PDA

View Full Version : Provisional Period



tony
10-26-2003, 04:44 PM
During half-time, WDAY interviewed Gene Taylor and he was pretty pumped about the NCAA Championship Committee approving the plan to reduce the basketball waiting period by eight years (from 13 to 5). He wasn't saying it was a done deal but whatever the case, NDSU is definitely not going to have to wait 13 years before being eligible for an autobid in basketball. Now if they'd just drop all the other sports down to a three-year wait... Big thanks to the Big West for making this a priority.

Bisonguy
10-26-2003, 06:20 PM
As long as NDSU finds a conference with an autobid. It does put even more priority and urgency on finding a suitable conference as soon as possible.

mojobison
10-26-2003, 07:24 PM
Urgent to find one in four years at least.

Bisonfan1234
10-26-2003, 09:38 PM
So bball is down to 5 years. What about football? Is that now 2 years?

Bisonguy
10-26-2003, 09:47 PM
BB is NOT down to five years, yet. It passed the first stage (was approved for a vote?) in the process of reducing the probationary period. There is more NCAA legislation that needs to take place before it is reduced. The only sport on the table that I know of is basketball. All the rest are still at five years, but that may change.

somebison
10-26-2003, 10:58 PM
During Taylor's interview on the radio, I think he said the BB provisional period vote will be sometime in April. It was approved by one committee, will be reviewed once or twice more and then voted upon.

Bisonfan1234
10-27-2003, 03:29 AM
Well i'm glad that bball has got it's way .... but hello? Football is your bread winner here....i think taylor had best make sure the fball team's needs are met.

Bisonguy
10-27-2003, 05:13 AM
Well i'm glad that bball has got it's way .... but hello? Football is your bread winner here....i think taylor had best make sure the fball team's needs are met.

I don't think that Taylor has a lot of say in the matter. The legislation to reduce the probationary periods was started by the Big West conference (UC Davis' new conference). Basketball has the potential to make a lot of money, that's why the probationary period is so much longer.

tony
10-27-2003, 04:15 PM
Yeah, Taylor touched on that issue. He said it might be counter-productive to start throwing NDSU's weight around. First, NDSU has no weight to throw around. Second, the first vote went very well so there's no reason to think the second vote won't have the same result.

Taylor can't do much about the other sports either. It'd be great if the provisional period gets reduced across the board to what they used to be, but I'm not holding my breath.

NDSU_grad
10-27-2003, 04:39 PM
Football will also filling out a schedule being an independent (or as a member of a new conference). Sure, it would be great to be playoff eligible right away, but realistically it will probably take five years to get scholarships up to the max and put a really good team on the field.

Bisonguy
10-29-2003, 12:20 PM
They finally put the story in The Forum-College basketball: Tournament eligibility is good news for Bison
(http://www.in-forum.com/articles/index.cfm?id=43032)

lucchesicourt
11-03-2003, 03:16 PM
I'm a UCD alum and hate this provisional period(4 years exempt from playoffs). I've tried to find out why, but there has been no reasonable answer. They talk about athletic scholarships that may have been misused at the D2 level (Davis had none only stipends of $500-$2500 depending on financial need- when it costs about $19,000/year for tuition,room, and board) did not happen at UCD, then they talk about academics saying that unqualified students may be in the program- again UCD is one of the top public institutions in the US aand only accepts the cream of the crop in the UC system- yes over UC Berkeley), so that should not affect UCD. Then they say you have to make sure the women's and men's programs get equal distribution, again UCD won the Sears trophy for this 6 of the last 8 years with 2 second place finishes-so this doesn't affect UCD, and lastly they say you need to complete your D2 committments (D2 scheduled teams) before getting inot the D1AA playoffs. This will be completed next year. So, I actually believe it's all about the money. They don't want he new kid on the block to cash in on playoffs until they have paid their dues..
Your football program is highly regarded by UCD and we know what great teams you've had in the past. When and if you move to D1AA I know you will feel the same that D1AA does not respect the quality of the top D2 teams. I sure wish we had played some of these D1AA teams 2 years agao when UCD had JT O'Sullivan, Onome Ojo, Michael Oliva, and Charlie Enos. We sure could have shown them a good air show. And you guys when you get here (D1AA) can show them that great "D" and running game. Maybe, we former D2's will then get some respect and they will change the rules for provisional status.

JBB
11-03-2003, 03:32 PM
That would be nice. If the new football conference gets off the ground I think it should have an auto bid and immediate eligibility. I also think that no matter which conference we join for other sports we would come under the same rules as the rest of the teams in the conference regarding playoff eligibility.

lucchesicourt
11-06-2003, 12:35 PM
From my understanding with Tony Moss it seems you could win your conference and still not be elgible for D1AA playoffs until the 4 years are up. All teams that move up will be exempt from playoff competition. Mr. Moss believes that 4 years is a little too long (more like 2-3 he thinks would be fair). I have argued with him that 4 year exemption from the playoffs is like the death penalty that is invoked on teams that continually violate NCAA rules,and to treat a new member like a violator is totally ludicrous. The students usually attend a school for 4 years, so in essence the freshmen class will never have the opportunity to enjoy the playoffs. Isn't football one of the better enjoyments of college life? I believe so, if you look at the number of people who attend college football games. I just think this is unfair to cheat the freshmen students of this enjoyment.

lucchesicourt
11-06-2003, 01:28 PM
One other thing that I forgot to mention on my previous post. Too many people believe athletic scholarships are necessary to put a quality team on the field. Athletic scholarships allow you to compete with larger schools for a particular athlete, however there are an abundance of athletes who deserve these scholarships, but are not offered scholarships. These are the guys that non and low scholarship schools need to persue. At UCD, I feel, we for the last 30 years, have put a quality team on the field without giving athletic scholarships. It is recruiting and recognizing untapped talent. That is what UCD has done. Our football staff has been excellent at this. Just look at the QB's that UCD has had, and not one of these guys had a scholarship for athletics- Ken O'Brien (NFL), Bob Biggs (current coach CFL), Mike Moroski (offensive Coordinator NFL QB), Akari Jones (CFL MVP), Mark Grieb (Arena Football MVP), JT O'Sullivan (NO QB), Kevin Daft (TN). The QB is a high profile position, and the BIG SCHOOLS missed out on this talent. Just want all to know there is talent out there that the Big schools miss. I'm just using the QB position at UCD to demonstrate my point.

