14 sports

[joeboo22]

Re: 14 sports

IDK, I'm not a fan of cutting sports. I've talked to people who work(ed) in the fundraising part of BHSU and they said that when they make their phone calls to alum there is numerous people who say that they will not donate until baseball or wrestling is brought back. Now it wasn't me so I don't know how many this actually is but I think once you start cutting sports you look weak. I can see people in Pierre already saying that going D-I is costing athletic programs in Brookings.

And is that the real reason that football is not funded well? I think once you cut 1 or 2 sports you make it a lot easier for Pierre to put the/a bigger strangle hold on the athletic department in Brookings. Look at UNI, they cut baseball and some believe football could be next. I think if SDSU wanted to cut sports they should have done it long ago (D-II days) I just think you look weak if you do it now.

[Nidaros]

Re: 14 sports

IDK, I'm not a fan of cutting sports. I've talked to people who work(ed) in the fundraising part of BHSU and they said that when they make their phone calls to alum there is numerous people who say that they will not donate until baseball or wrestling is brought back. Now it wasn't me so I don't know how many this actually is but I think once you start cutting sports you look weak. I can see people in Pierre already saying that going D-I is costing athletic programs in Brookings.

And is that the real reason that football is not funded well? I think once you cut 1 or 2 sports you make it a lot easier for Pierre to put the/a bigger strangle hold on the athletic department in Brookings. Look at UNI, they cut baseball and some believe football could be next. I think if SDSU wanted to cut sports they should have done it long ago (D-II days) I just think you look weak if you do it now.

I would agree cutting sports can have a backfiring affect. Adding sports, opportunities and progressive ideas has been the philosphy of most if not all of AD's going back Reuben "Jack " Frost. With Title IX mandates it became a balancing act and it continues. I think our fund raising has to become more specialized in that each head coach has had and has more responsiblity for raising funds for scholarships and other things.

You have to attend an endowment banquet to appreciate how this working. Certain generous individuals have set up scholarships for specific sports. To cut any sport is to spit in the face of a generous donor. If you cut golf as a for instance what happens to that endowed scholarship? You can not use those funds for football without the consent of the donor.

Another thought comes to mind and maybe its because I drive by Equestrian barn on my way to Walmart and the medical clinic on 22 ave. Its an attractive building designed to board horses and put on Equestrian events? What happens to facility when the sport is discontinued? Also Al Caniglo Field in Omaha is another facility that will most likely be demolished now that UNO football is a thing of the past. Resources are wasted in retrofitting these facilities for other purposes.

My own endowment was open ended in that it was open to any student athlete for any sport, but since the greatest need has been in the sport of football, all the recipients have been football players including Derek Domino. If football was dropped it would not be a problem to me to shift the scholarship earning to another sports, but with others who participated and have been close to a specific sport, it would be a slap in the face.

[Jacks#1Fan]

Re: 14 sports

This thread comes about IMHO, because all of a sudden, our current major sport (football) is having a second bad season in a row (OMG) for a variety of reasons and some posters have thrown in funding issues as the root cause. Yes, football's budget is not as big as other schools, and neither are a number of other sports. Football just got a $6 million infusion from generous donors in the form of the Dykhouse Student Athlete Center -- which provides the program with top-notch facilities that are better than a number of schools with whom we compete.

We currently have 19 sports listed and we can join Missouri State (who has no track and field program) at 15, or better Youngstown State at 16, for instance, by eliminating men's and women's golf and tennis. We have two coaches (one part time) in those four sports, and meager budgets that are hardly a blip on the athletic budget. Several posters say drop wrestling...well, I happen to be an avid wrestling fan, and there are more people in attendance at wrestling matches than there are at baseball games. We have a donor who is ready to bring our baseball facility up to snuff, who would be interested in knowing whether you are going to drop baseball. We could join Missouri State (a fellow football competitor) by dropping men's and women's track and field...whoa, wait a minute, I am a proud track letterman of SDSU and have an endowed scholarship for track...so forget that one.

Bottom line? We are not going to be dropping sports IMO. Our current problem with football is a "current" one, and if it continues, I think it will be solved without dropping any of our current programs. I firmly believe that we have a very competent AD in Justin Sell, who has not shown any hesitation in making a change if it is necessary (softball). So while this may be an "interesting" topic for discussion, I would venture to say that most posters on here have a different viewpoint on which program to drop, and many would be happy with just keeping football and basketball, since they hardly ever attend other SDSU sporting events. I propose we just keep working on winning that Commissioner's Cup for the university with the best overall athletic program in The Summit League.

