Sac to the WAC?????

[SDHornet]

If you clowns think you will get the invite to the WAC before us, I would seriously consider getting a refund on your "education" from Suc State.

:lol: :lol: :lol: Wait, let me guess, "the farm extension" and its HUGE new football stadium is going to get the nod over Sac State? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Way to contribute and rep "the farm extension" well. :roll: :lol: check out the avatar--->>>

 

[StungAlum]

If you clowns think you will get the invite to the WAC before us, I would seriously consider getting a refund on your "education" from Suc State.

That's big talk coming from a farm extension supporter whose school is cutting sports programs.

By the way, if you got your MBA from the farm extension, you paid way too much for a degree that is practially worthless nowadays. I have one myself, havent done anything with it.

 

[Green Cookie Monster]

http://www.govandals.com/ViewArticl..._OEM_ID=17100&DB_LANG=&IN_SUBSCRIBER_CONTENT=

The Idaho AD says Boise is gone.

What is Gonzalez doing? Anything, or is he too afraid of what the teachers will say?

Any 'internal' info?

 

[Siouxfan]

Have to believe that the WAC's choices for replacing Boise State are down to Sac St and Portland St.

Granted, California may be in a budget crisis, but Sac State is one of the few options with an FBS-ready stadium (granted, barely). In order for Sac State to gain traction in Sacramento, doesn't it have to be FBS? Competing with Fresno St - as well as Nevada, Hawaii, and San Jose St - would bring much more excitement into town than the Big Sky. Just have to believe that this is the opportunity that President Gonzalez and AD Wanless have been waiting for and dreaming about. It may be high risk, but the worst case failure is dropping football and going to the Big West. The upside is eventually obtaining a program like Fresno State. That type of advance can't happen by staying in the Big Sky, which most of Sacramento probably considers as a DII conference.

Moving to the WAC might be just what is needed to galvanize the community: comparable to getting an expansion team.

Would Sac State be able to play in a BB facility other then the 1200 seat gym - the WAC would likely insist on that? Would the new football scholarships + Title IX implications be covered? Would a new women's sport need to be added or a men's sport dropped?

Portland State has a lot of the same dynamics as Sac St, IMHO. With the new MLS PGE Park, PSU will have a decent FBS venue and IMHO will be Sac State's major competitor for the WAC. Perhaps the WAC adds both.

Montana's out because they have a president who is anti-FBS and pro-Big Sky. In another six months to a year, Montana's view may change because their President Dennison is retiring in August. But the WAC must move quickly to add at least one school. In addition, there will be a lot of pressure on Montana to ensure that Montana State also is pulled along.

Texas State may be pushing for a bid, but how loyal would they be if offered a Sunbelt spot later in the year? Is San Jose St, or Idaho, or Nevada really going to vote for Texas State, when a metro area like Sacramento (or Portland) is available?

UCDavis needs an FBS stadium or at least the funding for it to happen. Ditto for Cal Poly. If Davis had an FBS football stadium capacity, almost no question they would be the frontrunner: but they don't have it and don't have the money.

 

[StungAlum]

Have to believe that the WAC's choices for replacing Boise State are down to Sac St and Portland St.

Granted, California may be in a budget crisis, but Sac State is one of the few options with an FBS-ready stadium (granted, barely). In order for Sac State to gain traction in Sacramento, doesn't it have to be FBS? Competing with Fresno St - as well as Nevada, Hawaii, and San Jose St - would bring much more excitement into town than the Big Sky. Just have to believe that this is the opportunity that President Gonzalez and AD Wanless have been waiting for and dreaming about. It may be high risk, but the worst case failure is dropping football and going to the Big West. The upside is eventually obtaining a program like Fresno State. That type of advance can't happen by staying in the Big Sky, which most of Sacramento probably considers as a DII conference.

Moving to the WAC might be just what is needed to galvanize the community: comparable to getting an expansion team.

Would Sac State be able to play in a BB facility other then the 1200 seat gym - the WAC would likely insist on that? Would the new football scholarships + Title IX implications be covered? Would a new women's sport need to be added or a men's sport dropped?

Portland State has a lot of the same dynamics as Sac St, IMHO. With the new MLS PGE Park, PSU will have a decent FBS venue and IMHO will be Sac State's major competitor for the WAC. Perhaps the WAC adds both.

Montana's out because they have a president who is anti-FBS and pro-Big Sky. In another six months to a year, Montana's view may change because their President Dennison is retiring in August. But the WAC must move quickly to add at least one school. In addition, there will be a lot of pressure on Montana to ensure that Montana State also is pulled along.

