• 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!

Cal Poly May Move to the FBS

StungAlum

StungAlum

Active member
Cal Poly may make the move to the FBS after the NCAA moratorium, I was just wondering what people may think of this. At egriz there is a lot of talk about ucd following, although I dont think that would happen being as how their administration didnt even want to make the move from DII.

Will the Hornets ever go to the FBS? Is Sac State a good fit for the WAC or MWC? Out of all of the BSC teams, who are the ones that have the best chances of moving to the FBS?

I know there hasnt been any talk about the Hornets possible move, other than a comment made by the Fresno State coach saying that he beleives that someday it will happen.

I know that the Hornets havent been a very successful program, but does that mean we will never make the move, does a team have to be successful to make the move?
 
MAKE THE MOVE!!

In my opinion (which isn't worth much) the only way to really grow is to move to FBS. I don't care what people say about our attendance - FCS teams for the most part don't draw many people and therefore revenue isn't great. The other issue is recruiting, everybody wonders why people leave Sac - the answer is they want to play for FBS teams. How much more fun would it be to play Fresno, Nevada, SJSU week in and week out - even Cal Poly if they make the move. Look at the excitement of when Sac came close to beating CSU this year - this would make a huge difference. The question will be how to address basketball facilities and the increase in football scholarships (any ideas?). I think travel costs would be more in line compared with the Big Sky. Sac is a huge market with potential and for some reason the people here think they're above the Big Sky - so I say give them what they want and MAKE THE MOVE!!
 
How will Poly make the move with a 10K seat stadium and 3K seat gym?

davis also has a 10K seat stadium, rest of their facilities are already better than most FBS schools.

Sac State will never move FBS, yes it helps to be successful b4 you move up. Try running a FBS program with 6,000 showing up to a football game that results in a loss. The gym isn't even a consideration. The Gonzo flimflam arena deal soured many people, so don't look at the students to tax themselves.

Students at davis and Poly are smart enough to know the advantages of taxing themselves, our students are too dumb to grasp the macro advantages of a successfully funded FBS program that wins.

This is discussed ad nauseum every three months.

Why be another Idaho?
 
I think that someplace down the road Sac State, Davis and Poly will all be FBS if they still have football teams.
I don't see any of the three "allowing" the others to move up and staying FCS, I think that would be sucide for the football programs. If that point ever comes it would be time to decide to move up or pull the plug, much like when Division II fell apart in the state.
This would be especially true for Sac and Davis. FCS in the West is a tough sell, especially in California. Being the only FCS in the state would be impossible. A lot of the Poly talk seems to be centered on their recent football success but the entire athletic program would have to be considered, along with the facilites available and the potential marketability of the program. I am not too familar with Poly's facilities but I know that they can only seat 11,000 in their football stadium, they would have to basically double it if they ever hoped to host a FBS game, I don't see the WAC or MWC even looking at them until that is done. Poly also has it's location working against it, a small local population base, off the beaten track, a beautiful area but not easy to get to. Davis while on the fringe of the Sacramento Metropolitan Area also would have to double the size of it's new stadium. I mean they can't even handle properly hosting the Causeway Classic with that small stadium which is sold out already. Of the three schools, Sac has the best potential of successfully moving up based on being in the center of the Sacramento Metropolitan Area, facilites, which are improving all the time, (Hornet Stadium is twice as large as the other two), and easy access. Our weak link is the arena, but even that could be solved if the Kings build at Cal Expo which is only two miles from campus. We played some home games at Arco before when we were Division II. Not an ideal situation but never the less we have options while we work on geetting a new arena on campus. It will be interesting, all three have the next 5 years to build their programs and make their cases!
 
Green Laser and OldHornet, those were some great posts, I agree with almost everything you said.

Cow Poly's stadium is expandable to over 20k, as for their gym, not sure what they'll do. They have some well off alumni that have said they would donate for an expansion i.e. John Madden.

ucd, they have an administration that is fine with the way thing's are, at least when it comes to football.

As far as being successful before the move up, I dont think it's a requirement but it does help. I think that the move up would DEFINITELY help with recruiting and attendance.

GCM, stop being such a sour apple. There would be way more people at the games if the move to FBS were made.
 
The size of the areana or gym has nothing to do with a move to FBS, the basketball teams are already DI. The issue will be conference affiliation, and that could be the issue. The real question is whether the WAC will deal with Sac having a 3-4K gym (size of North Gym after expansion) as a trade off for it's largest media market? I actually think they would, especially considering how poor Idaho, Utah State and New Mexico State have faired in recent years. I actually think the current Sac team would beat all of those teams.

For Sac to advance the athletics program it needs to move away from the Big Sky - in the end NO ONE IN SACRAMENTO CARES ABOUT MONTANA, MSU, WEBER STATE OR ANY OF THE OTHERS. But they would care about Fresno, SJSU, and Nevada. Also think about the fans from those schools that would drive to Sac to watch a game. I don't think it would be uncommon for Fresno or Nevada to bring 3-4 thousand per visit. $$$$$$$. I really don't think football would survive long term without the move, past 10 years.

