clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Daryl Gross Q&A: Spelling Out the Future of the Carrier Dome

More nuggets of interest from the DOCTOR himself

Jason O. Watson-USA TODAY Sports

In today's live Q&A on, DOCTOR Gross addressed the Carrier Dome a bit. Gross took questions around the beloved "Loud House" as an opportunity to explain the choices at hand for its future. The way he sees it based on Chancellor Syverud's preferences, there are three options:

"1. Sticking with the air supported roof and replacing it. This is the lease expensive and least disruptive option.

2. Install a new roofing system while doing other renovations to the Dome and its superstructure

3. Build or have built an off-site stadium. that would involve a new design, and how the stadium would function."

I was pretty sure we were going with the renovated option for now, though this seems like there's a whole lot more being weighed by an ongoing University study. Syracuse University has also made it clear to the city that they'd like a brand new, 44,000-seat, retractable-roof stadium. That sounds funny amidst state and city budget issues, but SU and the good DOCTOR are rarely ones to just give up on things they want. So this sort-of reopens what will be an ongoing conversation as the Orange figure out their lot in this brave, new ACC world.

We know the Carrier Dome isn't NFL-ready, and that doesn't matter. But at this point, is it "ACC-ready" anymore, at least in terms of football? The answer is "probably not" but which of those options up top helps fix that? None of them cover all bases, but option no. 2 could give us the best result, because let's be real: without a stadium on campus, the Orange have no place to play football in the greater Syracuse area, and that means NO ONE is going to games.

But what do you think? Off-site seems like nonsense (I won't even bother referencing all of the schools that have failed with off-site attendance). But that drum's going to continue to bang just the same until it's dead.