TigerNet -- Blogs -- Mickey Plyler's Blog

More Committees Baby
On the famous Saturday Night Live skit, Christopher Walken tells Blue Oyster Cult, “I need more cowbell baby!” He goes on to add, "I got a fever, and the only prescription... is more cowbell!"

Today’s edition of The Charleston Post and Courier has an article explaining that the Athletic Council at Clemson disagrees with the Presidential Task Force’s new policies on the Athletic Academic Review Committee.

1. We have an Athletic Academic Review Committee.
2. We have a Presidential Task Force to review the Athletic Academic Review Committee.
3. Now another committee, the Athletic Council that has reviewed the Presidential Task Force’s review of the Athletic Academic Review Committee.

Who is the world has time for all of these committees and what the heck did we do before we had all of these committees?

Maybe if we had more committees we could get to the Top 20 in whatever magazine ranks colleges. Maybe that is the answer. More committees=Top 20. Maybe Georgia Tech, Florida, North Carolina, Texas and Michigan have it figured out. Maybe they just have more committees than we do.

Heck, I get the feeling that if some magazine said the key to getting in the top 20 is more cowbell then we would have more cowbell baby.

I have contacted others and now have a few committees to add. Some of you will be asked to serve on my new committees. I am proud to introduce the:

TRCTRAC-This is The Review Committee To Review All Committees. This committee would meet 24 hours a day, seven day a week, 52 weeks a year. They would have to meet that often because they are so many committees and you never know when one needs to be reviewed.

TCTMMC-This is The Committee To Make More Committees. This committee would explore any uncovered aspect of society that we do not yet have a committee. This committee would be charged to continue to come up with more committees. I gotta have more committees baby!

TCTFOWTHIOATC-This is The Committee To Find Out Who The Hell Is On All Of These Committees. This committee would actually find out what individuals make up all of these committees.

TCTRWTANMWOC-This is The Committee To Research Why There Are Not More Women On Committees. We will later split off and have committees to study the same for men, whites, blacks, Asians, Hispanics, etc.

TCTFOWIDTJOTCMWTADCWIODTNJ-This is The Committee To Find Out Who Is Doing The Job Of Those Committee Members While They Are Doing Committee Work Instead Of Doing Their Normal Job. This committee will have to go to the actual work place of committee members and see who is actually doing the work the committee members were hired to do.

TCTFOWHABTJHSALTDTJAHTAIOHBAC-The Committee To Find Out Who Has Any Balls To Just Hire Somebody And Let Them Do Their Job And Hold Them Accountable Instead Of Hiding Behind A Committee. This committee will have to look into what is wrong with holding individuals accountable instead of having so many committees.

There will be more added later to study our committees’ effects on the environment and other hot button issues. Maybe gas prices?

Maybe we could have a committee to come up with plans on how the university will respond to blogs in the future. Or maybe how we can spin things instead of just simply telling the truth.

I am all for checks and balances but I am not for checks and balances for my checks and balances.

Is anyone held accountable anymore? Is anyone just hired to do a job and held accountable for doing that job?

Note to the Athletic Council: You are not going to like this but please understand this. You are not a policy making part of the university. You are a rubber stamp group. Just enjoy your time on the committee and enjoy the perks. You get some nice shirts and some nice bowl tickets and hotel rooms. Enjoy them but don’t pretend to be more than you are. You are a rubber stamp committee.

I have several good friends who have served on the Athletic Council at one time or another over the last thirty years. Most understand or understood their role. One professor told me, “I was on the Athletic Council when coach Howard was here and we did exactly what we were supposed to do.” Somehow that has been lost. Some think that they are the FBI instead of a security guard. Some are asked to pinch run for the runner on third but think they actually hit the triple.

But the real problem is the leadership. Back in the day if the Athletic Council would have been quoted in the paper Bill McClellan or Coach Howard would have called somebody into their office and someone would have found out who was the real Sherriff. The tragedy is the so-called leaders of the university are so politically correct that they will not stand up and say what needs to be said.

Jim Barker is out of the country and Terry Don Phillips had no comment in the article. Please don’t offend anyone that might hurt their feelings.

