should definitely consider open air stadium. imo much more appealing for football

(10-30-2015 10:16 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  should definitely consider open air stadium. imo much more appealing for football

1. who is going to shovel all that snow

2. have you ever played open air basketball when it is snowing

3. the facility was really a basketball facility that has some football in it if they build a new football stajium they still need to do something to modernize the carrier dome and that is still going to cost a ton or they need a new basketball arena/city arena and for a school that draws 20K fans for basketball that will cost a ton especially added in with a new football stajium

(10-31-2015 08:47 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 10:16 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  should definitely consider open air stadium. imo much more appealing for football

1. who is going to shovel all that snow

2. have you ever played open air basketball when it is snowing

3. the facility was really a basketball facility that has some football in it if they build a new football stajium they still need to do something to modernize the carrier dome and that is still going to cost a ton or they need a new basketball arena/city arena and for a school that draws 20K fans for basketball that will cost a ton especially added in with a new football stajium

RE #3: I'm guessing that you've never been to the stadium and no absolutely nothing about Syracuse. In no way, shape, or form is the Dome primarily a basketball facility. And that is READILY apparent to ANYONE who has actually seen the facility in real life and/or read about it's history/the politics of how it came about.

The Dome is for basketball is a myth that was/is generally propagated by fans of other schools who started watching college football in a meaningful way sometime after 2001.

That said, an outdoor stadium would be terrible. Anyone who has sat through a late season game at Beaver can tell you why, and Syracuse has it much worse. Schoellkopf is a better proxy, but I don't think that many people on this board have done that.

This thread title keeps making me think they're building a Carrier Dome in Reno. Like a Carrier Dome West kind of thing.

(10-31-2015 03:42 PM)justinslot Wrote:  This thread title keeps making me think they're building a Carrier Dome in Reno. Like a Carrier Dome West kind of thing.

Syracuse is expanding. Soon Reno will be part of Syracuse.

http://www.nunesmagician.com/2011/1/13/1...f-syracuse

(10-31-2015 08:47 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 10:16 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  should definitely consider open air stadium. imo much more appealing for football

1. who is going to shovel all that snow

2. have you ever played open air basketball when it is snowing

3. the facility was really a basketball facility that has some football in it if they build a new football stajium they still need to do something to modernize the carrier dome and that is still going to cost a ton or they need a new basketball arena/city arena and for a school that draws 20K fans for basketball that will cost a ton especially added in with a new football stajium

im guessing you're trying to be funny with the BB in the snow comment.
im quite certain there is or are engineers somewhere that can create a facility that can accomadate open air fb and bb inside

Retractable roofs are tremendously expensive. Not even all the NFL teams want to afford them, so I think there's a reason no colleges have them. Don't count on 'Cuse being the first. A Lucas Oil Stadium style of roof would be just fine (and the glass there is intended to mimic Butler's Hinkle Fieldhouse, so that would be good for basketball). The Carrier Dome is definitely a football-first facility, but at this point 'Cuse is a basketball-first program.

The old basketball arena, Manley Field House, sat less than 10K and has now been converted to an indoor football practice facility. There's also an AHL arena in Syracuse, but that seats less than 7K and doesn't need to be bigger.

I can see why they need football and basketball to continue to coexist in the Carrier Dome.

(11-01-2015 08:34 AM)CenterSquarEd Wrote:  Retractable roofs are tremendously expensive. Not even all the NFL teams want to afford them, so I think there's a reason no colleges have them. Don't count on 'Cuse being the first.

FWIW retractable roofs are not that expensive when putting on a new building. If you are building a dome already, making it a retractable roof vs. a fixed roof, "only" adds $20-$30 millions to the cost - note the cost difference between open air and a dome is much more, but the final difference between dome and retractable dome is not much. However if you try to retrofit an existing dome into a retractable one, then it will cost in excess of $100 million, maybe $200 million. So if renovating the Carrier Dome, that is simply not cost effective. If they were building a new dome, it might be doable.

Adcorbett is spot on...we should know more in a few weeks. There is no slam dunk...as a reno still can't solve the lack of parking and getting fans from Armory Square/Destiny on game day. However, the campus is the best location for the students and alumni IMHO. Nothing better than the quad on game Day.

(10-29-2015 12:04 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I wonder if you could split the difference and have the state help you build a basketball only arena in downtown Syracuse and you build an open air facility on the site of the Carrier Dome. Would people go for that?

