(11-06-2015 10:26 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote: (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: 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
1) "so you are trying to claim that bench seating and no luxury boxes would be OK for basketball?"
-Once again, what are you talking about? PLEASE cite anything I said as touching on that point in any way, shape, or form. Seriously, cite anything.
2) "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"
-Great. See point #1. Do you want a sticker?
3) "people are generally not used to sitting on bench seating of any type for basketball"
-People are also generally not used to walking on their hands. What's your point? (see point #1)
4) "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"
-This is a stupid point for a whole host of reasons. The Dome is (and has) been used for a number of things. Basketball isn't even the most common. By your own illogical definition, you aren't even right. And, your definition is illogical unless you are willing to call Penn State "a basketball school that plays some football."
5) "how is it possible to claim that it does not need renovation as a basketball facility"
-Ask someone who said something related to that point, not me. Once again, see point #1.
6) "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"
-No, I haven't said anything on the issue. But, at this point, I'm beginning to claim that you don't speak English very well and/or you haven't been reading what I've been writing.
7) "because that is the real issue with building another football stajium of any type"
-Stadium has a "d" in it. Since I think that you have yet to get that word right, I'm beginning to think that you aren't making typos. That aside, there are a number of issues with building a stadium. Calling one "the" issue once again exposes the fact that you have no idea what you're talking about. Bigger issues are how the stadium plays out politically, who pays for it, where it's built, and what the tax implications are. Not that I said anything to the point, but parking basketball somewhere - either in the Dome 2.0 or somewhere else - is not the top issue when you're starring down the barrel of a half a billion dollar investment that could potentially radically reshape the city of Syracuse and is based on a broad coalition of state, county, city, and an array of private sector political forces. It matters, but the fact that the football team is moving complicates the matter way more than the basketball team moving.
8) "unless we try and listen to your "expert" opinion that #4 the facility does not need to be renovated because of basketball games"
-To clarify, I said: "No, it doesn't." when you said that "the Dome primarily needs renovation because of basketball." You are wrong, and it's obvious why you're wrong to anyone with even a passing knowledge about SU. One of the biggest (if not *the* biggest) complaints about the Dome is the bleacher seating. Many fans claim that it's uncomfortable and that it packs fans too close together. However, given the school's revenue model for basketball and the court location (that's a result of the Dome being designed as a football-first facility), the renovations being mentioned would dramatically and adversely affect basketball. It would spread people would, which would cap ticket sales far below what they are now (because visibility is severely limited) and it would dilute noise, which would by compounded by the affect of fewer fans. To clarify, given it's size, the Dome is really, really loud for football (hence it's name, "the Loud House," which is further evidence that it's football-first), but it's really quiet for basketball. The renovations that will likely happen are not ones that would happen if it was basketball-first or primarily basketball. The exact opposite is the case. You are wrong.
9) "#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"
-To clarify, I said: "You keep saying 'old, tired and worn' ... but the adjectives that you're using to describe the Dome are out of touch with it's actual issues. 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 I once again ask, WTF are you talking about? A) When did I say that SU shouldn't renovate/rebuild? and B) when did I say luxury boxes weren't OK for basketball. Admittedly, I did say bench seating was necessary for basketball (because it is due to unique circumstances of which you are clearly not aware), but I didn't say that until this message.
10) "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"
-Great. See point #1 (again).
11) "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"
-The same would be true if we moved lacrosse out of the Dome, but that, like your point, isn't relevant. See point #1.
/
Carrier Dome Renovation Plans Leaked
