Argus series on D-I transition (SDSU, USD)

[rabidrabbit]

Re: Argus series on D-I transition (SDSU, USD)

Womens' Basketball Quote:

Playoff prospects: Frankly, anything less than a NCAA tournament bid would be a disappointment, considering SDSU won the Summit League by four games last year and will host the league tourney in Sioux Falls.

There are VERY FEW schools that could say this when they entered their first year of D-I eligibility. What a dynamo has been created at FROST under AJ!

Transition is done, and now to build on our successes!

[Nidaros]

Re: Argus series on D-I transition (SDSU, USD)

Now this is funny...I have recently learned that the USD football team is going to play North Greenville University in Tigerville, SC on November 21...and the team is going in real Division I style! They are taking the team in buses.

Anybody interested in attending the game and enjoying the 1210-mile (each way) trip to catch this exciting game between NGU, a Division II school with an enrollment of 1,900, could probably check to see if the Coyotes are taking a fan bus along. I know the players would like some company as they enjoy their 38-hour ride!

And another interesting tidbit floating around is that USD offered Dakota Wesleyan $25,000 to come over and play a football game in the Dome, and they got turned down. Gosh, did I miss that in Stu Whitney's column???

Well I guess there is nothing like a fall time bus ride to the Carolinas. The Smokey Mountains are beautiful in Novermber LOL. It tells you that USD is not getting much of guarentee, and maybe an open date might have been better. I have no idea of cost, but could you charter a flight to Carolina for less than 25,000? Just curious.

[Jacks#1Fan]

Re: Argus series on D-I transition (SDSU, USD)

I can almost guarantee you, Nidaros, that USD is not getting any guarantee to play North Greenville University. If it is a home and home, each bears their own expense. Remember this is a Division II school. If any money is involved, it is very minimal. Hence the bus ride (remember, the Yotes bussed to West Texas State last football season in order to cut expenses).

[1stRowFANatic]

Re: Argus series on D-I transition (SDSU, USD)

OK, I am going to go off a little bit here, but how the heck can the Board of Regents allow USD to PURPOSEFULLY VIOLATE a policy. That is unbelievable, especially given the history with Title IX at that institution. And as for the BOR thinking differently on it now, then why haven't they changed the rules for ALL higher ed institutions in the state. Remember, this does not apply just to SDSU and USD. If they want to change the policy, fine, I would agree with them on that. However, the BOR has not changed the policy. Think about how this would go over for each of you at your jobs, you run a foul of a law, get sued, lose, boss implements policies that go beyond the requirements of the law, but you tell your boss, "Um, you know I don't think I'm going to follow your policy. But trust me, I won't break the law again." And yes I know the AD has changed, but I think you see my point in that most bosses are going to say, "Follow the policy or you are gone."

As of now, every institution BUT USD has to comply with stricter Title IX requirements. As a father of a daughter (and a son) I am ticked off that a school that I attended has purposefully violated the BOR policies on this. This is absurd and the parents and siblings of daughters throughout the state should be contacting the BOR and USD ask them why they feel money is more important than opportunity for women. That is what Nielson said, by violating the BOR policy they have the opportunity for more money.

Unbelievable.

I remember the complaints that SDSU would have to sacrifice opportunity for women in order to make it a go in D1 and the BOR said that it would not be accepted. USD STARTS their transition this way. I think the media in this state ought to be ALL OVER Abbot and Nielson on this asking why do the feel they have the right to violate BOR policies and what other policies have they violated. Rant over.

[filbert]

Re: Argus series on D-I transition (SDSU, USD)

OK, I am going to go off a little bit here, but how the heck can the Board of Regents allow USD to PURPOSEFULLY VIOLATE a policy. That is unbelievable, especially given the history with Title IX at that institution. And as for the BOR thinking differently on it now, then why haven't they changed the rules for ALL higher ed institutions in the state. Remember, this does not apply just to SDSU and USD. If they want to change the policy, fine, I would agree with them on that. However, the BOR has not changed the policy. Think about how this would go over for each of you at your jobs, you run a foul of a law, get sued, lose, boss implements policies that go beyond the requirements of the law, but you tell your boss, "Um, you know I don't think I'm going to follow your policy. But trust me, I won't break the law again." And yes I know the AD has changed, but I think you see my point in that most bosses are going to say, "Follow the policy or you are gone."

As of now, every institution BUT USD has to comply with stricter Title IX requirements. As a father of a daughter (and a son) I am ticked off that a school that I attended has purposefully violated the BOR policies on this. This is absurd and the parents and siblings of daughters throughout the state should be contacting the BOR and USD ask them why they feel money is more important than opportunity for women. That is what Nielson said, by violating the BOR policy they have the opportunity for more money.

