• Hi Guest,

    We've updated the site to combine all the forums that were part of the Big Sky Fans Network into one location. This will make it easier to navigate and participate in all the discussions for each school without having to have multiple accounts, etc. We are still working out some tweaks but please let us know if you notice anything.

    With the migration, in some circumstances, your username could have been merged with one of your other usernames from the other forums. If this is the case, you can request to change your username in your account details page of your profile.
  • Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!
  • Guest, do want an ad free experience on BigSkyFans.com among other benefits? Upgrade your account today!

    Simply click your profile name > account upgrades > BigSky Club > choose between the year long subscription (two free months) or month to month

    Thanks for the continued support. Cheers!

Sac to the WAC? Is this a serious thought?

weberwildcat

Active member
Y do i keep hearing this? They have never done better than 5th place in the Big Sky since they joined in 1997 in either sport. And even as good as 5th is a rarity.

Why would the WAC want a power like that moving up? (sorry for the dis sac st)

Wouldn't that be the equivalent of the Big Sky right now considering Western State?
 
Sac football as a DI and Big Sky:

0 big sky titles

last yr of DII 1995: 4-6-1
1996: 1-10-0
1997: 1-10-0
1998: 5-6-0 (2 big sky)
1999: 6-5-0 (3 big sky) 5th place
2000: 7-4-0 ( 5 big sky) 4 way tie for 2nd at 5-3. UM was 8-0, sac was actually 3rd place
2001: 2-9-0
2002: 5-7-0 (3 big sky) 5th place
2003: 2-9-0
2004: 3-8-0
2005: 2-9-0
2006: 4-7-0 (3 big sky) 5th place
2007: 3-8-0
2008: 6-6-0 (3 big sky)
2009: 5-6-0 (4 big sky)


Again my point is why would the WAC consider them?
 
Even though football decides conference realignment...

Sac basketball as a DI and Big Sky:

0 big sky titles

1997: 2-14, 3-23
1998: 0-16, 1-25
1999: 3-13, 3-23
2000: 3-13, 9-18
2001: 2-14, 5-22
2002: 3-11, 9-19
2003: 5-9, 12-17 - 6th place
2004: 7-7, 13-15 - 4th place
2005: 8-6, 12-17 - 4th place
2006: 5-9, 15-15 - 5th place

Big Sky Tourney: 2-4

2007: 5-11, 10-19
2008: 2-14, 4-24
2009: 1-15, 2-27
2010: 3-13, 9-21
 
According to their loyal fan base, they are already a WAC school...except for the programs that really matter, such as Football and Basketball; i.e. MONEY MAKERS. Also, I guess, the WAC commissioner actually mentioned them as a possible replacement if the WAC is thoroughly scavanged; which i doubt happens. The only WAC team going anywhere would be Boise State.

The best scenario for WAC schools would be to join with the SKY.
 
talhadfoursteals said:
According to their loyal fan base, they are already a WAC school...except for the programs that really matter, such as Football and Basketball; i.e. MONEY MAKERS. Also, I guess, the WAC commissioner actually mentioned them as a possible replacement if the WAC is thoroughly scavanged; which i doubt happens. The only WAC team going anywhere would be Boise State.

The best scenario for WAC schools would be to join with the SKY.

that is true; the only thing going there way are things that don't matter. Volley ball wont get you moved up. I don't think they have ever averaged over 1,000 fans for a DI bball season. I think football they have had 10k ave before but not sure; that could be wrong.

They need to replace the Nest ASAP even for Big Sky.
 
catcat said:
Sac football as a DI and Big Sky:

0 big sky titles

last yr of DII 1995: 4-6-1
1996: 1-10-0
1997: 1-10-0
1998: 5-6-0 (2 big sky)
1999: 6-5-0 (3 big sky) 5th place
2000: 7-4-0 ( 5 big sky) 4 way tie for 2nd at 5-3. UM was 8-0, sac was actually 3rd place
2001: 2-9-0
2002: 5-7-0 (3 big sky) 5th place
2003: 2-9-0
2004: 3-8-0
2005: 2-9-0
2006: 4-7-0 (3 big sky) 5th place
2007: 3-8-0
2008: 6-6-0 (3 big sky)
2009: 5-6-0 (4 big sky)


Again my point is why would the WAC consider them?

Looks like SAC can establish a bit of a streak every 10 years.

The WAC would consider them because of the same reason why the Sky brought them in. Great market...even though its has proven to be piss poor. Also, SAC likes to make a bunch of grandiose promises about their facilities and how they are going to fix everything. What is SAC's football attendance figures? I know their basketball can't be more than a couple hundred, but isn't that a packed stadium for them?
 
catcat said:
talhadfoursteals said:
According to their loyal fan base, they are already a WAC school...except for the programs that really matter, such as Football and Basketball; i.e. MONEY MAKERS. Also, I guess, the WAC commissioner actually mentioned them as a possible replacement if the WAC is thoroughly scavanged; which i doubt happens. The only WAC team going anywhere would be Boise State.

