Should Sacramento State go?

[Herky]

What a poorly titled thread! I can assure you that Sac State isnt going anywhere, sure there are a few guys (2) that are bad apples on sacbuzz, but its just them. Everyone else is very optimistic considering the lack of success in the marquee sports.

I think that the talk WR is talking about is about the new MBB coach, he's not liked in Sac right now.

By the way, Sac had the second best signing day in the Sky. Looking forward to next football season.

[dbackjon]

What a poorly titled thread! I can assure you that Sac State isnt going anywhere, sure there are a few guys (2) that are bad apples on sacbuzz, but its just them. Everyone else is very optimistic considering the lack of success in the marquee sports.

I think that the talk WR is talking about is about the new MBB coach, he's not liked in Sac right now.

By the way, Sac had the second best signing day in the Sky. Looking forward to next football season.

Why is the MBB coach disliked?

[Herky]

What a poorly titled thread! I can assure you that Sac State isnt going anywhere, sure there are a few guys (2) that are bad apples on sacbuzz, but its just them. Everyone else is very optimistic considering the lack of success in the marquee sports.

I think that the talk WR is talking about is about the new MBB coach, he's not liked in Sac right now.

By the way, Sac had the second best signing day in the Sky. Looking forward to next football season.

Why is the MBB coach disliked?

He's not disliked by everyone. Most people understand that he's working with a program that really hasnt done much or achieved anything in a long time, while others want to see some progress and they want to see it now. The coach doesnt give much info in interviews and most people know more about his personal exercise routine and diet than they do about the way he coaches.

A lot of fans and alumni are ready for change, in a positive way, rather than regressing back the painful rebuilding stage with every new coach that we get. It just gets real irritating when the university and the media build up a coach to be some sort of messiah and then they fail, not that Katz has failed, it's his first season.

Conversely, you have Coach Sperbeck who is loved in Sacramento. He's a no nonsense coach that really relates to the community and university, the school, city, and fans have very high expectations of him. He has done a lot with what little Coach Mooshagian left for him, he has completely revamped/reorganized the Hornet football program. Can't say enough good things about him so I'll stop.

As far as Sac leaving the Sky, there's just no way. All fan bias aside, it doesnt make sense to do the things to facilities that Sac State is doing to dump a program or move to another conference. Hornet fans are very passionate about their teams, you'd know if they were seriously considering dumping a sport or moving to another conference.

There has only been talk of dumping a sport from 2 posters on Sacbuzz, and they're just grumpy old guy's who remember the DII days. The majority of posters over there all think they know how and when to do what, you know, typical fan smack talk, nothing too serious.

[dbackjon]

As long as Sac State has football, moving to another conference makes no sense

[BlackFalkin]

d.get rid of ewu, psu, sac, unc, nau

are you a fvcking idiot? thats half of the conference!

1. If we get rid of ewu and portland st. then why the FVCK should we keep Weber state?
2. are u a fvcking idiot?
3. its a great conference the way it is! even with the edition of NorCol.
4. whats wrong with NAU? decent school & team.

See the problem is, a school who went 0-11 a couple years back, has *one* good season, and wants to kick everyone else out!

[Appaholic]

See the problem is, a school who went 0-11 a couple years back, has *one* good season, and wants to kick everyone else out!

OUCH!......truth hurts.....

[Wildcat Ryan]

Weber never went 0-11, they went 1-10. Although thats not much better, we did beat Idaho State that year. And I DONT WANT ANY BIG SKY TEAMS OUT OF THE CONFERENCE. If you get rid of Weber State, it would be like getting rid of Montana, because you will be losing the power of Big Sky Basketball.

[Mvemjsunpx]

Weber never went 0-11, they went 1-10. Although thats not much better, we did beat Idaho State that year. And I DONT WANT ANY BIG SKY TEAMS OUT OF THE CONFERENCE. If you get rid of Weber State, it would be like getting rid of Montana, because you will be losing the power of Big Sky Basketball.

