SU Communities

If SU joined the West Coast Conference and Division I, what changes might you anticipate for the university?  What are the critical points for the Athletic Alignment Task Force to consider in making their recommendations?

As you may have heard, the university is now reviewing its intercollegiate sports programs to see if it should seek membership in the West Coast Conference (WCC).  The WCC is a Division I athletic league made up of eight universities--Santa Clara, Gonzaga, San Francisco, Loyola Marymount, Portland, San Diego, St. Mary's and Pepperdine.  (The WCC is not a football conference.) Currently, Seattle U is in the Great Northwest Athletic Conference (GNAC) with other member schools Seattle Pacific, Western Washington, Central Washington, Northwest Nazarene, St. Martin's, Western Oregon, Alaska Fairbanks and Alaska Anchorage.  A few of the questions people have been asking:

• Are the schools in the WCC a better fit for SU?
• Will WCC and Division I membership increase the university's visibility and prestige?
• How would the move affect our educational mission, student life and campus culture?
• What resources will it take, how much will it cost?

We want to hear your thoughts and questions, please join the discussion.  Thank you.

What are your plans regarding housing?  With a move to Division I sports, we will inevitably interest more high school seniors.  Housing is currently an issue prompting concern.  With an increased enrollment each year, likely boosted even further by a division change, where do you plan on putting these kids?  Last I heard, we were sitting at over 100% occupancy which is uncomfortable, and slightly unfair, for all.  I would implore that BEFORE a move to Division I sports, the housing crisis be addressed.

I would love to see Division I sports as much as anyone else.  Our campus lacks a school spirit that could be rectified by superior sports programming, but there are many questions still surfacing.  What are Seattle University's motives?  Will academics suffer with the increase in athletic spending?  Overall, I feel like the University needs to be in a more stable situation before they take on such a large commitment.  We should have a stable foundation before we welcome the excitement of Division I sports.  I'm not sure if now is the right time for Seattle U.

Sincerely,

Sean Klosterman

Good points...Housing for students and suitable classrooms, not to mention additional offices for staff and faculty, are concerns.  The residence halls, for example, opened this fall at 106% capacity and an additional 120 students were denied on campus housing due to lack of space.  The University Facilities Master Plan addresses many of these issues.  Additionally, there are housing projects proposed for the corner of 12th and Cherry and the corner of 12th and Madison, not to mention rethinking currently owned facilities for mixed uses such as student housing, classrooms, staff and faculty offices, and essential support services.  That said, these are proposals and a capital plan to fund these projects is being examined. 

What is most important is the quality of the educational experience and so I appreciate your comments.  Any divisional move (and staying where we are) could have implications for the educational experience and the platform for the "Seattle U experience" for our students. 

This is an excellent time to explore the issue of Athletic Alignment.  The University is stronger than ever and the question keeps popping up...so, we need to determine what is best for the institution at this time.  The issues you raised are very important and will be explored in depth by the Athletic Alignment Study Task Force.

Thanks,

Rob Kelly                                                                                                                                     VP, Student Development

---

Robert D. Kelly, Ph.D.
Vice President, Student Development

As an Alumni of Seattle University I believe the switch to the WCC is a wise move. I will definitely give more to funding drives if Seattle returns to NCAA Division I status.

Go Chieftains!

ESG

Could someone provide some historical context as to why Seattle University originally left D1?  What were the issues at play in the original decision?

SU has a very strong commitment to education and creating a community that is very focused on academic excellence.  It is a quality that distinguishes SU from other institutions in the region, and was a major reason why I attended and later graduated from SU. 

If cultural and mission/core value issues played any role in the original decision to leave DI and focus the resources of the university on education, how would SU remain dedicated to these principles that have made SU the success that it is today? 

Is there a danger that SU could become distracted from providing a first-rate education by using time, resources, money, and other intangibles to provide a D1 level athletics program at the expense of our core values?

 

The university left Division I athletics in the spring of 1980.  It was on the heels of a very difficult period in the 70's when SU was facing both enrollment decreases and serious financial challenges.  The decision was made, in part, to devote some funding from intercollegiate sports to build programs in recreational, intramural and life sports on campus.

SU was a much different place in 1980 than it is today in terms of size, financial strength, campus facilities and reputation.  It is because of this significant progress over the past decades that the university is now investigating whether a return to the WCC and Division I makes sense in 2006 and beyond.

The questions you ask about how a new athletic alignment might affect mission, academics, values and resource allocation are among the most critical to be answered, I believe.  They will be carefully considered by the task force, the administration and the Board of Trustees. Thank you for raising them, and for your comments.

