Green Laser
Active member
Green Cookie Monster said:
It was called Devonshire Downs, beleive it or not it was an old horse race track. As I remember it was all wood!
-
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!
WAC chatter
- Thread starter the Rat
- Start date
It was called Devonshire Downs, beleive it or not it was an old horse race track. As I remember it was all wood!
the Rat said:
I agree. If Sac State stays FCS, there is no reason to stay in the BSC as a full member. This puts Sac State at a disadvantage for recruiting local athletes for non-football sports as well as inflates the travel budget.
I agree. Regional rivalries boost attendance (at least for the sports people care about). I think the Causeway Cup was a good idea but I don’t think it created as much hype as people want to believe. We have owned them the past few years in football and men’s hoops, which is all that matters. I’m willing to say the casual fan doesn’t care about the results of the head-to-head golf and tennis matchups. I wish I could say the same about track and field but their coach was too much of a puss to schedule a meet therefore making the Cup even more meaningless in my view.
Arco is and can be used as a short term solution. It’s an NBA arena and it’s possibly the biggest place to host a basketball game or tournament in Northern CA outside of the Bay Area. I have to think the Sacramento Chamber of Commerce and local businesses would love the idea of putting in a bid to host the WAC men’s and/or women’s basketball tournament. With a new airport terminal going up, Sacramento would be easier to travel to for schools that have to fly in. With respect to attendance, no one comes because no one gives a damn about the schools in the BSC. This may hold true for some schools in the WAC as well, but I’m willing to say the casual fan has heard/knows about USU, Idaho, and NM State way more than WSU, EWU, and UNC. You are right, there is a leap of faith that Fresno and Nevada could be scheduled regularly for OOC play, but with the local talent in the Sac area that could be recruited, the short travel and cheaper expenses, it’s hard to believe those schools would pass up such an opportunity for a game that would be in their backyard and allow a cheap and easy away game for their fans to attend every other year or so.
SJHornet
Active member
If we are going to stay FCS, I think Wanless should be using the WAC to get us into the Big West. I read about the agreement Fullerton had with the Big West to not poach Sac State, but we should be forcing the issue. Let the Sky know we have interests in other places. Maybe the threat of us leaving will lift the ban on our football-only membership or force the Sky to try and convince Davis and Cal Poly to join as full members.
The matter of a new Arco at Cal Expo is being resolved soon. I've always wondered why Sac State hasn't tried to partner with the Kings on this project. Put up less money than it would take to build an arena on campus and put it into a new arena at Cal Expo. Close to campus and would be big enough for 1-A membership. Many teams in 1-A share with NBA teams, and Pitt employed this same strategy with the Stealers to build Heintz Field.
The matter of a new Arco at Cal Expo is being resolved soon. I've always wondered why Sac State hasn't tried to partner with the Kings on this project. Put up less money than it would take to build an arena on campus and put it into a new arena at Cal Expo. Close to campus and would be big enough for 1-A membership. Many teams in 1-A share with NBA teams, and Pitt employed this same strategy with the Stealers to build Heintz Field.
Magoofs are too greedy. They'd never share popcorn/jolly rancher concessions with Sac State. Plus it would detract away from the reason Sacramento exists, to serve the Kings.
Sac State needs an intimate 6-8,000 seat arena, any ARCO II would be way too big. We played a few holiday tourney's there back in the 90's under McElroy and the highest attendance I believe was 2,300ish. Didn't draw well enough and so it was dropped. The average Hornet fan isn't going to pay $6 for parking, $8 for a hot dog and no beer.
I bet we get a set-up like the new Humboldt Kinesology building that seats 2,000, except ours would be increased to 4,000ish.
Its already in the CSU manual's, has passed all the codes, is LEED certified and it is somehow justifiable under the Department of Kinesology.
http://www.hsujacks.com/sports/2008/7/27/newgym.aspx?id=70
Sac State needs an intimate 6-8,000 seat arena, any ARCO II would be way too big. We played a few holiday tourney's there back in the 90's under McElroy and the highest attendance I believe was 2,300ish. Didn't draw well enough and so it was dropped. The average Hornet fan isn't going to pay $6 for parking, $8 for a hot dog and no beer.
I bet we get a set-up like the new Humboldt Kinesology building that seats 2,000, except ours would be increased to 4,000ish.
Its already in the CSU manual's, has passed all the codes, is LEED certified and it is somehow justifiable under the Department of Kinesology.
http://www.hsujacks.com/sports/2008/7/27/newgym.aspx?id=70
Kadeezy
Active member
Green Cookie Monster said:Magoofs are too greedy. They'd never share popcorn/jolly rancher concessions with Sac State. Plus it would detract away from the reason Sacramento exists, to serve the Kings.
