Sac in the WAC

[JackHornet]

Somebody in another thread wanted to talk about us getting into the WAC.

Whenever the next round of conference realignment comes along, we need to be in position to get an invitation from the WAC!!!

I think there is little doubt that the WAC will lose 2 schools for sure and maybe more.

What would make us attractive to the WAC? If, by the time a WAC invitation comes and we don't have the arena built, will that hurt us? Maybe the WAC will say within 3-5 years of being in the WAC, the arena must be built or else we will be expelled?

What other schools will the WAC look at? Davis? Cal Poly?

Personally I would be all for us getting into the WAC!!!

 

[Green Cookie Monster]

The two schools you mention have 10,000 stadiums. Though new and pretty to look at, they don't have 15,000 capacity. Yes, the arena would be a limitation. Our stadium is not that much different than Reno's, we just need to add some steel, bigger pressbox and concessions/restrooms.

We have a better chance of maintaining 15,000 avg than do UCFE and Poly.

 

[JackHornet]

The two schools you mention have 10,000 stadiums. Though new and pretty to look at, they don't have 15,000 capacity. Yes, the arena would be a limitation. Our stadium is not that much different than Reno's, we just need to add some steel, bigger pressbox and concessions/restrooms.

We have a better chance of maintaining 15,000 avg than do UCFE and Poly.

So what? Did you notice how small Idaho's football stadium is? Their basketball "arena" is just their football dome reconfigured. Even with those facilities, they got into the WAC.

 

[Green Cookie Monster]

Kibbie Dome seats 16000, that's what. Last time I checked that's more than 15000. Plus at the time they were admitted they rented out Wazzu's stadium for games.
Idaho got in because of their big brother Boise lobbying for them.

 

[SDHornet]

JackHornet, I think you just opened Pandora’s Box. GCM is right, I doubt the NCAA will let “the farm extension” and cp move to FBS without their stadiums legitimately seating at least 15k or at least a current expansion of their stadiums be under construction to increase capacity. Yes there are a good amount of programs that fail to meet the attendance “requirement”, but I don’t think the NCAA would want to add to that list of schools.

Yes Hornet Stadium isn’t a great facility, but it can hold at least 20k and it has the space to add support facilities (bathrooms, concession stands, more locker rooms, storage, etc) within the proximity of the existing stadium. Just take a look at the Nevada stadium and you can see the cheap way to go as far as “upgrading” the existing layout. I’d prefer a new stadium (without a track) from scratch, but I doubt that would ever happen, there are other athletic facilities that have a higher priority right now.

http://ncaafootball.com/image_lib/stadiums_nevada.jpg

I think Sac State will not be allowed into the WAC until there are some shovels in the ground building the new arena. I can’t imagine the WAC wanting one of its members to have a gym that is comparable to most high school gyms. Facilities are just one of the many hurdles and issues related to a move to the WAC.

 

[SDHornet]

As I posted before, money will be the deciding factor in making a full move to the WAC. Below are some other related cost issues when considering a move.

The other serious hurdle is scholarships. A move to FBS would require 22 more football scholarships and matching women scholarships. Assuming all of the current women athletics are at their maximum scholarship funding level, that would either require that a new women’s sport be funded along with facilities, coaching salaries, travel expenses and recruiting budgets for the new needed sport. A women’s swimming and diving team would eat up a good amount, if not all, of the 22 women scholarships needed (plus it’s a WAC sponsored women’s sport). The other option is to cut some men’s sports. As men’s soccer is the only men’s sport the WAC doesn’t sponsor, it could get the axe depending on if the men’s soccer scholarships are needed to meet Title IX. (Sad to say given their recent success and appearance in the NCAA tournament, but this is a legitimate option if the admin is sold on becoming a full WAC member.)

