Another Long Year For SDSU Basketball

[jackmd]

Re: Another Long Year For SDSU Basketball

It's true. On the D2 boards he would get smacked heavily by USD fans.

He's still a stinky coyote fan and I'm detecting some odor from your direction as well. I have an equal amount of dislike for most every coyote fan. I usually cut the parents of coyote players some slack, not much, but some.

[RabbitObsessed]

Re: Another Long Year For SDSU Basketball

He's still a stinky coyote fan and I'm detecting some odor from your direction as well. I have an equal amount of dislike for most every coyote fan. I usually cut the parents of coyote players some slack, not much, but some.

I go to school in Brookings but have followed USD all of my life (until now obviously).

I try to be as objective as possible when looking at both schools. I had a lot of negative attitudes towards Brookings and SDSU but most of those have changed. I love the campus and school here and the tailgating/gameday atmosphere at SDSU football games is FAR superior to that of USD.

I will always have a soft spot for USD basketball as that was the only sport they were good at when I was growing up.

Hope to contribute some here. You guys have a good site.

[jackmd]

Re: Another Long Year For SDSU Basketball

I go to school in Brookings but have followed USD all of my life (until now obviously).

I try to be as objective as possible when looking at both schools. I had a lot of negative attitudes towards Brookings and SDSU but most of those have changed. I love the campus and school here and the tailgating/gameday atmosphere at SDSU football games is FAR superior to that of USD.

I will always have a soft spot for USD basketball as that was the only sport they were good at when I was growing up.

Hope to contribute some here. You guys have a good site.

As you probably know I spent time in both communities and graduated from both institutions. I grew up a Jackrabbit fan and that isn't ever going to change. My kids are destined to be afflicted with the same passion for the Jacks that I have, there just isn't anyway around it. I kid when I say I "hate" coyote fans.

I know plenty of people who consider themselves coyote fans and they aren't bad people, they are just naive and probably had bad parents or some other poor role model that introduced them to the coyotes. I'd like to think we can help those people and I think you may be a great example of that. So, call up your misguided Udot friends and help them to see the light. We'll welcome them with open arms and there won't be any stupid hazing or initiation ceremony like the queer frats in vermville offer (this is the smack board).

[jacksfaninne]

Re: Another Long Year For SDSU Basketball

It's true. On the D2 boards he would get smacked heavily by USD fans.

You made that fans, as in plural. Are you sure about that?

[KUlawJack]

Re: Another Long Year For SDSU Basketball

I do so to the point where several USD posters probably can't stand me anymore.

Funny, the members of this site and other USD posters have something in common. I guess Jackrabbit Nation and Coyote County can agree on one thing.

[Rabbit3467]

Re: Another Long Year For SDSU Basketball

Apparently, the Board of Regents gave (possibly silent) acquiesence to letting USD ignore compliance with Title IX so they could jump to 63 men's scholarships (football) and not increase women's scholarships proportionately at the same time. No such leeway was allowed SDSU in its move to D-I. In other words USD women's athletic program got sc...well you got it.

Question, doesnt the NCAA have major problems with schools not complying with title XI? That seems like one rule that you really can not break. Im curious how USD can get away with this? Is it because they are in transition, and even so, they were still in the NCAA prior to the move up (D-II) so it seems they could be asking for a lot of trouble.

The problem that I see with football at USD is that even if they are full scholly and competitive, FB is still not going to be a HUGE money maker because of the limitation of their facility, i.e capacity. From what I have seen the capacity is 10000 people, dont know haw accurate that is, but thats not a lot for a FCS team. SDSU has already averaged more fans per game in a full season than USD's total capacity. If their is a team in south dakota that really needs a new stadium, its USD.

Also, I didnt think the dakota dome was a much of a place to watch football. I cant imagine watching basketball or volleyball in there. Yuck!

[MilwaukeeJacksAlum]

Re: Another Long Year For SDSU Basketball

Question, doesnt the NCAA have major problems with schools not complying with title XI? That seems like one rule that you really can not break. Im curious how USD can get away with this? Is it because they are in transition, and even so, they were still in the NCAA prior to the move up (D-II) so it seems they could be asking for a lot of trouble.

The problem that I see with football at USD is that even if they are full scholly and competitive, FB is still not going to be a HUGE money maker because of the limitation of their facility, i.e capacity. From what I have seen the capacity is 10000 people, dont know haw accurate that is, but thats not a lot for a FCS team. SDSU has already averaged more fans per game in a full season than USD's total capacity. If their is a team in south dakota that really needs a new stadium, its USD.

