NCAA CONVENTION NEXT WEEK

[SDSUFAN]

Yesterday I stopped in the Alumni Office to visit with VJ Smith the Executive director.  I hope I am not being an enbarrassment in starting this thread.  I dropped off a christmas present of reading material I thought he would enjoy.

VJ told me he was on the plane today Friday, the 7th to attend the NCAA Convention. He told me he was going to address a crowd of 500 people at the convention.  Do you have any idea what  might be his topic?

VJ is going to tell the Mildred White story, and no doubt I would expect he will tell this group, that Mildred found SDSU and SDSU did not find  Mildred White.  Mildred White by the way  bequested 2.7 million to SDSU athletics and had donated about .5 million during those final years she was living.

VJ was working in the HPER Development office when he took the first call from Mildred White. Its quite the story.

[1stRowFANatic]

Re: NCAA CONVENTION NEXT WEEK

I would love to hear that story.

[89rabbit]

Re: NCAA CONVENTION NEXT WEEK

It is a good one. I heard VJ tell it at the KC Alumni Golf tournament.

Go State! ;D

[SDSUFAN]

Re: NCAA CONVENTION  THIS WEEK

LINK today's Argus Leader.

http://www.argusleader.com/sports/Mondayarticle1.shtml


My comment in Bold.

The Argus today has an interesting article about NCAA opening remarks by Myles Brand, the NCAA president in his state of the NCAA speech. The author of the article says wire reports and staff reports. I find that some one at the Argus found it conveinent to work SDSU move to D1 into the report of  President's remarks.
I would be willing to bet that  NCAA President Brand knows very little about South Dakota, let alone SDSU.  Here is the excerpt from his remarks.

Some schools feel that moving "to the next level" will result in enhanced academic reputation or new institutional revenue streams, or both.

SDSU can be considered one of the universities Brand was talking about. The Jackrabbits announced they were leaving Division II for Division I (Division I-A in football) in August of 2003. One of the reasons school offiicals talked about making the move was to increase exposure and stake its claim as the premier university in the state.

SDSU had been a national power in Division II, especially in men's and women's basketball, when the Jackrabbits made the move to Division I.

While containing costs dominated his speech, Brand also discussed academic reform, a centerpiece of his plan since becoming the NCAA's leader two years ago, and the status of amateurism in college sports.

Brand also called it "simply appalling" that there are so few black head football coaches in Division I, as well as Divisions II and III, and not enough women in high positions such as head coaches and athletic directors.

Under a plan being finalized this weekend by a committee and expected to be approved Monday by the Division I Board of Directors, schools will face scholarship reductions for poor academic performance by teams.

The Division I Committee on Academic Performance hoped to determine the final standards for the program on Sunday.

"These measures will change the culture of college sports," Brand said. "Success as a student as well as an athlete, simply, is the only acceptable standard for the future in college sports."

Within the next month, universities and colleges will have an annual report outlining academic progress of athletes and a longer-term graduation success rate.

The loss of scholarships for failing to reach standards will be capped at 5 or 10 percent. Based on the lower number, I-A football teams could lose no more than four of its 85 scholarships, and women's and men's basketball could lose only one.

Still, Brand said student-athletes in both Divisions I and II graduate at a higher rate than the student body - two percentage points in Division I and eight percentage points in Division II.

But football and men's basketball players graduate below both the student-athlete rate and the student body rate in both Divisions I and II.

"Although some leave to try their hand at professional sports, there are not nearly enough of these young men to explain the disappointing low numbers," Brand said. "The bottom line is that too many student-athletes in these two sports are simply leaving before they earn a degree."

Many of those players are leaving for the lure of the money offered in professional sports. But some contend that because of the big money generated by some football and men's basketball teams, players should share in the profits.

"I could not be more opposed," Brand said. "Amateurism is not about how much, it is about why. It is not about the money, it is about the motivation."

He said the collegiate model of sports is based on the idea that students come to college to get an education. While knowing he sounded old-fashioned, he also believes most of the 360,000 student-athletes "play sports under the banner of the university for the love of the game."  

[89rabbit]

Re: NCAA CONVENTION NEXT WEEK

Well, SDSU should be in good shape when it comes to graduation rates, OK_Jackrabbit had some eye opening stats on another thread.

DI Grade Rate, Aggregate:
All students - 60 percent
Student athletes - 61 percent

DII Grad Rate, Aggregate:  
All students - 45 percent
Student athletes - 51 percent

SDSU graduation rate:
All students - 53 percent
Student athletes - 73 percent

Go State!  ;D

[OK_Jackrabbit]

Re: NCAA CONVENTION NEXT WEEK

Clearly, Brand wasn't talking about the $8.1 million schools, he was addressing the problems of the $27 million-plus schools. The concern that increased budgets don't mean increased revenues is aimed at schools like the University of Oklahoma, with a $50 million budget. Bob Stoops will soon make $4 million a year. Brands specifically mentions $2 million coaching salaries. Next year, Stoops will make $5 million, then $6 million the year after that. It's that unsustainable spiral in costs that Brand was addressing, as anyone who lives and works at one of those kinds of institutions could tell you.

Gosh, is there anybody at SDSU with a $2 million salary? Of course not. There is an entirely different set of issues and problems with the smaller schools like SDSU.

I think localizing the story was definitely a stretch. The point that "South Dakota is part of this issue now" is really untrue, and I would label that bad editing. Some Sunday copy editor decided that the DI label on the story was enough to conflate the situation at SDSU with that of schools like OU. That comparison doesn't pass a logic test, but it feeds into the ridiculous caricature of DI athletics that has been created by the opponents of this move. SDSU is not OU, and it never will be (thank goodness).

That's two very shaky stories (the Life column last Monday was the other) in the last two weeks. When does Solari get back from holiday vacation so he can explain some of this to his colleagues?