That would be pretty sweet, IMO. Central New York is absolutely stunning in autumn. I'm not sure that there's another part of the entire United States that is as beautiful as the Finger Lakes in the fall?

I have always thought it was such a shame that they played indoors instead of outside for that reason.

State money for a stadium?

The Buffalo Bills were already told by the state that there was very little money for such things. I would tend to doubt it. If an NFL franchise can't get $$ for a stadium, I'd question whether a private school could get such public money.

(11-02-2015 05:52 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(10-29-2015 12:04 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I wonder if you could split the difference and have the state help you build a basketball only arena in downtown Syracuse and you build an open air facility on the site of the Carrier Dome. Would people go for that?

That would be pretty sweet, IMO. Central New York is absolutely stunning in autumn. I'm not sure that there's another part of the entire United States that is as beautiful as the Finger Lakes in the fall?

I have always thought it was such a shame that they played indoors instead of outside for that reason.

State money for a stadium?

The Buffalo Bills were already told by the state that there was very little money for such things. I would tend to doubt it. If an NFL franchise can't get $$ for a stadium, I'd question whether a private school could get such public money.

Be prepared to be surprised...didn't Buffalo already receive $1B in state pork? My guess is $200M or so will be coming. The Dome is used for community events too and is a job producer.

A good source stated Cuse will play home games on the road next Fall. Metlife, Yankee Stadium, Bills Stadium and Cornell the likely spots. Coach Shafer will be retained...since it would be unfair for a new coach to get this mess.

(10-31-2015 03:42 PM)justinslot Wrote:  This thread title keeps making me think they're building a Carrier Dome in Reno. Like a Carrier Dome West kind of thing.

I keep thinking their roof is leaking.

After all, there was one time a game got rained out in the Houston Astrodome. They had some definite leaks in the early 70s.

(11-04-2015 09:38 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  A good source stated Cuse will play home games on the road next Fall. Metlife, Yankee Stadium, Bills Stadium and Cornell the likely spots. Coach Shafer will be retained...since it would be unfair for a new coach to get this mess.

I think the team should just stick to the two pro stadiums besides FCS. Mid level at Ralph Wilson. High level at MetLife.

Colgate @Cornell
South Florida @Ralph Wilson
Louisville @Ralph Wilson
NC State @Ralph Wilson
Notre Dame @MetLife
Florida State @MetLife
Virginia Tech @MetLife

(10-31-2015 02:23 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(10-31-2015 08:47 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 10:16 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  should definitely consider open air stadium. imo much more appealing for football

1. who is going to shovel all that snow

2. have you ever played open air basketball when it is snowing

3. the facility was really a basketball facility that has some football in it if they build a new football stajium they still need to do something to modernize the carrier dome and that is still going to cost a ton or they need a new basketball arena/city arena and for a school that draws 20K fans for basketball that will cost a ton especially added in with a new football stajium

RE #3: I'm guessing that you've never been to the stadium and no absolutely nothing about Syracuse. In no way, shape, or form is the Dome primarily a basketball facility. And that is READILY apparent to ANYONE who has actually seen the facility in real life and/or read about it's history/the politics of how it came about.

The Dome is for basketball is a myth that was/is generally propagated by fans of other schools who started watching college football in a meaningful way sometime after 2001.

That said, an outdoor stadium would be terrible. Anyone who has sat through a late season game at Beaver can tell you why, and Syracuse has it much worse. Schoellkopf is a better proxy, but I don't think that many people on this board have done that.

my parents lived just outside of Syracuse for a number of years

even if the Carrier Dome was not built primarily for basketball (as you claim and that is something I actually did not claim I claimed it was primarily a basketball facility not what it was actually built for) that dies not change the simple FACT that it IS the primary basketball facility for Syracuse and if it is old, tired and in need of renovation that means it is old and tired and in need of renovation primarily for basketball which would have about 3X the number of football games contested there each year Vs football

the Carrier Dome is the basketball facility for Syracuse they averaged 23K fans in 2014 for 18 games so they played 3X more basketball games there Vs football

if they build an outdoor football stajium they are still stuck with the fact that the Carrier Dome is old and tired and in need of renovation and now they will have 6 fewer events there a year (1/4 of the combined football and basketball games they have there now) to pay off those renovations and they will have a football stajium to pay for with only about 6 games a year there to cover that

and if they want to build a new 23K or 24K arena for basketball only that is still going to be very expensive to do especially combined with an outdoor football facility

so it is not about what the (claims) are that the facility was built for it is about the REALITY of what the facility is actually used for and when Syracuse has basketball games that draw 30K and even 35K and when they have 3X more basketball games there per year Vs football that means the building is primarily used for BASKETBALL and again if it is old, tired and worn and in need of renovation that does not mean you can move 6 football games a year to a new outdoor stajium and suddenly the Carrier Dome is perfectly fine for basketball

that just means you now have a new football stajium to pay for and a basketball facility that needs renovation and or replacement

