• 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!

Athletic Facilities

SochorField said:
I honestly have been trying to understand the very sudden obsession with ditching Hornet Stadium altogether.
Sac has a 20+ k seat "temporary" option on campus already. Just fix that! Is the entire issue the track?

This is coming off as needing to "build a stadium" because they said they would. No matter where it ends up. Getting into a lease situation off campus when you have a viable option on campus doesn't seem like a good idea.

I've always thought Hornet stadium is in a great spot. Visible from the freeway, right on campus.
Click to expand...

My suspicion is that this route allows the school to take care of both football and basketball facilities on a much shorter timetable. There would have to be some promises and/or major concessions from Cal Expo to make it an option for Sac State. Cal Expo is in a precarious position right now and bringing on a major tenant is necessary for survival. This may be a win win for both.

Will have to wait to see the details though. All speculation at this time.
 
SochorField said:
I honestly have been trying to understand the very sudden obsession with ditching Hornet Stadium altogether.
Sac has a 20+ k seat "temporary" option on campus already. Just fix that! Is the entire issue the track?

This is coming off as needing to "build a stadium" because they said they would. No matter where it ends up. Getting into a lease situation off campus when you have a viable option on campus doesn't seem like a good idea.

I've always thought Hornet stadium is in a great spot. Visible from the freeway, right on campus.
Click to expand...
The school was dropping a few million on reinforcing the bleachers over the summer. Metal wears out quicker than concrete. Those things require frequent maintenance, especially if they’ve been in place for 30 years. The money isn’t there to do what needs to be done; you frankly need a rebuild, and that’s a 9-digit project now. So here we are.

That doesn’t mean I’m fully endorsing a lease or this project, but your options are limited.

I’m judging from Boise’s soccer project… their old horse track appears to be gone now. I would expect the same at CE. But I also expect 2026 to be too optimistic, or the stands to be subpar if/when phase 1 is done.
 
Pounder said:
The school was dropping a few million on reinforcing the bleachers over the summer. Metal wears out quicker than concrete. Those things require frequent maintenance, especially if they’ve been in place for 30 years. The money isn’t there to do what needs to be done; you frankly need a rebuild, and that’s a 9-digit project now. So here we are.

That doesn’t mean I’m fully endorsing a lease or this project, but your options are limited.

I’m judging from Boise’s soccer project… their old horse track appears to be gone now. I would expect the same at CE. But I also expect 2026 to be too optimistic, or the stands to be subpar if/when phase 1 is done.
Click to expand...
Its a shame because the present Hornet Stadium location is tough to beat.
 
There is no "fixing" HS as it currently stands. It needs to come down for a newer and better facility with the amenities worthy of an FBS atmosphere. The pivot to CE means there is a roadblock for the on-campus option. It's probably funding related, but given all the bureaucracy on campus and within the CSU there are probably some folks not on board that are causing issues. Who knows if the backstory will ever come out but since the CE pivot started back in January it is obviously a significant issue.

The CE pivot allows any internal issues to be sidestepped although I would think the funding hurdles would be a bigger issue. The cost savings of revamping an existing structure as opposed to demolition and construction of a new venue are substantial. We'll see what these two entities can collaborate on, if anything.

Parking seemed to be a topic of discussion in all the local stories of the CE pivot. I'm curious if anyone has a count of the on-campus parking spots directly adjacent to HS (lots 6, 7, 9, 10 & PS 3) and their occupancy rates during fall weekends. If there are not enough spots to accommodate a new 25k+ stadium on campus, then that would impact the revenue projections. Does parking revenue on gameday go to UTAPs or athletics (I'm pretty sure it goes to UTAPs and not athletics but I'm not certain)? That's another potential impact on the revenue generation of an on-campus venue. By moving games to CE, athletics can leverage parking revenue in their negotiations and tap into a revenue stream to fund the CE build.
 
SochorField said:
Its a shame because the present Hornet Stadium location is tough to beat.
Click to expand...
I Agree… The current stadium could have more space if we re-route the road that travels behind the home field side.
Or if we push the stadium another 40 yards east adding more space at the expense of the parking lot.
The parking lots could add few more levels at another location on campus to offset those few hundred lost parking spaces.
Good news if think parking lot building would be a seperate budget.
 
