-
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!
MLS
- Thread starter Tim
- Start date
Kadeezy said:
Won't happen. MLS requires grass don't they? SJSU had a tumultous relationship with their MLS hosted team and so do the Vikings at PSU.
Green Laser
Active member
Green Cookie Monster said:
I think that Portland has Field-turf. Several issues, Portland attendance is down, I heard they are thinking of moving to their own stadium. The soccer markings are confusing especially when watching on TV.
The width of a specific soccer field is 240 feet as opposed to 160 for a football field. For those of you advocating that the track should be removed, you would be even further from the football sideline with a soccer specific field.
Hornut
Active member
I go to the home games because they are on campus. It keeps me close to Sac State. I wouldn't go to another team's field, especially a soccer team.
Soccer in the rail yard is sacrilege. This is all hype due to the world cup and Kevin Johnson.
Earlier this year, UCD was going to build another campus there.
Soccer in the rail yard is sacrilege. This is all hype due to the world cup and Kevin Johnson.
Earlier this year, UCD was going to build another campus there.
Per this article, speculation is that the Kings owner is looking into buying the Sac soccer team and making a push for MLS expansion.
http://www.sactownroyalty.com/2014/8/3/5963973/kings-owners-buying-sacramento-republic-mls-ambition" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
A 20k capacity stadium would run $70M-$100M and the article states that typically other municipalities fund no more than a third of these soccer stadiums. I'm not sure how viable this is, but if Ranadive is serious about it he probably wouldn't have a problem getting a significant portion of the costs funded...especially if they have a mayor like KJ who is willing to gift some City property for use.
The fact is we will never see a new Hornet Stadium in our lifetimes. It has been a decade since the students voted to fund an on-campus events center and it hasn't gotten done, so I don't see a new stadium ever happening. With that in mind I would have no problem renting out a soccer stadium for Hornet games. These issues come into mind first:
Pros
-I don't need to smuggle in (that much) booze to games since an off campus site means beer will be sold.
-The bathroom and concession issues go away. No more missing a whole quarter of a game while waiting in the bathroom line.
-Closer to the action. Sorry but those who think the seats would be farther from the action then at Hornet Stadium are just wrong. See pics below.
-Great marketing opportunity for football. How many alums/casual fans don't come to games now because of the shittiness of Hornet Stadium? This would be a great opportunity to increase fan interest.
-Coaches can sell playing in a new stadium on the recruiting trail.
-More likely that games would be televised (at least locally) since a new stadium would be TV friendly.
-Would be a huge plus if conference realignment opportunities ever arise in the future.
Cons
-Increased costs due to rent/lease of the venue.
-Concession revenue going to the City/soccer team and not Hornet football (probably negotiable when determining the lease agreement).
-Off campus means the student attendance at games will disappear.
-Tailgating might be an issue/disappear depending on the parking situation.
-Assuming it's at the railyards location, traffic to and from games would be horrible.
-Grass surface means the possibility of boring mud games (assuming it ever rains again).
-Home game dates would be dictated by the soccer team schedule.
The funny/sad thing is these are similar reasons as to why Hornet hoops should play some games at the new downtown arena. Maybe not every game needs to be at the soccer stadium/downtown arena; just a select few that would draw well like the Causeway (for football at least, they are too scared to play us in hoops), Montana (FB & BB), Weber (BB), maybe Cal Poly.
.jpg)
http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/60122621.jpg
http://www.sactownroyalty.com/2014/8/3/5963973/kings-owners-buying-sacramento-republic-mls-ambition" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
A 20k capacity stadium would run $70M-$100M and the article states that typically other municipalities fund no more than a third of these soccer stadiums. I'm not sure how viable this is, but if Ranadive is serious about it he probably wouldn't have a problem getting a significant portion of the costs funded...especially if they have a mayor like KJ who is willing to gift some City property for use.
The fact is we will never see a new Hornet Stadium in our lifetimes. It has been a decade since the students voted to fund an on-campus events center and it hasn't gotten done, so I don't see a new stadium ever happening. With that in mind I would have no problem renting out a soccer stadium for Hornet games. These issues come into mind first:
Pros
-I don't need to smuggle in (that much) booze to games since an off campus site means beer will be sold.
-The bathroom and concession issues go away. No more missing a whole quarter of a game while waiting in the bathroom line.
-Closer to the action. Sorry but those who think the seats would be farther from the action then at Hornet Stadium are just wrong. See pics below.
-Great marketing opportunity for football. How many alums/casual fans don't come to games now because of the shittiness of Hornet Stadium? This would be a great opportunity to increase fan interest.
-Coaches can sell playing in a new stadium on the recruiting trail.
-More likely that games would be televised (at least locally) since a new stadium would be TV friendly.
-Would be a huge plus if conference realignment opportunities ever arise in the future.
Cons
-Increased costs due to rent/lease of the venue.
-Concession revenue going to the City/soccer team and not Hornet football (probably negotiable when determining the lease agreement).
-Off campus means the student attendance at games will disappear.
-Tailgating might be an issue/disappear depending on the parking situation.
-Assuming it's at the railyards location, traffic to and from games would be horrible.
-Grass surface means the possibility of boring mud games (assuming it ever rains again).
-Home game dates would be dictated by the soccer team schedule.