Texas State may be pushing for a bid, but how loyal would they be if offered a Sunbelt spot later in the year? Is San Jose St, or Idaho, or Nevada really going to vote for Texas State, when a metro area like Sacramento (or Portland) is available?

UCDavis needs an FBS stadium or at least the funding for it to happen. Ditto for Cal Poly. If Davis had an FBS football stadium capacity, almost no question they would be the frontrunner: but they don't have it and don't have the money.

Welcome Siouxfan!

There are a lot of people that would love to see Sac State jump to the FBS in the WAC, it would be great for the community and would most likely prove to be a wise decision in the long run.

Of course professors and some students would protest a move as it would definitely mean having to spend more money on athletics, and in this economy, especially in CA, it could draw some very harsh critisizm. The Farm Extension just eliminated sports, there's no way, not even if their stadium was big enough, that they could justify to staff, students, or anyone else that a move to the FBS would/could work or was even worth it.

I think for it to happen 1) the WAC has to be interested in Sac State, 2) The President and Wanless need to keep things on the DL, and 3) the addition of a womens sport may be necessary (I can't see them dropping a male sport).

It's almost a for sure thing that financial support via private donations would fuel the initial costs associated with a move to the FBS, people here in Sac care about FBS football and would love to have other State schools coming and playing at Hornet Stadium i.e. Fresno, SJSU, Nevada.

People are sure to jump on the bandwagon if/or when Sac State makes the move, there will be a lot of support at first, but if they don't do well after a while, the bandwagon Sacramentans are surely going to turn on their own, just look at the Kings/Rivercats, both of their attendance figures dropped dramatically when they stopped winning.

As for Montana, I think theyre ready except for the fact that they don't sponsor enough athletic teams and they have some serious facility improvements (outside of football and basketball) that need to be addressed. I think that eventually they'll be WAC material, but until they focus a little more energy on "non-revenue" sports they arent ready. Not to mention the fact that they have a 95%+ acceptance rate.

Post often, it's nice to hear the perspetive of an "outsider."

 

[Siouxfan]

Welcome Siouxfan!

There are a lot of people that would love to see Sac State jump to the FBS in the WAC, it would be great for the community and would most likely prove to be a wise decision in the long run.

Of course professors and some students would protest a move as it would definitely mean having to spend more money on athletics, and in this economy, especially in CA, it could draw some very harsh critisizm. The Farm Extension just eliminated sports, there's no way, not even if their stadium was big enough, that they could justify to staff, students, or anyone else that a move to the FBS would/could work or was even worth it.

I think for it to happen 1) the WAC has to be interested in Sac State, 2) The President and Wanless need to keep things on the DL, and 3) the addition of a womens sport may be necessary (I can't see them dropping a male sport).

It's almost a for sure thing that financial support via private donations would fuel the initial costs associated with a move to the FBS, people here in Sac care about FBS football and would love to have other State schools coming and playing at Hornet Stadium i.e. Fresno, SJSU, Nevada.

People are sure to jump on the bandwagon if/or when Sac State makes the move, there will be a lot of support at first, but if they don't do well after a while, the bandwagon Sacramentans are surely going to turn on their own, just look at the Kings.

As for Montana, I think theyre ready except for the fact that they don't sponsor enough athletic teams and they have some serious facility improvements (outside of football and basketball) that need to be addressed. I think that eventually they'll be WAC material, but until they focus a little more energy on "non-revenue" sports they arent ready. Not to mention the fact that they have a 95%+ acceptance rate.

Post often, it's nice to hear the perspetive of an "outsider."

Benson has stated to a number of media sources that Sacramento State (as well as Portland State, Cal Poly, Davis, Texas State, and Montanta) is a candidate, so the WAC has to have significant interest. The biggest question is if Sacramento State can financially pull off the transition.

It's interesting that you state Gonzalez and Wanless need to keep an FBS move on the "down low", as that appears to be exactly what they are doing.

There seem to be a lot of parallels between Sacramento State and FBS programs like FAU and FIU. Both those schools used the opportunity of the Sunbelt losing schools (to the WAC, ironically) to move up the timetable for FBS. However, both the Florida school had hired big-name coaches in the quest for FBS status, but they also had to deal with a local FBS school and a local NFL team. Although the Bay Area casts some large shadows on Sacramento, Sac State has a much clearer local market to navigate.

 

[StungAlum]

Welcome Siouxfan!

There are a lot of people that would love to see Sac State jump to the FBS in the WAC, it would be great for the community and would most likely prove to be a wise decision in the long run.

