Another Long Year For SDSU Basketball

[Rabbit3467]

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).

Okay I completely understand that USD wants to get guarantee's so they are upping their scholarships for FB.. My question is how are they paying for the increase in scholarships? If my understanding is correct, SDSU created athletic endowments threw fund raising to be able to pay for the increased scholarships so they are not an expense year to year. Is USD doing this? Or are they just trying to make extra money to fund their scholarships. With the jump the have made to increase FB scholarships, it seems unlikely to me that they were able to raise the necessary amount of money to create endowments. If this is the case (im not sure it is) it seems like a bad plan that could result in a lot of money problems. Anyone have any info on this subject.

[Jacks#1Fan]

Re: Another Long Year For SDSU Basketball

Yes, SDSU has an endowment fund drive going, but it is a long ways from its goal...and I'm sure that USD has an athletic endowment fund, but I don't know how big it is. SDSU paid for its increase in scholarships over a four year period by increased gate revenues and increased private annual giving. But we had to increase football scholarships (and other men's scholarships) slowly each year while matching it with women's scholarships to stay Title IX compliant.

We added Equestrian as a women's sport in order to help accomplish that. The U is making the jump in football scholarships while ignoring the Title IX (three pronged requirement for SDSU) by planning (I presume) to pay for the jump in scholarships through "increased gate revenue and increased private annual giving" and then, again presumably, paying for the increase in women's scholarships later through the revenue from the FCS guarantee game. IMHO, it is a dangerous gamble (as well as unfair to its women's sports currently) but may well have been the only way they could financially make the switch.

What they haven't addressed yet, and it will be interesting to see their (creative?) plan for adding some women's sport(s) to their program to deal with the Title IX requirements which should basically require them to have (nearlY) 60% of their scholarship dollars in women's sports. Stay tuned on that one...

[1stRowFANatic]

Re: Another Long Year For SDSU Basketball

Actually it is my understanding that if USD fully funds all their women's sports, they can fully fund men's fb & bb while leaving the other sports where they currently are (I believe they bumped some of these sports up from D2 levels, but not to full levels). So if their plans go as they hope, they do not have to add any more sports.

Of course that means all of your men's teams, except fb & bb, are starting each season at a disadvantage. And all your women's teams are slighted during these years. And your reputation as caring about equality is shot. But hey, you might get a few more wins during your transition period.

[Jacks#1Fan]

Re: Another Long Year For SDSU Basketball

The U is making the jump in football scholarships while ignoring the Title IX (three pronged requirement for SDSU)

I need to restate this part of my quote, since it is not accurate. I hope the following is more accurate: Federal law requires that universities must meet all three tests of Title IX. However, the first test has three parts (or prongs), and if a school meets any ONE of the three parts (and it can choose which one it will use), it is considered in compliance with Federal law.

The SD Board of Regents, however, required that SDSU, needed to meet all three tests as it moved to Division I, AND all THREE PARTS (or prongs) of the first test. The three parts (prongs) are: proportionality, addition of women's sports, and needs or interests of the students. In USD's case, it is not being required to meet all three prongs, as it bumps its men's scholarships (in football) up significantly above the rise in women's scholarships.

I believe that in North Dakota, NDSU was allowed to choose which ONE of the three prongs it would meet for compliance (in otherwords complying with the Federal law on Title IX).

[Nidaros]

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).

Thanks Jack#1Fan, and it appears to be a bird in the bush deal as opposed to a bird in the hand and the BOR judgement in letting this fly is disappointing to say the least. I suspect the pro SDSU regents were out voted. No doubt USD has a longer year than SDSU in terms of financing their move to D1.