The actual future WAC members will present some issues when dealing with increased travel budgets. Hopefully La Tech moves out of the WAC as it has no geographical business in the WAC. Depending on what schools move to what conferences when the dust settles, they will fit better in either Conference USA or the Sun Belt with the other Louisiana Universities. La Tech will add some serious mileage costs to the travel budget. New Mexico State also adds some miles but I don’t think they will move out of the WAC. Lastly, and the most costly is Hawai’i. It won’t be cheap flying all the athletics to Hawai’i every year (football every other year). This cost will represent the most significant increase in travel expenses if a move to WAC is made. I am sure the current travel budgets of being in the Big Sky are somewhat comparable to WAC travel expenses with the exception of the geographical outliers. (Hawai’i & NMSU)

Another expense not to overlook is the increase in coaching salaries and administration costs in being a WAC member. This category may not be as noticeable as the other expenses, but they will escalate on an annual basis. A new AD will be needed who has experience dealing at the FBS level. Not sure what Wanless is making now but I don’t think he would be the guy to go with if Sac State goes FBS and Sac State would need to hire someone who knows what to do. Also football coaching salaries are completely out of control at the FBS level. The “hire the lowest bidder” strategy Wanless has been employing just won’t cut it at the much higher level of competition of FBS. Finally, Sac State will always just be a stepping stone position for football head coaches at the FBS level. So expect a new HC every 3 to 4 years for one reason (coach does well and is hired away) or another (see Moosh era).

I am sure there are plenty of things I overlooked but these stand out the most to me. I would fully support a move to the WAC if all the pieces are in place (better facilities, more support from the students and faculty as a whole). Yes Sac State will gain an infinite amount of exposure for being in the WAC and there are some positives with making such a move; but it comes at a heavy price. The last thing I would want to see is a half assed attempt to make a move to the WAC only to have the administration AND STUDENTS fail to financially support the athletic department. This would have disastrous results.

 

[SactoHornetAlum]

WAC tv revenue will help offset the extra costs..that and just being in the WAC will give the "perception" that we are DI even though we have been DI for 20 years will prob bring more attendance, corp sponsorship and general donations to bring in that extra revenue.

 

[superhornet]

I realize that you're talking mainly football, but has everyone forgotten that we already ARE members of the WAC?

 

[JackHornet]

Kibbie Dome seats 16000, that's what. Last time I checked that's more than 15000. Plus at the time they were admitted they rented out Wazzu's stadium for games.
Idaho got in because of their big brother Boise lobbying for them.

Boise did NOT lobby for them. Boise didn't want Idaho in the conference.

You're right they did rent out WSU for games but that has now stopped.

 

[Green Cookie Monster]

Politics were involved.
Got admiited using Wazzu, now they are in back to their FCS stadium.
Bait and switch 101.

 

[SDHornet]

Who cares how they did it. They are in the WAC now and aren’t going anywhere. Idaho has been a dominant force since joining the FBS and has brought millions of dollars to their university by doing so. :roll: :lol:

 

[SDHornet]

I realize that you're talking mainly football, but has everyone forgotten that we already ARE members of the WAC?

Yes a move to the WAC would affect football the most as that will be the potentially big money maker for Sac State. All other sports will just be expenditures that would hopefully be subsidized by increased revenue from football and basketball. (At least that’s how SDSU justifies its football program.)

 

[Kadeezy]

Somebody in another thread wanted to talk about us getting into the WAC.

Whenever the next round of conference realignment comes along, we need to be in position to get an invitation from the WAC!!!

I think there is little doubt that the WAC will lose 2 schools for sure and maybe more.

What would make us attractive to the WAC? If, by the time a WAC invitation comes and we don't have the arena built, will that hurt us? Maybe the WAC will say within 3-5 years of being in the WAC, the arena must be built or else we will be expelled?

What other schools will the WAC look at? Davis? Cal Poly?

Personally I would be all for us getting into the WAC!!!

I've written about this at LENGTH over the last 5 years or so of Big Sky message board hopping. Basically the just is this... Our programs are competitive enough to fully compete in the WAC now. Maybe not in football, but those recruits will come following a transition. Gymnastics and Baseball play in the WAC, and I see soccer, track, golf, etc. doing just fine there as well. We have the market they'd like to see join, but there is one thing holding us back that many of you have referred to.

FACILITIES. We will never be WAC-worthy with our elementary school gym and erector set football stadium. The stadium is less of a problem because with some minor renovations, we could boast a more presentable venue and meet the minimum attentance requirement. However, the lack of an arena will be our downfall. Unless we start playing at Arco or Memorial, which are both terrible options in my opinion.

That being said, I still think we're the best fit for the WAC, even over a school like UM or UCD for many reasons.