NDSU_grad
11-06-2003, 03:32 PM
I think you're right, but also UC-Davis is in a unique situation being in California. With the population base, great high school football, and lack of college football programs in the state UC-Davis will be a force in DI-AA. If they get anywhere close to 63 scholarships everybody should watch out.

89rabbit
11-06-2003, 03:42 PM
I think you're right, but also UC-Davis is in a unique situation being in California. *With the population base, great high school football, and lack of college football programs in the state UC-Davis will be a force in DI-AA. *If they get anywhere close to 63 scholarships everybody should watch out.

You hit the nail on the head! Nice post.

lucchesicourt
12-14-2003, 12:38 PM
Seems you guys may be right. UCD is now starting to get D1A players moving from Stanford, CAL, and UCLA players to join the Aggie squad. They say UCD will have the 63 scholarships by 2006. Other quality California players are now looking at UCD. Never seen anything like this until this year. I'm really looking forward to next year's team.
I hope all the new D2 teams that move up can demonstrate that the D2 quality teams are not as weak as so many d1AA teams think. Go Ags. and I really hope to see you Bison soon.
I

lucchesicourt
12-14-2003, 12:39 PM
Seems you guys may be right. UCD is now starting to get D1A players moving from Stanford, CAL, and UCLA players to join the Aggie squad. They say UCD will have the 63 scholarships by 2006. Other quality California players are now looking at UCD. Never seen anything like this until this year. I'm really looking forward to next year's team.
I hope all the new D2 teams that move up can demonstrate that the D2 quality teams are not as weak as so many d1AA teams think. Go Ags. and I really hope to see you Bison soon.

BisonMav
12-14-2003, 04:03 PM
I hope all the new D2 teams that move up can demonstrate that the D2 quality teams are not as weak as so many d1AA teams think. *Go Ags. *and I really hope to see you Bison soon.

I think this year was a year for the I-AA schools to take notice. UNC finished in the top 20 and defeated Montana State (Big Sky Champion). UNC and UCD finished with winning records. NDSU defeated Montana (I-AA playoff team). The new conference will be good.

lucchesicourt
12-22-2003, 01:50 PM
If (or should I say when) you guys go to D1AA, how do you think it will affect your recruiting of quality athletes? Granted your teams have been very strong in the past, but do you think additional scholarships will allow you to compete with the strong 1A teams in your area for the athletes?
UCD doesn't really have a strong D1A team in our area, so I feel that adding the scholarships can only affect a winning team in a positive way, while a losing team, regardless of level and scholarships, will have a harder time attracting the good athletes. NDSU and UCD are both quality programs and I think the addition of scholarships, to what already is available, will only make both schools that much better.
Good luck Bison. I really think we have been the powers of D2 for quite sometime though we never won the Big Game like you guys.
I did get tired of all those Eastern teams saying we weren't all that good and did not have too good a defense. I sure would have like to play a few of those teams when we had KEN O'Brien, JT O'Sullivan, Khari Jones, and Kevin Daft. I sure would have liked them try to "D" up with our wide receivers and QB combos.
I think you guys are the team farthest East that have given us the fits. New Haven (though we did lose a sqeeker to them( at their house-it was snowing too), Bethune Cookman, and Lehigh, were the only others that were that big a problem. Though we did blow that Bloomsburg Game. We got up by a slew of points and then went to a running game to control the clock. We should have kept up throwing, even though it would have looked like we were running up the score (I think we were up at one point by 29 points in the 2nd half).
I know you guys wouldn't have blown such a lead!! Am I right?

NDSU_grad
12-22-2003, 02:03 PM
NDSU and SDSU will have an advantage in that the state of Minnesota only has one IA program and 0 I-AA's and has a population of about 5 million. Similar scenario in Wisconsin, where NDSU has always recruited strong. I think most of our players will still come from those states, they'll just be slightly better.

lucchesicourt
12-23-2003, 03:07 PM
I was watching the championship game between Colgate and Delaware and was surprised how many of their players were from other states. Seems they recruit all over the East coast. While UCD players ar almost all from the state of California ( I know we are quite a large population). And you guys pretty much recruit from only your own area. Do you see this changing woth the moves to D1AA?

JACKGUY
12-23-2003, 03:08 PM
Speaking for the Rabbits I think the recruiting area will generally remain the same we will just be trying for a higher calibre athlete.

BisonMav
12-23-2003, 04:59 PM
I was watching the championship game between Colgate and Delaware and was surprised how many of their players were from other states. *Seems they recruit all over the East coast. *While UCD players ar almost all from the state of California ( I know we are quite a large population). *And you guys pretty much recruit from only your own area. *Do you see this changing woth the moves to D1AA?
NDSU is getting more recruits from outside the normal recruiting area. This year brought, maybe the first recruits from Mississippi, plus a great group of recruits from the Chicago area.

lucchesicourt
12-23-2003, 07:49 PM
UCD just had a UC Berkeley QB transfer over to Davis (this is an easy situation for players to move from UC to UC as we are all basicly one school (The University of California) with different branches (Davis, Berkeley, Los Angeles,etc.). The players would probably also be offered equivalent scholarships to come and play at Davis. Scholastically, if they are im good standing, it is an easy move.
Davis would probably offer a lot of these students a better opportunity to play.

Sac_State
12-23-2003, 08:17 PM
Right, your telling me cow town Davis is as good as University of California??!! I don't think so. You are University of California-Davis, not Cal. It is like saying all CSU's are the same, total BS.

You davis people are so arrogant!

IowaBison
12-23-2003, 08:18 PM
Thanks for catching that Sac State, the guy clearly know nothing about higher education. There is one exception and that is that UND and UND-Williston are both about the same calibre.

