Yes, I would drop football rather than drastically increase its budget to move up to FBS. If it remains in FCS it can stay. How much does the program cost to run in order to bring in its portion of $5-6 million ? This is not a huge financial windfall; football just brings in more total dollars to help offset its expenses than the other sports. According to this article I just read the UCD athletics budget was approximately 39 million in FY 2023. 6 vs 39-football- doesn't pay for itself or other sports completely.

That's ridiculous that they told you to put a donation on a credit card. Greed over common sense.

The bank is closed here too. Athletics hits me up for donations 2-4 times a month. Nope. What's humorous is every year they come up with new names for their fundraising programs, but whether it's "Champions Achieve" or whatever it's just another way of saying "Give us Money". The only things new about their "exciting new programs" are the names.

To be honest I was very excited about the move to Division I in 2003 (when I was excited about the move), but now not so much. All it's really brought is more expenses across all sports, more losses (although some of the wins have been really big ones), and more annoying fake athletics administrative positions. At this point I'm closer to saying UCD should drop football and move to D 2 than advocating for any major upgrades for football. Or stay in D1 and just drop football and a couple underperforming programs. Use UCD Health Stadium as a multi-purpose facility (more than it already is).

Of course I'm an outsider so I have no right to tell them what to do with the money they rightfully took from others, willingly or not.. Therefore, that idea dies here on this board, just like the FBS crap should. Good for Sac State doing something. Not necessary to keep up with the Joneses. Wake me up if Sac State threatens UCD in quality of academics.

It's true that football brings in the most money, but it also costs the most. The program doesn't pay for itself, which is why they have to soak students and potential donors to keep it going. It's a slowly dying tradition of which we can't let go, but we can enjoy it while it's still around.

I have to agree with abridge and NCagalum on this. Students/donors are supposed to pony up tens of millions of dollars so UCD can have a mediocre FBS football team that a prospective employer may or may not recognize ?

I don't think the name recognition argument is as strong as it used to be when you could get a degree and find eager employers waiting for you.. Maybe if you're trying out for a professional sports team. A top business has an idea of what schools are producing the most successful graduates in that field. Sounds more like those prospective employers you mentioned didn't really keep up on what the top colleges for engineering were at the time. Seems more like a they problem.

In my experience an employer places much more weight on your experience in terms of what you can bring to them.

UCD needs to concentrate on its academic mission. If all the sports teams were to be cut your degree wouldn't be worth any less. It's ok to dream but this isn't that great of a path.

I wonder why they just gave up on the temp lights completely after that first game ? The lights they were using seemed to be working fine, but they didn't provide good coverage for the outfield. They couldn't have just brought in more lights ?

They didn't plan this too well. It would have been more sensible for them to play 2024 in a temporary venue with lights such as Sac State while working on the lights at Dobbins.

Perhaps they could've played at Laney College's field as is ? Or share the Oakland Ballers' venue. Sac State's park is small but it would have been full every night.

They got greedy and tried to play in Dobbins before it was ready for action. They blew a big opportunity to get people hooked. Opening night had a significantly bigger crowd than I've seen at even a free Picnic Day game. Now they have to re-engage the fans they lost due to poor planning ..

tailgate party.

Sac State is and always will be a commuter school so probably not much difference in student attendance. The deal with Golden 1 is probably temporary while they set up their new arena, which I think was supposed to be in the Well, the Sac State equivalent of the ARC.

I would be happy if they proved me wrong.

Ah I hadn't thought of it in terms of demographics, but you may have a point.

Greater or accelerated apathy in this area ? More distractions here ? I don't want to get deep into politics but CA is a very liberal state, and liberals seem lto like soccer more. Look at Portland-they're crazy about it there. Football seems more popular in red states like Texas.

The legal recreational weed could play a role or not. I mean , give a college student a choice between getting high and going to a football game and it's a difficult decision.

