|
|
Post by Cousin Eddie on Jan 28, 2016 15:21:20 GMT -6
It isn't state law, it is policy by the BOR. There is a clause in the state constitution that the legislature cannot bind the state for anything in excess of the annual budget (something to that effect). In following with this, the BOR has adopted this policy. USD really wanted the first exception to this policy to be the Dean of the Medical School but the BOR was short sighted on this.
As President Abbott has correctly asked, then how do we bond for projects? Regardless, the caveat or escape clause, if you will, in the contract is that in the event the legislature does not fund the University then the term of the contract isn't binding. Well, guess what - if the legislature ceases to fund the University, then I don't think the football program will be around anyway.
SDSU fans, this is pathetic. Desperation is a stinky cologne...
|
|
|
|
Post by azsod73 on Jan 28, 2016 15:22:07 GMT -6
After following the angst on the bunny board, I am left feeling sorry for a number of their posters. It will take weeks to un-bunch their panties. At least one could reasonably assume that many of them are women, and divorced women at that. They 'coach-bitch' when a Nagy or Stig team loses, and they bitch again when they win, but not by enough.
Finally, what really screams 'divorced wife' is that so many of them never have an un-communicated thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yote 53 on Jan 28, 2016 15:28:10 GMT -6
The bunny board is pathetic.
|
|
|
|
Post by jackl on Jan 28, 2016 15:46:15 GMT -6
Quick recap:
SDSU goes D1 and The BOR requires them to operate under all 3 prongs for Title IX.(which is almost impossible).
Yotes come along and that's changed to to a much easier method to meet that requirement.
SDSU goes D1 and the BOR develops a policy stating the Jacks can't raise student fees for that purpose.
USD decides to stick it to their students,the BOR crosses out that policy,(literally) and the students allow it.They allow this even tho USD is operating with a 71% subsidy which will continue to rise.
USD decides to offer COA to it's student-athletics and gives a vague plan to the BOR
Now, USD is back to the well trying to get an exception to a BOR policy on one year contracts.
SDSU continues to operate according to BOR policy.
For whatever reason, The SDBOR keeps trying to boost USD up to a seat at the addult table when it's quite obvious the Yotes should be back with the kiddies.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2016 15:53:09 GMT -6
The bunny board is pathetic. Yet you go there and read it and bitch about here. I don't think anyone has a problem with USD going after multi-year contracts. It's more about the BOR and the process of which it is happening. |
|
|
|
Post by yote14 on Jan 28, 2016 15:55:50 GMT -6
Quick recap: SDSU goes D1 and The BOR requires them to operate under all 3 prongs for Title IX.(which is almost impossible). Yotes come along and that's changed to to a much easier method to meet that requirement. SDSU goes D1 and the BOR develops a policy stating the Jacks can't raise student fees for that purpose. USD decides to stick it to their students,the BOR crosses out that policy,(literally) and the students allow it.They allow this even tho USD is operating with a 71% subsidy which will continue to rise. USD decides to offer COA to it's student-athletics and gives a vague plan to the BOR Now, USD is back to the well trying to get an exception to a BOR policy on one year contracts. SDSU continues to operate according to BOR policy. For whatever reason, The SDBOR keeps trying to boost USD up to a seat at the addult table when it's quite obvious the Yotes should be back with the kiddies. HAHAAHAHAA. One interesting part in the article is the BOR member who states he's not sure if anyone has asked for this before. Do you even know if anyone from Brookings has asked for this in the past? It's something that only benefits both schools. So because in the past the BOR didn't rule in your favor that makes the changes not necessary and smart now? I'm confused by how anything you stated above means this change in policy should not happen for both schools. |
|
|
|
Post by Charlie on Jan 28, 2016 16:02:36 GMT -6
Quick recap: SDSU goes D1 and The BOR requires them to operate under all 3 prongs for Title IX.(which is almost impossible). Yotes come along and that's changed to to a much easier method to meet that requirement. SDSU goes D1 and the BOR develops a policy stating the Jacks can't raise student fees for that purpose. USD decides to stick it to their students,the BOR crosses out that policy,(literally) and the students allow it.They allow this even tho USD is operating with a 71% subsidy which will continue to rise. USD decides to offer COA to it's student-athletics and gives a vague plan to the BOR Now, USD is back to the well trying to get an exception to a BOR policy on one year contracts. SDSU continues to operate according to BOR policy. For whatever reason, The SDBOR keeps trying to boost USD up to a seat at the addult table when it's quite obvious the Yotes should be back with the kiddies. I'd say that in this case USD is a adult and going after what they want and not blindly following what the BOR has said in the past. Things change. SDSU has had every opportunity to go after change in the past. Don't you realize that a change in this policy will be beneficial to BOTH schools in the future? I guess the people at SDSU are too busy crying over spilled milk at the kid's table to realize this. |
|
dave
Sophomore Member
Posts: 112
|
Post by dave on Jan 28, 2016 16:11:08 GMT -6
It isn't state law, it is policy by the BOR. There is a clause in the state constitution that the legislature cannot bind the state for anything in excess of the annual budget (something to that effect). In following with this, the BOR has adopted this policy. USD really wanted the first exception to this policy to be the Dean of the Medical School but the BOR was short sighted on this. As President Abbott has correctly asked, then how do we bond for projects? Regardless, the caveat or escape clause, if you will, in the contract is that in the event the legislature does not fund the University then the term of the contract isn't binding. Well, guess what - if the legislature ceases to fund the University, then I don't think the football program will be around anyway. SDSU fans, this is pathetic. Desperation is a stinky cologne... Thanks for answering my question Eddie. The reason I asked was in past discussions on message boards, Argus Leader live chats etc some people said both schools would probably have to work together to get the legislature to change the law. Since it's BOR policy no need to get the legislature involved, which is kind of a relief as some members of the legislature aren't very friendly towards the athletic departments at the Universities. I'm thinking about some of the things said by certain legislators back when SDSU was moving from DII to DI, and some of the discussions about the building projects. I think most SDSU fans aren't opposed to multi year contracts and want to offer them to current and future coaches, we just find it a little odd that USD would come to terms with Nielsen on a multi year contract and then formally ask a rule change later. Yes I know there was probably behind the scenes discussions about changing the policy in the past. |