Unbelievable.

I remember the complaints that SDSU would have to sacrifice opportunity for women in order to make it a go in D1 and the BOR said that it would not be accepted. USD STARTS their transition this way. I think the media in this state ought to be ALL OVER Abbot and Nielson on this asking why do the feel they have the right to violate BOR policies and what other policies have they violated. Rant over.

I think it would be very interesting, if not entertaining, for some enterprising Argus-Leader reporter or sports editor to follow up with the BOR on this little item.

One thing Vandrovec has said is that SDSU took a lot of heat and a lot of pointed questions from various circles at various times during our transition. We passed with flying colors.

It's USD's turn, now.

[West-River_Jack]

Re: Argus series on D-I transition (SDSU, USD)

OK, I am going to go off a little bit here, but how the heck can the Board of Regents allow USD to PURPOSEFULLY VIOLATE a policy. That is unbelievable, especially given the history with Title IX at that institution. And as for the BOR thinking differently on it now, then why haven't they changed the rules for ALL higher ed institutions in the state. Remember, this does not apply just to SDSU and USD. If they want to change the policy, fine, I would agree with them on that. However, the BOR has not changed the policy. Think about how this would go over for each of you at your jobs, you run a foul of a law, get sued, lose, boss implements policies that go beyond the requirements of the law, but you tell your boss, "Um, you know I don't think I'm going to follow your policy. But trust me, I won't break the law again." And yes I know the AD has changed, but I think you see my point in that most bosses are going to say, "Follow the policy or you are gone."

As of now, every institution BUT USD has to comply with stricter Title IX requirements. As a father of a daughter (and a son) I am ticked off that a school that I attended has purposefully violated the BOR policies on this. This is absurd and the parents and siblings of daughters throughout the state should be contacting the BOR and USD ask them why they feel money is more important than opportunity for women. That is what Nielson said, by violating the BOR policy they have the opportunity for more money.

Unbelievable.

I remember the complaints that SDSU would have to sacrifice opportunity for women in order to make it a go in D1 and the BOR said that it would not be accepted. USD STARTS their transition this way. I think the media in this state ought to be ALL OVER Abbot and Nielson on this asking why do the feel they have the right to violate BOR policies and what other policies have they violated. Rant over.

We must be cautious about throwing stones here. Remember that South Dakota State was granted a waiver on the use of certain funds last year. I think that it was the Aberdeen paper that raised such a big fuss about it. There was reference in yesterday's Argus Leader about it:

"The lone concession was a six-year waiver that grants access to licensing-based profits from the University Bookstore and institutional dollars totaling $723,000. That amount will be offset annually beginning in 2008-09 through football games against major-conference teams, NCAA distributions and Summit League revenue sharing."

Read the entire article at:

http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs...38/1002/SPORTS

The important thing here is that the BOR did grant this waiver BEFORE South Dakota State used the funds. I think that it is safe to assume that the BOR can grant a waiver in a similar fashion for USD and a temporary deviation from State imposed Title IX requirements so long as no federal laws are violated. Can we safely assume that the BOR granted such a waiver BEFORE USD exercised it? That may be the only real pertinent question here.

[jackmd]

Re: Argus series on D-I transition (SDSU, USD)

I think it would be very interesting, if not entertaining, for some enterprising Argus-Leader reporter or sports editor to follow up with the BOR on this little item.

One thing Vandrovec has said is that SDSU took a lot of heat and a lot of pointed questions from various circles at various times during our transition. We passed with flying colors.

It's USD's turn, now.

How about a letter to the editor from a (or some) enterprising Jackrabbit fans. The letter should be worded in a fashion that is meant to inform and identify but not accuse. Too many people are naive about the behavior of the athletic department at what is an otherwise top-notch institution. You'd think some of the academic departments would step in and ask for some clarification here.

[filbert]

Re: Argus series on D-I transition (SDSU, USD)

I would be stunned to the point of disbelief to discover that USD did not clear their plan re: Title IX with the BOR.

It just doesn't work that way in South Dakota, from my experience.

That's a really good way to get your ass fired, in fact.

(granted, I left in 2000, eight years ago now. Things may have changed.)

So my assumption is that yes, the BOR has in fact OK'ed USD's plan. The question is . . . why? THAT'S the question that needs to be put to a Regent or three.