(11-05-2015 11:39 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(10-31-2015 02:23 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(10-31-2015 08:47 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 10:16 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  should definitely consider open air stadium. imo much more appealing for football

1. who is going to shovel all that snow

2. have you ever played open air basketball when it is snowing

3. the facility was really a basketball facility that has some football in it if they build a new football stajium they still need to do something to modernize the carrier dome and that is still going to cost a ton or they need a new basketball arena/city arena and for a school that draws 20K fans for basketball that will cost a ton especially added in with a new football stajium

RE #3: I'm guessing that you've never been to the stadium and no absolutely nothing about Syracuse. In no way, shape, or form is the Dome primarily a basketball facility. And that is READILY apparent to ANYONE who has actually seen the facility in real life and/or read about it's history/the politics of how it came about.

The Dome is for basketball is a myth that was/is generally propagated by fans of other schools who started watching college football in a meaningful way sometime after 2001.

That said, an outdoor stadium would be terrible. Anyone who has sat through a late season game at Beaver can tell you why, and Syracuse has it much worse. Schoellkopf is a better proxy, but I don't think that many people on this board have done that.

my parents lived just outside of Syracuse for a number of years

even if the Carrier Dome was not built primarily for basketball (as you claim and that is something I actually did not claim I claimed it was primarily a basketball facility not what it was actually built for) that dies not change the simple FACT that it IS the primary basketball facility for Syracuse and if it is old, tired and in need of renovation that means it is old and tired and in need of renovation primarily for basketball which would have about 3X the number of football games contested there each year Vs football

the Carrier Dome is the basketball facility for Syracuse they averaged 23K fans in 2014 for 18 games so they played 3X more basketball games there Vs football

if they build an outdoor football stajium they are still stuck with the fact that the Carrier Dome is old and tired and in need of renovation and now they will have 6 fewer events there a year (1/4 of the combined football and basketball games they have there now) to pay off those renovations and they will have a football stajium to pay for with only about 6 games a year there to cover that

and if they want to build a new 23K or 24K arena for basketball only that is still going to be very expensive to do especially combined with an outdoor football facility

so it is not about what the (claims) are that the facility was built for it is about the REALITY of what the facility is actually used for and when Syracuse has basketball games that draw 30K and even 35K and when they have 3X more basketball games there per year Vs football that means the building is primarily used for BASKETBALL and again if it is old, tired and worn and in need of renovation that does not mean you can move 6 football games a year to a new outdoor stajium and suddenly the Carrier Dome is perfectly fine for basketball

that just means you now have a new football stajium to pay for and a basketball facility that needs renovation and or replacement

1. "my parents lived just outside of Syracuse for a number of years"
-Then you should visit your mother more often. You might learn something.

2. "even if the Carrier Dome was not built primarily for basketball (as you claim and that is something I actually did not claim I claimed it was primarily a basketball facility not what it was actually built for)"
-Terrible grammar aside, what are you talking about?
*You said: "the facility was really a basketball facility that has some football in it..."
*I said: "In no way, shape, or form is the Dome primarily a basketball facility."
**How are those two statements materially different?

3. "that dies not change the simple FACT that it IS the primary basketball facility for Syracuse"
-I agree. That fact just isn't relevant. The sky is also blue - unless it's either nighttime or a cloudy day. So what?

4. "that means it is old and tired and in need of renovation primarily for basketball"
-No, it doesn't.

5. "3X more basketball games there Vs football"
-Great. You have established that the basketball season is longer than the football season. Your point is still wrong, and laughably so. The Dome is/was/will always be a football stadium first. That's a fact that's obvious to anyone who has ever seen it. It's not a basketball facility with some football in it, no matter how hard you try to embarrass yourself. The University of Alabama plays way more basketball games than football games. Does that make it a basketball school that plays some football? How about Penn State? They play way more basketball games than they do football. How about Clemson? Do they play *just some* football? And before you make the attendance argument, Schoellkopf Field hosts Cornell's graduation, which means it sees more people that day than it does in a decade from football. Does that make it a graduation field where football is played? It also probably hosts more lax games a year with better average attendance than football. Does that make it a lax field? If so, you need to update the Wikipedia article ... and probably the school website ... and probably the Ivy League website.

