star2city Posted May 11, 2003 Share Posted May 11, 2003 This morning Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charger Posted May 11, 2003 Share Posted May 11, 2003 This isn't any new news. I'm still very confident SDSU can find a conference in time. The Mid-Con recently appointed a new commisioner, so talks may start up with them now. There is also some uncertainty with the transition period until the NCAA meets this summer. Finding a conference was known to be the biggest hurdle from the start, that doesn't mean SDSU isn't moving up. I think this is just wishful thinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bisonguy Posted May 11, 2003 Share Posted May 11, 2003 I don't believe that SDSU needs a conference membership to satisfy the BOR. It was stated that they need a "conference affiliation", which could mean just about anything. If a conference decides to help schedule non-conf. games with SDSU, that might be considered a conference affiliation. Some Big Sky teams have already agreed to help out NDSU, so something similar might be all SDSU needs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h5322rsh Posted August 9, 2003 Share Posted August 9, 2003 Yes they are: See this link in today Sioux Falls Argus: http://www.argusleader.com/sports/Saturday...ayfeature.shtml Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted August 11, 2003 Author Share Posted August 11, 2003 Yes they are: See this link in today Sioux Falls Argus: http://www.argusleader.com/sports/Saturday...ayfeature.shtml Even after the Board of Regents meeting Saturday, there is still no official word from SDSU. I could have appreciated Miller and Oien showing some conviction and just announcing they were moving up a year ago. But their earlier 'certainty' that a conference would be available does not reflect well on their sense of reality of Div I conference hardball politics. Backtracking on their previous commitment to not move without a conference 'affiliation' will also not reflect well on their leadership. Miller and Oien are really painting themselves in a corner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimdahl Posted August 11, 2003 Share Posted August 11, 2003 I could have appreciated Miller and Oien showing some conviction and just announcing they were moving up a year ago. But their earlier 'certainty' that a conference would be available does not reflect well on their sense of reality of Div I conference hardball politics. Backtracking on their previous commitment to not move without a conference 'affiliation' will also not reflect well on their leadership. While I thought it was hasty of NDSU to ignore its consultants' report, at least they had the integrity to announce what their true plans were -- moving no matter what, confident that a conference will work out eventually. SDSU's administration just pretended they were going to follow the recommendation because they were so (incorrectly) confident a conference would be knocking on their door. I officially retract every time I said I thought SDSU was going about this the right way -- it turns out they were just lying to try to railroad this move through (and they fooled me into sticking up for them ). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRH Posted August 11, 2003 Share Posted August 11, 2003 I believe a conference announcement for both NDSU and SDSU will be happening in the very near future. It was the NCC who dictated the terms when they created this new 18 month announcement rule and forced the SDSU leadership to react the way they have. I think SDSU administration has been very clear from the beginning they want to move the program up to DI. The BOR gave no stipulations about conference membership or affiliation. I think the ongoing change in DII is also accelarating the process as they see institutions very unlike both SDSU and UND joining DII. I will take the leadership of Peggy Miller and Fred Oien over the UND Brass anyday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimdahl Posted August 11, 2003 Share Posted August 11, 2003 It was the NCC who dictated the terms when they created this new 18 month announcement rule and forced the SDSU leadership to react the way they have.That's actually a good point. SDSU's conference restriction was made under the assumption that they could decide next summer and move the following year. However, they still self-imposed a restriction to increase popular support for the move, but have now decided to ignore it because it didn't turn out to be as easy to meet as they had hoped. The BOR gave no stipulations about conference membership or affiliation. This confuses me. We've all been talking for 9 months now about how SDSU isn't allowed to move without a conference. This S.D. BOR release contains the following quotes: The Board also voted 6-2 to support South Dakota State University's application for Division 1-AA status, if SDSU can find an appropriate athletic conference to join. ... Jewett said the Board believes it is important to establish a detailed athletics policy so that expectations are clear regarding funding, student fees, scholarships, and other criteria. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted August 12, 2003 Author Share Posted August 12, 2003 From the SDSU board, this article, More Change Expected in NCC, was in Saturday's Omaha World-Herald. UN-Kearney has often been considered a prime target for NCC expansion, but this quote from its AD would seem to minimize that possibility near-term: As of now, the University of Nebraska at Kearney probably isn't a candidate to join the NCC. UNK has won eight consecutive Rocky Mountain Athletic Conference all-sports championships. UNK Athletic Director Jon McBride said the school is already offering well under the RMAC limit of 36 football scholarships. The Lopers' athletic department budget of $2.5 million would be near the bottom of the NCC. "If there were to be any formal discussions - and we haven't had any in the least - that would be the first issue," McBride said. "It would take a major infusion of money, and the financial climate is not great at this time."Based on this quote from the UN-Omaha AD, it would also seem unlikely that UNO would move to the Mid-America conference, and that UNO would not be prohibited by its state education board if it wanted to move to Div I. Danenhauer said studies done by UNO have indicated that additional costs in moving to Division I would be at least $800,000 a year. Those include increases in scholarships, coaching salaries and staff size; an additional men's sport to meet the Division I minimum; and a women's sport to maintain gender equity. "At this point we're not interested in Division I, simply because we're firmly behind the conference and keeping it strong," Danenhauer said. "We feel that Division II and the North Central Conference, and Division I hockey, is the best fit for us." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony Posted August 13, 2003 Share Posted August 13, 2003 I thought that this quote from UNO's AD had the most bearing on UND, "If North Dakota or South Dakota looks at going, that definitely makes us look at other options, but those schools have assured us that they are staying put." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pirate Posted August 13, 2003 Share Posted August 13, 2003 Does Danenhauer's statement make him an official "weasel" now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted August 13, 2003 Share Posted August 13, 2003 So Danenhauer must have talked to Roger Thomas. But tony has told us (OK, maybe only implied) that you can't believe what Roger Thomas says. Now I'm really confused. :) Be nice, I'm just jokin' around on a hot afternoon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony Posted August 13, 2003 Share Posted August 13, 2003 Huh? Why would I think that UN-O's AD is a weasel? He communicates his ideas directly and succinctly. Thomas doesn't - not that I've ever called Thomas a weasel that I can remember. He's only a weasel if he can communicate but chooses not to. Of course, assuring UN-O that UND is staying in DII and then leaving would make him a weasel. This is a good example of the communication problems at UND. Thomas told UN-O's AD that they were definitely staying in DII. I believe Thomas. Danenhauer, on the other hand, qualified his commitment to the NCC by saying, "If North Dakota or South Dakota looks at going, that definitely makes us look at other options, but those schools have assured us that they are staying put." Obviously he has some reservations about UND's intentions. Not surprising since Coach Lennon was telling recruits that "a move up to Division I could happen within the next three years." What makes this interesting to me is that UND can't even look at going DI without losing credibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DamStrait Posted August 14, 2003 Share Posted August 14, 2003 tony Posted on Aug 13 2003, 06:59 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What makes this interesting to me is that UND can't even look at going DI without losing credibility. ...and you have no credibility to lose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted August 14, 2003 Share Posted August 14, 2003 Mr. Danenhauer qualified his statements and that's OK. But is it OK, dare I say credible, for others? The University of North Dakota is open to an eventual move to Division I, but there is no great interest among our athletic staff, coaches, or boosters and we see no particular gain to making such a move at this time. We do not believe that such a move would currently be in the best interests of our students or the people of North Dakota. If NCAA rules were to become less mercenary and more educationally rational; if the rapid escalation of the cost of Division I sports were to be reversed somehow; if the restrictions on schools making the move were made less severe; or if very many NCC schools make the move to D-I; then we could well give it some extra consideration. Charles E. Kupchella President University of North Dakota February 21, 2002 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony Posted August 14, 2003 Share Posted August 14, 2003 I genuinely thought that you'd be interested in what UND's AD is telling other ADs but now you've got me going... The Sicatoka, Danenhauer qualified his statements in a specific, logical way. Kupchella did not. Take a look at Kupchella's last sentence. He writes so that if any of the listed conditions are met, then something will happen. Based on the tone of the letter and UND's communication with the rest of the NCC, he meant that all the conditions would have to be met (he should have used an "and" rather than an "or") before anything would happen. Also, can you really tell what UND would do if those conditions are met? "If