The move to Division I. Five years later

[sfjacksfan99]

Re: The move to Division I. Five years later

I know this is a little outside the topic, but I have to mention it. In Stu’s opinion piece Sunday, her referees to Chad Lavin’s comments about top tier DII and DI woman’s programs being similar. If that’s the case, why is Chad quitting after this year?

Lavin's quitting because he doesn't like the D-1 travel (ie USD's going to have 8 home games and 22 road games next year). Plus their women are going to suck next year, that's my opinion, but look at what they lose.

The whole Lavin quote on UND being a top 30 team in D-1 and we beat them three times is such a bunch of crap. The two Hoffman girls' stats at Texas-Nowhereville State University were below average and now they're top tier players in the NCC. I recall the Jacks handling their previous school two years in a row. That tells me something about UND & USD's women's teams...good D-II, need to improve to be good D-1.

[jackmd]

Re: The move to Division I. Five years later

Stu = Is just looking to get a rise out of folks, and since the Argus knows that SDSU stories are looked at and talked about, 50 times more than any other school in the state...his editorials probably help sell a few newspapers.

Craig = He's just a moron and knows less about SDSU and the move to D-1 than my wife...way less. I haven't listen to 1 second of the show since the news that SDSU was playing Nebraska in football that Craig turned into a "why don't STATE/U play" anymore rant.

Go Jacks!!

Nail on the head. Not one SDSU player or coach is/was the least bit concerned about the U. nor will they be until they are the next team on our schedule. If Stu wants to waste space in the Argus babbling about it let him. I really enjoyed TV's article and I am waiting to see if Sioux Falls can step up to the plate and put on a show.

[rabidrabbit]

Re: The move to Division I. Five years later

Lavin's quitting because he doesn't like the D-1 travel (ie USD's going to have 8 home games and 22 road games next year). Plus their women are going to suck next year, that's my opinion, but look at what they lose.

The whole Lavin quote on UND being a top 30 team in D-1 and we beat them three times is such a bunch of crap. The two Hoffman girls' stats at Texas-Nowhereville State University were below average and now they're top tier players in the NCC. I recall the Jacks handling their previous school two years in a row. That tells me something about UND & USD's women's teams...good D-II, need to improve to be good D-1.

I will note that last year's D-II champ, Florida Gulf Coast, finished #2 in the Atlantic Sun, hosted (and won) a WNIT game this season. So with the right package (weak conference, quality team) D-II quality teams can do well. We have certainly proved that!

I would expect that UND & USD will be 140/150 RPI programs after their transition year next year. Do you foresee these powerhouse D-II programs (womens side now) to not be able to outplay Centenary, SUU, UMKC, NJIT? I would see them in about where NDSU was the first 4 years.

[SDSUJack3031]

Re: The move to Division I. Five years later

I read Stu's article as well. I've never really sat down and read anything of his but that article really *&$$@% me off! So he did his job....

But I just wanted to make another point that wasn't talked about on here. (Or at least I didn't see it). One of the Hoffman girls was quote as saying they were watching SDSU and how they were doing and she "figured" the SDSU girls were doing the same.

I would honestly bet you $100 to say that over half of our team wasn't watching USD at all. Maybe a few of the girls from SD, but the older ones such as Stacie, Andrea, Morgan, Muck, etc could really care less. Maybe Ketty because she's from that area. And I bet a few (if not most) of them have no clue USD is in the elite eight for D-II. They had more important things to worry about like their season.

[jackmd]

Re: The move to Division I. Five years later

Maybe Ketty because she's from that area. And I bet a few (if not most) of them have no clue USD is in the elite eight for D-II. They had more important things to worry about like their season.

I suggest the Hoffman twins and the rest of the yotes focus on the task at hand. Worrying about whats happening at SDSU isn't going to do them one bit of good. Why in the heck would our women care about a DII program in the state anymore than a DII program elsewhere? How many diehard SDSU fans when we were DII concerned themselves with USF, Mt. Marty, DSU, etc... I know I didn't and I'm pretty darn sure our players didn't either.

It only makes sense that the U would be watching and aspiring to achieve the same level of success we have enjoyed. It makes NO SENSE to think we would be curious or even less sense to suggest we'd be envious. Been there, done that.

[BTownJack]

Re: The move to Division I. Five years later

I suggest the Hoffman twins and the rest of the yotes focus on the task at hand.

Rep points for you JackMD. That is one problem USD has in general. They worry way too much about what we are doing rather than focusing on their task at hand...what they need to do to get ready to become a D-I school!

[Nidaros]

Re: The move to Division I. Five years later

Nidaros, you are way off and wrong on this one. sfsd has no dog in this fight other than he was there on the front lines when SDSU made the move. He paved the way for Terry V.
The point is this piece was Stu's opinion at that point in time and it was what people were saying on both sides of the issue. I truly don't think that you don't believe there were staunch SDSU supporters asking these same questions and raising these concerns. Right or wrong now, they were the questions of the time

Why dont you give me a PM. I have no idea who sfsd is but there was a pro USD guy that used a similar handle a ways back. Thats where I was coming from.

