JackJD

The Joe Glenn interview was odd and one has to wonder what prompted it. I don't know Coach Glenn but he's known to have a good sense of humor. Were his comments some sort of bizarre attempt at humor in the midst of the love fest with NDSU? Most who know him well have nothing but good things to say about him and it seems out of his character to take an unprovoked shot at another program. The post-game interview with Glenn and some of the USD players -- this is the regular post-game interview and he says nothing about other North Dakota schools -- is here (nothing of particular note...just posting the link in case anyone is interested). http://www.argusleader.com/videos/sports/college/university-of-south-dakota/2014/10/25/17935709/ USD is having a real struggle this year. There some kind of internal strife going on. Last, and my principle reason to post here: Coach Glenn isn't looking for another job. He was pulled out of retirement in Arizona to assist his alma mater. The common speculation among some is Glenn was brought in for a limited stay to teach the current offensive coordinator, Wes Beschorner , how to be head coach. Beschorner was a successful QB for the 'Yotes and was brought into coaching by the prior head coach, Meierkort. Some USD fans do not think Beshorner is the right guy and they're critical of his play calling as OC. When Coach Glenn concludes this stint at USD, he'll go back to his home in Arizona and swing more golf clubs. Second odd interview in a row for Glenn. A reporter stuck a microphone and camera in Glenn's face right after the prior loss and he probably bared his soul a little more than he should have. People felt sorry for him and I'm not sure that's the image he wants to portray. That's two-cents worth from this Jackrabbit fan.

UND's facility will be larger than SDSU's. SDSU's is a little less than 150,000 square feet while UND's will be about 180,000. It will be interesting to compare the radius of the track turns corners for both facilities because UND's turf will be 100 yards plus endzones while SDSU's has 80 yards plus endzones. In any event, that's a great looking facility for UND!

bang: yes, I came in peace but I like your spelling...SiouxVolley seems intent on me (and others I've watched him attack) leaving in pieces. Oh well, every fan group has a few and I don't let the nuts take any space in my head. I know you're building a new indoor facility which will have 100 yards of turf and a 300-meter track. Is the plan to have removable turf (like USD's DakotaDome...to use the 200 meter track, they roll up the turf) because the 100 yard turf will be larger than a 300-meter track. You have a different situation in that you can use the Alerus Center for indoor practices. SDSU had no indoor practice facility until the SJac was opened.

SDSU's new Sanford Jackrabbit Athletic Facility (the "SJac"). The pictures were taken last Saturday, October 11, 2014. The Daktronics video boards have to be installed along with the usual signage (Exit signs etc.) but she's ready to go. We'll host a couple of college meets and two high schools meets this year. I ran track back in the day and always thought the short guys had an advantage on 200 meter tracks because those of us with long legs had to fight to stay on the corners. A 300-meter track is not an advantage to a long-legged runner but it eliminates the advantage the stubby guys have on 200 meter tracks. View from north stands, looking to the southwest. Looking south from the North stands. View to the southeast. View of the north stands looking east

Here are the stats on SDSU's new facility: 526 feet long x 284 feet wide x 82 feet tall (I understand those are the outside dimensions). Mt. Rushmore would fit inside as would the permanent (west-side) bleachers with press box at SDSU's football stadium (construction underway to replace that facility and the new stadium will be available for the 2016 season). The reason the practice turf isn't 100 yds is because it was designed to have a 300-meter track with the turf practice field fitting entirely within the track. So it is marked for 80 yards (the 40 is the center line) with endzones on each end. The corners of the endzones are "trimmed" off (my words) otherwise they would jut into lane one on the track. If they had run the turf all the way to the ends of the building...well, do the math: the building is 526 feet long. Outside the track, on each end of the building, there are the running lanes for the jumps including pole vault -- both ends of the track. Lots of room for athletes to stretch etc (missing in most indoor facilities). There's permanent seating for something like 1500 to 2000 people and room to move in some temporary bleachers if needed. It is possible to run a 100-meter dash with plenty of room to slow down at the end of the race -- no need to run into a barrier, padded wall etc. Same for 110-meter hurdles. The track has eight lanes...the outside lane is 400 meters. There are five 300-meter indoor track facilities in intercollegiate sports including: Akron; Grand Valley State; Iowa State; Kent State and SDSU. I've been in Iowa State's facility -- it's a great facility but there are support columns on the inside of the track, outside of the turf practice field and it seems to me -- just my eyeball observation -- that the corners are a little bit tighter than SDSU's. There are some odd-sized tracks (307 meters, e.g.) that are a touch larger to avoid trimming the corners on the endzones. But overall building size for a facility of this type, the designers and builders say its the largest indoor practice facility in Division I athletics. You cannot hold an indoor championship meet on a track longer than 300 meters. SDSU's facility cost a little under $35 million -- all donated. (The new outdoor football stadium with seating for about 20,000, has a $65 million price tag and about $30mm will be bonded while the rest was donated. I think I can find a picture and if I do, I'll post it.

