14 sports

[Theee Catrabbit]

Is it time SDSU bite the bullet and start drawing down to 14 sports? Or whatever we can do to get title IX balanced and reserve our funds for the quality sports.

I know this will draw fire. But consider we don't properly fund our major revenue sports nor does it look like we will anytime in the near future. Don't we need to consider this?

I'd offer up wrestling, golf(we live in SD, m&w), swimming/diving(m & w)

Short of the participants, their families, and the occasional paragraph in the paper, does anyone even notice these?

[Madi V:)Mitchell]

Re: 14 sports

do I notice golf and wrestling? I notice golf because I play it and it's fun to see how the college players are doing, but thats me trying to notice it.

[Theee Catrabbit]

Re: 14 sports

do I notice golf and wrestling? I notice golf because I play it and it's fun to see how the college players are doing, but thats me trying to notice it.

I wrestled in high school, and pay a little attention to it. I make no conscious effort to go and watch it. I like to golf, but care very little if State is successful at it. Swimming/Diving are great sports everyone notices every 4 years. My point is I think it's time to make some tough decisions that benefit the most programs while affecting the fewest. It's not going to be easy, but I think State has established the sports we are more than likely to be successful in. These sports fit the student-base as well as the fanbase. I'd throw equestrian on fire too, but it was huge investment and it actually fits the ag..

[Madi V:)Mitchell]

Re: 14 sports

last year I paid absolutely NO attention to anything but basketball, I didn't even look at softball which is not normal 4 me.

[CatchEmAll]

Re: 14 sports

Is it time SDSU bite the bullet and start drawing down to 14 sports? Or whatever we can do to get title IX balanced and reserve our funds for the quality sports.

I know this will draw fire. But consider we don't properly fund our major revenue sports nor does it look like we will anytime in the near future. Don't we need to consider this?

I'd offer up wrestling, golf(we live in SD, m&w), swimming/diving(m & w)

Short of the participants, their families, and the occasional paragraph in the paper, does anyone even notice these?

Valid topic and anyone who takes shots at you for starting it are living in an unrealistic world.

There are BCS schools that don't offer the same number of sports that we do, so why do we keep the numbers is a great question. Where to make the cuts though is tricky. Title IX is a major player in decisions. If you look at pairing up sports for participation, all have something (I'd put volleyball and wrestling together since they don't have opposite gender sports, same with football and equestrian). But I don't think cutting a paired sport completely (i.e. golf, swimming/diving/tennis) is an easy way to meet Title IX standards. Someone with more knowledge may be able to respond.

I think wrestling is one sport that will be at the top of the list merely in terms of participation of the whole population. I would guess numbers nationally are down from high school & college ranks with the number of schools offering a program and number of participants. That's only one though. It would have to be about a five program cut to make a difference.

[rjacks21]

Re: 14 sports

Good topic. My opinion on this has changed greatly over the last 10 years. I remember damn near boycotting the University after the original Huether Field was torn down back in 2001. Now, I wouldn’t fault the school for dropping a sport like baseball, wrestling, golf, etc. That’s just the reality of Division I athletics these days. The fact is dropping a few sports may be the best option for sustaining a competitive athletic department over the long haul.

[Nidaros]

Re: 14 sports

Is it time SDSU bite the bullet and start drawing down to 14 sports? Or whatever we can do to get title IX balanced and reserve our funds for the quality sports.

I know this will draw fire. But consider we don't properly fund our major revenue sports nor does it look like we will anytime in the near future. Don't we need to consider this?

I'd offer up wrestling, golf(we live in SD, m&w), swimming/diving(m & w)

Short of the participants, their families, and the occasional paragraph in the paper, does anyone even notice these?

I don't think we are at that point yet, but it's worthy of discussion. I keep bringing up the Difference Makers club, but there are ways where funds for a specific sport can be raised such as football. One criticism of the Jackrabbit Club is that the donation goes in one big pot and the donor does not have controll over what sport they wish to support. Seems like every sport has its merit even equestrian which got a lot of horse laughs(pun intended) when it was started. Would we dare drop that sport now?