[Nidaros]

Re: 14 sports

Jack No 1 has said a mouth full. I gave him some more rep pts. One of the biggest reason I have supported athletics these past few years, is the appreciation expressed by the coaches, AD and others connected to the University. I hope our staff are not loosing this sense of appreciation. Like I said before, cutting sports will have consequences. I think we might think of it this way. Some one who starts and maintains a scholarship for instance, tennis, allows more general funds to go to the major sports such as football. So there is in my opinion strength in offering many sports. I agree there is no need to cut sports now.

[jackdaniel]

Re: 14 sports

When football is having a down year,i've heard it said many times,"can't wait for basketball to start",or baseball,we just got a new coach there,same with softball.Womens soccer is a bright spot this year and it makes us all proud to wear the yellow and blue.What if we didn't have it?To cut a bunch of sports to bolster one is like putting all your eggs in one basket.All SDSU sports go out and compete at a national level, and all gain national recognition for the University, which just might help football more (recruiting, name recognition,etc) than cutting the sport to funnel a few measly dollars to the football program.What happens when the football season is lousey and the basketball teams too,and there arn't any other sports to lift our spirits up.....now i'm just ranting....i'm for keeping things as they are.The football will get better ,or changes will occur to ensure it does.

[SDSUAlum08]

Re: 14 sports

Great posts by Nidaros and JacksFan#1.

I still think dropping tennis or golf is an option and something that you can look at in the future. That's my opinion and what if the AD asked the donors if they would still keep their endowments? Many things to consider, but most people on here are bringing it up as an option for the future. Anyways, you both made some great points.

I look at cutting sports as a way to ramp up the basketball program. It's truly the only sport SDSU will be able to compete with on a national level in a major sport. Look at what the basketball program did for UNI? Or even ORU? People remember these tournament games and it puts the school on the national map.

[Theee Catrabbit]

Re: 14 sports

Everybody is making some great points. Nidaros thank you for your insight into the endowments. I'd still cut 4 or 5 sports, but it is just my viewpoint, which since there are no endowments in my name, pretty sure no one's going to take my advice.

[goon]

Re: 14 sports

I say SDSU should try to sponsor every sport that the confrence offers. I was on the tennis team and would hate for it to be cut just so basketall has a few more dollars. We won the all summit league award, I think that speaks highly of SDSU and its commitment. I would be sad to see we never win it again because golf and tennis are cut or others for that matter. I do enjoy reading about the non revenue sports when Terry has time to cover them. Wrestling has struggled lately but D-2 we were very strong program, I have no doubt we will be getting better.

Ask UNO football or wrestling members meeting title 9, and budget reasons are worth cutting to help another sport.

[zooropa]

Re: 14 sports

But along at what? mediocrity?

SDSU has won 2 NCAA tournament games, appeared in 6 NCAA tournaments, and logged 13 regular season or tournament titles. They've won the women's all sport trophy twice and the Commissioner's cup once.

And they've been D-1 for all of 4 years.

If that's mediocrity, I'll take another helping of it.

[JackJD]

Re: 14 sports

SDSU has won 2 NCAA tournament games, appeared in 6 NCAA tournaments, and logged 13 regular season or tournament titles. They've won the women's all sport trophy twice and the Commissioner's cup once.

And they've been D-1 for all of 4 years.

If that's mediocrity, I'll take another helping of it.

You can write that again!

Some comments on comparisons with UNI: Some posters write about UNI and one pointed to UNI's success in basketball. I'd be willing to bet that the most successful program at UNI in the last 15 years -- on a national level -- is UNI's track and field program. The Panthers routinely have team members (often Iowa natives) competing for national titles and their team has been in the mix on the national level many times. (Now, they had a great coach who went to Arkansas two or three years ago...and Arkansas competes for #1 every year.)

UNI's future remains cloudy. A significant part of their athletic budget is state dollars and a legislator not too long ago suggested cutting that part of the budget, thereby forcing UNI to fund athletics like Iowa and Iowa State by generating their funding from gate receipts, alumni donations etc. I think that's an issue that won't go away and I assume UNI is working hard behind the scenes to change its funding formula.

