your position is basically and stop trying to get more season ticket holders into the Dome. 1-0-1 series A NO-GO for me and should be for anybody who pays their money for football season ticket or ACTUALLY cares about football program. Again playing games at Metlife is good, but not at the expense of building a season ticket base, and improving football attendance. Play Louisville, NC State, Wake Forest, Boston College, or Pitt in the Metlife on a rotating basis NOT Michigan, Clemson, Florida State or blue blood football programs that we are playing at their home stadium and then in a pseudo home game 250 miles from campus and make our fans pay additionally to season tickets. I am lucky I can afford to pay for Metlife tickets, season tickets and invest in the program, but a majority season ticket holders have families and can't afford to pay for season tickets, pay for the game at Metlife spend the money on gas etc. and care to do so. Realize SU football needs to build up its season ticket base, and shipping games 250 miles away DOES NOT DO THAT.

 

[All4SU]

Metlife ONLY entered the picture because the AD needed money that they weren't generating in the Big East.

I honestly don't know if that is true. I've always thought it was partially about the money, and partially about the exposure to build the Brand in NYC. Getting in the ACC certainly helps with the former. But we still can use MetLife games for the latter. Just my opinion.

 

[JeremyCuse]

Lol for the poster thinking SU is getting 5 million a game from Metlife. Talk about delusional.

 

[CuseOnly]

Lol for the poster thinking SU is getting 5 million a game from Metlife. Talk about delusional.

That has been the figure publicly discussed by everybody for these games. That doesn't make it true but I am inclined to believe that figure came from somewhere. TGD would not confirm it in an interview but his reaction to the question was that it was a lot of money and it would be stupid to not do it.

 

[Alsacs]

That has been the figure publicly discussed by everybody for these games. That doesn't make it true but I am inclined to believe that figure came from somewhere. TGD would not confirm it in an interview but his reaction to the question was that it was a lot of money and it would be stupid to not do it.

The 5 million was a signing bonus SU got for agreeing to the 10 game Metlife series up front. Its not what SU is making per game there or then any college team would play annual game at Metlife for 5 million a game. We will not get 5 million a game for the Metlife series as the Metlife people would be hemorrhaging money in that type of agreement.

 

[CuseOnly]

"Most people believe that athletics generates money and helps support the university. That's not so," said Robert van Gulick, a member of the University Senate budget committee. “You’ve got 35 or 40 sports and only two of them (football and men’s basketball) are making money. Athletic scholarships are paid by financial aid, which is entirely financed by schools and colleges. If the athletics department had to pay for athletic scholarships, they’d be bankrupt

First a LOT OF SCHOLARSHIPS are endowed by donors.

Second, if the university schools and colleges are exclusively paying for the scholarships and the AD doesn't have to share in those costs where the hell do the profits from football and basketball go? There is no way the AD doesn't reimburse the university or share in funding the athletic scholarships or the AD office WOULD be FLUSH in cash with tons of profits. Expenses for the facilities, and coaches salaries do not eat up the profits from football and basketball. The premise that the AD doesn't pay for the scholarships one way or another is completely laughable.

Third, the link you provided was to the Big East exit fee. I don't care who pays for it and honestly nobody outside of current students should care because either they will be paying an additional fee in their tuition or not.

Fourth, if the AD is giving 21% of its revenue to the general fund what the hell does that have to do with the fact the AD is HURTING its season ticket base by moving GOOD games 250 miles away. My god do you honestly think Dr. Gross is going to open his books to the University Fund or Faculty Senate? If you think the AD is hemorrhaging money now that it will be making 4 times more in TV money than it was before the move to the ACC your crazy. There is more than one way to skin a cat. You can make "expenses" higher in balancing the books so you gross profit and net profit are different. The Dome staff which I am sure operates with the AD helps Gross with expenses if he wants to fudge the numbers so LESS money goes to the general fund and more stays with the AD.

