The move to Division I. Five years later

[tlk23]

I was looking through some old Argus articles on the D-I move and I came across a few articles that I thought was interesting.

Give SDSU a shot
Dec. 12, 2002

With a solid plan, funding, regents should allow Division I move. Just a short time ago, the University of South Dakota announced it would stay with Division II athletics. The reason was simple: Money. And the Argus Leader agreed with that decision, extending the same logic to South Dakota State University, also considering a move up to Division I. The editorial was clear: "Either SDSU thinks it can find the money - or it doesn't. But if it banks on getting the money, it better have a solid plan in place for doing so."

SDSU believes it can get the money, and it has just such a plan. The South Dakota Board of Regents will evaluate that plan at its Rapid City meeting today and Friday. Regents should approve SDSU's re-quest for a move into Division I athletics. The move is not without risks, but they are risks worth taking, because there are built-in protections:

SDSU will not raise student fees or use additional taxpayer funds to make the jump. SDSU won't move to Division I unless it finds a conference. What's the worst that could happen? The Jackrabbits could be a woeful competitive failure in Division I and the change could prove much more costly - too much more costly - than envisioned. In that case, SDSU could drop back down to Division II. Other schools have moved down a division, just as SDSU hopes to move up.

What's the best that could happen? SDSU might be a Division I success. At the very least, Division I will give the school a certain cachet and more exposure, making it more attractive to out-of-state students. It would solidify SDSU's base - even expanding it - with spinoff benefits for other universities in South Dakota.

Let's be clear, though: This is a long-term venture. It will be years before any SDSU team could compete in post-season play. It will be more years after that before the Jackrabbits likely would be competitive. It's entirely possible that for the next decade we can count on the school's teams being doormats.

But this is about more than athletics. It also is about recruiting students, building academics, prestige and donations. All stand to gain if this is a success. Again - for the long term. This is a gamble to benefit SDSU 20, 30, 40, 50 years down the road. It is a reach for the brass ring, or as close to one as we will find in South Dakota. USD faces the same pressures as SDSU, with a declining in-state student base and greater competition from universities and colleges in our part of the country. USD is banking its future on tougher academic standards, trying to raise money for scholarships and increasing faculty pay. It wants to become the "Ivy of the Plains."

SDSU's goals aren't much different, but it wants to get there by moving up to Division I athletics. Either method could work. Or not. But both must try in ways that fit the characters of the schools and their communities. SDSU has a solid financial plan - and open eyes - to make this move to Division I work. Regents need to give it a chance.

[tlk23]

Re: The move to Division I. Five years later

Move by SDSU not as clear to everyone

Argus Leader (Sioux Falls, SD) - August 21, 2003
Author: Staff, Mick Garry, Staff




On Jan. 25, 2002, South Dakota State held a press conference to announce the preliminary findings of Carr Sports Associates Inc., a consulting firm that was paid $30,000 to analyze the Jackrabbits ' athletic program, especially as it applied to a possible move to NCAA Division I-AA status. It was the first of many major public announcements coming from the school involving the NCAA Division II institution's pursuit of NCAA Division I-AA football and Division I everything else.

Included in the preliminary report from the Carr consulting team, headed by Bill Carr, a former Division I athletic director at the University of Houston, was a lot of laudatory things about SDSU's fitness for a move to Division I. But the preliminary report also included this: The Consultants conclude that the most difficult aspect of making the decision to reclassify to Division I-AA is establishing an athletic conference relationship with respected peer institutions located within a reasonable distance of each other. . . . Possible options should be in place before making the decision to reclassify to I-AA.

And in the Argus Leader's story the next day, these paragraphs appeared: (Bill) Carr was emphatic in saying a move up without first securing a place in a Division I-AA conference would be doomed for failure. "You just can't do it," Carr said. "There's no way for an independent Division I school to fill out a schedule."

Nearly 11 months later, on the day SDSU took its case to the state Board of Regents, this appeared in the Dec. 12, 2002, Argus Leader: Oien has acknowledged that finding a conference would be difficult. But he said the school has options, and it would secure a conference schedule before committing to Division I. When the regents approved the move that day, the conference issue was addressed in an SDSU press release like this: The final hurdle to reclassification is conference affiliation. Throughout the fact-finding process SDSU officials have stated that the university will not make a move up the ranks of the NCAA until a suitable conference affiliation is secured.

Last week SDSU athletic director Fred Oien and President Peggy Miller acknowledged, as they announced that SDSU was submitting application for Division I-AA and Division I status, that they were doing so despite having no conference affiliation in place. Oien and Miller said last Friday they were not going to get anywhere in their search for a conference until they made an official commitment to Division I. It was then that the term self-imposed entered SDSU's lexicon in reference to the conference contingency.