The best scenario for WAC schools would be to join with the SKY.

that is true; the only thing going there way are things that don't matter. Volley ball wont get you moved up. I don't think they have ever averaged over 1,000 fans for a DI bball season. I think football they have had 10k ave before but not sure; that could be wrong.

They need to replace the Nest ASAP even for Big Sky.

Supposedly, they were going to do that, replace the Nest once they became members of the Sky.

YEAH...Somebody has got to tell the loyal SAC fans that Volleyball, soccer, track, and tennis DON'T MATTER (aren't those all Sky sports anyway, what the hell do they do in the WAC? Gymnastics?)!! Its all about Football and somewhat Basketball.
 
talhadfoursteals said:
catcat said:
Sac football as a DI and Big Sky:

0 big sky titles

last yr of DII 1995: 4-6-1
1996: 1-10-0
1997: 1-10-0
1998: 5-6-0 (2 big sky)
1999: 6-5-0 (3 big sky) 5th place
2000: 7-4-0 ( 5 big sky) 4 way tie for 2nd at 5-3. UM was 8-0, sac was actually 3rd place
2001: 2-9-0
2002: 5-7-0 (3 big sky) 5th place
2003: 2-9-0
2004: 3-8-0
2005: 2-9-0
2006: 4-7-0 (3 big sky) 5th place
2007: 3-8-0
2008: 6-6-0 (3 big sky)
2009: 5-6-0 (4 big sky)


Again my point is why would the WAC consider them?

Looks like SAC can establish a bit of a streak every 10 years.

The WAC would consider them because of the same reason why the Sky brought them in. Great market...even though its has proven to be piss poor. Also, SAC likes to make a bunch of grandiose promises about their facilities and how they are going to fix everything. What is SAC's football attendance figures? I know their basketball can't be more than a couple hundred, but isn't that a packed stadium for them?

well ya, the Nest only holds 1,200 and im not aware of a sell out ever. I think the fball stadium holds 20k. Football facilities im sure are good enuf. The wac doesnt have great facilities. Look at Idaho. YIKES. UI would be only bigger than what EWU and UNC if they came back? Even Boise only holds 30k.

If UM moved up they would have one of the top fball stadiums in the WAC.
 
HornetStadium1(med).jpg
 
Yeah, the WAC is never going to do much as a FBS conference. In all seriousness, if the WAC wanted to expand the best possible members would be Montana, Weber, SLO, Boob State (MSU), Eastern, and Northern Arizona. ISU could be a parital member. They could compete in some women's sports.
 
This is from ESPN.com

"The WAC is keeping its options open, too, scouring for schools. Benson said there are five or six candidates from the Football Championship Series the conference is keeping an eye on."

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5276064
 
SWeberCat02 said:
This is from ESPN.com

"The WAC is keeping its options open, too, scouring for schools. Benson said there are five or six candidates from the Football Championship Series the conference is keeping an eye on."

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5276064


I'm glad that Benson is keeping his mouth shut now, but the damage was already done much earlier, when he said that SUC ST, PSU, Davis, and SLO would each be possible additions to the WAC.

Seriously, if football is the primary generator of the recent conference movements (Kansas isn't being talked about), wouldn't it make the most sense to take the team that has consistently be able to prove two things: 1. Continuous success over an extended period and 2. Can actually fill its stadium, which is over 25K? Strange to put SAC, SLO, Davis, and PSU anywhere near either of those two options. Only one team comes to mind.. New Mexico Highlands of Montana...The Fizz.
 
the hornets nest in the wac is hilarious!

Sac State Hornets Nest 1,200
Fresno State Save Mart Center 15,544
Hawaiʻi Stan Sheriff Center 10,300
Idaho Cowan Spectrum 7,000 N/A
Louisiana Tech Thomas Assembly Center 8,000
Nevada Lawlor Events Center 11,784 0
New Mexico State Pan American Center 13,071
San José State The Event Center Arena 5,000
Utah State Smith Spectrum 10,270 (averaged over 4,000 students p/ game)

Maybe Sac will bid to host the WAC tourney too.
 
I've spent a bit of time purusing the SAC fan site and I couldn't believe some of the things I was reading.

If SAC or PSU end up joining the WAC, I couldn't think of anything better for the Sky, I'd be beyond shocked. Yet, at the same time I couldn't think of anything better for the Sky, its schools, and its fans. Finally, the Sky would be getting rid of two of the worst departments in the conference. All together now...AHHH, No more Hornets Nest (there are LDS stake centers that have larger courts)!!

Lets all be honest, one of the biggest reasons why the Sky gets absolutely no respect is because of SACRAMENTO STATE. It's is a millstone around the Sky's neck.

Unfortunately for SAC, and for the rest of the Big Sky schools who would benefit exponentially from SAC being invited out of the Sky, the decision rests with the WAC presidents and not with the WAC's director. USU, Idaho, and NMSU will NEVER allow SAC into the WAC. Since we all know how USU thinks Weber is beneath them, just imagine what they think about SAC?? SAC is Weber's whipping boy (BITCH).
 
