Monday April 16, 2007

The Review of the Review

This Week’s Schedule
I want to thank you for your patience last week with Friday’s change in the schedule. Today’s blog is focused on the AARC review. Tuesday I will review the offense coming out of the spring. Wednesday I will switch gears and focus on the defense coming out of spring practice. Again thanks for your understanding.

The Review of the Review
Like many of you, I have read the official release from the university on the Presidential Task Force and read the entire transcript from Dori Helms and Terry Don Phillips’ press conference. Late Friday afternoon I obtained a copy of the entire 1,500-word document entitled “Guidelines and Procedures for Admission of Athletes.” Since Friday I have read the entire document and have talked to many people involved throughout this process. Since some have not seen the actual document here is a review and some editorial of the findings:

*The new policy states, “All athlete files must be reviewed by the Director of Admissions prior to issuing the NLI.”

The key here is the people implementing the policy. This allows the Director of Admissions to get a jump on the process. This just gets the ball rolling earlier in the process and the NLI can still be issued as seen later in the document.

*The new policy states, “If the APR or GSR for a specific sport is at an acceptable level, and the academic record of the student athlete seeking scholarship admission for that sport is acceptable, with no apparent irregularities, an NLI can be issued.”

This seems to be fairly cut and dry. If the sport is in good shape at Clemson and the student is in good shape then there are no problems.

*The new policy states, “If the APR and GSR are below an acceptable level, then the standards for review by the Director of Admissions are adjusted accordingly.”

This puts the pressure on the coaches to graduate and have acceptable APRs. I think this is very fair.

*The new policy states, “Files that are questionable after review by the Director of Admissions are sent to the Athletic Admissions Review Committee (AARC).”

Again, people will be the key here. There seems to be a lot of subjectivity in the new policies.

*The new policy states, “The NLI may be issued independent of the AARC review.”

This is the best news of the entire document. Coaches can still sign and place prospects. Also, prospects are given a chance to prove themselves over their entire high school career. This is great news.

*The new policy states, “The GSR and APR scores for individual sports teams will be considered in making admissions decisions. The higher the APR and GSR, the more flexibility given to the Director of Admissions to make admission decisions and act on recommendations of the AARC.”

This is good news for Clemson coaches because they have done a very good job of graduating student-athletes.

*The new policy states, “The special admissions decision-making process must be timely, fair and consistent with admissions processes at competing ACC and SEC schools.”

This addresses the level playing field issue.

*The new policy states, “National Letters of Intent (NLI’s) can be issued to all student athletes who meet regular admissions requirements and those reviewed by the Athletic Admissions Review Committee. Final admission decisions will be dependent upon the student athlete’s complete academic record and ability to NCAA qualify.”

This is perhaps one of the biggest issues and best outcomes of the task force. This past year the AARC was a “preview” committee instead of a “review” committee. Now the prospect has his/her full academic record that includes the entire senior year. Under the old system some were not allowed to be issued NLI because of the AARC.

*The new policy states, “If the review by the Director of Admissions or the review by AARC results in a positive recommendation:

If the athlete does not NCAA qualify, a second review will be required. If the second review results in a positive recommendation then the athlete may be referred to a prep school or Junior College to try to NCAA qualify. If this occurs then the athlete is admitted after review by the Director of Admissions (in case a problem exists such as questions of behavior or integrity). If sent to Junior College, the athlete will be considered a transfer student and will have to undergo review by the Director of Admissions and AARC when ready to enter Clemson, even if the athlete is NCAA qualified. If the second review by AARC results in a negative recommendation, then the Athletics Director can appeal the decision to the Provost.”

There is some good and some bad here. There is still a scenario where a prospect can be qualified but not admitted. That is not a true level playing field.

*The new policy states, “The AARC has five members who review and vote on all applications referred to the committee. These include:

In addition to the voting members, the Director of Admissions or his designee attends all AARC meetings as a non-voting ex-officio member. It is recommended that an athletic representative, designated by the Athletic Director, be added to the AARC as a non-voting ex-officio member, subject to amendment of the Faculty Manual.”

I was very surprised with this segment. The Director of Vickery Hall told people that she was the athletic department’s representative on the AARC. The new policy says the athletic department now has an athletic department representative on the AARC. I am not sure why the athletic department representative is not a voting member.

Summary
*The President needs credit for putting together the task force to the review the AARC.

*The Task Force deserves credit for realizing the problems and coming up with solutions.

