Ultimately, the Big East conference's future will be decided on the demonstrated success of our programs. That being the case, I'm not worried about not having Syracuse's contribution to our win column. I'm perfectly fine with the ACC betting on that horse.

(06-04-2012 08:44 AM)k5james Wrote:  

(06-04-2012 08:08 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-04-2012 08:03 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(06-04-2012 08:02 AM)TripleA Wrote:  "Cuse isn't a "brand name" in FB.

I think they had some brand power....I didn't say they were Ohio State/Florida/USC.

In FOOTBALL? For what? They have a great "brand name" in BB. But that doesn't bleed over to another sport.

That's like saying Rice is a brand name in basketball, b/c they have a good baseball program.

No they have a brand name for football. They were a football powerhouse.

If Syracuse football was a "powerhouse" and had a strong "brand name", they would have certainly been chosen to be on ESPN more than 2 times over the past 3 regular seasons.

Even TV Networks realize Syracuse has little "brand" left in football, if any.

PS. maybe by moving to an easier conf (ACC), maybe they can get it back...no one knows though.

(06-04-2012 09:57 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-04-2012 08:44 AM)k5james Wrote:  

(06-04-2012 08:08 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-04-2012 08:03 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(06-04-2012 08:02 AM)TripleA Wrote:  "Cuse isn't a "brand name" in FB.

I think they had some brand power....I didn't say they were Ohio State/Florida/USC.

In FOOTBALL? For what? They have a great "brand name" in BB. But that doesn't bleed over to another sport.

That's like saying Rice is a brand name in basketball, b/c they have a good baseball program.

No they have a brand name for football. They were a football powerhouse. It's just every passing day, more people go into the ground who remember when they were, so their brand isn't what it used to be.

When, and for how long, and how many people still remember it? And were they ever really a "powerhouse?" I'm not trying to dump on 'Cuse. I really don't know, or care. I just think it's odd to say 'Cuse is a brand name in FB right NOW.

If you use the argument that they were a "powerhouse" for a season or two, 50 years ago, then you could use the same argument for Memphis, who has beaten every current SEC team in FB except LSU (whom we have never played), and once went undefeated in the 1960s, and were nationally ranked.

But "brands" come and go, just as companies do. And they are created by consistent achievement over a long period of time, not a short period many years ago. JMO. Not sure it really matters, anyway. Just found that statement to be odd.

That's just it, you obviously don't know, so you should probably just stop commenting on their brand. Any college football fan with any grasp of the history of CFB knows where Syracuse football stands. To even compare Memphis football to Syracuse is laughable.

(06-04-2012 10:11 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(06-04-2012 08:44 AM)k5james Wrote:  

(06-04-2012 08:08 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-04-2012 08:03 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(06-04-2012 08:02 AM)TripleA Wrote:  "Cuse isn't a "brand name" in FB.

I think they had some brand power....I didn't say they were Ohio State/Florida/USC.

In FOOTBALL? For what? They have a great "brand name" in BB. But that doesn't bleed over to another sport.

That's like saying Rice is a brand name in basketball, b/c they have a good baseball program.

No they have a brand name for football. They were a football powerhouse.

If Syracuse football was a "powerhouse" and had a strong "brand name", they would have certainly been chosen to be on ESPN more than 2 times over the past 3 regular seasons.

Even TV Networks realize Syracuse has little "brand" left in football, if any.

PS. maybe by moving to an easier conf (ACC), maybe they can get it back...no one knows though.

They've been awful for a while now. I don't think anybody's arguing that. Awful teams don't get put on TV.

(06-04-2012 11:56 AM)k5james Wrote:  

(06-04-2012 09:57 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-04-2012 08:44 AM)k5james Wrote:  

(06-04-2012 08:08 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-04-2012 08:03 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  I think they had some brand power....I didn't say they were Ohio State/Florida/USC.

In FOOTBALL? For what? They have a great "brand name" in BB. But that doesn't bleed over to another sport.

That's like saying Rice is a brand name in basketball, b/c they have a good baseball program.

No they have a brand name for football. They were a football powerhouse. It's just every passing day, more people go into the ground who remember when they were, so their brand isn't what it used to be.

When, and for how long, and how many people still remember it? And were they ever really a "powerhouse?" I'm not trying to dump on 'Cuse. I really don't know, or care. I just think it's odd to say 'Cuse is a brand name in FB right NOW.

If you use the argument that they were a "powerhouse" for a season or two, 50 years ago, then you could use the same argument for Memphis, who has beaten every current SEC team in FB except LSU (whom we have never played), and once went undefeated in the 1960s, and were nationally ranked.

But "brands" come and go, just as companies do. And they are created by consistent achievement over a long period of time, not a short period many years ago. JMO. Not sure it really matters, anyway. Just found that statement to be odd.

That's just it, you obviously don't know, so you should probably just stop commenting on their brand. Any college football fan with any grasp of the history of CFB knows where Syracuse football stands.

Yet Syracuse's own TV Network, ESPN, basically put Syracuse football "on ignore" in recent years.

