ANNUAL MEETING – 2012

November 15, 2012

Teleconference

Participants:

• Jim Atwood, University at Buffalo, the State University of New York
• John Bruno, The Ohio State University
• David Clough, University of Colorado
• Fred Green, Troy University
• Jean Perry, University of Nevada
• Dennis Phillips, University of Southern Mississippi
• Josephine (Jo) Potuto, University of Nebraska, Lincoln
• Brian Shannon, Texas Tech University
• Tom Stephens, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick
• Steve Turner, Mississippi State University
• Jennifer Fraser, NCAA, recording secretary

[Note: These minutes contain only actions taken (formal votes or stated "sense of the meeting") in accordance with NCAA policy regarding minutes of all Association entities. While certain items on the 1A Faculty Athletics Representatives Board of Directors meeting's agenda were acted on at various times throughout the meeting, all final actions within a given topic are combined in these minutes for convenience of reference.]

The teleconference was called to order at 12:33 p.m. Eastern time by the chair, Brian Shannon.

1. Spring Meeting Schedule. Members of the board confirmed that the following NCAA staff members should be invited to meet with the board during the February 21-23, 2013, meeting in Indianapolis, Indiana.
   1. Mark Emmert, president
   2. Jim Isch, chief operating officer
   3. Brian Hainline, chief medical officer
   4. Julie Roe Lach, vice president, enforcement
   5. Mark Lewis, executive vice president, championships and alliances
   6. Anucha Brown, vice president, women's basketball championship
   7. Dan Gavitt, vice president, men's basketball championship
   8. Jennifer Henderson, director of student-athlete reinstatement.
   In addition, Jenn Fraser reminded the board to finalize travel arrangements for the meeting prior to leaving campus for the holiday break.
   
   As part of the February meeting, the board will finalize plans for the 2013 Annual Meeting. The board agreed that President Simon, Michigan State University, will present at the earliest one-hour timeslot September 23, 2012, to accommodate her travel schedule. The board also discussed a session on coach behavior and interaction with student-athletes as a future session topic.
2. Use of Social Media. Jo Potuto provided an update on the status of the 1A FAR Twitter account. The board agreed that tweets should be restricted to factual items that are useful to the faculty athletics representative (FAR) population. As operator of the account, Jo, will refrain from tweeting anything that could be construed as the board’s position on any subject.
3. Report from the 2012 Faculty Athletics Representative Association (FARA) Annual Meeting. Tom Stephens provided the board with an update on the 2012 FARA Annual Meeting. Tom commended the FARA Executive Committee for planning and session offerings. Specifically, he highlighted the review of legislative proposals and enforcement experience as two of the most useful sessions. David Clough added that the orientation session and all other sessions are intended to make the fall meeting relevant to the Division I FARs. Tom asked the board to consider modeling a session at a future meeting after a NCAA Division III FARA session on the language of sportsmanship.
4. Review of Newly Adopted Initial-Eligibility Standards and Alternatives. Jenn Fraser reviewed three alternatives to the newly adopted initial-eligibility standards with the board, and provided a timeline for future discussion and feedback opportunities. The board shared concerns that this review is being conducted in response to pressures to lower the academic standards. The board is eager to provide comments on each of the options and asked that the most-recent version of the concepts be sent to the board.
5. Future NCAA Transforming Intercollegiate Athletics Working Groups. The board is preparing for the creation of additional NCAA working groups, and voiced its position that all committees and working groups should include faculty representation.
6. Update on the Phase I Rules Working Group Proposals. Brian Shannon provided the board with an update on the status of the proposals and encouraged all to participate in the teleconferences that are being offered in advance of the January NCAA Division I Board of Directors meeting. The Rules Working Group next meets in-person December 17-18, 2012 in Indianapolis, Indiana.
7. Update on Phase II of the Rules Working Group. Brian informed the board on the timeline of Phase II of the Rules Working Group. Phase II will include a review of Bylaws 15 (financial aid) and 17 (playing and practice seasons) and broader review of concepts that were not adopted in Phase I. The board will continue its high level of involvement in providing comment on future concepts.
8. Other Business. The board asked Jim Atwood to circulate the teleconference minutes after his initial review. Once approved the minutes should be sent to the listserv to ensure all members are informed of the ongoing discussion. The board recognized Diann Schielesser for her outstanding service and support of the board. As the new chair, Brian has transitioned support of the board to his assistant, Melinda Moore.
9. Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 1:25 p.m.