|
|
|
Post by Yote 53 on Jan 28, 2016 16:38:35 GMT -6
The bunny board is pathetic. Yet you go there and read it and bitch about here. I don't think anyone has a problem with USD going after multi-year contracts. It's more about the BOR and the process of which it is happening. I went over there because somebody here mentioned it being discussed over there. That thread is pages and pages of bitching and moaning. Also, I posted about it here because I will never again post on your site. It would be pointless to as anything that does not march in line with what the moderators there say ends up getting moved, deleted, or the poster threatened about "posting smack in non-smack threads". Yeah, when every thread over there turns into a non-stop smack run about USD. |
|
|
|
Post by coyotecrazie5 on Jan 28, 2016 16:43:19 GMT -6
They have to talk about something to pass the time during the winter months.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yote 53 on Jan 28, 2016 16:44:20 GMT -6
Quick recap: SDSU goes D1 and The BOR requires them to operate under all 3 prongs for Title IX.(which is almost impossible). Yotes come along and that's changed to to a much easier method to meet that requirement. SDSU goes D1 and the BOR develops a policy stating the Jacks can't raise student fees for that purpose. USD decides to stick it to their students,the BOR crosses out that policy,(literally) and the students allow it.They allow this even tho USD is operating with a 71% subsidy which will continue to rise. USD decides to offer COA to it's student-athletics and gives a vague plan to the BOR Now, USD is back to the well trying to get an exception to a BOR policy on one year contracts. SDSU continues to operate according to BOR policy. For whatever reason, The SDBOR keeps trying to boost USD up to a seat at the addult table when it's quite obvious the Yotes should be back with the kiddies. I'd say that in this case USD is a adult and going after what they want and not blindly following what the BOR has said in the past. Things change. SDSU has had every opportunity to go after change in the past. Don't you realize that a change in this policy will be beneficial to BOTH schools in the future? I guess the people at SDSU are too busy crying over spilled milk at the kid's table to realize this. The more time that passes and the more things like this come up the more I come to the conclusion that SDSU folk just aren't dynamic thinkers. They are conformists, like children doing and believing exactly what their parents tell them. USD has been way more aggressive and dynamic in it's thinking as of late. Instead of a multi-page thread complaining about USD, accusing its official of breaking laws, and then demanding they be fired I would think the Jack fans should be thanking the USD admins for blazing another trail for them to follow. |
|
|
|
Post by jackl on Jan 28, 2016 17:00:59 GMT -6
I'd say that in this case USD is a adult and going after what they want and not blindly following what the BOR has said in the past. Things change. SDSU has had every opportunity to go after change in the past. Don't you realize that a change in this policy will be beneficial to BOTH schools in the future? I guess the people at SDSU are too busy crying over spilled milk at the kid's table to realize this. The more time that passes and the more things like this come up the more I come to the conclusion that SDSU folk just aren't dynamic thinkers. They are conformists, like children doing and believing exactly what their parents tell them. USD has been way more aggressive and dynamic in it's thinking as of late. Instead of a multi-page thread complaining about USD, accusing its official of breaking laws, and then demanding they be fired I would think the Jack fans should be thanking the USD admins for blazing another trail for them to follow. Translation: There's no way in hell USD can ever be as successful as SDSU since going D1, we have to keep begging the BOR to change the rules, just to have a chance. |
|
|
|
Post by yoteforever on Jan 28, 2016 17:09:37 GMT -6
It's becoming very clear that SDSU doesn't have a school of business. Lol
Good grief, how naive are you?
No way we will be as successful? And the trophy went to what school last year in all sports?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2016 17:26:13 GMT -6
It's becoming very clear that SDSU doesn't have a school of business. Lol Good grief, how naive are you? No way we will be as successful? And the trophy went to what school last year in all sports? It went to the one that dropped baseball and wrestling. Also the one who never thought of equestrian as a sport. Perhaps the horse$hit stink would not fit with the school of business.  Personally I don't care about the multi care contacts, but if Nielsen turns out to be a Ed Meirkort in yote skins heaven help you. |
|
|
|
Post by Cousin Eddie on Jan 28, 2016 17:57:36 GMT -6
It's becoming very clear that SDSU doesn't have a school of business. Lol Good grief, how naive are you? No way we will be as successful? And the trophy went to what school last year in all sports? It went to the one that dropped baseball and wrestling. Also the one who never thought of equestrian as a sport. Perhaps the horse$hit stink would not fit with the school of business. Personally I don't care about the multi care contacts, but if Nielsen turns out to be a Ed Meirkort in yote skins heaven help you. Yep. There will be cause to terminate the contract and it won't need to be honored. Any more softballs? Good grief. Every state in the country allows it...NEXT! |
|
Personally I don't care about the multi care contacts, but if Nielsen turns out to be a Ed Meirkort in yote skins heaven help you.