R.C. Edwards would have not worried about political correctness. Dr. Edwards was pro-athletics and did not mind it that people knew that. He did not feel he had to play to both sides of the aisle. He did not answer to anyone in the faculty that had a problem with his obvious support of athletics. If a member of the faculty was offended then he/she did not have to stay around. They were welcomed to find employment elsewhere if they felt they needed. Dr. Edwards was in charge and everyone knew it. I would venture a guess that we had a lot less committees back then.

It’s not too late for Simon and Garfunkel to ask, “Where have you gone R.C. Edwards?”

Comments:

All I know is we were #70 this year (with more committees than last year!)

If we get a few more, we may be #85 next year . . . who knows.

Posted by <a href=http://tigernet.com/view/profile.do?id=7575>otisman</a> on May 24, 2007 at 05:00 PM EDT #

Mickey, I agree with most of what you write, but to me the politically correct thing for this council to have done would be to have been the mindless rubber stamp you want them to be. Standing their unpopular ground is leadership, to me. All this said, again, I agree with your basic premise. We have too many committees and not enough leaders, and I think this council is mostly off in their recommendations, which seem unrealistic if not competely out of touch with succesful major college athletics at respected universities (according to my quick read of the Post & Courier piece). I guess my point is that if they're not happy, they have a right to speak their minds, and to do so certainly is not politically correct when they are speaking against the administration overall.

Posted by <a href=http://tigernet.com/view/profile.do?id=13467>fibigcat</a> on May 24, 2007 at 05:11 PM EDT #

We need a committee to proofread your blogs

Posted by <a href=http://tigernet.com/view/profile.do?id=35293>clemsonguy2</a> on May 24, 2007 at 05:15 PM EDT #

Well, you get credit for championing the issue in a public forum, so you get some blame for the committees.......

Additionally, you constantly voice your opinion on who you want on the councils and who you want the leaders to be (which you have every right to do), but you are pushing "pro-athletic" people to be on those committees and point that they are great leaders - people who don't work with both sides of the isle.

I will agree that change and progression is always a great thing, but I want it to be led by pro-CLEMSON people, not pro or anti "athletic" people.

Posted by <a href=http://tigernet.com/view/profile.do?id=60052>Justwannaread</a> on May 24, 2007 at 05:20 PM EDT #

Well, you get credit for championing the issue in a public forum, so you get some blame for the committees.......

I will agree that change and progression is always a great thing, but I want it to be led by pro-CLEMSON people, not pro or anti "athletic" people.

Posted by <a href=http://tigernet.com/view/profile.do?id=60052>Justwannaread</a> on May 24, 2007 at 05:21 PM EDT #

Whoa there Mickey. While I generally have some agreement with what you say, you are starting to really blow this issue out of proportion and confuse your point of view with facts. As fibigcat said, I can agree with your premise of too many committees and not enough leaders. But step away from your viewpoint and ask yourself this. You claim that the Athletic Council is to be a rubber stamp group. Is that just because they disagree with you? Where was your blog saying that the Presidential Review Committee should have been a rubber stamp group? Oh wait - you didn't write that blog because they for the most part supported your viewpoint. So let's revise your statements here. All committees that agree with you should say what they want. All committees that disagree with you should realize that they really should just be rubber stamp groups for your viewpoint.

Mickey, I know it's not your intention, but you are starting to be as much of a whiner about things as Spurrier when things don't exactly go your way. I know it's because you believe your point of view is the best and parts of it probably are, but when you argue against any committee existing that goes against your viewpoint, but then stand up and cheer when one support you - that sure looks like whining to me.

Posted by <a href=http://tigernet.com/view/profile.do?id=3465>kgpittm</a> on May 24, 2007 at 07:40 PM EDT #

kgpittm,
I am against all committees. If we did not have the AARC then we would not have the Presidential task Force to Review it. I am against the Athletic Council. I am not in favor of any committee. Hire someone and let them do their job. If they don't then fire them. Too often people hide behind a committee. Hold individuals accountable. I was not for the Task Force because I was not for the AARC.

BTW-Call me crazy for being biased towards my point of view and promoting those that share the same view.

As far as the whinning issue is concerned, when you write two or three positive blogs people call you soft. When you write a couple of negatives then people say you are whinning.

Posted by <a href=http://tigernet.com/view/profile.do?id=1550>Mickey Plyler</a> on May 24, 2007 at 07:49 PM EDT #

Mickey - What about all the talk that the AARC was created in order to help get the NCAA to re-certify Clemson, or whatever it was called? Are you saying that it never happened and that the NCAA did not strongly push CLemson towards the "committee" after their findings indicated that Clemson relies too much, overall, on the NCAA minimum requirements?

