• 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!

2026 Football Schedule Thread

Agree.. we should be competitive season 1 in MAC. If ZO is going to succeed he needs to use the collective experience of strong coaching staff to start & finish strong.
I like ZO passion. Pray for his team to thrive. But I hope they as a staff GEL quickly and prepare for the season. In my opinion 7-5 minimum in 2026 is a solid start first yr HC.
I’m very excited to be in the MAC.
 
Anything less than 2-2 in OOC play + 2-6 in MAC would be total disaster. 4-8 in first FBS season would be minimally acceptable record IMO.

It's hard to say not knowing our full OOC, and MAC schedule, but man 5-7 or 6-6 would be incredible.

Winning 4 or 5 FBS games in year one would be huge.
 
Above .500 first year FBS, when the jump was not planned, would be a surprise. Sure 8 MAC games is easier than 7 Pac-12 games. But the MAC still have dominated their FCS opponents. There are 4-10 FCS over FBS every year.

www.ncaa.com

FCS wins vs. FBS teams: All-time victories, upsets, wins vs. ranked teams

FCS (and I-AA) programs have upset FBS (I-AA) teams time and again through the years. Here's a list of the FCS stunners against FBS teams.
www.ncaa.com www.ncaa.com


It’s an FCS roster, with momentum for improvement in the program, but there’s a reason there are only a handful of FCS over FBS every year. The lines between FBS and FCS are blurred with NIL and revenue sharing, but I don’t think there’s a huge shift in resources that would predict SAC to be above .500
 
Last edited:
Kadeezy said:
Anything less than 2-2 in OOC play + 2-6 in MAC would be total disaster. 4-8 in first FBS season would be minimally acceptable record IMO.

It's hard to say not knowing our full OOC, and MAC schedule, but man 5-7 or 6-6 would be incredible.

Winning 4 or 5 FBS games in year one would be huge.
Click to expand...
Really? Jacksonville State, Delaware, Missouri State, James Madison and Sam Houston all had stellar records first two years in moving up.
If we had a proven winner in TT, I bet we would have .750+.
This MC Hammer wannabe is going to be egg on Wood's head.
 
Green Cookie Monster said:
Really? Jacksonville State, Delaware, Missouri State, James Madison and Sam Houston all had stellar records first two years in moving up.
If we had a proven winner in TT, I bet we would have .750+.
This MC Hammer wannabe is going to be egg on Wood's head.
Click to expand...

We are not where any of those schools were competitively (except for MO. State), and most of them went to CUSA to beat up on fellow move-ups. The MAC will not offer that luxury.
 
StockonLB said:
Above .500 first year FBS, when the jump was not planned, would be a surprise. Sure 8 MAC games is easier than 7 Pac-12 games. But the MAC still have dominated their FCS opponents. There are 4-10 FCS over FBS every year.

www.ncaa.com

FCS wins vs. FBS teams: All-time victories, upsets, wins vs. ranked teams

FCS (and I-AA) programs have upset FBS (I-AA) teams time and again through the years. Here's a list of the FCS stunners against FBS teams.
www.ncaa.com www.ncaa.com


It’s an FCS roster, with momentum for improvement in the program, but there’s a reason there are only a handful of FCS over FBS every year. The lines between FBS and FCS are blurred with NIL and revenue sharing, but I don’t think there’s a huge shift in resources that would predict SAC to be above .500
Click to expand...
MAC teams were on that list quite a few times. 😳
 
Hornet25 said:
MAC teams were on that list quite a few times. 😳
Click to expand...
Sure, but every MAC team plays an FCS. So even in years that 2-3 MAC teams lost, they beat them 6-7 times, and that is the bad years.

And to follow up to Kadeezy’s point, those teams had a set plan in place and knew they were moving up for years ahead of time. Sac is really the first to just say we’re going to FBS without a serious run up to year one. You could count last year a bit, but not since the whole staff is new as well as most the impact players.
 
idkk said:
TT went 6-18 at the FBS (P4) level.
Click to expand...

At Stanford. After it had come crashing down from the Harbaugh/Shaw era. No coach has produced a winning record over a full season there since 2018. Even Harbaugh posted losing records his 1st two seasons, going 9-15, which isn’t far off Taylor’s 2 year record.

Point being, judging anyone off a 2-season stint at a program where it is historically hard to succeed due to academic requirements is, well, silly.

I think many recognize — given that Taylor succeeded at Sac State where no other HC before him had — that the chances of him succeeding at the FBS level with the exact same program while afforded the same type of budget and overall support Brennan Marion received would have been pretty high.

Clearly Taylor built a better roster, team and system at Sac State than he was able to while at Stanford, as evidenced by the fact that the roster he’d built over 4 years beat his Stanford team despite being coached by Andy Thompson.
 
StockonLB said:
Sure, but every MAC team plays an FCS. So even in years that 2-3 MAC teams lost, they beat them 6-7 times, and that is the bad years.

