Why USD CAN go DI.

[NightHawk78]

Re: Why USD CAN go DI.

Those twerps probably think that the BS Conference will immediately invite UND and that USD will get invites from the MoValley and the Gateway. Meanwhile, they will be hoping the Mid-Con to implode, launching us back to D-2 (or even to the....gasp....NAIA) since we'll never find another D-1 home. USD is probably plotting to steal SDSU's research grants, the pharmacy program, and the Pride at the same time.

Ah, the delusions of grandeur for USD when they go D-1...........

[SUPERBUNNY]

Re: Why USD CAN go DI.

Those twerps probably think that the BS Conference will immediately invite UND and that USD will get invites from the MoValley and the Gateway. Meanwhile, they will be hoping the Mid-Con to implode, launching us back to D-2 (or even to the....gasp....NAIA) since we'll never find another D-1 home. USD is probably plotting to steal SDSU's research grants, the pharmacy program, and the Pride at the same time.

Ah, the delusions of grandeur for USD when they go D-1...........

No doubt! Everything is falling into place just like USD has been planning for years!

SUPERBUNNY

[89rabbit]

Re: Why USD CAN go DI.

Editroial from the USD student newspaper:

http://www.volanteonline.com/media/s...anteonline.com

Division One daydreams compromise priorities

Editorial Board
Issue date: 9/13/06

Students returned to classes this year with news that the University is once again pondering a potential move of its athletic department to NCAA Division One classification.

As we become reacquainted with time-management skills early in this semester, we would hope the University could also do the same. It is not productive for us to daydream. And neither is it for the University.

It is evident from previous discussions by University officials and budget numbers from the athletic department that a move by USD to reclassify itself D-I would have significantly more adverse effects than positive upon the school's academic mission. Which, we would hope it goes without needing reminder, is why we are here.  .  .  .

This task force would be best served to take a brief jaunt into very recent history. On Sept. 26, 2002, the University formally announced that the school would remain in Division II, based on the university's "overall mission, competitiveness, commitment to NCC and finances."

This was a relief to those who didn't want to see funding redirected from academics to athletics. This, of course, would be necessary because in financial terms, USD would make a far better D-III team than D-I. As of June 2005, USD's athletic budget was sitting at $4.31 million. The second-lowest in the NCC. . . .  (read more)

ouch.


Go State!  

[NightHawk78]

Re: Why USD CAN go DI.

Last line of the Volante editorial:

We hope this unnecessarily drawn-out saga of USD's quest to find an ideal athletic home will soon come to a rest. Preferably, with our feet still in the D-II arena. Anywhere else, could be disastrous.

The D-III remark was likely a typo. Nevertheless, its interesting that the Volante has no desire to move up.

[filbert]

Re: Why USD CAN go DI.

No, I don't think you can call the Volante article a ringing endorsement of a move to D-I. Quite the opposite in fact. Yikes.

[jackmd]

Re: Why USD CAN go DI.

I spoke with one of the coaches at USD and he feels they will make the move to DI primarily because they have been "backed into a corner". He wasn't sure the move was the right thing for the athletes but he felt the admin (or whoever) had done a good job of explaining why it was an important move for the institution in the face of the collapse of the NCC.

He felt with UND out, UNO hopeless and the Minnesota schools essentially prohibited from moving up that the NCC would not survive the assumed loss of UND. Long and short, he was pretty certain USD would declare a move up when all was said and done.

I told him I thought that would be a mistake. I think he agreed but its hard to say for sure.

Just food for thought.

[RodentiaX1]

Re: Why USD CAN go DI.

I'm neutral on the subject of USD moving up to D-I. This editorial seems to have two major points:
1) Academics will suffer.
2) Donations will be re-directed from other areas to athletics.

He goes on to say "Before now and November, when the task force will present findings, we hope the members will reconsider more sensible decisions. After all, this is an academic institution that values creative problem solving." If USD does value "creative problem solving", then maybe they can find a creative solution to moving to D-I without undermining adademics.

As far as donations go, I have a hard time imagining that someone who donates to the fine arts at USD is going to be likely to switch their donations to the athletic department.

[CatchEmAll]

Re: Why USD CAN go DI.

I'm going to enter my guess at rubber stamping a move to D-I.  Can't let the mothership leave them too far in the dust.  Call me crazy, but that's my guess  :-/

I think I'm sticking with my original thoughts on this.