Sac State needs an intimate 6-8,000 seat arena, any ARCO II would be way too big. We played a few holiday tourney's there back in the 90's under McElroy and the highest attendance I believe was 2,300ish. Didn't draw well enough and so it was dropped. The average Hornet fan isn't going to pay $6 for parking, $8 for a hot dog and no beer.
I bet we get a set-up like the new Humboldt Kinesology building that seats 2,000, except ours would be increased to 4,000ish.
Its already in the CSU manual's, has passed all the codes, is LEED certified and it is somehow justifiable under the Department of Kinesology.
http://www.hsujacks.com/sports/2008/7/27/newgym.aspx?id=70
GCM, I think this could be do-able with the reconstruction of Yosemite Hall. Completely scrap the current gym location and switch the direction of the court. On each side add two tiers of seating, and bleecher seatling like HSU on the baselines. You could easily and more affordably reach 4-5K seats for a fraction of the cost and effort a new arena would take...
the Rat said:
A couple of points:
1. The news that the Big Sky will accept associate football members is very good news for Sac State in a way that I haven't seen reported yet. Because of the NCAA moratorium on FBS moveups as well as FBS transition rules, when Sac State gets an invite (notice I said when), Sac State will still need to park it's football team in an FCS conference for one or two seasons. The Big Sky rule change will now allow Sac State to be a continuing member of the Big Sky in football only temporarily. Wanless probably has already negotiated that.
2. By UC-Davis and Cal Poly moving football to the BSC, that means Sac State is the only viable California school left. The WAC has to get Sac State for it's survival. San Jose St and Hawaii need travel partners. A WAC based in Texas is unacceptable to either of those two schools.
3. Hawaii has likely been rebuked by the Big West, as Hawaii is asking Senator Inouye for help in gaining conference affiliation. Hawaii has to make the WAC work: it now has almost no other choice.
Hawaii needs schools added that have direct and relatively cheap connections to Oahu on an airline like Hawaiian - airports like Sacramento, Portland, Seattle. Guess what schools are being considered to be added to the WAC: schools in those very cities. Before, Hawaii had one WAC school that was easy to get to: San Jose. With a new WAC, it might have five (San Jose, Sac, Portland, Seattle, Denver).
4. La Tech is not gaining any movement in it's hopes to move to CUSA. It has burned more bridges with the Sun Belt by insisting that La-Monroe be evicted before it would join. LTU and ULM are schools 50 miles apart and have an extremely bad relationship. LTU will not be part of anything that ULM is in. La Tech is left the in the difficult position that it will have to commit to the WAC, but will only do that with a SW division.
5. Sac State can increase student fees without a student vote: that's not very common, but also means that if President Gonzalez is interested in FBS (that was his goal afterall for 2010, wasn't it) he will raise fees. Why give the opposition time to gain momentum: just be like Pelosi and do what he wants. After the WAC move is announced, community support will begin. Since FBS football won't actually start until 2013 or later, there is still time to rally the community.
This report in the Denver Post confirms that the Commissioner Benson is interested in Denver and Seattle as non-football schools and speculates on Sac State, Portland St, and Montana as http://www.denverpost.com/colleges/ci_16097811
All indications are the WAC will do the following:
WAC Pacific
Hawaii
San Jose St
Sac St
Portland St
Seattle
Idaho
WAC southwest
Utah St
Denver
NMex St
Texas ST
UTSA
La Tech
If Montana decides to go for it, Portland St is the school left out, not Sac.
SJHornet
Active member
(straying from the football topic a little more) I think Fordham's Rose Hill gymnasium is a perfect template for us to go off of if we stay in the Sky or get into the Big West. Their gym is almost the same size but seats 3,500. That’s a reasonable seating capacity for the foreseeable future if we are staying 1-AA level. All we would need to do is knock down the West wall to allow for large bleachers at each baseline. Build some first class locker rooms and possibly add a private workout room for the bball players and I think the Nest becomes viable long term home.
superhornet
Active member
As long as we don't play in a bloody Quonset Hut, I don't care. If we can get to 3.5-5K in anything other than an erector set, we'll be fine for Sky/CBL level play.
Folks, the Big Sky is not going to let us going to be an associate member. Period. Its either all in, or all out. I know financially it makes sense, but there is no way the other schools will let us out of the full membership for an associate one. Hence why the 12th member for football will be the 10th full member. Because for all other sports, an odd number of schools is terrible for travel costs. Having travel partners does save money because then if you are the odd school out, you then have to play midweek in sports like volleyball, basketball, etc. Those costs skyrocket.