Getting rid of Weber would be nothing like getting rid of Montana. Montana's athletics make by far the most money in the Big Sky. Losing Weber wouldn't be good, of course (especially since the Big Sky HQ would probably have to move), but it wouldn't be nearly the blow that losing Montana would be. Montana is the dominant school in 2 of the 3 major sports and is up around the top in the third.

Weber is the power of Big Sky (men's) basketball? Maybe in the '70s & '80s & some of the '90s, but not so much now. Montana has the most NCAA tournament appearances (and the only win) of any Big Sky team this decade. Truthfully, no school has really been dominant in Big Sky basketball for quite a while.

[Wildcat Ryan]

Weber never went 0-11, they went 1-10. Although thats not much better, we did beat Idaho State that year. And I DONT WANT ANY BIG SKY TEAMS OUT OF THE CONFERENCE. If you get rid of Weber State, it would be like getting rid of Montana, because you will be losing the power of Big Sky Basketball.

Getting rid of Weber would be nothing like getting rid of Montana. Montana's athletics make by far the most money in the Big Sky. Losing Weber wouldn't be good, of course (especially since the Big Sky HQ would probably have to move), but it wouldn't be nearly the blow that losing Montana would be. Montana is the dominant school in 2 of the 3 major sports and is up around the top in the third.



I was just trying to prove a point.




Weber is the power of Big Sky (men's) basketball? Maybe in the '70s & '80s & some of the '90s, but not so much now. Montana has the most NCAA tournament appearances (and the only win) of any Big Sky team this decade. Truthfully, no school has really been dominant in Big Sky basketball for quite a while.

Numbers dont lie.

18 Big Sky titles, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 76, 79, 80, 84, 94, 95, 99, 03, 07. ( UM is second best with 7)

34-19 vs EWU
66-40 vs ISU
63-43 vs UM
68-33 vs MSU
62-26 vs NAU
5-1 vs UNC
23-9 vs PSU
26-4 vs SAC

Overall record vs current BSC members- 347- 175

Yeah, the Big Sky Basketball power.

[Mvemjsunpx]

Numbers dont lie.

18 Big Sky titles, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 76, 79, 80, 84, 94, 95, 99, 03, 07. ( UM is second best with 7)

34-19 vs EWU
66-40 vs ISU
63-43 vs UM
68-33 vs MSU
62-26 vs NAU
5-1 vs UNC
23-9 vs PSU
26-4 vs SAC

Overall record vs current BSC members- 347- 175

Yeah, the Big Sky Basketball power.

My point was that Weber used to be the basketball power, but no-one really is the power any more. Weber has an impressive 18 titles, but just 5 since 1990 (Montana has 6 tourney & 3 regular season since 1990). Montana is the Big Sky football power right now. Removing Montana from Big Sky football would create a huge power vacuum in the conference. Removing Weber from BSC basketball wouldn't have nearly the impact because parity has been the norm there for a while.


*edit* - Are you sure those records are accurate? The Montana media guide says Weber is just 54-47 (now 55-47) against the Griz.

[SuperHornet]

Here's the main point here. This is a battle between football-only folk and athletics-wide folk. Those who look at football only see Sac's horrible overall Sky record (forgetting about the Roberts era and last year's improvement). Those that look at the ENTIRE spectrum see Sac's dominance in volleyball (which only this year ended with the retirement of Debby Colberg). The football-only crowd does not want to see that Sac's dominance has led to some really good pub for the conference come NCAA Tournament time.

The same goes for Weber's dominance the last 10 years or so in MBB. I'll never forget Weber's demolishing of UNC. But that goes away if we dump them over football concerns.

There's only one school worthy of consideration for dumping, and even they are leaving that area of consideration: UNC.

[Wildcat Ryan]

Numbers dont lie.