October 25, 2012

Teleconference

Participants:

• Jim Atwood, University at Buffalo
• John Bruno, Ohio State University
• Ken Casavant, Washington State University
• Fred Green, Troy University
• Josephine (Jo) Potuto, University of Nebraska, Lincoln
• Jean Perry, University of Nevada
• Dennis Phillips, University of Southern Mississippi
• Martha Putallaz, Duke University
• Brian Shannon, Texas Tech University
• Tom Stephens, Rutgers, State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick
• Jack Thomas, New Mexico State University
• Steve Turner, Mississippi State University
• Jennifer Fraser, NCAA
• Katy Yurk, NCAA, recording secretary

[Note: These minutes contain only actions taken (formal votes or stated "sense of the meeting") in accordance with NCAA policy regarding minutes of all Association entities. While certain items on the NCAA 1A Faculty Athletics Representatives Board of Directors meeting's agenda were acted on at various times throughout the meeting, all final actions within a given topic are combined in these minutes for convenience of reference.]

The teleconference was called to order at 12:34 p.m. Eastern time by the chair, Brian Shannon.

1. Review of 1A Faculty Athletics Representatives September In-Person Meeting. The Board discussed the September 1A Faculty Athletics Representatives meeting in Dallas. The meeting included 97 registrants, with 74 faculty athletics representatives in that group. Those numbers were consistent with the previous year's attendance. About 15 attendees provided feedback which was circulated to the Board. Board members agreed that panel moderators should conduct a teleconference with panelists prior to the meeting to better prepare. They also agreed to have feedback forms at the sessions, with the hope that they will get more responses.
2. February 1A Faculty Athletics Representatives In-Person Board Meeting. The Board confirmed the dates of its in-person meeting as February 20 - 23, 2013. The Board will be housed at the Fairfield Inn and Suites and every attempt will be made to have the meetings in the NCAA buildings. The format will include a planning session Thursday, with meetings with select NCAA staff members Friday and Saturday morning. The Board indicated, however, that the schedule within those three days could be shifted if, e.g., one or more of the NCAA staff could only meet on Thursday. Jennifer Fraser encouraged Board members to provide her with the names of the staff they would like to meet with as soon as possible to get the dates on their calendars. Board members suggested the following staff members be invited:
   1. Mark Emmert, president
   2. Jim Isch, chief operating officer
   3. Brian Hainline, chief medical officer
   4. Julie Roe Lach, vice president, enforcement
   5. Mark Lewis, executive vice president, championships and alliances
   6. Anucha Brown, vice president, women's basketball championship
   7. Dan Gavitt, vice president, men's basketball championship
   8. Jennifer Henderson, director of student-athlete reinstatement
   Board members should forward other names to Jennifer and she will check availability of all the suggested staff members.
3. Rules Working Group Update. Brian reported on the Rules Working Group's September meeting. The comments gathered by the 1A Faculty Athletics Representatives Board were well received and a number of their suggestions were adopted. He updated the Board on the discussion of several key legislative concepts. The NCAA Division I Board of Directors will take action on the 27 proposals in January 2013.
4. Shadow Groups. Brian suggested continuing to have shadow groups to track issues being reviewed by different working groups and task forces. The Board generally agreed that the shadow groups were effective for tracking issues and developing informed positions on concepts developed by a variety of groups within the NCAA governance structure. Jennifer noted that a review of the Division I governance structure is expected to begin in January. Martha Putallaz reported that the Atlantic Coast Conference faculty athletics representatives wrote a letter to President Emmert requesting that faculty athletics representatives be adequately represented in any review of the governance structure. The Board agreed to draft their own letter, especially to request that faculty athletics representatives be included in the institutional integrity review. Members also agreed that if a member has knowledge of a sub-group of faculty athletics representatives (i.e., conference group) responding to an issue, that member should notify the Board so the response can be placed on the list serve and possibly supported by the Board.
5. Transition in the Pac-12. Ken Casavant reported that the Pac-12 Conference elected David Clough of the University of Colorado as the new 1A Faculty Athletics Representatives Board representative.
6. November Faculty Athletics Representative Associate (FARA) Meeting. Tom Stephens agreed to attend the FARA meeting as the Board representative. He will provide an update of the actions of the Board at the meeting.
7. Other Business. Jim Atwood reported that there have been some issues with links on the website appearing and disappearing. Most have been corrected, but he noted that any member that finds that occurring should let him know.
8. Adjournment. The teleconference adjourned at 1:17 p.m.