So I would forget talk about the Big West. It doesn't put us at a disadvantage for recruiting local athletes at all. The same ones will be or won't be recruited regardless. The whole reason for being in the Big Sky in all other sports is because its either the top or second best FCS football league. If we had did what Poly and Davis did back in 1996, then yeah we would probably be associate Big Sky members. But we chose to protect football, especially given since how many CSU's dropped football in the 1990's (I'd say that was a damned smart move). But not know. Especially since everything in conf. affiliation has changed.
I really don't see us staying in FCS because for this market (the 19-20th largest in the US), FCS football among the media (really who are the ones who promote just by talking about it) is really dead in the western US, save for the State of Montana. Look around in WA, OR, AZ, CO, UT. Do you really think those schools get the coverage they ought to deserve? Hell no. Look, I like the Big Sky. Its a great conference. But until ESPN starts paying REAL attention to FCS football (which will probably be never), its not a good financial, or even visible enough conference for all the non-football sports. In the past 10 years, how many WAC teams got at large berths into the men's basketball tournament? Baseball? Softball? Volleyball? Several in fact. You know why? Because those sports use the funds from Uncle ESPN to dump into their Olympic sports. Now, how many Big Sky schools got at large berths into the men's hoops? Women's Hoops? Volleyball? Nada.
So I would forget talk about the Big West. It doesn't put us at a disadvantage for recruiting local athletes at all. The same ones will be or won't be recruited regardless. The whole reason for being in the Big Sky in all other sports is because its either the top or second best FCS football league. If we had did what Poly and Davis did back in 1996, then yeah we would probably be associate Big Sky members. But we chose to protect football, especially given since how many CSU's dropped football in the 1990's (I'd say that was a damned smart move). But not know. Especially since everything in conf. affiliation has changed.
I really don't see us staying in FCS because for this market (the 19-20th largest in the US), FCS football among the media (really who are the ones who promote just by talking about it) is really dead in the western US, save for the State of Montana. Look around in WA, OR, AZ, CO, UT. Do you really think those schools get the coverage they ought to deserve? Hell no. Look, I like the Big Sky. Its a great conference. But until ESPN starts paying REAL attention to FCS football (which will probably be never), its not a good financial, or even visible enough conference for all the non-football sports. In the past 10 years, how many WAC teams got at large berths into the men's basketball tournament? Baseball? Softball? Volleyball? Several in fact. You know why? Because those sports use the funds from Uncle ESPN to dump into their Olympic sports. Now, how many Big Sky schools got at large berths into the men's hoops? Women's Hoops? Volleyball? Nada.
HornetHope
Active member
SactoHornetAlum said:
SHA, that is exactly the why Gonzo wants to move up, but has not tipped his hand. Outside of football, when has ANY of the other sports in the Sky gotten anything more than a "chump" seating? Answer=never. Though it may not seem like the best move, I think long term it is the most logical- and I agree free press. Look at NV playing Cal tonite. Going FBS adds benefits beyond the short term. If you think about a 5-7 year time frame- a competitive FBS team against a UCLA, NV, UT, OSU will win fans. For the record even just 7 years ago, NV was only avg. 22K fans a game. BSU 28k a game, USU 14.5K a game. With just a little media coverage, and some recognizable team, a Thursday nite ESPN game and you get 25K. How many Big West schools are considered Destination schools? none.
SJHornet
Active member
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsport...xas-schools-to-state-case-for-wac-membership/
UTSA, Texas State, Montana, Denver and Seattle have all been named as schools who will present their case at the WAC meeting on the 28th. 5 more schools are supposed to be presenting their case as well. I wonder if Sac will have representatives there lobbying for membership.
UTSA, Texas State, Montana, Denver and Seattle have all been named as schools who will present their case at the WAC meeting on the 28th. 5 more schools are supposed to be presenting their case as well. I wonder if Sac will have representatives there lobbying for membership.
Green Laser
Active member
SJHornet said:
Am I missing something? Where in the article did it mention any schools other than UTSA and Texas State?
Benson said there may be as many as eight presentations but he didn't confirm any others than those two.
Andy Katz's ESPN blog; Pioneers aim to impress WAC officials
The hope for the Pioneers is the WAC decides to go with two non-football playing members -- the other being former WCC hopeful Seattle University -- and adds two football playing schools, more than likely Texas-San Antonio and Texas State (unless Montana decides to upgrade its successful football program). Adding two football and two non-football schools would give the WAC 10 members for 2012-13, eight for football. According to a source, the league is also meeting with UTSA, Texas State and Montana on Sept. 28 in Dallas.
