Athletic Facilities

[Super Hornet 2.0]

PLEASE no. Why are we defining ourselves out of a championship? Until every FBS conference has an auto-bid, anyone jumping up to FBS is guaranteeing themselves oblivion.

Just SH's opinion. Nobody's obliged to agree....

 

[HeavyistheClown]

PLEASE no. Why are we defining ourselves out of a championship? Until every FBS conference has an auto-bid, anyone jumping up to FBS is guaranteeing themselves oblivion.

Just SH's opinion. Nobody's obliged to agree....

It’s called financial survival. FCS is a money loser. FBS pays more for away non-conference games, better conference rev sharing, better corporate sponsorships and better NCAA payouts. Not like we’ve ever won a natty in football to be concerned with playoffs. Your thinking will keep this program forever hobo poor and that’s not a difficult thing to do.

We got $425k for the Joser game, it would have been more than double if we were FBS.

 

[Super Hornet 2.0]

It’s called financial survival. FCS is a money loser. FBS pays more for away non-conference games, better conference rev sharing, better corporate sponsorships and better NCAA payouts. Not like we’ve ever won a natty in football to be concerned with playoffs. Your thinking will keep this program forever hobo poor and that’s not a difficult thing to do.

We got $425k for the Joser game, it would have been more than double if we were FBS.

I don't see how G5 is any better. You have to sponsor more sports, and those minor sports tend to cost more in terms of travel, as they can get spread out. You can't guarantee getting a team into the Big West or the Pac-2 when the Big Sky doesn't sponsor that sport, particularly if said sport is East Coast-intensive, like field hockey. Sure, in football and basketball terms, you can get money from bowls (maybe) and the NCAA Tournament. But I've heard of G5 teams LOSING money going to bowls. For me, all around, REAL playoffs are better, and until the FBS allows for every conference that chooses to participate gets an auto-bid, it's not a REAL playoff....

 

[SDHornet]

I don't see how G5 is any better. You have to sponsor more sports, and those minor sports tend to cost more in terms of travel, as they can get spread out. You can't guarantee getting a team into the Big West or the Pac-2 when the Big Sky doesn't sponsor that sport, particularly if said sport is East Coast-intensive, like field hockey. Sure, in football and basketball terms, you can get money from bowls (maybe) and the NCAA Tournament. But I've heard of G5 teams LOSING money going to bowls. For me, all around, REAL playoffs are better, and until the FBS allows for every conference that chooses to participate gets an auto-bid, it's not a REAL playoff....

You're viewing the "G5" through the lens of pre FBS playoff days. The power programs are consolidating into 2 conferences (P2) which will be the new top tier of college football. The 2nd tier (new G5, maybe there is a better name) will be the left over FBS and potential FCS move-ups. 3rd tier will be FCS and everyone else.

Revenue wise, the high dollar TV deals will be over for everyone outside of the P2. Yes there will be some TV monies for the 2nd tier conferences but they will pennies on the dollar compared to the top tier, and the gap in resources between the two tiers will become insurmountable such that the façade of "we're all FBS" will finally fall by the wayside once and for all.

Assuming FBS sport sponsored minimums remain in place, Sac State is the only full time BSC member that meets that threshold. In a hypothetical move to the 2nd tier, we'd need to balance out men to women scholarships for Title 9 reasons, but our current sports composition positions us well for a potential FBS move. Any other BSC members would need to add additional sports on top of the increase of 22 football (and matching women's) scholarships needed to be FBS compliant.

Facilities are our biggest hurdle, but with the pending fee increases that Dear Leader is poised to enact, bonding can be issued against future fee revenues to get stuff built. I think this is the play we will see happen in the coming years with those fees also being used to bolster annual athletic budgets to be in-line with comparable 2nd tier level programs.