You're kidding aren't you? MSU is rechristening their renovated stadium and a record crowd was expected no matter who the opponent (even if something called U of Incarnate Word was the opponent). Starting that time-wasting argument about flagships too? Well, just checking in to see how your game is going. Jackrabbits up on your conference mates, SUU, 14-0 but So Utah doing a few things okay. 9:45 left in the first half.

Well done! But do you have to drag SDSU in this long-standing battle with NDSU?

Hayduke: I would have put you in with the 'weavers', not the 'tinkers'. (For the uninitiated: you just have to know a little about the SD Mines v Black Hills State rivalry.)

SDSU’s D1 move was promoted by the University’s President and AD as something the school must do to join its peers. SDSU made the change because the entire University – not just the athletics department – wanted to upgrade. The discussion at SDSU involved the entire University, athletics, academics, research and research dollars, everything. Athletics was the visible change (the old “front porch” analogy). Much of the change was simply attitude. UND92,96 is right: the move to D1 itself parallels SDSU football success. I was a student athlete at SDSU when UNI announced it was leaving the NCC. Perhaps that was when SDSU should have moved up. Certainly when SDSU and NDSU made the move, it wasn't too early in my book. SDSU has had more football success relative to recent DII days -- interesting because we had the same coach, same facilities. I think the difference is a new commitment. We’ve added coaches, funding, building new facilities like crazy etc. SDSU football is now an “event” like never before. But SDSU renewed its commitment to all sports. Last year SDSU won its second consecutive Summit League Commissioner’s Cup for its success in all Summit League sports. SDSU won the commissioner’s awards for both men and women in 2013-14. SDSU has been building a new foundation for athletics but it’s just a part of a bigger picture about SDSU. We have a great administration including a top-notch AD who have universal support. We continue to build the foundation required for sustained success in all sports, football included. (And we're really great people, too. )

SDSU's quarterback, Austin Sumner, the pre-season all-MVFC pick, out for 6-8 weeks. I haven't heard the official report of the injury but unofficial reports say broken bone in foot very early in the Missouri game. SDSU has a competent backup who stepped right in (played one year in California Juco) and did okay. SDSU hosts Cal Poly next weekend. USD's quarterback, Kevin Earl, the pre-season #2 QB in the MVFC, out for 6-8 weeks too. He broke his thumb on his throwing hand in the Oregon game. I don't know what they have for a backup. Josh VanderMaaten had been the starting QB for USD last year but was replaced mid-season by Earl and moved to wide receiver. I wonder if VanderMaaten will come in on a temporary basis...next week USD hosts something called William Penn. Meanwhile, NDSU's QB looked very good. Sure, ISU is suspect and once they got punched, seemed to lie down and take a beating from the Bison.

Let's leave the Jackrabbits out of the "discussion" between UND and NDSU.