I don't know if it's so much student disinterest in FCS football or university athletics in general. We can frame ideas about the athletic program in terms of what we think students will like, but we're thinking with our own ancient brains and favorite experiences. That has limited effectiveness.

Athletics in general may be fighting a losing battle with student apathy more as time goes on.. Why go to a sporting event when you can watch people doing crazy things on TikTok or hook up with random people on dating apps ? Smartphones and their popular apps are helping to disconnect people from the people and events immediately around them at the same time they connect them to more interesting people and events far away. Look at any modern dinner where everyone (or at least the kids) are on their phones.

As an old grandpa might say, if you want to bring people back to the old things we liked as young people we need to somehow get them disconnected from their electronic devices first. How do we do that- pressure Congress to make them illegal on the basis that the Chinese and Russians are spying on us ? Good luck with that !

Even the students who disconnect and enjoy one game are no sure bet for future ones.

It's harsh but I think a bigger and more modern stadium and FBS games to attract otherwise apathetic students would basically be pearls before swine. The school has to acquire and tens of millions of dollars just to get some lazybones to maybe get off the couch ? To hell with him. He can watch FCS football and like it or not. Or is it more about what WE (well I don't but you get the point) want to see ?

I don't agree with the idea that top-notch sports are needed for university name recognition. What makes the news are the advancements in whatever that impact people's lives, not mediocre FBS football. UCD seems to be pretty good at the former.

Though it's not advisible to walk in or around the SCC campus at night, save for whatever sports venue you might ever visit. Land Park is fine during the day-a lot of old, but nicely-maintained expensive houses. People seem to feel safe walking their dogs. I am not fully aware of the dining scene there, but it seems like a lot of fast food. Dad's Restaurant (not fast food) is pretty good but expensive. Hamburgers have a tasty but very messy chili sauce. There's a pretty good burger and bbq place across the street from the school that has its own smoker right out front. Again not inexpensive

I have also done Causeway Classics at Hughes. I would say Sac City area is no worse than Sac State at night, but there's no good reason to be walking in Land Park at night anyway.

In one respect seeing a night game at Sac City can be a little safer in that there is a lightrail station (City College) adjacent to Hughes Stadium -maybe a 5 min walk if you're slow.. Then less than a 15 min ride to midtown. Sac City seems to have less parking, so it can be advantageous for locals to take transit.

One thing to understand about Sac City is it's a community college, and that its design is for making optimal use of a small space. If you're there for a football game restrict your visit to the stadium and you'll be fine. No reason to go sightseeing-not much to see anyway.

I don't know if they could play at Sutter Health Park because they're having to make big improvements to accomodate the A's for the next 3-4 years. Now why bend over backwards for a team that frequently draws less than SHP holds ? Just MLB rules.

One very possible option for Sac State could be Hughes Stadium. It has a capacity of over 20,000 and used to be used for minor league football and the Causeway Classic. Sacramento City College would probably be happy to rent to and share with the Hornets considering their games are pretty bare-bones in terms of entertainment, excitement, and fan support. Per their website they primarily play in the early afternoons, draw crowds in the hundreds. As you can imagine from a community college with a limited budget they don't have a band or cheerleaders to entertain people at halftime. They would probably welcome the money extra visitors would bring.

If not Hughes Stadium I don't know what else would be suitable within the area. American River and CRC have decent stadiums that are suitable for HS crowds, not D1 football

I'm on the side for enjoying what we (they actually since it's not mine) have and making reasonable and sensible improvements. This thread early on had some knee-jerk reactions to Sac State, as if it's an arms race of some kind. I've enjoyed presenting an unpopular opinion. That people have expended energy arguing against it tells me that they stopped and thought about it regardless.


And I will heed my own post about caring vs. obsession and let it drop for now. Thanks for playing along everyone.

3 responses. That must have really gotten under your skin. Sorry about that. I will make sure to only agree with you going forward. Deal ?

