Monday February 12, 2007

Part II

Part II
Over the past nine days I have received hundreds of e-mails and phone calls about the Athletic Academic Review Committee (AARC). The information I wrote on Thursday and today continues to come from sources inside the athletic department, the university's administration, the university's faculty, high school coaches, high school administrators, prospects and their families, state legislators and others.

There are other issues that have been presented that add information about the situation.

*The AARC turned down a prospect that signed with Notre Dame.

*All sports at Clemson are subjected to this process. One Olympic sport coach told me he has been hampered for years.

*One Olympic sport athlete that had committed to Clemson was turned down by the AARC then went on to sign with the University of Virginia, another top 20 institution.

*One Olympic sport athlete was originally turned down by the AARC because he was 53rd in a graduating class of 100. He was in the bottom half of his class but it was an incredibly small Catholic school he attended. This student was originally turned down even though had over a 1000 on the SAT. The head coach of the sport had to go in front of the AARC for an hour and a half to appeal the AARC's original decision.

*The school's president says that Clemson is on a level playing field. However, Clemson coaches across all sports are required to have letters of recommendation from high school coaches, principles, administrators and guidance counselors to go in front of the AARC. Notre Dame, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, etc. do not require these letters. How is that a level playing field?

*The school's president says nothing has changed in this process. Last year Jo Jo Cox was allowed to sign with Clemson. In the past year, he improved his GPA and SAT. This year he was not allowed to sign with Clemson. Yet, nothing has changed?

*The university sends hundreds of letters to applicants encouraging them to enroll at Tri-County Technical College in Clemson's Bridge Program. I maintain that Fork Union and Hargrave Military are bridge programs for the football program. Does Tri-County make their student's march at 6:00 AM?

*The president says Clemson is on a level playing field. Clemson was not allowed to send LOIs to athletes that signed with Notre Dame, North Carolina, Georgia and South Carolina. Is that a level playing field?

*The University of Virginia has signed many athletes from the prep schools in the last 15 years. Clemson is discouraged to sign prospects with the intent of sending them to these prep schools. Is the playing field level?

*Clemson University has a formula that predicts your freshman GPA. The formula includes your SAT/ACT score and your class rank. It does not include your GPA.

*Clemson University administrators have engaged in a defense mode by splitting hairs and muddying the waters. The president says, "The admission policies have not changed." We are not talking about admissions here. The right to send Letters of Intent was denied. That is the issue. A Letter of Intent is not an acceptance to the university. It is only a letter binding a prospect to attend your school if he/she meets NCAA standards. The president is correct when he says the admissions policy has not changed but again this is not about admissions.

*The LOI clearly states that this letter is null and void if you do not qualify academically. Yet, Clemson sends many prospects an addendum saying the same thing. Is this not redundant? Notre Dame, North Carolina, and other do not send any addendum. Is this a level playing field?

*By not allowing coaches to sign players who may not qualify and send them to a prep school it hurts their chance to re-sign the player in the future. At Hargrave and Fork Union, prospects' SAT scores rise on average in excess of 100 points. They learn structure. They learn about the SAT/ACT. They improve their academic standing. The coaches at the prep schools also protect the school that placed the prospect at the school. Those prospects that signed with UNC will most likely re-sign with UNC. Is this a level playing field?

*The president says the AARC has not changed in five years. Well, tell Jo Jo Cox that. My argument is that the initial part of the AARC is objective but the appeal is subjective. That is a fact. When letters of recommendation are a part of it then it is subjective. If players were originally turned down and are allowed to sign LOIs after the appeal then it is subjective. If a board is subjective and the people on that board change then there are changes. Senior Associate athletic director Bill D'Andrea used to be on the AARC and now he is not. In fact, athletics does not have a representative on the current board. Maybe they count Becky Bowman as an athletic interest. The facts say things have changed in the last five years.

The company line has been to muddy the waters. It depends on what the definition of what the word is is. "They are good at changing their story depending on who the audience is," said one high ranking academic administrator.

You see that is one of the misconceptions here. Many people believe this is athletics vs. academics. There are many people in the university's administration and faculty that know the truth. I have had conversations or e-mail correspondence with over 20 university employees not in athletics that verify this and side against the current policies.

Thursday's blog has been read by over 40,000 people. I have talked to hundreds of people since last Friday including many of the top ranking officials at the university. I continue to ask them where the facts were wrong in the blog and no one has been able to come up with one error.

A former Clemson coach called me Thursday and said, "I have not coached at Clemson in several years but after reading the blog, it felt like I had never left. People still have no clue how your hands are tied at that school." I asked the coach, "Is it a level playing field at Clemson?" His response was, "Are you kidding me? Is that a serious question?"

The one criteria that out ranks all other for the "Top 20" rankings is your peer ranking. This is 25% of the ranking. These are the subjective thoughts about your university by other college presidents and directors of admission. Imagine how Clemson looks so much better to other college presidents because they stood up to big-time athletics.

Numerous times in the past week I have had phone calls, e-mails and many more face-to-face meetings with employees from all sides of campus. Almost all start by joking about this is the last time we will be able to speak in public. The university will close in its ranks and tell its people not to talk to anyone about this. But what are they scared of--the truth? The facts are prospects that were not allowed to sign with Clemson signed with North Carolina, Notre Dame, Georgia and South Carolina. It cannot be more simple than that.

Mickey's Blog also brought to you by:

864-834-6060

The Brad Hughes All-State Insurance Agency