SDHornet said:
There is no "fixing" HS as it currently stands. It needs to come down for a newer and better facility with the amenities worthy of an FBS atmosphere. The pivot to CE means there is a roadblock for the on-campus option. It's probably funding related, but given all the bureaucracy on campus and within the CSU there are probably some folks not on board that are causing issues. Who knows if the backstory will ever come out but since the CE pivot started back in January it is obviously a significant issue.

The CE pivot allows any internal issues to be sidestepped although I would think the funding hurdles would be a bigger issue. The cost savings of revamping an existing structure as opposed to demolition and construction of a new venue are substantial. We'll see what these two entities can collaborate on, if anything.

Parking seemed to be a topic of discussion in all the local stories of the CE pivot. I'm curious if anyone has a count of the on-campus parking spots directly adjacent to HS (lots 6, 7, 9, 10 & PS 3) and their occupancy rates during fall weekends. If there are not enough spots to accommodate a new 25k+ stadium on campus, then that would impact the revenue projections. Does parking revenue on gameday go to UTAPs or athletics (I'm pretty sure it goes to UTAPs and not athletics but I'm not certain)? That's another potential impact on the revenue generation of an on-campus venue. By moving games to CE, athletics can leverage parking revenue in their negotiations and tap into a revenue stream to fund the CE build.
Click to expand...
Ok, don’t build a 25,000 palace. Build a 15,000 home side permanent structure. Keep visitor side something to build out as warranted and able. None of these ‘internal’ roadblocks were in place when we hosted 23,000, 19,000, 18,000 in years past. Wood has said there is a $100M stadium fund, that will build a very nice base stadium.

It is the track fuckers who have their tampons in a pinch in losing the BS track that is completely useless in today’s funding model.

Wood needs to grow a pair and cut those lead around the neck programs.
 
HeavyistheClown said:
Ok, don’t build a 25,000 palace. Build a 15,000 home side permanent structure. Keep visitor side something to build out as warranted and able. None of these ‘internal’ roadblocks were in place when we hosted 23,000, 19,000, 18,000 in years past. Wood has said there is a $100M stadium fund, that will build a very nice base stadium.

It is the track fuckers who have their tampons in a pinch in losing the BS track that is completely useless in today’s funding model.

Wood needs to grow a pair and cut those lead around the neck programs.
Click to expand...
The home side permanent structure sounds ideal. I always thought Sac could do what Cal Poly did. Rebuild the Home side and keep/maintain the visitor side (and its seating capacity) until more funds are available.

I understand those stands are not in the greatest shape though; however, like you said, this stadium has held large crowds without any disasters (last years Causeway was a big visitor crowd).

Its sounds like Cal Expo is happening because its in Sac's best interest at the moment.
Its a shame this is being rammed through in what feels like such a panic- some interesting compromises are being made in the interest of time.
 
Last edited:
HeavyistheClown said:
Ok, don’t build a 25,000 palace. Build a 15,000 home side permanent structure. Keep visitor side something to build out as warranted and able. None of these ‘internal’ roadblocks were in place when we hosted 23,000, 19,000, 18,000 in years past. Wood has said there is a $100M stadium fund, that will build a very nice base stadium.

It is the track fuckers who have their tampons in a pinch in losing the BS track that is completely useless in today’s funding model.

Wood needs to grow a pair and cut those lead around the neck programs.
Click to expand...
We're talking about building something knew, not hosting events in existing facilities. Tell me you have no experience dealing with bureaucracies without telling me you have no experience dealing with bureaucracies.
 
I surmise bureaucracy is really pushing back behind closed doors. A quick flow of how I think this has gone.
California continues to spend money it doesn’t have on programs that are simply political nepotism spending.
CSU budget slashed. budget situation is different than land acquisition and build out in SD a few years ago.
Pres continues push because Sac does have engaged base on idea of FBS football.
SD had a stadium area known for hosting events frequently and doesn’t affect campus life. Sac pushed for on campus mega stadium anyways.
bringing other events on main campus was highly frowned upon by a largely commuter campus bureaucracy , parking availability, traffic effects on 50 etc. plus huge price tag.
CSU bonds and state backing didn’t Materialize. Rather than fail, Cal Expo pivot after horse racing left opened door to get something done. Cal Expo needs tenants and doesn’t want to become a homeless site so has to show viability in light of Sac Republic leaving.
Sac State fills 5-6 weekends a year and will bring more butts in seats than horse racing. Cal expo can also then bring in alternate tenants like new lacrosse and rugby leagues.
Sac state minimizes spending given big risk football may not work at FBS level afterall. Can just become Big West member if needed. Or at minimum has a better facility with a landlord they don’t have to talk academics with.
 
