-
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.
LoveSacState
Active member
Me myself am not going to Make assumptions and thoughts on the Cal Expo thing until I know for sure what's happening. I'm doing that based on them getting something done to get us to FBS. The negative stuff i put aside right now cause they need our support even more now not doubts or assumptions as to the stadium plan cause to be honest we just don't know the facts. As for spending 3M on the current stadium for upgrades until they have a permanent home ,well they have too. Im certain that was part of the ask by the MAC to move up.
I'm sure there were certain improvement requirements to Hornet Stadium to land the MAC invite. Unless we were breaking ground on a stadium this spring/summer, there are improvement needed to hold HS over until that happens.
FootballAlum84
Active member
No matter where this stadium goes I feel something like this has to be on par with what to expect.
https://fausports.com/facilities/fau-football-stadium/79
They recently secured a nice 15 yea/$22.5 million naming deal for the stadium also.
Used Kadeezy.gpt to predict cost today vs 2011 when it opened.
https://fausports.com/facilities/fau-football-stadium/79
They recently secured a nice 15 yea/$22.5 million naming deal for the stadium also.
Used Kadeezy.gpt to predict cost today vs 2011 when it opened.
| Inflation Assumption | Approx. 2026 Cost for $70M (2011) |
|---|
| 4% annual (higher trend) | ~$125 – 130 M |
| 3% annual (moderate) | ~$105 – 115 M |
| 2.6% annual (recent trend) | ~$100 M |
This is very much underestimating the potential cost. USF is building a 35k stadium and their cost is ~$350M. Assume you go with something smaller and more barebones at half the cost (maybe?) then you're looking at $175M. Which seems to be in line with number put out there in the RFI/P for Cal Expo.
Agreed.
Also I apologize for going hard in the paint against you on one of your posts. I thought you were a phag fan but you're a Hoser so you're cool. Looking forward to seeing you guys regularly on the schedule in a few years.
either way, facilities need to improve. Wood added the temporary measure with the new team room underneath the freeway and basic upgrades at track
I feel the lack of NDSU criticism not only comes from their success, but they have FBS ready facilities in place for practice/ training. Sure the Fargo dome is odd, but 18k is fine for low FBS, and they already had engineering done to expand if needed when they put on ballot two years ago.
I feel the lack of NDSU criticism not only comes from their success, but they have FBS ready facilities in place for practice/ training. Sure the Fargo dome is odd, but 18k is fine for low FBS, and they already had engineering done to expand if needed when they put on ballot two years ago.
ES2X
Active member
Wait, you seriously think that's "on par" with any future stadium you're about to build at the horse track, or wherever?
Why throw away 4 million dollars on upgrades.. if it's all getting torn down.. kind of pointless.
Where is all the money coming from for all this stuff? How much was Collegiate Consulting paid over 2.5 years working with you guys for their knowledge of joining the MAC?
How much more will annual football budget overhead be now to keep up with FBS competitive coaching costs? With no media money for 5 years.. I mean..
The Pac-12 donors are no longer on the hook for any pledges, because that's not what happened, so how much money really is in the bank? What is the actual money in the bank for NIL? Not just pledges..
It seems like you guys are just making excuses about California High speed rail being a rip-off to the taxpayer as a way to project your guilt for about going essentially insolvent soon and the bailout coming on the California taxpayer backs just for your vanity FBS move.
Remember when you said we weren't going to get an FBS invite? Lol, cry harder.
