Thanks, I see that. But it does mean all the throws are essentially excluded from the atmosphere of the stadium.

Might not really matter ... but just pointing it out. In the sense of Oregon's stadium, which has won a lot of bids to host the NCAA finals and USA championships.

(07-20-2017 11:01 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Thanks, I see that. But it does mean all the throws are essentially excluded from the atmosphere of the stadium.

Might not really matter ... but just pointing it out. In the sense of Oregon's stadium, which has won a lot of bids to host the NCAA finals and USA championships.

The university's priority is football. We also host the local section high school and state championships for football at Hornet Stadium. We get more use out of Hornet Stadium for football than track.

The city of Sac's priority is track. Too bad they can't get their heads out of their rears to see that they are trying to market something on maybe at best one good event a year (NCAA's) and every four years (Olympic Trials).

As for atmosphere, the throws competitions are always very early in the day when they are scheduled when less people (if they come to a track meet) are there. Actually, with the way its set-up, we allow the fans to be a lot closer to the throws competitions than if they were sitting in Hornet Stadium. IMO its a win-win.

(07-20-2017 11:08 AM)SactoHornetAlum Wrote:  

(07-20-2017 11:01 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Thanks, I see that. But it does mean all the throws are essentially excluded from the atmosphere of the stadium.

Might not really matter ... but just pointing it out. In the sense of Oregon's stadium, which has won a lot of bids to host the NCAA finals and USA championships.

The university's priority is football. We also host the local section high school and state championships for football at Hornet Stadium. We get more use out of Hornet Stadium for football than track.

The city of Sac's priority is track. Too bad they can't get their heads out of their rears to see that they are trying to market something on maybe at best one good event a year (NCAA's) and every four years (Olympic Trials).

As for atmosphere, the throws competitions are always very early in the day when they are scheduled when less people (if they come to a track meet) are there. Actually, with the way its set-up, we allow the fans to be a lot closer to the throws competitions than if they were sitting in Hornet Stadium. IMO its a win-win.

They should try and market themselves better, and get Sacramento State into a better conference. Maybe MWC on the west? They had the chance to go to the WAC a few years ago. You won't get noticed if you are not at the top tier of FBS, then you do not get any tv coverage, and no chance of getting track meets or Olympics.

I live near Weber State. Weber St has had no desire to leave the Big Sky or go FBS. Especially since the Big Sky offices are in Ogden.

I also seriously doubt that Idaho would have blocked Eastern Washington. I believe they would have loved having a nearby travel partner so they wouldn't feel so isolated.

(07-20-2017 11:01 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  I remember that Portland State, Cal-Poly, Cal.-Davis, Sacramento State, Montana and Montana State were the hot chicks that the WAC wanted to move up to FBS status. Eastern Washington and Weber State fans wanted to go to FBS as well, but with Idaho and Utah State, it would be hard for them to join the WAC since both schools would be sharing the same tv markets of Salt Lake City and Spokane with Idaho and Utah State.

Idaho was hoping and praying those schools said yes so that they stay in the WAC and WAC would still be an FBS conference. As it is, I do think that states with no schools in the FBS division would try and pushed their way to be there.

Montana
North Dakota State
South Dakota State
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Maine
Delaware

Vermont and Alaska do not have football teams at D1 level. Alaska only have high school football.
Alaska-Fairbanks did played in a dome a long time ago.

Should Fairbanks restarts football and moved to D1 and Vermont restarts their football program? I can see them go to the FBS level further down the road.

Should there be a FBS conference formed for the Northeast schools and the Central plains schools to be represented at the FBS level? Lets say that the G5 and P5 agree to this? Some of the schools mentioned in this thread and some from the northeast are mostly academically similar to many schools in the P5 and G5 that could be easy targets if they grow for the P5.

UMass., Stony Brook and Buffalo all need to step up spending and build larger facilities to be even considered P5. They have the academics to be there.
Albany is in the same boat.
The Dakotas and Montanas are more Big 12 and SEC schools with their academics to belong. They are not R1 like the Big 10, but they are R2 like most of the Big 12 and SEC schools.

