• 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

Conference and site inspection has been postponed, as stated in another JAMO post on X. Maybe they are seeing the sanity of building on campus finally?

If the track at HS is staying and the stadium itself is condemned, what are they going to build around the track?

....Perfect solution, move the track to CE. It is already graded, ready for install and since T&F is held in the hot spring, late summer, there are already 5,000 covered seats and gold plated shitters.

That leaves the current footprint of HS to be used for the new stadium, which is proposed to be exactly the same size, with all the infrastructure already built: 2 large multi level parking garages, Broad Fieldhouse, network lights, recently upgraded scoreboard, students, front door of the University to draw the public to campus, etc. Use some of the $$ to build pewter plated shitters and concessions. Building a rectangular prefabbed bathroom is cheap. Concession vendors are already on campus.
 
Hornet25 said:

Very informative and timely interview. Answered key questions without fluff or promises.
Click to expand...
Don’t really agree with the issues brought up by Orr as to why building on campus isn’t as desirable.

- I will agree the campus is “landlocked”, but I think we all agree there’s enough room to build the appropriate size stadium for Sac, not building on campus for 25k-30k is the wrong decision based on hoping to one day have 40k-50k.
- I will also agree that the road infrastructure leaving is not perfect, road improvements and proper controlled traffic planning is not a myth. And again don’t believe a good enough reason to build away from campus
- Maybe he was trying not to reveal our finical situation but he did not say that we could not afford to build on campus either or say it was for sure not happening

If the desire is one day the new Pac we should fit right in at the 30k mark. Fresno gets up to 40k, but Boise, SDSU, OSU, WSU all hover around 30k and we shouldn’t expect more.
 
FootballAlum84 said:
Don’t really agree with the issues brought up by Orr as to why building on campus isn’t as desirable.

- I will agree the campus is “landlocked”, but I think we all agree there’s enough room to build the appropriate size stadium for Sac, not building on campus for 25k-30k is the wrong decision based on hoping to one day have 40k-50k.
- I will also agree that the road infrastructure leaving is not perfect, road improvements and proper controlled traffic planning is not a myth. And again don’t believe a good enough reason to build away from campus
- Maybe he was trying not to reveal our finical situation but he did not say that we could not afford to build on campus either or say it was for sure not happening

If the desire is one day the new Pac we should fit right in at the 30k mark. Fresno gets up to 40k, but Boise, SDSU, OSU, WSU all hover around 30k and we shouldn’t expect more.
Click to expand...

Fair points. Not getting 40k fans in the seats unless we can host bowl game or something.

Orr did mention space to build practice fields, facilities. That has to be considered as well as parking spaces. Schools within big cities typically have this land challenge. San Jose State has to put their stadium away from the main campus.

With the campus being so small I have an issue with the school not building taller buildings to conserve space. Especially the dorms and center of campus. City planning is not a Sacramento strength (freeway system) so I guess their school follows suit.
 
Last edited:
Landlocked excuse is BS. Why does the school only build 2-3 story buildings? Go up, the new dorms should be towers of 6-8 stories. Guess keeping it at 2-3 stories can be wood framed and cheap?

Let’s get 20,000 at every game before dreaming of 40-50,000 at every game. That’s absurd to think those numbers are realistic.
 
To be fair he didn't say they were building a 40k stadium he said it gives them the option down the line if its needed. We all know its not needed right now, 25k is what they are doing he also didn't rule out the campus still if the feasibility study doesn't fit what Sac State wants. I still find it weird that people are upset that they are looking at every option to see what works best for the school and program. We didn't have any of this type of movement for years and now that we do we got people complaining about where it is. 2-3 miles from campus is nothing. Yes a on campus stadium is the dream but if i cant have that give me 25k at Cal Expo everyday of the week. Its better than what we have now period. It means progress period.
 
Last edited:
HeavyistheClown said:
Landlocked excuse is BS. Why does the school only build 2-3 story buildings? Go up, the new dorms should be towers of 6-8 stories. Guess keeping it at 2-3 stories can be wood framed and cheap?

Let’s get 20,000 at every game before dreaming of 40-50,000 at every game. That’s absurd to think those numbers are realistic.
Click to expand...
I am speculating that the school is subject to city/state zoning regulations, including height limitations, depending on how the property is zoned.
 
LoveSacState said:
To be fair he didn't say they were building a 40k stadium he said it gives them the option down the line if its needed. We all know its not needed right now, 25k is what they are doing he also didn't rule out the campus still if the feasibility study doesn't fit what Sac State wants. I still find it weird that people are upset that they are looking at every option to see what works best for the school and program. We didn't have any of this type or movement for years and now that we do we got people complaining about where it is. 2-3 miles from campus is nothing. Yes a on campus stadium is the dream but if i cant have that give me 25k at Cal Expo everyday of the week. Its better than what we have now period. It means progress period.
Click to expand...
It took 40yrs to get literally any type of movement. Many of us feel it is short sighted and counter to what has been the message to now pivot and move off campus.