Lastly, the final domino needed is an actual spot for 2nd tier membership. With the Pac-2 and MW scheduling agreement extension falling through, my speculation is that the Pac-2 will reconstitute a new Pac 12 conference by poaching a mix of the desirable MW programs and desirable American Athletic Conference programs to be a "best of the rest" conference in the 2nd tier. The new Pac-12 conference would be primed to slot in a playoff berth every season which would garner its members additional monies and exposure over the other tier 2 conferences.

If the new Pac12 comes to fruition, we'd be a top target for a depleted Mountain West that is looking to restock its membership. The timeline of these conference realignment dominoes falls in pretty well with when our new fee increases go into effect. The biggest question is can Hornet admin put together a legitimate athletic facilities plan to placate concerns from Mountain West brass over our currently deficient facilities.

 

[Kadeezy]

You're viewing the "G5" through the lens of pre FBS playoff days. The power programs are consolidating into 2 conferences (P2) which will be the new top tier of college football. The 2nd tier (new G5, maybe there is a better name) will be the left over FBS and potential FCS move-ups. 3rd tier will be FCS and everyone else.

Revenue wise, the high dollar TV deals will be over for everyone outside of the P2. Yes there will be some TV monies for the 2nd tier conferences but they will pennies on the dollar compared to the top tier, and the gap in resources between the two tiers will become insurmountable such that the façade of "we're all FBS" will finally fall by the wayside once and for all.

Assuming FBS sport sponsored minimums remain in place, Sac State is the only full time BSC member that meets that threshold. In a hypothetical move to the 2nd tier, we'd need to balance out men to women scholarships for Title 9 reasons, but our current sports composition positions us well for a potential FBS move. Any other BSC members would need to add additional sports on top of the increase of 22 football (and matching women's) scholarships needed to be FBS compliant.

Facilities are our biggest hurdle, but with the pending fee increases that Dear Leader is poised to enact, bonding can be issued against future fee revenues to get stuff built. I think this is the play we will see happen in the coming years with those fees also being used to bolster annual athletic budgets to be in-line with comparable 2nd tier level programs.

Lastly, the final domino needed is an actual spot for 2nd tier membership. With the Pac-2 and MW scheduling agreement extension falling through, my speculation is that the Pac-2 will reconstitute a new Pac 12 conference by poaching a mix of the desirable MW programs and desirable American Athletic Conference programs to be a "best of the rest" conference in the 2nd tier. The new Pac-12 conference would be primed to slot in a playoff berth every season which would garner its members additional monies and exposure over the other tier 2 conferences.

If the new Pac12 comes to fruition, we'd be a top target for a depleted Mountain West that is looking to restock its membership. The timeline of these conference realignment dominoes falls in pretty well with when our new fee increases go into effect. The biggest question is can Hornet admin put together a legitimate athletic facilities plan to placate concerns from Mountain West brass over our currently deficient facilities.

This is the best summary of the situation. They only thing I would add is that the Pac-12 and MWC announced this week that they will not be continuing the scheduling partnership next season (for Wazzu and OSU). This almost certainly means the PAC-12 has eyes on expansion and guaranteed playoff spot. SD, you eluded to the trickle down that this poaching would bring - and SAC should be at the top of the list with UCD and the Montanas.

I hope Dear Leader, AKA Martin Luther Sting Jr., has his Hornets in a row....

 

[HornetFootballFan]

I don't see how G5 is any better. You have to sponsor more sports, and those minor sports tend to cost more in terms of travel, as they can get spread out. You can't guarantee getting a team into the Big West or the Pac-2 when the Big Sky doesn't sponsor that sport, particularly if said sport is East Coast-intensive, like field hockey. Sure, in football and basketball terms, you can get money from bowls (maybe) and the NCAA Tournament. But I've heard of G5 teams LOSING money going to bowls. For me, all around, REAL playoffs are better, and until the FBS allows for every conference that chooses to participate gets an auto-bid, it's not a REAL playoff....

