You gotta admit, that's pretty darn clever. Even Johnny Weissmuller and his girlfriend want to click this link.
A "Strange Observer of All Things Swimming" and "The Helmet and Horns of a Different Opinion."
Exogenous Ketones!
Friday, May 7, 2010
Go for 5!
Several swim bloggers have been emailing around and trying to come up with ways we can unite to do something constructive to help save our sport. The first step, is to support some of those groups who are already doing great things. Below is a link to the "Go for 5" program started by swimming supporters at Duquense University. Keep in mind, this is not just a program to save their men's team... this is designed to help raise awareness and develop resources to help save teams from the axe all over the country. Please visit their site and show your support. Put a link on your team website. Hand out their flyer at team events. Add a link on facebook. Spread the word!
Will you Donate to Support the Team?
Posted using ShareThis
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Good AD/ Bad AD?
It seems like every time I read about a non-revenue sport being cut at the college level, there is kind of a formula to how and when they do it. I have my Masters Degree in Athletics Administration. I must have missed class on the night they taught us how to be as cowardly as possible when you make a selfish decision and have to face the people you are hurting.
Someone once joked with me that there is a section in the "secret Division 1 AD handbook" that outlines the easiest way to diffuse the uproar when you cut a sport. I think it goes something like this:
Pragmatism didn’t play well with the swimmers who were still on campus at the end of the school term. Of the 59 men and women on the rosters, less than one-third attended the meeting. Phillips said email was sent to every swimmer to be followed by a letter detailing the university’s plan.
Read how it really went down in this excerpt from an "inside scoop" article from SwimUtopia:
“They told our coach to call a meeting on Friday night after finals, after which most kids had gone home. Of 65 swimmers and divers, there were probably 15 of us there to hear the news. Terry Don Phillips walked in and spent 15 minutes dancing around it, refusing to actually say the word "cut". He finally said after 15 minutes we are phasing out swimming. A swimmer raised his hand and said "So you mean your cutting us?" Terry Don finally came out with it after 15 or 20 some minutes.” Harry went on to say, “once the administration finally made their announcement the entire team and coaching staff was taken by complete surprise and was blindsided.
Now, those are the bad AD's. I understand that the above post is a harsh take. Not all Athletic Directors are cold and callous as I have played here and often the decision is not theirs alone. I understand that sometimes cuts do have to be made. I know an Athletic Director at a University who had been a program builder from the beginning and was forced to cut two teams during the last year of a great career. It was a very stressful time for this person and it was not easy. The orders came from higher up that it would be cuts and not an "across the department" shared budget decrease that would be enacted. This person fought to keep the programs that were eventually cut and it was heartbreaking to have to go through with it. Retirement came soon after.
I feel that with Clemson, as it was with Washington and their repeated failed attempts at cutting their program before finally ending it, these cuts are different. They can easily be viewed as cold and callous. They are against the spirit and ideals that the NCAA is founded upon. Terry Don Phillips was also the Athletics Director at the University of Arkansas when they cut their men's swimming program. In my opinion, that is no coincidence.
I do not have a vendetta against Athletic Directors or even the NCAA. There are some good people out there in these positions. People who understand the ideals of "educational opportunities through athletics;" people who feel that the more opportunities a school can offer, the better; people who understand the dangers of the "arms race" of college spending and the poison of modern sports marketing; people who value non-revenue sports as important athletic endeavors that help to create a positive college environment and help to send students into the world more prepared; people who were once athletes and coaches, who understand where those of us who still appreciate "pure" sports get our perspective.
Unfortunately, it seems, there aren't enough of them out there to put a stop to the madness. It seems that those people are being run out of our business and replaced by leaders not unlike the CEO's of major corporations; people who compete in a system of greed and bottom lines, rather than character building and fair play. If the ideals of the NCAA were upheld, those teams like Clemson, who are active in the community, who are outstanding students, who give their time and their hearts to represent their schools, would not be cut. At least not without some major crisis that forced it to happen.