Fifth, your position is still LAUGHABLE we drew 39k people for the USC game in Metlife if that game was in the Dome we sell more season tickets to get people to see #2 USC and build a higher season ticket base for the FUTURE. Your position is basically and stop trying to get more season ticket holders into the Dome. 1-0-1 series A NO-GO for me and should be for anybody who pays their money for football season ticket or ACTUALLY cares about football program. Again playing games at Metlife is good, but not at the expense of building a season ticket base, and improving football attendance. Play Louisville, NC State, Wake Forest, Boston College, or Pitt in the Metlife on a rotating basis NOT Michigan, Clemson, Florida State or blue blood football programs that we are playing at their home stadium and then in a pseudo home game 250 miles from campus and make our fans pay additionally to season tickets. I am lucky I can afford to pay for Metlife tickets, season tickets and invest in the program, but a majority season ticket holders have families and can't afford to pay for season tickets, pay for the game at Metlife spend the money on gas etc. and care to do so. Realize SU football needs to build up its season ticket base, and shipping games 250 miles away DOES NOT DO THAT.

Call the SU box office and ask them how season ticket sales are, nobody is hurting here. I was told that there were more season tickets sold as of last month YTD that were sold all of last year.

Good luck with your position though as well as your ranting, I will be watching intently to see if it works out.

I for one am rooting for 1 and 1's with Bama, ND, Michigan, USC, Ped State, LSU, Ohio State, etc. I honestly hope that it happens without MetLife, but my feeling based on the evidence against it is that it won't.

Regardless what either of us think about it, our opinions won't change anything.

 

[Chris02M]

the metlife deal happened for 3 reasons:

to keep up the new York's college team marketing campaign , 1 team wouldn't play at the carrier dome in home and home(nd)(may change down the road) and most important at that point we weren't making much of anything from bigeast tv deal and got guarantees from metlife for games to be played there

 

[CuseOnly]

The 5 million was a signing bonus SU got for agreeing to the 10 game Metlife series up front. Its not what SU is making per game there or then any college team would play annual game at Metlife for 5 million a game. We will not get 5 million a game for the Metlife series as the Metlife people would be hemorrhaging money in that type of agreement.

Really? You know the terms of the contract? I read everything SU and have never seen anything that suggested a signing bonus. Link or article please...I like to educate myself.

Also the distribution for the 20 mil is 80% football and 20% basketball. 16 million for ACC games = $2mil a game. Why couldn't an OOC game at Metlife on National TV, ABC, CBS, NBC not be worth far more against a national level opponent?

 

[Chris02M]

the metlife deal happened for 3 reasons:

to keep up the new York's college team marketing campaign , 1 team wouldn't play at the carrier dome in home and home(nd)(may change down the road) and most important at that point we weren't making much of anything from bigeast tv deal and got guarantees from metlife for games to be played there

 

[HtownOrange]

I honestly don't know if that is true. I've always thought it was partially about the money, and partially about the exposure to build the Brand in NYC. Getting in the ACC certainly helps with the former. But we still can use MetLife games for the latter. Just my opinion.

Agreed. This is most likely the purpose: $$ AND Exposure. Let's face it, Metlife had to ensure that the $$ was appealing, and they did. They also guaranteed top level opponents in games in NYC TV market where Syracuse has many alumns, recruits heavily for it's general student population and recruits heavily for sports in general.

The checks will come with each game. The exposure is working as Rutgers isn't winning all the battles. Unless Rutgers can manhandle the Buckeyes, Wolverines, Spartans and Nittany Lions like they do Howard, they probably won't win many more recruiting battles.

Boeheim will play games in NYC so he can get exposure, and we "lose" money (in this case, we can clearly make more money by hosting a game in the Dome than playing in MSG or Barclay's, therefore, there is an opportunity cost loss). If a top hoops program (actually, Duke and UNC do this and tOSU, Indiana, MSU and Michigan will now be doing similar) use exposure to keep kids rolling in to the program, why not the football?

 

[retro44]

Brady Hoke gets it ...A one loss SEC school could very well jump a undefeated Mich. team that has a Rutgirls,Maryland and Indiana on the schedule.They need a very good OOC schedule to keep up

 

[Alsacs]

Agreed. This is most likely the purpose: $$ AND Exposure. Let's face it, Metlife had to ensure that the $$ was appealing, and they did. They also guaranteed top level opponents in games in NYC TV market where Syracuse has many alumns, recruits heavily for it's general student population and recruits heavily for sports in general.

The checks will come with each game. The exposure is working as Rutgers isn't winning all the battles. Unless Rutgers can manhandle the Buckeyes, Wolverines, Spartans and Nittany Lions like they do Howard, they probably won't win many more recruiting battles.