If we join mtn west in future we would join all sports they sponsor to comply w title requirements.
Some small sports like Rowing / Crew can find a conference.
Imagine that cost savings in travel playing Reno, Fresno, San Jose State instead of flying into small towns in PNW. Compared to a bus ride.
The upside is the awesome FAN support those teams have to travel locally, we are in direct center of them and I believe we would sell out our visitor side of the stands every game.
Selling out just shy of 22,000 seats that would also deserve a higher ticket price would be wonderfully for our programs balance sheets.

 

[SDHornet]

I think Fresno makes the cut for the new Pac-12, but we'd be in bus range of Nevada, SJSU and likely the phags on the other side of the Causeway. Not a bad geographical grouping for a reconstituted Mountain West Conference.

 

[HornetFootballFan]

I think Fresno makes the cut for the new Pac-12, but we'd be in bus range of Nevada, SJSU and likely the phags on the other side of the Causeway. Not a bad geographical grouping for a reconstituted Mountain West Conference.

If we elevated to FBS even if Fresno makes promotion to revised PAC 8 minimum threshold I believe we would have more ease scheduling now both Home / Away with them as well San Diego St and maybe the travel exhausted Cal & Stanford. (ACC travel will exhaust student athletes and they would favor a local out of conference local game)

Then we think how could we sponsor such a large program with only about 22K seats. Well I live in Hawaii now. Each game pending how popular the visiting team is has prices that are market value.
Hawaii has small stadium 10K approx? I’m guessing that seating capacity from attending an Hawaii baseball game.

(Aloha stadium is condemned. (Rust). Sad to see beautiful stadium wasn’t maintained properly. Chinese cheap steel like SF bay bridge was that needed to be rebuilt as well). Hornet stadium don’t buy Chinese steel. Sac has less sea salt / humidity.

Hawaii hosted UCLA week 1. $200 seat!
They hosted FCS week 0 team. $50 seat!

We could do similar until we finalize financing for new stadium retrofit upgrades.

If we had Stanford visit. $250. That would drive people to get better value Season Tickets!!!

Our future is bright! The team needs to continue to be successful with both play level and our attendance. Our location and TV market stats are awesome benefits.

 

[CKS007]

As an outside observer. If the Mountain West is knocked down to 3-6 teams, I know that the FBS schools will be looked at first. But the only two that I see as a realistic possibility are New Mexico State and UTEP. That still won't fill up the conference needs. The Big Sky schools will get some serious looks. Yes the Montana twins are probably the first in line. I could see Idaho getting a serious look as well. After that I see Sacramento St and Cal-Davis getting a good look if they are ready since the Mountain West will want to have more than one school in California.

If Portland State could get their football arena situation resolved, they could be a serious candidate as it opens up a new market. Weber State is good, but I doubt they would get a nod if Utah State is still a member of the MWC. Northern Arizona is in the grey "kinda ok" category. New state in the west for the conference, but not much else. Eastern Washington has no money. Northern Colorado has no success. Idaho State has a good name, but nothing else. Of the non-Big Sky schools, the Dakota teams are too far east. Southern Utah is too small. Utah Tech has a good name (like Idaho State) but will probably not be a serious candidate for another 10 years.

Can Sacramento State get itself ready for a possible call up? The western Big 10, Big 12 and ACC schools will be looking for closer FBS opponents.

 

[oldrunner]

The schools that are the closest to being ready for that jump would be the Montanas, Weber and Idaho. It's not really all about how good your teams are. It's more about markets, facilities, and potential for growth. If you are a small market then you at least need to have the potential for growth, over time.

There is also the question of what the NCAA plans to do with D1 after the P4s move out of the NCAA. There is talk of combining all of what is now the G5 and FCS into one D1 with a new set of modified rules. For now, at least, the BSC is sitting in a good space. Who knows how it will all settle out. The bottom third of FCS could eventually drop to D11. There is certainly change in the air.

 

[stingthemgood]

The schools that are the closest to being ready for that jump would be the Montanas, Weber and Idaho. It's not really all about how good your teams are. It's more about markets, facilities, and potential for growth. If you are a small market then you at least need to have the potential for growth, over time.