As a coach, I preach that in sports as in life, the journey is more important than the destination, and that what you learn when striving for excellence is more important than the trophies and medals you earn as a result. Wouldn't it make sense for the people in charge of college sports to hold high that same ideal? The NCAA serves a high and noble purpose, and I feel I have to stand up and say that non-revenue sports are being pushed aside by something sinister that has corrupted a system that embodies an ideal that I hold sacred.
How does the commercial go?:
Someone once joked with me that there is a section in the "secret Division 1 AD handbook" that outlines the easiest way to diffuse the uproar when you cut a sport. I think it goes something like this:
- Announce the decision to cut or terminate the non-revenue program on a Friday afternoon, preferably at the beginning of a three day weekend or at the end of a semester to ensure that there will be minimal attendance, thus proving your point that no one really cares anyway.
- Don't ever say the words "cut" or "terminate" in the meeting.
- Do not look anyone in the eye or be sincere in anything you say.
- Be careful about blaming budget crises or title IX for the cut, as it may lead them to think that all they have to do is raise money to bring their miserable little team back. Blame someone else; just be careful about presenting a problem that could be solved with alumni support.
- Dance around questions and don't make straight-forward statements in the meeting. Those are more effective in the newspaper.
- Make your exit as quickly and cowardly as possible. Get out of there before they start crying.
- Don't worry. Those big screen tv's in the football locker room are going to make all of this worth it.
Pragmatism didn’t play well with the swimmers who were still on campus at the end of the school term. Of the 59 men and women on the rosters, less than one-third attended the meeting. Phillips said email was sent to every swimmer to be followed by a letter detailing the university’s plan.
Read how it really went down in this excerpt from an "inside scoop" article from SwimUtopia:
“They told our coach to call a meeting on Friday night after finals, after which most kids had gone home. Of 65 swimmers and divers, there were probably 15 of us there to hear the news. Terry Don Phillips walked in and spent 15 minutes dancing around it, refusing to actually say the word "cut". He finally said after 15 minutes we are phasing out swimming. A swimmer raised his hand and said "So you mean your cutting us?" Terry Don finally came out with it after 15 or 20 some minutes.” Harry went on to say, “once the administration finally made their announcement the entire team and coaching staff was taken by complete surprise and was blindsided.
Now, those are the bad AD's. I understand that the above post is a harsh take. Not all Athletic Directors are cold and callous as I have played here and often the decision is not theirs alone. I understand that sometimes cuts do have to be made. I know an Athletic Director at a University who had been a program builder from the beginning and was forced to cut two teams during the last year of a great career. It was a very stressful time for this person and it was not easy. The orders came from higher up that it would be cuts and not an "across the department" shared budget decrease that would be enacted. This person fought to keep the programs that were eventually cut and it was heartbreaking to have to go through with it. Retirement came soon after.
I feel that with Clemson, as it was with Washington and their repeated failed attempts at cutting their program before finally ending it, these cuts are different. They can easily be viewed as cold and callous. They are against the spirit and ideals that the NCAA is founded upon. Terry Don Phillips was also the Athletics Director at the University of Arkansas when they cut their men's swimming program. In my opinion, that is no coincidence.
I do not have a vendetta against Athletic Directors or even the NCAA. There are some good people out there in these positions. People who understand the ideals of "educational opportunities through athletics;" people who feel that the more opportunities a school can offer, the better; people who understand the dangers of the "arms race" of college spending and the poison of modern sports marketing; people who value non-revenue sports as important athletic endeavors that help to create a positive college environment and help to send students into the world more prepared; people who were once athletes and coaches, who understand where those of us who still appreciate "pure" sports get our perspective.
Unfortunately, it seems, there aren't enough of them out there to put a stop to the madness. It seems that those people are being run out of our business and replaced by leaders not unlike the CEO's of major corporations; people who compete in a system of greed and bottom lines, rather than character building and fair play. If the ideals of the NCAA were upheld, those teams like Clemson, who are active in the community, who are outstanding students, who give their time and their hearts to represent their schools, would not be cut. At least not without some major crisis that forced it to happen.
As a coach, I preach that in sports as in life, the journey is more important than the destination, and that what you learn when striving for excellence is more important than the trophies and medals you earn as a result. Wouldn't it make sense for the people in charge of college sports to hold high that same ideal? The NCAA serves a high and noble purpose, and I feel I have to stand up and say that non-revenue sports are being pushed aside by something sinister that has corrupted a system that embodies an ideal that I hold sacred.
