The move to Division I. Five years later

[MontanaRabbit]

Re: The move to Division I. Five years later

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.

Good post....rep points awarded. SDSU was the trailblazer for the move to DI and has been very successful in my opinion. Many people thought SDSU would fail on the move to DI. By being successful we proved it is possible and thus lessoned the media scrutiny on USD's move to DI. If Jacks were still struggling without a conference and not having any athletic success USD would likely be scrutinized much more during their than they are now.

The way I look at it the fact that USD's move isn't in the newspaper everyday just proves that people are seeing how successful SDSU has been and believe USD will enjoy the same level of success. Now the only question is whether or not USD will be successful like SDSU of whether their move will fail. Only time will answer that question.

[sfjacksfan99]

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!!

Here's a question I haven't heard the answer to out of a couple of things from this post. USD must have a bunch of "interested fans" because from what I've heard, they plan to have the full amount of football scholarships in two years, which we all know costs a boatload of money. Which then leads into the Title IX questions. Equestrian gets made fun of by non-Jacks supporters, but the fact that USD dropped baseball to comply with Title IX never gets brought up. How is that USD baseball team doing this spring?

[BTownJack]

Re: The move to Division I. Five years later

Here's a question I haven't heard the answer to out of a couple of things from this post. USD must have a bunch of "interested fans" because from what I've heard, they plan to have the full amount of football scholarships in two years, which we all know costs a boatload of money. Which then leads into the Title IX questions.

Not only does the jump to 63 football scholarships cost money. Per Title IX regulations for every scholarship dollar they add in a men's sport they have to add an equivalent dollar in a women's sport as well.

The max scholarships is 36 in D-II football. That results in an increase of 27 scholarships in football alone. Since Title IX requires you add an equivalent dollar in a women's sport, that is 54 scholarships they have to add just to cover the jump to 63 in football.

54 x $12,500/year (2007-2008 figure) = $675,000

That is a lot of money for USD to come up with.

And let me remind you all...SDSU is currently doing this and then a lot more. I want to say we've added over 200 total scholarships since our move to D-I. That is a crazy amount of money and something we should all be proud of. If you are considering donating to a good cause within the athletic department, pick a sport, contact SDSU and set up a scholarship. You don't have to give thousands of dollars up front, you can set up an acorn scholarship and feed money into it over time. PM me if you want more details on how to do this.

[rational thought]

Re: The move to Division I. Five years later

Not only does the jump to 63 football scholarships cost money. Per Title IX regulations for every scholarship dollar they add in a men's sport they have to add an equivalent dollar in a women's sport as well.

The max scholarships is 36 in D-II football. That results in an increase of 27 scholarships in football alone. Since Title IX requires you add an equivalent dollar in a women's sport, that is 54 scholarships they have to add just to cover the jump to 63 in football.

54 x $12,500/year (2007-2008 figure) = $675,000

That is a lot of money for USD to come up with.

And let me remind you all...SDSU is currently doing this and then a lot more. I want to say we've added over 200 total scholarships since our move to D-I. That is a crazy amount of money and something we should all be proud of. If you are considering donating to a good cause within the athletic department, pick a sport, contact SDSU and set up a scholarship. You don't have to give thousands of dollars up front, you can set up an acorn scholarship and feed money into it over time. PM me if you want more details on how to do this.

Or as in the past, they can cut sports/scholarships for the men's programs....but wait they're already down to six (FB, CC, BB, T&F, S&D, Golf)

[Jack4Life]

Re: The move to Division I. Five years later

Not only does the jump to 63 football scholarships cost money. Per Title IX regulations for every scholarship dollar they add in a men's sport they have to add an equivalent dollar in a women's sport as well.

The max scholarships is 36 in D-II football. That results in an increase of 27 scholarships in football alone. Since Title IX requires you add an equivalent dollar in a women's sport, that is 54 scholarships they have to add just to cover the jump to 63 in football.

54 x $12,500/year (2007-2008 figure) = $675,000

That is a lot of money for USD to come up with.

And let me remind you all...SDSU is currently doing this and then a lot more. I want to say we've added over 200 total scholarships since our move to D-I. That is a crazy amount of money and something we should all be proud of. If you are considering donating to a good cause within the athletic department, pick a sport, contact SDSU and set up a scholarship. You don't have to give thousands of dollars up front, you can set up an acorn scholarship and feed money into it over time. PM me if you want more details on how to do this.

I have been wondering the same for some time since after national signing day, M'kort said next year they will be at full schollies and will be able to play DI-A opponents. Where are they going to get the Title IX equivalent schollies. They don't have baseball or wrestling to drop. How the hell are they going to do it?

Several from athletic dept in Yankton last week. Dr. Oien stated we now have schollies for over 400 students, upf rom 150 or so five years ago. We have 21 sports, which is also up. I don't think Udot is laughing at the equestrian anymore. It is not just a filler sport for schollies, but they have done quite well this year.

Kudos to our athletic dept for their vision is getting us to the next level. Again, you can't just say you are adding more schollies, but how are you going to do it? I would think the compliance office cannot be that far away.