And to follow up to Kadeezy’s point, those teams had a set plan in place and knew they were moving up for years ahead of time. Sac is really the first to just say we’re going to FBS without a serious run up to year one. You could count last year a bit, but not since the whole staff is new as well as most the impact players.
Click to expand...
Huh? You think all that money spent on the marketing, minor facility improvements, coaching staff, and roster were just off the cuff? Hornet admin has been steadily ramping up the football budget over the past few years and actually started under Dr. Nelsen when you look at the numbers. People thinking the FBS move was done on a whim are misinformed.
 
Kadeezy said:
Anything less than 2-2 in OOC play + 2-6 in MAC would be total disaster. 4-8 in first FBS season would be minimally acceptable record IMO.

It's hard to say not knowing our full OOC, and MAC schedule, but man 5-7 or 6-6 would be incredible.

Winning 4 or 5 FBS games in year one would be huge.
Click to expand...
Where do we stand with roster size compared to the MAC schools? Are we ramping up over the transition period or will we have a full FBS roster size this season? With no spring portal, we missed on ramping up on FBS talent to the scale that will be needed. While I don't think we'll be significantly out-matched in the MAC on a weekly basis, roster depth may come into play if we are not at the FBS max. That said, anywhere near a 500 record in year 1 is a success. Thinking we'll show up and dominate the MAC seems like quite a reach.

Also not worrying about HC Carter. He was clearly brought in as a figurehead/recruiter/motivator/relationship guy than some play calling guru. If the staff he brought in/retained is the real deal then we'll be fine. Coach Carter is our guy, people need to get over TT, that window has closed and it's been long past time to look ahead to our FBS future.
 
SDHornet said:
Also not worrying about HC Carter. He was clearly brought in as a figurehead/recruiter/motivator/relationship guy than some play calling guru. If the staff he brought in/retained is the real deal then we'll be fine. Coach Carter is our guy, people need to get over TT, that window has closed and it's been long past time to look ahead to our FBS future.
Click to expand...
How many programs have won with a figurehead? There is either a HC or there is not.
Perfect recipe for finger pointing and not taking the 'buck stops here' approach.
 
Green Cookie Monster said:
How many programs have won with a figurehead? There is either a HC or there is not.
Perfect recipe for finger pointing and not taking the 'buck stops here' approach.
Click to expand...
If the staff that Coach Carter assembled is competent then I don't see the issue. The HC is always responsible for the performance of the program, whether they call the plays or not has no bearing on that responsibility.
 
SDHornet said:
Huh? You think all that money spent on the marketing, minor facility improvements, coaching staff, and roster were just off the cuff? Hornet admin has been steadily ramping up the football budget over the past few years and actually started under Dr. Nelsen when you look at the numbers. People thinking the FBS move was done on a whim are misinformed.
Click to expand...
Not off the cuff, but when was the big push for FBS? Fall 2024 was the start. And yes they have continued to up the bar spending wise. announcements like bragging about exposure and revenue numbers that are so inflated or in terrible context look poor. Ending up in the MAC looks poor (or your words , on a whim) at initial view , but not with a more long term view of athletics as a whole in current NCAA. To end up in MAC, the NCAA has to say no to Indy, then Pac-12 said no, MW said no, etc

The FCS football budget was in the top 10 for that level. And when comparing to low FBS, it’s not that far off from competitors of the lower G5 teams. For example, many small G5is operate at $10-15mil for football. Sac was $7-8mil. Is Sac pushing for the likes of Sam Houston and NMSU or greater? Northern Illinois's budget is doubling up to $16mil.
 
StockonLB said:
Not off the cuff, but when was the big push for FBS? Fall 2024 was the start. And yes they have continued to up the bar spending wise. announcements like bragging about exposure and revenue numbers that are so inflated or in terrible context look poor. Ending up in the MAC looks poor (or your words , on a whim) at initial view , but not with a more long term view of athletics as a whole in current NCAA. To end up in MAC, the NCAA has to say no to Indy, then Pac-12 said no, MW said no, etc

The FCS football budget was in the top 10 for that level. And when comparing to low FBS, it’s not that far off from competitors of the lower G5 teams. For example, many small G5is operate at $10-15mil for football. Sac was $7-8mil. Is Sac pushing for the likes of Sam Houston and NMSU or greater? Northern Illinois's budget is doubling up to $16mil.
Click to expand...
Since you are focusing on the marketing campaign Dr, Wood initiated then sure, that marketing campaign started in fall '24. Prior to that, Dr. Nelsen commissioned the FBS study that, imo, is the real start of the FBS process. Dr. Wood's "disruptive marketing campaign," Sac12, and all the other various marketing ploys wouldn't happen without the FBS study. For all the knocking Dr. Wood you and others are doing, don't forget to recognize game and acknowledge it got us out of the JV and into FBS. Dr. Wood played the game and delivered. A fair question to ask when debating this is the following: Does the MAC consider hearing Dr. Wood's pitch for Sac State membership if he wasn't banging the drum for the past 18 months?

Regarding the numbers, the MAC thread lays them out so feel free to read up on them there. I'm not worried about the financials of our FBS move.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top