[West-River_Jack]

Re: The move to Division I. Five years later

Rep points for you JackMD. That is one problem USD has in general. They worry way too much about what we are doing rather than focusing on their task at hand...what they need to do to get ready to become a D-I school!

I have previously thought that they worried too much about other programs and too little about their own. I was at the USD football game on Beef Bowl day last fall and the most exciting thing going on in the dome was updates by the PA announcer on the Nebraska game. That was the game where Nebraska barely pulled out a 41-40 win over Ball State.

[BTownJack]

Re: The move to Division I. Five years later

Why dont you give me a PM. I have no idea who sfsd is but there was a pro USD guy that used a similar handle a ways back. Thats where I was coming from.

Relax Nidaros, you don't need a PM. sfsd has made his identity public on here many times. His real name is Chris Solari, the former SDSU beat writer for the Argus. He currently works back in his home state of Michigan and occasionally still posts on this board. PM sfsd and ask him yourself if you want. He'll be glad to reply and confirm his identity.

[Nidaros]

Re: The move to Division I. Five years later

Relax Nidaros, you don't need a PM. sfsd has made his identity public on here many times. His real name is Chris Solari, the former SDSU beat writer for the Argus. He currently works back in his home state of Michigan and occasionally still posts on this board. PM sfsd and ask him yourself if you want. He'll be glad to reply and confirm his identity.

Well pardon me. I guess I got him mixed up with some one else. Sorry Chris. We have talked before and even met in person.

I still take issue with the comment about not having a blue print. What are you suppose to have when you start thinking outside the box? Are you suppose to have Banner blue print staring you in the face? No you are not likely to be that lucky. If we had spent 5 years designing a blue print we would still have the NCC, SDSU would be D2 and yes the yotes would be our biggest game in town. So in that sense I dont get the Sioux Falls Argus Leader sports department logic and past and present criticism. Its about as relevant as Whitney's Sunday column bringing up Mandy Coupal's transfer. How long ago was that like 8 years ago. If I recall President Miller could not get other potential conference presidents to talk to her because SDSU had not submitted their D1 application papers. So what else could she have done? Maybe said forget it and stay D2. Then our favorites in the Sioux Fall media would have had a heyday. Either way its worked out as far as I am concerned.

I may be old f@rt, but I am not stuck in the past. BTW where is the USD BLUE PRINT FOR GOING TO D1? Seems like the Argus should have dog in that fight, or does USD get a hall pass on that issue.

[propar80]

Re: The move to Division I. Five years later

I understand that at the time SDSU was making the decision to move up to D-1, it would make for "good news" and maybe a well-read if not well-recieved opinion piece by Mick. And I do know for a fact that there were some die-hard SDSU alumni that were against the move to D-1. There are probably still some that haven't come to a game. IMO, too bad for them, their missing out.
But what I still don't understand is the fact that there has been almost Zero "hard" questions asked of the administration at USD on what their plan is by anyone in the SF Media outlets. Does the U. have that many disinterested fans, alumni, business owners when it comes to the move to D-1? Or do they just assume that, "because SDSU had success, we'll be fine"?? Or does the Argus know that anything in relation with USD doesn't sell papers, and that is why there has been relatively no articles on the subject??

To a point, I understand Mick's point of view in regards to this article back then, but I don't understand not even asking one "tough" question when it comes to the move to D-1 and USD here in the present. For God's sake, start with something obvious like Title IX...we all know that it's going to be an issue when you increase schollies in a men's sport. I would like to think the administrators at the U. have an answer, but it's never been asked, so how do we really know??

Again, the only reasonable explanation I can think to answer these questions in regards to the SF Media's lack of coverage towards USD's move, is that they know no one cares, and it doesn't sell newspapers and advertising. If this is true and you are fan of USD...sorry...you are in deep $hit.

Go Jacks!!

[Nidaros]

Re: The move to Division I. Five years later

I understand that at the time SDSU was making the decision to move up to D-1, it would make for "good news" and maybe a well-read if not well-recieved opinion piece by Mick. And I do know for a fact that there were some die-hard SDSU alumni that were against the move to D-1. There are probably still some that haven't come to a game. IMO, too bad for them, their missing out.
But what I still don't understand is the fact that there has been almost Zero "hard" questions asked of the administration at USD on what their plan is by anyone in the SF Media outlets. Does the U. have that many disinterested fans, alumni, business owners when it comes to the move to D-1? Or do they just assume that, "because SDSU had success, we'll be fine"?? Or does the Argus know that anything in relation with USD doesn't sell papers, and that is why there has been relatively no articles on the subject??

To a point, I understand Mick's point of view in regards to this article back then, but I don't understand not even asking one "tough" question when it comes to the move to D-1 and USD here in the present. For God's sake, start with something obvious like Title IX...we all know that it's going to be an issue when you increase schollies in a men's sport. I would like to think the administrators at the U. have an answer, but it's never been asked, so how do we really know??