JACKGUY
12-23-2003, 08:20 PM
They have a lot more to be arrogant about than your sorry school that is on the verge of an athletic collapse.

lucchesicourt
12-24-2003, 02:35 PM
Sac state guy--I was referring to transferring students from one school to the other. The State College (ummmm University) sytem is the same. It is easy to transfer from one State school to another. Many state students would not be able to get into the University of California (any location) by transferring. To move from one UC to another is real easy. All you do is apply for a transfeer and once granted (easy to get) you can enter the UC of choice.
I NEVER said anything about the football teams being of equal caliber.
As academics go, I took classes at both Berk. and Davis-- Davis was much much harder than Berkeley.
Let's see academically a few difference between Berk. and Davis.
Med. School- Davis- YES Berk.--NO
Vet School Davis- YES (top ranked #1 worldwide) Berk. -- NO
Law School- Davis--Yes Berk. Yes (one of the best)

So, I want you to know I was comparing the schools academically. And yes, UCD is on a parr academically.

Sac State academically-- Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmm Better than Chico State.

lucchesicourt
12-24-2003, 02:38 PM
And as they say, YOU CAN LOOK It Up, SAC STATE guy!!!!!!!!!!

lucchesicourt
12-24-2003, 02:49 PM
Iowa Bison guy-- A fellow graduate of mine went to Iowa in the Graduate genetiics program. He said what he learned in the graduate program was taught in our undergraduate program.. He got bored and left and went to UCD vet school i(breeding of large animals). He said Iowa was a joke. This is heresay, but that's what he told me.
Also, you know nothing about the UC system or UCD.
UCD is #1 in Vet medicine, #1 in enology and viticulture, #1 in Ag Econ. wiith very high rankings in all kinds of biological sciences.
UCD offers Phd.s in almost all the subjects taught on campus.

Again, you can look it up!!

lucchesicourt
12-24-2003, 02:53 PM
Jackguy--thanks for your support-- I think all these losers just want to get down on us schools who are way better than they are football. Can't wait for the day you guys wax these Bison in Iowa,
probably won't be long.
UCD probably wouldn't schedule them because of travel.

Oh-- do they have a football team?

lucchesicourt
12-24-2003, 03:02 PM
1. Harvard University (MA) 100 4.9 1 97% 92% 98% +6 2 75% 13% 8/1 91% 4 1400- 1580 90% 11% 10 2 49%
Princeton University (NJ) 100 4.9 1 98% 93% 97% +4 4 69% 11% 5/1 93% 2 1380- 1550 95% 11% 12 1 61%
3. Yale University (CT)


See the rest of the statistics! Get complete data on all the schools, plus a school comparison tool, enhanced directory pages, articles, and more. The Premium Online Edition lets you sort the data on this page by the criteria that matter to you!





4. Massachusetts Inst. of Technology
5. California Institute of Technology
Duke University (NC)
Stanford University (CA)
University of Pennsylvania
9. Dartmouth College (NH)
Washington University in St. Louis
11. Columbia University (NY)
Northwestern University (IL)
13. University of Chicago
14. Cornell University (NY)
Johns Hopkins University (MD)
16. Rice University (TX)
17. Brown University (RI)
18. Emory University (GA)
19. University of Notre Dame (IN)
Vanderbilt University (TN)
21. University of California – Berkeley *
University of Virginia *
23. Carnegie Mellon University (PA)
Georgetown University (DC)
25. University of Michigan – Ann Arbor *
26. Univ. of California – Los Angeles *
27. Tufts University (MA)
28. Wake Forest University (NC)
29. U. of North Carolina – Chapel Hill *
30. Univ. of Southern California
31. College of William and Mary (VA)*
32. Brandeis University (MA)
Univ. of California – San Diego *
Univ. of Wisconsin – Madison *
35. New York University
University of Rochester (NY)
37. Case Western Reserve Univ. (OH)
Georgia Institute of Technology *
Lehigh University (PA)
40. Boston College
U. of Illinois – Urbana - Champaign *
Yeshiva University (NY)
43. University of California – Davis *

Oh, I figured I'd just look it up for you guys. Weren't sure you'd be smart enough to find it.

UCD is the 43rd ranked scool for ALL undergraduate programs. Oh and guess what- I didn't see the IowaBison or Sac hHornets anywhere.

somebison
12-24-2003, 04:10 PM
Iowa Bison guy-- A fellow graduate of mine went to Iowa in the Graduate genetiics program. *He said what he learned in the graduate program was taught in our undergraduate program.. He got bored and left and went to UCD vet school i(breeding of large animals). *He said Iowa was a joke. *This is heresay, but that's what he told me.
Also, you know nothing about the UC system or UCD.
UCD is #1 in Vet medicine, #1 in enology and viticulture, #1 in Ag Econ. *wiith very high rankings in all kinds of biological sciences.
UCD offers Phd.s in almost all the subjects taught on campus.

Again, you can look it up!!




IowaBison is at Iowa State. Rankings are very subjective however USNEWS doesn't rank UCD's vet school in the top 3.

Health Disciplines:
Veterinary Medicine (Doctor of Veterinary Medicine)
(New! Ranked in 2003*)
Rank/School Average assessment score (5 = highest)
1. Cornell University (NY) 4.4
2. Colorado State University 4.2
3. University of Pennsylvania 4.1

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/hea/brief/vet_brief.php

But as far as research etc.. those in the field regard the vet schools at UC-Davis and Iowa State as the best. What this has to do with the provisional period.. I don't know.

lucchesicourt
12-24-2003, 04:27 PM
I agree with you somebison, but Iowa and Sac brought this stuff up. I was just commenting on how easy it is to transfer from UC campus to UC campus and these two guys just started making comments about the academics of UC Davis.
Yes, rankings are subjective and I usually would not have made any negative comments about another school or students of the school. But, when attacked it would be unpatriotic not to defend your school, wouldn't it?

somebison
12-24-2003, 04:51 PM
I agree with you somebison, but Iowa and Sac brought this stuff up. *I was just commenting on how easy it is to transfer from UC campus to UC campus and these two guys just started making comments about the academics of UC Davis.
Yes, rankings are subjective and I usually would not have made any negative comments about another school or students of the school. *But, when attacked it would be unpatriotic not to defend your school, wouldn't it?

Agreed.. why did UC-Davis stay D2 so long.. while the rest of the UC schools (i think) were D1. The school is certainly large enough and with the sacramento-bay area (where i am assuming a fair amount of alumni live)to draw fans from you would think attendance would be no problem.

