Sac is playoff eligible still because their waiver to start their transition to FBS.without a conference invite was denied.

Hopefully Plough plays more guys in general than he did last year. I believe we had three O linemen who had over 1,000 snaps. I hope we go back to playing a lot of men and winning the fourth quarter.

That is right, not thanksgiving weekend

Have to like the depth of the offensive line. I think some of our returning starters are going to be challenged for their role by both returning young guys and transfers. Larison said the line wasn’t as dominant in 2024 as in 2023, so there is room for improvement.

Thanks
According to that article week zero is dead, no more exceptions, week one is fixed at 13 weeks before the Saturday before Thanksgiving. So next season week 1 is where week 0 would have been. But if the rule was in effect this year, week 1 would be unchanged, Start of seasom no longer related to Labor Day.

I see 6’6” 340lb lineman JC transfejr Henry Fanua is on the roster, he was missing before, even after named on signing day announcement, so he is on scholarship.

You may be right about people getting excited if they win their first two games, but South Dakota State is an unknown quantity since their coaching staff and 20+ players left for the FBS. And Nevada has also been plundered after being a cellar dweller last year. Hard to say they proved they’re ready to join a conference by beating a team that was winless in that conference.
I do expect Sac to win games, but so what? They were 12-1 in 2022. Their record is not why they didn’t get a conference invite.

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,.

Regarding the transfers breaking out, there are six guys with significant division 1 starting experience who’ve all been productive players. If they can play to the level they’ve played elsewhere we are good.

I’m expecting a significant role for Carter Vargas. Plough said in the spring that Jordan Fisher and Vargas separated themselves from the other running backs, and Carter has more size. I think they will be running the ball enough to give two backs plenty of carries. Vargas was a late decommit from Nevada and had an offer from Boston College.

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.

Montana State’s 6 is only 5 players, (Taco* 2x)
All of Davis’ except Gbatu were all conference or honorable mention in 2024 post season awards

* Anyone get a dollar taco recently? I used to by them at a gas station in Redwood City 2006 -2008.

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?