I'm a little embarrassed to admit I've been reading this thread -- my team, the Jackrabbits, has nothing to do with the dispute. Anyway, while I will not pretend to understand what the heck's going on in the dispute, the above post puzzled me. I am generally familiar with funding sources for athletics at SDSU and USD and it does not involve money from tax revenues. The poster quoted above states his brother has the basis to complain because he's a taxpayer -- suggesting tax revenues in North Dakota support athletics at UND and NDSU. I understand that is the case in some places (UNI, for example, at least in the recent past, received direct tax-revenue-support for its athletics programs). Do tax revenues directly support athletics at UND or NDSU? (Perhaps the point is nothing more than because they are institutions that receive some public support, all taxpayers have the right to question anything that goes on at the institutions...fair enough if that's the point but the way it was presented suggests tax revenues are supporting athletics. I didn't think that was the case in ND any more than it is the case in SD.)

If by that statement you mean the process didn't get to the point where the Regents' took a vote, then I agree. But if you mean the Regents voted and didn't approve, then I, supported the actual facts, disagree. My point all along has been a simple one: The SD Board of Regents did not prevent USD from joining the Big Sky. I do not dispute USD was going down the road to joining the Big Sky and changed course at a late hour after the MVFC decided to invite USD (which had already committed to the Summit...but was going to back out of the Summit commitment for the Big Sky because the Big Sky provided a home for all USD sports). Is the nail even with the board yet?

Bincity: Below is a link to the Big Sky Conference press release from 11/1/2010 announcing the inclusion of UND and SUU and stating "The Big Sky Conference is also on the verge of announcing the addition of the University of South Dakota as a 12th core member." Near the end of the press release, is the following: The University of South Dakota figures to be the final piece in the Big Sky expansion. The Coyotes of Vermillion, S.D., also compete in the Great West Conference for football. South Dakota and North Dakota are formal Division II rivals in the North Central Conference. Like North Dakota, South Dakota began the transition to Division I in 2007 and will be eligible for Big Sky and NCAA Championships starting with the 2012-13 season. “We are negotiating with South Dakota,’’ Fullerton said. “They want to be part of the Big Sky Conference and we want them to be a member. They are just awaiting a final approval process. Approval processes are different at each school.’’ Prior to the press release coming out, the Summit had invited USD and USD was committed to the Summit but that left USD in a dilemma: it had no home for its football program. The Big Sky came along with the perfect solution: all sports in the Big Sky. That galvanized the Summit schools which also played in the MVFC to lobby for a MVFC invite to USD. Up to that point, the MVFC had made clear it was not interested in expansion. The invite was put together and USD, having solved the problem of having a home for football, held to its plans to join the Summit League. (Interesting: SDSU was a strong supporter of getting USD into the MVFC which would solidify USD's plan to join the Summit League. While the relationship between SDSU and USD has its unpleasant times, both schools recognized there can be joint benefits when they work together. Here's the link: http://www.bigskycon...1101105326.aspx

bin: Your claim about the SD Board of Regents' involvement in USD's decision on which league to join is false. I wonder if the basis for your claim is the point that the Board of Regents in South Dakota would have been asked to approve USD joining the Big Sky -- just like it was asked to approve USD joining the MVFC and the Summit League. The BOR was not dictating what USD should do. Pres. Abbott's administration was going to join UND in the move to the Big Sky so that the Coyotes had a home for essentially all of its sports. The Big Sky announced UND's joinder and also stated USD was expected to join and was just waiting for BOR approval. That approval was expected by everyone. The MVFC coaches got involved and from there the institutions' Presidents made the call: invite USD to the MVFC. The Summit had made clear the door was open to USD but, of course, the Summit couldn't provide the important home for football. Once the MVFC came calling, USD Pres. Abbott said: put it in writing; they did; USD signed. The SD BOR did nothing to interfere with USD going to the Big Sky. USD's location made a lot of sense for the Summit and better sense for the MVFC than other schools. Location translates to travel savings for USD compared to a Big Sky affiliation. I watched the events unfold over the course of just a few days. USD was clearly going to join the Big Sky until the MVFC committed. I know nothing about the inner-workings of the North Dakota equivalent of the SD Board of Regents but I have the impression that the two entities may have different philosophies about involvement in intercollegiate athletics -- not saying one is better than the other, just they are different. The SD Board of Regents has been very supportive of both SDSU's and USD's changes in athletics (as they are of Black Hill State U's and SD Tech's change to NCAA DII). The Regents impose some strict requirements about funding etc. but lets the big-picture decision-making be made by the institutions. The Regents did not interfere with USD's exploration and eventual decision about conference affiliation. I'm a casual visitor to this board, I suppose my interest relates back to the days when I was at SDSU and later USD and those schools and UND were in the NCC. I recognize that you, bincity, are a frequent poster on this board and it seems to me that at times you may subscribe to the notion that if an idea is repeated often enough, people start accepting it as true even though it may be made out of thin air. (Everyone's "friend", the human virus Lakesbison is a master as repeating the same crap all the time...fortunately, it goes nowhere because everyone knows he's nuts. Bin, I think you're not known to be nuts so that is why I respond on this one point about whether the SD Board of Regents somehow blocked USD joining the Big Sky. You continue to repeat a point that is false.)

