Connect with us

South Dakota

South Dakota State vs. No. 17 Oklahoma State live stream (8/31/24): Watch college football, Week 1 online

Published

on

South Dakota State vs. No. 17 Oklahoma State live stream (8/31/24): Watch college football, Week 1 online


The South Dakota State Jackrabbits face the No. 17 Oklahoma State Cowboys on Saturday, Aug. 31, 2024 (8/31/24) at Boone Pickens Stadium in Stillwater, Oklahoma.

Fans can watch the game with a subscription to ESPN+.

Here’s what you need to know:

What: NCAA Football, Week 1

Advertisement

Who: South Dakota State vs. Oklahoma State

When: Saturday, Aug. 31, 2024 (8/31/24)

Where: Boone Pickens Stadium

Time: 2 p.m. ET

TV: N/A

Advertisement

Channel finder: Verizon Fios, AT&T U-verse, Comcast Xfinity, Spectrum/Charter, Optimum/Altice,Cox,DIRECTV, Dish, Hulu, fuboTV, Sling.

Live stream: ESPN+

***

Here’s a college football story from the Associated Press:

Y’all ain’t played nobody!

Advertisement

It might as well be college football’s slogan. Debates about strength of schedule are part of the fabric of the sport, like marching bands, cheerleaders and tailgating.

With the size of the College Football Playoff tripling in size from four teams to 12 this season — including seven at-large bids — expect the arguments over the relative difficulty of teams’ schedules to increase exponentially.

The posturing and politicking has already begun.

“This is the NFL of college football in my mind,” Nebraska coach Matt Rhule said during Big Ten media days. At Southeastern Conference media days, the NFL was also invoked when the topic steered to schedules.

“As coaches we want to play the best. People forget that when you’ve spent time in the NFL, every week was like that,” Georgia coach Kirby Smart said. “So when Texas and Oklahoma came into the conference, every schedule was going to get harder.”

Advertisement

The debates aren’t just about which conferences are the best. With super-sized conferences of 16-18 teams, the differences in strength of schedule within leagues can be significant.

The CFP selection committee uses a strength-of-schedule rating provided by SportSource Analytics that includes components such as wins and losses, scoring differential and game location.

Balancing who you played with how you played will be harder than ever.

“There’s a weight on the committee that’s new. I want to see how the committee processes that,” SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey said during spring meetings. “And my encouragement is that this, ‘Well, we have an undefeated team so they’re in’ is not the standard. It never was the standard. Obviously, that stirred up controversy last year.”

Toughest schedules in the Power Four

There are dozens of data-based rating systems to measure the relative strength of college football teams, and all have some type of schedule-rating component.

Advertisement

The AP took three systems — ESPN’s SP+, FEI and KFord Ratings — and averaged their strength of schedule rankings for all 134 Bowl Subdivision teams to determine where each Power Four team’s schedule ranks nationally (all games, not just conference games, are factored in).

Using those projections, SEC teams on average will be facing the toughest schedules this season.

The average strength-of-schedule ranking among the 16 SEC teams is 11.2, from Florida (a unanimous No. 1 among all three systems) to Missouri at 36.7.

Half the teams in the SEC have schedules with an average national ranking of 10 or better, including No. 1 Georgia at 3.7. No. 11 Missouri is the only SEC team with an average schedule-strength ranking below 25.3.

Rating the rest

The Big Ten, now including Southern California, UCLA, Oregon and Washington, is next with an average strength-of-schedule ranking of 26.9 among its 18 teams.

Advertisement

Purdue’s 7.7 average ranking is the highest followed by No. 23 USC at 9. Big Ten favorite No. 2 Ohio State’s average is 34. No. 3 Oregon’s is 26.7.

The ACC and Big 12 are about the same. The 17-team ACC has an average strength of schedule ranking of 49.9. The 16-team Big 12′s average ranking is 47.3.

Assessing strength of schedule

Straight up rankings can be deceiving. How to quantify the difference between facing the sixth-ranked schedule and 26th?

Brian Fremeau, the creator of FEI, does it three ways, asking three questions: How many games would an elite team lose facing a particular schedule? How many would a good team lose? How many would an average team lose?

AP used FEI’s strength of schedule ratings based on good teams in its composite rankings, since good teams are going to be the ones in the CFP race.

