I read that we were in discussions with the Mountain West (MW) and the West Coast Conference (WCC) regarding all sports. If we had joined the WCC, the chances for FCS participation would be inevitable. The MW gives me hope, but knowing we had even these conversations doesn't leave me optimistic. I hope I'm wrong.
Some sports could end up in the WCC, while others may remain in the Big West.
I wouldn't read too much into the WCC discussions - that was most likely just due diligence. The MWC made by far the most sense for everything including football, so that's where we're going.
We aren't going to do exactly what Montana and NDSU are doing, which is why I said "relatively close." Football in CA is never going to be what it is in Montana - we all know that (and its sad!)
In a perfect world, and with a 10,000 seat renovation, relatively close, to me, is....in a town of 70,000 people, getting 15,000 residents in the gate + 4,000 students + 1,000 football families/friends + 2,000 "others" like me.
I think drawing 22,000 would be a great start.
I am fully aware we may never reach that "start." I was just hoping for an upward trajectory by 2035.
I see the pros and cons of both approaches. I feel like the best would be a little of both. I feel sac goes way overboard and exaggerates everything which makes real ADs and commissioners who know their true numbers question them more but makes the causal observer believe them. While UCD does the work quietly and working with the conferences/ADs/commissioners while leaving us in the dark. I feel like UCD can greatly benefit from having a Dr Wood “lite” person to put us out there since truthfully I feel we have greater potential
/promise while sac/Dr wood would beefier from toning theirs down a bit, and be taken more seriously from the higher ups.
I agree that the WCC discussions was just being a real AD should do, and review all options short and long term and it would be wise to look at a WCC+Big Sky (football) to see if we would profit more in our other sports but continuing to look at FBS (MWC and PAC)
I have to agree here. I'm really thinking of getting involved to bring more attention on campus to sporting events. We need a strong booster club with events for students. I don't know what happened but since I graduated in 2002, it seems Davis is less involved with the university. We should have a downtown area UC Davis sports bar. We need a place for our students and fans to gather for big games. We are missing that big time.
no idea what was considered at the time, but the mistake at the Toomey site was building the North Entry garage too close to the stadium in the early 90s. Remember the cheapskates who watched the game from the garage? Today of course those vantage points would be a security concern too. I think the site selected was probably chosen because there wasn’t anything there to bulldoze and no neighbors (except cows). Other north-south oriented sites might have been Hutchison or Russell IM fields or possibly somewhere along Old Davis Rd. We may have gotten a better stadium if the architect was challenged to fit it on a smaller site and closer to downtown… steeper, higher, closer to action like Montana. But reallocating IM fields would have been controversial and locating adjacent to city of Davis could have spurred nimby litigation about light and noise pollution, despite the revenue it would drive for downtown.
there are plans in progress now for expansion. Rocko mentioned it at the signing event. An announcement is coming I believe near summer. They are really focused on luxury boxes - those are big sources of revenue for the Montana’s and Dakota’s
Awesome if true though I think a lot of us we're calling this move already. It will be interesting to see how the stadium is expanded with the existing structures in place. I just hope it looks cohesive. It always looks kind of tacky when a stadium gets built in phases but the phases each look like a completely different style of stadium.
luckily, I think we probably already had expansion drawings when we first built… but I’m looking forward to seeing it. The sunken bowl is great but it’ll be cool to see a bit more from the ground level driving by. I feel like they could do pretty well with expansion either way , the stadium design is kinda timeless in the first place
Right, I mean... it's just been almost 20 years since Aggie Stadium opened. That's a long time between phase 1 and phase 2 and plans can change. I just want it to look good.
I personally like the berms. I think it's kind of a unique feature to the stadium and it's a good place for families with little ones. I'd rather them build up from the bowl than fill in the ends.