Heck, the definition of college football fan is too numerous to mention, as its safe to say most college football fans today never saw players like Jim Brown or Ernie Davis play for Syracuse.

Programs like Va Tech or especially Boise State (3 straight years ranked in Top 10) are much more known on the gridiron than say a team/program like Syracuse.

Many teams have proud/great history...but for many, its just that, history, as the here and now are much more important, especially to TV Networks vs what teams did 20, 30, 40, or 50 plus years ago.

(06-04-2012 12:02 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  Programs like Va Tech or especially Boise State (3 straight years ranked in Top 10) are much more known on the gridiron than say a team/program like Syracuse.

Many teams have proud/great history...but for many, its just that, history, as the here and now are much more important, especially to TV Networks vs what teams did 20, 30, 40, or 50 plus years ago.

There are only but so many teams who have been in the Top 10 lately. And Syracuse is not among them.

But Donovan McNabb was leading Syracuse to the Orange Bowl less than 15 years ago. And they won 10 games a couple of years after he graduated before the bottom fell out.

What matters isn't how good you are now--it's how recently you've been good enough to be in the spotlight. Which is why Syracuse--back to back Big East titles, four straight top-25 ranked seasons 15 years ago--is a bigger football brand than UCF, which has never had a run like that. You also have to be in that spotlight for more than one season, which is why Houston's relevance comes as much from their SWC titles as it does from their 2011 season. (That would have changed if they had actually gone undefeated. Since they didn't, it's more like Hawaii 2008 or Utah 2004 than Boise State 2007.)

To those who think Cuse was "no big loss"....if that was the case why did the ACC pick them and not say RU, UCONN, USF, UC, etc. Look just call a spade a spade....Cuse was a HUGE loss. They were the heart and soul of BE Hoops and the football program, although no power, has brand recognition. It's a loss. To argue otherwise is not being intelectually honest or ignorance.

(06-04-2012 09:57 AM)TripleA Wrote:  When, and for how long, and how many people still remember it? And were they ever really a "powerhouse?" I'm not trying to dump on 'Cuse. I really don't know, or care. I just think it's odd to say 'Cuse is a brand name in FB right NOW.

Syracuse was most definitely a football powerhouse. Are they today? No. But to say they weren't is completely rivisionist history.

(06-04-2012 12:37 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-04-2012 09:57 AM)TripleA Wrote:  When, and for how long, and how many people still remember it? And were they ever really a "powerhouse?" I'm not trying to dump on 'Cuse. I really don't know, or care. I just think it's odd to say 'Cuse is a brand name in FB right NOW.

Syracuse was most definitely a football powerhouse. Are they today? No. But to say they weren't is completely rivisionist history.

I wouldn't say that Syracuse was a powerhouse, but I may have different standards for "powerhouse" than you do.

(06-04-2012 11:56 AM)k5james Wrote:  

(06-04-2012 09:57 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-04-2012 08:44 AM)k5james Wrote:  

(06-04-2012 08:08 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-04-2012 08:03 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  I think they had some brand power....I didn't say they were Ohio State/Florida/USC.

In FOOTBALL? For what? They have a great "brand name" in BB. But that doesn't bleed over to another sport.

That's like saying Rice is a brand name in basketball, b/c they have a good baseball program.

No they have a brand name for football. They were a football powerhouse. It's just every passing day, more people go into the ground who remember when they were, so their brand isn't what it used to be.

When, and for how long, and how many people still remember it? And were they ever really a "powerhouse?" I'm not trying to dump on 'Cuse. I really don't know, or care. I just think it's odd to say 'Cuse is a brand name in FB right NOW.

If you use the argument that they were a "powerhouse" for a season or two, 50 years ago, then you could use the same argument for Memphis, who has beaten every current SEC team in FB except LSU (whom we have never played), and once went undefeated in the 1960s, and were nationally ranked.

But "brands" come and go, just as companies do. And they are created by consistent achievement over a long period of time, not a short period many years ago. JMO. Not sure it really matters, anyway. Just found that statement to be odd.

That's just it, you obviously don't know, so you should probably just stop commenting on their brand. Any college football fan with any grasp of the history of CFB knows where Syracuse football stands. To even compare Memphis football to Syracuse is laughable.

I wasn't comparing Memphis to Syracuse. What I said was, if you go far enough back, you can make a case for lots of teams being a "brand" at one time, that would seem laughable now. My contention is that 'Cuse has not been relevant long enough recently, that you could consider them a brand name in football NOW.

San Francisco was a national brand name in basketball at one time. An absolute powerhouse. So was Army in football. Would you consider them to be brand name powerhouses now?

The fact that Jim Brown played for Syracuse, or that Donovan McNabb played for them, doesn't make them a brand name "powerhouse" now, b/c they have not been able to sustain excellent play long enough, over enough years, and recently enough, for people to consider Syracuse to be a brand name "powerhouse" in football TODAY. JMO.

Jim Brown, Larry Csonka, Floyd Little, Ernie Davis are among the Greatest Backs in the History of the Game !