How does the commercial go?:
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
A Better Way to Look at the NCAA Hiring of Mark Emmert?
Readers of my blog might automatically assume I have a vendetta against football, Athletic Directors and the NCAA in general. I do not. I have issues with the "arms race" and the apparent disregard for the value of sports that don't bring in money that inherently comes with it. From the perspective of a mid-major, non-revenue sport alumni, the current trends we see all too often in the modern sports landscape go against everything the NCAA is supposed to be about. More money somehow leading to less opportunities is in juxtaposition of the ideal of creating educational opportunities through athletics. Cutting sports makes no sense when college athletics has so much more money than in the past.
I posted recently about Mark Emmert becoming the new leader of the NCAA. It worries me not only because he is coming from a major school who cut swimming, but also because some quotes from his initial press conference can be taken as a statement about the "arms race." He basically acknowledged that he understands why it is a philosophical concern for the institution but that he doesn't really see a problem with it.
I contacted Ryan Stratton, one of the leaders in the fight to reinstate Washington Swimming, to see what his take is on the former UW President becoming head of the NCAA. I asked if swimmers should be worried. He basically put me in my place by saying that my reaction might not be the most appropriate course to take if we want to make a real change. His wise response is here:
I've always had a lot of respect for him. He certainly didn't insist that UW keep their swimming programs, but he has always been a promoter of college athletics, within the context of a quality higher education.
There have been a few people asking similar questions or insinuating that perhaps he played a bigger role in the UW decision, which I don’t believe to be accurate. I have not had any personal conversations with him, so I really can't provide too much insight. I have no reason to believe that he would not work to maintain and enhance the goals of the NCAA, which is to provide opportunities for student-athletes to compete at the collegiate level. He has been successful at every position he has held and I think he will be successful at the NCAA.
The swimming community (and other non-revenue sports) should target an awareness campaign so that he understands the challenges we face. Putting him on the defensive before he starts can only work against us. Perhaps his work at the NCAA will help him realize that the decision that he supported at UW was a poor one. Swimming should serve as an example of how to be both a student and an athlete, which is currently a struggle for higher-profile sports.
Kudos, Ryan. Thank you for giving us another angle from which to see this. If all of the non-revenue sports could get together and take on what you suggest, maybe someday it could lead to real action at the national level. Thank you for letting me post this.
I can't help but still worry about our new leader, but Ryan is right. A hostile reaction from the beginning might only serve to hurt our cause.
I posted recently about Mark Emmert becoming the new leader of the NCAA. It worries me not only because he is coming from a major school who cut swimming, but also because some quotes from his initial press conference can be taken as a statement about the "arms race." He basically acknowledged that he understands why it is a philosophical concern for the institution but that he doesn't really see a problem with it.
I contacted Ryan Stratton, one of the leaders in the fight to reinstate Washington Swimming, to see what his take is on the former UW President becoming head of the NCAA. I asked if swimmers should be worried. He basically put me in my place by saying that my reaction might not be the most appropriate course to take if we want to make a real change. His wise response is here:
I've always had a lot of respect for him. He certainly didn't insist that UW keep their swimming programs, but he has always been a promoter of college athletics, within the context of a quality higher education.
There have been a few people asking similar questions or insinuating that perhaps he played a bigger role in the UW decision, which I don’t believe to be accurate. I have not had any personal conversations with him, so I really can't provide too much insight. I have no reason to believe that he would not work to maintain and enhance the goals of the NCAA, which is to provide opportunities for student-athletes to compete at the collegiate level. He has been successful at every position he has held and I think he will be successful at the NCAA.
The swimming community (and other non-revenue sports) should target an awareness campaign so that he understands the challenges we face. Putting him on the defensive before he starts can only work against us. Perhaps his work at the NCAA will help him realize that the decision that he supported at UW was a poor one. Swimming should serve as an example of how to be both a student and an athlete, which is currently a struggle for higher-profile sports.
Kudos, Ryan. Thank you for giving us another angle from which to see this. If all of the non-revenue sports could get together and take on what you suggest, maybe someday it could lead to real action at the national level. Thank you for letting me post this.