[Hammersmith]

Re: Another Long Year For SDSU Basketball

One more clarification: Title IX applies to all educational entities that receive federal funds, not just Division I schools. If your middle school participates in a free or reduced lunch program, Title IX applies. If your tech school hands out Pell Grants, Title IX applies. If your professional school receives an NSF grant, Title IX applies. In addition, South Dakota is one of 16 states to apply the principles of Title IX, through state law in some way, to educational entities even if they don't receive federal funds. The reason why it becomes an issue during the DI move is two-fold. First, the additional scholarships upset the existing balance that had been achieved and maintained for many years prior to the DI move and a new balance must be found. Second, the school's athletic department is put under a microscope during the move and the NCAA hates the bad publicity from discrimination lawsuits(especially at the DI level); if you're a danger in that regard, you won't be recommended for DI membership.

South Dakota Codified Laws:

20-13-22. Educational institutions' unfair or discriminatory practices--Exemptions.(excerpt)
Segregation by sex of athletic activities offered by an educational institution does not constitute discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of this chapter if the opportunity to participate in athletic activities offered by the educational institution is substantially equal for both sexes.

Here is the applicable section of the 1979 Policy Interpretation of Title IX:

VII. The Policy Interpretation

C. Effective Accommodation of Student Interests and Abilities.

5. Application of the Policy - Levels of Competition.

In effectively accommodating the interests and abilities of male and female athletes, institutions must provide both the opportunity for individuals of each sex to participate in intercollegiate competition, and for athletes of each sex to have competitive team schedules which equally reflect their abilities.

a. Compliance will be assessed in any one of the following ways:

(1) Whether intercollegiate level participation opportunities for male and female students are provided in numbers substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments; or

(2) Where the members of one sex have been and are underrepresented among intercollegiate athletes, whether the institution can show a history and continuing practice of program expansion which is demonstrably responsive to the developing interest and abilities of the members of that sex; or

(3) Where the members of one sex are underrepresented among intercollegiate athletes, and the institution cannot show a continuing practice of program expansion such as that cited above, whether it can be demonstrated that the interests and abilities of the members of that sex have been fully and effectively accommodated by the present program.

b. Compliance with this provision of the regulation will also be assessed by examining the following:

(1) Whether the competitive schedules for men's and women's teams, on a program-wide basis, afford proportionally similar numbers of male and female athletes equivalently advanced competitive opportunities; or

(2) Whether the institution can demonstrate a history and continuing practice of upgrading the competitive opportunities available to the historically disadvantaged sex as warranted by developing abilities among the athletes of that sex.

c. Institutions are not required to upgrade teams to intercollegiate status or otherwise develop intercollegiate sports absent a reasonable expectation that intercollegiate competition in that sport will be available within the institution's normal competitive regions. Institutions may be required by the Title IX regulation to actively encourage the development of such competition, however, when overall athletic opportunities within that region have been historically limited for the members of one sex.

also(some of the following is what got NDSU in trouble)

VII. The Policy Interpretation

B. Equivalence in Other Athletic Benefits and Opportunities

1. The Regulation - The Regulation requires that recipients that operate or sponsor interscholastic, intercollegiate, club or intramural athletics. "provide equal athletic opportunities for members of both sexes." In determining whether an institution is providing equal opportunity in intercollegiate athletics the regulation requires the Department to consider, among others, the following factors:

(1) Whether the selection of sports and levels of competition effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of members of both sexes;

(2) Provision and maintenance of equipment and supplies;

(3) Scheduling of games and practice times;

(4) Travel and per diem expenses;

(5) Opportunity to receive coaching and academic tutoring;

(6) Assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors;

(7) Provision of locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities;

(8) Provision of medical and training services and facilities;

(9) Provision of housing and dining services and facilities; and

(10) Publicity

Full Title IX 1979 Policy Interpretation on Intercollegiate Athletics(it's long)

[Rabbitden]

Re: Another Long Year For SDSU Basketball

I enjoy the banter on Title IX law but this is "SMACK", made for just that.

I'm making a request to the Mods to move this to a new thread on its on...it has drifted drastically and can no longer really be considered "SMACK".
Thank you

[Hammersmith]

Re: Another Long Year For SDSU Basketball

I enjoy the banter on Title IX law but this is "SMACK", made for just that.

I'm making a request to the Mods to move this to a new thread on its on...it has drifted drastically and can no longer really be considered "SMACK".
Thank you

God, I'm sorry. My bad.

