Schlissel on athletics and academics (AD search related)
Some great reporting from the Michigan Daily on Schlissel's take on sports and the academic life of the University. It is certainly worth posting anyway, but especially because of this:
Schlissel added that Curzan [English Prof. Anne Curzan, who serves as faculty liaison to the Athletic Department and requests reports every semester on any classes with more than 20 percent student-athletes enrolled] said the Athletic Department “often tries to keep her at arm’s length,” expressing frustration regarding the marginalization of faculty governance in these matters.
“That’s why I’m taking a bit of time with the search for Dave’s successor,” Schlissel said. “Some folks wanted me to hire an athletic director (earlier) so he could fire the current football coach and hire the next coach but I want to take the time to make sure we get someone who is not only technically adept, but can ensure that the program has financial and academic integrity, and also someone who shares the value system of realizing our mission.
“People have been saying all kinds of things about who I’m talking to about positions and this sports stuff, and they name names of people who I have no idea who they are,” Schlissel said. “I’ve really learned that this whole athletic sphere and the usual way you approach things just doesn’t work. It’s just a crazed or irrational approach that the world and the media takes to athletics decisions.
“It’s a time sink,” he added.
Schlissel seems committed to maintaining the academic integrity of the sports teams. People will panic about what this means about Michigan's competitiveness going forward, but I think that many of us would be happy with a balanced approach. We don't want to replicate what happened at UNC, certainly.
Link: http://www.michigandaily.com/article/schlissel-talks-athletics-and-admi…
November 11th, 2014 at 9:38 AM ^
November 11th, 2014 at 6:08 PM ^
November 11th, 2014 at 10:21 AM ^
Perhaps Harbaugh's rap on Michigan athletes' academics will wind up being a plus rather than the perceived minus. Glass half full!
November 11th, 2014 at 11:37 AM ^
If you care about the university, and not just the football/basketball team, then this is absolutely a great news.
November 11th, 2014 at 1:17 PM ^
It's a nice soundbite, but I don't think I buy it. Fifty students not graduating hardly makes any sort of a difference at all. If the performance of the football team seriously suffers, I'd bet that would do far more damage than an iffy football graduation rate would.
November 11th, 2014 at 6:16 PM ^
You obviously didn't read the article. I don't mean the block quote in the OP, I mean the whole Daily article.
November 11th, 2014 at 8:30 PM ^
I read every word, now twice because I tried to figure out what the hell you were talking about. What exactly do you disagree with? Your comment was completely vague.
November 11th, 2014 at 9:37 PM ^
I was responding specifically to you saying you didn't buy Schlissel's' speech, or the points he was making. I'm saying that reading all of his comments to date, he's pretty serious about cleaning up the culture in the AD. If what he was saying about semi bogus classes for athletes, something needs to change there. I think that's important for the long term health of not just UofM athletics, but college athletics in general.
He also seems to be very serious about doing everything he can to ensure that our football team is given everything it needs to perform at a high level. His quote about expecing top ten performance from both athletics, and academics seems to indicate that we're in petty good hands. He does seem to "get it".
November 11th, 2014 at 9:52 PM ^
Gotcha. Thank you for clarifying. I was addressing this quote from the poster I replied to:
"If you care about the university, and not just the football/basketball team, then this is absolutely a great news."
It all depends on what The Schliss does, but I stongly believe that dramatically raising our athletic admissions standards would harm the football team's performance to the point that it would have a much greater net negative impact on the university than a 60% football graduation does. As it is, the football graduation rate hardly seems to harm the university at all. Sure, it would be great to get that up, and I'm sure there are things we can do within the university to achieve that, but I absolutely hate the idea of jacking up the admissions standards. That would be a HUGE competitive disadvantage. A successful football program is a huge boon for the actual university side of the university.
November 11th, 2014 at 10:21 PM ^
I guess it all depends on how you define "student athlete". I don't think college football should function as a de facto minor league for the NFL. I think the student experience should be paramount, and the standards for athlete's shouldn't differ greatly from that of the general student body.
edit: as an extension of that, I also think they should get paid (deferred until graduation). That's another topic though. It does highlight a conflict in my thinking though, that I haven't quite sorted out...
November 11th, 2014 at 9:40 AM ^
Is the number one goal winning? Or is it graduating players? I tend to go with the latter, but I'm sure that view won't be too appreciated
November 11th, 2014 at 9:52 AM ^
Why do they have to be mutually exclusive?
November 11th, 2014 at 10:19 AM ^
they don't have to be, but in practice they typically are. you're choosing from a smaller group of recruits.
November 11th, 2014 at 10:48 AM ^
November 11th, 2014 at 6:32 PM ^
November 11th, 2014 at 10:59 AM ^
You're also choosing smarter recruits. Smart players can win too. I would take a smart & efficient QB over an athletic & dumb one all day.
November 11th, 2014 at 11:04 AM ^
Hey Terrelle Pryor can write good essays man!
November 11th, 2014 at 3:15 PM ^
seems okay at football. Though that other stuff . . . They can keep down there at FSU
November 11th, 2014 at 4:40 PM ^
as a transfer looking for PT.
Damn!
November 11th, 2014 at 10:33 AM ^
+1 for this.
I think that if you are not concerned about graduating your players, you will have a distinct advantage in the range of players you can bring into the program. This does not translate into wins/losses.