Having in excess of 14 sports gives more opportunities for alums and friends to return their favors to the University.

[jackdaniel]

Re: 14 sports

I think we should wait for improved facilities first before we eliminate sports ,why ,maybe we will see improved competiveness with improved facilities,and we can keep all our sports out there proudly displaying the SDSU logo.If we can afford to.

[zooropa]

Re: 14 sports

A problem with this line of thinking:

SDSU has done comparatively little to build its private funding base for athletics.

I think it's quite premature to discuss ending sports when SDSU has done very little to secure private funding. NDSU's team makers club is what? 20 years older than the difference makers club?

Furthermore, I think it's speaking without knowledge to assert that SDSU doesn't 'properly' fund various revenue sports. There is a strong case to be made regarding football, but that's it. FB definitely needs more staff and more recruiting money, but I don't think that's the case with the other two revenue sports at SDSU.

And as a final point, I think that this post is a result of two lousy years of football, which is a poor basis on which to form any judgment as to the long term future of the athletic department.

[Theee Catrabbit]

Re: 14 sports

A problem with this line of thinking:

SDSU has done comparatively little to build its private funding base for athletics.

I think it's quite premature to discuss ending sports when SDSU has done very little to secure private funding. NDSU's team makers club is what? 20 years older than the difference makers club?

Furthermore, I think it's speaking without knowledge to assert that SDSU doesn't 'properly' fund various revenue sports. There is a strong case to be made regarding football, but that's it. FB definitely needs more staff and more recruiting money, but I don't think that's the case with the other two revenue sports at SDSU.

And as a final point, I think that this post is a result of two lousy years of football, which is a poor basis on which to form any judgment as to the long term future of the athletic department.

I'm fairly certain that neither Basketball team has all of it's coaches. This is due to funds. if they have added those coaches this year I stand corrected. Also, "fully funded" is probably the wrong choice of words. I'll go with competitively funded. There is no way all of our athletics are competitively funded. Isn't that the whole point of college athletics?

I am not forming it off of 2 years of bad football(I've been an SDSU fan for longer than two years, there have been other bad years). I think you need to look at some of the successful models at our level and region: NDSU 14 sports; UNI 15; Montana 14; Wyoming 15; ISU-B 12; SIU 16; USD 15.

Do we really need as many sports as U of M and Nebraska?

[zooropa]

Re: 14 sports

I'm fairly certain that neither Basketball team has all of it's coaches. This is due to funds. if they have added those coaches this year I stand corrected. Also, "fully funded" is probably the wrong choice of words. I'll go with competitively funded. There is no way all of our athletics are competitively funded. Isn't that the whole point of college athletics?

I am not forming it off of 2 years of bad football(I've been an SDSU fan for longer than two years, there have been other bad years). I think you need to look at some of the successful models at our level and region: NDSU 14 sports; UNI 15; Montana 14; Wyoming 15; ISU-B 12; SIU 16; USD 15.

Do we really need as many sports as U of M and Nebraska?

Both basketball teams have their full complement of coaches. Both programs are able to recruit nationally. I don't think basketball is a problem area, other than facilities (which need improvement).

And, again, talking about cutting sports is, IMO, ridiculous when SDSU has done next to nothing to cultivate private and corporate donors.

Here's SDSU all proud because they finally (last year) hit a million dollars in corporate sponsorships. That's ridiculous. You couldn't hear SDSU games on the radio in a significant chunk of the state of South Dakota a few years ago. That's ridiculous.

SDSU is just beginning to tap funding and publicity opportunities, and you're acting as though SDSU has run out of options to fund programs, and needs to seriously consider dropping them.