Again, the only reasonable explanation I can think to answer these questions in regards to the SF Media's lack of coverage towards USD's move, is that they know no one cares, and it doesn't sell newspapers and advertising. If this is true and you are fan of USD...sorry...you are in deep $hit.

Go Jacks!!

GREEN REP Pts.

[JACKGUYII]

Re: The move to Division I. Five years later

I think there are many within the Coyote Nation that have this feeling if SDSU did it we can and should. This is very dangerous logic if those within the USD administration are not prepared for the dedication it takes to make the transistion a success and even then it requires some good timing.

By the way how do those such as Jim Marking and others who so aggressively were opposed to the move to DI feel today?

[SiouxFallsJack]

Re: The move to Division I. Five years later

I understand that at the time SDSU was making the decision to move up to D-1, it would make for "good news" and maybe a well-read if not well-recieved opinion piece by Mick. And I do know for a fact that there were some die-hard SDSU alumni that were against the move to D-1. There are probably still some that haven't come to a game. IMO, too bad for them, their missing out.
But what I still don't understand is the fact that there has been almost Zero "hard" questions asked of the administration at USD on what their plan is by anyone in the SF Media outlets. Does the U. have that many disinterested fans, alumni, business owners when it comes to the move to D-1? Or do they just assume that, "because SDSU had success, we'll be fine"?? Or does the Argus know that anything in relation with USD doesn't sell papers, and that is why there has been relatively no articles on the subject??

To a point, I understand Mick's point of view in regards to this article back then, but I don't understand not even asking one "tough" question when it comes to the move to D-1 and USD here in the present. For God's sake, start with something obvious like Title IX...we all know that it's going to be an issue when you increase schollies in a men's sport. I would like to think the administrators at the U. have an answer, but it's never been asked, so how do we really know??

Again, the only reasonable explanation I can think to answer these questions in regards to the SF Media's lack of coverage towards USD's move, is that they know no one cares, and it doesn't sell newspapers and advertising. If this is true and you are fan of USD...sorry...you are in deep $hit.

Go Jacks!!

Great post propar80...rep points your way.

[JimmyJack]

Re: The move to Division I. Five years later

I understand that at the time SDSU was making the decision to move up to D-1, it would make for "good news" and maybe a well-read if not well-recieved opinion piece by Mick. And I do know for a fact that there were some die-hard SDSU alumni that were against the move to D-1. There are probably still some that haven't come to a game. IMO, too bad for them, their missing out.
But what I still don't understand is the fact that there has been almost Zero "hard" questions asked of the administration at USD on what their plan is by anyone in the SF Media outlets. Does the U. have that many disinterested fans, alumni, business owners when it comes to the move to D-1? Or do they just assume that, "because SDSU had success, we'll be fine"?? Or does the Argus know that anything in relation with USD doesn't sell papers, and that is why there has been relatively no articles on the subject??

To a point, I understand Mick's point of view in regards to this article back then, but I don't understand not even asking one "tough" question when it comes to the move to D-1 and USD here in the present. For God's sake, start with something obvious like Title IX...we all know that it's going to be an issue when you increase schollies in a men's sport. I would like to think the administrators at the U. have an answer, but it's never been asked, so how do we really know??

Again, the only reasonable explanation I can think to answer these questions in regards to the SF Media's lack of coverage towards USD's move, is that they know no one cares, and it doesn't sell newspapers and advertising. If this is true and you are fan of USD...sorry...you are in deep $hit.

Go Jacks!!

Good post.

I don't see a conspiracy here. Newsrooms are complicated places.

I think part of what's going on is that SDSU's move has been deemed a success by people at the Argus (Executive Editor Randell Beck said as much last year when he was speaking at SDSU). Absent any information to the contrary, I suspect they're assuming that USD has roughly an equivalent shot at success. Add to that the fact that there isn't a full-time USD beat reporter. Mick— who, by the way, is a great guy— only covers USD part-time. When I say part-time, I mean pretty much only game coverage. He's locked up doing other things (page layout, answering the phones, etc.) almost all the time.

The sports staff at the Argus, like the rest of the staff there, isn't getting bigger. It's getting smaller, and they're adding more duties related to online stuff without adding bodies. They laid off employees there a few months ago for the first time I can remember.

Is USD getting a pass? Probably. It's due in part to SDSU's success and the presumption of competence that bestows on USD. The second trip to the moon wasn't covered in the same way as the first. And in part it's an institutional thing related to shrinking newsroom staffs and competing priorities (like full-time SDSU coverage, for example.)

What I don't see at the Argus is anybody conspiring to make life easier for USD. As I said, newsrooms are complex places. For any individual at the Argus who wants to give USD a pass (there's only one USD grad that I know of there) there are three or four who would probably take a closer look, if they had time and if the D1 jump hadn't already been done at SDSU (which makes it less newsworthy).

I just see a combination of different factors with an end result that USD isn't getting the scrutiny SDSU did. Is it right? No. It's just the way it is.