IowaBison
12-25-2003, 02:41 PM
I'm not saying for a second that Davis is a bad school, it's clearly one of the best all around land grant schools in the nation. Considering it really was a Moo-U into the sixties shows how far it's come.

Berkeley is in an entirely different class compared to UCD. How many Nobel Prize winners does UCD have, members of the National Academy of Science..... total research dollars per year, number of publications, that's how the big boys measure. UCD would be lucky to get Berkeley's big boys to come to town and give a seminar.

Also, anyone who uses USNWR as a reference is an idiot, you clearly know nothing about higher education. Why don't you find some real data.

I already knew that Iowa sucked, but thanks for the support.

Bisonfan1234
12-25-2003, 04:27 PM
Also, anyone who uses USNWR as a reference is an idiot, you clearly know nothing about higher education. Why don't you find some real data.

Are yo suggesting that USNWR makes up it's data?

IowaBison
12-26-2003, 05:20 AM
The data collected by USNWR is legitimate, but their method of analysis is nothing but subjective.

I'm not sure what the categories and corresponding weights are, they change every year, but they go something like

% admitted
% graduated
% alumni who contribute
etc.
etc.

they then change the weight of the importance of these values each year in order to induce in the data a perception in change in the quality of a school when little to none has occured. this occurs because the rankings need to change in order for people to buy new magazines each year.

How can Harvard go from being the "best school" in the country to number five and then back again the next year-is something really big going on in Cambridge, Mass.? Obviously, no.

The real rankings are available from the National Research Council, who fortunately are not in the publishing business.

(I've got a graduate degree in statistics, but a high school student should be able to realize the flaw in using such analysis.)

Bisonfan1234
12-26-2003, 05:54 PM
Percents are the biggest BS ever, IMO. I hate percents because they mean nothing without a reference number.

For example, someone could say that product X has 200% more fat than product Y. So what? The actual difference between them is only .66 grams!! Product Y could simply have .33 grams while Product X has 1 gram.
Complete BS.

Raw numbers are the only true facts.

Sac_State
12-29-2003, 02:11 PM
I didn't bring anything up. You, Davis supporter, stood on your tractor and claimed how mighty Davis was, it is as good as Berkeley you inferred. BS. Davis is on level with Santa Cruz and Modesto. You cannot transfer arbitrarily between UC schools. Berkeley is the flagship. If you play sports you can transfer from IA Berkeley and play immediately at DII Davis, if that is what you meant by transferring.

Good question, if Davis is so superior, why did it wait until it was basically forced into IAA by lack of DII competition?

lucchesicourt
01-05-2004, 11:48 AM
Davis DID NOT offer athletic scholarships, so the move to D1 or D1AA was not in the cards until recently (as approved by the students to pay more tuition to fund the scholarships). This was not an issue that had been taken up until the number of D2 teams near Davis evaporated to just a dwindling few. So, you are right, they were forced to move to D1AA by the economic reasons that lead to the failure of other D2 teams in the area.
As for UCD members in the National Academy of Sciences- well the number I'm sure is too large for me to give you an accurate number. However, in the genetics department (1975-1978) all my professors were in the NAS, The most notable was Theodosius Dobzshansky (evolutionary genets- maybe second to Darwin in the field- he passed around 1978), Ledyard Stebbins, Francisco Ayala, Biochem Department- Eric Conn, Dr. Stumpf (can't remeber his 1st name), Dr. Segel (same here) Bacteriology- Stanley Artz ( Ames test notoriety). There are many others just not in any fields that I took courses, so I don't know the names.
As for Nobel prize winners, UC Davis has one that I know, and several nominees. However, the Los Alamos Labs in New Mexico are a part of the UCD programs ( UC Berkeley too), just as Lawrence Livermore is part of UC Berkeley programs. These two programs have had several Nobel prize winners in the past.
UCD 's main research at Los Alamos is the use of nuclear medicines for health research.

lucchesicourt
01-05-2004, 12:21 PM
I am sorry to say it is real easy to transfer from one school in the UC system to another. I've done it. It only took 10 minutes time and 3 signatures (transferred from UC Berkeley to UC Davis). All that is required is to be in current good academic standing, an opening at the school you want to transfer, and an acceptance from that school, by the department into which you want to transfer.
That is all that is required. These requests, if you qualify, are very unlikely to be turned down regardless of who you are (you do not need to be an athlete to transfer , anyone can do it).

Herd_Mentality
01-05-2004, 03:33 PM
Uhhh.....Davis is also #1 in stolen cadaver parts.

Sac_State
01-05-2004, 04:09 PM
Zzzzzzzzzz!

lucchesicourt
01-07-2004, 02:21 PM
To Sacstate and IowaBison please reread my post and tell me exactly where I stated that UCD was equivalent to Berkeley academically or athletically. Here it is-----" UCD just had a UC Berkeley QB transfer over to Davis (this is an easy situation for players to move from UC to UC as we are all basicly one school (The University of California) with different branches (Davis, Berkeley, Los Angeles,etc.). The players would probably also be offered equivalent scholarships to come and play at Davis. Scholastically, if they are im good standing, it is an easy move.
Davis would probably offer a lot of these students a better opportunity to play."
I see nothing stated about anything except the ability of students to transfer from one school to the other.

And for your info- my diploma says "University of California"NOT " University of California at Davis". There is no mention of Davis on the diploma until you get to the end where it says given etc. this day in Davis, CA.

Sac_State
01-07-2004, 03:05 PM
And what is so unique about transferring? If your in good standing at the current school, just apply and if you meet admissions criteria, you are admitted.

You made it sound like davis is as good and respected as Berkeley. It's not.

BTW...My diploma's say California State University and signed by the Guvner. So, I guess I graduated from San Diego State and San Jose State also.

lucchesicourt
01-07-2004, 03:28 PM
Where did I say that?!!!!!! Again, I was only talking about ability to move from campus to campus.