Also, I didnt think the dakota dome was a much of a place to watch football. I cant imagine watching basketball or volleyball in there. Yuck!

The dome hasn't seen 10,000 people in it since it was built. At least not a legit 10,000. And that's with a ticket policy which includes giving away hundreds of tickets, so I'd agree with your comments on the money making ability there. However, don't underestimate the cost cutting abilities of our canine friends to the south. No school drives 45 hours for a bad DII team for a $20,000.00 payout if they're not cost conscious. Kudos to you, Yotes. You know how to button down the hatches in these tough economic times.

I once played basketball in the dome. Like playing in the bottom of a quarry. Except, worse asthetics.

[propar80]

Re: Another Long Year For SDSU Basketball

Question, doesnt the NCAA have major problems with schools not complying with title XI? That seems like one rule that you really can not break. Im curious how USD can get away with this? Is it because they are in transition, and even so, they were still in the NCAA prior to the move up (D-II) so it seems they could be asking for a lot of trouble.

The problem that I see with football at USD is that even if they are full scholly and competitive, FB is still not going to be a HUGE money maker because of the limitation of their facility, i.e capacity. From what I have seen the capacity is 10000 people, dont know haw accurate that is, but thats not a lot for a FCS team. SDSU has already averaged more fans per game in a full season than USD's total capacity. If their is a team in south dakota that really needs a new stadium, its USD.

Also, I didnt think the dakota dome was a much of a place to watch football. I cant imagine watching basketball or volleyball in there. Yuck!

Your question regarding USD's Title IX status from what I remember back when they were granted the wavier from SD BOR, was that USD is barely Title IX complient by NCAA standards, but not Title IX compliant at this time when using the "three prong" approach that the SD BOR requires. And required of SDSU when making the transition.

You can already see Nielsen's plan taking shape down there:
He knows that perception in the media is reality anymore, and if he can get Football and Men's Basketball somewhat succuessful and screw the rest of the programs at USD for as long at the BOR will let him...in most USD supporters minds and the SF Media...that is success.

This is EXACTLY the reason Title IX was put in place so many years ago. It just surprises me that such a Liberal University as the U would let this slide.

I know Nielsen says that it's just temporary, so I guess I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and look at their women's and non-revenue sport success and where their scholarships are at 3 or 4 years from now, but I have my doubts.

Even the most ardent USD supporter has to admit, especially in the non-revenue sports and women's sports, SDSU has been about as successful as a transitioning school can be. Maybe we've got the SD BOR to thank for that.

Go Jacks!!

I type this knowing full well that I run the risk of CF thinking that all SDSU fans think about is the U and we all secretly wish we could play them every game for the entire season.

[Jacks#1Fan]

Re: Another Long Year For SDSU Basketball

Your question regarding USD's Title IX status from what I remember back when they were granted the wavier from SD BOR, was that USD is barely Title IX complient by NCAA standards, but not Title IX compliant at this time when using the "three prong" approach that the SD BOR requires. And required of SDSU when making the transition.

Propar is right...NCAA only requires that you qualify by meeting the requirements of one of the three tests for Title IX, while the SD BOR requires that you meet all three tests. I might note that many states allow their colleges to choose which of the three tests they want to qualify on (and each college can choose a different test...one easiest for them to meet).

The earlier comment from Drake (USD poster) was pretty lame (pointed out by other posters). The men's football team is getting 27 new scholarships...the women's teams mentioned get a few additional scholarships.

It's possible that USD is counting on the $300,000 (approx) FCS payout next year to fund scholarships in other sports (women's?). That is somewhat similar to how they built the dome, selling 10-year seating contracts, which meant they used gate income to pay for the facility, and had to pay for it by not having a significant amount of gate money for years. Creative, yes...smart, no, at least IMO. I understand they may not have had any other choices if they wanted to go D-I, instead of staying D-II.

[1stRowFANatic]

Re: Another Long Year For SDSU Basketball

Jack#1 is correct on what they have stated as their plan to come back into BOR compliance. It was stated at the time that they would use the guarantee money plus additional fundraising to get the money to create the additional scholarships in the future.

I ranted once before about this so I won't do it again. I have one of my degrees from there. It will take a full change in administration before I will allow my children to consider attending the U. I am so disappointed in this decision on their part.

