Tweet
Interesting article at omaha.com concerning proposed scholarship changes at the D11 level. I can't link it from this computer. Sorry. It is on the sports page.
-
-
Re: SDSU in the news
Let me help.
http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_np=...;u_sid=1209023
Aid plan opposed by UNO's Danenhauer
BY ROB WHITE
WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER
A proposal to reduce the maximum scholarship total for NCAA Division II football programs from 36 to 24 has the University of Nebraska at Omaha concerned about its program. . . .
The Rocky Mountain Athletic Conference and the Pennsylvania State Athletic Conference are co-sponsors of the proposal, which will be voted upon at the NCAA Convention in Dallas on Jan. 10.
UNO, as with most members of the North Central Conference, offers the full 36 scholarships currently allowed.
The rationale behind the proposal is that half of the institutions that fielded Division II football teams in 2000, the last season for which data is available, awarded 24 or fewer scholarships. By reducing the maximum total, it would theoretically improve competitive balance while also helping address gender equity issues.
The proposed effective date is Aug. 1, 2006.
"The most important part of the proposal is to level the playing field," RMAC Commissioner Joel Smith said. "You're seeing the same teams playing for the championship every year, and they're the ones with all 36 scholarships. And the scores are drastically different in games between the teams who have 36 scholarships and those who don't." . . .
"The thing with Division II is that we've had so many teams come up in recent years that aren't fully funded," UNO Coach Pat Behrns said. "So now, the way for them to create parity is to bring everyone down instead of building themselves up."
It's part of an overall trend of shrinking Division II football resources.
Since the study, better-funded programs like North Dakota State, South Dakota State, Northern Colorado and California-Davis have moved up to Division I-AA. NDSU, SDSU and UNC were all in the NCC with UNO.
Behrns said his program would struggle in recruiting under the proposal because the difference in tuition for in-state and out-of-state students would make it difficult to offer much scholarship money to anyone outside the state of Nebraska.
And recruiting Nebraska high school players has already become more difficult because North Dakota State and South Dakota State are able to offer full scholarships since they are I-AA programs. Those programs made recruiting in-roads in the state last season.
Smith said he understands the concern UNO has about paring one-third of its scholarship money.
"But if we stay like we are," he said. "We're going to start losing football programs." . . .
Things that make you go hmmmm. :-/ I think the good folks at SDSU have been talking about this for some time now. I believe it was one of the reasons that we wanted to move up to D-I.
Nice catch Mike_H.
Go State! ;D
-
Re: SDSU in the news
The SDSU Athletic Department used this prognastication repeatedly during the past 2 years. The detractors did not want to believe this, many accusing the athletic department of trying to scare people.Comment
-
Re: SDSU in the news
Alumguy: 89 was rather "creative" in his edit of the story. Read the quotes from the AD at UNO which is actually toward the top of the article.
89: Thanks for getting the actual link! I am unsure why this computer will not allow me to do that.Comment
-
Re: SDSU in the news
My intent was not to "creatively" edit this piece. It is my understanding that when posting articles one must post the source (I try and put links whenever I can) and not post the article in it's entirety.
Since the quote you referenced seemed to fly in the face of the rest of the story I left it out. Even if I had used it, it does not change the fact that many, if not the majority of the schools in D-II have interest in lowering football scholarships. It may not pass this go round but it is only a matter of time as ever smaller schools are joining D-II and the bigger schools like SDSU, NDSU, UNC and UC-Davis leave.
You don't have to take my word for it. Look up the history of D-II football scholarships. Have they been growing or shrinking? It is very reasonable to expect this trend to continue. The story that you brought to our attention only backs up the point that I and the folks at SDSU have been making. So this is not a case of "spinning" a story to fit my position, and I take exception to you implying so.
Go State! ;DComment
-
Re: SDSU in the news
89: I was kidding. Relax.
This article in general is poorly written. The quote you refer to is out of place, but some of the facts are wrong as well, including the fact that SDSU offers full rides. I know they will offer them soon, but that is not a fact now.
The reason I brought this to people's attention is that is has been the source of discussion for the last couple of years, and I am not sure that everyone involved has known what the discussion was all about. That's it. No hidden agenda. No accusations.Comment
-
Re: SDSU in the news
Mike H
Your absolutely right, there is no hidden agenda, and I I commend Dr Miller and Dr Oien for recognizing what was happening in D2. More members have chosen to join D2,who have meager athletic programs, programs that have done very little fundraising. Often these members have no concept of corporate sponsors or any way of advancing their athletic programs. They are light years behind SDSU. The problem here is that these new members have votes at the convention and can put a squezzer on those who offer 36 scholarships. This is about to happen if not in 2006 then later on.
