The Athletics Review Process — Are We Doing What We Say We Are Doing?

The Athletics Review Process —The Athletics Review Process —

Are We Doing What We Say We Are Doing?

January 7, 2006 National Association of Division III Athletic Administrators

PresentersPresenters Betsy Mitchell

Betsy Mitchell Consulting

Mike ClaryDirector of Athletics ･ Rhodes College

George VanderZwaagDirector of Athletics ･ University of Rochester

Moderator: Debbie LazorikDirector of Athletics ･ Marietta College

The Athletics ReviewThe Athletics ReviewStriving for Program Excellence

Betsy Mitchell


Why an athletic department review?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.


Why review continued…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


When should a review be considered?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”


What is included in a review?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


How should the review be done?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


Benefits of an external consultant or

review process facilitator. 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.

PeerReviewPeerReview

Mike ClaryDirector of Athletics • Rhodes College


Invitation and Support by Chief Executive OfficerInvitation and Support by Chief Executive Officer

Provides commitment at the highest level

Stresses importance of the review Ensures access to various campus

groups


Institutional LiaisonInstitutional Liaison

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


Composition of Committee Composition of Committee Two (2) Director’s 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 Women’s Director of Athletics at a highly

selective Division I institution and a former student-athlete


Institutional Internal Review 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


Conference CallConference 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


Groups To Meet With While Visiting CampusGroups 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 CEO’s Cabinet Chief Executive Officer


Other Activities During VisitOther Activities During Visit Campus and athletic facility tour Dinner at CEO’s 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


Post Visit DutiesPost 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

University of RochesterUniversity of Rochester

Internal Assessment Activities

George VanderZwaag


Be Clear In What We Say We DoBe 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.


VisionVision

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.


Overall GoalsOverall 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 University’s ability to attract the best students.


Generate and Organize DataGenerate and Organize Data

Determine what we can effectively

measure.

Put procedures in place to collect data.

“Deposit” the data in one place.


Measure ResultsMeasure 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.


UR Key MetricsUR 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.


Key Metric Example: Student-Athlete Opinion Survey DataKey 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


Key Metric Example: Facility UseKey Metric Example: Facility Use

145,662

18,846

229,296

257,755272,153

244,574

300,215

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Patrons


Key Metric Example: GPA ComparisonsKey Metric Example: GPA Comparisons

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

1997 1999 2001 2003 2005

AthletesAll Students


What are the challenges?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.


How does this help us?How does this help us?1. Incorporates measurable data to understand

performance results consistent with goals.

2. Reinforces with internal and external constituencies performance measures.

3. Informs strategic planning.

4. Serves to quantify performance to support other means of assessment.

5. Creates a mechanism to measure performance over time.

6. Creates effective feedback loop to staff.

The Athletics Review Process —The Athletics Review Process —

Are We Doing What We Say We Are Doing?

Documents

The Athletics Review Process — Are We Doing What We Say We Are Doing?