UC Davis and UCB are totally different in education. Davis and Berkeley are not equal- Davis emphasis is Agriculuture, medicine, vet medicine and Berkeley offers nothing related to these. Davis cannot compete with Berkeley inthe fields that they stress (physical sciences,law, political science,chemistry,etc.) and vice versa. A degree from Berkeley with an emphasis in Ag econ would not be respected as well as one from Davis and a degree in physics from Davis would not be equal to one from Berkeley.

lucchesicourt
01-07-2004, 03:48 PM
No, what it means is the school SYSTEM you graduated from are all linked together. If you take a class at one school in the system it is recognized by all schools in the system. The state system does NOT recognize some UC classes as transferable to their school system, and vice versa. If you belong to one system you DO NOT need to reapply as you would if you were getting in to the school for the first time. You do not need to pay any fees to transfer from campus to campus in the system (at least that is how the UC system works). To transfer from Berkeley to Davis, UCLA to Santa Cruz does NOT require any additional costs to the students. To move from a UC to a stae university would require application fees and acceptance.

IowaBison
01-07-2004, 06:07 PM
I just responded to what I have read. My first post was plain smack and then you brought up rankings and some baloney from US News for God's sake.

and clearly you know nothing about agricultural economics, in which I also have a graduate degree.

Berkeley is the best Ag Econ program in the WORLD, hands down, period, no contest. Surveys by Perry, 1994 put Davis at a close second, but I have doubts about that. He has another more recent unpublished paper on his website that says basically the same thing.

I like Davis, if it hadn't been in California, I probably would have gone there instead of Ames.

Could we please get back to talking football?

I do think that Davis will be competitive will Cal in that activity in the near future.

Bisonfan1234
01-07-2004, 07:48 PM
I just responded to what I have read. *My first post was plain smack and then you brought up rankings and some baloney from US News for God's sake.

and clearly you know nothing about agricultural economics, in which I also have a graduate degree.

Berkeley is the best Ag Econ program in the WORLD, hands down, period, no contest. *Surveys by Perry, 1994 put Davis at a close second, but I have doubts about that. *He has another more recent unpublished paper on his website that says basically the same thing.

I like Davis, if it hadn't been in California, I probably would have gone there instead of Ames.

Could we please get back to talking football?

I do think that Davis will be competitive will Cal in that activity in the near future.

What's the point of having ag econ?! The government artificially raises prices instead of letting supply/demand dictate the prices like they should. All farmers have to do is produce something mildly green and the government gives away tax papyers hard erned money to farmers who should have gone bankrupt long ago.
/rant

lucchesicourt
01-07-2004, 07:54 PM
I was talking just football until comments were made otherwise. I was talking about the ease for UCB student athletes and their ability to transfer to UCD. Coach Tedford isrecommending some of his athletes to do just that. He says they will get the opportunity to play, and play with a quality rpogram. That was my whole point about UCD and UCB-all that otherstuff was started by SAC state and you followed in. If you read any post I have said you will find I naver compared UCD with UCB until other stuff was brought up.
There is a least one more athlete at UCB looking to transfer to UCD besides the QB they just got. Coach Tedford and Coach Biggs (UCD) do talk.
As for the Ag Econ program at UCD and UCB- I took the info from a UC website. I'll put the copy below. If it's wrong it's my fault for getting the wrong info from the website.

ttph://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=top+ranked+agricultural+econom ics+programs&page=1&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsr c%3Dwebsearch%26amp%3BrequestId%3De73081c1d27e07b8 %26amp%3BclickedItemRank%3D10%26amp%3BuserQuery%3D top%2Branked%2Bagricultural%2Beconomics%2Bprograms %26amp%3BclickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Frepos itories.cdlib.org%252Fare%252F%26amp%3BinvocationT ype%3D-%26amp%3BfromPage%3DNSBoom&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2 Frepositories.cdlib.org%2Fare%2F

BisonMav
01-07-2004, 07:59 PM
What's the point of having ag econ?! The government artificially raises prices instead of letting supply/demand dictate the prices like they should. All farmers have to do is produce something mildly green and the government gives away tax papyers hard erned money to farmers who should have gone bankrupt long ago.
/rant
I would rather give my money to a hard working farmer than a person collecting welfare, sitting around the house getting drunk and smoking dope. /rant

There are a lot of people that need welfare, but there are a lot that abuse the system.

lucchesicourt
01-07-2004, 08:05 PM
I'm sorry if my info about UCD's and UCB's Ag Econ depts are incorrect. I took the info from a UC website. Here's the article:

The Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics at UC Davis is recognized nationally and internationally for the quality of its faculty and for the strength of its undergraduate and graduate programs. Eight emeritus faculty are Fellows of the American Agricultural Economics Association (AAEA), and Departmental faculty and graduate students have received more than 38 awards for outstanding research from the AAEA and Western AEA. The Department administers a popular undergraduate major in Agricultural and Managerial Economics (AME). The program was ranked 8th nationally among peer programs in the most recent Gourman Report. The graduate program in Agricultural and Resource Economics emphasizes
state-of-the-art training in economic theory and quantitative methods, with specialty fields in agricultural marketing, econometrics, economic development, natural resource economics, production economics, and international policy and trade. The graduate program has consistently ranked as the top or among the top programs in the world in terms of quality of
graduate education.

NDSU_grad
01-07-2004, 08:57 PM
What's the point of having ag econ?! The government artificially raises prices instead of letting supply/demand dictate the prices like they should. All farmers have to do is produce something mildly green and the government gives away tax papyers hard erned money to farmers who should have gone bankrupt long ago.
/rant


You obviously know next to nothing about ag policy (neither do I but I've never made a post like yours). I think the situation is a tad more complex than what you've made it out to be.

Bison_Kent
01-07-2004, 09:20 PM
From what it looks like to me Bison1234 would rather see corporate, large farms rather then family farms. As one that grew up on a family farm, I would like to see the family farm rather then the large, corporate farm.

I won't claim to know much about economics of farming either but I do know that if there were no government aids, family farms would now be extict. And I might be biased since I work for a agricultural equipment corporation. I want to see as much money in farming as possible so machinery sales go up which in-turn (as an engineer) makes my salary go up.

Bisonfan1234
01-07-2004, 09:26 PM
I won't claim to know much about economics of farming either but I do know that if there were no government aids, family farms would now be extict.

That pretty much says it all right there. Farming is a business like any other, if you can't make money at it, it's not a neccessary business. If there is high enough demand for your products, on the other hand, you won't have to worry. The government has no place in raising the price of farmed goods simply to save something that can't support its self. It's like the government tell people they have to pay extra for Kmart products to keep them in business against wal-mart. Nonsense.