Of course professors and some students would protest a move as it would definitely mean having to spend more money on athletics, and in this economy, especially in CA, it could draw some very harsh critisizm. The Farm Extension just eliminated sports, there's no way, not even if their stadium was big enough, that they could justify to staff, students, or anyone else that a move to the FBS would/could work or was even worth it.

I think for it to happen 1) the WAC has to be interested in Sac State, 2) The President and Wanless need to keep things on the DL, and 3) the addition of a womens sport may be necessary (I can't see them dropping a male sport).

It's almost a for sure thing that financial support via private donations would fuel the initial costs associated with a move to the FBS, people here in Sac care about FBS football and would love to have other State schools coming and playing at Hornet Stadium i.e. Fresno, SJSU, Nevada.

People are sure to jump on the bandwagon if/or when Sac State makes the move, there will be a lot of support at first, but if they don't do well after a while, the bandwagon Sacramentans are surely going to turn on their own, just look at the Kings.

As for Montana, I think theyre ready except for the fact that they don't sponsor enough athletic teams and they have some serious facility improvements (outside of football and basketball) that need to be addressed. I think that eventually they'll be WAC material, but until they focus a little more energy on "non-revenue" sports they arent ready. Not to mention the fact that they have a 95%+ acceptance rate.

Post often, it's nice to hear the perspetive of an "outsider."

Benson has stated to a number of media sources that Sacramento State (as well as Portland State, Cal Poly, Davis, Texas State, and Montanta) is a candidate, so the WAC has to have significant interest. The biggest question is if Sacramento State can financially pull off the transition.

It's interesting that you state Gonzalez and Wanless need to keep an FBS move on the "down low", as that appears to be exactly what they are doing.

There seem to be a lot of parallels between Sacramento State and FBS programs like FAU and FIU. Both those schools used the opportunity of the Sunbelt losing schools (to the WAC, ironically) to move up the timetable for FBS. However, both the Florida school had hired big-name coaches in the quest for FBS status, but they also had to deal with a local FBS school and a local NFL team. Although the Bay Area casts some large shadows on Sacramento, Sac State has a much clearer local market to navigate.

I like the way Gonzo handles things, he seems to know when and where to bring up issues that may be controversial.

I beleive it was last year that he let students vote on whether or not to increase athletic fees, the students voted the fee's down but Gonzo enacted them anyway. I thought it was a great move as well as an indication of where he wanted Sac State athletics to be. I wouldnt be surprised to learn that a move to the WAC hasnt been in the works for a while now.

I think Gonzo and Wanless are doing a great job, and as painful as not knowing what their full intentions might be, I'd rather them just keep it on the DL and go for it and not give the faculty or anyone else time to complain or try to prevent a move to the FBS.

Fortunately, unlike the Montana/Montana State relationship, Sac State has no qualms leaving the farm extension at the FCS level.

While I'm obviously a proponent of moving to the FBS, I try to be as realistic as possible. I understand that a move may not be possible due to a number of factors, I just hope it is possible.

As far as all the programs you mentioned being listed, I know. I think all the teams mentioned are possibilities eventually, however, some of the schools mentioned have more to offer than others and can possible benefit the WAC as a whole rather than just benefitting one sport in the WAC.

I beleive Sac State, and Portland State for that matter, has more to offer the WAC than any of the other schools. And quite frankly, if any school other than Sac State got the invite, I'd want it to be PSU.

 

[Green Cookie Monster]

Siouxfan-were you at UND when Wanless was there? He is a very good AD and person.

I would think that Arco would be used if Santa Claus came early. There is a new arena on the books for 6-8,000 seats that was approved by students. Not sure when that will start though.

We gotta look at the future, say a decade from now. This economic mess will be straightened out and any expense now to join the WAC will be long forgotten. Plus, Wanlesses' nephew just won the Powerball and is a multi,multi millionaire. Who knows, Wanless Field?

 

[Kadeezy]

Wanless fieldhouse baby!

If it's any consolation to you guys, I can't say much. But, this IS on the administration's radar (especially on the Athletics side). So it's not like they're oblivious and unprepared. I think the next 2-3 years have to potential to be ground-breaking at Sac State.

Someone mentioned earlier, or maybe in a different thread, the dirt-cheap cost of construction materials and labor... That was a very good point. WINK WINK

 

[SloStang]

Here is some interesting news. It appears the Pac-10 is on the verge of inviting 6 Big-12 teams to the Pac-10. Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Colorado, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. Those teams would team with Arizona and Arizona State for an eastern division and the rest of the Pac-10 teams would form a western division. Doing it for TV money.

