South Carolina board should ‘recalibrate its engagement with athletics,’ report says
The University of South Carolina asked a national organization to review the way its board of trustees operates is its governance procedures.
And in that 35-page report was a one-page warning of sorts when it came to athletics.
The Association of Governing Boards, an institution that helps governing bodies at colleges with their procedures, mentioned a “special word” about sports when it came to the Gamecocks board.
“Football has long been a priority of members of the Board of Trustees, as is true to some extent elsewhere,” the report said. “However, board engagement in college sports requires a clearer understanding of fiduciary responsibility than this board demonstrates.”
It went on to warn about boards acting more as fans than stewards of managing finances on that side. The board has the final approval on coaches contracts.
Some of this tied into recent instances of the board speaking up about coaching issues at the end of the 2019 football season.
“The recent publicity surrounding the future of the UofSC-Columbia football coach and the ready press availability of board members demonstrates a misunderstanding of fiduciary responsibilities,” the report said. “While the athletics program involves a substantial financial investment, trustees and boards that overly engage in the management of athletics are clearly operating outside their appropriate scope of accountability.”
As the Gamecocks football program headed toward what ended up being a 4-8 season, questions arose around USC coach Will Muschamp and his contract buyout — at the time was that figure around $19 million. Several board members spoke to media outlets about the ability to pay such a buyout, as well as some other matters.
Reports citing anonymous sources also linked several board members to inviting former Gamecocks player Brad Edwards, who is the current athletic director at George Mason, to a game in Columbia to talk about possible employment.
South Carolina’s new president, Robert Caslen, also spoke publicly twice about the state of the football program, and each time a follow-up statement of clarification was issued either by athletic director Ray Tanner or by Caslen.
“I changed it at West Point,” Caslen said of emphasizing beating a rival in Navy to the Greenville News. “I’m going to change it here at USC.”
The report from the Association of Governing Boards called for toning down of focus on certain aspects that fall to an athletic director and to his or her staff.
“Selecting coaches, setting salary ranges for coaches and athletics personnel (except for approving unique or significant contract details, as specified in board policy), and commenting on personnel — especially based on wins and losses — are outside the lane of board engagement,” the report said.
Instead it said the board’s focus should be on issues such as student-athlete safety, academics, changes in cost-of-attendance policies from the NCAA and behavior issues for student-athletes. In short, the report called on the board to focus on the financial and student welfare side of things.
The report also discouraged the use of an athletics committee with the logic it could slide toward boosterism rather that a more sober mission of oversight (South Carolina’s board has a intercollegiate athletics committee).
And the report ended discussion of athletics with a simple message.
“It is important that this board recalibrate its engagement with athletics to reflect a fuller awareness of fiduciary engagement and restraint,” the report said.
The full note on athletics:
“A Special Word about Intercollegiate Athletics and Board Governance
College sports, especially football and basketball, are a focal point at UofSC-Columbia. And football has long been a priority of members of the Board of Trustees, as is true to some extent elsewhere. However, board engagement in college sports requires a clearer understanding of fiduciary responsibility than this board demonstrates. A board that acts more as a fan than a fiduciary can actually cause challenges for the athletics program and the institution.
Clearly the recent publicity surrounding the future of the UofSC-Columbia football coach and the ready press availability of board members demonstrates a misunderstanding of fiduciary responsibilities. While the athletics program involves a substantial financial investment, trustees and boards that overly engage in the management of athletics are clearly operating outside their appropriate scope of accountability.
The governing board must demonstrate appropriate accountability at the governance level; it must focus on mission over management. Selecting coaches, setting salary ranges for coaches and athletics personnel (except for approving unique or significant contract details, as specified in board policy), and commenting on personnel—especially based on wins and losses—are outside the lane of board engagement. Instead, boards should expect to see data on such issues as student-athlete safety and academic progress, graduation rates of student athletes, risks related to changing NCAA policies related to cost-of-attendance policies, and the behavior of student athletes. It’s not about a board weighing in on the next coach, but rather ensuring that the university is running an athletics program that is financially sound and focused on the welfare of student athletes.
The future of this board’s Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics is relevant. Over the years, we have witnessed substantial movement among Division I institutions away from a standing committee on athletics; currently only about 10 percent of boards have such a committee.Athletics committees run a high risk of being more booster than fiduciary; and if the institution views athletics programs as integral to the overall mission of the university then the issues attended to by such a committee should be spread among the other related committees of the board such as finance or academic and student affairs.
Board governance at the UofSC System is now a high-profile issue—it has gained the attention of the university’s accrediting agency, the media and policy leaders. It is important that this board recalibrate its engagement with athletics to reflect a fuller awareness of fiduciary engagement and restraint.”