Boeheim will play games in NYC so he can get exposure, and we "lose" money (in this case, we can clearly make more money by hosting a game in the Dome than playing in MSG or Barclay's, therefore, there is an opportunity cost loss). If a top hoops program (actually, Duke and UNC do this and tOSU, Indiana, MSU and Michigan will now be doing similar) use exposure to keep kids rolling in to the program, why not the football?

Listen, I agree with most of what your saying Htown but Metlife isn't guaranteeing top level opponents. We have no documentation of that all they are doing is providing SU with a check and SU must supply the game at Metlife. I have no problem with playing a game in Metlife every other year, but not at the expense of our season ticket holders losing very appealing home games in the process.

Comparing basketball to football isn't the same thing SU basketball is the top brand in NYC, while SU football is not the same in NYC. I agree these games are to play off the New York College's Team image that Dr. Gross has created for SU, but we shouldn't be playing our top non-conference games in Metlife. If Syracuse can get teams to play 1 game series in Metlife we should do it, but we shouldn't play opponents at their home stadium and then have the return game 250 miles away from SU's home field.

 

[ImperialOrange]

Sign a 4 or 5 year deal. 1 @ Metlife, 1 @ Ford Field, 1 @ Dome, 1 @ Big House... hell throw in 1 @ Buffalo as well for good measure

 

[Crusty]

So far we have had top level opponents. It seems to me that we won't be playing anybody but top notch competition there in the future. I am sure that many teams do not want to come to the dome whereas they might jump at the chance for MetLife.

The New York area probably has more contributing alums in NY than it does in Syracuse. There are more than football reasons for these games.

 

[omniorange]

Listen, I agree with most of what your saying Htown but Metlife isn't guaranteeing top level opponents. We have no documentation of that all they are doing is providing SU with a check and SU must supply the game at Metlife. I have no problem with playing a game in Metlife every other year, but not at the expense of our season ticket holders losing very appealing home games in the process.

Comparing basketball to football isn't the same thing SU basketball is the top brand in NYC, while SU football is not the same in NYC. I agree these games are to play off the New York College's Team image that Dr. Gross has created for SU, but we shouldn't be playing our top non-conference games in Metlife. If Syracuse can get teams to play 1 game series in Metlife we should do it, but we shouldn't play opponents at their home stadium and then have the return game 250 miles away from SU's home field.

I have always fallen on the side of those who believe the MetLife games may have value above and beyond any inconvenience the season ticket holders in the area may experience. I also recognize that the majority of the arguments both pro and con are two-edged swords in this debate, such as...

The MetLife games were because we were in the Big East and might not have attracted enough big name opponents on a consistent basis, but now we are in the ACC so shouldn't that be reexamined?
The MetLife games take away from the home schedule, but now we are in the ACC so isn't the home schedule already significantly improved on that basis alone?

The MetLife games were money driven, but now we are in the ACC, so we will make enough money with or without them, right?
The MetLife games take away money from season ticket sales, but we are in the ACC now so won't we make enough money anyway?

See? It's all circular.

To me, the MetLife games are about identity. I talk about the ACC needing to examine how it sees itself. It's time SU administrators and fans examine how it sees itself. The current administration wants to brand us as "New York's College Team". Well the state of New York can be summed up pretty clearly, NYC metro area and upstate New York (what city folks refer to as Canada).

Is it time to give up that campaign, to stop trying to overreach and simply be upstate's college team (which the recent Sienna poll demonstrates quite clearly we are) or do we have a bigger broader vision? And if we decide it's the latter than the MetLife games are needed, imho.

Notre Dame didn't become NYC's favorite college football team because they are a catholic university. They became so by playing Army (the then #1 college football team in NYC) year after year after year after year in NYC for over 20 years with only one of those games in that time frame in ND territory in Chicago. Of course it helped that they won those games as well.

ND, PSU, Michigan, USC, Nebraska, Texas, Alabama, bring it on. And if MetLife facilitates that more readily, so be it. LGO!!!

Cheers,
Neil

 

[Alsacs]

Syracuse football is NEVER going to be New York City's team EVER. Michigan and Notre Dame football are both bigger than Syracuse in New York City and likely will remain that way. The only way we will become NYC's football team is for the University to go public and have bigger enrollment than we currently have and pump out lots of alums into the area and we maintain our brand. I have no problem with playing games at Metlife as they are good to give downstate alums in the area an easy game to attend and give a bowl type of environment for the players during the regular season, but we can't fill up the freaking Carrier Dome which is 49.6k max capacity and we are moving games 250 miles away to a 72k stadium we can't fill up on our own.

