Kadeezy
Active member
It would be nice if they released the revised plans he referred to, we are beyond renderings now, which was a good thing to hear.
-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts, upgrade to remove ads and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your BigSkyFans.com experience today!
FBS Independent bound
- Thread starter Hornet25
- Start date
Credit to Hornet twitter for countering all the hate Dr. Wood is getting from his recent statements and actions. I see the push for FBS rooted mainly in trying to better our situation given the current changing landscape of D1 football whilst elevating the profile of the University as a whole. I'm fully in support of the vision Dr. Wood is advocating for.
Yes, something along those lines.
Kadeezy
Active member
I wouldn't be mad at this with another 2500-5000 more seats than this.
Feed is a bit choppy and I think Dr. Wood is running on fumes, but good stuff still.
Seemed to insinuate that they could be in an FBS conference now, but chose independence for flexibility and to get in a better bargaining position in the future.
Also, mentioned the Big12 when talking about the schedule. I'm assuming there is a BIG12 opponent lined up in 2026 or 2027.
Also said there will be a big announcement next week.
Last edited:
HeavyistheClown
Active member
Again, sounds like the track is a permanent fixture.
Dr Wood is a pretty cool cat.
Dr Wood is a pretty cool cat.
Kadeezy
Active member
I mean, track is never mentioned when he talks about the sports using the new stadium.
I can’t recall, but I think the temporary measures to cover the track in 2025 are the first I’ve hear of anything about it.
HeavyistheClown
Active member
He hasn’t identified where the new track will be located. And if track is a priority (boo) then where will it go? If he is adding padding to the current bleachers, then he is not replacing the bleachers or infrastructure. Or removing the track. If they were really going to remove the track and pull the stands 30yds closer to the field, they wouldn’t incur adding padding to the current setup.
Quickly, morphing into Nevada X2 type stadium.
I can’t take any of this too seriously with a track in the football stadium. What started as grandeur and never been done at Sac State is slowly being baited and switched into FBS light. Just enough to get by. No wonder, nPAC knew better. MWC knew better and took the team that has a real stadium that can be added to easily and looks like a stadium. Not padded bleachers used for the Rose Bowl parade one time.
I've heard the practice track is going to be expanded to hold the lanes needed to host T&F events with the throws being moved to the infield. I think this opens up the back area for a bathroom and concessions facility that can serve both T&F and baseball (like softball and soccer setup) although this is just speculation on my part. New football stadium will be trackless.
HornetFootballFan
Active member
I didn’t listen to his Reddit stuff. But you’re saying it’s no longer sunken field?
Maybe the steel build has better upgradability for added seating long term?
Seems like sunken field wouldn’t be that much extra to have a better long term build? Sound would resonate better in sunken field for tight games fan involvement.
If we are going to steel above ground we should try to keep the awning roof platform as that will help w on field noise game experience of the fan base.
It was predominately woke crybabies complaining about the added fee and that their Gender Studies degree wont be viewed in the real world as having any value because of athletics. Or, why not use the billions being spent on an unnecessary stadium and bball facility be used for recarpeting their rubber room.
Probably not a wise move by Dr. Wood to give these freaks a platform.
No, that's just my speculation. With a phased build and not a complete knock down, I don't know how a sunken bowl would be constructed, it still could be possible but it seems unlikely IMO.
My understanding is that Reddit is a leftist echo chamber so those are his primary constituents. For the sake of transparency it was a good move and we got more info on the stadium/FBS move, but as with any public statement it opens up criticism and complaints. Reddit or no Reddit the Hornet haters are going to show up in force against our FBS ambitions. Personally I'd rather see an affront to the FBS effort from the haters and trolls than feigned support.
The push back from other fans bases means Sac State is relevant and legitimate.
Then there are people who are miserable and lock onto things to complain about even when it has no impact on their lives. I ignore those people anyways.
HornetFootballFan
Active member
I posted long ago at the start of FBS talk where ASI students were crying about $.
I stated the CSU provides options for everybody with campuses across the state.
Many have minimal sports and zero CFB. They made an informed decision to apply to SAC ST that has a D1 CFb program that is supported partially by Students.
You willingly knew , agreed and applied to Sac State then enrolled. You chose to attend a CSU that has D1CFB.
If you don’t like it leave! Go to CS Stanislaus, Hayward or wherever. GTFO / STFU stop crying.
I didn’t hear a peep. Bunch of beta males
We as fans have decades of investment into SAC ST CFB tired of whining babies. Get a JOB
HeavyistheClown
Active member
Yep, Sonoma just eliminated all sports. Perfect campus for these complainers.
SDSU is now a R1 school and have new buildings all over campus due to FBS and making investments into athletics over the years. It is nationally known and a major university.