So make the move - which is more fun, getting pounded by Montana and NAU or 20,000 people playing Fresno or Nevada? MAKE THE MOVE!!!
 
I agree with what everyone says here. Besides, I believe Dr. Gonzalez is trying to position the school to go to the WAC so this all makes sense, despite what happened with the arena. And at the time of funds available and design, they could not build the rec center and arena....if they had only waited two more years for design sequencing because all contractors right now are coming in 30-60% below estimates because they are hurting for work badly now.

But who forsaw that 2 years ago...
 
Just one fly in the ointment, guys.

The money-grubbers at the NCAA won't allow the move if we don't already meet certain minimum attendance goals. In fact, there's a movement afoot to downgrade a few under-achieving programs, though the chances of that are iffy at best.

We can have all the exploratory committees we want, but if we can't meet those attendance requirements, the NCAA will reject our upgrade request out of hand.

The good news for you upgrade proponents, though, is that with the current HC, we have every chance of meeting those requirements by the time the moritorium is lifted.
 
SH, the attendance part is pretty much a ruse by the NCAA. They have never enforced that rule...and for good reason: if they did that to schools, the schools would turn around and sue the association and they would win.

It's a moot point.
 
A two year study on attendance, the requirement is that a team average 15,000 per game which can either be calculated via tickets or clicking devices. This "rule" has NOT been enforced in recent years, there are many teams that are FBS that year in and out fail to meet this requirement and never met it during their transition, i.e. Idaho.

Another requirement is that the school must sponsor 8 varsity girls sports, Sac State has bball, vball, softball, golf, track, rowing, tennis, gymnastics, and cross country.

I dont know what the budget is for football, but I'm sure it is right in line with some lower tier FBS programs.
 
Eleven college football programs will have to raise their average home attendance next season — some by a third or more — if the NCAA sticks to new criteria for membership in Division I-A. Those that failed to draw the minimum 15,000 a game last year:

School average attendance % increase needed
Buffalo 9,414 59%
Kent State 10,546 42%
Middle Tennessee 11,021 36%
Eastern Michigan 11,260 33%
La.-Monroe 11,298 33%
Idaho 12,064 24%
Central Michigan 13,683 10%
Akron 13,812 9%
La.-Lafayette 13,995 7%
Ball State 14,710 2%
Utah State 14,921 0.5%

These are stats from 2003, when the 15,000 requirement was enacted. These same teams are still in violation of this rule and nothing is being done and there are teams that have been added to this list as well. I think the attendance argument against a move is rediculous, the NCAA does not enforce the rule and legally cannot deny a school based solely on attendance.
 
StungAlum said:
Eleven college football programs will have to raise their average home attendance next season — some by a third or more — if the NCAA sticks to new criteria for membership in Division I-A. Those that failed to draw the minimum 15,000 a game last year:

School average attendance % increase needed
Buffalo 9,414 59%
Kent State 10,546 42%
Middle Tennessee 11,021 36%
Eastern Michigan 11,260 33%
La.-Monroe 11,298 33%
Idaho 12,064 24%
Central Michigan 13,683 10%
Akron 13,812 9%
La.-Lafayette 13,995 7%
Ball State 14,710 2%
Utah State 14,921 0.5%

These are stats from 2003, when the 15,000 requirement was enacted. These same teams are still in violation of this rule and nothing is being done and there are teams that have been added to this list as well. I think the attendance argument against a move is rediculous, the NCAA does not enforce the rule and legally cannot deny a school based solely on attendance.
Click to expand...

It also proves that just because you slap FBS in front of your name the droves of fans eager for FBS football won't show up. Why aren't these schools averaging 20-30K fans per game they play 'FBS' football? They are all horrible, but play FBS football.
 
Media market won't effect the gate receipts. More people might have an opportunity to watch the game on tv, but won't show up. Utah State has SLC, Buffalo has the Bills, Idaho has the whole state, the Michigan and Ohio schools are in high population states, sorry not buying it.

Why even have a stadium, just eliminate the grandstands and make the game for tv only if the media market stigma is so important. How many people watch the game via BigSkyTV.org? That would be a good indicator of demand.
 
Green Cookie Monster said:
StungAlum said:
Eleven college football programs will have to raise their average home attendance next season — some by a third or more — if the NCAA sticks to new criteria for membership in Division I-A. Those that failed to draw the minimum 15,000 a game last year:

School average attendance % increase needed
Buffalo 9,414 59%
Kent State 10,546 42%
Middle Tennessee 11,021 36%
Eastern Michigan 11,260 33%
La.-Monroe 11,298 33%
Idaho 12,064 24%
Central Michigan 13,683 10%
Akron 13,812 9%
La.-Lafayette 13,995 7%
Ball State 14,710 2%
Utah State 14,921 0.5%

These are stats from 2003, when the 15,000 requirement was enacted. These same teams are still in violation of this rule and nothing is being done and there are teams that have been added to this list as well. I think the attendance argument against a move is rediculous, the NCAA does not enforce the rule and legally cannot deny a school based solely on attendance.
Click to expand...