 

[Green Cookie Monster]

Our athletics budget would rank in the bottom half of the league, but still ahead of some. we spend $2.5M on football, Idaho for comparison spends $4.5M and they have less varsity sports.

A big hurdle would be coaches salaries. Sperbeck would at least double his current amount and Katz would triple his amount. I guess these monies could come from the tv earnings from conference payouts.

Why don't we pull an Idaho, play at ARCO for two years, get admitted to the WAC and then move back to the gym?

 

[StungAlum]

I realize that you're talking mainly football, but has everyone forgotten that we already ARE members of the WAC?

Sac State is an associate member, not a full member. The WAC has other associate members as well.

I would love to see a move to the FBS, but I dont see it happening any time soon. There's just too much going on, I think the administration would face a HUGE problem by way of professors. They would stomp their feet and cry like babies over the additional costs associated with a move to the FBS.

Students are iffy, they dont want to pay more than they already do. And the professors dont help, they preach about "how it should be" in class to try and sway votes! They never fail to mention what is needed educationally either, often forgetting to mention than athletics are very important to every university in many many different ways.

 

[JackHornet]

So we are members of the WAC in 2 sports, big deal. The main sports we are still in the Big Sky.

Some mentioned that other WAC sports have a limited number of sports. Why do we have a rowing and gymnastics team? I know Title IX. But the point is we could cut some sports, still comply with Title IX, and have more money for the sports we do have.

What are the WAC core sports? If we have sports that aren't WAC core, then they should be cut and I don't care if they are successful.

I was surprised that the school tried to pass Measure 1 during this economy. But it looks as though they are trying.

I say let things settle down, the economy improve and then try to pass another fee referendum for a move to the WAC and/or to build the arena.

 

[SDHornet]

JH right now Sac State sponsors every WAC sport except for women’s swimming and diving. But Sac State sponsors women’s rowing. It wouldn’t make sense to switch rowing for swimming and diving as Sac State owns and operates the Aquatic Center at Lake Natoma. I would think the WAC wouldn’t have a problem granting an exception for this sport. If they aren’t, then Sac State is screwed as they would need to provide or find a place with Olympic size facilities for swimming and diving to compete/train/practice at. I know there is a pool at Sac State, but I don’t know if it will suffice.

As I stated above, the only non-WAC men’s sport Sac State currently sponsors is soccer. There is a pretty strong soccer following in Sacramento so I don’t think it would make sense to cut it. When I was a student, men’s soccer had a run not nearly as successful as this past season, and the games were packed. Men’s soccer is like any other Sac State sport in that it needs better facilities to take its success to the next level. But yes, if they wanted to, they could very well cut men’s soccer to make up for some of the added football scholarships.

Maybe someone can shed some light on the men vs. women scholarship counts and what the percentage Sac State needs to maintain. This might give us some insight as to whether the athletic department would/could cut sports to maintain Title IX.

 

[StungAlum]

So we are members of the WAC in 2 sports, big deal. The main sports we are still in the Big Sky.

Some mentioned that other WAC sports have a limited number of sports. Why do we have a rowing and gymnastics team? I know Title IX. But the point is we could cut some sports, still comply with Title IX, and have more money for the sports we do have.

What are the WAC core sports? If we have sports that aren't WAC core, then they should be cut and I don't care if they are successful.

I was surprised that the school tried to pass Measure 1 during this economy. But it looks as though they are trying.

I say let things settle down, the economy improve and then try to pass another fee referendum for a move to the WAC and/or to build the arena.

You're missing some things when considering a move to FBS. You have to sponsor a minimum number of varsity sports to move up! Cutting sports programs cant be done, I believe Sac State sponsors 16, which is the minimum for the FBS level. (correct me if I'm wrong)

There are just too many things you arent considering.

 

[Green Cookie Monster]

Sac State sponsors 20 varsity sports, more than any BSC program.

 

[superhornet]

Jack --> Agreed that our main sports are in the Sky and that our WAC membership is associate in nature. I think the Sky is where they should stay. But at least one of those WAC sports is pretty important, at least in terms of results, if not in capital outlay or butts in the seats. Our gym team is a WAC powerhouse, and takes second chair only to the UCLAs of the world west of the Mississippi. That's important in my book.