The argument by administration for DI athletics for decades has been athletics is the front door for the public to the school and campus. And that Sac State has always been 'forgotten' because it is tucked away from the greater Sacramento region public. That we needed a reason for Sacramentans to come to campus and embrace what is here.

If you are going to build a front door to this campus and draw the public, why move this front door off campus and the prime message of 40 years?

Using that logic, the campus needs to completely relocate to Placer Ranch because 300 acres isnt enough room for projected 50,000 FTE's at its present location. It will be another 40 years before they have 50,000 students.

University of Oregon has 295 acres and fits Autzen Stadium on campus very nicely. UT Austin has 431 acres and 100,000 seat Memorial stadium sits in the middle.

If you notice in another post the projected stadium is now only 22,000 based on bid requests.
 
Last edited:
Autzen Stadium is located about a mile north of the main campus and is a 20-minute walk. The "Walk to Autzen" is a tradition, and having done the walk on game day, it is a festive and fun atmosphere as you cross a pedestrian bridge and parkway to reach the stadium.
 
the Rat said:
Autzen Stadium is located about a mile north of the main campus and is a 20-minute walk. The "Walk to Autzen" is a tradition, and having done the walk on game day, it is a festive and fun atmosphere as you cross a pedestrian bridge and parkway to reach the stadium.
Click to expand...

I really don't think CalExpo is too much of a burden to get to for students. I think we might actually capture a slice of the Republic crowd that only attended because it was in their hood. As an alum who no longer lives in the area, it's actually an easier in/out for me.
 
Green Cookie Monster said:
It took 40yrs to get literally any type of movement. Many of us feel it is short sighted and counter to what has been the message to now pivot and move off campus.

The argument by administration for DI athletics for decades has been athletics is the front door for the public to the school and campus. And that Sac State has always been 'forgotten' because it is tucked away from the greater Sacramento region public. That we needed a reason for Sacramentans to come to campus and embrace what is here.

If you are going to build a front door to this campus and draw the public, why move this front door off campus and the prime message of 40 years?

Using that logic, the campus needs to completely relocate to Placer Ranch because 300 acres isnt enough room for projected 50,000 FTE's at its present location. It will be another 40 years before they have 50,000 students.

University of Oregon has 295 acres and fits Autzen Stadium on campus very nicely. UT Austin has 431 acres and 100,000 seat Memorial stadium sits in the middle.

If you notice in another post the projected stadium is now only 22,000 based on bid requests.
Click to expand...
yes the bid says 22.000 yes but either way it would be a improvement over what we currently have with no track around it at Cal Expo.
 
LoveSacState said:
To be fair he didn't say they were building a 40k stadium he said it gives them the option down the line if its needed. We all know its not needed right now, 25k is what they are doing he also didn't rule out the campus still if the feasibility study doesn't fit what Sac State wants. I still find it weird that people are upset that they are looking at every option to see what works best for the school and program. We didn't have any of this type or movement for years and now that we do we got people complaining about where it is. 2-3 miles from campus is nothing. Yes a on campus stadium is the dream but if i cant have that give me 25k at Cal Expo everyday of the week. Its better than what we have now period. It means progress period.
Click to expand...
The numbers 40-50k are being mentioned which means it’s affecting the decision making.

Forgive me this could be long… I did my own minor feasibility study.

Our #20 media market they’ve been promoting is a great statistic when it comes to pitching media rights/deals. However, I feel like that same stat is being used as to why our attendance should be great also, which I don’t think is directly transferable.

Cleveland/Akron is #19, the Zips are not the only team in town for people to root for with the Browns, the Cavaliers and the Guardians, and then the Buckeyes are less than 150 miles away. Lastly, Akron is not a good FBS team but they haven’t drawn more than 10k this year.

Now #21 Charlotte, UNC Charlotte is competing for fans against the Panthers, Hornets, Charlotte FC, and a AAA baseball team. Big thing is also they have Clemson, Wake Forest, Duke, UNC, USC within 150 miles. Charlottes largest home attendance was 22k and that was even against in state UNC, otherwise averaging 13-15k. And lastly, Charlotte also is not a well established FBS team.

Now #20 Sacramento/Modesto/Stockton. So first thing is, I wonder how many of our fans are traveling each Saturday from Modesto and Stockton. Then you have competing for fans against Kings, Athletics, Republic, Rivercats, unfortunately Davis, and another few thousand? people tied up from 3 Sacramento JC’s playing football. Now include, 4 FBS teams within a 2 hour drive. And the Hornets are coming off a flash in the pan of success and trying to recover at the FCS level, so, far from a proven FBS.