[Nidaros]

Re: Argus series on D-I transition (SDSU, USD)

I can almost guarantee you, Nidaros, that USD is not getting any guarantee to play North Greenville University. If it is a home and home, each bears their own expense. Remember this is a Division II school. If any money is involved, it is very minimal. Hence the bus ride (remember, the Yotes bussed to West Texas State last football season in order to cut expenses).

I just Googled NGU and found that they are a Southern Baptist liberal Arts college, and their motto is: "Where Christ makes a Difference". I suspect the Yotes will be treated better in Carolina, then are some of their opponents at the Dakota Dome. Jack#1Fan is absolutely correct, there is most likely no guarentee money. I have had the impression that all home and home and other one time games were supported by a contract of some sort, and what details are in the contract could vary, but most liberal arts schools are generally not going to put up any kind of guarentee money. Always exception, but most likely not in this game.

The NGU web says the game is on November 1, and they have Liberty as a schedule opener plus they play non scholarship Kentucky Wesleyn, known for basketball national champs, but non-scholarship football. Also they have Northern Alabama, also a tough D2 school so by the time they get to the Coyotes, NGU could be a little banged up. I looked at last years scores and they put a lot of points on the board last year. The tough games they lost, so Yotes should have their way in this one.

I have always enjoyed riding the bus and for those Yote fans who have time on their hands and like to see the scenery this would be a nice fan bus trip.


Here is the link: http://ngcrusaders.athleticsite.com/....asp?sportID=2

[HoboD]

Re: Argus series on D-I transition (SDSU, USD)

[The important thing here is that the BOR did grant this waiver BEFORE South Dakota State used the funds. I think that it is safe to assume that the BOR can grant a waiver in a similar fashion for USD and a temporary deviation from State imposed Title IX requirements so long as no federal laws are violated. [/QUOTE]

Even though the USD plan might not violate Title IX, there might be an interesting equal protection clause issue under both the US and state contitutions, ie; men are being given scholarship opportunities not available to women. That translates into state sanctioned gender discrimination. Of course USD could prevail in a legal challenge if they could convince the judge that there was a rational basis for the inequity. Do you think Judge Karen Schreier would think that having a winning football was a rational reason for not providing an equal opportunity for females? If you do, youve never read any of her opinions.

[1stRowFANatic]

Re: Argus series on D-I transition (SDSU, USD)

All right the rant is past and I've had a chance to re-read my post (which was written after reading the articles 3 times) and then re-read the article again. I may have been a little too strident, which is why I called it a rant, but the only substantive point that I think I would change is the statement about who the media should be all over. It should have been the BOR and USD. I went to the BOR site and tried to find anything about them changing the Title IX position for USD. I went through the agendas going back to Jan 07, and could not find anything that looked like it might have been related to a waiver. I will admit that the title of somethings were extremely broad, so it is possible that an actual waiver had been given, but I could not find it.

So, that leaves me with several questions.
1. If the waiver was given, why was it done in a manner to discourage public awareness by not being clearly announced in an agenda.
2. If the waiver was not given, will the BOR sanction USD for its intentional violation of policy.
3. Why was this issue so glossed over in the series? The fact that the BOR emphatically stated its existing policies must be followed by SDSU was a major story in the state at the time. To let this go by with out followup is odd and I actually believe that further explanation must have been edited out. I do not think that Mick Garry would just let it slide by.

As for the SDSU waiver, there are three key distinguishing factors. One has been already stated, we know that SDSU asked the BOR for the waiver before the loan was allowed. I also believe SDSU publicly announced their intent to ask for the waiver before the BOR meeting. The second factor is the source of the money, unexpected additional income from licensed products sold through the bookstore. As I recall, one of the factors that was cited for allowing this loan was that it was estimated that a large portion of the additional income was generated from licensed product that could reasonably attributed to the athletic department. An academic department may have an argument that they prompted a student to by a t-shirt that says SDSU. However, the replica jersey sales with the sport identified logo wear are items that really can be attributed only to the athletic department.

It is also my understanding that at many institutions, the athletic department gets all of the revenue generated from the latter type of licensed product. In fact, some institutions have the athletic departments control all of their own licensed product. It was this recognition, that the extra money was generated by the athletic department and that most athletic departments get to keep all the money they generate, that was the reason for allowing the loan to go forward. The money has to be repaid by other revenue generated by the athletic department.

And for CF and Yote53, if the BOR gave them a waiver, then USD has done nothing wrong, even though I wish they would have been more public about it. If USD can get the BOR to change the policy (which they have not yet done according to Nielson's quote), I will have no problem with them being in compliance with federal law.

I just think USD would be much better served to get the full answer out.