6. "and if they want to build a new 23K or 24K arena for basketball only that is still going to be very expensive to do especially combined with an outdoor football facility"
-Great. That statement is not wrong. It's just not relevant to anything that I wrote - at least it doesn't disagree with anything that I wrote.

7. "so it is not about what the (claims) are that the facility was built for"
-I love how you included the word claims in parenthesis to create the illusion of doubt. The HALL OF FAME BASKETBALL COACH SAID THAT IT WAS FOR FOOTBALL. The only person with any doubt in their mind is you, and you have very clearly never seen it. Honestly, the stadium is designed in a way to move noise to mid field (i.e. away from the basketball court, but where the football game would be played). In other words, that fact that it was specifically designed with football in mind (at the expense of basketball) even impacted minute engineering decisions. The same goes for seating (which is why it's readily apparent that it is a football-first facility to anyone who has actually seen it). There isn't a bad seat in the house for football, but go to a big basketball game and try to get a good seat.

8. "that does not mean you can move 6 football games a year to a new outdoor stajium and suddenly the Carrier Dome is perfectly fine for basketball"
-I said: "That said, an outdoor stadium would be terrible. Anyone who has sat through a late season game at Beaver can tell you why, and Syracuse has it much worse. Schoellkopf is a better proxy, but I don't think that many people on this board have done that."
-Did you just not feel like reading what I wrote, or are you bent on making a half-baked straw-man argument?

9. "that just means you now have a new football stajium to pay for and a basketball facility that needs renovation and or replacement"
-Yeah, but if we built a massive sky scraper and put the football stadium on the 25th floor, we would have to either take an elevator, a bunch of stairs/escalators to get to the field. That statement, like your statement, isn't relevant. See, I can say random irrelevant things, too.

10. You keep saying "old, tired and worn"
-To put things in context, the biggest complaints about the Dome are 1. bench seating, 2. parking, 3. no A/C (but that's more of a summer/early season issue - about 2 early games aside, the lack of A/C is a limit on big summer music/event venues for the city of Syracuse, not so much the school), 4. a lack of luxury boxes, and 5. narrow concourses. The Dome is NOT the Vet. Sure, the dated exterior usually comes in at #6, but the adjectives that you're using to describe the Dome are out of touch with it's actual issues. That disconnect is another obvious clue that you have zero idea what you're talking about. The Dome's problem is that it was built under a different paradigm. Compared to today, there was a relatively greater emphasis on quantity, rather than quality.

I'll jump in as someone who actually witnessed the building of the Dome.

The Dome was built on the exact footprint as old Archbold Stadium. It was built as a Football Facility first. Basketball was added to help the economics of a Dome stadium. Coach Boeheim actually wasn't too keen on moving games to the Carrier Dome...he enjoyed the home-court advantage of Manley Field House. He was used to thinking 9500 fans crammed into Manley was about all Syracuse could support. He thought getting 10-15k at the Dome wouldn't yield much advantage. Expect he was wrong...as the attendance exploded with the Big East's popularity. Average attendance maxed at close 30k for games around 1990. Lately it has dropped to 23-26k...but for big games it can draw 30-35k.

The Dome was built first and foremost as a Football facility...basketball/lacrosse/Monster Jam/concerts/commencements/HS sports/etc...help keep it solvent.

(11-06-2015 06:50 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 11:39 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(10-31-2015 02:23 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(10-31-2015 08:47 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 10:16 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  should definitely consider open air stadium. imo much more appealing for football

1. who is going to shovel all that snow

2. have you ever played open air basketball when it is snowing

3. the facility was really a basketball facility that has some football in it if they build a new football stajium they still need to do something to modernize the carrier dome and that is still going to cost a ton or they need a new basketball arena/city arena and for a school that draws 20K fans for basketball that will cost a ton especially added in with a new football stajium

RE #3: I'm guessing that you've never been to the stadium and no absolutely nothing about Syracuse. In no way, shape, or form is the Dome primarily a basketball facility. And that is READILY apparent to ANYONE who has actually seen the facility in real life and/or read about it's history/the politics of how it came about.

The Dome is for basketball is a myth that was/is generally propagated by fans of other schools who started watching college football in a meaningful way sometime after 2001.

