Syracuse University chancellor announces major organization and personnel changes

[Orangeyes]

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index....racuse_university_i-81_personnel_changes.html

 

[FAL]

Lots to be read between the lines in his letter especially the Workgroup on Carrier Dome Backup Plan. New stadium or major renovation? Your guess is as good as any. My prediction is that the Dome as we know it now will no longer exist within the nest 5-10 years. Interesting is the fact that the Dome Backup Plan is immediately followed by the I-81 Workgroup. The I-81 redo and the Dome redo go hand in hand; they are intimately connected. Interesting times we live in, friends!

 

[CuseOnly]

I find the regional economic impact numbers fascinating considering that the Miner shot down the new stadium idea.

ONE basketball game against a top opponent could cost the region $8.6 million dollars. Granted the "top opponent" caveat. Lets say you average out the 20 games we usually play at home and figure that economic impact for each game is $5 million.

If the dome roof fails catastrophically and we have to play all our home games at MSG or other locations, the CNY region loses 100 million dollars roughly using my figures above. Not including the impact to the university monetarily.

I know that the University has a few roof tiles on hand as replacements but what if multiple tiles fail or a region around the compression ring fails that is not tiled or the compression ring itself fails. Nobody around to borrow from like Minnesota borrowed from us.

 

[CuseOnly]

I think they should have given SU the $130 million they are spending on Ralph Wilson Stadium as in a year or so it will be seen as a waste of money when the Bills move to another area.

 

[Orangeyes]

SU group develops Carrier Dome backup plan in case of roof failure

 

[Millhouse]

I find the regional economic impact numbers fascinating considering that the Miner shot down the new stadium idea. ONE basketball game against a top opponent could cost the region $8.6 million dollars. Granted the "top opponent" caveat. Lets say you average out the 20 games we usually play at home and figure that economic impact for each game is $5 million. If the dome roof fails catastrophically and we have to play all our home games at MSG or other locations, the CNY region loses 100 million dollars roughly using my figures above. Not including the impact to the university monetarily. I know that the University has a few roof tiles on hand as replacements but what if multiple tiles fail or a region around the compression ring fails that is not tiled or the compression ring itself fails. Nobody around to borrow from like Minnesota borrowed from us.

Economic impact numbers are alway bull. The region doesn't all of a sudden get poorer if there is no game. People would do something else with that money.

 

[texascpa]

Economic impact numbers are alway bull. The region doesn't all of a sudden get poorer if there is no game. People would do something else with that money.

Agreed to an extent. I always find it interesting how these cities come up with the economic impact of a particular event. That said, tourism does bring in money to a region that would otherwise not come in if not for specific events. So, there would be the loss of that money. Who knows what that really is per game, though.

 

[TheCusian]

Economic impact numbers are alway bull. The region doesn't all of a sudden get poorer if there is no game. People would do something else with that money.

Yep. Sit at home. Save it. Buy things on Amazon, buy a movie on iTunes.

You can't say every dime that would be spent locally, at games and the surrounding area.

You can say with 100% certainty that there would be less economic activity in the city. How many people travel to games from outside of 30 miles?

(Also - I thought you were for keeping the dome, and studies? Isn't this proof the University is doing some due diligence?)

 

[nzm136]

Economic impact numbers are alway bull. The region doesn't all of a sudden get poorer if there is no game. People would do something else with that money.

Yeah, for instance they might go out of town to see the Orange play and/or stay out of town and enjoy local attractions near where they live.

 

[Full_Rebar]

My take on the Dome news is that a roof replacement will be done at some point and this data will be used to convince NY to kick some money through Onondaga County to help with the costs. I could even see Syverud working out some deal to allow Section III more access to the Dome as a result of the state funding, as I think he wants to continue to connect SU to the community without spending millions.

 

[CuseOnly]

Economic impact numbers are alway bull. The region doesn't all of a sudden get poorer if there is no game. People would do something else with that money.

Exactly, like not spend it at all or possibly spend it elsewhere. So in essence if the money isn't being spent, the region is getting poorer, the people aren't.

 

[Millhouse]

Yep. Sit at home. Save it. Buy things on Amazon, buy a movie on iTunes. You can't say every dime that would be spent locally, at games and the surrounding area. You can say with 100% certainty that there would be less economic activity in the city. How many people travel to games from outside of 30 miles? (Also - I thought you were for keeping the dome, and studies? Isn't this proof the University is doing some due diligence?)

That's not how those studies are done though. They always assume the money not spent on that event just vanishes

 

[TheCusian]

That's not how those studies are done though. They always assume the money not spent on that event just vanishes

Agreed. Best way to make a point. The answer is a whole lot more gray.

 

[cuseinchina]

Economic impact numbers are alway bull. The region doesn't all of a sudden get poorer if there is no game. People would do something else with that money.