(07-20-2017 11:20 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-20-2017 11:08 AM)SactoHornetAlum Wrote:  

(07-20-2017 11:01 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Thanks, I see that. But it does mean all the throws are essentially excluded from the atmosphere of the stadium.

Might not really matter ... but just pointing it out. In the sense of Oregon's stadium, which has won a lot of bids to host the NCAA finals and USA championships.

The university's priority is football. We also host the local section high school and state championships for football at Hornet Stadium. We get more use out of Hornet Stadium for football than track.

The city of Sac's priority is track. Too bad they can't get their heads out of their rears to see that they are trying to market something on maybe at best one good event a year (NCAA's) and every four years (Olympic Trials).

As for atmosphere, the throws competitions are always very early in the day when they are scheduled when less people (if they come to a track meet) are there. Actually, with the way its set-up, we allow the fans to be a lot closer to the throws competitions than if they were sitting in Hornet Stadium. IMO its a win-win.

They should try and market themselves better, and get Sacramento State into a better conference. Maybe MWC on the west? They had the chance to go to the WAC a few years ago. You won't get noticed if you are not at the top tier of FBS, then you do not get any tv coverage, and no chance of getting track meets or Olympics.

We have gotten those tracks meets not even being FBS

(07-20-2017 11:23 AM)TardisCaptain Wrote:  I live near Weber State. Weber St has had no desire to leave the Big Sky or go FBS. Especially since the Big Sky offices are in Ogden.

I also seriously doubt that Idaho would have blocked Eastern Washington. I believe they would have loved having a nearby travel partner so they wouldn't feel so isolated.

(07-20-2017 11:01 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  I remember that Portland State, Cal-Poly, Cal.-Davis, Sacramento State, Montana and Montana State were the hot chicks that the WAC wanted to move up to FBS status. Eastern Washington and Weber State fans wanted to go to FBS as well, but with Idaho and Utah State, it would be hard for them to join the WAC since both schools would be sharing the same tv markets of Salt Lake City and Spokane with Idaho and Utah State.

Idaho was hoping and praying those schools said yes so that they stay in the WAC and WAC would still be an FBS conference. As it is, I do think that states with no schools in the FBS division would try and pushed their way to be there.

Montana
North Dakota State
South Dakota State
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Maine
Delaware

Vermont and Alaska do not have football teams at D1 level. Alaska only have high school football.
Alaska-Fairbanks did played in a dome a long time ago.

Should Fairbanks restarts football and moved to D1 and Vermont restarts their football program? I can see them go to the FBS level further down the road.

Should there be a FBS conference formed for the Northeast schools and the Central plains schools to be represented at the FBS level? Lets say that the G5 and P5 agree to this? Some of the schools mentioned in this thread and some from the northeast are mostly academically similar to many schools in the P5 and G5 that could be easy targets if they grow for the P5.

UMass., Stony Brook and Buffalo all need to step up spending and build larger facilities to be even considered P5. They have the academics to be there.
Albany is in the same boat.
The Dakotas and Montanas are more Big 12 and SEC schools with their academics to belong. They are not R1 like the Big 10, but they are R2 like most of the Big 12 and SEC schools.

I did not say Weber State wanted to go to FBS. I said their fans did when the WAC was searching for football schools to move up from FCS to join. All they could get was UTSA, Texas State and UTA to join.

(07-20-2017 11:54 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-20-2017 11:23 AM)TardisCaptain Wrote:  I live near Weber State. Weber St has had no desire to leave the Big Sky or go FBS. Especially since the Big Sky offices are in Ogden.

I also seriously doubt that Idaho would have blocked Eastern Washington. I believe they would have loved having a nearby travel partner so they wouldn't feel so isolated.

(07-20-2017 11:01 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  I remember that Portland State, Cal-Poly, Cal.-Davis, Sacramento State, Montana and Montana State were the hot chicks that the WAC wanted to move up to FBS status. Eastern Washington and Weber State fans wanted to go to FBS as well, but with Idaho and Utah State, it would be hard for them to join the WAC since both schools would be sharing the same tv markets of Salt Lake City and Spokane with Idaho and Utah State.