That said, an outdoor stadium would be terrible. Anyone who has sat through a late season game at Beaver can tell you why, and Syracuse has it much worse. Schoellkopf is a better proxy, but I don't think that many people on this board have done that.

my parents lived just outside of Syracuse for a number of years

even if the Carrier Dome was not built primarily for basketball (as you claim and that is something I actually did not claim I claimed it was primarily a basketball facility not what it was actually built for) that dies not change the simple FACT that it IS the primary basketball facility for Syracuse and if it is old, tired and in need of renovation that means it is old and tired and in need of renovation primarily for basketball which would have about 3X the number of football games contested there each year Vs football

the Carrier Dome is the basketball facility for Syracuse they averaged 23K fans in 2014 for 18 games so they played 3X more basketball games there Vs football

if they build an outdoor football stajium they are still stuck with the fact that the Carrier Dome is old and tired and in need of renovation and now they will have 6 fewer events there a year (1/4 of the combined football and basketball games they have there now) to pay off those renovations and they will have a football stajium to pay for with only about 6 games a year there to cover that

and if they want to build a new 23K or 24K arena for basketball only that is still going to be very expensive to do especially combined with an outdoor football facility

so it is not about what the (claims) are that the facility was built for it is about the REALITY of what the facility is actually used for and when Syracuse has basketball games that draw 30K and even 35K and when they have 3X more basketball games there per year Vs football that means the building is primarily used for BASKETBALL and again if it is old, tired and worn and in need of renovation that does not mean you can move 6 football games a year to a new outdoor stajium and suddenly the Carrier Dome is perfectly fine for basketball

that just means you now have a new football stajium to pay for and a basketball facility that needs renovation and or replacement

1. "my parents lived just outside of Syracuse for a number of years"
-Then you should visit your mother more often. You might learn something.

2. "even if the Carrier Dome was not built primarily for basketball (as you claim and that is something I actually did not claim I claimed it was primarily a basketball facility not what it was actually built for)"
-Terrible grammar aside, what are you talking about?
*You said: "the facility was really a basketball facility that has some football in it..."
*I said: "In no way, shape, or form is the Dome primarily a basketball facility."
**How are those two statements materially different?

3. "that dies not change the simple FACT that it IS the primary basketball facility for Syracuse"
-I agree. That fact just isn't relevant. The sky is also blue - unless it's either nighttime or a cloudy day. So what?

4. "that means it is old and tired and in need of renovation primarily for basketball"
-No, it doesn't.

5. "3X more basketball games there Vs football"
-Great. You have established that the basketball season is longer than the football season. Your point is still wrong, and laughably so. The Dome is/was/will always be a football stadium first. That's a fact that's obvious to anyone who has ever seen it. It's not a basketball facility with some football in it, no matter how hard you try to embarrass yourself. The University of Alabama plays way more basketball games than football games. Does that make it a basketball school that plays some football? How about Penn State? They play way more basketball games than they do football. How about Clemson? Do they play *just some* football? And before you make the attendance argument, Schoellkopf Field hosts Cornell's graduation, which means it sees more people that day than it does in a decade from football. Does that make it a graduation field where football is played? It also probably hosts more lax games a year with better average attendance than football. Does that make it a lax field? If so, you need to update the Wikipedia article ... and probably the school website ... and probably the Ivy League website.

6. "and if they want to build a new 23K or 24K arena for basketball only that is still going to be very expensive to do especially combined with an outdoor football facility"
-Great. That statement is not wrong. It's just not relevant to anything that I wrote - at least it doesn't disagree with anything that I wrote.

7. "so it is not about what the (claims) are that the facility was built for"
-I love how you included the word claims in parenthesis to create the illusion of doubt. The HALL OF FAME BASKETBALL COACH SAID THAT IT WAS FOR FOOTBALL. The only person with any doubt in their mind is you, and you have very clearly never seen it. Honestly, the stadium is designed in a way to move noise to mid field (i.e. away from the basketball court, but where the football game would be played). In other words, that fact that it was specifically designed with football in mind (at the expense of basketball) even impacted minute engineering decisions. The same goes for seating (which is why it's readily apparent that it is a football-first facility to anyone who has actually seen it). There isn't a bad seat in the house for football, but go to a big basketball game and try to get a good seat.

