Arena Project

[Yote 53]

The article made it appear like it was a formality, I thought? This is a setback but 3 months isn't that horrible. Start the fundraising campaign now.

[Yote 53]

Check that, after reading this it will set this project back at least a year.

www.argusleader.com/article/20101014/SPORTS0203/10140333/1002/SPORTS

Unacceptable. The BOR needs to evaluate capital needs at all 6 universities? What does what is happening on 4 other campuses have to do with projects we were planning on funding ourselves?

Watched the DakotaDome 30 program on OnDemand on Midco. When the Dome was built they had to pay SDSU off by giving them money to build Frost to keep them happy. Politics always get in the way of progress.

[GoYotes]

Disappointing news, but the Regents are in a tough position. The improvments are needed at both the U and State. Both institutions are really taking not only athletics, but their entire institutions to the next level.

This years legislative session balanced the state budget primarily by cutting higher education funding. Too many in Pierre view higher education as an expense rather than as an investment. Gov Rounds has advised all departments to prepare next years budgets assuming a 10% decrease in spending. Large capital projects for athletic facilities, even if not paid from state funds will make it difficult for the Regents to get the governor and legislators to adequately fund higher education.

Our questions, criticism and arm twisting (and votes this November) should not be directed at the Regents but rather at our local legislators and the governor candidates.

[yotefan]

The BOR needs to make this a 3 month decision at most and I agree with previous posters, this decision does not preclude either university from fundraising in the interim.

The BOR is an interesting group with a lot to consider and I appreciate that, but if they are concerned about their bottom line, why don't they look at trimming down the 6 school system and making it a 4 or 5 school system?

SDSU has a terrific professor (whose name eludes me now) who has done a lot of population models and cost-benefit analysis studies as it relates to the outward migration from rural America, in particular in South Dakota.

One of his talking points was how to re-structure county governments and the services they provide while still maintaining a robust economy in multiple communities within a county. His point ultimately was figuring out how to provide services strategically so as to provide the maximum amount of services for the least amount of cost.

An example he gave was building a new high school that serves multiple communities in town A. Town B and town C would be close enough to bus students or have older students drive. Town A derives the benefit of having the school. Town B has the court house and enjoys the underlying benefits while A and C do not. Town C may get the new elementary and middle school or a new hospital and so on.

Say what you want about Governor Janklow, but the decision to close the USD-Springfield Campus has proven to be quite wise given the economy. It didn't hurt anyone's ability to get an education in SD and it didn't hurt USD one bit. It was a decision that ultimately stream-lined the Regental system and improved higher education in SD.

In light of our current economic situation, I am shocked no one has pushed harder for this discussion in SD given our low population and the number of post-secondary education opportunities we offer publicly (6 state schools, tech-schools, University Center) and are available privately (DWU, USF, Augie, etc...).

SDSU, USD, and SDSM&T service unique and distinct roles in the educational landscape in SD. Dakota State, Northern and BH do as well, but do so on a regional basis and to the detriment of the other 3 schools. If you look at our state as the professor from SDSU did, as a big county, we have too many mouths feeding at the trough. One or possibly two of those three schools could and should become satellite campuses for the remaining schools, while trimming the amount of money these institutions drain from the remaining schools.

Our society is far more mobile than we were 50-60 years ago. Driving across SD no longer requires a huge time committment or getting on a bus or train like it did when some of these institutions came in to being. Smart classrooms with satellite link-ups to classrooms across the state or the world were outside the realm of possibility, but they are the norm today.

Enrollments are up across the board in SD, but people tend to look at obtaining more education whenever the economy is down. Those students enrolled at Dakota State, Northern, and BH could still get their degrees and a quality education, they would just do so under the auspices and within the degree parameters of the bigger schools academic programs.

It's time for the BOR to start running like a business and to start making decisions accordingly. If one part of a company is hurting the others and resources could be better utilized elsewhere or absorbed in to a stronger department it would happen in a second in the private sector. It would result in a stronger regental system and a much stronger USD at the end of the day.