Idaho was hoping and praying those schools said yes so that they stay in the WAC and WAC would still be an FBS conference. As it is, I do think that states with no schools in the FBS division would try and pushed their way to be there.

Montana
North Dakota State
South Dakota State
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Maine
Delaware

Vermont and Alaska do not have football teams at D1 level. Alaska only have high school football.
Alaska-Fairbanks did played in a dome a long time ago.

Should Fairbanks restarts football and moved to D1 and Vermont restarts their football program? I can see them go to the FBS level further down the road.

Should there be a FBS conference formed for the Northeast schools and the Central plains schools to be represented at the FBS level? Lets say that the G5 and P5 agree to this? Some of the schools mentioned in this thread and some from the northeast are mostly academically similar to many schools in the P5 and G5 that could be easy targets if they grow for the P5.

UMass., Stony Brook and Buffalo all need to step up spending and build larger facilities to be even considered P5. They have the academics to be there.
Albany is in the same boat.
The Dakotas and Montanas are more Big 12 and SEC schools with their academics to belong. They are not R1 like the Big 10, but they are R2 like most of the Big 12 and SEC schools.

I did not say Weber State wanted to go to FBS. I said their fans did when the WAC was searching for football schools to move up from FCS to join. All they could get was UTSA, Texas State and UTA to join.

What is with you wanting every school in the country to go D1 and FBS, I have lived in Utah for quite awhile and have not heard one person wanting to go FBS.

Also Sac has a very good football stadium that could be expanded if they ever decide to go FBS, however some of the other venues need upgrades before a change in conference can happen. Sometime in the future I could see Sac State being competitive with San Jose and Fresno, but not for awhile.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(07-20-2017 03:17 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(07-20-2017 11:54 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-20-2017 11:23 AM)TardisCaptain Wrote:  I live near Weber State. Weber St has had no desire to leave the Big Sky or go FBS. Especially since the Big Sky offices are in Ogden.

I also seriously doubt that Idaho would have blocked Eastern Washington. I believe they would have loved having a nearby travel partner so they wouldn't feel so isolated.

(07-20-2017 11:01 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  I remember that Portland State, Cal-Poly, Cal.-Davis, Sacramento State, Montana and Montana State were the hot chicks that the WAC wanted to move up to FBS status. Eastern Washington and Weber State fans wanted to go to FBS as well, but with Idaho and Utah State, it would be hard for them to join the WAC since both schools would be sharing the same tv markets of Salt Lake City and Spokane with Idaho and Utah State.

Idaho was hoping and praying those schools said yes so that they stay in the WAC and WAC would still be an FBS conference. As it is, I do think that states with no schools in the FBS division would try and pushed their way to be there.

Montana
North Dakota State
South Dakota State
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Maine
Delaware

Vermont and Alaska do not have football teams at D1 level. Alaska only have high school football.
Alaska-Fairbanks did played in a dome a long time ago.

Should Fairbanks restarts football and moved to D1 and Vermont restarts their football program? I can see them go to the FBS level further down the road.

Should there be a FBS conference formed for the Northeast schools and the Central plains schools to be represented at the FBS level? Lets say that the G5 and P5 agree to this? Some of the schools mentioned in this thread and some from the northeast are mostly academically similar to many schools in the P5 and G5 that could be easy targets if they grow for the P5.

UMass., Stony Brook and Buffalo all need to step up spending and build larger facilities to be even considered P5. They have the academics to be there.
Albany is in the same boat.
The Dakotas and Montanas are more Big 12 and SEC schools with their academics to belong. They are not R1 like the Big 10, but they are R2 like most of the Big 12 and SEC schools.

I did not say Weber State wanted to go to FBS. I said their fans did when the WAC was searching for football schools to move up from FCS to join. All they could get was UTSA, Texas State and UTA to join.

