This really is the low t board

[TheCusian]

No. We were not this bad on defense last year.

we sucked on defense too last year.

"Just about" means close. We were just about as bad. That's a fact.

 

[Townie72]

Seats, AC, updated nice stuff. Man hasn't slimmed in 37 years.

Sounds great!

But I'm looking at the $100M price tag. I can't make a business case for it.

Of course, if people / NY State give them all, most of even some of the money, its a different deal completely.

 

[Millhouse]

The only thing wrong with the defense is giving up home run plays. I get that is a self inflicted wound to an extent, but short term pain for long term gain.

I don't think they are giving up plays like that, in the volume they have been, against Wake, BC, Pitt, Wake, VT, and NCSt like they have against Lville, ND, and USF.

It's hard to tell what the other problems might be when they're giving up home runs all the time.

Stop giving up home runs sounds more correctable than learn how to get near the qb, cover Wr, and tackle

 

[Bayside44]

Sounds great!

But I'm looking at the $100M price tag. I can't make a business case for it.

Of course, if people / NY State give them all, most of even some of the money, its a different deal completely.

You haven't been to the Dome in a while. Place needs some help.

 

[cuse309]

i always wonder what it is what it is means? to me it means --what the f... is it???

I thought it was pretty obvious...it means there is nothing you can do about it, nothing you can do to change it.

 

[IthacaBarrel]

You haven't been to the Dome in a while. Place needs some help.

Agreed. They will rip through that 100 mil very easily.. It's probably 10 years past due. Personally, I think they need more $$$. I am sure they have more in the overall budget but I wonder if they have the actual funds right now, renovations like this get down right nasty, they need all new lighting and new PA systems as well, seats, concessions, locker rooms, paint, new boxes, facades, new look on outside, ADA improvements, I am sure the doors in most places on the exterior could use replacing as well as well, like I said they will rip through the 100 mil...

 

[Ish88888]

In 2015 vs FBS: #111 in yards allowed (472 per game). #112 6.44 YPP allowed. #94 in points per game at 33.8.

In 2016 vs FBS: #122 in yards allowed (502 per game). #122 6.93 YPP allowed. #122 in points per game at 45.2.

#thatsprettyclose #not-funny

Edit: we've also played 3 top 25 in S&P+ Offense. Last years stats at least are evened out by less elite offense like Wake and BC. This years numbers are getting the Lamar Jackson treatment a little.

33.8 and 45.2 in points per game is a huge difference.

 

[TheCusian]

33.8 and 45.2 in points per game is a huge difference.

Wait until we play Wake and BC. All the other indicators are pointing to "very close" not comically apart.

 

[Townie72]

You haven't been to the Dome in a while. Place needs some help.

That's true. But there would seem to be a pretty big gap between sprucing the place up and a $100M complete renovation of the place.

When the Dome was constructed it was a tremendous improvement over Archbold and a unique facility at the time. It took a few years but by 1984, the program was really moving up. And part of that was due to the Dome (And part of that was due to coaching and to Tim Green growing up in Liverpool and guessing right on some recruits)

I'm guessing that the University and many of the fans on here think that a tremendous new facility is what need to revitalize the program and get us back to the level we were at starting in 1987 and going through the 1990's.

The underlying assumption in this is that if SU doesn't do something fantastic that in all likelihood were are going to stay at the level we are now (or slightly better). We will at best be a middle of the pack ACC football team and attendance will get no better and might even atrophy as CNY'ers won't support a mediocre or bad program.

BillOrange's point is that we have no choice but to do this if we ever want to regain the magic of the late 80's and 90's. He may be right.

But it is also possible to spend $100M and not get the improvement either in the program or the attendance. In using Maryland as an example I was trying to find another similar situation where big athletic facilities expenditures did not have the desired results.

It's a hell of a gamble, I think. Of course, if they think they can raise the money and are not dependent on future results, then it's relatively low risk.