February 23-25, 2012

Fairfield Inn/NCAA National Office

Participants:

Jim Atwood, University at Buffalo
Percy Bates, University of Michigan
Ken Casavant, Washington State University
Fred Green, Troy University
Rhonda Hatcher, Texas Christian University
Josephine (Jo) Potuto, University of Nebraska, Lincoln
Martha Putallaz, Duke University
Paul Rodgers, Southern Methodist University
Brian Shannon, Texas Tech University
Tom Stephens, Rutgers, State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick
Jack Thomas, New Mexico State University
Steve Turner, Mississippi State University
Jennifer Strawley, NCAA
Katy Yurk, NCAA, recording secretary

1. Annual Agenda Items. Members of the 1A Faculty Athletics Representatives Board of Directors agreed the following should be on their annual 1A Faculty Athletics Representatives in-person meeting agenda every year:
   1. Update from the NCAA Division I Board of Directors president
   2. Research scholarship
   3. Student-athlete well-being issue(s)
   4. Current issues
2. Preparation for September’s 1A Faculty Athletics Representatives In-Person Meeting. The following agenda items, with assigned members to coordinate, will be part of the September 1A Faculty Athletics Representatives meeting:
   1. Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) Board of Directors representative (Ed Ray, Oregon State University; Lou Anna Simon, Michigan State University; Nathan Hatch, Wake Forest University) – Percy Bates.
   2. Presentation by “Big Time Sports in America” author Charles Clotfelter – Martha Putallaz.
   3. Understanding the NCAA override vote and process – Brian Shannon and Martha Putallaz.
   4. Student-athlete well-being panel on life beyond athletics and moving toward a degree. Suggested participants are below - Paul Rogers, Jim Atwood and Steve Turner.
      1. Southern Methodist University - financial officer (men’s basketball player; injury ended career)
      2. Warde Manual, director of athletics, University of Connecticut (men’s football player; injury ended career)
      3. Calvin Hill, NFL player development for the Dallas Cowboys
      4. A student-athlete to be determined
      5. A campus career development staff member to be determined.
   5. Update from NCAA President Mark Emmert on the work of the Presidential Task Force working groups, especially the new groups on integrity and governance – Jo Potuto.
   6. A panel on emerging issues – Jack Thomas, Fred Green and Ken Casavant.
   7. A panel on the FBS and the future of the football postseason. Suggested participants are listed below – Tom Stephens, Rhonda Hatcher and Percy Bates.
      • Roy Kramer
      • Robert Shelton, executive director, Fiesta Bowl
      • Harvey Perlman, president, the University of Nebraska, Lincoln
      • Tim Cowlishaw, Dallas Morning News
      • Bill Hancock, executive director, bowl championship series.
   8. A panel on best practices for academic redshirt. Suggested participants are listed below – Fred Green, Paul Rogers and Rhonda Hatcher.
      • Men’s basketball coach (Tom Izzo, Michigan State University; Bill Self, University of Kansas; Mike Brey, University of Notre Dame)
      • Women’s basketball coach (Kim Mulkey, Baylor University; Sherri Cole, University of Oklahoma)
      • Carrie Leger, North Carolina State University
      • A student-athlete to be determined.
   9. Academic awards – Rhonda Hatcher and Jim Atwood.
   10. National Football Foundation, including an update on inclusion faculty athletics representatives in their annual football scholar-athlete award.
3. Bylaw Review. The 1A Faculty Athletics Representatives Board of Directors agreed to conduct a review of its own bylaws. Jim Atwood and Tom Stephens agreed to take on this task.
4. Election of Officers. Jo’s term as president expires after the September meeting. The 1A Faculty Athletics Representatives Board of Directors elected nominees to be forwarded for consideration to full membership at September meeting; Brian Shannon - president; Fred Green – vice president and Jim Atwood - secretary/treasurer. In addition, the 1A Faculty Athletics Representatives Board of Directors also agreed to forward for membership consideration the combining of the secretary position and the treasury position.