What is with you wanting every school in the country to go D1 and FBS, I have lived in Utah for quite awhile and have not heard one person wanting to go FBS.

Also Sac has a very good football stadium that could be expanded if they ever decide to go FBS, however some of the other venues need upgrades before a change in conference can happen. Sometime in the future I could see Sac State being competitive with San Jose and Fresno, but not for awhile.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It was the fan boards that their fans posted that they wanted to move up.

(07-20-2017 04:45 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-20-2017 03:17 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(07-20-2017 11:54 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-20-2017 11:23 AM)TardisCaptain Wrote:  I live near Weber State. Weber St has had no desire to leave the Big Sky or go FBS. Especially since the Big Sky offices are in Ogden.

I also seriously doubt that Idaho would have blocked Eastern Washington. I believe they would have loved having a nearby travel partner so they wouldn't feel so isolated.

(07-20-2017 11:01 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  I remember that Portland State, Cal-Poly, Cal.-Davis, Sacramento State, Montana and Montana State were the hot chicks that the WAC wanted to move up to FBS status. Eastern Washington and Weber State fans wanted to go to FBS as well, but with Idaho and Utah State, it would be hard for them to join the WAC since both schools would be sharing the same tv markets of Salt Lake City and Spokane with Idaho and Utah State.

Idaho was hoping and praying those schools said yes so that they stay in the WAC and WAC would still be an FBS conference. As it is, I do think that states with no schools in the FBS division would try and pushed their way to be there.

Montana
North Dakota State
South Dakota State
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Maine
Delaware

Vermont and Alaska do not have football teams at D1 level. Alaska only have high school football.
Alaska-Fairbanks did played in a dome a long time ago.

Should Fairbanks restarts football and moved to D1 and Vermont restarts their football program? I can see them go to the FBS level further down the road.

Should there be a FBS conference formed for the Northeast schools and the Central plains schools to be represented at the FBS level? Lets say that the G5 and P5 agree to this? Some of the schools mentioned in this thread and some from the northeast are mostly academically similar to many schools in the P5 and G5 that could be easy targets if they grow for the P5.

UMass., Stony Brook and Buffalo all need to step up spending and build larger facilities to be even considered P5. They have the academics to be there.
Albany is in the same boat.
The Dakotas and Montanas are more Big 12 and SEC schools with their academics to belong. They are not R1 like the Big 10, but they are R2 like most of the Big 12 and SEC schools.

I did not say Weber State wanted to go to FBS. I said their fans did when the WAC was searching for football schools to move up from FCS to join. All they could get was UTSA, Texas State and UTA to join.

What is with you wanting every school in the country to go D1 and FBS, I have lived in Utah for quite awhile and have not heard one person wanting to go FBS.

Also Sac has a very good football stadium that could be expanded if they ever decide to go FBS, however some of the other venues need upgrades before a change in conference can happen. Sometime in the future I could see Sac State being competitive with San Jose and Fresno, but not for awhile.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It was the fan boards that their fans posted that they wanted to move up.

Both of them?

(07-20-2017 11:23 AM)TardisCaptain Wrote:  I live near Weber State. Weber St has had no desire to leave the Big Sky or go FBS. Especially since the Big Sky offices are in Ogden.

I also seriously doubt that Idaho would have blocked Eastern Washington. I believe they would have loved having a nearby travel partner so they wouldn't feel so isolated.

I promise, when the WAC was imploding we wouldn't have blocked Eastern Washington. We also wouldn't have blocked Central Washington, Western Washington, George Washington, Washington and Lee, or the Washington Generals if any of them were willing to play FBS football. We were just a bit desperate.

(07-19-2017 12:53 PM)jacksfan29 Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 01:05 AM)NoDak Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 10:20 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  The scholarship/minimum sport sponsorship levels is another point that NoDak's WAC/BSC/Summit/Who'snext FBS pipe dream completely overlooks. Most BSC schools sponsor the bare minimum at FCS so it would take significant increases in funding for scholarships, operating budgets for new sports, and facilities for those new sports.

