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
January 7, 2006 National Association of Division III Athletic Administrators
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.
January 7, 2006 National Association of Division III Athletic Administrators
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
January 7, 2006 National Association of Division III Athletic Administrators
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”
January 7, 2006 National Association of Division III Athletic Administrators
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
January 7, 2006 National Association of Division III Athletic Administrators
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
January 7, 2006 National Association of Division III Athletic Administrators
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
January 7, 2006 National Association of Division III Athletic Administrators
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
January 7, 2006 National Association of Division III Athletic Administrators
Institutional LiaisonInstitutional Liaison
An administrator, perhaps cabinet level, who can facilitate access, objectivity and logistical support
January 7, 2006 National Association of Division III Athletic Administrators
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
January 7, 2006 National Association of Division III Athletic Administrators
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
January 7, 2006 National Association of Division III Athletic Administrators
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
January 7, 2006 National Association of Division III Athletic Administrators
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
January 7, 2006 National Association of Division III Athletic Administrators
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
January 7, 2006 National Association of Division III Athletic Administrators
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
January 7, 2006 National Association of Division III Athletic Administrators
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.
January 7, 2006 National Association of Division III Athletic Administrators
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.
January 7, 2006 National Association of Division III Athletic Administrators
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.
January 7, 2006 National Association of Division III Athletic Administrators
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.
January 7, 2006 National Association of Division III Athletic Administrators
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.
January 7, 2006 National Association of Division III Athletic Administrators
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.
January 7, 2006 National Association of Division III Athletic Administrators
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
January 7, 2006 National Association of Division III Athletic Administrators
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
January 7, 2006 National Association of Division III Athletic Administrators
Key Metric Example: GPA ComparisonsKey Metric Example: GPA Comparisons
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
AthletesAll Students
January 7, 2006 National Association of Division III Athletic Administrators
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.
January 7, 2006 National Association of Division III Athletic Administrators
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?