I don't wish any "family" farms to disappear, i simply wish them to be held responsible to the laws of supply and demand.

And lastly as far as wellfare goes, there are many people who do need wellfare and maybe farmers are some of those people. But, again, the governments system is so currupt and pathetic that it's hardly wellfare at all. Private chairty organizations do a much better job at giving poor people money to get their life back in order.

Bison_Kent
01-07-2004, 09:53 PM
This is getting way off the "Provisional Period" topic but I have to say this.

Do a little research. What was the price of wheat, corn, barley, and what ever over commodity you want to look at in 1910, 1940, 1960, 1980, and now. If you look at it, the price has fluctuated some over that time but for the most part have stayed the same. Just guessing but the wheat price of 1910 was around $3.00 to $4.00 a bushel just as it is today. But the input costs of farming have skyrocketed. You can't buy a tractor for $1000 anymore. You now are paying $250,000.

Now I will ask you this. If you would go by inflationary numbers from 1910 to now, the price of that bushel of wheat should be $15-$20 a bushel but the government wants to keep food costs down so they keep the wheat price at the $3.00-$4.00 level. To keep the food prices down, the government needs to subsidize the US farmer to make it. I am all for subsidizing US farmers rather then given foreign countries money.

I would guess that you can provide no other example of something that has stayed at the same price over the last century over then commodities.

Bisonfan1234
01-07-2004, 10:10 PM
$250,000 for a tractor is a expensive, gee i guess the tax payers should just pay for it, right?

All i want is ZERO government interference. If a bushel of wheat is truely worth $20 then that is what farmers will get! Supply and demand is absolute, if people desire the services, then there will be people to supply them.

As far as stuff going to other countries, so what? If someone in another land can give me the same product for cheaper, i'll buy from them. It's called free trade and competition two easy to understand concepts.

SDSUFAN
01-07-2004, 11:08 PM
I know what I say will really throw this off topic. I think the Ag Economics Dept at all land grant schools serve a very important purpose, and they will continue to do so whether the family farm concept survives or not. The corportate guys got to get the facts to or they go belly up. Some AG Econ dept are more distinguished than others. SDSU hardly has the outstanding people that UCD does because we have such a crappy salary system.

Bison 12345 takes the food that he chucks down for granted as though it came from some warehouse which it did, but beyond that he fails to see the marketing channel that leads us back to the family farm. Also I might add one reason we continue to have subsidies is that it protects American Farmers from foreign produces in Europe and Asia who are highly subsidized. The reason we have subsidies,is that these foreign suppliers would not be able to supply food at the prices that we are accustomed to now the ones that put food on Bison1234 table.

If the market system is so pure and righteous, why was the Freedom to Farm such a failure? It was amazing after a couple years how politicans from both sides of the isle were very anxious to dump this measure.

If you want to talk welfare, lets talk the Haliburton Corp which is owned by a blind trust of Richard Chaney, and got the Irag deal without any competition in bidding. Three hundred seventy two billion, and who is paying for this fiscao, taxpayers like me and Bison1234
So how about those apples.

What is worse than the welfare of Haliburton is that some families are meeting their love ones in a casket.

Lets get back to talking football.

JBB
01-07-2004, 11:20 PM
What was average family income in 1910, $1.000. A family made it on 40 acres thats all they needed. Now you need 1,000 or more. The price didnt change much but the amount you make per acre sure did. Its gone down and down and down. The same way I hope the provisional periods go.

NDSU_grad
01-08-2004, 02:47 PM
That pretty much says it all right there. Farming is a business like any other, if you can't make money at it, it's not a neccessary business. If there is high enough demand for your products, on the other hand, you won't have to worry. The government has no place in raising the price of farmed goods simply to save something that can't support its self. It's like the government tell people they have to pay extra for Kmart products to keep them in business against wal-mart. Nonsense.

I don't wish any "family" farms to disappear, i simply wish them to be held responsible to the laws of supply and demand.

And lastly as far as wellfare goes, there are many people who do need wellfare and maybe farmers are some of those people. But, again, the governments system is so currupt and pathetic that it's hardly wellfare at all. Private chairty organizations do a much better job at giving poor people money to get their life back in order.
That's part of the problem. *American farmers cannot compete on an international scale because farmers in those countries (especially the EU) are very heavily subsidized (much more so than here in the U.S). *Also, supply and demand will never work in the food production industry because it is a monotsony (basically the opposite of a monopoly). *You have many sellers (farmers) but very few buyers (ConAgra, ADM and Cargill). *These companies can control the price of commodities. *Also, what other industries do you know of where a small business owner (aka a farmer) buys all of his supplies at retail price (fertilizer, pesticides, seed, etc.) but sells his products at wholesale?
Tony, maybe you should set up an Ag Econ smack board.

Bisonfan1234
01-08-2004, 03:35 PM
Who says you have to sell to anyone? Sell your own food over ebay! Or whatever.

Just because people do things one way in another country isn't justification for doing it here. Perhaps other countries would see the light and stop government interference in the economy.

NDSU_grad
01-08-2004, 04:34 PM
I know what I say will really throw this off topic. I think the Ag Economics Dept at all land grant schools serve a very important purpose, and they will continue to do so whether the family farm concept survives or not. The corportate guys got to get the facts to or they go belly up. Some *AG Econ dept are more distinguished than others. SDSU hardly has the outstanding people that UCD does because we have such a crappy salary system.

Bison 12345 takes the food that he chucks down for granted as though it came from some warehouse which it did, but beyond that he fails to see the marketing channel that leads us back to the family farm. Also I might add one reason we continue to have subsidies is that it protects American Farmers from foreign produces in Europe and Asia who are highly subsidized. The reason we have subsidies,is that these foreign suppliers would not be able to supply food at the prices that we are accustomed to now the ones that put food on Bison1234 table.

If the market system is so pure and righteous, why was the Freedom to Farm such a failure? *It was amazing after a couple years how politicans from both sides of the isle were very anxious to dump this measure.

If you want to talk welfare, lets talk the Haliburton Corp which is owned by a blind trust of Richard Chaney, and got the Irag deal without any competition in bidding. *Three hundred seventy two billion, and who is paying for this fiscao, taxpayers like me and Bison1234
So how about those apples. *

What is worse than the welfare of Haliburton is that some families are meeting their love ones in a casket.



