• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

What is Sac’s con status for this year?

ElrodGrizzly said:
Do you believe those investments are feasible? Dr. Wood has made claims that Sac State can become not just revenue neutral, but can make so much money that the athletic department can start putting funds back into that academic side of the University. An incredibly small percentage of college football teams are revenue neutral, let alone make money. I'm curious if locals believe that potential is actually there?
Click to expand...

I believe that the program can make money. Especially if we start getting bigger paydays on the road and playing teams at home people have actually heard of. I think we've averaged 14-17k in attendance per game in the last three seasons. That's with an embarrassing facility with limited restrooms, concessions, etc. I'm sure you're well aware our current stadium is old Rose Bowl parade bleachers wrapped in green tarps.

IF we can get our facility upgraded, there's no doubt in my mind that we can sellout a 25k stadium, in fact, I think we should build it better (30-35k). Sacramento WILL support the program. They already are in many ways.

I've been going to SAC games for about 25 years, and I have a pretty good pulse on the community and the direction athletics is going. There's never been this much support and effort to drive this university and athletics forward. It's not perfect, but it's better than doing nothing and becoming the next CA football program to fold.
 
Kadeezy said:
I believe that the program can make money. Especially if we start getting bigger paydays on the road and playing teams at home people have actually heard of. I think we've averaged 14-17k in attendance per game in the last three seasons. That's with an embarrassing facility with limited restrooms, concessions, etc. I'm sure you're well aware our current stadium is old Rose Bowl parade bleachers wrapped in green tarps.

IF we can get our facility upgraded, there's no doubt in my mind that we can sellout a 25k stadium, in fact, I think we should build it better (30-35k). Sacramento WILL support the program. They already are in many ways.

I've been going to SAC games for about 25 years, and I have a pretty good pulse on the community and the direction athletics is going. There's never been this much support and effort to drive this university and athletics forward. It's not perfect, but it's better than doing nothing and becoming the next CA football program to fold.
Click to expand...
So why when a reporter asks for any documents related to a stadium project, the school can't produce anything? Is it because there hasn't been a lick of fundraising done for it yet? Is it because Wood lied straight through his teeth about it? Kudos to you guys for hiring Marion and Bibby as coaches but outside of that it seems like it's all smoke and mirrors regarding everything else.
 
Kadeezy said:
I believe that the program can make money. Especially if we start getting bigger paydays on the road and playing teams at home people have actually heard of. I think we've averaged 14-17k in attendance per game in the last three seasons. That's with an embarrassing facility with limited restrooms, concessions, etc. I'm sure you're well aware our current stadium is old Rose Bowl parade bleachers wrapped in green tarps.

IF we can get our facility upgraded, there's no doubt in my mind that we can sellout a 25k stadium, in fact, I think we should build it better (30-35k). Sacramento WILL support the program. They already are in many ways.

I've been going to SAC games for about 25 years, and I have a pretty good pulse on the community and the direction athletics is going. There's never been this much support and effort to drive this university and athletics forward. It's not perfect, but it's better than doing nothing and becoming the next CA football program to fold.
Click to expand...
I feel you there, and don't doubt that the community would rally and come to games.

I'm not trying to be overly argumentative, but that doesn't mean profitability, right? For instance, Tennessee averages 30k people per game, and they lost $3,000,000. Dr. Wood likes to use San Diego State as the a role model for what athletics can bring, but they get that kind of attendance and loses millions every year.

It just feels like a lot of assumptions are being made, and the process is being led by someone who admittedly hated college athletics until five years ago.
 
So if Sac is so sure of itself why did it not build the big beautiful stadium before applying for FBS membership? Looks like you are putting their ass before the front of the horse.
 
ElrodGrizzly said:
I feel you there, and don't doubt that the community would rally and come to games.

I'm not trying to be overly argumentative, but that doesn't mean profitability, right? For instance, Tennessee averages 30k people per game, and they lost $3,000,000. Dr. Wood likes to use San Diego State as the a role model for what athletics can bring, but they get that kind of attendance and loses millions every year.

It just feels like a lot of assumptions are being made, and the process is being led by someone who admittedly hated college athletics until five years ago.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but I would argue the Tenn and SDSU overhead is much higher than SAC's. Also, if we have to play the INDY game at FCS and FBS for a while, there's going to be some significant opportunities to play "money games" on the road that a program doesn't get in conference play.