UND had more than 200 schollies, but may not now after cutting women's hockey and M&W swimming. Every school that went FBS in the last 30 years has had issues where posters such as these said it couldn't be done. Sometimes scholarship numbers, sometimes facilities, sometimes fielding more women's teams, but the schools who didn't succeed in transitioning to FBS can be counted on one hand and maybe one finger - FAMU. Presidents normally don't tread on new or expanded athletic programs unless they have an assured funding source - which is often private. Montana has relied on the Washington's for millions in fb facility improvements, much of which generates revenue.

UND expected to pay $730k for FCOA in 2016-17, and it costs $3400 each for each FCOA on a full load scholarship, which means almost 215 scholarships were given out. Reduce the number by about 30 for the cuts, and UND would be above 200 again for FBS.

In the BSC Sac State also had over 200 as did South Dakota State in the Summit/MVFC. Neither are going FBS anytime soon.

Oh, and I don't know about Sac State but SDSU hasn't had to cut any sports, eliminate programs, cut scholarships, nor did we recently agree to pay our Men's BB coach a paltry sum of $140K annually. You seem to be missing the fact that your school, who you say is going FBS just went through a painful budget cutting process which according to recent reports, the cuts may not yet be finished.

A few years back we added Beach VB (not much of an investment needed) and our budget is now north of $25M. Currently there is no talk of cutting sports.

(07-20-2017 10:42 AM)SactoHornetAlum Wrote:  

(07-20-2017 10:29 AM)NoDak Wrote:  

(07-20-2017 10:20 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  If playing at the Timbers stadium isn't workable, then PSU needs to drop football.

The women's pro team, the Thorns, has priority scheduling so the Vikings-Griz game was sent to a Hillsboro HS stadium.

This is why Sac State will never move their games off-campus if the proposed MLS stadium gets built (and expansion franchise is awarded to the Sac Republic). I know there are some folks who would like to see us at that proposed venue, but the example above with PSU is alarm bells going off!

We only need to move one: Causeway. Much like moving the hardwood version to Golden1, having it in the new MLS stadium will make it an even bigger event. No other matchup can get the new MLS stadium anywhere near full.

(07-16-2017 08:12 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  Only one conference at the D1 level played a 20 game conference schedule last season and they are switching to an 18 game season:

http://blog.timesunion.com/collegesports...ule/22227/

Playing 20 conference games is a bad idea. The Sun Belt played a 20
game conference schedule until recently and it was not working. Playing more games against mediocre conference competition was not
helping the conference RPI. The non-conference wins help, especially against decent competition. There were also times when schools were playing five conference games in ten days.

But moreover, once the league decided to invite all teams to the post-season tournament, there was no point in a 20 game regular season schedule. The Conference RPI ranking improved from 17th to 13th in the first year of the 18 game schedule and hopefully the improvements will continue.

Last year the Big Sky RPI was 28th. You are not protecting anything. And the Big Sky simply cannot schedule high end opponents, nor do they win when they do. Different circumstances.

As for the SBC, that one year jump is mostly due to Texas Arlington's excellent performance, nothing more. Actually 11th to 19th is covered by just .0206, which is nothing. None of those conferences got a 2nd bid, nor did the ones a couple higher up the list. If UTA had not turned in a 40 instead of say 100, the SBC would have been 19th. On the flip side ULM and App St turned in 294 and 295 (yikes!). The jump is statistically meaningless. "Hoping it continues to improve" can be put in the category of "I wish I had a million dollars in cash." There is a big gap to the multi-bid conferences, and that requires two schools with top 50 RPI.

20 games makes sense for a major conference with a scaled TV contract (e.g., Big East, ACC, some others), which have higher RPI. It can aslo make sense for lower mid majors who need the revenue from an extra home game or who have issue with cohesion. The Big Sky has concerns about both of those things.

The SBC situation is different, and as you point out they added a round to the Conference Tournament, thus offsetting the loss of a home game. Also the SBC went from 11 schools to 12 with CCU joining; so 20 no longer worked as a full double round robin, so didn't make sense anymore.