5. National Football Foundation Presentation. Matthew Sign, chief operating officer of the National Football Foundation (NFF) provided background on the NFF National Scholar Athlete program. Applications are sent to sports-information directors of every college or university sponsoring football, regardless of division, in August or September. Completed applications are usually due the last week of September. The 1A Faculty Athletics Representatives Board of Directors will distribute this information to all members to assure that as many nominees as possible are put forward.
6. Division I Governance Structure. NCAA vice president for governance in Division I, David Berst, provided an update on the work coming out of the NCAA Presidential Retreat last August. The 1A Faculty Athletics Representatives Board of Directors had a candid conversation with David about concerns related to timing and process.
7. Legal Issues Facing the NCAA. NCAA executive vice president and general counsel, Donald Remy, provided an update on legal issues facing the NCAA. Donald encouraged the 1A Faculty Athletics Representatives Board of Directors to share ideas and concerns with him and agreed to seek 1A Faculty Athletics Representatives Board of Directors input on topics as appropriate.
8. Enforcement Working Group Update. NCAA managing director of enforcement, Tom Hosty; director of enforcement, Chris Strobel; and assistant director of enforcement, Molly Richmond presented an update on the work of the Enforcement Working Group. The enforcement representatives reviewed the written materials provided to the 1A Faculty Athletics Representatives Board of Directors and answered questions. The 1A Faculty Athletics Representatives Board of Directors provided written feedback to the Enforcement Working Group related to the changes being considered.
9. Resource Allocation Working Group Update. Vice president for administrative services and chief financial officer, Kathleen McNeely, provided an update on the work of the Resource Allocation Working Group and the 1A Faculty Athletics Representatives Board of Directors budget.
10. Wally Renfro. Executive vice president, Wally Renfro, joined the group to discuss current issues facing the Division I membership. The group engaged in a conversation with Wally related to challenges currently facing the Association.
11. Rules Working Group Update. Vice president of academic and membership affairs, Kevin Lennon, and managing director of academic and membership affairs, Dave Schnase, provided an update on the work of the Rules Working Group. The group provided general input related to the commitments and principles and indicated that it would provide more detailed information once more details related to the specifics were shared. Kevin indicated that specifics related to NCAA Bylaws 11, 13 and 16 will be shared by March 12. In order to provide specific feedback to the Rules Working Group, the 1A Faculty Athletics Representatives Board of Directors established teams to review each bylaw once the specifics are provided.
    1. Bylaw 11 and 12 – Rhonda Hatcher, Tom Stevens and Steve Turner
    2. Bylaw 13 – Jack Thomas, Jim Atwood and Ken Casavant
    3. Bylaw 14 – Martha Putallaz, Fred Green and Percy Bates
    4. Bylaw 15, 16 – Brian Shannon, Jo Potuto and Paul Rogers.
12. Bowl Championship Series. The 1A Faculty Athletics Representatives Board of Directors had a conversation with Bill Hancock, executive director of the bowl championship series, surrounding issues concerning the bowl championship series, postseason and other bowl-related issues. In addition, the group discussed session programming for its annual meeting.
13. Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at noon, Saturday, February 25.

http://cbsprt.co/QC29ex

CBS SPORTS
By Dennis Dodd

BCS creator Roy Kramer made a strident plea Monday to not allow outside pressures to expand the coming playoff beyond four teams.

