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.

Hero sports is out with it’s UC Davis preview. Also Idaho who they rank just ahead of #11 Davis
https://herosports.com/fcs-2025-uc-davis-football-preview-bzbz/

Lots they get right, but they project Perez will be #1 running back, whereas it is pretty clear from Plough’s comments that Fisher and Vargas will be the top backs. He said Fisher and Vargas had separated themselves, leading to Perez playing some at wide receiver.

The comparison with Idaho is striking. Davis has nine players who were All Conference in an FCS conference last year, Idaho has 2. Davis lost 2 transfers to the FBS, Idaho lost 20.

I hadn’t noticed Rutchena had such an outstanding start to his Cal career. Played wide receiver and safety in HS. Didn’t have a redshirt year but greyshirted, meaning he didn’t practice, then when he got to play linebacker for the first time this is how he finished his freshman year after becoming a starter..

– at Arizona - 8 tackles, 1 interception (0-yard return), 1 quarterback hurry
– at Stanford - 11 tackles ... career-high-tackles
– at UCLA - 9 tackles, 2.5 tackles for loss (-6 yards), 1 pass breakup

Then he became a seldom used player, finally switching to tight end last year. Cal kept bringing in transfer linebackers.
I think Rutchena will be an impact player for Davis

You have hit on Sac State’s problem, no one wants to be their rival.
That’s a combination of being tier 2 in Football (FCS), tier 2 in the California public college systems, and tier 2 among Universities in the greater Sacramento area.

The only things standing in the way of Sac State as a BCU (obviously it lacks the History) is the demographics of the school, the region, the fans, and I suspect, the band.

i don’t think a black college is a viable model for a state where blacks make up 6% of the population, and a city where blacks are only 12%. Black colleges arose out of segregation in areas where there were large black populations.

As to whether I think Sac is breaking rules, i’m not sure. They may be able to stay under the 63 scholarship limit this year, as they got 40+ players to leave. The rule is 105 as an FCS independent in 2026 so thats also doable. It is legal to pay players.
I don’t think charisma accounts for their success. I think they are buying players with funds that there is no clear source for, making promises that will be unlikely to be met down the line. A kid doesn’t know what he’s signing up for if he stays 5 years at Sac State,

We are talking 2026 class so the NLI signing period hasn’t occurred yet, so only verbals.

Colter overweights the impact of Sac State not being FBS. A good chunk of the transfers and all the 2025 HS recruits signed before April, which is when Sac first announce they intended to go FBS without an invite. A good chuck of the transfers would never have played an FBS schedule nor visit an FBS opponent other than Nevada they visit this year. No reason for those players to be disheartened, they at least have a shot at playoffs.
Projecting that Sac loses at SDSU overlooks that SDSU lost over twenty FBS transfers, so they have their own challenges with integrating newcomers. Same is true for Nevada.