Also agreed, SDSU offers no free rides right now, and even once the level of 63 is reach, I suspect there will still be splitting of scholarships as what I have read is that scholarships at the D1AA level can be spread amongst 85 players. Once you go D1A, there is no splitting and it means full rides or no rides.
I think Pat Behrns and Jim Heinitz have both expressed concerns about SDSU and NDSU offering more money in the near future.
Sometimes sitting around the kitchen table during a home visit, a head coach can snag a recruit by offering 100 bucks more than those that are also visiting this same household and perspective recruit. I think parents are always going to look for most bucks offered, and if SDSU offers 500 bucks more than Augie for a solid South Dakota Kid, it looks like they will be Brookings bound and so much for the bright lights of Sioux Falls and the squeeky clean lutheran image. Stu Whitney conviently left this part of the story out of his series for what ever reason. So some of those media people who are guests on your show have their own agenda too.
In short parents are loyal to those who offer the most scholarship money. What parent would not be?
;DComment
-
Re: SDSU in the news
If politics are taboo on the board, should religion be as well? Granted, I have no love lost for Augie, but let's not blame the Lutheran church for that dogpound.
the squeeky clean lutheran image ???Comment
-
Re: SDSU in the news
SDSUFAN: Your facts about the scholarships at the different levels are correct. Like I say, there are a lot of people that have heard conversation about this, but there are a lot of new people on this board that may not know exactly what is going on. That is why I brought this article to the attention of this board.
By the way, do SDSU coaches have their own agenda? Of course they do. Every guest we have has an agenda of some sort or another.Comment
-
Re: SDSU in the news
I think it's intriguing that the RMAC and PSAC are co-sponsoring this proposal. Those are a couple of major players in DII, not some fringe element taking over the division. The RMAC includes Nebraska-Kearney, Chadron State, and Ft. Hays State (and our basketball nemesis, Metro State). The PSAC includes Bloomsburg, Slippery Rock State, and Indiana (Pa.) The RMAC and PSAC often hold themselves up as rivals to the NCC in discussions of what is the best conference in DII.
The PSAC currently has a 25 scholarship limit and the RMAC 28 for football.
I found this rationale from the story, very interesting: "The RMAC's Smith cited a Mid-American Intercollegiate Athletics Association game last Saturday, in which a fully funded Pittsburg State (Kan.) team defeated under-funded Southwest Baptist 69-0 as part of the problem the proposal hopes to correct."
So the idea is to legislate all of DII down to make up for the underfunded schools competing in the division. Wasn't that precisely the argument that SDSU, NDSU and others have made as part of the rationale for their move to DI? And wasn't that argument shouted down by opponents of the move who said DII is not going to continue to decline?
Even if this proposal does not pass this year, I think it is clear where DII is going.Comment
-
Re: SDSU in the news
Ok Rabbit:
You are correct, its the arguement that I have heard all along from Dr. Oien privately and publicly. The votes in the NCAA membership would not likely sastain the 36 level for ever. The haves those who offer 36 are greatly out numbered by the have nots less than 36 or no football at all. Sooner or later the votes to lower the level would be there. I think these two conferences are probably doing a lot of lobbying amongst new membership and not only that will try to load the committees that consider the issues that are presented to the membership at large. So as you say its a matter of time.
The sad part about NCAA politics, is that schools that do not offer such sports as football, do get to vote on issues that affeat the sport of football.
I think Dr Miller has said a number of times publicly that SDSU no longer found D2 to be a good fit. This is one of the reasons why and there are many others as well.Comment
-
Re: SDSU in the news
Yes to be among the living, you do need an agenda or a purpose. I agree, the coaches do have an agenda.Originally posted by Mike_HComment
-
Re: SDSU in the news
SDSUFAN: Amen, and well said!
Comment
-
Re: SDSU in the news
Originally posted by 91rabbit
As a squeaky clean Lutheran, I agree.Comment
-
Re: SDSU in the news
Originally posted by SoDak
Shouldn't this be moved to the smack board? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
JBNJBQComment
Comment