Are they moving week 1 or just eliminating the bye week unless there are 13 weekends between Labor Day weekend and Thanksgiving weekend, inclusive?

I haven’t seen a convincing argument made that justifies Sac being projected to finish in the middle of the pack like both the Big Sky coaches and media polls. Sac clearly brought in more talent than they lost to transfers, and few teams in the Big Sky did. Picking them behind teams that got decimated by transfers and also have largely new coaching staffs like Idaho is inexplicable. Given that their league schedule is favorable, playing Montana and Idaho at home and not playing Montana State they are definitely a contender.

Athletes do not need to be top of class to attend UC Davis. They need to be about in the top half, not counting exceptions. That makes Davis unusual.

There are at least 100 schools with football programs that will admit any athlete with a mental pulse, Sac State has not discovered an ignored market,.

Yes, no news that I noticed,
Plough is going to try to be the same coach he was last year, just improve processes. He thinks the key to having players not leave is to offer them an environment that helps them achieve their goals and makes them want to stay.

Under Plough the game notes are posted in the schedule mid week before the game. Hawkins viewed the game notes as a way to acknowledge players, some of whom never got into a game,
This year there are transfers who have yet to participate in a practice, so it would be premature to put them on the depth chart.

We can guess who is going to start on offense, with some uncertainty who is going to be the #3 wide receiver, and there will be some competition for interior line, we have some young guys who might be in the mix.
On defense the two Ivy transfers will probably start in the DL, alongside a player from last years roster. Linebacker will likely be the Cal transfer, along with Porter Connors, and a player from last years roster, DB will be Rex Connors, the transfers from Boston College, SEMO, UTEP, and someone who wins a corner spot.

Sac has 40 transfers. Only a few of last year’s team will play this year, and they have new defensive coaches. The question for Sac, which applies to most other contenders in the division, is how well they can get their new players integrated into a unit. Idaho, Montana and Davis all have that challenge on defense, so Sac isn’t alone. Their schedule is tough only compared to Montana’s; their first opponent, SDSU lost 20+ transfers to FBS.

Sac ending up in 4th through 6th place will be a major disappointment for them. Does nothing to show they are ready for FBS, they routinely finished 1st under Taylor and that didn’t lead to conference invites. They have limited opportunities to impress this season, they have to make a statement in the playoffs, and they might not make it in finishing 4th, in what looks to be a down year for the BigSky.
I think they will be a contender, have a good record with their weak schedule, make the playoffs. If they don’t it’s a disaster.

Every team at the top aside from N Ariz. lost their QB and most productive running back
Difference is Davis didn’t play the backups much so they are an unproven factor. We are projecting from a small sample.
Because almost every team lost a good chunk of their roster to graduation or FBS poaching, I would put Sac higher. The big negative on Sac is the wholesale changes, but most besides NAU have that issue.

From Hero Sports. Also on Big Sky Conference site.
Sac State is mysteriously unpopular.

Big Sky Football Preseason Poll
Media
1. Montana State (30 1st-place votes)
2. Montana (6)
3. UC Davis (4)
4. Idaho (1)
5. Northern Arizona
6. Sacramento State (1)
7. Idaho State
8. Eastern Washington
9. Weber State
10. Portland State
11. Cal Poly
12. Northern Colorado

Coaches
1. Montana State (7 1st-place votes)
2. UC Davis (1)
3. Montana (2)
4. Northern Arizona (1)
5. Idaho
6. Sacramento State (1)
7. Idaho State
8. Weber State
9. Eastern Washington
10. Portland State
11. Cal Poly
12. Northern Colorado

I suspect that top progams are not too puzzled by Sacs success. It’s not the facilities, reputation, competition, proven coaching staff. What could it be?

There is no action to Opt Out. Teams either Opt In and follow the roster limit and participate in revenue sharing or they don’t, It’s a choice they can make each year.

Don’t overlook Mark Grieb who played 13 years in the Arena Football League, won titles, set records. Also started a few games in the XFL

247 Sports says Richardson had offers from Cal Poly and Georgetown in 2023. I forgot the amazing thing is he graduated in a year and a half. He graduated at Tufts in time to participate Spring practice at Davis after graduating from Menlo School in 2023. Not your average high school i guess.

I ‘m rooting for Richarson also for a couple of reasons. One, he is an achiever, graduating from Tufts with a science degree in two years, and two, Tufts is not a high profile D3 team, and he only played 14 games in college and you really have to standout to become an All American as a sophomore.

It will be interesting to see who among the DBs plays and where they fit them in. Questions to be resolved: Is Baston or Riddick going to be the field safety? Allen was also listed as a Safety last year, but also played a position UTEP called Spur, which some have described that as a slot corner, will he play corner, or is he the nickle? Who else plays corner?
Anyone notice that 247 Sports rated Blake Cotton as a 4 star transfer? On one of the Montana podcasts last fall they had a frequent guest who at one time was Montana State's cornerback coach. He thought highly of our corners last year.

My view is that the 105 roster limit is required because the NCAA don’t believe that can keep track of all the money flows to players and distinguish what is scholarship, what is NIL, and what is revenue sharing. That is why the roster limit is a requirement for teams that opt in, why schools can’t pay the NLI money directly or do revenue sharing without the roster limit.

Lots of examples where walk-ons turn into major contributors. Lamont Shamburger is a recent example.

They only allow 58 to travel to away games under Big Sky rules. I have long thought they should get rid of the FBS and FCS distinction by compromising on something like 73 scholarships, but with the multiple ways of paying players scholarship limits are too complicated to enforce, so now they substituted roster limits. A large roster is desirable because it is difficult to predict which HS players will be good at the college level, so sorting takes place after they are on the team.

If fewer men participate fewer women are needed to meet the proportionality requirements, but if the same number if men have scholarships then the women would continue to get the proportional amount of that resource.

What is the immediate benefit gained by giving up the immediate nearly nothing? Spread 63 scholarships over 105 players rather than 85? That dilutes the value of each scholarship so might not help recruiting. And maybe 85 is sufficient?

Cut the roster if it is more than 105.

One of the competitive advantages of opting in is the elimination of scholarship limits, but the Big Sky has a conference limit of 63 which negates that advantage,
There are other advantages, like sharing revenue with players, and moving NIL payments in house but Davis is may not ready to do that. I think there is no deadline to opt in, not doing it now doesn’t preclude doing it later.