CaneinBroward
Recruit
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2016
- Messages
- 6,963
Sorry, I butt-replied. lolNo where did I say what it was “built” for. This argument is almost as asinine as saying the Rose Bowl wasn’t built for UCLA or The Coliseum wasn’t built for SC. Who in their right mind would say the Rose Bowl not being UCLA’s stadium, despite them only being there since 1982 & the Rose Bowl was built in 1902? Miami has been playing at the OB since it was first opened up in 1937, b4 it was even known as The OB!!
So now we’re saying the LA Coliseum isn’t USC’s stadium, although they’ve been playing there since 1923 when it was opened up?
Ya’ll be on some bull chit some times, on God.
My point is whether the landlord is the city of Miami, Ross, Diaz, or Mr. Furley, the Canes will always be a tenant - no more, no less. Therefore, unless they buy their way into controlling the day-to-day management of the stadium (like USC did with the Coliseum), they will continue to be at the whim of whoever the owner is.
If Mario can get the players and coaching up to the levels of 1983-2007, there will be a home field advantage at HRS and we actually have proof of that for a fleeting couple of weeks in 2017, but it can't be denied. Would it be nicer to be closer to campus? Absolutely, but you want to base a move mostly so the Canes can be the "primary" tenant? Who gives a chit?
If Diaz builds an erector set du jour like at UCF, FIU, or FAU, you'd rather play there than at HRS because the Canes are primary tenant? If the school makes less money on game days than at HRS, you'd take that sacrifice as well? Look, the OB ain't coming back. I wish it could, but it's not happening. Again, most fans want the stadium closer to campus, but do it right.