I can't help but still worry about our new leader, but Ryan is right. A hostile reaction from the beginning might only serve to hurt our cause.
Noel Strauss
Chas Morton. Cynthia Woodhead. Michelle Richardson. Mary T. Meagher. Jesse Vassallo. Bobby Hackett. Dara Torres. Jeff Kostoff. Troy Dalbey. Tiffany Cohen. What do they all have in common?
They are the only individuals left who have held on longer than this guy.
In Little Rock last weekend, I stumbled upon a masters meet. Someone pointed out that I was looking at a national record holder. I thought it was going to be a masters record holder. Silly me. I had no idea I was about to meet a guy whose name I have known since I was just a junior swim-geek.
I will let him tell you about the record he holds. I am just thrilled that I got to meet him and see him swim. Enjoy.
They are the only individuals left who have held on longer than this guy.
In Little Rock last weekend, I stumbled upon a masters meet. Someone pointed out that I was looking at a national record holder. I thought it was going to be a masters record holder. Silly me. I had no idea I was about to meet a guy whose name I have known since I was just a junior swim-geek.
I will let him tell you about the record he holds. I am just thrilled that I got to meet him and see him swim. Enjoy.
These darn kids don't know how hard life is supposed to be!
Sick of kids expecting everything to be easy and giving up when it is not?
Tired of kids thinking they are special without ever having to do the work to earn the recognition?
Don't you wish you could knock that ridiculous self-esteem from the smug face of that kid has no clue about what he is doing but still thinks he knows better than you?
Do you want someone to blame for the sense of entitlement of today's youth?
Well, take your pick: You can either blame Mr. Rogers, or the Karate Kid.
Monday, May 3, 2010
My Take on the Clemson Cut
When we lost UCLA and Arkansas, they pointed at Title IX. With Washington and UC Davis, it was a budget crisis. When cutting mens and womens tennis and mens cross country, indoor and outdoor track, Missouri State wasn’t even afraid to admit that they are trimming off the non-revenue sports to carry the bare minimum the NCAA allows. It was a business decision. They were re-prioritizing to reallocate funds so they could keep up with the arms race in football and basketball. That is the trend these days, whether Athletic Directors like to admit it or not.
This time we are losing Clemson; another big fish. When I step back and look at what it means for my sport, this one scares me more than any of those other cuts.
Braden at The Swimmers’ Circle made the point that it makes sense for the University to make this move. Their swimming hasn’t been as successful as they would like, and they decided recently to not build a long course pool, which is something that the teams who are successful at the national level have. Every coach has pitched for a long course facility. We all like to say that everyone else has one and that we are at a disadvantage without it… but really? Cut a program just because they don’t have one?
Oh yeah. Clemson might start women’s golf in the future too. It is being looked at. It might be a better fit. Whatever… they can rationalize it however they want.
I am sure that when Clemson’s decision makers weighed out the pro’s and con’s and looked over their spreadsheets it all made sense, but don’t the intangibles matter at least a little? Surely, those swimmers had good grades. Surely they represented the school well. By nature, with the hours that swimmers put in, is there any doubt that they put a lot of heart into the program? Does the team not have tradition and history that count for something? Their first meet was in 1919. They have had a mens team since the 40's and women since the 70's. Just more salt in the wound, I guess.
I have made the point in the past that we are at war, and the hardest part of that war is that we have to win in comparison with those who should be our closest allies in the fight: the other non-revenue sports. When schools are forced to cut, we have to make sure we have more reasons to be spared than they do. The difference this time is that Clemson wasn’t forced to cut. They just didn’t see any value in keeping us around. Swimmers, apparently, aren’t worth the money.
This decision sets a very scary precedent. Major school. No pressure from title IX. No budget crisis. Braden might be right. This was just some administrators getting together in a room and making a reasonable and rational decision that made sense for their school… but we still lost. They just didn’t see any reason to keep the swimmers around.
To me this feels as though they essentially said, “why are we bothering with this?” and dumped the program the way I might brush clutter off of my desk when I clean my office.
I have never felt that swimming was so expendable. My heart sinks with the thought of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)