Sacramento State has the 36th best athletic department in the nation

[Green Cookie Monster]

If we could just get football turned around. sigh.

SACRAMENTO STATE RANKED BY SI.COM AS THE 36TH BEST ATHLETICS PROGRAM IN THE NATION

7/16/2008

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- After a successful 2007-08 campaign in which Sacramento State won eight conference championships and was a landslide winner of the Big Sky Conference Women’s All-Sports Trophy, the University was selected as the 36th-best Div. I athletics program in the nation by Sports Illustrated’s website (SI.com).

Of the 330 Div. I athletics programs, SI.com ranked the top 51, and Sacramento State’s 19 points in the rankings were good enough for a tie for 36th place with Minnesota. In fact, Sacramento State’s success during the past year ranked ahead of the likes of Ohio State, Alabama, Oklahoma State, Louisville, Virginia Tech, Syracuse, Oklahoma, Auburn and Indiana among others.

The rankings were based on a three-pronged formula that put emphasis on national titles, top 30 finishes and conference championships during the 2007-08 academic year. Of the 51 teams ranked by SI.com, 47 were part of the Football Bowl Subdivision, leaving only Princeton (T-13th), Denver (T-23rd), Sacramento State (T-36th) and Eastern Kentucky (51st) as the four schools not part of the FBS in the rankings. Sports Illustrated’s formula for the rankings and the actual rankings can be found by clicking on the link above the story.

The top 10 athletics programs in the nation, according to SI.com, were Arizona State, Stanford, UCLA, North Carolina, Georgia, Penn State, Florida, USC, LSU and Tennessee, respectively.

Of Sacramento State’s 20 intercollegiate athletics programs, the Hornets accounted for eight conference championships this past academic year (a 40 percent success rate), marking the second straight year the athletics department has accomplished the feat.

The school’s volleyball, women’s soccer, men’s and women’s indoor track, men’s and women’s tennis, softball and women’s outdoor track teams each won a conference championship in 2007-08. The volleyball, women’s tennis, softball, gymnastics and women’s soccer squads each qualified for the NCAA Tournament while the men’s indoor and outdoor track teams and women’s tennis squad had individuals reach the NCAA Championships.

Of the eight women’s sports offered in the Big Sky Conference, Sacramento State won five titles. No other Big Sky team won more than one conference championship.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/sioncampus/07/01/2008-top-25-ncaa-rankings/index.html?eref=T1

[MplsBison]

Take the track out of the stadium and you might have something.

[3rd Coast Tiger]

Take the track out of the stadium and you might have something.

A stadium without a track is what you'd have right? xconfusedx

[Hansel]

rankings must not have put an emphasis on attendance

[ursus arctos horribilis]

rankings must not have put an emphasis on attendance

From the snippet there it looks to be performance based. Congrats Sac that's impressive to win 9 titles in one year. With 5 women's titles I would be willing to bet that there are some very healthy women on that campus.

[Rob Iola]

From the snippet there it looks to be performance based. Congrats Sac that's impressive to win 9 titles in one year. With 5 women's titles I would be willing to bet that there are some very healthy women on that campus.
With short spiky hair and deep voices...

[SactoHornetFan]

Actually, it was 8 titles this year...to go with the 8 titles we won last year. 16 conference championships in two years is really good...no matter what school you are at.

[CopperCat]

You've gotta be kidding me.xeyebrowx

[Green Cookie Monster]

A stadium without a track is what you'd have right? xconfusedx


xlolx

Actually it means Sac State is the highest rated FCS scholarship football playing school in the nation.

Who's looking at the track? My eyes are either on the field, scanning the cheerleaders or taking in the beautiful view of the snow capped Sierra's in the distance.

[slostang]

GCM, Congrats to the Hornets. Do you think that Sac State would have won as many conference championships if the played in the Big West/GWFC?

[Green Cookie Monster]

GCM, Congrats to the Hornets. Do you think that Sac State would have won as many conference championships if the played in the Big West/GWFC?

Of course! Competition would be more difficult though.

Sac State has an overall better athletic department than any other BSC team. Most BSC teams sponsor 14-16 varsity sports, Sac has 20. Most BSC teams put a disappropriate amount of $$ solely into the football team and leave their women's and other mens sports underfunded.

Sac has a $12.5M athletic budget compared to $8M for Portland State,
$9M for ISU, EWU at $8.5M, etc.

Sac used to be underfunded and lacked facilities. Other than an arena everything has changed as far as athletics.

Other than Poly and davis all of the BW teams have budgets in the $8M range. And the UC members budgets are not proportional as they have extremely high tuition costs.

Too bad Poly and davis won't join the BSC.

[GtFllsGriz]

Congrats Sac! Nice achievement!

[grizband]

While Sac State finished in the bottom three in football (7th) men's basketball (9th) and women's basketball (8th), this shows enough success at other sports is important to the overall success of an athletic program. Congratulations on being recognized for this achievement, it would be scary to see if the major three sport's team were competitive in the same year!

[slostang]

While Sac State finished in the bottom three in football (7th) men's basketball (9th) and women's basketball (8th), this shows enough success at other sports is important to the overall success of an athletic program. Congratulations on being recognized for this achievement, it would be scary to see if the major three sport's team were competitive in the same year!

Football is headed in the right directioon under Marshall Sperbeck.

[mvemjsunpx]

Sac State has an overall better athletic department than any other BSC team. Most BSC teams sponsor 14-16 varsity sports, Sac has 20. Most BSC teams put a disappropriate amount of $$ solely into the football team and leave their women's and other mens sports underfunded.