Mark Burnett, Associate Vice President, University Advancement

D1 sports is undoubtedly the way to go for Seattle University.  Previous posts have worried about lack of housing, however that problem is really not of the most concern.  If you take away the two year mandatory Res Hall rule for underclassmen that would help a little bit.  Secondly, D1 sports would icrease the University's exposure to the public eye and bring in more money from 1) Coorporate sponsors 2) students 3) alumni and individual donors i.e- the 10 million received from Bill Gates for the Library.  All of this proposed monetary aid could lend to building new residence halls, the acquisition of new properties and the developement of properties that the school currently owns.          

   With a rise to D1 athletics, the SU's  visibility within the college arena will sky-rocket and it will get the credit that it deserves.  This relies on maintaining the high academic standards and oppurtunities that are currently in place at SU. This is very possible and not at all far fetched.  Historically, there have been many smaller religiously affiliated schools that have made the step to NCAA D1 and have become quite succesful, Boston College for instance as well as Georgetown and pepperdine. 

   Campus life will hopefully change for the better with an increase of school spirit and pride as well as lead to a transformation of sorts, the school would increase drastically in size both in numbers of students and land mass.  Both of which I think would be interesting and fun to see. To start this transition there will need to be a large financial commitment from the beggining.  It would take years to propperly acquire and develope the propper facilities for D1 athletics, the soccer field is sufficient, basketball faciliies in Connolly are preparing for a revamp currently, what about Baseball?  To have D1 status and not have your own Baseball field is ludicrous. 

   All in all I think it would be a wonderful idea as long as it is done right from the very start.  There can be no skimping.  Everything must be done with the idea that once the transition is complete there will be a drastic change in the life at SU, slow as it may be.  It will be worth it for SU will be able to maintain its academic prowess as wel as offer the sports culture that is mandatory of BIG NAME schools and with its proximity to Downtown, this change could morph seattle University into a University sought out by students from all over the country.   IM FOR IT!

   Football would be nice, but lets not get our hopes up too high...

I must admit that I disagree to a great extent with the last post that said that moving to Division 1 is a clear choice for Seattle University. As Dr. Kelly and most of the other posts on this site have said, there are a lot of questions, and a lot of idealist claims that really need to be sorted through and considered before we make this decision.
As a high school senior two years ago, I can easily remember that the D1 status of Gonzaga was actually the factor that turned me away from the school. We can't necessarily say that going D1 will be the ultra-positive morale and publicity booster that we anticipated. I've actually never met someone who said that Seattle University wasn't already above Gonzaga and Santa Clara, but perhaps my judgments are misplaced.
A second concern involves the fact that our university doesn't have the facilities or resources in place to deal with the student population already. I'm not just talking about housing. Consider the letter that students received last week about our inability to control alcohol consumption on campus. Our students, and even our student athletes, are binge drinking at pre-funk parties to the point of hospitalization. Do we really want to turn into Gonzaga in that respect? I heard that Santa Clara is at an all time high for average weekend hospitalizations of students for alcohol poisoning - 6 per weekend - perhaps if we go D1 we'll start competing in that arena as well.
People love college and especially Seattle University for different reasons. For some individuals, the move to D1 is the clear choice, but for others, the use of those funds for social justice, perhaps even the maintenance and growth of educational programs, seems more appropriate. Perhaps a revitalization of the engineering building or funding for the expanse of foreign language at this university. This brings me to my last point. In looking over the roster for your committee I must admit that I am somewhat concerned as to whether it is really representative of both sides of the debate. Looking at it on paper, it seems as though students and faculty who don't have a direct connection to sports at Seattle University are vastly underrepresented. At this point, I don't know if I would respect a decision that would come out of your committee as completely unbiased. I really don't know exactly how you can solve my unease in this online forum, but I think that your committee should be conscious of the fact that your composition and membership is raising concern around the campus. Do with it what you will, and best of luck in working through this difficult and complex decision.

I agree that there are a number of questions that should be addressed before moving to D1. However, as an alumni, I cannot count the numerous times I have gone into job interviews having to explain where Seattle University is and that there is another great university other than the UW or to correct others who think it's Seattle Pacific University. I feel that my education at Seattle University was just as good, if not better than those of peers who graduated from the UW.

I believe that the move to D1 would provide an additional marketing vehicle to give Seattle University the recognition it deserves. In addition, a successful athletics program will give the school a much needed spirit which at the SU's current state does not exist. The move to D1 is a means to an end. Housing, facility improvements/upgrades, more educational programs are all a necessary evil even without the move to D1. If we do not move to D1, how does the university plan on getting more visibility around the nation and giving its graduates something to cheer and be happy about besides a high quality degree from a school that you have to constantly educate people?

D1 did wonders for the Gonzaga program and people not from the area think Gonzaga is a great school and that's only because of their basketball team. Unless you have attended/graduated from Seattle University, you wouldn't know it's a great school or even have heard about SU. Also, how do we know that the current increase in enrollment was due to students not being admitted into the UW?

A response from John Eshelman, Provost and Co-Chair, Athletic Alignment Task Force to the post by alstonm...

Thank you for your comments and concerns, they are important ones.  The athletic task force was selected to represent a broad cross-section of the Seattle University community--students, faculty, staff, trustees, regents and alumni.  You are right that there are members that have a connection to athletics on campus, but there are many other members who do not.  I'd number myself among the latter.

What is most critical before the task force makes its recommendations is that we conduct a fair and thorough process to gather and analyze information on the key issues before us, including those you have outlined.  I am confident we will conduct our study in this manner, and that we will give all in the SU community a chance to be heard.  Thanks again for being part of the discussion.

John Eshelman

I graduated from SU in the 1990's and completed three degrees which included two undergraduate degrees and also an MBA.  I also attended Gonzaga University for one year.

 

My decision to attend SU did not factor in athletics.  Rather, the school's Matteo Ricci college and also the Business programs attracted me to SU.

 

I will say, that for many reasons, I feel strongly that SU should return (emphasis on return) to division 1 athletics.

 

First, I think the current athletics goals have failed.  When SU joined the GNAC conference, the mission was to create an atmosphere where many students could participate in student athletics as athletes rather than spectators.  This philosophy might suit a small New England style liberal arts college, but not an urban university such as SU where the majority of students live off campus and work jobs beyond their student life.  The reality is that while most working students do not have the time or the resources to compete in athletics, they would have time to attend major sports events.

 

Second, we need to realize part of this equation is not what we, as educated, well-rounded SU students and alumni think, but rather, what the general population thinks. I personally find nothing wrong with the strategy that we should focus our resources on academics rather than sports.  However, the vast majority of Americans and International students simply do not feel that way.  Look at the lists of universities in each conference ... Compare the reputation of Alaska Fairbanks with that of Loyola Marymount.  Think of other small private schools nationwide that complete at the division 1 level.  Schools such as Seton Hall became household names when they would have otherwise not been known at all.  Many people in Seattle and beyond confuse SU with SPU, or have simply never heard of our school at all. Others think it is some type of "City University " or "Golden Gate University" type part-time school. Still others think it is a community college.  While there is nothing wrong with each type of school, they certainly do not represent what SU is.  If we are to build a university that is regionally and nationally recognized by both 18 year old high school students and business leaders alike, it may mean that unfortunately we need to include marketing tools such as division 1 sports.

 

Third, the intangible merit of the school spirit that athletics generates must not be undervalued.  Look at events such as our state's Apple Cup, or games when Gonzaga plays the UW.  It just doesn't appear as though people can get that excited when SU plays a school such as St. Martins or Western.

 

Fourth, I disagree that the money could be better spent on university facilities and other programs.  Those areas will always need funding, whether we have division 1 athletics or not, and one could use that argument to deny participation in almost any university program, academic or athletic alike.  The SU campus is strategically located near downtown Seattle, and would have access to numerous facilities such as Key Arena for its sporting events.  Being located in the middle of downtown Seattle, SU would also have access to a huge urban population for its sporting events.

 

One last comment regarding the name of our teams.  When I attended SU we were still known as the Chieftains.  While the Midwest style Native American logo was perhaps inapplicable, I never thought the name itself was inappropriate.  Chieftain to me meant, not simply a Native American, but also a leader of a tribe, such as an officer.  I am very familiar with the various Northwest Native American tribes, and I feel that, if done right, such as name may be used to honor them rather than humiliate or disgrace them.  In the end, changing the name was probably a wise choice to avoid misinterpretation, but I do feel that it is unfortunate that in a city that is named after a great Native American leader, we cannot also honor the tribes with an athletic name recognition.

 

As I write this today I see that the WCC has indicate that they will not allow SU to join the conference. Considering that most of the schools in the conference are other Jesuit universities, I feel that they have betrayed our university and owe us a better explanation for their self-centered exclusiveness.

 

- Joe

 

BA '93, MBA '98