[Yote 53]

Yotefan, you are so right. In my original post I stated that what the BOR should look at doing, if they are reviewing capital needs at all 6 state schools, is discuss the process in shutting down at least 2 of them. The U, State, Tech, and possibly Northern are all that are necessary, IMO. I typed that out earlier but erased it because I didn't want to 1. get people enraged and 2. thread drift to far. I am in total agreement with you. We only have like 750,000 people in this state, no need for 6 publically supported schools. Iowa only has 3 with a much larger population.

[GoYotes]

Always difficult to discuss shutting down schools and part of the problem is that most of our schools are located on the outer border of the State. It is a long ways from Aberdeen or the Black Hills to Vermillion. Shutting down Black Hills and/or Northern would result in a lot of students in those area heading out of state to continue their education. Dakota State is another story - the biggest mistake Janklow made when shutting down Southern (Springfield) is that he didn't shut down Dakota State (a lot closer to his hometown of Flandreau) at the same time. Dakota State has done some great things with technology, but just think if those dollars and efforts had been directed to USD & SDSU.

As I stated earlier, the BOR have their hands tied in funding decisions ( and probably even more so in shutting down a school). Direct your concerns to your local legislators and the governors office.

[#1CoyoteFan (Admin)]

The BOR is a piece of crap and so is the state's stance on higher education. The BOR should be given no leeway right now, same with the state.

Everyone on here has said that the BOR should find a way to make the revenue stream better for the universities, which is correct. However, the six public universities made, I think, $280 million for the state of South Dakota last year, making the six schools the second largest industry in the state next to farming.

However, the BOR and the state feels its necessary to cut the budget by 10 percent? That is crazy considering how much the universities make for the state. I don't think they are cutting farming my 10 percent, and the universities are bringing in more people than the farming industry to the state right now.

This is another example of how Mike Rounds has dropped the ball in his second term of governor for South Dakota. He doesn't understand how to help education and only feels the need to slash from education's budget. He had $26 million sitting there for education given to him by the federal government, and he decided to put it in the general fund so he wouldn't have to give out budget cuts, but he is going to cut education funding? Seriously, the sooner he is out of Pierre, and I wish the state, the better off the state will be.

On the point of cutting a state university, I think Dakota State can go. Yes, I realize Black Hills State and South Dakota School of Mines are growing, so you can take those two out of the picture, same with Northern in Aberdeen, but what propose does Dakota State have right now? It's athletic department has no conference, so it's eating money right now, and yes, Dakota State has technology, but isn't that a program that can be transferred up the road to Brookings, which is pretty close to Madison....just saying. This schools doesn't have much of a propose and really isn't on the upswing.

[Yote 53]

I was going to suggest merging BHSU and Tech together. I don't know their programs, but I'm sure there is some overlap in their core curriculum. I'm also sure some programs could be moved from there to the U or State if they don't quite fit into the new Black Hills Tech.

[#1CoyoteFan (Admin)]

That's a good question, but I think both schools are so different I don't know how a merge would go, plus the fact that I think Black Hill State is growing and Mines is getting some pretty good research money as well. They are holding their own from what I have heard.

[jackjd]

Oct 14, 2010 7:20:53 GMT -6 Yote 53 said:

Watched the DakotaDome 30 program on OnDemand on Midco. When the Dome was built they had to pay SDSU off by giving them money to build Frost to keep them happy. Politics always get in the way of progress.

The "to keep them happy" comment in Yote53's post caught my eye. Here are actual facts about the building of Frost Arena and the Dakota Dome. SDSU didn't get Frost Arena in an effort to appease SDSU after the Dome was built

Bids for the Frost Arena project (cost estimate $3,374, 115) were let on Frost Arena after Gov Farrar signed a bill 2/14/70. Ground was broken 9/22/70. The final cost was $3,685.00. First game played 2/2/73. (Source: SDSU Football Media Guide... by the way, I was a freshman in 1972-73.)

What about the Dakota Dome? Go to pages 6-7 of this year's USD Football Media Guide and also read the article on the 30th anniversary of the Dome in the Fall, 2009, "The South Dakotan", the magazine of the USD Alumni Association (it's on line). The Dome opened in 1979. Total cost: $8.2 million. USD received $5.2 million from the Legislature -- 'equal to what SDSU received to build Frost Arena' according to the article (not sure if there was an adjustment for inflation) and the remainder of the money came from private donations.