The funny/sad thing is these are similar reasons as to why Hornet hoops should play some games at the new downtown arena. Maybe not every game needs to be at the soccer stadium/downtown arena; just a select few that would draw well like the Causeway (for football at least, they are too scared to play us in hoops), Montana (FB & BB), Weber (BB), maybe Cal Poly.
http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/60122621.jpg
I'm with you SD. There is no will by the people in power to build an on campus arena or even renovate the stadium. The best bet is to use the new facilities that are to be built downtown. It would affect tailgating, but transportation via light rail could bring students right to the front steps of either one.
I no longer believe there is a chance we move up to FBS, so playing at a 20k stadium is adequate for football. There is a bigger chance that our hoops team becomes more successful, and playing some games in the new downtown arena could accelerate the improvement. I'm all for it. The cons of playing our games downtown do not outweigh the current cons we see with our on campus facilities. So I see it as a net positive.
I no longer believe there is a chance we move up to FBS, so playing at a 20k stadium is adequate for football. There is a bigger chance that our hoops team becomes more successful, and playing some games in the new downtown arena could accelerate the improvement. I'm all for it. The cons of playing our games downtown do not outweigh the current cons we see with our on campus facilities. So I see it as a net positive.
Well with the P5 getting their autonomy today coupled with their coaches “poll” that they would prefer an exclusive P5 football schedule, I think the G5 and top tier of FCS eventually merge and become essentially what is the current day FCS version of D1 football. Having a downtown arena and stadium to use in the event that comes to fruition is nice to have in our back pocket.
SJHornet
Active member
I think the MLS would be incredibly successful here. As a huge soccer fan, I'd be thrilled for Sacramento to host top tier professional soccer, but would routinely root for them to loose as a die-hard Quakes supporter 
With the new arena being built, I don't know how much support the city will realistically be able to give the effort. The heat for keeping the Kings in town was relatively low due to the fact they were the only major team in the region, but public money for two facilities might create some major backlash. I know the MLS toured various sites, and the league and team would like a downtown location. However, I'd like to believe that Sacramento State is involved in the conversation as at least a backup plan.
We need a new home, the Republic need around 20-25,000 seats. If the university could provide the land, and a portion of the money, and maybe come to an agreement where we could use the downtown arena for a sweetheart lease as part of the deal, it could be a good for all parties involved. I would have some reservations about sharing the venue on a semi-permanent basis with a professional club, but a new facility with bells and whistles may be worth some of the potential headache.
If the Republic are successful in getting a new downtown stadium, I think its reasonable that we could at least explore the possibility of renting it for our home games. Even if only for part of the schedule. Many schools already play off campus, and we're a hop, skip and a jump from downtown already. If we want to have bigger aspirations, we need to use the tools at our disposal. With the P5 autonomy deal, and realignment/division 1 chaos in the near future, we could use this to our advantage.
I doubt either happens at this point, but it will be interesting to follow.
With the new arena being built, I don't know how much support the city will realistically be able to give the effort. The heat for keeping the Kings in town was relatively low due to the fact they were the only major team in the region, but public money for two facilities might create some major backlash. I know the MLS toured various sites, and the league and team would like a downtown location. However, I'd like to believe that Sacramento State is involved in the conversation as at least a backup plan.
We need a new home, the Republic need around 20-25,000 seats. If the university could provide the land, and a portion of the money, and maybe come to an agreement where we could use the downtown arena for a sweetheart lease as part of the deal, it could be a good for all parties involved. I would have some reservations about sharing the venue on a semi-permanent basis with a professional club, but a new facility with bells and whistles may be worth some of the potential headache.
If the Republic are successful in getting a new downtown stadium, I think its reasonable that we could at least explore the possibility of renting it for our home games. Even if only for part of the schedule. Many schools already play off campus, and we're a hop, skip and a jump from downtown already. If we want to have bigger aspirations, we need to use the tools at our disposal. With the P5 autonomy deal, and realignment/division 1 chaos in the near future, we could use this to our advantage.
I doubt either happens at this point, but it will be interesting to follow.
superhornet
Active member
My main question is the Quake's take on all of this. Would they welcome a closer geographic rival? They probably have territorial rights dibs on the Sac market. The Republic (or an expansion MLS franchise if they're NOT the Republic) would likely have to pay SJ a hefty territorial rights fee, similar to what the Kings were looking at when they were eyeing Anaheim.
SJHornet
Active member
Super Hornet said:
The Quakes would have relatively little to no say (more like no say whatsoever). The MLS is a single entity league, and the Quakes' "owner" is technically the operator, and a shareholder of the league, and all the player contracts are owned by the MLS, not the clubs. The league decides where it expands and what markets teams claim.
http://www.sacbee.com/2014/09/17/6715747/sacramento-republic-fc-releases.html
Not many "other sports" can be played on a soccer field. For the sake of being able to enjoy a beer (the un-smuggled variety) while watching a Hornet game without a stupid track surrounding the field, I sure as hell hope this happens.
Technically the Well isn't an athletics asset, it's just the rec center for students. The Broad would still be needed as the team would still practice on campus and the coaches would still need their offices to run the program.Hornet25 said:
I have a hard time seeing every game being played at the new stadium. We would still have to schedule programs like Menlo and those type of games just won't draw no matter where they are played. IMO there are really only a few opponents worth having the game in this new stadium.