However, I am outraged that the SD BoR allowed those comments to be made in public and have no response. If they gave permission for a waiver, have the guts to admit that you are allowing them to go D1 under different conditions imposed on SDSU. If they did not get permission in advance, stop it because it reflects badly on the BoR and ALL other institutions under their control. If the individual/entity that is supposed to enforce the rules publicly allows their authority to be flaunted, it is reasonable to expect that others are flaunting it also.

Short rant this time.

[Hammersmith]

Re: Another Long Year For SDSU Basketball

Short clarification: Title IX is not an NCAA regulation, it's a federal law. The NCAA can help advise a school on how to meet Title IX(it's part of the reclassification process), but it's the federal government(Department of Education) who makes the determination whether a school is in compliance if a complaint is filed. If a school were to flaunt Title IX over a prolonged period of time, the penalties could eventually lead to the loss of federally-funded student aid(Pell, Stafford, Perkins, etc.). Of course, no university would be that colossally dumb.

Additionally, the third prong of Title IX is functionally obsolete. It was created for the first decade of Title IX's enforcement to help schools terribly out of compliance. It states that schools can satisfy the statute if they make significant progress toward parity. The only way it would apply today is if a school found itself with a demographic profile shifting so rapidly that the athletic department could not reasonably keep up. In the vast, vast majority of cases, either the first or second prongs are used(proportionality or interests & abilities).

We got our wrists' slapped pretty hard at NDSU around 1989, and it just may have been one of the ten best things ever to happen to Bison athletics. By being forced to hold true to the 'interests & abilities' prong we chose, NDSU had to add women's coaching positions, bump up their pay to near-equal the men's level, and bring the women's facilities and locker rooms up to par with the guys. I believe it directly led to the WBB dynasty of the 90's and the strong WBB, VB, Soc, SB, and T&F we still have today. (Even if our WBB & Soc programs are a bit down this year, the foundations are still healthy.)

I have to agree with the Jacks fans who believe USD is playing a risky game. I've come to believe UND is playing it as well. At NDSU, we also put a higher priority on FB scholarships to begin with(though not at the same rate as USD & UND appear to be doing), but today, only T&F is not fully funded among the women's sports. It will be a real test to see if the UxDs can do the same by the end of their transitions(assuming they release that info when the time comes).


Okay. A not so short clarification.

[Jacks#1Fan]

Re: Another Long Year For SDSU Basketball

Excellent clarification HS and one I appreciate. While this is no news to you, just to keep everybody on the same level of understanding, I would emphasize Hammersmith's comments that NDSU was able to choose which prong it would use to measure its' compliance, while SDSU, thanks to the SD BOR, had no choice but to comply with all three prongs. Apparently, USD doesn't have to comply with any of them in essence, until in the "future".

P. S. 1st Row: a long rant maybe, but a great one! There was no doubt about the politics involved in the BOR's acquiesence to begging from the other U, at the expense of moral responsibility!

[Nidaros]

Re: Another Long Year For SDSU Basketball

It's possible that USD is counting on the $300,000 (approx) FCS payout next year to fund scholarships in other sports (women's?). That is somewhat similar to how they built the dome, selling 10-year seating contracts, which meant they used gate income to pay for the facility, and had to pay for it by not having a significant amount of gate money for years. Creative, yes...smart, no, at least IMO. I understand they may not have had any other choices if they wanted to go D-I, instead of staying D-II.

Jack#1Fan:

I am confused. What is the $300,000 that you mention and are you referring to guarentees that Montana State, Caly Poly and other road games paid to USD for this year? What if in home and home series USD has to pay that same guarentee amount back to their opponents? Seems like the well is going to run dry one way or another. Not good.

[1stRowFANatic]

Re: Another Long Year For SDSU Basketball

That money is what they expect to get from play FBS teams. Excellent clarification also HS. The risk USD taking is quite baffling to me since they have had to defend themselves in the past over the issue. I'm done on this or I would miss the second half of the game.

[Jacks#1Fan]

Re: Another Long Year For SDSU Basketball

Just to add to the clarification for my good friend Nidaros...USD wanted to make the jump all the way in football scholarships,so they could play an FCS guarantee game, which runs around $300,000 - $350,000 these days. If memory is correct (and that's an if these days), the university has to average 57 scholarships in a two year period to get a chance at an FCS guarantee game (like we did, and then played Iowa State).