In the SDSU press release last Friday, Oien stated:

"Our decision to proceed without conference membership has been difficult, especially in light of our own self-imposed criteria for making the transition. Since Board approval in December 2002, we have had extensive discussions with presidents, athletic directors and commissioners of Division I conferences. It is abundantly clear to us now, that without having committed to Division I, conference interest in our program for prospective membership would be minimal."

A self-imposed criteria, you have to wonder, or a self-delusional one? Gene Taylor, NDSU athletic director, was contacted by the Argus Leader this week. He said NDSU too wanted a conference first, noting that it will be harder to construct a budget without knowing long-term who the school will play. In the short-term, the absence of a conference membership will mean the school will likely suffer the scheduling problems the Carr consultants warned about. But even so, Taylor said, "We were clearly told by conferences that we're not even going to talk to you unless you make the commitment first."

We can conclude one of two troubling things from SDSU's about-face on this issue:

A. Oien and Miller were, at best, hoping they'd have the conference issue settled before they'd make the jump. They made the claim to regents and in their countless sales pitches knowing to some extent what they know now - that serious conference talk would likely go nowhere because they'd yet to sign the Division I papers. They persisted with this story line because by including conference membership as a contingency, they would make the transition seem more palatable to regents, boosters, etc.

Or:

B. They just didn't realize what they were getting into when they made the conference promise to the regents and whoever else would listen. They simply did not know. They did not know this despite the tens of thousands spent on consultants and the countless conversations with ADs, college presidents, and conference administrators they'd had already. They simply did not know that it would be a struggle to find a suitable conference for the school without officially committing to Division I first. For some reason, the topic just never came up.

If it's A, shame on Miller and Oien. If it's B, then it's a sign that not everything we've heard from SDSU, in spite of its self-proclaimed extensive research, is going to be based on having a clear picture of what comes next. "It is abundantly clear to us now. . ." Oien began as he started to describe what has transpired in the months since the regents' approval.

Translation: It served our best interests to believe, or pretend to believe, that we'd have the conference thing sewed up. But we know better now, just as we told you we knew better then.

Supporters of SDSU's move up have reason to think backing off the pledge to have a conference in place is not a huge issue. For many, landing in a conference as quickly as possible may not seem a pivotal obstacle when the ultimate pass/fail test for the jump is "15 or 20 years down the road," as Oien has said many times. But during what will be a character-building transitional period for the school, those same SDSU supporters can't be looking forward to another major promise being dismissed by Miller and Oien.

Supporters can't be looking forward to another situation where they have to wonder whether a fairly boisterous pledge is abandoned because it was disingenuous from the start, or, as SDSU is soft-pedaling in this instance, because of an unsettling degree of ignorance. Supporters can't be looking forward to another instance where Oien or Miller preface an answer to a crucial question about the transition to Division I with another "It's abundantly clear to us now . . ." In regard to such an exhaustively studied and major component of this complex process, you have to ask, why in the world was it not clear then?

[jacksfan29]

Re: The move to Division I. Five years later

Ahh the "Ivy of the Plains" comment from our fine furry friends down south. I had forgotten. Wonder how that's going?

As for the articles, the Mick Garry article is the one that has always bugged me. Five years later, I guess everyone who fought so hard against the administration during those early decision making days need to eat some crow. Mick included.

[BTownJack]

Re: The move to Division I. Five years later

I have to ask...why aren't these type of articles being written about USD???

I find it interesting we have heard little of USD's plan going into their transition. Compared to what SDSU went through, USD has gotten by easy thus far. And what have people been saying about us paving the way?

[tcbison]

Re: The move to Division I. Five years later

I have to ask...why aren't these type of articles being written about USD???

I find it interesting we have heard little of USD's plan going into their transition. Compared to what SDSU went through, USD has gotten by easy thus far. And what have people been saying about us paving the way?

Great point! I know that both NDSU and SDSU had a lot of critics but is seems like UND and USD do not at all. I don't read a lot of UND news but the attitude seems to be "NDSU was able to do it so we can too."

The thing I do hear though is how NDSU and SDSU leaving the NCC was the reason it had to fold. That is so very untrue. The NCC still existed it was UND and USD leaving that cause the NCC to fail.

[jackmd]

Re: The move to Division I. Five years later

Great point! I know that both NDSU and SDSU had a lot of critics but is seems like UND and USD do not at all. I don't read a lot of UND news but the attitude seems to be "NDSU was able to do it so we can too."

The sad fact, at least for USD, is that our success doesn't necessarily mean anything for them. Even worse, I think they have most of their chips in the pot thinking just that. I hope I'm wrong or they are in trouble.

[SiouxFallsJack]

Re: The move to Division I. Five years later

I have to ask...why aren't these type of articles being written about USD???