18 Big Sky titles, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 76, 79, 80, 84, 94, 95, 99, 03, 07. ( UM is second best with 7)

34-19 vs EWU
66-40 vs ISU
63-43 vs UM
68-33 vs MSU
62-26 vs NAU
5-1 vs UNC
23-9 vs PSU
26-4 vs SAC

Overall record vs current BSC members- 347- 175

Yeah, the Big Sky Basketball power.

My point was that Weber used to be the basketball power, but no-one really is the power any more. Weber has an impressive 18 titles, but just 5 since 1990 (Montana has 6 tourney & 3 regular season since 1990). Montana is the Big Sky football power right now. Removing Montana from Big Sky football would create a huge power vacuum in the conference. Removing Weber from BSC basketball wouldn't have nearly the impact because parity has been the norm there for a while.


*edit* - Are you sure those records are accurate? The Montana media guide says Weber is just 54-47 (now 55-47) against the Griz.

yes.

[Mvemjsunpx]

*edit* - Are you sure those records are accurate? The Montana media guide says Weber is just 54-47 (now 55-47) against the Griz.

yes.

OK, what's your source? I'm curious because I'm wondering if there's a basketball equivalent to cfbdatawarehouse.

[Wildcat Ryan]

yes.

OK, what's your source? I'm curious because I'm wondering if there's a basketball equivalent to cfbdatawarehouse.

well,

Weberhoops says Weber leads the series 63-43

The article in the newspaper the day of the Weber/UM game in Ogden this year, said Weber leads the series 62-43

And the game program I bought at the Weber/UM game said Weber leads the series 62-43

Montana fans just need to accept that they are actually getting owned by another team in a sport.

[Mvemjsunpx]

OK, what's your source? I'm curious because I'm wondering if there's a basketball equivalent to cfbdatawarehouse.

well,

Weberhoops says Weber leads the series 63-43

The article in the newspaper the day of the Weber/UM game in Ogden this year, said Weber leads the series 62-43

And the game program I bought at the Weber/UM game said Weber leads the series 62-43

Montana fans just need to accept that they are actually getting owned by another team in a sport.

I guess no-one agrees on those records…

• Montana Stuff: 55-47
  Weber Stuff: 63-43
  BSC Media Guide: 60-44

Anyway, 60-something to 40-something isn't really "owning", just a nice winning record. Montana is 54-10 against Weber in women's basketball and 36-12 against Weber in football. Now, that's owning someone.


Anyway, what was this thread about again? Oh yeah…

I don't think anyone should be kicked out of the conference (not that it would be really feasible to do that anyway) & I don't a decent addition candidate other than Utah Valley as a non-football school. UM & MSU fans constantly gripe about not bringing in the xDSUs, but it just wasn't going to happen. It isn't likely to happen for the UxDs, either. All 4 Dakota teams are essentially in Minnesota (or Iowa for USD) & would about as much of a fit regionally as Northern Iowa or Sam Houston State. For example, the closest Big Sky school to NDSU is Montana State, but there are 5 other Big Sky schools closer to MSU than North Dakota State. Why would those schools even want to join the Big Sky when the MVC & Summit League are much better regional fits?

Looking at the current landscape of schools & conferences, the Big Sky isn't likely to change much in terms of membership anytime soon.

[Wildcat Ryan]

well,

Weberhoops says Weber leads the series 63-43

The article in the newspaper the day of the Weber/UM game in Ogden this year, said Weber leads the series 62-43

And the game program I bought at the Weber/UM game said Weber leads the series 62-43

Montana fans just need to accept that they are actually getting owned by another team in a sport.

I guess no-one agrees on those records…

• Montana Stuff: 55-47
  Weber Stuff: 63-43
  BSC Media Guide: 60-44

Anyway, 60-something to 40-something isn't really "owning", just a nice winning record. Montana is 54-10 against Weber in women's basketball and 36-12 against Weber in football. Now, that's owning someone.