this happens, then we could well give a move to D-I some extra consideration" doesn't communicate anything and makes it sound like even he doesn't know what he'd do. He needs an editor. Compare the sentence, "If UND has been selling us a line of bull, we'll look at the MIAA," to "If all these things happen, we might think about thinking about moving to DI." Therein lies the difference between Danenhauer and Kupchella. You can't even compare Danenhauer to Thomas because nobody, not even his own coaches, know what Thomas is saying. Kupchella needs an editor, but Thomas needs an interpreter. PS The Sicatoka, DamStrait's posting is an ad hominem response because he ignored the message and focused on the messenger. That's proper usage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted August 14, 2003 Share Posted August 14, 2003 "If North Dakota or South Dakota looks at going, that definitely makes us look at other options .... " -- Danenhauer "If NCAA rules were to become less mercenary and more educationally rational; if the rapid escalation of the cost of Division I sports were to be reversed somehow; if the restrictions on schools making the move were made less severe; or if very many NCC schools make the move to D-I; then we could well give it some extra consideration." -- Kupchella Don't both say, "If (events), then (we reconsider other options)," or, as you put it, "If (conditions), then (something will happen)"? After making nearly the same statement, Danenhauer is being forthright but Kupchella isn't? Please explain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DamStrait Posted August 14, 2003 Share Posted August 14, 2003 tony Posted on Aug 14 2003, 08:57 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ... DamStrait's posting is an ad hominem response because he ignored the message and focused on the messenger. I ignored the message because it wasn't worth responding to, as it was laced with knee-jerk anti-UND paranoid spin. Now that I think about it, the messenger wasn't worth responding to either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony Posted August 14, 2003 Share Posted August 14, 2003 DamStrait, nothing wrong with ignoring my posts - in fact, in your case, I'd encourage it. I'm curious though about how you read "knee-jerk, anti-UND spin" into those posts. I don't think that Roger Thomas communicates very well. That's not anti-UND, that's not knee-jerk, and that's not paranoid. Heck, it's not even anti-Thomas. A guy might think that you're having a paranoid, knee-jerk response The Sicatoka, point taken. Danenhauer didn't specify which options they'd exercise if UND and USD leave the NCC. The only option he had mentioned before was the MIAA, but DI is a possibility for them too. My mistake. Kupchella, though, did not commit to looking at DI even if all his objections to DI are removed. That is probably just his style of writing. You like it, I don't. Fair enough. This is much ado about nothing. I'll drop it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BisonMav Posted August 15, 2003 Share Posted August 15, 2003 Today's Argus Leader: SDSU will announce intent today. I think it will be a great day for the Jacks Argus Leader SDSU D-I Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRH Posted August 15, 2003 Share Posted August 15, 2003 IT'S OFFICIAL. THE JACKS ANNOUNCED AT 10AM THIS MORNING AT A NEWS CONFERENCE IN BROOKINGS THAT THEY HAVE NOTIFIED THE NCC THEY WILL BE DEPARTING AND JOINING THE DIVISION I RANKS. IT BECAME CLEAR TO THE ADMINISTRATION THAT D1 PRESIDENTS AND ATHLETIC DIRECTORS WOULD NOT TAKE SDSU SERIOUSLY UNTIL THEY DECLARED THEIR INTENTIONS FORMALLY.. SOUTH DAKOTA WAS THE LAST STATE WITHOUT A D1 SCHOOL AND NOW JOIN NDSU IN FINDING A CONFERENCE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wsuwarrior Posted August 16, 2003 Share Posted August 16, 2003 So where's this gonna leave the NCC? UND USD UMD Auggie MSUM SCSU UNO Who's the conference target as an 8th, or will everyone hop ship, and the survivors get picked up by the NSIC? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRH Posted August 16, 2003 Share Posted August 16, 2003 It appears Kearney is not interested which I think is the NCC first choice. I've heard some talk about Upper Iowa who I know nothing about. It sounds like the NCC commisioner and the AD's would like someone within the region that does not require a plane flight. I would think Northern,Southwest State and Winona State would all get a look if they are interested. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wsuwarrior Posted August 16, 2003 Share Posted August 16, 2003 UIU is just moving up from the Iowa IAC (D3). They last won their conference in football in 1963, and went 2-7 in conference last year, 2-8 overall. They have never won an all-sports competition in either men's or women's sports. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony Posted August 16, 2003 Share Posted August 16, 2003 Tying back to the first post in the thread, if NDSU and SDSU join the new football-only conference to be named later (Great Western?), then both UND and NDSU will have four to five non-conference games to fill. Knowing how hard it is to get teams to visit our fair state (at least decent teams), ithe NDSU and UND football game will probably continue for at least two more years. Or am I completely mistaken on this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.