I find it interesting we have heard little of USD's plan going into their transition. Compared to what SDSU went through, USD has gotten by easy thus far. And what have people been saying about us paving the way?

I seem to remember we got ripped for being secretive during our move up. I thought we kept people pretty informed during that process, but now USD seems to be getting a free pass in that area.

[West-River_Jack]

Re: The move to Division I. Five years later

I have to ask...why aren't these type of articles being written about USD???

I find it interesting we have heard little of USD's plan going into their transition. Compared to what SDSU went through, USD has gotten by easy thus far. And what have people been saying about us paving the way?

SDSU has a lot of very passionate fans over a diverse geographic area. I know quite a few UDS alumni in the Black Hills area but I know almost no passionate Coyote fans. This suggests that your question is best and truthfully answered with another question. WHO CARES ENOUGH TO WRITE THESE ARTICLES ABOUT THE COYOTES?

[FargoBison]

Re: The move to Division I. Five years later

I think having all the critics really helped both schools, they forced us to have our ducks in a row. I have feeling that both USD and UND have no idea on just how hard the DI transition is, most UND fans are pretty nonchalant about the challenges that await them.

They are lucky we did clear a nice path for them but they seem to forget we set the bar pretty high in the process.

[BTownJack]

Re: The move to Division I. Five years later

They are lucky we did clear a nice path for them but they seem to forget we set the bar pretty high in the process.

That is a very good point.

[Jacks#1Fan]

Re: The move to Division I. Five years later

Makes my blood boil every time that I either see or hear reference to Mick Garry's below-the-belt jab at SDSU and both Dr. Oien and President Miller. His pious comments on how we "self-proclaimed" that we had and paid for "extensive research", and were stupid or misleading was so damn biased, coming from his close affiliation to the athletic program at USD.

Well, Bill Carr was wrong when he said we couldn't do it without a conference in hand...we proved you can fill out a schedule as an independent. But he was certainly right that it is difficult. Leave it up to SDSU to prove the impossible and silence the critics! I notice no big columns or "editorials" on USD's move without a conference affiliation. Nor was there ever any questioning on the "expert" that advised USD it was in excellent shape to move up, and that it's facilities were "OK" for the move...what a crock!

It will take me days to bring my blood pressure down on the subject of Mick Garry and that *&*()%$@ article!!

[NorCalJack]

Re: The move to Division I. Five years later

The one element that may work against USD is the moratorium to stop universities from moving up in the future. When we were Independants there were always 2 ro 3 programs moving into conferences and they were being replaced by 2 or 3 programs moving into transition. So the number of Independant teams remained about the same. Now that influx of new Independant teams will stop, over time there will be few and few Independant teams to schedule with.

With this moratorium, I think it is even more critical to have conference affiliation secured with USD than when SDSU went through transition. It is funny that nobody has asked USD this hard question. It would be interesting to see their response.

Go State!!!
Go Jacks!!!

[1stRowFANatic]

Re: The move to Division I. Five years later

I think Mick is a pretty good reporter, but this was a bad article from him because, as I remember, it mixed reporting with opinion.

However, because SDSU went first, it was naturally going to get more scrutiny and more coverage. I tend to think that that has generated a net increase in new Jackrabbit fans. I admit I am biased, but I would be shocked if a poll of SD residents did not indicate that SDSU's athletic program was better positioned on the whole than any other institutions. Two women's sports have competed in national tournaments. Football doing much better than anyone would have predicted (other than the members of the coaching staff and team). I don't think a majority would have predicted that 5 years ago.

Will USD have an easier time because they don't have the press coverage? Who knows, they might, but I like where we are at compared to them.

[SUPERBUNNY]

Re: The move to Division I. Five years later

I have to ask...why aren't these type of articles being written about USD???

I find it interesting we have heard little of USD's plan going into their transition. Compared to what SDSU went through, USD has gotten by easy thus far. And what have people been saying about us paving the way?

Things for SDSU have gone very well so the storm around the state has settled down. Our success has definitely taken some of the glare of the spotlight off of USD.

My guess is that in five years when things aren't going well at USD, that is when the questions are going to start coming out. Unfortunately, by then it will be too late and it will become even harder for them to succeed.

There has been no plan put forth that I can see. That is scary!

SUPERBUNNY

[BornBredBunny]

Re: The move to Division I. Five years later

Things for SDSU have gone very well so the storm around the state has settled down. Our success has definitely taken some of the glare of the spotlight off of USD.

My guess is that in five years when things aren't going well at USD, that is when the questions are going to start coming out. Unfortunately, by then it will be too late and it will become even harder for them to succeed.

There has been no plan put forth that I can see. That is scary!

SUPERBUNNY

One can always hope!!!