---

And how is Wyoming successful? Why do you think that Indiana State is successful? NDSU has a 56% male student body and a 70% male participation ratio. That's not doable in South Dakota. And USD? Seriously? You put USD on the list of 'successful models at our level and region'? SDSU should imitate USD's model? Great. Let's put a tarp over Coughlin and play basketball there. Lets drop baseball and go crawling to the legislature in order to keep student funding, just like they did at UNI.

[SDSUAlum08]

Re: 14 sports

Is it time SDSU bite the bullet and start drawing down to 14 sports? Or whatever we can do to get title IX balanced and reserve our funds for the quality sports.

I know this will draw fire. But consider we don't properly fund our major revenue sports nor does it look like we will anytime in the near future. Don't we need to consider this?

I'd offer up wrestling, golf(we live in SD, m&w), swimming/diving(m & w)

Short of the participants, their families, and the occasional paragraph in the paper, does anyone even notice these?

Completely agree and I've said this since the transition. I'd like to see them drop swimming/diving and tennis. I imagine it isn't much when you think about overall cost, but I think it's a start. After that, put wrestling on the table.

[Theee Catrabbit]

Re: 14 sports

Both basketball teams have their full complement of coaches. Both programs are able to recruit nationally. I don't think basketball is a problem area, other than facilities (which need improvement).

And, again, talking about cutting sports is, IMO, ridiculous when SDSU has done next to nothing to cultivate private and corporate donors.

Here's SDSU all proud because they finally (last year) hit a million dollars in corporate sponsorships. That's ridiculous. You couldn't hear SDSU games on the radio in a significant chunk of the state of South Dakota a few years ago. That's ridiculous.

SDSU is just beginning to tap funding and publicity opportunities, and you're acting as though SDSU has run out of options to fund programs, and needs to seriously consider dropping them.

---

And how is Wyoming successful? Why do you think that Indiana State is successful? NDSU has a 56% male student body and a 70% male participation ratio. That's not doable in South Dakota. And USD? Seriously? You put USD on the list of 'successful models at our level and region'? SDSU should imitate USD's model? Great. Let's put a tarp over Coughlin and play basketball there. Lets drop baseball and go crawling to the legislature in order to keep student funding, just like they did at UNI.

I've started a discussion, a few people on here point out that it's a good topic and a good discussion. Clearly you think it is a discussion worth talking about. I would love to keep all of these sports chucking along. But along at what? mediocrity? Golf? Really that one keeps the boat going? Can't wait for the golf team to hit the links? Swimming/Diving?

The funds that assisted those programs, could easily be funneled into the others increasing our funding for sports and coaching salaries. We also could increase the facilities at a faster rate AND maintain it without waiting for another 50 years to improve facilities.

I have no problem dropping Wyo, ISU-B(I meant R, but it doesn't matter)from that list. I think USD puts out fairly competitive teams, that's success. More than likely they will win the Great West this year, that was considered success for State, it's still success for USD. Their basketball has been a lot better than us during transition, and their Olympic Sports are competitive. Good for UNI, they did what they had to do, it's called foresight.

[BTownJack]

Re: 14 sports

I don't think we are at that point yet, but it's worthy of discussion. I keep bringing up the Difference Makers club, but there are ways where funds for a specific sport can be raised such as football. One criticism of the Jackrabbit Club is that the donation goes in one big pot and the donor does not have controll over what sport they wish to support. Seems like every sport has its merit even equestrian which got a lot of horse laughs(pun intended) when it was started. Would we dare drop that sport now?

Having in excess of 14 sports gives more opportunities for alums and friends to return their favors to the University.

Jackrabbit Club donations can be directed toward a specific program if the donor so chooses. I don't have anything to cite but I am aware of this as my donations to that club are directed toward a specific program.

[Nidaros]

Re: 14 sports

Jackrabbit Club donations can be directed toward a specific program if the donor so chooses. I don't have anything to cite but I am aware of this as my donations to that club are directed toward a specific program.

You are most likely correct. I retract this comment.