Now let’s look at the local FBS teams. Add in the #10 media market of the Bay Area and the Hornets are just about equal to SJSU in attendance this season and cross town rivalry game SJSU/Stanford topped out at 26k. Fresno has the luxury of being the only thing in town and was fortunate to have 15 years of success and 11 bowl games under Pat Hill to keep riding the wave of.

California from top to bottom is the definition of a fair weather fan or what have you done for me lately, and I don’t think there is any evidence that 40/50k is possible at all. Even with the desire to host a bowl game, outside of the major games around New Year’s Day, bowl games are not well attended.

Alllll that being said, move the shot put/hammer throw area to all the grass by the soccer field, there’s plenty of space, and you can easily fit an 8 lane track at the practice field. Sac St Track has a whopping 3 days of meets scheduled at home this year, I think the throwing events will survive being relocated. And build us a nice quality home side, with a beautiful press box and some luxury suites, and leave the away side as all this modular seating they keep talking about, squeeze it up against the broad to make it feel like a closed in setting and if they want closed in on both ends they can add bleacher seating for the band on The Well side (Boise is this way). JUST GET IT DONE! I don’t even care if it looks like the original rendering that they sent out.
 
They haven't rule out the campus we need to wait to know what they deem is the most cost effective thing to do for the program/school. They know far more than any of us about what they are looking at.
 
It makes sense not to limit Sac States options in the future, even if nothing ever materializes. That is much more forward thinking in regards to sports than anyone I know of has done for the school.

Don't want the Raley Field situation where they backed out of the expandable stadium in the interest of time. Seemed like a reasonable decision in the moment.

Sac State is in this situation because of decades of choices made out of expediency and fear. Dr. Wood and Orr are trying to salvage it before we're locked out of FBS (remember that 5 year window). I don't envy their position, but glad it's them and not one of their predecessors.

By the way. A 50 year lease is a poison pill for any future president thinking of discarding the program and depending on the terms, locks the state into having interest in maintaining the facility and its tenant.
 
HeavyistheClown said:
Cue SDH, cause of tariffs.

Which I don’t completely buy as the reason. There are ways around that: recycled, American sourced, alternative building materials/construction methods.
Click to expand...
Yes, as I've posted elsewhere tariffs increased the costs of steel roughly 50%. The tariffs were increased AFTER the new stadium announcement a year ago. Pay more for the same size stadium or reduce the size of the stadium are the options at hand.

And no, tariffs don't make nationally sourced materials more affordable. It makes companies of nationally sourced materials more competitive with companies that import materials while also impacting the supply and demand of available materials. Anyone in the construction space (especially at the onset of the tariffs) knows the impacts of what tariffs have had on budgets and material availability.
 
StockonLB said:
Pac-12 was desperate for a member, still might be , but bringing in an FCS program was never going to be their first choice. He needed to absolutely convince them they were ready, and that didn’t happen.

Part of trying to change the trajectory of the program was putting your neck out. He got more interest than ever before, but maybe not enough. Selling the Metro area was only going to get so far.

Then the Railyards project started moving forward again, the team slumped through 2024, and that seems to have zapped the momentum. Cal Expo is an audible to get something more substantial, and maybe more of a funding source. You lose donors and students when you are not on campus. he has gotten a lot of campus resistance, and the budget projections continue to get worse based on how the state spends money.

if he had a $100mil stadium fund waiting to be spent, that would sway some people. Right now it’s all projections and debt/bond financing. Not a great sales package.
Click to expand...
Good post. The new PAC12 was down to their final options having been out maneuvered by the MW for the desirable/regional FBS membership options after being deemed not desirable enough by current AAC members to create a "best of the rest" conference. I think Dr. Wood was banking on the nPAC having to result to us as the "break glass in case of membership emergency" option.
 
the Rat said:
Autzen Stadium is located about a mile north of the main campus and is a 20-minute walk. The "Walk to Autzen" is a tradition, and having done the walk on game day, it is a festive and fun atmosphere as you cross a pedestrian bridge and parkway to reach the stadium.
Click to expand...
YES… And this WALK tradition from the DORMS on I believe would become a lighted pathway on evening games for a 20 min walk to New Hornet Stadium!
They could even get similar to Disneyland parking shuttle a train to give rides on game day,
Not a big deal,, prefer on campus.

Even if we did re-direct the road behind Hornet stadium to move the home side of stadium cliser toward RR Tracks to add space!

The tunnel under the train trains tracks to the light rail system is also very easy access to campus if people complain about traffic to on campus Hornet stadium
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top