That is particularly worrisome if Lakes starts posting there.

This thread may set a record to falsehoods on both sides. I'm chiming in only to point out the statement on the SD Board of Regents is wrong. USD darn-near went to the Big Sky and it was only after some 11th hour negotiating with the MVFC that USD accepted an offer to go with the Summit and the MVFC.

That's not accurate. Larson got into trouble at Florida and Donovan took away his scholarship but he wasn't booted from the team - that was in the news in April, 2012. Donovan left it up to Cody to work hard and earn a spot on the team and in the Spring of 2012, Larson was working as hard as anyone on the team at Florida in the off season and Donovan said so to the press. But, that summer, Cody decided to take a break from basketball -- it was Cody's decision. Cody remained at Florida for the 2012-13 academic year, working on a double major and getting good grades (he's capable of 4.0 or nearly 4.0 work). As the academic year was winding down, he was thinking about returning to basketball and he decided to transfer to SDSU. An application was made to the NCAA for determination of his remaining eligibility. The NCAA cleared him to play this year, the first of two years of remaining eligibility. Some who had followed Cody's career always said he'd return to South Dakota and likely SDSU. Cody's known several of the guys on SDSU's team from AAU ball in high school days. I think its a great matchup for Cody and for SDSU. Cody has a sister who is a student/athlete at SDSU.

final score: SDSU 77, UND 70

Today's "Weekend Wrap" by ESPN's Graham Hays includes a side-bar feature on UND's Madi Buck's performance in the NDSU game. I confess the main story focusing on SDSU's home-court win over #12 Penn State is what caught my interest but nice to see Hays took note of Buck's performance too. Here's a link: http://espn.go.com/n...k-biggest-upset

final: SDSU 85, Belmont 72. Jacks finally put the pieces together...very balanced effort against a great Belmont team. SDSU will continue to have some rough spots as they find their identity without Wolters but that identity is emerging. Jacks will be a definite underdog coming to Grand Forks but I wouldn't bet against them. Should be a very good game.

Perhaps some good news for NDSU fans: It is being reported by media outlets that the human virus, lakesbison, will go with Bohl to Laramie. (Add link to Rick Astley video).

That was message board speculation.

Caught part of the game on Midco. UND looked good. Some have commented in this thread about NDSU expected to win the Summit League. That was/is the pre-season conventional wisdom but not in Brookings. SDSU fans know we have to go through a transition, figuring out some things without Wolters. The guard who will run things is injured so that's causing the transition to slow. But, we are confident that when the conference season comes around, SDSU will put a good team on the floor, one that will improve throughout the season and we hope NDSU has been buying all the pre-season predictions about winning the Summit League ('cuz it ain't gonna happen for our friends in Fargo). SDSU put some nice minutes in last night in a win over Howard -- now, Howard is going to have some struggles because they're very young (something like 10 new guys on the team). As I write this, we're starting to dismantle a decent Lehigh team. SDSU's Cody Larson, the transfer from Florida dominated last night (24pts) and is starting to do that again tonight. SDSU comes to Grand Forks 12/21. We had a rough time up there two years ago, struggled at home against UND last year and from what I saw the other night, it probably won't be a pleasant trip this year.

It is named the "Sanford-Jackrabbit Athletic Complex" and Sanford contributed $10 million to the $32+ cost. The money's in the bank and we're building now.