There is also the question of what the NCAA plans to do with D1 after the P4s move out of the NCAA. There is talk of combining all of what is now the G5 and FCS into one D1 with a new set of modified rules. For now, at least, the BSC is sitting in a good space. Who knows how it will all settle out. The bottom third of FCS could eventually drop to D11. There is certainly change in the air.

Yep... the Montana's and Weber - who all have to add multiple sports - are the closest to being ready.

Keep being a clown.

 

[HornetFootballFan]

Yep... the Montana's and Weber - who all have to add multiple sports - are the closest to being ready.

Keep being a clown.

No Matter how cool Dakota & Montana schools are they have a HUGE problem,

TV Markets in those cities are horrific. If anybody might have forgotten is that TV $ Contracts get paid by advertisers. (How many see this car commercial).$$

Money TV Market size is more important than ever!
Geography and cost to travel is another huge burden.

SAC STATE and our red headed cousin in yolo county could upgrade facilities quickly w G5 budget!

 

[SDHornet]

People throwing around the "ready" moniker as if there isn't a clear definition of what the FBS requirements should read up on this issue. Here are the latest FBS requirements as of October 2023:

Division I membership requirements
The council also adopted changes to membership requirements for Football Bowl Subdivision schools that:

• Eliminate attendance requirements at FBS schools (effective immediately).
• Increase the application fee for transitioning from FCS to FBS from $5,000 to $5 million (effective immediately).
  • For schools that begin transitioning to FBS in 2024-25 or later, requirements must be met by the conclusion of the transition process.

To add onto the 16 sports requirement by the NCAA, a minimum of 6 men's teams and 8 women's teams are needed towards the 16 total.

The eye test (facilities, TV markets, fan base support, on field success, etc) folks claim to assess a "readiness" are great for internet banter, but the reality is a move from FCS to FBS is now a heavier financial lift for universities. Investing in new programs from scratch is no small feat and only compiles the difficulty. Note that the new spending requirements are for scholarship spending only and does not include operational costs such as coaching and other staffing needs, facilities and their operational expenses, equipment, travel, gameday expenses, etc. All of that snowballs when you consider adding programs to make the move to FBS.

We're already supporting more than the minimum amount of programs needed (9 men, 12 women) to hit the FBS requirements. Our biggest hurdle will be balancing the Title 9 requirements, which would involve a new women's program if men's programs aren't cut. Sac State has an enrollment of over 30k and a President that is about to enact higher student fees to support athletics and facilities, we'll be ready for a move to FBS if an opportunity becomes available to us.

 

[SDHornet]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1834073091858743417

 

[BuckeyeHornetFan]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1834073091858743417

According to ESPCNN, an official announcement could be forthcoming tomorrow.

Sources: Boise State among 4 set to join Pac-12

Boise State, Fresno State, Colorado State and San Diego State have applied for Pac-12 membership to begin in the 2026-27 academic year, sources told ESPN.

www.espn.com

 

[Pounder]

Can confirm. Folks in Boise are alerted to a 6am P / 7am M announcement Thursday.

I’m generally skeptical about schools upgrading facilities to go to the Mountain West, especially now that they’ll get a pay cut. It certainly didn’t make sense to try to upgrade Hornet Stadium for FCS. But there’s a couple issues: (1) Pac-2 will already spend $68 million (or maybe split 50-50 with the schools) to free 4 schools from the Mountain West, so since they’re talking 8 schools overall, the other 2 schools probably WON’T be MWC. (2) Because they’re talking 8 schools (for the near term, I imagine), only a really crazy AAC school need apply when the money may not reach $10M per school per year and travel ain’t cheap. For all we know, two crazy AAC schools might exist, but don’t be too surprised if Sac actually leapfrogs into this arrangement. Eh, at least the chance isn’t zero.

Just to clarify, this starts in 2026, they’ll have 6 as of Thursday morning and will take their time on the next two.

