The few dollars was obviously hyperbole but feel free to tear it apart if it makes you feel better. Syracuse is a large private university, one with an extensive alumni and fan base and they should not, and obviously will not, be held captive by some attention seeking billionaire. The school was not created to serve at the bidding of a single donor, the donor is there to benefit the university and when that relationship becomes problematic, it should end. People are so quick to throw the university under the bus despite not knowing even half of the story, let alone the entire thing all in the name of protecting a perceived advantage (one that has yet to materialize with anything other than a single top 75 recruit) and stroke the ego of a guy who didn't even have a relationship with the university half a decade ago.
You point to Miami as some ace-in-the-hole for the importance of laying out massive cash for transfers yet a school who (arguably) did even more on that front, Texas Tech, didn't even finish above .500. Or how about Illinois, another school who arguably paid significant cash for their team and yet they couldn't even out-perform their previous two seasons. We don't even need to get into the fact that Miami wasn't some top 2 seed who cruised through the year, they struggled against some severely limited teams (Syracuse and BC included) and happened to catch lightening in a bottle (much like SU in 2016). With that said, I wouldn't be so quick to call the Miami experiment the blueprint for future success. They are competing alongside San Diego State and FAU, two teams who most certainly do not billion dollar backers. Where did their success come from?