Playing Michigan, Notre Dame, Ohio State type programs at their stadium which will have a hostile road environments then the following year play at Metlife will result in a game that should give SU home field advantage into neutral site games AT best. There were 39k people for USC at the game last year if we played Michigan or Notre Dame at Metlife the game would sellout but would have more Michigan or Notre Dame fans in the stadium which is a joke for a program like we have. These type of arrangements are what MAC, Sun Belt teams do with SEC, B1G teams when they need paydays. Syracuse with ACC money doesn't need the money as badly. Syracuse receives no benefit from playing these games. Again, I have talked with Dr. Gross about this subject and he told me the reason we signed the ND series was it was the only way to get them on the schedule and we needed to explore as many revenue streams as we possibly could based on the current conference situation scheduling 5 non-conference games.

What is wrong with playing Boston College, Pitt, Louisville, NC State, Wake Forest in Metlife on a rotating basis and getting 35k there while playing our non-conference games at home where they belong.

 

[omniorange]

What is wrong with playing Boston College, Pitt, Louisville, NC State, Wake Forest in Metlife on a rotating basis and getting 35k there while playing our non-conference games at home where they belong.

Oh Lord

Fine, you are content with being upstate's college team. There's nothing wrong with that. But I hope you realize the above suggestion is truly out there and I will chalk it up to you quickly responding rather than putting a lot of thought in your reply.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[Alsacs]

Oh Lord

Fine, you are content with being upstate's college team. There's nothing wrong with that. But I hope you realize the above suggestion is truly out there and I will chalk it up to you quickly responding rather than putting a lot of thought in your reply.

Cheers,
Neil

Again back during the Army-Notre Dame days you realize recruiting, football strategy, TV, conference situations were completely different back then. Do you believe if Buffalo or any university played a game in NYC every year for 20 years it would make them NYC's team? Notre Dame is the top football brand because they attract a lot of non-alum Catholics as fans and the Northeast in the era you are refering to was full of Irish Catholics to latch onto ND as their team. Syracuse is only going to attract fans that are alums or are from the SU area as fans. We won't be able to get anybody in NYC to care about SU unless they have a connection to university. SU is a private school why should anybody in NYC care about a private school as its state public flagship. if we want to be a state flagship university then go public and open the doors to the University and we will be a B1G type of team.

 

[omniorange]

Again back during the Army-Notre Dame days you realize recruiting, football strategy, TV, conference situations were completely different back then. Do you believe if Buffalo or any university played a game in NYC every year for 20 years it would make them NYC's team? Notre Dame is the top football brand because they attract a lot of non-alum Catholics as fans and the Northeast in the era you are refering to was full of Irish Catholics to latch onto ND as their team. Syracuse is only going to attract fans that are alums or are from the SU area as fans. We won't be able to get anybody in NYC to care about SU unless they have a connection to university. SU is a private school why should anybody in NYC care about a private school as its state public flagship. if we want to be a state flagship university then go public and open the doors to the University and we will be a B1G type of team.

Alsacs, please read my posts more carefully. I have no problem with you disagreeing with the vision of SU becoming NYC's college team.

You think it's impossible so why bother. Fine. Long-term that may be proven correct.

I was smh at the notion you presented in your previous post that somehow moving the lesser ACC games to NYC would have any value at all.

As for the state flagship thingie, I've discussed that to death in numerous posts over the years. NY doesn't have such a thing and likely never will, at least not in the same context as other states such as Michigan, Ohio, Alabama, etc.

However, I do have a question for you.

Do you believe that interest in SU basketball in the city is limited only to the alums in the area and the SU area fans who travel to the city? Or is it possible that we are attracting fans who are neither who will increase our alumni base in the city in the future by becoming future students as a result of the interest SU generates by playing high level games at MSG?

Is it a chicken or egg thing there?

Cheers,
Neil

 

[rrlbees]

You will "save" CuseOnly's post to prove what? That SU will get only 1-1-1 arrangements going forward? SU wont need to play "home" games in NYC? I'm not trying to be a dick or call anyone out, just trying to better understand the reasoning behind the opinion.

At the end of the day, these kind of posts are ALL just opinions, no matter how forcefully they are stated.

Saving it because he copped an attitude and called out another poster. Read his post again. It was Alsacs opinion. Just like you said they are all opinions.

Sent using my Commodore 64