(06-04-2012 12:54 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Jim Brown, Larry Csonka, Floyd Little, Ernie Davis are among the Greatest Backs in the History of the Game !

Yes, but IIRC, the last of those guys retired in the 1970s.

The glory of Syracuse football is like the glory of Cincinnati basketball: Ancient history to most fans today.

(06-04-2012 12:54 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Jim Brown, Larry Csonka, Floyd Little, Ernie Davis are among the Greatest Backs in the History of the Game !

Absolutely. And Bill Russell was the greatest defensive center in the history of basketball at San Francisco, and they won two NCs, IIRC. But does that make San Francisco a name brand in basketball today?

Army has had some of the greatest RBs and receivers in college FB history, too. Does that make Army a name brand in FB now?

(06-04-2012 12:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-04-2012 12:54 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Jim Brown, Larry Csonka, Floyd Little, Ernie Davis are among the Greatest Backs in the History of the Game !

Yes, but IIRC, the last of those guys retired in the 1970s.

The glory of Syracuse football is like the glory of Cincinnati basketball: Ancient history to most fans today.

Right. I'm not denying that Syracuse has had some great football history. But so has Army and lots of other teams, who no longer are considered name brands.

Nebraska is a name brand in FB these days, as is OU, UT, Bama, FL, LSU, UGA, Va Tech, etc. Syracuse is NOT a name brand, and certainly not a powerhouse. That's all.

(06-04-2012 01:01 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-04-2012 12:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-04-2012 12:54 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Jim Brown, Larry Csonka, Floyd Little, Ernie Davis are among the Greatest Backs in the History of the Game !

Yes, but IIRC, the last of those guys retired in the 1970s.

The glory of Syracuse football is like the glory of Cincinnati basketball: Ancient history to most fans today.

Right. I'm not denying that Syracuse has had some great football history. But so has Army and lots of other teams, who no longer are considered name brands.

Nebraska is a name brand in FB these days, as is OU, UT, Bama, FL, LSU, UGA, Va Tech, etc. Syracuse is NOT a name brand, and certainly not a powerhouse. That's all.

I think it's sort of like radioactivity--"brand" decays, but it decays slowly. The McNabb years still matter a little bit, but a lot less than they did say five years ago. Cincinatti's Final Four run from 1992 was still relevant when they joined the Big EAst, but really isn't anymore.

Syracuse is a fading brand, but still a brand. If they stay bad, however, the embers of the Syracuse football flame die out before too long. McNabb is out of the league, and it won't be long at all before recruits only know him as an ESPN commentator or whatever.

The last great Syracuse player was Donovan McNabb, who is about to retire from the NFL. And even he didn't get his team into the national championship picture, but did get to the Orange Bowl.

Right. And I don't even count a great player as creating a "brand." To me, a brand name is a school that has sustained success over a long period of time, and recently enough for most people to easily recall it. Syracuse has had moments, and some great players, but not enough to be considered a brand name, much less a powerhouse, especially now.

(06-04-2012 01:18 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Right. And I don't even count a great player as creating a "brand." To me, a brand name is a school that has sustained success over a long period of time, and recently enough for most people to easily recall it. Syracuse has had moments, and some great players, but not enough to be considered a brand name, much less a powerhouse, especially now.

And the same holds true, to me anyway, about Pitt. It has been a long time since Tony Dorsett and Dan Marino made them relevant nationally.

(06-04-2012 01:18 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Right. And I don't even count a great player as creating a "brand." To me, a brand name is a school that has sustained success over a long period of time, and recently enough for most people to easily recall it. Syracuse has had moments, and some great players, but not enough to be considered a brand name, much less a powerhouse, especially now.

Just as I think some people are being too generous with the term "powerhouse", I think you're being too stingy with the term "brand".

I'd say that if School X went to BCS bowls in 1997 and 1998, they're a football brand. And if school Y has gone to 8 crappy bowls in 10 years, they're a football brand too. They're not Oklahoma or Miami or Boise State, but maybe they're Arizona or Arkansas or Purdue or North Carolina football or UCLA or Oregon State.

(06-04-2012 01:32 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-04-2012 01:18 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Right. And I don't even count a great player as creating a "brand." To me, a brand name is a school that has sustained success over a long period of time, and recently enough for most people to easily recall it. Syracuse has had moments, and some great players, but not enough to be considered a brand name, much less a powerhouse, especially now.

Just as I think some people are being too generous with the term "powerhouse", I think you're being too stingy with the term "brand".

I'd say that if School X went to BCS bowls in 1997 and 1998, they're a football brand. And if school Y has gone to 8 crappy bowls in 10 years, they're a football brand too. They're not Oklahoma or Miami or Boise State, but maybe they're Arizona or Arkansas or Purdue or North Carolina football or UCLA or Oregon State.

Maybe some numerical standards would help. Maybe a "powerhouse" finishes in the top 10 for 10 straight years, or does something equivalent like win a couple of national titles. A "brand" is either consistently better-than-average over a 15-20 year period, winning 6-9 games every year, or has a couple of years in a row in the top 25 in the last 20 years.

And there's also a category of one-year-wonders, like Hawaii.