Maybe the Argus should ask for an open forum with the admin at USD so that the editorial staff can help them make the decision (Sorry, low blow there).

[Haldersham]

Re: Why USD CAN go DI.

There seems to be so many mixed signals coming out of USD, you can not begin to compare it to SDSU's move. Some of the pro D1 movement is reaction to UND's move and some to SDSU move and very seldom is the move considered good or bad for USD. Those who often support this move really dont understand what it will cost. From the Coyote Board some contributors think everything will be automatic since SDSU has blazed the trail and found their way into the Mid Con. With their own internal reports and stolen ideas from SDSU, USD could make some costly mistakes down the road, because their leadership may not be totally sold on the concept and determined that the move is a long term program and lastly they based some decisions on faulty information.

I am surprised by the student newspaper editorial but if they sense that money from academics will be sacrificed for athletics, then what? Most of the student editors in my day were very bright people as is the one who wrote the editorial. Its got to give the President of USD some concern.

[SoDak]

Re: Why USD CAN go DI.

Not really that surprising. The editorial board of the typical college newspaper probably doesn't give a rip about athletics. I knew folks working at the Collegian when I was in school that would have loved to have seen athletics entirely deleted from the university.

[Haldersham]

Re: Why USD CAN go DI.

Not really that surprising.  The editorial board of the typical college newspaper probably doesn't give a rip about athletics.  I knew folks working at the Collegian when I was in school that would have loved to have seen athletics entirely deleted from the university.  

I was a high schooler when Staduim for State  was in process, that was SDSU first attempt of using Alumni to raise funds, the one that gave one side of permanent seating of CAS. Student athletes back then were seen as being on the gravy train. Since funds could not be raised, the project was finished with student fees. Lots of unhappy campers way back then. College on the Hill has a good recap on what all went on.

In the current USD case, I think the editor is on to something. I have always felt that without major gifts for Athletics, it would be very hard to raise the funds from average alums. Compared to SDSU, there are fewer at USD and I dont sense the same passion. The USD message board has been up maybe 4 months, and only 105 subscribers to date. It tells me that the passion is not there. Other than Coyote Fan, not many posting over there.

[StormnNorman]

Re: Why USD CAN go DI.

Those twerps probably think that the BS Conference will immediately invite UND and that USD will get invites from the MoValley and the Gateway. Meanwhile, they will be hoping the Mid-Con to implode, launching us back to D-2 (or even to the....gasp....NAIA) since we'll never find another D-1 home. USD is probably plotting to steal SDSU's research grants, the pharmacy program, and the Pride at the same time.

Ah, the delusions of grandeur for USD when they go D-1...........

I know of many State fans who thought that when they moved. They thought ever conference in the nation would want them. I don't think anybody at USD thinks the BS is going to wanting them for a few years at the earliest.

I personally would prefer that USD stay down at D2 and focus all that time and money on acedemics and making USD nationally known for that. I think that would benefit the state better that way. State can have the higher athletics and USD can have higher acedemics.

[jackmd]

Re: Why USD CAN go DI.

[

I know of many State fans who thought that when they moved.  They thought ever conference in the nation would want them.  I don't think anybody at USD thinks the BS is going to wanting them for a few years at the earliest.  

I personally would prefer that USD stay down at D2 and focus all that time and money on acedemics and making USD nationally known for that.  I think that would benefit the state better that way.  State can have the higher athletics and USD can have higher acedemics.

The BSC is never going to want USD, maybe UND, but not USD. Otherwise, I tend to agree with your viewpoint here.

[jacksfaninne]

Re: Why USD CAN go DI.

USD can have higher acedemics.

They might want to get started. They've got a long way to go just to catch up, quoting some previous posts:

"The Argus had its list of Academic All Stars from the 2006 high school graduating class today. SDSU is attracting the largest number of students again with 17. The rest of the state schools combined have 17 or 18 (some students listed more than one college)."


"South Dakota State University has been ranked as the top research institution in the state by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching."

[StormnNorman]

Re: Why USD CAN go DI.

Chances are the BS won't, but to say that they never will is premature. If they ever do think about us, it won't be for many, many years, once USD becomes established. And I don't mean 5 or 6 years either.