Lets get back to talking football.

SDSUFAN,
If it makes you feel any better I stole a hammer from Haliburton when I worked on the oil rigs during my summers away from college. I'm sure that really hit them in the pocketbook. But your right, back to football. I'm looking forward to the NCAA convention this summer. My dream is that the probationary period for b-ball gets reduced to 5 years, football to 3 years, and the other sports to 2 years. And that the SU's come out of those meetings with a conference in hand.

IowaBison
01-08-2004, 04:53 PM
Let's never talk about politics or policy or big business on this site again, please.

It's one thing to know a lot or a little about football, being a fan is good enough. Knowing little about agriculture, economics, or politics and opining is a sure sign of some people's ignorance.

lucchesicourt
01-13-2004, 03:43 PM
Current scuttlebutt at UCD. Tyler Ebell (RB) has elected to transfer from UCLA to another school. If he transfers to another D1A school he will only have 1 year of elgibility left, so the thinking is he will likely transfer to a D1AA school giving him 2 years of elgibility. Now, as for where he intends to transfer is still up in the air, but it seems UCD will have a good shot at him.

ndsubison
01-14-2004, 05:21 AM
Current scuttlebutt at UCD. Tyler Ebell (RB) has elected to transfer from UCLA to another school. *If he transfers to another D1A school he will only have 1 year of elgibility left, so the thinking is he will likely transfer to a D1AA school giving him 2 years of elgibility. *Now, as for where he intends to transfer is still up in the air, but it seems UCD will have a good shot at him.

I could see this becoming a trend at Davis as a result of their move up. If it does, they could really be a team to reckon with.

lucchesicourt
01-14-2004, 03:34 PM
Seems Ebell may want to stay in southwestern part of the country. First reports are he is looking at UNLV, San Diego State, and Texas Chrsitian. This according to his father.

Bisonfan1234
01-14-2004, 05:33 PM
Although Davis and LA are both in the same state, they are very far apart. I would think if UCD really did have a chance at him then so would Northern Arizona who did very well last year. Also CSU-SLO and CSU-Sac would have a shot at him as well.

mojobison
01-14-2004, 06:11 PM
Maybe our defense would have more luck tackling Ebell than Swanigan.

lucchesicourt
01-15-2004, 04:02 PM
The only reason I thought Davis might have a better chance than those other schools mentioned, was the ease in which it is to transfer from one UC school to another. UCD would recognize and give credit for all courses taken at UCLA where these other schools may not consider some of the courses as transferable for credit. That is one advantage UCD would have over the others.

ralph
01-19-2004, 12:52 AM
Good point lucchesicourt. Bisonfan1234, can we agree to call those I-AA teams Cal Poly and Sac State?

Bisonfan1234
01-19-2004, 04:41 AM
Call them whatever you want.

ndsubison
01-19-2004, 05:00 AM
This is a FB board so, all academics aside, why would he want to play for NAU when he could play for UCD? OK--I know I know--NAU is an established Big Sky program. However, IMHO, give UCD 5 yrs and they will make NAU look like a junior high team. NAU is a flash in the pan while UCD has a true commitment to football. Just my 2 cents.

ralph
01-19-2004, 05:41 AM
This is a FB board so, all academics aside, why would he want to play for NAU when he could play for UCD?...NAU is a flash in the pan while UCD has a true commitment to football...
Maybe because NAU has produced more current NFL players:
UCD, 1:
Team First Name Last Name Pos Exp College Conference
New Orleans Saints *J.T. *O'Sullivan *QB *1 *UC Davis *Indep
NAU, 5:
Buffalo Bills *Travis *Brown *QB *3 *Northern Arizona *BSC *
Chicago Bears *Todd *McMillon *CB *4 *Northern Arizona *BSC *
Dallas Cowboys *Keith *O'Neil *OLB *0 *Northern Arizona *BSC *
Arizona Cardinals *Preston *Parsons *QB *1 *Northern Arizona *BSC *
Jacksonville Jaguars *Raymond *Perryman *S *1 *Northern Arizona *BSC

ndsubison
01-19-2004, 06:03 AM
Thanks for the educartion, Ralph. Seriously. I still say that in 5 yrs or so UCD will be a better program than NAU.

lucchesicourt
01-20-2004, 03:34 PM
UCD has produced their share of professionals in the past. Maybe not many current players, but several are still playing professionally.
Khari Jones (CFL MVP) turned down an NFL offer to play in Canada ($$$$$). Kevin Daft (1 year NFL experience), Onome Ojo( 2years NFL experience), and Michael Oliva all had NFL contracts before the beginning of the season, but were eventually cut.
Let's not forget the big star of the past from UCD, Ken O'Brien. There have been many others. Also, you must remember that UCD did allthis without scholarships. Now, that they have them they will get more athletic players.
NDSU and UCD have alway put quality overlooked players on their rosters. When you increase scholarships , you get more athletic talent, right?
NAU, from what I have seen, really hasn't the history of success that NDSU and UCD possess. NDSU and UCD WILL BE the powers to recon with in the WEST very shortly. But, we'll see in about the 3rd year of the provisional period, as UCD build's their athletic scholarships.

ndsubison
01-21-2004, 03:16 AM
UCD has produced their share of professionals in the past. *Maybe not many current players, but several are still playing professionally.
Khari Jones (CFL MVP) turned down an NFL offer to play in Canada ($$$$$). *Kevin Daft (1 year NFL experience), Onome Ojo( 2years NFL experience), and Michael Oliva all had NFL contracts before the beginning of the season, but were eventually cut.
Let's not forget the big star of the past from UCD, Ken *O'Brien. *There have been many *others. *Also, you must remember that UCD did allthis without scholarships. *Now, that they have them they will get more athletic players.
NDSU and UCD have alway put quality overlooked players on their rosters. *When you increase scholarships , you get more athletic talent, right?
NAU, from what I have seen, really hasn't *the history of success that NDSU and UCD possess. * NDSU and UCD WILL BE the powers to recon with in the WEST very shortly. But, we'll see in about the 3rd year of the *provisional period, as UCD build's their athletic scholarships.