As a DC local, if you have been on the campus of Georgetown Prep in Rockville you can see a spectacular athletic facility that cost $23M. (You can get a Visa to visit Maryland at the Cabin John Bridge) But Prep's athletic teams are about the same level as they have always been and attendance is about the same.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

That's true. But there would seem to be a pretty big gap between sprucing the place up and a $100M complete renovation of the place.

When the Dome was constructed it was a tremendous improvement over Archbold and a unique facility at the time. It took a few years but by 1984, the program was really moving up. And part of that was due to the Dome (And part of that was due to coaching and to Tim Green growing up in Liverpool and guessing right on some recruits)

I'm guessing that the University and many of the fans on here think that a tremendous new facility is what need to revitalize the program and get us back to the level we were at starting in 1987 and going through the 1990's.

The underlying assumption in this is that if SU doesn't do something fantastic that in all likelihood were are going to stay at the level we are now (or slightly better). We will at best be a middle of the pack ACC football team and attendance will get no better and might even atrophy as CNY'ers won't support a mediocre or bad program.

BillOrange's point is that we have no choice but to do this if we ever want to regain the magic of the late 80's and 90's. He may be right.

But it is also possible to spend $100M and not get the improvement either in the program or the attendance. In using Maryland as an example I was trying to find another similar situation where big athletic facilities expenditures did not have the desired results.

It's a hell of a gamble, I think. Of course, if they think they can raise the money and are not dependent on future results, then it's relatively low risk.

As a DC local, if you have been on the campus of Georgetown Prep in Rockville you can see a spectacular athletic facility that cost $23M. (You can get a Visa to visit Maryland at the Cabin John Bridge) But Prep's athletic teams are about the same level as they have always been and attendance is about the same.

I don't think it is as much about increasing attendance as it is about stopping the bleeding. People will stop going if the experience is so bad. It won't matter if SU is 8-4 every year. Even the die hards will skip all but the big games.

 

[Bayside44]

That's true. But there would seem to be a pretty big gap between sprucing the place up and a $100M complete renovation of the place.

When the Dome was constructed it was a tremendous improvement over Archbold and a unique facility at the time. It took a few years but by 1984, the program was really moving up. And part of that was due to the Dome (And part of that was due to coaching and to Tim Green growing up in Liverpool and guessing right on some recruits)

I'm guessing that the University and many of the fans on here think that a tremendous new facility is what need to revitalize the program and get us back to the level we were at starting in 1987 and going through the 1990's.

The underlying assumption in this is that if SU doesn't do something fantastic that in all likelihood were are going to stay at the level we are now (or slightly better). We will at best be a middle of the pack ACC football team and attendance will get no better and might even atrophy as CNY'ers won't support a mediocre or bad program.

BillOrange's point is that we have no choice but to do this if we ever want to regain the magic of the late 80's and 90's. He may be right.

But it is also possible to spend $100M and not get the improvement either in the program or the attendance. In using Maryland as an example I was trying to find another similar situation where big athletic facilities expenditures did not have the desired results.

It's a hell of a gamble, I think. Of course, if they think they can raise the money and are not dependent on future results, then it's relatively low risk.

As a DC local, if you have been on the campus of Georgetown Prep in Rockville you can see a spectacular athletic facility that cost $23M. (You can get a Visa to visit Maryland at the Cabin John Bridge) But Prep's athletic teams are about the same level as they have always been and attendance is about the same.

Georgetown Prep has a nice facility, like Episcopal and SSAS do because that's just the price of admission in these parts.

Reality is this is needed. The Dome doesn't need to be what the Viking have but the place is the definition of the word spartan in these structures. If college football is going to play these 4 hour games the trappings better be nice.

 

[RMH44]

That's true. But there would seem to be a pretty big gap between sprucing the place up and a $100M complete renovation of the place.

