Nothing to see here

Last night we addressed the so-called "lunatic fringe" that inhabits message boards such as these, saying it's going to be fascinating to determine whether this faction is powerful or powerless in protest of the decision not only to retain Terry Don Phillips, but to present a ringing endorsement of the job he's done as athletics director.

Reasonable minds can disagree about just how influential or representative this faction is. Reasonable minds can disagree about Phillips' job performance.

But I'd think a sentiment that's undoubtedly shared by the majority of Clemson fans is a disappointment in the "Nothing to see here!" nature of what has unfolded recently.

We know there were some serious concerns about the athletics department among some members of the Board of Trustees. We know some trustees were speaking privately of change coming in recent weeks.

What happened last week behind closed doors, we'll never know. But that's not the point of this.

Wins and losses are a big part of evaluating the job Phillips has done. So are championships. So is morale inside the athletics department. So is fundraising. So are academics, NCAA compliance and on down the line.

But if you're undertaking a thorough and comprehensive evaluation of Phillips' body of work, you have to factor in the limitations and impediments he faces from above.

The university's commitment to athletics is in question, and has been in question for some time. I think it might be a stretch to say that Barker and the board doesn't care about athletics. But do they really care about competing at a championship level? Are they truly committed to winning at a championship level?

Upon arrival at Clemson, Barker outlined his 10-year goals for athletics. He included another national title in football and two Final Fours in basketball.

If I'm an athletics department administrator, whether it be Phillips or Bill D'Andrea or whoever, I don't see how that aspiration is anything but tremendously naive. The time period during which Clemson's athletics programs were expected to post unprecedented achievement was also a period of dramatically enhanced academic rigor at Clemson.

It was harder to get kids into school. It was harder to keep them eligible once they were in school. Majors were eliminated. The pool of electives shrank. Skyrocketing tuition costs made it more difficult to attract out-of-state athletes.

Those are facts.

I'd like to know more facts -- or, at least, the facts as Phillips and folks in the athletics department see them.

Does the money the university takes from the athletics department impede the pursuit of competing at a championship level?

What about marketing? Do folks in the athletics department have some cutting-edge ideas that would create new revenue streams, but find those ideas suppressed by a university administration that isn't keen on outside-the-box thinking?

There are plenty of other questions out there.

But the bottom-line question:

How much of the blame that is currently on Phillips' shoulders needs to be shifted upward, above his head?

These are questions that might've been answered had things not ended well between Phillips and Barker.

This is a side of the story a lot of people would like to hear, but it's probably not going to happen -- not anytime soon, anyway.

Nothing to see here.

LW