It also proves that just because you slap FBS in front of your name the droves of fans eager for FBS football won't show up. Why aren't these schools averaging 20-30K fans per game they play 'FBS' football? They are all horrible, but play FBS football.
Click to expand...

You might want to check that, GCM. To say that MOST of these are horrible would be correct, but to say that ALL of them are would not. Utah State is generally fairly competitive within their conference. And Ball State is currently ranked #16 in the BCS poll. The rest I'll grant are fairly bad, although Angus's old team seems to be doing much better this year.
 
Before I start, I must warn you this is a newbie alert. I apologize if I'm touching on anything discussed here in the past.

I grew up in San Jose and was raised as a hardcore SJSU fan. I know about the WAC all too well. Thts why I can't understand why anyone would be trying to get into the WAC unless it was simply to jump into the higher division. That being said, it may be very possible in the very near future to gain entry to the WAC if the latest rumors are true. The conference’s three top teams, (Boise, Fresno and Hawaii), are all trying to jump to the Mountain West, (even SJSU). The WAC is becoming the Sun Belt II.

Personally I have never understood why Sacramento State hasn't tried to join the Big West. The Big Sky offers no regional rivalries, and is WAY expensive to travel. Montana? Who cares? Join the Big West as the 10th California member and compete in the Great West for football. The times the team would have to travel for football would cost them no more than it does now, and the rest of the sports would save a bundle. With any luck, the never ending rumors of Santa Clara and UoP re-introducing their football programs will materialize with the hopes of re-creating a Big West football conference, or at least a California based football conference. Who knows, maybe even Long Beach or Fullerton will re-introduce programs with the offer of close FCS football, (a major pipe-dream I know).

If Cal Poly wants to go, good luck. I can already predict their future. Idaho, NMSU, Utah State, say hello to your latest FBS bottom dweller.
 
I would have to disagree with a move to the Big West. The Big Sky is the premier 1AA football conference west of the Mississippi River. Also the Big Sky tends to get more teams into the playoffs due to overall conference strength than the Big West. If Sac State is to ever consider moving up to 1A, they will need to become more of a dominate force in the conference before such a move should even be considered. Not to mention the millions of dollars that would be needed to go into facilities to give Sac State any kind of hope of landing some top tier recruits. As a recent grad, I would love to see them make a move to the big stage but I think there is a lot of work to be done. I would hate to see Sac State make the move only to become comparable to Idaho, San Diego State, Utah State, ect.
 
SDHornet said:
I would have to disagree with a move to the Big West. The Big Sky is the premier 1AA football conference west of the Mississippi River. Also the Big Sky tends to get more teams into the playoffs due to overall conference strength than the Big West. If Sac State is to ever consider moving up to 1A, they will need to become more of a dominate force in the conference before such a move should even be considered. Not to mention the millions of dollars that would be needed to go into facilities to give Sac State any kind of hope of landing some top tier recruits. As a recent grad, I would love to see them make a move to the big stage but I think there is a lot of work to be done. I would hate to see Sac State make the move only to become comparable to Idaho, San Diego State, Utah State, ect.
Click to expand...

Great point. I would also hate to see Sac State move up to 1A. We need to focus on getting butts in the seats before we can focus on moving up. It will be interesting to see if we improve Hornet Stadium or build a new arena.
 
The Great West is completely fluid. Revolving door members and barely alive, ie. no auto qualifier to the NCAA's.

Big West doesn't sponsor football. So we can't join the BW in football.

I'd rather be in a premier conference for football that also has high standards for it's member schools, ie. funding, facilities.

We still play many BW schools OOC. Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?

Welcome to the board.
 
Other than Cow Poly and the Manure Pile, the Big West is a I-AAA conference. In addition, we've already been members for minor sports and been kicked out. The Big West doesn't seem to be interested, especially since it would mess up the UOP-UCD travel partner relationship. As far as the WAC goes, we're already members of the WAC in a few minor sports; one in particular is the best of the WAC. But for football? Not goint to happen anytime soon.

The Big Sky is great for Sac because it generates valuable regional publicity. We're already a great success in the Sky in certain sports (as much as eGriz tries to gloss over that). The WAC or the Sun Belt would over-extend us, plus it would relegate us to a near impossibility of winning a title. The Sky affords us that chance should we ever get good enough. The playoffs are equal opportunity, while the B(C)$ puts so many roadblocks in front of non-power-conferences that it's not really worth the effort.

As far as I'm concerned, the Sky is the place to be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top