Note: Fitting 20 games into the traditional January 2nd to March 6th time frame can be difficult as that is exact;y 10 weeks. An 18 game schedule allows two "bye" dates. But usually it's possible to schedule an extra game on the first Tuesday after January 1st, also on MLK day (Monday) and during the President's day Week (school break). But it takes some work from the league office to avoid those 5 in 10 days you mentioned. (Such things always seem to happen with Karl Benson leagues). So it's a challenge to do it well, and takes some effort and planning. (Note AD's are not passive in scheduling, it is their job to fit the dates for their school; so much blame belongs there)

Note: The Big Sky invites all schools to it's tournament, so this is not part of the equation. (Last year 11 participated as Northern Colorado had a school-imposed postseason ban on the program for 2016-17 for NCAA violations under B.J. Hill.)

Not every conference does it makes sense. For a 28th in RPI conference with 11 schools, concerned about reestablishing rivalries and cohesion, as well as needing a 10th home game (gate more important than $0 TV deal), it probably makes sense. For a conference that is chasing a 2nd at-large and where 20 fails to add big TV money (unlike say the B1G, ACC or Big East) or make a full round robin, it doesn't make sense. Depends on the situation.

Stu, as usual you are wrong. The Sun Belt's improvement was not about UTA. Arkansas Little Rock had an RPI of 42 in 2015-2016, won the conference tournament and beat Purdue in the tournament. UTA had an RPI of 40, lost to Texas State in the tournament, then lost to Cal State Bakersfield at home in the NIT. In fact, UTA list twice to Texas State last season. UTA was not the reason the Sun Belt was better last season. In 2015-2016, four teams in the Sun Belt had an RPI of 175 or better. In 2016-2017, eight teams had an RPI of 175 or better. The conference was better with an 18 game schedule.

Last season Sac State played an 18 game schedule, plus two conference tournament games, plus three home games against D2 opponents. That is 20 conference games plus three D2 games that do nothing for the RPI. Adding an extra conference home game does nothing for their revenue. They play in front of 1,000 or fewer fans in their gym. Adding two extra conference games will do nothing for their RPI.

No one in D1 is playing a 20 game conference schedule this season. I seriously doubt that the Big Sky is going to move to a 20 game schedule, but you can keep making the argument.

SDHornet, you guys need to build that much talked about events center and move to the WAC or the Big West. The Big Sky is a good football conference, but they barely care about Olympic sports. They are one of the worst basketball conferences in D1 and they don't play baseball or men's soccer. Sac State can do better for Olympic sports.

(07-24-2017 12:16 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  SDHornet, you guys need to build that much talked about events center and move to the WAC or the Big West. The Big Sky is a good football conference, but they barely care about Olympic sports. They are one of the worst basketball conferences in D1 and they don't play baseball or men's soccer. Sac State can do better for Olympic sports.

I think we break ground on the events center in the next few years. Lots of excavators moving around campus these days.

One of those D2 games was an exhibition which doesn't affect RPI. And agree with you about a move, it won't happen but I would love to see our Olys put in a more sensible conference. However given out situation, men's soccer is in a great spot (BW membership) and WAC baseball ain't all that bad (WAC will be much better RPI-wise with UND now gone and when Chi State leaves). We do need to leverage Golden1 more to get a better MBB schedule though.

The ACC is about to go to 20 with thier ESPN deal

The SBC performance is a fluke one off. Take UTA out of the picture and they drop to 20th. They are not a multi bid conference. But this is neither here nor there, we need 4 or 5 years of data to make a definitive statement.

Keep in mind Bobcat, the difference between 11 and 20 is minuscule. It is easy to finish anywhere in that range on any given year. They are all between .5000 and .4800, while you need above .5200 for a 2nd bid. The difference we are talking about is "noise" not pattern. The SBC suddenly did not get a bunch of NBA prospects or a bunch of future Major 6 coaches (counting Big East here). If the SBC passes say the Mountain West, WCC or A10, then you have something. But if it stays in that .4800 to .5000 band, it's noise nothing more.