The Athletics Review Process

1
The Athletics Review Process

• Are We Doing What We Say We Are Doing?

2
Presenters

• Betsy MitchellBetsy Mitchell Consulting
• Mike ClaryDirector of Athletics ? Rhodes College
  
• George VanderZwaagDirector of Athletics ?
  University of Rochester
• Moderator Debbie LazorikDirector of Athletics ?
  Marietta College

3
The Athletics Review

• Striving for Program Excellence
• Betsy Mitchell

4
Why an athletic department review?

• Intense competition for students and dollars in
  member institutions
• Required focus on efficiency and effectiveness
• Need to modernize the role of athletics as
  critical to a healthy institution.
• Meaningful integration of athletics is a unique
  best practice for each member.

5
Why review continued

• Well articulated athletic curriculum makes strong
  case for place of athletics.
• Programs must be able to clearly articulate their
  mission and curriculum in order to justify their
  existence and expenditure.
• Division philosophy and uniqueness must be
  focused on the curricular side of equation

6
When should a review be considered?

• Prior to accreditation review
• Part of regular college rotation
• Strategic planning for entire institution
• Preparation for capital campaign
• Major financial decisions
• Adding or reducing program
• Long term staff members transition
• Title IX concerns or challenges
• Keeping with historic best practices

7
What is included in a review?

• Institution and department mission/vision
• Communication with constituencies
• Objective and subjective data analysis
• 360 degree view
• Do we walk our talk?
• Policies, procedures, perception

8
How should the review be done?

• Internal department, administrative, committee
• Peer review comparative
• Include external components objective without
  competitive fear
• With goals and outcomes in mind
• Including the highest levels of institution

9
Benefits of an external consultant or review
process facilitator.

• Objective rather than subjective.
• Comparative without loss of competitive
  advantage.
• Professional not personal.
• Facilitation.
• Professional support for athletic director.

10
PeerReview

• Mike Clary
• Director of Athletics Rhodes College

11
Invitation and Support by Chief Executive Officer

• Provides commitment at the highest level
• Stresses importance of the review
• Ensures access to various campus groups

12
Institutional Liaison

• An administrator, perhaps cabinet level, who can
  facilitate access, objectivity and logistical
  support

13
Composition of Committee

• Two (2) Directors of Athletics from peer schools
  that are highly selective, national liberal arts
  schools
• Retired President from institution within
  conference
• Emeritus member of Board of Trustees and former
  student-athlete
• Former student-athlete who is an assistant coach
  at a Division I institution
• Retired Womens Director of Athletics at a highly
  selective Division I institution and a former
  student-athlete

14
Institutional Internal Review

• Survey which provided input and data from
  student-athletes, non-varsity athletes, faculty,
  staff and alumni
• Review chaired by Faculty Athletics
  Representative. Report of internal committee
  drafted by FAR with assistance from
• Director of Athletics
• Dean of Students
• Chief Financial Officer
• Senior Woman Administrator
• Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid
• Student-Athlete Advisory Committee
• Internal Review Committee visited two peer
  schools for comparative data

15
Conference Call

• Chaired by institutional liaison
• Introductions and roles what does each member
  bring to the committee
• Review of internal review document
• Need for additional information prior to visit
• Review of visit and meeting schedule

16
Groups To Meet With While Visiting Campus

• Internal review committee
• Student leaders from various campus organizations
  who are not varsity athletes
• Current student-athletes
• Athletic staff
• Faculty Athletics Committee
• Members of Student Affairs staff
• Alumni/former student-athletes
• CEOs Cabinet
• Chief Executive Officer

17
Other Activities During Visit

• Campus and athletic facility tour
• Dinner at CEOs house with internal review
  committee
• At the conclusion of the visit
• Wrap-up meeting of external review committee
• Review of visit and discussion about assignments
  for production of report
• Assign one member of review committee to compile
  and edit report

18
Post Visit Duties

• Send initial draft to editor for review
• Editor produces first draft of report conference
  call to discuss draft edits made
• Editor produces second draft 2nd conference
  call to finalize report edits made
• Final draft sent to committee members for review
  final edits
• Report presented to institutional liaison

19
University of Rochester

• Internal Assessment Activities
• George VanderZwaag

20
Be Clear In What We Say We Do

• Establish a clear vision of who we are.
• Set appropriate overall goals for the department
  consistent with this vision.
• Require staff to align program goals with overall
  goals.
• Visit these goals regularly through individual
  and department meetings.

21
Vision

• We will be a department of educators that strives
  for excellence in everything we do. We will
  demonstrate and expect high standards to generate
  a positive experience for students, and instill
  pride in the institution. In all aspects of our
  work we endeavor to contribute to the educational
  mission of the University.

22
Overall Goals

• To demonstrate excellence in the educational
  process.
• To substantially strengthen the competitiveness
  of varsity teams.
• To increase levels of participation in all
  non-varsity programs.
• To establish and maintain a trajectory of success
  in the department.
• To develop facilities and programs capable of
  serving the campus community and reflective of
  the quality of peer institutions.
• To strengthen the Universitys ability to attract
  the best students.

23
Generate and Organize Data

• Determine what we can effectively measure.
• Put procedures in place to collect data.
• Deposit the data in one place.

24
Measure Results

• Determine your key metrics to track program
  results consistent with the overall goals of the
  department.
• Review key metrics on a continual basis.
• Present the most relevant data to the entire
  staff.
• Talk about these measures in individual meetings.
• Periodically update other constituents.
• Benchmark against previous results and external
  data, if available.

25
UR Key Metrics

• Facility Use data
• Participation data.
• Revenue/Expense data.
• Admissions data.
• Graduation rates.
• Competitive results.
• Fund raising data.
• GPA data.
• Academic majors.
• Attrition rates.
• Probation rates.
• Separation rates.
• Student survey data.

26
Key Metric Example Student-Athlete Opinion
Survey Data

• Knowledge of fundamental techniques
• Knowledge of the sport
• Ability to evaluate talent
• Practice planning
• Administrative abilities
• Ability to develop a game plan
• Ability to teach fundamentals
• Ability to communicate
• Ability to teach strategy
• Promotion of team discipline
• Ability to motivate
• Sportsmanship
• Ethical behavior
• Serving as a role model
• Empathy and support for academic commitments
• Accessibility off the field

27
Key Metric Example Facility Use
28
Key Metric Example GPA Comparisons
29
What are the challenges?

• Defining key metrics is difficult.
• Not every performance standard can be easily
  quantified.
• Access to certain types of data can limited.
• Collecting, organizing, and analyzing data takes
  significant time and energy.
• Data is best analyzed over relatively long time
  horizons.

30
How does this help us?

• Incorporates measurable data to understand
  performance results consistent with goals.
• Reinforces with internal and external
  constituencies performance measures.
• Informs strategic planning.
• Serves to quantify performance to support other
  means of assessment.
• Creates a mechanism to measure performance over
  time.
• Creates effective feedback loop to staff.

31
The Athletics Review Process

• Are We Doing What We Say We Are Doing?