From Elizabeth.Bradley@Colorado.EDU Mon Nov 14 11:52:06 2011 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on research.cs.colorado.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 11:52:06 -0700 From: Liz Bradley To: Anne.Sheehan@Colorado.EDU, Martha.Hanna@Colorado.EDU, e.scott.adler@Colorado.EDU, helen.norton@Colorado.EDU, dduncan@Colorado.EDU, Bob.Sievers@Colorado.EDU, Stephen.Jones@Colorado.EDU, isaac.reed@Colorado.EDU, lizb@research.cs.colorado.edu, David.Clough@Colorado.EDU, tsnow@casa.Colorado.edu, Michael.Bohn@Colorado.EDU, Cecelia.Barry@Colorado.EDU, Julie.Manning@Colorado.EDU, Joseph.Jupille@Colorado.EDU, niklas.maccarter@Colorado.EDU, brian.lockridge@Colorado.EDU, Gail.Pederson@Colorado.EDU, sierra.swearingen@Colorado.EDU, Rosella.Chavez@Colorado.EDU, sierra.swearingen@Colorado.EDU Subject: October BFA IAC meeting minutes Reply-to: lizb@cs.colorado.edu Dear All: A smallish but enthusiastic subset of the IAC met on 25 October. Ceal, who was off coaching the US WBB team at the Pan Am games, reported in by email that she'd recruited a student-athlete rep: skiier Katie Hartmann. The committee was delighted to hear this and looks forward to meeting Katie. (Apropos of which, I need her email address...?) We checked in about the friday MFB game, but no last-minute issues presented themselves. [Since then, of course, the game happened - and Phil DiStefano reported to me that he did not receive a *single* complaint.] [This kind of editorial note is the advantage of being late sending out minutes.] I asked about progress on implementing some of the faculty/athletics engagement ideas, which were: - inviting the BFA excomm as guest coaches - inviting the whole BFA assembly for a tour/lunch of the new VB/BB facility sometime soon - setting up a program wherein SAs invite faculty to competitions - broadening faculty participation in student-athlete awards events (e.g., all 4.0-club SAs get to invite a faculty member) Julie took notes and will hopefully report in next time. Per the suggestion that was made at our September meeting, I reported that I'd emailed Jerry Peterson saying "we've given you our recommendations about the COIA vote about endorsing the Knight commission stuff, and we consider that matter closed." I haven't heard anything since. (The issue was that they wanted those recommendations in the form of a motion, which invokes several months' worth of machinery and no small amount of contention.) Scott, Martha, and others reported on the CU-BAB's first meeting. It will meet three times per year: in mid-October, devoted to Certification and Title IX; in January, for Compliance, Legislation and Monitoring; and in mid-April to discuss Budget and Facilities planning. Phil appears to be highly engaged, which bodes well. The whole IAC committee is delighted that Scott is willing to chair its sister BAB committee. I then reported on the PAC-12 faculty governance summit, which took place on 10/15. The BFA-chair-equivalents from 11 of the 12 schools were present. There was surprisingly little grousing about athletics in general and football in particular; the discussion went fairly quickly --- and quite organically --- to more general faculty governance stuff...which is more appropriate anyway, since the point was to move the PAC-12 towards being something other than just an athletics conference. (Our work on the weekday FB game, by the way, was brought up repeatedly at this meeting, and cited as "a triumph of shared governance.") Dave then briefed us about the PAC-12 FARs meeting in early October and some NCAA changes that are coming down the pike. PAC-12 FARs: - much better discussions than Big 12 FARs meetings - reviewed various legislative proposals - discussed ski team issues involving international xfer students (only affects us & Utah) NCAA schtuff: - working groups formed in late summer; have significant momentum - they aren't involving coaches or ADs very much in their work - the FARs are having to push to get included - and scuttle to follow through - there are several big changes under discussion: - restrict play of frosh 'partial qualifiers' - tighten reqs for junior college xfers - raise APR req for postseason play (would have economic impact on communities that put on bowls, and would differentially impact HBCUs. a 930 limit would have bounced 6-7 MFB teams from bowls this year, and 6-7 MBB teams from the NCAA tournament) - raise scholarship levels to(wards) actual cost of attendance - allow granting of multiyear scholarships The PAC-12 FARs are going to talk at their next meeting about weekday MFB games. Dave will brief us after that happens. Dave closed his presentation gleefully, showing us some very very nice APR numbers (the values and especially the trends) for our teams. These numbers won't be public until the spring. Finally, we talked a bit about the "Shame of College Sports" article and the issues therein. Our main reaction about the 'pay to play' stuff was "where the ($&#% do they think athletics departments are going to get the money to do this?" There is 'willful ignorance' of how the budgets work, not only here (as we know full well) but across the country. A few other points that came up: (1) colleges are bearing the costs of being the farm programs for MFB and MBB; there is no 'alternate' route to the pros in those sports, unlike baseball. (2) the perennial issues of coach salaries, facilities arms races, etc. Our next meeting will be on tuesday 29 November in A DIFFERENT ROOM: the CIRES reading room, which is just down the hall from our usual meeting place. I'll be in touch next week with an agenda. Liz