[rational thought]

Re: The move to Division I. Five years later

Our athletic dept. has done a great job of being proactive, rather than reactive

[JimmyJack]

Re: The move to Division I. Five years later

One aspect of the DI move that hasn't been discussed is academics, particularly given our athletic department's continued focus on academic achievement (> 3.0 GPA for all 500 or so student athletes)

Take a moment and think about how many great students have been brought to this campus by DI sports. I've seen them in my classes, and they have been better classes because of those student athletes.

One of the stereotypes of DI athletics is that academics aren't up to par. USD played that angle a few years back, claiming SDSU would be lowering its standards for DI. Facts are sometimes inconvenient, and the fact is that graduation rates for D1 student athletes nationally are higher than for D2 student athletes.

[Jack4Life]

Re: The move to Division I. Five years later

One aspect of the DI move that hasn't been discussed is academics, particularly given our athletic department's continued focus on academic achievement (> 3.0 GPA for all 500 or so student athletes)

Take a moment and think about how many great students have been brought to this campus by DI sports. I've seen them in my classes, and they have been better classes because of those student athletes.

One of the stereotypes of DI athletics is that academics aren't up to par. USD played that angle a few years back, claiming SDSU would be lowering its standards for DI. Facts are sometimes inconvenient, and the fact is that graduation rates for D1 student athletes nationally are higher than for D2 student athletes.

Exactly, good point...SDSU Womens BB, highest grade point in NCAA 2 years running. Over 3.0 for all athletes is tremendous. Could barely do that when I was in school w/o athletics. Unless beer drinking is a sanctioned sport.

[filbert]

Re: The move to Division I. Five years later

OK, I finally had the time and patience to sit down and read the Stu-rring the Pot column about USD women's basketball.

I posted a comment there, which I will summarize here. I think the quality of Stu's analysis of women's basketball can be seen in his comment to the effect that "if Tennessee can play Arkansas-Monticello, then why can't USD and SDSU play?"

Remember, this is in the context of an article about the USD women's basketball team.

Now, the inconvenient truth for our good friend Stu: The Tennessee Lady Vols have NEVER played Arkansas-Monticello, as far as I can tell on the Lady Vols web site. Stu was, apparently, referring to a game UAM played vs. the Volunteer men's team.

In an article about college women's basketball.

It's not quite in the "The Summit League Tournament is being played next year in Brookings" league as far as in-print gaffes go, but it's in the same general ballpark.

This is for me both delightfully amusing and satisfying on so many levels--not least of which is that I can rise to the defense of Snookums' alma mater (who are, incidentally, playing Purdue tonight, if y'all USD fans and lurkers want to watch women's college basketball at the highest level).

(Yes, Stu, some SDSU alumni marry people from other Division I schools. It's true!)

I really, really don't mean to hijack this with any more Stu-bashing than is absolutely necessary.

*chuckle*

Back to the D-I discussion! You really can't get better than consecutive 20-win seasons AND #1 in D-I for GPA. That's almost as good as it can possibly get, although #1 GPA and winning a game or five in the NCAA tournament would, I suppose, be a bit of an improvement over what SDSU's women's basketball team has achieved the past couple of years.

[MontanaRabbit]

Re: The move to Division I. Five years later

I find it very funny he compares us to Tennessee when saying we should play USD. Why should we play USD? Our objective is to play a very strong schedule and do well so if we get upset in out conference tourney we have a shot at an at-large bid to the NCAA tournament. It wouldn't matter if Tennessee played an entire non-conference schedule of softies and then did well in the SEC they would likely still get an at-large to the NCAA tournament. Now if SDSU played a bunch of softies then ripped through the Summitt League regular season and got upset in the league tournament....do you think SDSU would get an at-large? Not a chance. Our only chance is to play the absolute toughest non-conference schedule we can and call me crazy, but that doesn't include USD.

[jacksfaninne]

Re: The move to Division I. Five years later

I find it very funny he compares us to Tennessee when saying we should play USD. Why should we play USD? Our objective is to play a very strong schedule and do well so if we get upset in out conference tourney we have a shot at an at-large bid to the NCAA tournament. It wouldn't matter if Tennessee played an entire non-conference schedule of softies and then did well in the SEC they would likely still get an at-large to the NCAA tournament. Now if SDSU played a bunch of softies then ripped through the Summitt League regular season and got upset in the league tournament....do you think SDSU would get an at-large? Not a chance. Our only chance is to play the absolute toughest non-conference schedule we can and call me crazy, but that doesn't include USD.

Exactly. You'd think Stu might be able to figure out that Tennessee just might be able to spare a few more RPI pts. than SDSU can.

[rational thought]

Re: The move to Division I. Five years later

Exactly. You'd think Stu might be able to figure out that Tennessee just might be able to spare a few more RPI pts. than SDSU can.

Stu(pid) is constantly trying to be cute....without much success...IMO

[sfjacksfan99]

Re: The move to Division I. Five years later

Since we are discussing articles in the Sunday Argus, wondering what any opinions are on the Arena as the Summitt League tournament next year.