Advertisement

Based on FEI projections, the difference between playing Georgia’s schedule (rated 3.4 among the hardest in the nation) and Ohio State (34) is about one more loss for a good team against the Bulldogs’ slate. The difference between Alabama’s schedule and Big 12 favorite Utah’s is about two losses for a good team against the Tide’s.

If these schedule strength projections held — they will change throughout the season — it would then be reasonable to compare an 11-1 Utah to a 9-3 Alabama.

Reasonable to compare doesn’t necessarily mean the one with the tougher schedule should automatically be ranked higher.

“I don’t judge a team on its schedule. I judge a team on how it performs against a schedule, or my system does. And that is a little more of a nuanced take then, ‘Well, we played a tougher set of opponents than you did, therefore, we’re better,’” Fremeau said. “There’s a bit of a balancing act between the two.”

Intraconference debates

The SEC and Big Ten are both bigger and division-less for the first time. That necessitated new tiebreaker procedures to determine which teams qualify for conference title games featuring the top two teams in the standings.

Advertisement

Within the guidelines is an acknowledgment that the rigor of conference schedules will vary when teams are playing barely half the league. After head-to-head and record vs. common opponents are used to break ties, both leagues go to results that favor the team that fared better against the better conference opponents they play.

The ACC, a year ahead of the the SEC and Big Ten in abandoning divisions, has a similar nod within its tiebreakers to strength of schedule.

ACC Associate Commissioner Michael Strickland said the conference used 10 years of data that measures the success of its football teams to help create a new schedule rotation that would be competitively balanced. But the ACC also to had weigh travel now that Stanford, California and SMU are members, as well as protecting some traditional annual rivalries.

The ACC’s fourth two-team tiebreaker is combined winning percentage of conference opponents.

“Our head football coaches suggested that we insert that during our review process,” Strickland said.

Advertisement

The CFP choices

The CFP field announced Dec. 8 will be comprised of the five highest-ranked conference champions, regardless of league, and seven at-large selections. There is no limit to the number of at-large bids a conference can receive.

The most interesting comparisons for the CFP selection committee might end up being between the many conference rivals that do not play each other in the regular season.

What to do with a 10-2 Missouri and a 9-3 Alabama (composite strength-of-schedule ranking, 9.3)? Or Iowa (37) at 10-2 and Michigan (16) at 9-3? Over in the ACC, what would happen while assessing a 10-2 Virginia Tech (68) and a 9-3 Florida State (30.3)?

“Especially when we’re picking (seven) teams now, we’re looking at the loss column with a bit more scrutiny,” Fremeau said. “They’re going to be debating teams like that with a one or possibly two-game difference in record, but a comparable difference in expected schedule rating and they’re going to have that debate about which one they value more.”

(The Associated Press contributed to this report)

Advertisement

Thank you for relying on us to provide the journalism you can trust. Please consider supporting us with asubscription.



Source link

South Dakota

Trading property tax for sales tax: Legislature moves forward with parts of homeowner relief package

Published

on

Trading property tax for sales tax: Legislature moves forward with parts of homeowner relief package


PIERRE — Two pieces of a property tax reduction package prepared by South Dakota’s legislative leadership and the executive branch are moving forward, but one bill failed during votes on Monday as lawmakers began the final week of the annual legislative session.

The House of Representatives voted

42-27

in support of

Advertisement

Senate Bill 245

, which would pull future revenue from a scheduled sales tax increase from 4.2% to 4.5% next year into a relief fund for homeowner property taxes, and use nearly $56 million in one-time money to seed the fund before the sales tax increase.

The Senate supported

House Bill 1323

, which would reduce the number of petition signatures needed to force an election on a local government’s decision to levy property taxes beyond limits set by the state. The Senate passed the bill 19-15.

Advertisement

Both bills have to return to the opposite chamber for consideration of amendments.

The Senate rejected

House Bill 1253

, which would cap annual assessment growth for owner-occupied homes and commercial properties at 5% annually and reset assessments back to market value every five years. The bill failed with a 9-24 vote.

The bills are part of a broader,

Advertisement

five-bill legislative package

targeted at property tax relief.

Another bill

in the package, which would allow counties to implement a half-percent sales tax with proceeds going to homeowner property tax credits, is awaiting the governor’s signature after he proposed it and it received both chambers’ approval.

The legislative budget committee is scheduled to consider a fifth piece of legislation in the package on Tuesday.

Advertisement

The bill

would reduce maximum property tax levies for school districts.