Anyway, what was this thread about again? Oh yeah…

I don't think anyone should be kicked out of the conference (not that it would be really feasible to do that anyway) & I don't a decent addition candidate other than Utah Valley as a non-football school. UM & MSU fans constantly gripe about not bringing in the xDSUs, but it just wasn't going to happen. It isn't likely to happen for the UxDs, either. All 4 Dakota teams are essentially in Minnesota (or Iowa for USD) & would about as much of a fit regionally as Northern Iowa or Sam Houston State. For example, the closest Big Sky school to NDSU is Montana State, but there are 5 other Big Sky schools closer to MSU than North Dakota State. Why would those schools even want to join the Big Sky when the MVC & Summit League are much better regional fits?

Looking at the current landscape of schools & conferences, the Big Sky isn't likely to change much in terms of membership anytime soon.

The only problem is that in order to be in the the Big Sky, you have to sponser certain sports, UVSU would not be able to join the Big SKy, because of thier lack of a football team. If they are planning to get a football team great.

If there is a team that should join (or re-join) the Big SKy, its Idaho. Why did they ever leave the Sky? they never compeated in the Sun Belt, and they arent compeating in the WAC. Idaho should never have left the Big Sky.

[Mvemjsunpx]

The only problem is that in order to be in the the Big Sky, you have to sponser certain sports, UVSU would not be able to join the Big SKy, because of thier lack of a football team. If they are planning to get a football team great.

The Big Sky could always change its rules. Gonzaga was in the conference as a non-football school until they went to the WCC. I would actually prefer Utah Valley in the conference without football than with football. The Big Sky doesn't need a tenth team for football, but having an even number of teams would make basketball scheduling 5 times easier. Other schools may complain that it gives them an unfair advantage not having to fund football, but that's fine with me. The Big Sky needs to up its basketball credentials more than its football credentials anyway and Utah Valley is potentially a team that could do that. The school is about as big as PSU & Sac and, unlike those two, the Wolverines have a good sized basketball arena (8500). UVU is also in the Salt Lake/Provo Area, so I figure it's an easy school to travel to.

If there is a team that should join (or re-join) the Big SKy, its Idaho. Why did they ever leave the Sky? they never compeated in the Sun Belt, and they arent compeating in the WAC. Idaho should never have left the Big Sky.

Idaho never should have left, but you never see anyone move back down a division, particularly if it's from I-A/FBS. I guess none of them can take the shame. The Vandals ruined their program & it looks like they're cursed to stay that way.

[SJHornet]

As a Hornet fan, I'm obviously opposed to Sac State Leaving the Sky.

We have some serious hoops issues, but hopefully, they will be resolved soon. Sac State is currently going through a significant transition to end its commuter-school reputation. The school is building loads of new dorms that will boost the on campus student population. This should hopefully put more fans in the stands and generate more interest in Hornet sports. With the current improvement of the football team, I have high hopes. I think the biggest issue our athletic department needs to address is the situation of our basketball facilities.

If there is a team that should join (or re-join) the Big SKy, its Idaho. Why did they ever leave the Sky? they never compeated in the Sun Belt, and they arent compeating in the WAC. Idaho should never have left the Big Sky

I grew up a San Jose State fan, (Sac State reminds me of SJSU's athletic program in many ways), and have kept up with their program and conference through friends, family, internet, ect. I've been told that Idaho is actually considering the move back. How serious they are about making the switch is unknown to me, but I know their fans are not happy with the state of things currently in the WAC. Also, New Mexico State's program has also been rumored to leave the WAC as well due to poor performances and low attendance. And I know most people are aware of the serious situation San Diego State's program is in. I remember reading an article in the San Diego Tribune about SDSU leaving the MW and either dropping football or joining a FBS conference.

[dbackjon]

Welcome SJHornet!!

First thing Sac State needs to do is replace that HS gym you play hoops in.

[SUUTbird]

As a Hornet fan, I'm obviously opposed to Sac State Leaving the Sky.

We have some serious hoops issues, but hopefully, they will be resolved soon. Sac State is currently going through a significant transition to end its commuter-school reputation. The school is building loads of new dorms that will boost the on campus student population. This should hopefully put more fans in the stands and generate more interest in Hornet sports. With the current improvement of the football team, I have high hopes. I think the biggest issue our athletic department needs to address is the situation of our basketball facilities.

