-
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
- Thread starter Phantom Hornet
- Start date
Kadeezy
Active member
Either way, could be a negotiating tactic? Time will tell.
The current stadium is FBS ready now. What else are they going to add that will be torn down?
Kadeezy
Active member
They are going to add larger modular visiting locker rooms (south end of stadium), more substantial endzone seating, and chairbacks and padded seats to the East (visitors) grandstands.
Being admitted to FBS this year has allowed Sac State slow down and do the stadium right. Not rushed. Might even be able to increase the budget.
It explains why the school went silent on the stadium plans last October/November. The timeline shifted, but for the right reasons.
It explains why the school went silent on the stadium plans last October/November. The timeline shifted, but for the right reasons.
My opinion is that this FBS invite makes revenue bonds a much easier ask. As JV, there was enough data to know that the revenue generation side of things would never pencil out. Our revenues were nearly capped at the JV level. With FBS status, the revenue generation side of the equation is much more favorable.
I hope this means the track-less on-campus option happens. I say this because I have a hard time seeing the CSU green light some revenue bonds on non-CSU owned property. Time will tell.
Agree 110%. Why would CSU issue bonds against a property that is not CSU controlled? Wont happen.
I recall seeing the CSU BOT has funds earmarked for a stadium replacement in 27/28.
My gut is telling me Wood/Orr is entertaining/talking to Cal Expo so they can tell the media/public they are working with CE and get everyone off their back.
Drag this out until 2027 when BOT funds are available and then reveal CE didnt work out, so now they are back on campus. And btw, the track has to stay because of the T&F programs.
Why spend $3M on current Hornet Stadium to throw it away? That is foolish use of funds.
BuckeyeHornetFan
Active member
It has to stay but also doesn’t have to surround the football stadium. It can and should be relocated elsewhere.
A track surrounding the football field is bad optics and still a “JV” thing.
Yes, there are other FBS programs with tracks surrounding their football field, but they represent the vast minority and almost exclusively apply to bottom tier FBS programs — something Sac State isn’t aiming to be.
While it may seem like a foolish waste, that type of temporary investment occurs all the time. It wouldn’t be close to being unprecedented.
BuckeyeHornetFan
Active member
I don’t understand the point of making this financial investment to jump to FBS and to join the MAC if they were to then half @$$ the football facility.
If they are truly putting their best foot forward and going all-in on this FBS move — they must find a way to separate and relocate track and field events away from the football stadium. Maybe not in year one or two, but at some point in the not-so-distant future. The sooner the better.
Not doing so means that they haven’t fully detached from the “JV” mindset.
But the CSU BOT wont bite this either (which I think is to the tune of $100M). I think SDSU (CSU) bought the land Snapdragon sits on and they lease it back/out? Not too involved in that deal, but Wood would know.