I think as far as a basketball atmosphere goes, I believe we can really show off our passion for basketball in this area and outperforming the attendance figures from the last few years in Tulsa. We being not only Jackrabbit Nation, but also basketball fans in the SF area and also our neighbors up north. A key will be having both the women's and men's teams making the tournament. I think the people from Bison country will make a nice showing also, especially if their men's team is in the running for the title, which in my opinion, they will be.

One concern I have is the $400k going to improvements at the Arena, is peanuts in todays construction world and not nearly enough to make it a great aesthetic venue. I was there for the State "A' tournament a couple of weeks ago and forgot how run down it is as a basketball arena. The scoreboard over the court looks like the original from the '60's and the upper deck seats are junk. I realize the City of SF does not have endless funds to drop into this dump that may be replaced in the coming years, but I hope these defects don't show up on ESPN too blatently.

Sorry if this has been discussed before, but I'm new to the forum.

[filbert]

Re: The move to Division I. Five years later

I don't think anyone can argue that the Sioux Falls Arena is anything close to a first-class facility any more, and it hasn't been for at least the past twenty years.

It will do, however, for a Summit League tournament venue, I think, especially if they get decent crowds.

Apropos of the thread topic--we wouldn't be talking about hosting a Division I basketball conference championship in Sioux Falls at all if SDSU hadn't made the move.

Frankly, it is difficult to imagine how the transition from Division II to Division I could have gone any smoother and easier for SDSU than what it did. Sure, it would have been better if men's basketball (and wrestling) could have avoided cratering like they did, but it seems to me that the successes (and conference championships) for football, women's basketball, and volleyball especially compensate for the programs that have struggled out of the gate in D-I. It's not realistic to expect that we would have winning programs in all of our athletic programs each and every year while still feeling our way through the reclassification period.

I can think of very few actual mistakes SDSU has made during the transition--the biggest mistake in the entire process that SDSU has made IMHO (as I've said before) is accepting the Carr recommendation to obtain a conference membership prior to making the move--a move made, I think, because of an unreasonably high confidence that the Big Sky would want to expand into the Dakotas.

The successes that SDSU and NDSU have had in the transition have set the bar very, very high for USD.

I think the entire SDSU community now knows what needs to be done to be successful at the D-I level, and is now executing plans to do what needs to be done.

I think that having watched SDSU go through the process first will help USD. But I don't think that USD will have quite the margin for error that SDSU had, for the exact same reason.

This is, I think, why resuming The Rivalry is so important (bordering on critical) for USD and its followers and media cheerleaders such as Stu, while it is not anywhere near as appealing for SDSU. If some of USD's teams can win their Rivalry Games, then it takes a bit of the pressure off of USD to, institutionally, match SDSU's broad record of a successful transition. It is a short-cut to D-I legitimacy for USD. If I were in the USD camp I'd be beating the drum to resume the rivalry, too.

[propar80]

Re: The move to Division I. Five years later

I don't think anyone can argue that the Sioux Falls Arena is anything close to a first-class facility any more, and it hasn't been for at least the past twenty years.

It will do, however, for a Summit League tournament venue, I think, especially if they get decent crowds.

Apropos of the thread topic--we wouldn't be talking about hosting a Division I basketball conference championship in Sioux Falls at all if SDSU hadn't made the move.

Frankly, it is difficult to imagine how the transition from Division II to Division I could have gone any smoother and easier for SDSU than what it did. Sure, it would have been better if men's basketball (and wrestling) could have avoided cratering like they did, but it seems to me that the successes (and conference championships) for football, women's basketball, and volleyball especially compensate for the programs that have struggled out of the gate in D-I. It's not realistic to expect that we would have winning programs in all of our athletic programs each and every year while still feeling our way through the reclassification period.

I can think of very few actual mistakes SDSU has made during the transition--the biggest mistake in the entire process that SDSU has made IMHO (as I've said before) is accepting the Carr recommendation to obtain a conference membership prior to making the move--a move made, I think, because of an unreasonably high confidence that the Big Sky would want to expand into the Dakotas.

The successes that SDSU and NDSU have had in the transition have set the bar very, very high for USD.

I think the entire SDSU community now knows what needs to be done to be successful at the D-I level, and is now executing plans to do what needs to be done.

I think that having watched SDSU go through the process first will help USD. But I don't think that USD will have quite the margin for error that SDSU had, for the exact same reason.

This is, I think, why resuming The Rivalry is so important (bordering on critical) for USD and its followers and media cheerleaders such as Stu, while it is not anywhere near as appealing for SDSU. If some of USD's teams can win their Rivalry Games, then it takes a bit of the pressure off of USD to, institutionally, match SDSU's broad record of a successful transition. It is a short-cut to D-I legitimacy for USD. If I were in the USD camp I'd be beating the drum to resume the rivalry, too.

Very well said Filbert.

And if Stu is looking at this thread/board, which we all knows he checks it out from time to time...Read the last paragraph of Filbert's post, then read it again and then read it a second time and a third and then...read it one more time.

Go Jacks!!