Link: http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1090747


Also do not count Cal Poly out of the WAC talk.

 

[superhornet]

TX was a supposed "lead pipe cinch" for the Big Ten (ahem, Eleven). That hasn't happened yet. I doubt anything's going to come of this.

I'm getting REALLY tired of this move-up cr@p. Sac State is going NOWHERE. And that's a good thing.

 

[Green Cookie Monster]

And that's a good thing.

In your limited opinion.

 

[superhornet]

True dat. But I personally believe that a shot at a real title ON THE FIELD is much better than a shot at a no-name bowl and being shut out of the national championship by a COMPUTER and elitist dogma.

 

[Green Cookie Monster]

True dat. But I personally believe that a shot at a real title ON THE FIELD is much better than a shot at a no-name bowl and being shut out of the national championship by a COMPUTER and elitist dogma.

How much national exposure ($$$ donations) does Sac State gain by playing the who, what, where teams in the Big Sky?

Who won the FCS title? You know it and so do I, because we are FCS fans, but to the average layperson they wouldnt have a clue. Playoff is nice, but it is layered in obscurity. The attendance at a no-name bowl is greater than the amount present for the FCS championship.

 

[superhornet]

I don't think I've ever seen any tangible proof of that assertion, GCM, though it's certainly bandied about a lot. Do you have access to actual figures? A quick Yahoo! check didn't bring up anything useful.

 

[Green Cookie Monster]

I don't think I've ever seen any tangible proof of that assertion, GCM, though it's certainly bandied about a lot. Do you have access to actual figures? A quick Yahoo! check didn't bring up anything useful.

Boise State, how bigger an example do you require? They are completing over $150M in academic building projects based solely on private donations.

In reality, this is all fun and games as neither of the three cali schools are prepared to play FBS ball at this time. So, in essence, you are getting your wish. Its fun to watch the pissing matches, especially with the look-at-me Dakota schools.

If the Pac-16 holds true, then there will be more choices for the WAC to choose from with current FBS programs.

 

[aggiemba]

You honuts crack me up. Where is the guy that said he would compare our academics against Suc State's any day. I mean sure you have us on criminal justice, but does anything else even remotely compare. I'm sorry we will get the WAC invite ahead of you. :mrgreen:

 

[SDHornet]

I like the input everyone is having on this topic. I have to agree with the move up crowd. SA has a great point of Gonzo and Wanless keeping this stuff on the DL. Given the current budget climate, there is really no other way to go about this. I'll have to run some numbers, breakdowns and comparisons over the next week to give us all an idea about what Sac State is looking at with respect to an FBS jump. I'm on the road all weekend so I doubt anything will get done until late next week. I think the driving factor with the WAC inviting an FCS school is the utter desperation the conference will be in all their key players get raided. If more that BSU leave, the WAC will go into a mad scramble to stay afloat. Quite frankly, I think ANY western FCS school is an option the WAC would consider.

Welcome Siouxfan. You have provided some great talking points and info. Those kind of posts are much appreciated here. I heard UND lost one of its big offensive threats recently. Is there anyone laying in wait to fill the void?

 

[SDHornet]

You honuts crack me up. Where is the guy that said he would compare our academics against Suc State's any day. I mean sure you have us on criminal justice, but does anything else even remotely compare. I'm sorry we will get the WAC invite ahead of you. :mrgreen:

Anyone thinking academics is a top priority for the WAC's selection is a complete retard. It's all about the $$$ and don't think otherwise. Hornet Stadium seats twice as much as "the farm extension's" HUGE stadium...i.e. the potential for the WAC/NCAA to make TWICE as much money off of it is there. Then there is the TV market issue that the WAC will be desperately seeking to increase so the TV contract amount can be increased as well (yes aggiemba, this is pointing back to that $$$ issue again).

BTW, professors at "the farm extension" would douse themselves in gasoline and light themselves on fire in front of the admin building...er I mean barn yard long before they sit idle on the sidelines and let the athletic department squander millions of their funds on athletics. And by the sounds of it, your athletic department looks like it has its hands full with just trying to fund what they have now. But what do I know, we are talking about the same admin that had the foresight to construct a HUGE new football stadium that has a capacity of under 11k. :lol: :roll:

 

[SDHornet]

Also do not count Cal Poly out of the WAC talk.

What's the consensus on the CP boards about a possible move to the WAC? Are there many people for it, or is it mostly people afraid of change? :?: