SiouxMD Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 If (when) UND goes DI...does this have to be approved by the NDSBoHE? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiouxMD Posted February 21, 2006 Author Share Posted February 21, 2006 I guess not. NDSU and NDSBoHE - 23JAN2002 "NDSU's decision rests with school president Joseph Chapman. The state Board of Higher Education could have the final say, said Pat Seaworthy, general counsel to the board. "But up until now, the board has delegated to the institutions the authority to administer athletic programs," Seaworthy said. "The board hasn't gotten involved in these types of decisions."" Different scenario in South Dakota? I gather the South Dakota Board of Regents is equal to the North Dakota State Board of Higher Education. SDSU and SDBoR - 12DEC2002 "The South Dakota Board of Regents Thursday adopted a new athletic policy that establishes specific financial and policy requirements for any of its institutions that participate at the NCAA Division I level. 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." Apparently a non-issue for UND...is there anything you can't find on either E-Bay or Google? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 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." Notice that SDSU simply ignored the "find a conference" requirement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiouxMD Posted February 21, 2006 Author Share Posted February 21, 2006 Notice that SDSU simply ignored the "find a conference" requirement. The athletic conference requirement was referenced to DI-AA status (only?)...I guess this would be the Great West Football Conference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 The athletic conference requirement was referenced to DI-AA status (only?)...I guess this would be the Great West Football Conference. That conference didn't exist when SDSU turned DI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BisonMav Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 That conference didn't exist when SDSU turned DI. The conference existed for SDSU's first DI (I-AA for football) year, 2004. 2003 was their last year in the NCC, a DI exploratory year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 The conference existed for SDSU's first DI (I-AA for football) year, 2004. 2003 was their last year in the NCC, a DI exploratory year. SDSU had no conference at the time it announced its move to Division I, which was clearly contrary to the wishes of the State Board of Regents. It says so right here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bison Dan Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 SDSU had no conference at the time it announced its move to Division I, which was clearly contrary to the wishes of the State Board of Regents. It says so right here. Guess what - the sioux won't either! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiouxMD Posted February 22, 2006 Author Share Posted February 22, 2006 SDSU had no conference at the time it announced its move to Division I, which was clearly contrary to the wishes of the State Board of Regents. It says so right here. Given the fact that SDSU continues to participate in DI...I guess the SDBoR did not agree or lacked the authority to do anything about it. "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Senate of the Seventy-ninth Legislature of the State of South Dakota, the House of Representatives concurring therein, that the Legislature encourages the South Dakota Board of Regents to rescind its support of South Dakota State University's pursuit to move from National Collegiate Athletics Association Division II to Division I." What was the final vote tally on this resolution? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NDSU grad Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Senate of the Seventy-ninth Legislature of the State of South Dakota, the House of Representatives concurring therein, that the Legislature encourages the South Dakota Board of Regents to rescind its support of South Dakota State University's pursuit to move from National Collegiate Athletics Association Division II to Division I." Wow, that's kind of interesting. Is this pretty recent, and by support do they mean financial or verbal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WYOBISONMAN Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Wow, that's kind of interesting. Is this pretty recent, and by support do they mean financial or verbal. State Legislators are very good at passing "feel good" legislation like that.....I bet when it comes to money they don't pony anything up.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiouxMD Posted February 22, 2006 Author Share Posted February 22, 2006 Given the fact that SDSU continues to participate in DI...I guess the SDBoR did not agree or lacked the authority to do anything about it. "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Senate of the Seventy-ninth Legislature of the State of South Dakota, the House of Representatives concurring therein, that the Legislature encourages the South Dakota Board of Regents to rescind its support of South Dakota State University's pursuit to move from National Collegiate Athletics Association Division II to Division I." What was the final vote tally on this resolution? YEAS 4 NAYS 2 Interesting that the one of the Proponents is from Brookings...I thought for sure this would be coming from Vermillion. One of the Opponents is a SDBoR Representative so apparently they did not agree with this resolution. Link Presented by: Senator Clarence Kooistra Proponents: Jim Marking, self, Brookings Senator Frank Kloucek Opponents: Tad Perry, SD Board of Regents Representative Kent Juhnke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nodakvindy Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 That link actually says that the vote was 4-2 to defer voting on the measure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiouxMD Posted February 22, 2006 Author Share Posted February 22, 2006 That link actually says that the vote was 4-2 to defer voting on the measure. You are correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NDSU grad Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Presented by: Senator Clarence Kooistra Proponents: Jim Marking, self, Brookings Senator Frank Kloucek Opponents: Tad Perry, SD Board of Regents Representative Kent Juhnke Kooistra has been extremely vocal in his disdain for SDSU's move to DI, and from the pieces I've seen him write to the Argus, is a little off his rocker. I think he also publishes a small left-wing newspaper that expounds on some of his more radical views. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiouxMD Posted February 22, 2006 Author Share Posted February 22, 2006 Kooistra has been extremely vocal in his disdain for SDSU's move to DI, and from the pieces I've seen him write to the Argus, is a little off his rocker. I think he also publishes a small left-wing newspaper that expounds on some of his more radical views. I wonder why? He is a SDSU Alumnus. 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.