Why would I create one? I didn’t post football budgets.

Btw, we are poor. All the programs in our funding range have permanent, modern facilities and stadiums.

Sac is high because they throw money at coaches and COL.
 
Only a clown would denigrate a program that is in the top 10 in FCS for operating budget.


Regarding facilities, Dr. Wood delivered on his year 1 Hornet Stadium improvements. A buddy of mine passed by the stadium earlier in the week. Not mentioned in the Hornetsports release is the new banners/skins on the exterior of the west grandstand. I didn't get word on if the east exterior grandstand got a facelift.
 
Dr. Wood has delivered on everything he has full control over. He gets himself in trouble when he speaks on things that require the other side to do their job too.
 
If the holy bowl is going to outdraw the Hornets by 1,000, is it even worth building a stadium that can be expanded to 40,000? I think 12,183 is good for FCS and a new on campus 20-25,000 seat stadium, no need to build a modular 40,000 Cal Expo frankenstadium when even if FBS was granted, I dont think magically 25-30,000 fans are gonna show up. Look at the A's, they are MLB and the stadium they built is vacant.

Dont think changing a letter in classification is going to be the drawing card everyone is saying.
 
Green Cookie Monster said:
If the holy bowl is going to outdraw the Hornets by 1,000, is it even worth building a stadium that can be expanded to 40,000? I think 12,183 is good for FCS and a new on campus 20-25,000 seat stadium, no need to build a modular 40,000 Cal Expo frankenstadium when even if FBS was granted, I dont think magically 25-30,000 fans are gonna show up. Look at the A's, they are MLB and the stadium they built is vacant.

Dont think changing a letter in classification is going to be the drawing card everyone is saying.
Click to expand...

The confluence of events this weekend, coupled with the opponent did the Hornets no favors... G1C concerts, A's, Holy Bowl, Republic....

Next weekend (UCA) might be 15,000+, CalPoly could be 17,000+, homecoming might push 18-20k after a couple wins...

Friday 10/24 against the Griz on ESPN could be 8,000 or 20,000, I'm not sure yet LOL...
 
1. A big reason to go FBS is to play against teams the region cares about seeing. Mercyhurst ain't it. Only the die hards were coming.

2. The season is here now. You can't increase the crowds with talk. Only through wins. If Sac State was 2-0 heading into this game, maybe we overcome the no name opponent problem.

3. Tying into the first two points on the list, there was a lot of other competing events, all with familiar and/or successful brands. And the A's.
 
I've been around long enough to know the only thing that gets people to college football games in California is a near perfect record and high ranking. There is no religious alumni / local following for any university in this state.

Cal sold out some games with Tedford
USC sold out some games with Carroll
Stanford sold out some games with Shaw

on the smaller scale...

Sac with Taylor
Cal Poly with Ellerson
USD with Harbaugh

All of these teams are back to underwhelming attendance these days.

Common denominator? Near undefeated record and high rankings. I'm not even convinced quality teams make a difference - Cal played Minnesota and the place was empty.

This is the reason we are seeing programs (especially smaller ones) move toward luxury suites instead of significantly adding to seating capacity.
 
Last edited:
Hornet25 said:
1. A big reason to go FBS is to play against teams the region cares about seeing. Mercyhurst ain't it. Only the die hards were coming.

2. The season is here now. You can't increase the crowds with talk. Only through wins. If Sac State was 2-0 heading into this game, maybe we overcome the no name opponent problem.

3. Tying into the first two points on the list, there was a lot of other competing events, all with familiar and/or successful brands. And the A's.
Click to expand...
Nothing will change the other competing brands they are a constant.
Prime time of the season where you have HS, G1C trying to fill vacant space, soccer, baseball, etc.

I still think we are doing ourself a disservice thinking just bc we are 'FBS' people will flock to the stadium. They didnt flock to UOP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top