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/blog/_/name/katz_andy/id/5595978/pioneers-aim-impress-wac-officials
and,
Denver Pioneers Making A Play To Join The WAC
http://denver.sbnation.com/2010/9/20/1700649/denver-pioneers-WAC-conference
The hope for the Pioneers is the WAC decides to go with two non-football playing members -- the other being former WCC hopeful Seattle University -- and adds two football playing schools, more than likely Texas-San Antonio and Texas State (unless Montana decides to upgrade its successful football program). Adding two football and two non-football schools would give the WAC 10 members for 2012-13, eight for football. According to a source, the league is also meeting with UTSA, Texas State and Montana on Sept. 28 in Dallas.
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/blog/_/name/katz_andy/id/5595978/pioneers-aim-impress-wac-officials
and,
Denver Pioneers Making A Play To Join The WAC
http://denver.sbnation.com/2010/9/20/1700649/denver-pioneers-WAC-conference
SJHornet said:
I am surprised that Montana is presenting. They must actually be serious this time, and if they are, they will get in. That likely means that Montana State is also presenting.
Five other schools are yet unnamed:
Sac St ?
Portland St ?
Montana St ?
and two more (Lamar? - rumored going to FBS, Utah Valley? North Dakota - because we don't have a league yet and supposedly we have a big facility announcement coming up)
Sac State isnt going anywhere. There is a reason they are not listed in the espn WAC news, etc.
It has taken us 16yrs to finally be competitive in the Big Sky, it would take another 15yrs to do the same in the WAC, I'm not ready to see multiple 1-10 seasons again.
It has taken us 16yrs to finally be competitive in the Big Sky, it would take another 15yrs to do the same in the WAC, I'm not ready to see multiple 1-10 seasons again.
Calm the “f” down GCM, until someone up top comes out and says “We have no interest in the WAC” or something along those lines, Sac State has an interest or is at least considering the WAC. We already have our foot in the WAC door via baseball and gymnastics, the WAC is well aware of our existence. Has it been confirmed that a Sac State representative has not made the trip to Denver? If the answer is no, then it is quite possible someone was sent. We’ll just have to sit and wait until more details unfold.
SDHornet said:
You wont hear anything. With the State it is better to not be seen or heard for fear of stirring negativity and awareness. I am calm and just being realistic, I dont think our gym or baseball program is representative of how the school will do when it comes to football and mens basketball, not that our baseball program has been good. I would think the meeting will be to discuss football/bball facilities, marketing, community support and administrative support. Fullerton and SUU are also in the WAC for gym, guess there is a slim chance of them joining the league also. :roll: They havent said anything either, so they must be in the running.
Why wouldnt espn announce a Sac State delegation was attending if they announced the other schools, surely UTSA who doesnt even have a team warranted recognition?
We arent helping matters by having 6,000 show up to a league home opener against a nationally ranked team. How will we fare against an 0-3 Utah State or SJSU? Certainly dont want to embarrass ourselves. You can say, well the fans have never heard of Weber State or dont care. Surely in a metro population of over 1M people there are 10K alumni/fans who would attend regardless of who it was, how many Montanans heard of Drake, yet they drew 13K for that no-name school from the Midwest last weekend at MSU.
I am more than a little disappointed in the schools marketing, or lack thereof. Why arent we having promotions, after game concerts, etc. to drive attendance? Are the MoLo's already cutting into the fanbase?
I'll go back to my meds.....
HornetFan84
New member
Ran into Wanless yesterday at the Bob Mattos Golf Tournament...
I asked him what is happening with the WAC. He didn't say anything definitive, but he made a couple of interesting comments -
1) He didn't think we would ever build up natural rivalries with the current crop of BSC teams.
2) He felt certain that we could get home-and-home series' with both Fresno St. and Nevada, IF we were at the BCS level.
3) He had several conversations with Benson and thought the WAC was definitely interested in going after the 2 Texas schools first.
I asked him what is happening with the WAC. He didn't say anything definitive, but he made a couple of interesting comments -
1) He didn't think we would ever build up natural rivalries with the current crop of BSC teams.
2) He felt certain that we could get home-and-home series' with both Fresno St. and Nevada, IF we were at the BCS level.
3) He had several conversations with Benson and thought the WAC was definitely interested in going after the 2 Texas schools first.