I'm with Jacks#1Fan, Nidaros and others who have written on this subject. We have a lot going on behind the scenes, some of which Jacks#1Fan described (e.g. the money to finish the baseball field). All indications are that while fund raising will be a constant struggle -- SDSU is addressing the challenges quite well. Keep in mind where we've been. The challenge to reach for the sky when Pres. Miller and AD Oien led the charge to D-1 has paid magnificent dividends to SDSU and those dividends will continue to be realized. Those dividends help develop SDSU and the entire state and region.

[joeboo22]

Re: 14 sports

Why doe we fund women's basketball at almost the same $ figure as men's basketball? Even with the success that women's basketball has had I'm willing to bet Men's basketball makes way more money and if they had more resources could make a boatload more. All of the big schools and even most of the mid-majors do it that way. I think NDSU only has 13 scholarships for their women's basketball program. Why doesn't SDSU do that?

Now I disagree with that above statement but in all seriousness SDSU does a pretty good job when it comes to equality of men's and women's counter sports where many other schools do not.

Just because another school does it does not mean that SDSU should do it that way.

[Theee Catrabbit]

Re: 14 sports

SDSU has won 2 NCAA tournament games, appeared in 6 NCAA tournaments, and logged 13 regular season or tournament titles. They've won the women's all sport trophy twice and the Commissioner's cup once.

And they've been D-1 for all of 4 years.

If that's mediocrity, I'll take another helping of it.

Are you counting the sports I suggested cutting? Because if you cut the sports I suggested cutting, I believe that number stays the same. Except maybe the all important Commissioner's Cup, one golfer, and the women's sports trophy. So, yes those sports I suggested cutting will probably wallow in mediocrity(or less). So eat up. I'm sure someday we'll somehow get one tennis player or swimming star that lights it up for a couple seasons and that'll be it. I'm talking about sustainability and consistency in 12-14 sports rather than being spread thin at 22. Which is all I hear coming out about finances and funding at State. If you increase the funding of several sports by cutting a few, shouldn't those other sports be elevated with more success year in and year out giving State more exposure than before? Tell me all about the national exposure tennis, golf, and swimming/diving would give when a single contestant advances to a tournament once a decade vs. a consistent volleyball, soccer, or softball program. Everyone is focused on football(because 'tis the season), but these other sports need more help than they are getting as well. Which they will never get. So why do we have to put on the facade that anyone actually gives a rip about these sports save the athlete and their parents.

Now of the sports I put out as potential chopping blocks (swimming/diving, tennis, golf, wrestling), how many have any of you attended? Last wrestling match I went to, we were D2, that's it.

[zooropa]

Re: 14 sports

Are you counting the sports I suggested cutting?

Here's my point:

How has sponsoring golf (Trent Petersen repped SDSU @ the NCAA tournament), swim/dive & tennis caused other programs to 'wallow in mediocrity'? And if these sports don't cause other sports to 'wallow in mediocrity', then what exactly is the objection to keeping them?

[zooropa]

Re: 14 sports

Or, put another way: Stanford has never won an NCAA title in 14 of the 31 varsity sports they sponsor. And they've never won a recognized championship in football or basketball (they've only been awarded retroactive titles in those sports).

Should Stanford drop some of its 31 sports? Especially since it has fewer undergraduates than SDSU?

[Theee Catrabbit]

Re: 14 sports

Here's my point:

How has sponsoring golf (Trent Petersen repped SDSU @ the NCAA tournament), swim/dive & tennis caused other programs to 'wallow in mediocrity'? And if these sports don't cause other sports to 'wallow in mediocrity', then what exactly is the objection to keeping them?

The funds for cutting those sports couldn't be put into Volleyball, softball, or track and field? Or more into MBB, which I see is $200000 less in spending a year than almost the rest of the Summit and nowhere near where some of the other mid-majors in the MVC, OVC and Horizon spend. These other sports haven't "caused" it, but by putting funds into them vs. some of the other sports where we could have consistency. I'm not saying SDSU hasn't been successful, but wouldn't we rather put out year in year out the best teams in 12-14 sports than 22 sports where many years we are not competitive in the sport. I know this is a agree to disagree topic.