I agree, lucciouscourt(what kind of name is that anyway??). UCD is an outstanding program and you have the respect of the entire BISONation for your accomplishments. I said it before on an earlier thread but I'll say it again: once UCD gets their scholies up things are going to get scary for everybody that plays them. Although I consider the Aggies a BIG rival, at least you guys have some class, which is something our other rivals cannot even define. Go Aggies (until you meet 'SU)!

lucchesicourt
01-21-2004, 05:16 PM
ndsubison, you guys too have an awesome program, successwise better than ours (since you guys have the big ONE several times, while we have yet to accomplish it. However, with scholarships now available I think we will be able to do that. As for your idea of a rival- I too agree. I was there in the late 70's and early 80's when you guys beat us. The only win that stands out was the day UCD won with K. O'Brien at QB. Other than that all the big games, you guys won. So, let's continue our good natured rivalry. I always root for you guys in the playoffs when we are out. Why? You guys possess Class!!!!

tony
01-21-2004, 07:34 PM
Nothing will heat up a rivalry like that spanking UC Davis gave NDSU in 2002. Ouch! That one still smarts.

JBB
01-21-2004, 08:15 PM
Right now UCD is our longest running rivalry next to SDSU, and it is a great rivalry at that. In my mind its our biggest game next season and is always seen as a big game. I hope they televise it. The game in the Fargo Dome was great. I thought NDSU could have won, but we didnt get it done. Both teams were playing well that day. It was a great game.

silkamilkamonico
01-21-2004, 09:06 PM
~UCD-NDSU was a great game last year..when we cut it to 18-13 early in the fourth I thought we would have it fo'sho'......I also thought our offense never really got on track that day, but they did have a good defense....UCD showed me alot of class I like the idea of a friendly rivalry with them.....

GoAgs
01-21-2004, 10:53 PM
Back to Tyler Ebell,

The main reason he probably won't even consider UC Davis is he wouldn't get a full scholarship. He was one of the top recruits in the country coming out of high school so it's hard to believe that he would want to pay for his own books over the next couple years. I think NAU is a real good fit for him. He'd be quick on the turf and probably wouldn't have to worry about school.

D
01-21-2004, 10:57 PM
Back to Tyler Ebell,

The main reason he probably won't even consider UC Davis is he wouldn't get a full scholarship. He was one of the top recruits in the country coming out of high school so it's hard to believe that he would want to pay for his own books over the next couple years. I think NAU is a real good fit for him. He'd be quick on the turf and probably wouldn't have to worry about school.

UTEP-Ebell will sit next year and have 1 year to play, he likes Price (the former WAASU coach), it sounds like it is almost a done deal

Bisonfan1234
01-21-2004, 11:25 PM
~UCD-NDSU was a great game last year..when we cut it to 18-13 early in the fourth I thought we would have it fo'sho'......I also thought our offense never really got on track that day, but they did have a good defense....UCD showed me alot of class I like the idea of a friendly rivalry with them.....

When snell intercepted it i knew we would score and win. But when Steffes fumbled on that drive i knew it was over.

If we wouldn't have lost to UCD i guaranty we would have gone down to Winona and killed them ez, then on to UND which would have been a great game. Assuming we won that and now knowing how pathetic southern D2 football is we probably would have made it to the game vs. GVSU. What a game it would have been i'm sure.

silkamilkamonico
01-22-2004, 02:21 AM
When snell intercepted it i knew we would score and win. But when Steffes fumbled on that drive i knew it was over.

If we wouldn't have lost to UCD i guaranty we would have gone down to Winona and killed them ez, then on to UND which would have been a great game. Assuming we won that and now knowing how pathetic southern D2 football is we probably would have made it to the game vs. GVSU. What a game it would have been i'm sure.

~still torture to think about it...we had such a solid team this year...2 ot losses and a loss to D1-AA......dam......!

ndsubison
01-22-2004, 03:11 AM
~still torture to think about it...we had such a solid team this year...2 ot losses and a loss to D1-AA......dam......!


If we can keep Bohl around, I see good things in store for the Bison Program. Phuck the naysayers and the pessimists. GO BISON!!!

lucchesicourt
01-23-2004, 02:16 PM
Hey Tony,

That team in 2002 was loaded offensively. Probably the best of all the Aggie teams offensively. The Aggies that year had JT O'Sullivan, Onome Ojo, Charlie Enos, and Michael Oliva (all were or are on a professional team). Tha running game was also good, just not the same as the passing game (I think our average touchdown drive was only about 2 minutes that entire year and we averaged nearly 50 points a game). You were not the only team that that got beat, there were some good (Sac State was ranked and lost 43-0 to us)
teams.
The teams you guys put on the field were a totally different type of team. You ran a lot and ground it out, eating up time before finally punching it in. UCD has never really been this type of team. It seems for us we usually use the pass to set up the run (even though we usually run/pass about the same times per game. NDSU usually just beat Davis up on the ground and on defense. Thus, the scores were usually never big blowouts, but we knew we got our as kicked pretty good a few times, and some when ot REALLY counted.
That 2002 that UCD had, I really don't think too many teams, even D1AA would have wanted to play that team. It seemed all we did was throw 1-3 passes and had a TD. And that team did this all year, even on the playoffs (we lost our playoff game by something like 52-43, so they still put up the #'s-- it was our "D" that could not hold a 4th quarter20 point lead).
Your team has ALWAYS been the thorn in our side, and you know I don't really mind. I figure if you want to win it all, you need to beat the best, and that was NDSU in D2 football. UCD played GVSU the last two years and they were in no way as tough as you guys. Sure we lost both games by a total of 10 points (one an OT loss 9-6), but we outplayed NDSU in 2002@GV with Anes/Kircus and Company, just turnovers cost us. When we lost to NDSU we knew we got beat. Both games against GVSU could have gone either way. So, in my opinion NDSU program has been the best, and all those other D2 teams can talk all the want, but you guys were the best. And you know what, they probably know that too. Just afraid to admit it. Especially, on the D2 Football message board.

lucchesicourt
01-23-2004, 03:26 PM
Sorry, my error!!! 2002 QB was Ryan Flanigan not JT and OJO and Enos. I had the wrong year. The 2002 wasn't too far behind the 2001 team. UCD still had a great QB and receiver.