I'm familiar with the alumni association. You pay dues, and you get to do things like helping to provide scholarships and raise money for university enhancements. Still a front porch (pay to play) thing, although it has better refreshments and more perks not available to the general public. If you go to alumi.ucdavis.edu the landing page has a few offers of member-exclusive trips.

Have you noticed the location of the Alumni Cent ? On the edge of campus and not really close to the center. Kind of symbolic in a way.

There is a line between caring and obsession. From reading posts on here it is apparent that some have crossed it.

As to my role, swing and a miss, or should I say incomplete pass ? You most certainly are a guest once you are no longer a student or employee (Don't know anything about your background so can't say if that describes you) but please continue to believe the opposite if that way of thinking suits you. I didn't imagine I would change anyone's mind when I posted. I merely shared my opinion because I have the right to do so and I felt like it. If you think I was offensive I welcome you to report me.

I stand by entitled as a possible description. I believe when you pay your college tuition you are making an investment in yourself and not so much the university. The university in turn invests in you by allowing you to make use of its limited academic resources. It's more of a transaction. And when you are done with your studies and no longer have any official role with the school you shift to being an external customer. An external customer can participate by spending or donating money.

But does an external customer have any right to tell a university how to conduct its business ? They can withhold or threaten to withhhold business (to include donations)if they don't like something the school is doing. Or maybe complain about it on social media or go protest. Does a customer have a right to influence how an athletics dept is run beyond voting with their wallets ? A question that has multiple answers. I say no. You can spend or donate money to support the success of the program but beyond that it's none of our busineß

When we attend athletic events are we going more to support the student-athletes or because we enjoy the experience ? Both can simultaneously be reasons but despite what people might say, probably the 2nd choice. Would you go to UCD football games if you didn't enjoy the experience ?

I would also disagree that being a top university requires being top-notch in sports. Obviously don't make the football team play at the old Toomey Field, but UCD has a fine football stadium. There isn't this huge untapped market of people who would support UCD athletics except that their opponents are uninteresting.

On the subject of front porches, when you have guests on yours are they entitled to anymore than whatever seating and refreshments you are offering ? Can they go in your bedroom to re-paint the walls an ugly color ? See, front porch guests such as ourselves are only welcome to the extent the university dictates. We only have illusions about really having a say. In one respect it's like being on the student council at an elementary school.

I"ve learned to dismiss anything school officials or coaches say. They say what they need to say to stay in power much like politicians. Sometimes they really do what they say. but the rest of the time just meaningless drivel.

Of course people who donate millions of dollars have more of a say on how their money is used. These are not the people to whom I was referring.

I acknowledge and respect that you have a different opinion, but I do not agree with it.

Sac State absolutely needs a new stadium. The one they have is old and unsafe. Clearly Sac State recognizes that it had two choices:

1. Build a new facility.
2. Eliminate their football program altogether.
The maintenance costs just to continue with the same one will become unsustainable at some point, and so will personal injury lawsuits from spectators.

UCD does not have this problem. I wonder if it's worth it as alumni (and most of us probably not major donors) to get into such a tizzy about building a bigger stadium to move to a higher level just so we can see them maybe play a team we would see on TV. Are we really this afraid of a future where we outsiders don't get treated like royalty to optimum facilities we didn't really help to pay for ? Seems kind of privileged to me. $50 million doesn't seem like a big deal when it's somebody else's money.

Just a personal opinion, and an unpopular one I'm sure- but I don't think we really have the right to any input on future facilities or the direction of the athletic department. A game ticket only entitles us to attend the game and give feedback on things we experience while at the game (dirty restrooms for example), and a donation only gives us access to whatever they promise for that level of gift. I just think we ought to be grateful for what they have for us outsiders.

What I'd like to know is which university is going to provide the world-class education ? Is Sac State going to send them to a better college ?

At least the students will be able to defend themselves from all the riff-raff at the train station next to Ultimate Fitness.