If there is a team that should join (or re-join) the Big SKy, its Idaho. Why did they ever leave the Sky? they never compeated in the Sun Belt, and they arent compeating in the WAC. Idaho should never have left the Big Sky

I grew up a San Jose State fan, (Sac State reminds me of SJSU's athletic program in many ways), and have kept up with their program and conference through friends, family, internet, ect. I've been told that Idaho is actually considering the move back. How serious they are about making the switch is unknown to me, but I know their fans are not happy with the state of things currently in the WAC. Also, New Mexico State's program has also been rumored to leave the WAC as well due to poor performances and low attendance. And I know most people are aware of the serious situation San Diego State's program is in. I remember reading an article in the San Diego Tribune about SDSU leaving the MW and either dropping football or joining a FBS conference.

I highly doubt that San Diego State will be leaving the MWC. They recently hired a great coach who led Ball State to their first top 25 ranking in school history. But do i think they should leave? Yes. I say bring in Boise State and move SDSU to the WAC. But i dont see them moving back down to the FCS. Idaho probably wont due to in state politics.

[SJHornet]

Welcome SJHornet!!

First thing Sac State needs to do is replace that HS gym you play hoops in.

Agreed! Its embarrassing playing in a glorified HS Gym.

[kemajic]

a. cal poly has a DI baseball team in a good baseball conference
b. they think they are joining the WAC soon not the 'Sky
c. Sac only is weak at football and basketball, they are competitive in every sport and are even good at some of them. Even football they aren't that bad...

d. get rid of ewu, psu, sac, unc, nau
e. bring in utah st, new mexico st, idaho, san jose st, suu
f.n LOL!

Well "ain't that bad" is relative, I guess. This millenium they are 27-63 with a BSC record of 20-42. That puts them in the perenial doormat category with UNC and ISU. So I don't know how bad it would have to be for you to consider it bad. They have contributed nothing to the BSC in either FB or BBall since joining; there is no interest in their programs within their own school; check out the attendance. The BSC is long on doormats and Sac is not geographically central. Forget SUU (another doormat and UNC peer), but I like your idea of USU and Idaho. See if you can swing it; the league needs some Montana challengers again.

[kemajic]

Weber never went 0-11, they went 1-10. Although thats not much better, we did beat Idaho State that year. And I DONT WANT ANY BIG SKY TEAMS OUT OF THE CONFERENCE. If you get rid of Weber State, it would be like getting rid of Montana, because you will be losing the power of Big Sky Basketball.

So get someone to go to your fricking FB games if it is so important. That 3704 for the Montana game was a joke to the whole conference. Your first win against Montana since 1998 and no one saw it. Coach Mac has turned the program around to finally have a good season, but can it be sustained without butts in the seats?

[dbackjon]

Weber never went 0-11, they went 1-10. Although thats not much better, we did beat Idaho State that year. And I DONT WANT ANY BIG SKY TEAMS OUT OF THE CONFERENCE. If you get rid of Weber State, it would be like getting rid of Montana, because you will be losing the power of Big Sky Basketball.

So get someone to go to your fricking FB games if it is so important. That 3704 for the Montana game was a joke to the whole conference. Your first win against Montana since 1998 and no one saw it. Coach Mac has turned the program around to finally have a good season, but can it be sustained without butts in the seats?

3700 for a huge game is a joke - even NAU, which is semi-pathetic for attendance, had crowds almost double that for even NM Highlands.

Heck, even our game AT Southern Utah, SUU had a crowd of 8000

[SuperHornet]

Welcome SJHornet!!

First thing Sac State needs to do is replace that HS gym you play hoops in.

Agreed! Its embarrassing playing in a glorified HS Gym.

Quit giving the facility compliments. The place is not a glorified HS gym. It's a junior high dump or worse.