8. "that does not mean you can move 6 football games a year to a new outdoor stajium and suddenly the Carrier Dome is perfectly fine for basketball"
-I said: "That said, an outdoor stadium would be terrible. Anyone who has sat through a late season game at Beaver can tell you why, and Syracuse has it much worse. Schoellkopf is a better proxy, but I don't think that many people on this board have done that."
-Did you just not feel like reading what I wrote, or are you bent on making a half-baked straw-man argument?

9. "that just means you now have a new football stajium to pay for and a basketball facility that needs renovation and or replacement"
-Yeah, but if we built a massive sky scraper and put the football stadium on the 25th floor, we would have to either take an elevator, a bunch of stairs/escalators to get to the field. That statement, like your statement, isn't relevant. See, I can say random irrelevant things, too.

10. You keep saying "old, tired and worn"
-To put things in context, the biggest complaints about the Dome are 1. bench seating, 2. parking, 3. no A/C (but that's more of a summer/early season issue - about 2 early games aside, the lack of A/C is a limit on big summer music/event venues for the city of Syracuse, not so much the school), 4. a lack of luxury boxes, and 5. narrow concourses. The Dome is NOT the Vet. Sure, the dated exterior usually comes in at #6, but the adjectives that you're using to describe the Dome are out of touch with it's actual issues. That disconnect is another obvious clue that you have zero idea what you're talking about. The Dome's problem is that it was built under a different paradigm. Compared to today, there was a relatively greater emphasis on quantity, rather than quality.

so you are trying to claim that bench seating and no luxury boxes would be OK for basketball?

if the facility has issues for football than it has issues for basketball......luxury boxes are big business for basketball as much or more than football especially when you have 3X the number of games in the facility

people are generally not used to sitting on bench seating of any type for basketball

all of your nonsense aside the facility is primarily used for basketball which makes it a basketball facility no matter what the stated purpose of building it was

how is it possible to claim that it does not need renovation as a basketball facility.....are you trying to claim that if Syracuse had another football facility they could leave the Carrier Dome as it is and continue to have basketball there.......because that is the real issue with building another football stajium of any type.....that still leaves Syracuse with a crappy basketball facility that needs a lot of renovation......unless we try and listen to your "expert" opinion that #4 the facility does not need to be renovated because of basketball games and #10 that the facility needs upgrades for anything other than basketball because no luxury boxes and bench seating is apparently OK with you for 3X more basketball games, but not for football

if the Carrier Dome was perfect for football it would still have a ton of issues related to things besides football like no luxury boxes and bench seats and the fact that the roof is worn out

it is a 35 year old facility at some point and time you have to do a major renovation no matter what it is used for unless it is used for storage.....and if you were to move football out of it that would not stop any of the complaints about the facility for basketball and nothing will change that fact other than major renovations

(11-04-2015 09:38 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  A good source stated Cuse will play home games on the road next Fall. Metlife, Yankee Stadium, Bills Stadium and Cornell the likely spots. Coach Shafer will be retained...since it would be unfair for a new coach to get this mess.

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

(11-02-2015 06:33 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(11-02-2015 05:52 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(10-29-2015 12:04 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I wonder if you could split the difference and have the state help you build a basketball only arena in downtown Syracuse and you build an open air facility on the site of the Carrier Dome. Would people go for that?

That would be pretty sweet, IMO. Central New York is absolutely stunning in autumn. I'm not sure that there's another part of the entire United States that is as beautiful as the Finger Lakes in the fall?

I have always thought it was such a shame that they played indoors instead of outside for that reason.

State money for a stadium?

The Buffalo Bills were already told by the state that there was very little money for such things. I would tend to doubt it. If an NFL franchise can't get $$ for a stadium, I'd question whether a private school could get such public money.

Be prepared to be surprised...didn't Buffalo already receive $1B in state pork? My guess is $200M or so will be coming. The Dome is used for community events too and is a job producer.

1. The $1 billion was tax incentives for private investment, not money. Supposed to come through public-private partnerships and Niagara Power Project power grants.

2. As a result of the $1 billion initiative, they received $14 million so far in the first 4 years in tax credits. They'll be lucky to see $50m over the long run.

3. Syracuse has the same deal and has already benefited in the same way. Soraa. http://www.buffalonews.com/business/sora...b-20151029

4. Any right thinking person that thinks state tax money to be used on a stadium (excluding the NFL where at least you get player taxes back) is going to be revenue positive is sorely mistaken. All the studies say the exact opposite. And even with the NFL you see huge problems in places like Indianapolis and Minnesota. In college, the have the Yum Center debacle. People may be going to jail over that one.