Woody and the boys are going to pound your guys into the floor so hard, the first words out of their great-grandchildren's mouths will be, "DAMN, what just happened?" And the nightmares spawned by the Bison beatdowns will continue unto the seventh generation.


Better?

[Rabbitden]

Re: Another Long Year For SDSU Basketball

Much better Hammersmith...REP POINTS FOR SURE...back on point. Sorry guys but I come to the smack side for my daily humor. It was getting like some of my "Athletic Administration" classes, very close to "School Law" and I refuse to go to sleep right now

[Jacks#1Fan]

Re: Another Long Year For SDSU Basketball

Well, we were "smacking" USD and the BOR for sure, but I agree that the thread is drifted and apologize for having to post numerous times to get my answer right for a question posed on the board. Let's close this one and open another one where we can banter with Coyotee Fan and his ilk.

[SDHoops]

Re: Another Long Year For SDSU Basketball

Alert! Going off topic a bit here:

I know it's been touched on time and time again, but I will state my case out there and hope for the best. I hope that SDSU and NDSU will start playing USD and UND in basketball again.

Here's why: It would benefit both State's from a financial standpoint. Yes, both fanbases will be upset but in the end, people will show up to watch these games. Although State fans hate "U" teams with a passion, I'm sure they'd much rather spend their time and money watching their team playing the UxD's rather than Mayville State, Valley City State, and Upper Iowa.

I think that there would be packed houses like the good ol' days with fans from both sides hoping for a whooping of the other team.

[BTownJack]

Re: Another Long Year For SDSU Basketball

Alert! Going off topic a bit here:

I know it's been touched on time and time again, but I will state my case out there and hope for the best. I hope that SDSU and NDSU will start playing USD and UND in basketball again.

Here's why: It would benefit both State's from a financial standpoint. Yes, both fanbases will be upset but in the end, people will show up to watch these games. Although State fans hate "U" teams with a passion, I'm sure they'd much rather spend their time and money watching their team playing the UxD's rather than Mayville State, Valley City State, and Upper Iowa.

I think that there would be packed houses like the good ol' days with fans from both sides hoping for a whooping of the other team.

Mods - please move this post to one of the 10+ threads that have already discussed this topic in too much detail!

[joeboo22]

Re: Another Long Year For SDSU Basketball

USD got there dose of D-I basketball tonight against Cincinnati...... Soon.... I want to play you guys.... but it'll have to be atleast 2 years in my eye..... And you guys won't get a home and home and it won't be played in Sioux Falls.... It'll be at Frost... and we'll kill you guys.... As far as football, I just don't see it happening..... EVER.....

[RabbitObsessed]

Re: Another Long Year For SDSU Basketball

USD got there dose of D-I basketball tonight against Cincinnati...... Soon.... I want to play you guys.... but it'll have to be atleast 2 years in my eye..... And you guys won't get a home and home and it won't be played in Sioux Falls.... It'll be at Frost... and we'll kill you guys.... As far as football, I just don't see it happening..... EVER.....

From what I've seen this year, SDSU will need to have a couple very, very good recruiting classes to be able to kill USD in 2-3 years. And if the game was played this year, I don't think SDSU could hang with them. Not enough size inside, and from what it looks, Louie would probably be the best guard in the game. Maybe if they bring in another good class to follow up Fiegen and White they will pull closer to USD, but in men's basketball at the moment USD is ahead of SDSU.

[Rabbitden]

Re: Another Long Year For SDSU Basketball

2 games...what are you smokin? They havent even begun to get their bumps and bruises yet. Sad thing here is you are not even sharing the wacky stuff. blah,blah,blah,blah,blah. Louie is good but he is not the answer...and dont compare this years schedule to where SDSU was at in transition because at least Scott and company went out to schedule the best during our transition. Not one game (Cinncy), and a bunch of no name, please come play in my dump because if it aint at the dump it doesnt count little leaguers. Go on the road take your lumps then tell us how great the u period is.