There are a TON of assumptions being made - and like I said, if only half of the promised come to fruition, Sac State athletics is in a wildly better position in the end.
 
oldngrizzly said:
So if Sac is so sure of itself why did it not build the big beautiful stadium before applying for FBS membership? Looks like you are putting their ass before the front of the horse.
Click to expand...

Because the window on realignment opened again in Feb. 25. The decision was made to push now because even though our stadium sucks, we meet all the requirements for FBS football. Now anti-trust lawyers will make the case for SAC.

The stadium is a glaring problem, regardless. There are plans, renderings, etc. that are coming, but are just not publicly available yet. The school just completed an amenities survey, which the design firm (Populous) is incorporating into the plans. If the budget is $300M, it's going to be an amazing facility, even considering the fact that inflation might limit some of the amenities.

New student fees are in place, donations are rolling in more than ever (even at FCS level), bonds will be secured... This is the government, it sucks, it's slow. I hope they release more information soon to placate the frustrations with the process up to this point.
 
Kadeezy said:
Fair enough, but I would argue the Tenn and SDSU overhead is much higher than SAC's. Also, if we have to play the INDY game at FCS and FBS for a while, there's going to be some significant opportunities to play "money games" on the road that a program doesn't get in conference play.

There are a TON of assumptions being made - and like I said, if only half of the promised come to fruition, Sac State athletics is in a wildly better position in the end.
Click to expand...
There is zero chance sac st achieves revenue neutral. Zero. Their athletic programs will give nothing back to the university general funds. Nada.

From Forbes 2024:

"Only 28 intercollegiate athletic programs generated more revenues than expenses and 98.6 percent had operating losses covered by institutions using tuition and mandatory activity fee dollars generated from all students."

...vast majority of schools do not achieve it...sac is suboptimal in comparison.

Bookmark this post.
 
billingsgriz said:
My guess, Alabama, is they try to load up on some Pioneer Conf.teams, and pound the nonscholarship schools like Morehead State, but assuming they schedule 3 or 4 Pioneer games, keep their rivalry with Davis, and maybe play relatively close Portland State and Cal Poly SLO, I think they probably still have to schedule 2-3 FBS bodybag, money games, and those probably really go sideways !!!

Unless we're already locked in to play them in '26 and can't get out of it--hopefully we could since they will now be nonconference--I hope that we and other top-tier Big Sky teams don't bail them out and schedule them. If their president was not such an over-the-top jerk and instead civil and cordial, I would have no problem still playing them as a nonconference game.

But that's just me.
Click to expand...

I think going forward they could get games against:

Garunteed FCS: San Diego, Cal Poly, Davis

Other FCS: SUU, UT-Tech (due to schedule changes with them joining the Big Sky) which will involve a few Big Sky teams and probably other games vs Pioneer, Southland and UAC teams.

FBS: 2-3 games a year probably mainly against the PAC as they will only have 7 Conference games (unless the rumored 1 home and home "rivalry" series happens).

Another theory being thrown around is they may try and park their Football in the UAC while leaving their other sports in the Big West. How feasible that is I have no idea, I'd imagine they'd want to bare minimum maintain a relationship with their fellow Cali schools.
 
Kadeezy said:
Because the window on realignment opened again in Feb. 25. The decision was made to push now because even though our stadium sucks, we meet all the requirements for FBS football. Now anti-trust lawyers will make the case for SAC.

The stadium is a glaring problem, regardless. There are plans, renderings, etc. that are coming, but are just not publicly available yet. The school just completed an amenities survey, which the design firm (Populous) is incorporating into the plans. If the budget is $300M, it's going to be an amazing facility, even considering the fact that inflation might limit some of the amenities.

New student fees are in place, donations are rolling in more than ever (even at FCS level), bonds will be secured... This is the government, it sucks, it's slow. I hope they release more information soon to placate the frustrations with the process up to this point.
Click to expand...
You were not admitted to the FBS because you are not ready,you have no facilities.Right now we can call Sac a paper tiger and that's it.
 
Kadeezy said:
I believe that the program can make money. Especially if we start getting bigger paydays on the road and playing teams at home people have actually heard of. I think we've averaged 14-17k in attendance per game in the last three seasons. That's with an embarrassing facility with limited restrooms, concessions, etc. I'm sure you're well aware our current stadium is old Rose Bowl parade bleachers wrapped in green tarps.