Sorry, but that's just silly. Sac State's athletic department doesn't even compare to Montana's. The problem with the SI study is that it only measures team performance and doesn't measure financial performance. According to the NCAA Financial Reports Database (http://www2.indystar.com/NCAA_financial_reports/) (which has the most recent data from 2004-05), Montana's athletic department made $2.65 million that year. Sac State's generated a profit, making it relatively good nationally, but only made $0.24 million, much lower than Montana's (Sac State's budget was $11.05 million, Montana's was $12.69 million). I don't imagine those figures were a whole lot different in '07-08.

I don't think there's a real way SI could find financial info for this past academic year, but to judge athletic department quality solely on team performance is a bit shortsighted.

As a side note, I wonder how much better Montana's women's basketball team could be if it was properly funded. The Lady Griz are already the dynasty of the Big Sky, but in '04-05, they had the lowest WBB recruiting budget of any BSC team listed in the database: a paltry $8606 (Sac State's was $19,507 and they're a perennial WBB doormat).

[CrazyCat]

Of course! Competition would be more difficult though.

Sac State has an overall better athletic department than any other BSC team. Most BSC teams sponsor 14-16 varsity sports, Sac has 20. Most BSC teams put a disappropriate amount of $$ solely into the football team and leave their women's and other mens sports underfunded.

Sac has a $12.5M athletic budget compared to $8M for Portland State,
$9M for ISU, EWU at $8.5M, etc.

Sac used to be underfunded and lacked facilities. Other than an arena everything has changed as far as athletics.

Other than Poly and davis all of the BW teams have budgets in the $8M range. And the UC members budgets are not proportional as they have extremely high tuition costs.

Too bad Poly and davis won't join the BSC.

A couple friendly responses.:)

How can you be the best overall athletic department if your school placed dead last in the Big Sky for academics? Sac state had a total of 60 (approx.) student athletes on the all academic teams. Compare that to EWU's 122 or even MSU with 117.


One more question. Using 2007 athletic budget numbers. Sac State had a budget of 11.5 m and has 20 sports. MSU has a budget of 12.9 m to divy up to only 15 sports. What makes more sense, spending less money on more or spending more on less?

Anyway, I think your womens sports teams deserve a big hand for what they accomplished.xsmileyclapx

[Green Cookie Monster]

http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/Search.asp

[mvemjsunpx]

http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/Search.asp


Looking at this report, here's the net revenue/expense numbers for the Big Sky (for the '06-07 academic year):




1. Montana - $2,503,256
2. Sacramento St. - $1,099,647
3. Eastern Washington - $516,907
4. Portland St. - $181,474
5. Montana St. - $6086
6. Idaho St. - $0
6. Weber St. - $0
6. Northern Arizona - $0
6. Northern Colorado - $0


Obviously, the numbers for ISU, WSU, NAU, & UNC are suspicious since the revenues & expenses come out to exactly $0. I would assume other school money was used to shore up deficits & that's included. Sac State's numbers are also odd because virtually all of their revenues are listed in the "Not Allocated by Gender/Sport" section.

[MplsBison]

Probably because they always host the NCAA DI T&F championships.


Except for this year it was at Drake.

[CrazyCat]

http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/Search.asp


O.K. Cookie, great link, how does that prove Sac. State is the best overall athletic program in the Big Sky.

[SactoHornetFan]

O.K. Cookie, great link, how does that prove Sac. State is the best overall athletic program in the Big Sky.

What would be your criteria? I mean, how many conference championships has MSU won this past year? The last two years??

[CrazyCat]

What would be your criteria? I mean, how many conference championships has MSU won this past year? The last two years??

I'm not even putting MSU in the running.xbawlingx If I were to use criteria it would be academics and athletics.The Big Sky Conference Sterling Savings Bank Presidents Cup could be used.

http://bigskyconf.com/Sports/general/2008/PresidentsCup060608.asp?nl=1?tab=awards

The standings for that are:
1.Weber
2.NAU
3.UM
4.EWU
4.Sac.State
6.MSU
7.PSU
8.ISU
9.NCU
http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2008/07/18/sports/sports06.txt


I also think that whoever wins the BSC football title should get an extra bonus. xthumbsupx

[SactoHornetFan]

The whole article from SI was about athletic accomplishments this past year. Of course the Sterling Savings Cup measures academics as well. But no one, NO ONE, outside of the member Big Sky schools in the national media has heard of the Cup. But they have of SI.

From a strict PR perspective, that will help sell the department now to future recruits than the Cup (though I would love to win that every year as well...i put a premium on my own degree from Sac State). But I am also realistic and what sells to 17 and 18 year olds is positive national media attention on what is done on the field, court, etc.

For a lot of years we have had a lot of negative publicity...especially the APR, though it is improving each year for us. I would just hope our Big Sky brothers and sisters would be happy for us...and we are the only school that made the SI list. Better to have one school than none..right?

[catbob]

That shows that Sac does a lot of things right. I have to give props to this accomplishment, it shows Sac is committed to having winning programs on the field.

But I won't lie, I'd never trade places with Sac, being uncompetitive in the only 3 sports I care about.

[SactoHornetFan]

You think its easy for me :D

Actually, the ones in particular for me are football, volleyball, oh heck all of them!

I know what you are saying...however, I try to attend as many home events as possible, so I care about each and every program. With Sperbeck at the helm, I think he will get us there. He has many links to our glory days in the 60's, 70's and 80's. The whole culture has changed (even more so than the Volek days). Anything less than 8 wins this year will be a disappointment for us.

That's how much change he has already incorporated into the program in the 16 months he has been on the job.