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.

That makes sense, although the 4 pm games aren't much better. The kids may be out of schol right now but their parents still have to work. Who comes to the games then- just retirees ?

They were still using the temp lights, which they needed in the game. It is just surprising they didn't get enough to light the whole field.

Baseball is probably a low priority at UCD. If it weren't for the hazing scandal Matt Vaughn could probably have stayed there forever. Losing was ok but the hazing made the school look bad and that's what cost him his job.