When the Dome was constructed it was a tremendous improvement over Archbold and a unique facility at the time. It took a few years but by 1984, the program was really moving up. And part of that was due to the Dome (And part of that was due to coaching and to Tim Green growing up in Liverpool and guessing right on some recruits)

I'm guessing that the University and many of the fans on here think that a tremendous new facility is what need to revitalize the program and get us back to the level we were at starting in 1987 and going through the 1990's.

The underlying assumption in this is that if SU doesn't do something fantastic that in all likelihood were are going to stay at the level we are now (or slightly better). We will at best be a middle of the pack ACC football team and attendance will get no better and might even atrophy as CNY'ers won't support a mediocre or bad program.

BillOrange's point is that we have no choice but to do this if we ever want to regain the magic of the late 80's and 90's. He may be right.

But it is also possible to spend $100M and not get the improvement either in the program or the attendance. In using Maryland as an example I was trying to find another similar situation where big athletic facilities expenditures did not have the desired results.

It's a hell of a gamble, I think. Of course, if they think they can raise the money and are not dependent on future results, then it's relatively low risk.

As a DC local, if you have been on the campus of Georgetown Prep in Rockville you can see a spectacular athletic facility that cost $23M. (You can get a Visa to visit Maryland at the Cabin John Bridge) But Prep's athletic teams are about the same level as they have always been and attendance is about the same.

Obviously, attendance is a major issue for FB. Fortunately, FB isn't the only revenue stream for the Dome. From what I hear there is a pretty good hoops team up on the hill ;-)

SU is in a very unique situation because they use the same facility for both major revenue producing sports. That fact alone, saves them major $$ in maintenance costs. Every other P5 school has separate venues for their FB and BB programs which, in theory, might cost them twice as much annually to maintain.

Since the Dome is our sole sports venue (operating at 1/2 the price), why not spend the money and make it a special place?

 

[Townie72]

I don't think it is as much about increasing attendance as it is about stopping the bleeding. People will stop going if the experience is so bad. It won't matter if SU is 8-4 every year. Even the die hards will skip all but the big games.

Two hundred and fifty-five million dollars?

Now $105 for that is a new roof, which may be justified given the cost of replacing the fabric roof every so-many years. They are on the hook for $25M to replace the current roof in the next few years.

And $50 Million is to convert Archbold to the Arch --- a Health and Wellness facility --- and this may be money the University HAS to spend to attract students. Student fitness areas have become both the rage and the norm at colleges and seem to be a key differentiator for perspective students.

$100 Million is for ADA improvements. Really? Is the cost of AC in this $100 million?

Is there money in here for all the stuff that make the dome a remarkably better place to watch a game. Seating? New bathrooms? Better concessions areas?

I'm basing this on the D.O. article. Is there a better description of what all the improvements are going to be?

 

[TerryD]

That's true. But there would seem to be a pretty big gap between sprucing the place up and a $100M complete renovation of the place.

When the Dome was constructed it was a tremendous improvement over Archbold and a unique facility at the time. It took a few years but by 1984, the program was really moving up. And part of that was due to the Dome (And part of that was due to coaching and to Tim Green growing up in Liverpool and guessing right on some recruits)

I'm guessing that the University and many of the fans on here think that a tremendous new facility is what need to revitalize the program and get us back to the level we were at starting in 1987 and going through the 1990's.

The underlying assumption in this is that if SU doesn't do something fantastic that in all likelihood were are going to stay at the level we are now (or slightly better). We will at best be a middle of the pack ACC football team and attendance will get no better and might even atrophy as CNY'ers won't support a mediocre or bad program.

BillOrange's point is that we have no choice but to do this if we ever want to regain the magic of the late 80's and 90's. He may be right.

But it is also possible to spend $100M and not get the improvement either in the program or the attendance. In using Maryland as an example I was trying to find another similar situation where big athletic facilities expenditures did not have the desired results.

It's a hell of a gamble, I think. Of course, if they think they can raise the money and are not dependent on future results, then it's relatively low risk.

As a DC local, if you have been on the campus of Georgetown Prep in Rockville you can see a spectacular athletic facility that cost $23M. (You can get a Visa to visit Maryland at the Cabin John Bridge) But Prep's athletic teams are about the same level as they have always been and attendance is about the same.

How much did the new Stanford and Minnesota stadiums cost? If I recall correctly, they both seat about 50,000 and are pretty decent looking stadiams, at least on television.

 

[CuseOnly]

Two hundred and fifty-five million dollars?

Now $105 for that is a new roof, which may be justified given the cost of replacing the fabric roof every so-many years. They are on the hook for $25M to replace the current roof in the next few years.

And $50 Million is to convert Archbold to the Arch --- a Health and Wellness facility --- and this may be money the University HAS to spend to attract students. Student fitness areas have become both the rage and the norm at colleges and seem to be a key differentiator for perspective students.

$100 Million is for ADA improvements. Really? Is the cost of AC in this $100 million?

Is there money in here for all the stuff that make the dome a remarkably better place to watch a game. Seating? New bathrooms? Better concessions areas?

I'm basing this on the D.O. article. Is there a better description of what all the improvements are going to be?

The Dome hosts over 250 events every year, it is beleive it or not the face of what everybody knows as Syracuse University.

When SU is mentioned in conversation anywhere but Upstate NY. A few things come up mostly in the order below.

Basketball
Carrier Dome = dump
Football is bad but I hear you guys are getting better
Newhouse - great communications school

I would prefer that SU's most recognizable facility and the face of the University that is used like I said over 250 times a year not be referred to as a dump.

I am not an alum so what do I know, I am just a fan.

 

[CuseTroop]

I'm very disappointed in you people... A "Low T" thread, and not one "The League" reference.

 

[IthacaBarrel]

Any building after 37 years of use will need improvements, BIG maintenance, etc and regardless of what football does from a win and loss stand point if the university intends to use the building as they have the last 37 years then the project is needed and the dollar value is accurate for what they need to do, it's pretty cut and dry really. They don't have much choice, people are getting caught up in the dollar value but given the roof and the stuff that is needed including a massive lighting upgrade, technology upgrades, plumbing and electrical systems, HVAC overhaul, etc the dollar value is fine and what they will need. To me it's probably a little light considering the dome is mass of structural concrete and CMU.

Cost of doing business and cost of operating a major college athletic dept. Not much of a choice and sometimes it's just easier to build new given the massive overruns with a project such as this, I live this shite everyday.

I am sure Turner and the University are working daily on numbers, budgets, highest need, schedule, phasing, design and logistics, Have to remember what a company like turner will charge as well as well as design and engineering, the job is far from straight forward.

Would anyone build a house and not do much to it for 37 years other than a new roof every 10-15 years? Come on, it's so overdue it's ridiculous and the time is now as you can't have these type of interruptions every 4-5 years, do it now and get it over with

 

[Townie72]

Any building after 37 years of use will need improvements, BIG maintenance, etc and regardless of what football does from a win and loss stand point if the university intends to use the building as they have the last 37 years then the project is needed and the dollar value is accurate for what they need to do, it's pretty cut and dry really. They don't have much choice, people are getting caught up in the dollar value but given the roof and the stuff that is needed including a massive lighting upgrade the dollar value is fine and what they will need.

Cost of doing business and cost of operating a major college athletic dept. Not much of a choice and sometimes it's just easier to build new given the massive overruns with a project such as this, I live this shite everyday

Your comment suggests you have a better understanding of construction projects than most (Some have none.)

What you are saying here --- reading between the lines --- that this is lots of basic stuff and not a huge upgrade of the "fan experience". No matter how you "perfume this pig" the Dome will still be the Dome.

The rigid roof won't do any better job of keeping the rain out than the fabric one does. It will, however, allow them to reduce the air pressure in the building and that will help with comfort. And you won't be blown out the doors while exiting.

A/C affects a few early home games.

Lighting upgrades are pretty much about reducing operating costs and not increasing light levels, right?

Ramps and elevators and widened aisles for handicap access won't affect the fan experience of the great majority.

Massive over-runs on a project like this are a distinct possibility. When the spec changes from that which was bid upon, things get very expensive. Some contractors and manufacturers can look at the drawings and spec and sense that this building cannot be built as designed. So they can submit low (Even money-losing) bids confident in the fact that they'll get rich on Change Orders".

How long is this thing going to be in the Design Phase?

 

[IthacaBarrel]

Your comment suggests you have a better understanding of construction projects than most (Some have none.)

What you are saying here --- reading between the lines --- that this is lots of basic stuff and not a huge upgrade of the "fan experience". No matter how you "perfume this pig" the Dome will still be the Dome.

The rigid roof won't do any better job of keeping the rain out than the fabric one does. It will, however, allow them to reduce the air pressure in the building and that will help with comfort. And you won't be blown out the doors while exiting.

A/C affects a few early home games.

Lighting upgrades are pretty much about reducing operating costs and not increasing light levels, right?

Ramps and elevators and widened aisles for handicap access won't affect the fan experience of the great majority.

Massive over-runs on a project like this are a distinct possibility. When the spec changes from that which was bid upon, things get very expensive. Some contractors and manufacturers can look at the drawings and spec and sense that this building cannot be built as designed. So they can submit low (Even money-losing) bids confident in the fact that they'll get rich on Change Orders".

How long is this thing going to be in the Design Phase?

I think the worse the design is the higher the prices will come in, when in doubt most contractors will cover their asses the problem that you discuss with contractors submitting bids below cost so they can get massive change orders later is a very risky proposition and not common practice. Why would you bid to lose money? Sure it's one school of thought but a lot of that will get sifted through post bid decopes with Turner as they attempt to get each contractor apples to apples. The method that you refer to is pretty old school and really only seen on public hard bid type project where low bid always wins and public money dictates lowest qualified bidder. A accompany like Turner will rip through all bids and bring in the low 3 bidders for a page turn and a comprehensive review of proposals and bid documents. They will also pick contractors brains etc. I assure you that a CM at risk (versus an agency CM who has no risk) which I would imagine Turner is will not want to send documents out to bid that are littered with gray area and design omissions, Turner has blood in the game with regard to project overruns as well. In addition, most contractors won't want to battle with Turner and the University and tie things up in litigation as I assure you they have more money for this than most contractors. Cm and design professionals have clauses in bid documents and use shite such as "design intent" to argue with things of this nature. That said, renovation work has a lot of unknowns by nature, using as built drawings from even 40 years ago proposes great risk for all parties, many times things just aren't where or what they are suppose to be. It's a high risk situation for all parties.. The University and turner would be smart to delay construction if needed to make sure that they confident in their design and bid documents, this is one of the reasons they hire a construction manager. I am sure they will finish the roof design and bid that 1st.

As I have said, on paper Turner is about as good as you can get for this type of project which to me shows that the University is putting their best foot forward and I don't see them trying to mickey mouse anything. A CM like Turner will have their in house QC structural, architectural and MEP guys rip through the documents looking for gray area and omissions prior to bid process but there will always be questions and changes but how many is the issue

The lighting will be a cost savings long term and will greatly improve the look and viewing experience for all. Many of the systems in the dome are caveman like.

I have sat on both the CM and construction side.. still do but much more so on the construction side these days, we build shite not just stare at it

 

[JoeSU]

T
But it is also possible to spend $100M and not get the improvement either in the program or the attendance. In using Maryland as an example I was trying to find another similar situation where big athletic facilities expenditures did not have the desired results.

Rutgers.

 

[Townie72]

Rutgers.

Ha!

Rutgers is like a criminal enterprise.

Its hard to tell the impact of the money they spent on stadium improvements. How do you make sense of all that red ink. For many years the Athletic Department has run a deficit of $25 Million a year. They report that they are balancing the AD books keeping this $25 theft from the students as a footnote so the unintelligent might miss it.

The dip into the General Fund and charge students fees to make up this deficit spending. The students have no choice in this. In the past 10 years Rutgers has run a cumulative deficit of $250+ million dollars.

They've spent big money on football facilities and staff and are pretty much where they were before Schiano's temporary blip of success in 2006.

 

[CuseOnly]

I think the worse the design is the higher the prices will come in, when in doubt most contractors will cover their asses the problem that you discuss with contractors submitting bids below cost so they can get massive change orders later is a very risky proposition and not common practice. Why would you bid to lose money? Sure it's one school of thought but a lot of that will get sifted through post bid decopes with Turner as they attempt to get each contractor apples to apples. The method that you refer to is pretty old school and really only seen on public hard bid type project where low bid always wins and public money dictates lowest qualified bidder. A accompany like Turner will rip through all bids and bring in the low 3 bidders for a page turn and a comprehensive review of proposals and bid documents. They will also pick contractors brains etc. I assure you that a CM at risk (versus an agency CM who has no risk) which I would imagine Turner is will not want to send documents out to bid that are littered with gray area and design omissions, Turner has blood in the game with regard to project overruns as well. In addition, most contractors won't want to battle with Turner and the University and tie things up in litigation as I assure you they have more money for this than most contractors. Cm and design professionals have clauses in bid documents and use shite such as "design intent" to argue with things of this nature. That said, renovation work has a lot of unknowns by nature, using as built drawings from even 40 years ago proposes great risk for all parties, many times things just aren't where or what they are suppose to be. It's a high risk situation for all parties.. The University and turner would be smart to delay construction if needed to make sure that they confident in their design and bid documents, this is one of the reasons they hire a construction manager. I am sure they will finish the roof design and bid that 1st.

As I have said, on paper Turner is about as good as you can get for this type of project which to me shows that the University is putting their best foot forward and I don't see them trying to mickey mouse anything. A CM like Turner will have their in house QC structural, architectural and MEP guys rip through the documents looking for gray area and omissions prior to bid process but there will always be questions and changes but how many is the issue

The lighting will be a cost savings long term and will greatly improve the look and viewing experience for all. Many of the systems in the dome are caveman like.

I have sat on both the CM and construction side.. still do but much more so on the construction side these days, we build shite not just stare at it

Last I heard the University was looking for top guaranteed cost regardless of over-runs or changes. Not sure this type of thing is possible with how construction goes now-days with cost overruns and as you suggest on refurbs, half the current structure could be different from documents. Not that a concrete coffin has much to begin with.

 

[IthacaBarrel]

Last I heard the University was looking for top guaranteed cost regardless of over-runs or changes. Not sure this type of thing is possible with how construction goes now-days with cost overruns and as you suggest on refurbs, half the current structure could be different from documents. Not that a concrete coffin has much to begin with.

GMP is probably what the University is striving for with cost overruns being held against Turner and their overall compensation for the project. This is where you get into different types of construction management delivery methods. Agency CM versus At Risk CM. Agency CM is fee basis only, no risk with cost of project for all intensive purposes and CM just facilitates schedule, I would imagine and almost 100% sure this won't be the case for this project. Agency CM is known as " just keeping score" in the industry. Again you see this quite a bit with municipality work, SUNY, and K-12 school work

 

[Eric15]

How much did the new Stanford and Minnesota stadiums cost? If I recall correctly, they both seat about 50,000 and are pretty decent looking stadiams, at least on television.

Minnesota was $300 million and Stanford was only $90 million per Wikipedia. I went to our game at Minnesota in 2012, and it's a very nice venue.