USD's Athletic Director, Karl Miller, started fundraising for the Dome when SDSU was playing basketball in Frost Arena.

goyotes: I agree with your comment: need to twist legislators' arms, not the Regents. SDSU's Alumni Association formed the "Jackrabbit Advocates" a couple years ago. USD is thinking about forming a similar advocacy group and I'd encourage those of you interested in the legislative process, to support that effort. The Jackrabbit Advocates are volunteers who provide facts to legislators they know in their district -- they cover the entire state. They advocate for SDSU but also for higher ed in general. The Regents would appreciate USD having a similar group and, quite frankly, we'd like the company. The more advocating for higher ed, the better.

yotefan: You're thinking of Prof. James Satterlee of the Rural Sociology Dept. He was a top-notch professor and is retired. He delivered a lecture in Farber Hall at USD in 2001. Gov. Janklow also had him speak to the legislators. I know if you dig enough on the internet, you can locate a pdf of his USD lecture and a video of his presentation to the legislature.

[GoYotes]

Thanks JackJD for the info. As a USD student (also a freshman in 72-73, right on the tail end of VietNam and still remember all the 18 year olds watching TV as the draft numbers were drawn) I agree with your timeline. The very first issue of the Volante I ever read, in the fall of 72, had a story on the plans to build the Dome. One of the arguments from those not in favor of the Dome was that USD should build a facility identical to Frost as it would save on architect fees, etc.

[jackjd]

Oct 14, 2010 17:11:17 GMT -6 GoYotes said:

Thanks JackJD for the info. As a USD student (also a freshman in 72-73, right on the tail end of VietNam and still remember all the 18 year olds watching TV as the draft numbers were drawn) I agree with your timeline. The very first issue of the Volante I ever read, in the fall of 72, had a story on the plans to build the Dome. One of the arguments from those not in favor of the Dome was that USD should build a facility identical to Frost as it would save on architect fees, etc.

We are a good vintage! That was a heckuva a year. We graduated high school in the spring, the law changed July 1 to allow 18 years olds to drink 3.2 beer, we had our draft numbers but Dick Nixon was talking about ending the draft. All the deferments were gone and I had a relatively low number but Nixon did end the draft and I drank beer.

I remember doing a story for an NCAA publication on women's sports in about 1974. I interviewed the Secretary-Treasurer of the NCAA (he had also served as President of the NCAA) who happened to be SDSU's AD, Stan Marshall. As we finished talking about the subject of the interview, I asked how come SDSU didn't have plans for a domed stadium. He walked me over to a closet beneath the north seating area in Frost Arena, opened the large doors and showed me the mockup for SDSU's domed stadium. I was astounded and asked about the chances of building it. He said they were slim and noted the legislature was not going to give any money to such a project after having spent so much on Frost Arena. SDSU was trying to hit a home run with one huge donation. I remember the name of the donor etc. It came down to SDSU's stadium or a wing of a hospital in a metro area. The hospital won.

[Yote 53]

jack jd, you are correct. I misinterpreted what I watched on TV.

I keep feeling, however, is SDSU gave the BOR stickershock with what they are proposing and it F'd up USD's proposals. You guys want almost as much money to build an indoor track/football practice facility as we want for an arena that is desperately needed. You want a buttload of money for a football stadium that, I have to question, you guys can even half fill once the weather turns a little.

Just saying. Not happy about this down here in Yoteville.

OK, maybe not stickershock since they knew what was going to be proposed, but dang. It's a lot of money.

[Coyote Fan]

This honestly isn't that big of a setback but why is the BOR trying to stand in the way of progress. If one of both schools come up with donors to provide funding why does the BOR care. I swear South Dakota is so frugal. This shouldn't stop the momentum at USD in getting the basketball arena hype arena going.

[#1CoyoteFan (Admin)]

Yote 53,

I don't think it was SDSU that screwed it up, I think it was just the BOR in general. Why do I say this? Because aren't they all suppose to be privately funded? Yeah, so the BOR did it to be an a** to both schools and Black Hill State.

If it's privately funded, then what reservations should the BOR have? Exactly, they shouldn't. The BOR is a piece of crap.

It won't stop the hype of a basketball arena, but it will put a stop in fundraising because USD has to wait to really fundraise until the BOR says "yes"