Sales tax bill overcomes concerns about future budget needs

SB 245 would capture revenue from the impending sales tax increase to deposit into a “homeowner property tax reduction fund” meant to reduce property taxes levied by school districts. The Legislature and then-Gov. Kristi Noem reduced the state sales tax rate three years ago but scheduled the reduction to sunset in 2027.

House Speaker Jon Hansen, R-Dell Rapids, told lawmakers on Monday that the bill would be an “investment in the people,” because it’ll give South Dakota homeowners more money to spend as they choose. Hansen, the bill’s sponsor and a candidate for governor, said that would lead to more spending and, therefore, more sales tax revenue. The state relies on sales taxes, while counties and schools rely on property taxes, and cities receive revenue from property taxes and sales taxes.

Advertisement

Some opponents said the legislation would favor wealthier, property-owning South Dakotans rather than lower-income renters.

Rep. Mike Weisgram, R-Fort Pierre, speaks on the House floor at the Capitol in Pierre on March 9, 2026.

(Photo by Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight)

Rep. Mike Weisgram, R-Fort Pierre, worried that automatically diverting future state revenue to reduce homeowner property taxes would come at the cost of other priorities, such as annual funding increases for state employees, Medicaid providers and public schools — which are known as the “big three” budget priorities. Lawmakers often

aim

Advertisement

to increase funding for the groups by 3% or inflation, whichever is less. An inflationary increase this legislative session would be 2.5%, according to the state Department of Education.

“We are just clawing to get 1.4% for the big three,” Weisgram said. “I don’t think any of us are proud of that.”

Hansen said the decision “is not an either-or” situation.

“We can help the property taxpayers in the state who desperately, desperately need it,” Hansen said, “and then I trust fully that this state is going to continue to grow and that we are going to be able to meet the needs of our core obligations of this state.”

The bill was introduced as an amendment to placeholder legislation last week, and it will head to the Senate for approval. The Senate narrowly rejected a

Advertisement

similar proposal

earlier this legislative session.

Senate approves lower signature threshold to force election on excess taxes

The version of House Bill 1323 that passed the Senate would set the number of petition signatures needed to force an election on an excess tax levy (often called an “opt-out”) for a local government at 2,500 or 5% of registered voters within its jurisdiction, whichever is less. The current threshold to refer decisions by a local government is 5% of registered voters in the district, without a 2,500 signature cap.

The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Taffy Howard, R-Rapid City, said it will still be difficult to refer decisions by a local government to voters.

Advertisement

“You’re talking dozens and dozens of volunteers, weeks of organized effort,” Howard said. “There’s not a lot of people that have been through that and can even organize that kind of effort. So it’s not a trivial bar.”

Because the bill was amended since it last appeared in the House, it’ll now go to the House for approval.

HB 1253 intended to provide South Dakota homeowners and commercial property owners predictable increases in their property assessments, which factor into property taxes they pay, over five year periods.

But opponents said the change would shift the property tax burden onto farmers and ranchers and surprise homeowners every five years when assessments would be re-based on market value, which could lead to double-digit increases in assessments.

This story was originally published on

Advertisement

SouthDakotaSearchlight.com.

______________________________________________________

This story was written by one of our partner news agencies. Forum Communications Company uses content from agencies such as Reuters, Kaiser Health News, Tribune News Service and others to provide a wider range of news to our readers. Learn more about the news services FCC uses here.





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

South Dakota

Political Pulse: South Dakota Senate Majority Leader Jim Mehlhaff on data centers, property taxes and more

Published

on

Political Pulse: South Dakota Senate Majority Leader Jim Mehlhaff on data centers, property taxes and more


RAPID CITY, S.D. (KOTA) – State Senate Majority Leader Jim Mehlhaff joined Political Pulse over the weekend.

Mehlhaff weighed in on property tax proposals, data centers, and effort to repeal the death penalty and speculation that Kristi Noem could run for Senate.

The interviewed was taped on Saturday.

See a spelling or grammatical error in our story? Please click here to report it.

Advertisement

Do you have a photo or video of a breaking news story? Send it to us here with a brief description.



Source link

Continue Reading

South Dakota

These 15 South Dakota counties will see DUI checkpoints this month

Published

on

These 15 South Dakota counties will see DUI checkpoints this month



The monthly law enforcement effort helps to reduce alcohol-related deaths on the road.

play

The South Dakota Department of Public Safety is raising awareness this month on the dangers of drinking and driving.

Sobriety checkpoints take place statewide every month, usually hitting about 15 counties, in hopes of reminding motorists to “make responsible choices and avoid driving after drinking alcohol, whether or not a checkpoint is planned in their area,” says DPS communications director Brad Reiners.

DPS also announces ahead of time which counties will be monitored, most often Codington, Lincoln, Meade, Minnehaha and Pennington counties.

What is a sobriety checkpoint?

A sobriety checkpoint is a law enforcement effort that stops vehicles at pre-determined locations to identify and arrest impaired drivers as necessary.

Advertisement

These police stops are not based on unrelated violations of the law (ie., speeding, reckless driving, no seatbelt). Rather, officers are stopping any vehicle in a set pattern in a highly visible location that a driver will approach and must comply with.

Beyond arrests for driving under the influence (DUIs), including breathalyzer tests (PBTs) to determine blood alcohol level (BAC) as needed, the systematic effort is designed to “reduce impaired driving and improve roadway safety,” Reiners said.

South Dakota counties where checkpoints will take place in March include:

  • Beadle
  • Brookings
  • Brown
  • Clay
  • Codington
  • Day
  • Hughes
  • Hutchinson
  • Jones
  • Lawrence
  • Lincoln
  • Lyman
  • Meade
  • Minnehaha
  • Pennington

How many sobriety checkpoints took place in Minnehaha County in 2025?

Other than confirming counties ahead of time, Reiners says time, day and exact location of each checkpoint cannot be confirmed.

Advertisement

Here’s a look at totals from sobriety checkpoints in Minnehaha County in 2025.

Reiners says the number of vehicle stops is merely based on how many happen to drive through a checkpoint that day:

  • January: 30 vehicles stopped, 3 PBTs, no DUI arrests
  • February: 18 vehicles stopped, 1 PBT, no DUI arrests
  • March: 150 vehicles stopped, 9 PBTs, no DUI arrests
  • August: 49 vehicles stopped, 1 PBT, no DUI arrests
  • September: 105 vehicles stopped, 14 PBTs, no DUI arrests
  • November: 63 vehicles stopped, 2 PBTs, 2 DUI arrests

How many fatal, alcohol-related car accidents are there in South Dakota?

According to the South Dakota Department of Health, among 365 alcohol-related deaths in 2024, 19% were because of a transportation/machinery accident, the second-most common cause.

The leading cause of alcohol-related deaths in 2024 was poisoning/toxic effects, at 24%.

Counties that most often experience overall alcohol-related deaths include Buffalo, Mellette, Corson, Oglala Lakota and Dewey counties.

Overall, males make up 65% of alcohol-related deaths in South Dakota from 2015-2024, almost two times higher than the female rate, with ages 30-69 at the highest risk.

Advertisement

Operation: Prairie Thunder not involved in sobriety checkpoints

DPS officials say the S.D. Office of Highway Patrol, the South Dakota Highway Patrol (SDHP) and local law enforcement agencies support DUI checkpoints, which are funded by the South Dakota Office of Highway Safety (SDHS).

Although Operation: Prairie Thunder (OPT) recently completed its 11th saturation patrol in Watertown on Feb. 26-27 – missions that bring together the SDHP with the city, county and federal law enforcement partners – SDHS officials stated last week that “sobriety checkpoints are not conducted as part of Operation: Prairie Thunder.”

Rather, OPT consists of targeted saturation patrols focused on criminal activity in a variety of communities.

Since its inception in August of last year, here’s a look at where total numbers stand for OPT, provided by the DPS.

Advertisement

Ongoing Operation: Prairie Thunder running totals

  • 443 arrests
  • 281 individuals in custody with a drug charge
  • 162 in custody without a drug charge
  • 473 individuals with a drug charge
  • 192 charged and released

Operation: Prairie Thunder criminal drug apprehension totals

  • 1,109 drug charges
  • 318 felony drug charges
  • 791 misdemeanor drug charges
  • 81 felony warrants
  • 168 misdemeanor warrants

Operation: Prairie Thunder ICE contacts

  • 93 contacted
  • 95 interviewed
  • 71 in custody
  • 9 apprehended for cartel / gang
  • 10 identified for cartel / gang
  • No human trafficking arrests
  • No recoveries

Operation: Prairie Thunder traffic enforcement

  • 42 DUIs
  • 5 reckless driving
  • 2,244 citations
  • 2,725 warnings

The South Dakota governor’s office announced last December that operations will continue into 2026.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending