The mailbag addresses the Sac State to the MAC rumor, North Alabama's potential, Pac-12 media deal, and more.
herosports.com
1) Are you buying the Sacramento State to the MAC rumor mill?
A: I am… not. In this day and age of collegiate athletics, anything can happen, but this one doesn’t add up for me. I think this rumor is a bit of a red herring because it starts with the wrong question.
Why would the MAC need to expand here?
The only real reason would be if they were preparing to lose a school. Realignment? I don’t think that’s the driver. If there
were an FBS league at risk of losing a program that drops football (or goes D2) — which has been quietly floated in some circles — I wouldn’t be shocked if it came from the MAC. Not naming names, and I don’t have deep sourcing here, but there’s a pulse.
Back to Sacramento State.
If you stack Sac State next to a comparable candidate — say Tarleton State — Tarleton is a far more realistic regional fit. It’s a lot easier to get MAC teams to Texas (still a stretch, but doable) than to Sacramento. Adding Sacramento essentially turns the MAC into a coast-to-coast, ACC-style operation… for football only. It just doesn’t track.
The current MAC TV deal runs through the 2026-27 season, so don’t be surprised if more rumors heat up surrounding this conference. A possible pitch from Sac State to the MAC could be capitalizing on its location for ideal late-night TV windows. Back-to-back midweek MACtion games, with Sac State hosting the later game?
Now again, this is all in a hypothetical world — is it football-only or not? I think Tarleton would jump at the chance if there were a path for their other sports. Honestly, they might jump at it even if it
were football-only.
From the FRS (Financial Reporting System), which is the closest standard we have without fudging too many numbers — trust me, numbers still get fudged, but it’s solid for comparison — here’s a quick look at some 2024 data:
Student Fees Support
Tarleton State: $11,302,884
Sacramento State: $10,229,193
Direct Institutional Support
Tarleton State: $12,389,218
Sacramento State: $16,772,218
Indirect Institutional Support Revenue
Tarleton State: $0
Sacramento State: $10,572,203
These, plus another dozen line items that sit in a similar range, bring
total reported revenues to:
Tarleton State: $28,200,122
Sacramento State: $43,065,314
You might be asking:
What the hell is indirect institutional revenue?
Think of it as costs covered or services provided by the institution but not charged to athletics. Things like HR, accounting, IT, facilities maintenance, academic services, security, risk management, and utilities. Sometimes this also includes loans or service payments on facilities.
Outside of that line, both schools are very similar in fundraising, sports camp revenue, and so on. The only notable outlier is Tarleton, which has about $500K more in royalties, licensing, advertising, and sponsorships.
All that to be said … take it for what it’s worth.
One thing that does complicate Sac State right now is the stadium situation. They’ve struck a deal with Cal Expo for a $172 million project, down from the original $300 million plan, but the last meaningful update I’ve seen was in
October. It has been awfully quiet for a project of that magnitude. As of late 2025, the Cal Expo board approved exclusive negotiations with plans for ~22,000 seats, expandable to 40–50K if they move to FBS. Target opening is fall 2026.
Not saying that’s holding them back, but the Hornets have been talking a lot without much visible momentum. President Wood has said it before — you just have to
win.