*Ron Bradley and Dabo Swinney were real heroes because they did a remarkable job of educating the academic side on how recruiting works. Clemson athletic fans owe Bradley and Swinney for their effort.

*The other heroes are the thousands who wrote letters and e-mails and made phone calls to the higher ups. It was your voice that made a huge difference. Powerful boosters, state politicians, former players and many other interested parties flexed their muscles. If not for the passion of the Clemson people, I am not sure this review would have taken place. For everyone that took the time to contribute, you need to be commended. Clemson is better today because of you.

*The academic side and the athletic side now have a much better understanding of each other’s goals and policies. Dialogue took place that may have never taken place until this issue came up. This is one of the first examples I have seen of “One Clemson.” Neither side is a monster but the animosity existed because there had been a lack of trust and communication. A Clemson administrator said before he was educated on the events that there was a “healthy tension” between academics and athletics. I maintain it is never healthy to have tension and now we are healthier because we have less tension.

* Provost Dori Helms said in Friday’s press conference with Terry Don Phillips, “It was right-hearted and wrong-headed. I think we would have probably asked to review this process had there not been a public outcry, but certainly this was a piece that pushed us to do it and to really examine it.”

*Phillips added, ““It allows our coaches to continue to recruit and issue the NLOI before an admissions decision is made. That’s the practice of other universities, so that’s a very important step.”

*Helms seems to get it. She added, ““The other thing that you can’t tell from looking at a transcript is desire on the part of the person, tenacity, the drive to do something,” Helms said. “That’s not in their scores. We can bring in a student with 1,500 SATs and at the end of the first year, they’re in trouble. We can bring in a student with a low SAT and at the end of the first year, they’re just fine. And a lot of that has to do with the desire of that person to learn and to get an education and that’s not on that transcript.”

*Helms added, “The best thing about this process is that we have opened up a conversation between athletics and academics the likes of which I don’t think really have existed before. I even know what (Phillips) takes in his coffee now. It’s been a very terrific learning experience, I think, on the academic side and also on the athletic side.

I think it’s important to continue making sure that a combined group of people from the academic world and the athletic world make sure that we continue to have a level playing field in recruiting field in athletics as well as protecting the academic integrity of the institution.”

Again Helms seems to get it.

*The new policy has changes that were needed. In the beginning of this ordeal the President, some of the board of trustees and some in the Administration’s side said that we did not have problems. The President, some board members and a vice-president said the playing field was level. After the changes now coaches and administrators say they say it is more level. Well apparently it was not level before if changes were needed.

*Vice President Neill Cameron told Clemson groups that, we don’t have an AARC problem; we have a Mickey Plyler problem. Cameron referred to me as “the blogger” and told many in public and private that we don’t have issues. He said the new media was the issue and the policy was not a problem. Thank goodness that Helms and Phillips were not in denial and did not need a scapegoat. Thank goodness they sought real answers to the problems instead of trying to cover them up. Thank goodness they got together and took steps towards fixing it rather than blaming others. I think Mr. Cameron needs to read Ms. Helms quotes. She said problems existed. Phillips said changes will help level the playing field. They get it and need to pass it along to Mr. Cameron. What happened here is they stopped the PR/spin machine and got to work fixing the problem.

*Some in the traditional media claimed that if you thought it was not a level playing field and complained then you were fanatical. Several columnists had fun at your expense. Well if a policy was not broken then it did not need to be fixed. Steps were taken to fix it. Thank goodness the fanatics spoke up.

Like every policy that has ever been written it comes down more to the implementation of the policies more than the policies themselves. I think the people are more important than the policies. It seems that athletics and academics have a better understanding of each other’s goals today. Hopefully the people making the decisions will have more cooperation than in the past. I maintain that a small group of administrators had created adversarial relationships between the two parties. Now, thanks to people like Dori Helms, Terry Don Phillips, Ron Bradley and Dabo Swinney the trust can start and the relationships can continue to improve. Too often “One Clemson” was a one-way street but I commend all involved that made the athletic department’s concerns heard. There was cooperation and resolution. “One Clemson” worked both ways in this case, a case that will hopefully set the tone for much more dialogue in the future between athletics and academics.

Perhaps Helms said it best when she claimed, “This is not the end of this. This is just the beginning of something that I think will truly make One Clemson, One Clemson.”

Mickey's Blog also brought to you by:

864-834-6060

The Brad Hughes All-State Insurance Agency