Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Townie72, post: 1901603, member: 780"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?