The city most likely loses the money since people are generally coming in from outside the city when they otherwise probably wouldn't for a random weeknight when there wasn't a game. The region's loss depends on percentage of people who live locally and also what people spend the money on. Do they go to local sports bar and drink away the ticket price, or do they buy something on Amazon. If they would otherwise attend several games, maybe they take a trip instead to spend on an experience. But to pretend that a lot of that spend isn't gone is to be blinded by your previously expressed displeasure with stadium deals. You ignore positive externalities and opportunity cost in your thinking - which makes it too simplistic and necessarily wrong.

 

[Millhouse]

The city most likely loses the money since people are generally coming in from outside the city when they otherwise probably wouldn't for a random weeknight when there wasn't a game. The region's loss depends on percentage of people who live locally and also what people spend the money on. Do they go to local sports bar and drink away the ticket price, or do they buy something on Amazon. If they would otherwise attend several games, maybe they take a trip instead to spend on an experience. But to pretend that a lot of that spend isn't gone is to be blinded by your previously expressed displeasure with stadium deals. You ignore positive externalities and opportunity cost in your thinking - which makes it too simplistic and necessarily wrong.

if they really believe that a game not played in CNY hurts the region so much and they think it's important to consider that, why are they moving home games to NYC?

it's just a way to fool other people into paying for something

 

[cuseinchina]

if they really believe that a game not played in CNY hurts the region so much and they think it's important to consider that, why are they moving home games to NYC?

it's just a way to fool other people into paying for something

Because the NYC thing is like investing for the long term in your brand, an intangible asset, which pays dividends for the school, the program, and the community. You can argue over whether that investment is worth the hit to season ticket holders or not...but that is the logic behind it and that logic is not pulled out of someone's behind. It's a strategic decision that is either correct or incorrect, but done very much with the long term goal of improving the quality of the program which is good for all.

In terms of this analysis - I think it is quite useful to quantify the impact of what we already have and think about the effect on the community if it goes away due to lack of investment. It's certainly easier than estimating the future revenue generation of a new stadium.

You don't like when I discuss intangibles because they are fuzzy. But just ask yourself this honest question - when people think about the city of Syracuse, what do you think is generally the first association that comes to mind (for people who aren't already in the area)? Syracuse University in general, and the sports in particular are an incredibly important part of the city's 'brand'. Without it they become the city that lost Carrier, GE etc and that used to have a national brand in collegiate sports. Think about Rochester - it's viewed as the city that used to be Kodak. Does that seem enticing to you to when viewed from the perspective of tourists, people looking to move to a lower cost location to start a small business, etc etc etc? Syracuse sports keeps the city relevant, or at least more relevant than it otherwise would have be. When most of your eggs are in one basket - as a city, region, and state - you should put resources into making sure that basket is in solid shape. Just because something is difficult to value with precision doesn't mean it's not incredibly valuable.

 

[Millhouse]

Because the NYC thing is like investing for the long term in your brand, an intangible asset, which pays dividends for the school, the program, and the community. You can argue over whether that investment is worth the hit to season ticket holders or not...but that is the logic behind it and that logic is not pulled out of someone's behind. It's a strategic decision that is either correct or incorrect, but done very much with the long term goal of improving the quality of the program which is good for all.

In terms of this analysis - I think it is quite useful to quantify the impact of what we already have and think about the effect on the community if it goes away due to lack of investment. It's certainly easier than estimating the future revenue generation of a new stadium.

You don't like when I discuss intangibles because they are fuzzy. But just ask yourself this honest question - when people think about the city of Syracuse, what do you think is generally the first association that comes to mind (for people who aren't already in the area)? Syracuse University in general, and the sports in particular are an incredibly important part of the city's 'brand'. Without it they become the city that lost Carrier, GE etc and that used to have a national brand in collegiate sports. Think about Rochester - it's viewed as the city that used to be Kodak. Syracuse sports keeps the city relevant, or at least more relevant than it otherwise would have be. Does that seem enticing to you to when viewed from the perspective of tourists, people looking to move to a lower cost location to start a small business, etc etc etc? When most of your eggs are in one basket - as a city, region, and state - you should put resources into making sure that basket is in solid shape.

losing a season costs up to 44,000,000 according to their own bs

the game given to NYC is probably 1.5x more valuable than the games not given to NYC (wagner, maine garbage). figure 7 "home" games. (44M/7)*1.5 = 9.5 million lost

let's be generous and assume that half of the benefit of the NYC game branding intangible fuzzy bullsh!t goes to the syracuse region. that is a crazy assumption on purpose, i can be stupidly generous and the numbers still don't work

that means the game in NY is worth 19 million for the brand if they are to be believed about the impact to the region. Otherwise they'd keep the game in Syracuse

if a quarter of the benefit goes to the region (still too generous)(, that would mean the NYC game would have to be worth 38 million

i say bulllllsh!t. why ever play at home if it's so valuable to play away

By this logic, if the roof blows off, they can go on some barnstroming branding intangible fuzzy tour. maybe we should stop playing at home altogether

can't assume that games are so incredibly valuable to the region that we need to spend a lot of money to insure that we never lose a game while at the same time voluntarily playing home games elsewhere

i'm not denying that there are intangible assets. i'm denying that you know anything about them, for you they're just a bullsh!t plug to tell whatever story you want to tell

 

[GoSU96]

Economic impact numbers are alway bull. The region doesn't all of a sudden get poorer if there is no game. People would do something else with that money.

That assumes that nobody from outside the area participates and that all of those locals would spend those dollars here and in a similar manner.

 

[cuseinchina]

losing a season costs up to 44,000,000 according to their own bs

the game given to NYC is probably 1.5x more valuable than the games not given to NYC (wagner, maine garbage). figure 7 "home" games. (44M/7)*1.5 = 9.5 million lost

let's be generous and assume that half of the benefit of the NYC game branding intangible fuzzy bullsh!t goes to the syracuse region. that is a crazy assumption on purpose, i can be stupidly generous and the numbers still don't work

that means the game in NY is worth 19 million for the brand if they are to be believed about the impact to the region. Otherwise they'd keep the game in Syracuse

if a quarter of the benefit goes to the region (still too generous)(, that would mean the NYC game would have to be worth 38 million

i say bulllllsh!t. why ever play at home if it's so valuable to play away

By this logic, if the roof blows off, they can go on some barnstroming branding intangible fuzzy tour. maybe we should stop playing at home altogether

can't assume that games are so incredibly valuable to the region that we need to spend a lot of money to insure that we never lose a game while at the same time voluntarily playing home games elsewhere

i'm not denying that there are intangible assets. i'm denying that you know anything about them, for you they're just a bullsh!t plug to tell whatever story you want to tell

When you take things to an illogical extreme you stop making sense. it's like putting 5 cups of sugar in the cookies because 1 worked pretty well. Life, markets, and policy do not work on some linear scale where you trade different amounts of A for B. You don't like complexity - but by ignoring it you are doomed to be wrong.

 

[Millhouse]

When you take things to an illogical extreme you stop making sense. it's like putting 5 cups of sugar in the cookies because 1 worked pretty well. Life, markets, and policy do not work on some linear scale where you trade different amounts of A for B. You don't like complexity - but by ignoring it you are doomed to be wrong.

if losing a season costs 44 million and the first NYC game is worth 38 million, you're saying that playing more games in NYC is worth less than 6 million. one game is incredibly valuable. anything above that basically worthless.

just putting some numbers behind your bs. you have no interest in backing into what your assumptions mean

 

[cuseinchina]

if losing a season costs 44 million and the first NYC game is worth 38 million, you're saying that playing more games in NYC is worth less than 6 million. one game is incredibly valuable. anything above that basically worthless.

just putting some numbers behind your bs. you have no interest in backing into what your assumptions mean

again with the extremes. think about diminishing marginal returns - and then apply that to building a 'soft asset' like a brand. just think about it clearly and you'll get it.

 

[Millhouse]

again with the extremes. think about diminishing marginal returns - and then apply that to building a 'soft asset' like a brand. just think about it clearly and you'll get it.

i'm just backing into how quickly you think the returns diminish. 1 game = 38,000,000. anything after 1 game <4,000,000

also there are more cities in the world than just NYC to do brand investments

i'm not arguing they should go barnstorming, i'm arguing that the intangible value of playing in NY is not as high as the phony numbers imply nor does that intangible value diminish so quickly

 

[cuseinchina]

i'm just backing into how quickly you think the returns diminish. 1 game = 38,000,000. anything after 1 game <4,000,000

also there are more cities in the world than just NYC to do brand investments

i'm not arguing they should go barnstorming, i'm arguing that the intangible value of playing in NY is not as high as the phony numbers imply nor does that intangible value diminish so quickly

I have no idea what the value is of a NYC game, nor do I know how quickly returns diminish by playing more than one in a season - I would think fairly quickly because the damage to season ticket holders starts to outweigh the benefit to the brand.

Your sort of ignoring the primary point here, which is that there certainly is a significant level of economic loss were Syracuse to lose games held at the carrier dome - and that is a good starting point for thinking about the value of public investment in a new stadium. You dismiss that as BS and say that the spending won't go anywhere, that makes close to no sense if you think about the specifics of game related spending, and how people tend to allocate disposable income.

Nice to hear you admit the existence of intangible assets that have real economic value though, that's something you refuse to do with your stadium math. So progress is being made here !