Guys, why the axe to grind with Sac State (borderline Sac State fetish by some posters)? Yes Sac State has been terrible in basketball lately, and under Moosh was terrible in football (Sperbeck is righting the ship) but unfortunately for you anti-Sac State WSU fans (and fortunately for the Sac State move up camp, me included) winning doesn't mean a whole lot with respect to whether a move to FBS is made. There are plenty of examples of schools who made the move without establishing a winning tradition in FCS (UT-San Antonio is talking FBS and they don't field a team for another 2 years). A move to FBS is all about money. Period. If you think anything else trumps this you are mistaken. Most of this money comes from TV contracts and potential TV viewers. PSU and Sac State both offer the latter to the WAC, something they will be desperate for with the loss of Boise State (a huge draw for ESPN because of its product). The only hope the WAC and its member schools have at keeping ESPN from severely reducing its TV contract payout is to counter with adding a/some major TV market(s) (Sacramento and Portland, 20th and 22nd largest respectively).

N.OgdenCat, exactly what off the wall and crazy posts have been made on SacBuzz? Most, not all, seem to logically look at the WAC's current situation and speculate potential moves that the WAC might make with respect to filling membership voids. Are the opinions optimistic? Of course, it's the Sac State fan site. Attendance is poor (it has been increasing in football because that program is on the rise) because no one in the greater Sacramento area gives two sh!ts about WSU, EWU, ISU, and the Montana's (pretty much every BSC member). Apparently your fans don't either unless it's basketball. Yes a WAC move replaces WSU with USU, ISU with Idaho, and swaps other irrelevant schools from different states but it adds 3 regional members (SJSU, FSU, & Nevada) which is a lot more regional match-ups than anything Sac State will get from the Big Sky. Past regional games have shown that the fans will show up (ucd and Cal Poly) and this is what the administration seems to be basing its outlook on. As far as Sac State is concerned, it can very well come down to wasting away at FCS or at least tying to make a move to increase support and interest among alumni, fans, and the Sacramento community. Sac State has nothing to lose by going to the WAC and a whole lot more to gain that staying in the BSC.

I'm OK with a move to FBS for Sac State if Fresno State and Nevada stay in the WAC. These two schools would max out home football games as well as add a significant bump in attendance for basketball. Yes the Nest is a dump but the Hornets have the option of renting Arco Arena to host games. A new events center was passed by the students in 2004 but the private funding never materialized (students were to pay for half of the costs while private donations were to cover the other half). Also the Kings are trying to built a new arena which may be playing into this somehow. The point is the administration can use this move to boost alumni/fan/community support and interest and if it is done right, can make such a move successful which could be a windfall for the Hornet athletic department and the university.

Sorry for the rambling but I felt the post after post bashing of Sac State needed to be addressed. I respect WSU for the success they have on the hardwood (and lately the football field) but apparently a few of you WSU fans let it go to your head. I hope these posters don't represent the majority of the WSU fan base. Best of luck to you all this upcoming football season.

PS: That aerial of Hornet Stadium is probably 10 years old. I haven't found a new one but a new fieldhouse was built on the south endzone, a recreation and wellness center on the north endzone opens this fall, and installation of FieldTurf is to be completed this month. Also feel free to chime in on SacBuzz on the issue (or anything else for that matter, we have about 50 WAC threads in the last month or so). We don't bite unless garbage is posted then all bets are off. ;)
 
Sac St resides in the capitol of CA, a large TV market. It does not equate to a large viewership of Sac St games. Sac St does not seem to have the fan support or money needed to make the move at this point in time. They certainly have potential. Portland St probably has more potential. Montana is there already. Montana's problem is their remote location and smaller market. I don't think the WAC has a lot of good options and may well be loosing Fresno soon.

If Sac St were to pour $40 to $50 mil. into their athletics programs, they might be a better fit in the WAC than USU. At least they have an international airport. It takes planes, trains, automobiles, and donkeys to get to Logan. What USU has is better facilities and 20 times more financial support. Montana has that, as well, and an airport that can be used by major airlines. Portland St is somewhat like Weber, in that they exist in the shadow of larger, more established programs.

It sucks to be the WAC right now.
 
sorry for the dis's from me, just my initial reaction hearing sac could leave for the wac was a bit of a shock and i had no clue how.

whether sac stays or leaves now or down the road, i just wish they could replace the hornets nest. its not fair to the fans and the program and the players.

sac can't recruit with the nest.
 
@SDHornet

It looks like you were on egriz asking them why the axe grinding as well? The only thing decent Sac offers the Wac is Bell Acqua. You guys are as delusional as the Cougars down south who think they are headed to the Big 12. It should be pretty obvious to you by now that the Sky doesn't respect the Hornets at all. Northern Colorado has been a much better addition and they have less to work with. Sac's facilities are :oops: to the rest of the league, and performance equally as bad. I can count 3 sporting events at WSU the last 2 years I would have rather done anything else besides attend the games, '09 bball WSU 97-61 Sac St., last seasons 49-10 football game against the Hornets, and this years 81-59 drubbing of Suck it at the Dee. Excuse us for being a little shocked and mystified at Sac even being mentioned for a move up. If you think the WAC is going to cure Sac St., think again.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top