 

[HornetFootballFan]

Can confirm. Folks in Boise are alerted to a 6am P / 7am M announcement Thursday.

I’m generally skeptical about schools upgrading facilities to go to the Mountain West, especially now that they’ll get a pay cut. It certainly didn’t make sense to try to upgrade Hornet Stadium for FCS. But there’s a couple issues: (1) Pac-2 will already spend $68 million (or maybe split 50-50 with the schools) to free 4 schools from the Mountain West, so since they’re talking 8 schools overall, the other 2 schools probably WON’T be MWC. (2) Because they’re talking 8 schools (for the near term, I imagine), only a really crazy AAC school need apply when the money may not reach $10M per school per year and travel ain’t cheap. For all we know, two crazy AAC schools might exist, but don’t be too surprised if Sac actually leapfrogs into this arrangement. Eh, at least the chance isn’t zero.

Just to clarify, this starts in 2026, they’ll have 6 as of Thursday morning and will take their time on the next two.

If this does happen. And they are then only needing 2 more programs I am sure they will try and expand into Texas or another large TV market for those last 2 spots.

Its all about the TV $$$$$&

The Mtn West would be a great home with UNLV, Ssn Jose St, Reno, Wyoming, Air Force Utah State SAC STATE, Hawaii.

 

[Hornet25]

My concern is selfish as I only care about our Sac State Program and our growth into a G5 FBS team.

The elite are taking the 80% and if we can get into a G5 we will have a substantially stronger foundation financially for the future.

The quality of the students is a concern. Will they graduate and become alumni donors? I’ve read many universities lowered entrances standards to get more minorities. It dilutes the universities reputation and looks awful when the graduation rates begin to drop.
Good news is not our problem. The universities are following policies being handed down to them from politicians. Governors / Chancelors being funded and fed policy.
SAC STATE is is a well populated region so holding the 31,000 range should be sustainable.
Go Hornets

Going to call out the racism when I see it.

Low "quality" people are people who automatically assume someone's value, intelligence and contributions to the community based on skin color.
Put the robes and hoods away and talk about sports. If you think that comment was harsh, so was is your comment about diluting universities reputations based on your accusations of universities trying to gift spots to undeserving "minorities."

If all you care about is Sac State getting into a G5 program, then talk about that.

 

[Kadeezy]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1834073091858743417

Sorry, missed this and started a new thread…

Crazy season time!

 

[Kadeezy]

People throwing around the "ready" moniker as if there isn't a clear definition of what the FBS requirements should read up on this issue. Here are the latest FBS requirements as of October 2023:

Division I membership requirements
The council also adopted changes to membership requirements for Football Bowl Subdivision schools that:

• Eliminate attendance requirements at FBS schools (effective immediately).
• Increase the application fee for transitioning from FCS to FBS from $5,000 to $5 million (effective immediately).
  • For schools that begin transitioning to FBS in 2024-25 or later, requirements must be met by the conclusion of the transition process.

To add onto the 16 sports requirement by the NCAA, a minimum of 6 men's teams and 8 women's teams are needed towards the 16 total.

The eye test (facilities, TV markets, fan base support, on field success, etc) folks claim to assess a "readiness" are great for internet banter, but the reality is a move from FCS to FBS is now a heavier financial lift for universities. Investing in new programs from scratch is no small feat and only compiles the difficulty. Note that the new spending requirements are for scholarship spending only and does not include operational costs such as coaching and other staffing needs, facilities and their operational expenses, equipment, travel, gameday expenses, etc. All of that snowballs when you consider adding programs to make the move to FBS.

We're already supporting more than the minimum amount of programs needed (9 men, 12 women) to hit the FBS requirements. Our biggest hurdle will be balancing the Title 9 requirements, which would involve a new women's program if men's programs aren't cut. Sac State has an enrollment of over 30k and a President that is about to enact higher student fees to support athletics and facilities, we'll be ready for a move to FBS if an opportunity becomes available to us.

Nut cutting time for President Martin Luther Sting Jr. !