Either Clemson's PR people are completely fabricating that fact (I read it in almost every newspaper article about the issue) or you need to let its overall creation, or anything similar, not be a focal point of your agenda. Seems to me that Clemson let coaches, or an athletic administrator, handle that issue and they failed. Therefore, this is warranted to some extent.

Posted by <a href=http://tigernet.com/view/profile.do?id=60052>Justwannaread</a> on May 24, 2007 at 09:02 PM EDT #

Mickey, I read that article and thought, "you have got to be kidding me!?" Our Administration needs a GIANT ENEMA (sp?)... get the 'waste' out!!!!!!!!! Keep up the good fight Mickey!!!!!!! Thank you!

Posted by <a href=http://tigernet.com/view/profile.do?id=1046>90Orange</a> on May 24, 2007 at 09:10 PM EDT #

Mickey, didn't you call for a review of the AARC? Weren't you trying to promote a public outcry against the AARC? You are part of the reason the Presidential Tash Force was created. You wouldn't stop until something was done. A committee was formed because our President should not be spending his time chasing the whims of a blogger who is 1/3 host of a morning radio show in Clemson. A committee was created (which I agree shouldn't have been) to, according to you, satisfy your idea that the AARC wasn't acting the in best interests of our institution. I've complained about the rucus you created since you began the anit-AARC retoric. Now I find it very humerous to see you complain about the very fruits of your labor. Lots of wasted time, resources, and bandwith all to satisfy a controversy brought on by yourself.

Posted by <a href=http://tigernet.com/view/profile.do?id=48981>heisman2bowden</a> on May 24, 2007 at 11:10 PM EDT #

BTW, the Suicide Squeeze Committee won a baseball game in the ACC tourney last night. Why not talk about all the players who weren't playing baseball last night because of some University Committee? Let's focus on the now. Move on.

Posted by <a href=http://tigernet.com/view/profile.do?id=48981>heisman2bowden</a> on May 24, 2007 at 11:15 PM EDT #

Justwannaread,
Clemson promised way too much in that re-certification process. Others have gone through the same process. Other schools have review committees but Clemson has a problem with some of the people that were involved. Becky Bowman, Cecil Huey and their crowd over promised and they were the problem on the AARC. You have to have one now but they created the adversarial relationship between the AARC and athletics. Ask the coaches about it. Ask the athletic directors about it. They know that an adversarial relationship existed. At many schools they worked with the coaches and not against them.

Posted by <a href=http://tigernet.com/view/profile.do?id=1550>Mickey Plyler</a> on May 24, 2007 at 11:22 PM EDT #

heisman2bowden,
I never liked how some personnel on the AARC were acting so I welcomed the truth to come out about them. The President should have just told the truth. I did not bring on the controversy. it already existed. I only outed the facts. I told facts. People want to belive what they are told by the administration because they want to trust them. But they were not telling the truth and had to change their story. I did not create this. They created it and I only outed it.

The point of the blog was to rip the idea of all of the committees we have. But I guess you like the idea and you have every right to defend them.

On your last post, keep believing them and sticking your head in the sand. That is what they want. Also keep sending your money without asking any questions. Everything is so great at Clemson. Keep believing that.

Posted by <a href=http://tigernet.com/view/profile.do?id=1550>Mickey Plyler</a> on May 24, 2007 at 11:30 PM EDT #

That post made me feel like I was in the courtroom for one of Alan Shore's patented closing arguments!

Posted by <a href=http://tigernet.com/view/profile.do?id=6911>natedawgSWU</a> on May 25, 2007 at 12:58 AM EDT #

Mickey, you did not respond to any of the issues I brought up in my last post. I do give money and time to the University and I'm not into wasting the time of our administration because you do not like a process that has been in place for many years. You asked for this review and you got it. Now you write that we have too many committees. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. I guess that is what you do to bring more attention to yourself and keep a controversy alive. I personally try to be more constructive instead of disruptive and perfer to move our University forward intstead of getting bogged down in controversy. Maybe if you gave more yourself, you would have a different take. Instead you are worried about ad revenue, readership and listenership. You have your agenda, I have mine. I respect your position, but please respect mine. Clemson is not perfect, but it is Clemson. There is only one Clemson. You are right, since it is not perferct, I should stop supporting the University that has offered me so many opportunities. Give me a break. A school with a $50 Million athletics budget versus a $550 Million overall budget and you act like the athletic department should be the tail that wags the dog.

Posted by <a href=http://tigernet.com/view/profile.do?id=48981>heisman2bowden</a> on May 25, 2007 at 09:31 AM EDT #

Its pretty funny how one defines facts vs. opinions. The facts shared have been who is on the committee, the process, etc, and the opinions have been on who is anti-athletics and pro-athletics. You have offered exactly no facts on what our competitors situations are in regard to any specifics.

Which schools have difficulty getting kids in, which don't, etc? I assume you don;t have facts on UNC, GT, FSU, etc, in regard to how many kids were turned away, whether they allow coaches carte blanche in recruiting and things of that nature because we never, ever see them (though you did respond to my Florida "facts" but basically said it didn't matter because their recruiting pool was larger). I guess I need to blindly follow your lead and just "trust" you that Clemson is so severely hampered that it will crush what I love, Clemson University.

Once again, I state that those involved....coaches, athletic administrators, faculty, the president, should all be pro-CLEMSON. Your "facts" lead you to believe they should be pro-athletics.

Posted by <a href=http://tigernet.com/view/profile.do?id=60052>Justwannaread</a> on May 25, 2007 at 09:43 AM EDT #

This is why acedamia is so liberal. We want more committees to control anything and everything even if we don't know what it is. God-forbid anyone being an INDIVIDUAL! We must be dependent upon some other high source so that no one thinks for themselves (ie -- Social Security, Welfare, Nat'l Health Insurance, etc etc etc)

When is Barker going to man up and stop being a freakin push over?? He went to this college and from my opinion, shows no love or true traditions to what was established by Thomas Green Clemson.

And to comment on "Justwannaread" -- these people aren't pro-Clemson, they are pro-themselves, as long as they are the upperhand and have everyone depending on them. Just like Clinton, Obama, Edwars are NOT pro-America, they just want to be in control of EVERYTHING. They are anti-capitalist, just like Barker and the rest of the administration is anti-individualism. I am a student and I can teach myself most of the things I learn in the class room, but guess what? I get a B in a class even if I have a 100 test average because more than 10% of my grade is showing up to class, what does that tell you? They want me to be DEPENDENT upon them to attain the grade I desire. Complete BULL.

Posted by <a href=http://tigernet.com/view/profile.do?id=67061>RobertsonCU</a> on May 25, 2007 at 10:24 AM EDT #

RobertsonCU,
I have feeling you won't have a problem getting a job in 2008 after you graduate. Heck, you even put your real naem in your profile. Acountabilty is a great idea. Jason, I owe you a lunch.

Posted by <a href=http://tigernet.com/view/profile.do?id=1550>Mickey Plyler</a> on May 25, 2007 at 10:33 AM EDT #

Mickey, great post! U are "right on"! again that group of ?? is sout to RUIN our athletic programs and to try to get their name in the paper. Just pitiful! Keep up the great work.

Posted by <a href=http://tigernet.com/view/profile.do?id=4777>Litefoot</a> on May 25, 2007 at 10:37 AM EDT #

RobertsonCU: Don't bring politics into this. You obviously haven't got a clue what you're talking about, because every (true) candidate is running to control everything, not cut government back as a true conservative would. In real politics true conservatism is dead, everyone wants to spend, spend, spend, as evidenced by Bush's fiscal policy and congress's former support. As it pertains to Clemson, we want to be one of the top public schools, and if we want to obtain that, we need to do certain things to reach that goal and all we have to go off of is other schools. Last I checked, Cal's football program (the #1 public school in the country) was better than ours (although they also recruit from arguably the best state). Cal is a damn liberal school, but the education is one of the most respected in the country. Unfortunately for Clemson and our conservative beliefs, good education has historically and still is a product of the "liberal" policies we despise.

Posted by <a href=http://tigernet.com/view/profile.do?id=67132>Orange2009</a> on May 25, 2007 at 10:40 AM EDT #

Just wanted to say "Good job" on this blog Mickey! I think what you've said here represents the feelings of the majority, but you know how tigernet is... there's always going to be those squeaky people who feel like their opinion is being disrespected, when it probably deserves no respect to begin with. Keep up the good fight!!

Posted by <a href=http://tigernet.com/view/profile.do?id=31529>camcgee</a> on May 25, 2007 at 10:52 AM EDT #

Posted by <a href=http://tigernet.com/view/profile.do?id=67132>Orange2009</a> on May 25, 2007 at 10:55 AM EDT #

LOL at everyone giving Mickey what he wants - attention.

Maybe I should put my name back in my profile so I can earn Mickey's respect.

Posted by <a href=http://tigernet.com/view/profile.do?id=1546>tomerafan</a> on May 25, 2007 at 01:39 PM EDT #

Oh, Orange2009 -- the little you knew about standing up for tradition and your OWN beliefs. So what if Cal is the #1 public school and has a better football program. I think the majority of our graduates are doing just fine in the real world. It doesn't matter where you graduate from if you can't be accountable for your own actions.

As for politics: politics has to do with EVERYTHING. You hate these gas prices, well, do you know how much the gov't taxes the oil companies and the gas you buy? Do you know what an embedded tax is? Have you ever looked at the agenda of the far left liberals? Tell me ONE gov't program that is productive (and by productive, I mean self sufficient and doesn't need money from the gov't to successfully run).

Can I ask you who are the ones "ranking" these public universities? It wouldn't be the drive-by media, would it? The same ones that put the Duke Lacrosse players in a noose before their was even a trial? Oh, and the same ones that never said a word about the white couple who's care was hi-jacked by 5 black people and sodomized later to be murdered, never heard about that incident did you?

As Bill O'Reilly says, you need to wise up son and open your eyes. You are the exactly what they want: a person that has been sent through the public school system and has never learned how to stand up for yourself or better yet, think for yourself. If a kid hits you in the face and you hit back, you are just as guilty, why? Because they want you to depend on the gov't/school system to "protect" you instead of you being able to do it for yourself.

I've gotten completely off topic, but the same goes for the administartion and the athletic deptartment. If the administration has complete reign and power over the athletic department with committee after committee, then the athletic department is DEPENDENT upon the administration, which is what Barker wants, because he's a liberal. I'm done with this topic. You'll believe what you want and I'll believe what I want. As for tomerfan: no one is forcing you to read Mickey's posts, hopefully you're a big boy and can make your own decisions...

Posted by <a href=http://tigernet.com/view/profile.do?id=67061>RobertsonCU</a> on May 25, 2007 at 03:31 PM EDT #

RobertsonCU - it's Tomerafan. I have no idea what a "tomer" is or why I would be a fan of that.

I realize no one is forcing me to read Mickey's posts...I just think the back and forth is absolutely hysterical. If you can't see the irony in reading a blog alleging that a situation is receiving too much attention when the writer himself was the largest internet proponent calling for that very thing...

And since this is, you know, the comments section, I chose to make one.

But I'll go back to reading your rantings now. Which no one is forcing me to read, either. And they're just as funny. Please keep quoting Bill O'Reilly. That in particular makes me chuckle.

Posted by <a href=http://tigernet.com/view/profile.do?id=1546>tomerafan</a> on May 25, 2007 at 04:00 PM EDT #

It should be noted that, according to a "Town 'n Gown" display in the Clemson Library, Edwards says that he is a big fan of Pres. Barker and believes that Clemson will make the Top 20. So much for the idyllic "good 'ole days."

Posted by <a href=http://tigernet.com/view/profile.do?id=67412>medschooltiger</a> on May 25, 2007 at 05:16 PM EDT #

RobertsonCU - Seeing as how this whole issue revolves around football, I hope you rail on those ranking football teams like the ones you do that rank the Universities. They are in the same business, but focus on different topics. They are all "drive-by" media.

Or maybe you don't care about football rankings either because we are all happy with our situation.

Posted by <a href=http://tigernet.com/view/profile.do?id=60052>Justwannaread</a> on May 25, 2007 at 05:27 PM EDT #

Hey Mickey, we are just as anonymous as every single one of your "inside" sources. We have jobs too, you know. They may not be collegiate coaching jobs, but we do have our own curtains to hide behind. Don't go there Mr. "I can't name my sources but believe me anyway".

Posted by <a href=http://tigernet.com/view/profile.do?id=48981>heisman2bowden</a> on May 25, 2007 at 11:18 PM EDT #

Mickey's Blog also brought to you by:

The Brad Hughes All-State Insurance Agency