November 11th, 2014 at 10:44 AM ^
November 11th, 2014 at 10:50 AM ^
...Hackett making the call(s)? I worry about it, because he has no experience hiring coaches (that I know of) and because job candidates will (I imagine) not like the fact that they won't know who their permanent boss will be.
November 11th, 2014 at 10:58 AM ^
November 11th, 2014 at 3:46 PM ^
you don't happen to coach the SF 49ers right now do you?
November 11th, 2014 at 12:54 PM ^
That is a myth. If recruits meets the minimum NCAA standards, Michigan will recruit them. That is true with Lloyd Carr, Rich Rod and Brady Hoke. For some reason, Carr and Hoke gets a pass while Rich Rod gets that rep.
November 11th, 2014 at 1:20 PM ^
There are plenty of examples; Standifer, Witty, etc, of recruits who met NCAA requirements and couldn't get admitted. There are many more who our coaches didn't pursue because of those concerns. I don't know where you get your info.
November 11th, 2014 at 1:22 PM ^
November 11th, 2014 at 11:41 AM ^
November 11th, 2014 at 12:47 PM ^
I disagree. Both can be the #1 priority, and should be.
The answer to, "would you rather win or graduate players?" should be: yes.
November 11th, 2014 at 1:11 PM ^
November 11th, 2014 at 6:03 PM ^
Who don't want to wear the ribbon?
November 11th, 2014 at 5:27 PM ^
False. You can never have two #1 priorities because sometimes your priorities goes against each other. For example, if you have one spot left in the recruiting class, do you take the less smart, more talent kid or the more smart, less talent kid? There are instances where they are, in fact, mutually exclusive.
November 11th, 2014 at 7:22 PM ^
Who's your #1 priority, your first child or your second child?
November 11th, 2014 at 12:23 PM ^
November 11th, 2014 at 11:10 AM ^
November 11th, 2014 at 11:26 AM ^
November 11th, 2014 at 11:38 AM ^
are all just euphemisms with very little meaning. i dunno if you went to michigan but if you're in a class with over 20% athletes there's probably some bogusness to it.
November 11th, 2014 at 11:51 AM ^
November 11th, 2014 at 11:53 AM ^
November 11th, 2014 at 1:24 PM ^
I don't know about the 20% thing. I often signed up for classes that my teammates were in, just because it is more fun to have friends in your classes. Additionally, I was required as a student-athlete to take a "life skills" class worth two credits in which although the class was not exclusive to athletes, 90% of the class was playing one sport or another.
Is this a "bogus" class? I think not, as there are always classes such as "study skills" being offered to studfents.
November 11th, 2014 at 6:22 PM ^
Did you read the whole Daily article? He goes into much greater detail there than what's posted in the OP. It certainly came off to me that he was saying that there are clear signs that we've been doing very similar things to what UNC is dealing with, to a lesser extent. He even went as far as to say that if everyone weren't doing it, he'd "clean house".
I think I really like this guy. He seems to have a very strong moral compass, and isn't willing to take any shit from anyone. He hits almost all the right notes when he speaks, and comes across as very confident and self-assured. I'm hopeful that he can get the program on the right course.
November 11th, 2014 at 9:17 PM ^
November 11th, 2014 at 9:40 PM ^
That's... plausible. I hadn't really thought of it from that angle.
November 11th, 2014 at 11:47 AM ^
Idealistically: maintaining a university that--for its teaching and research--ranks in the top 20 in the world.
Pragmatically: maintaining a national research university in a time of declining state revenues and increasing costs without pricing it out of the reach of ordinary students.
Personally: Looking at people's investment in athletics to the exclusion of other things and wondering why those people are so crazy, and how to keep them from screwing up numbers one and two.
My belief is this: He'll take his time, and hires an AD who will take his (her?) time, and Hoke is with us next year. I think a lot of people will dislike that, but in my experience, that's how guys like that operate.
And no matter what the pace--quick or slow--if the AD screws it up, that person is toast. If they get it right, they're the second coming of Don Canham.
November 11th, 2014 at 4:22 PM ^
I predict we lose two recruiting classes (meaning the number and level of recruits are lower than they should have been) much like the last two classes of Rodriguez's time here, and a number of season ticket holders.
November 11th, 2014 at 5:29 PM ^
Exactly. If Schlissel wants to de-emphasize athletics, which is what "taking his time finding an AD/HC" would do, then he's gonna have a lot of pissed off people and will likely have to fire a lot of people in the athletic department because it will lose a shitload of money.
November 11th, 2014 at 6:25 PM ^
But it sounds like there are far more deeply engrained cultural issues that he needs to overcome than just securing a great football coach. I don't read his comments as wanting to de-emphasize athletics at all. He specifically said he expects us to be top ten in everything.
November 11th, 2014 at 11:59 AM ^
UNC was graduating players with their approach. Schlissel is concerned that our athletes get quality educations. I agree that should be our highest priority.Winning can never be the number 1 priority. Set some standards to follow first, then try your hardest to win.
November 11th, 2014 at 9:40 AM ^
I don't think this means anything vis-a-vis the football coaching situation. I think it just means that the new AD, whoever it is, will have to work more closely with the academic side and make sure oversight is 100%. I think this is a good thing for the student athletes.