IF we can get our facility upgraded, there's no doubt in my mind that we can sellout a 25k stadium, in fact, I think we should build it better (30-35k). Sacramento WILL support the program. They already are in many ways.

I've been going to SAC games for about 25 years, and I have a pretty good pulse on the community and the direction athletics is going. There's never been this much support and effort to drive this university and athletics forward. It's not perfect, but it's better than doing nothing and becoming the next CA football program to fold.
Click to expand...

Should give Idaho a call and see how that works when you take body bag game after body bag game and end up with a losing record. Idaho couldn’t fill half their seats at home when they were FBS. Now they sell out at home. Kids would rather see an 8/9/10 win FCS team than a poor FBS team. Your attendance won’t grow taking on that kind of schedule.
 
Last edited:
Wolf777 said:
Should give Idaho a call and see how that works when you take body bag game after body bag game and end up with a losing record. Idaho couldn’t fill have their seats at home when they were FBS. Now they sell out at home. Kids would rather see an 8/9/10 win FCS team than a poor FBS team. Your attendance won’t grow taking on that kind of schedule.
Click to expand...
I totally agree with your thoughts.
 
Kadeezy said:
Because the window on realignment opened again in Feb. 25. The decision was made to push now because even though our stadium sucks, we meet all the requirements for FBS football. Now anti-trust lawyers will make the case for SAC.

The stadium is a glaring problem, regardless. There are plans, renderings, etc. that are coming, but are just not publicly available yet. The school just completed an amenities survey, which the design firm (Populous) is incorporating into the plans. If the budget is $300M, it's going to be an amazing facility, even considering the fact that inflation might limit some of the amenities.

New student fees are in place, donations are rolling in more than ever (even at FCS level), bonds will be secured... This is the government, it sucks, it's slow. I hope they release more information soon to placate the frustrations with the process up to this point.
Click to expand...
I appreciate your perspective and conversation. Thank you for coming here to share it. As for the stadium, though, it isn't just that the plans are not publicly available, they don't exist at all, right? There was a FOIA done, and there were no drawings or plans or anything at all. There is basically just a "we would like to have a new stadium," at this point, from what I had read. When they asked for plans or renderings in the FOIA process, through which Sac State and the State of California were legally required to provide them, it came back that there was absolutely nothing internally.
 
ElrodGrizzly said:
I appreciate your perspective and conversation. Thank you for coming here to share it. As for the stadium, though, it isn't just that the plans are not publicly available, they don't exist at all, right? There was a FOIA done, and there were no drawings or plans or anything at all. There is basically just a "we would like to have a new stadium," at this point, from what I had read. When they asked for plans or renderings in the FOIA process, through which Sac State and the State of California were legally required to provide them, it came back that there was absolutely nothing internally.
Click to expand...

I've tried FOIA'ing stuff too but was told it was exempt due to:

The deliberative process privilege protects internal government communications that are part of the decision-making process. It aims to ensure candid discussions and prevent premature disclosure of policies by shielding pre-decisional and deliberative documents from public scrutiny. This privilege is a key component of Exemption 5 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

My revenue and hopes are very pie in the sky, but yes Populus is still under contract with Sacramento State and is actively designing a new stadium. The last track and field events were held at Hornet Stadium in June. There are improvements happening right now for the '25 season. This video is old, but things are moving behind the scenes.

 
Kadeezy said:
I've tried FOIA'ing stuff too but was told it was exempt due to:

The deliberative process privilege protects internal government communications that are part of the decision-making process. It aims to ensure candid discussions and prevent premature disclosure of policies by shielding pre-decisional and deliberative documents from public scrutiny. This privilege is a key component of Exemption 5 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

My revenue and hopes are very pie in the sky, but yes Populus is still under contract with Sacramento State and is actively designing a new stadium. The last track and field events were held at Hornet Stadium in June. There are improvements happening right now for the '25 season. This video is old, but things are moving behind the scenes.

Click to expand...
First of all, congrats on the progress being made. I'm glad to hear that, and you should keep those hopes pie in the sky. Nothing wrong with a little optimism in life. I'm also not trying to shit all over sac state, and I don't love them leaving the Big Sky. I'd much rather have kept you guys around, so no hate there.

On your claim about the plans, that isn't what was said. According to the Sac Bee
"On Monday, the university sent a response saying that it doesn’t have any such records, meaning none of the work has been completed."

To be clear, though, it doesn't look like it was an actual FOIA. So I was likely wrong on that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top