“My greatest concern,” Kramer said to a group of faculty athletics representatives, “is not to allow that to drive call-in shows and the media of the world to expand where we are right at this minute. I believe that would be a significant, damaging issue for all of college athletics.”

Kramer, then SEC commissioner, spent 2 ½ years creating the BCS which debuted in 1998. Speaking during the Division I-A faculty athletics representatives annual meeting, Kramer said he is not “totally opposed,” to the new playoff, “if it works.”

“It will not reduce the controversy,” he added, “try picking between No. 4 and No. 5.”

Immediately after the four-team playoff was announced in June, there was speculation how long it would take to get to eight and 16 teams. After making his statement before an audience of about 100, Kramer received rousing applause. Kramer spoke during a 90-minute playoff discussion before the FARs.

Nebraska chancellor Harvey Perlman agreed, saying of the BCS, “there was no defending the current system.”

“The biggest critic was always the president of the school that finished third [in the BCS],” Perlman told the group. “If there isn't strong support for a four-team playoff among intercollegiate athletic community, you will see more playoffs than less.”

Dennis Dodd 
CBSSports.com
24 September 2012

GRAPEVINE, Texas -- NCAA president Mark Emmert said Monday, the association would have started a formal investigation into Penn State had not the Freeh Report been available.

The NCAA used the report as a basis for the penalties applied against Penn State. Emmert, speaking at the Division I Faculty Athletics Representatives annual meeting, said the investigation would have lasted a year and couldn't have started after other legal proceedings had been concluded, probably in the spring.

"We would have done an investigation," Emmert said.

He was asked directly if he would ever use the special authority given to him by the NCAA board again for such penalties he said, "the authority I used in the Penn State case I never plan to use again."

Emmert was asked specifically by former NCAA infractions committee chairman Jo Potuto if he was willing to say Penn State was a "one and done" case. He replied, "If you're asking me will there be a case like Penn State in next 10-15 years, I would certainly hope not."

Emmert said it would be possible to develop some sort of legislation to deal an "integrity breach" by a school but he didn't think it was likely.

Potuto is a constitutional law professor at Nebraska and a faculty athletics rep.

Eamonn Brennan 
ESPN.com 
25 September 2012

Around the country, potential college athletes entering their first year of high school are doing so with new NCAA requirements hanging over their heads. The collegiate freshman class of 2016 -- meaning students who are beginning their freshmen year in high schools this fall -- will be required to finish 10 core courses before the beginning of their senior year of high school. This is a departure from the past, when students who had faltered (or just plain not done their work) could race to the finish in their final year of high school. The NCAA also bumped the minimum required core course GPA to 2.3, from 2.0, and lifted the minimum GPA for junior college transfers from 2.3 to 2.5.

While these may seem like incremental changes, they are in fact rather sweeping, especially considering the clock begins ticking immediately. Your friendly neighborhood ESPN.com college hoops reporters -- led by Dana O'Neil's reporting -- covered these reforms from a score of angles earlier this offseason. I spent time talking to a variety of secondary educators, from teachers at resource-strapped schools to administrators and coaches at elite high school outfits, to get a feel for the challenges they'll face in quickly bringing new students up to date. For some, this represents a monumental task, which is why the NCAA estimates that 43.1 percent of men's basketball players who enrolled in 2009-10 would not meet the 2016 academic standards. Whether you agree with the changes or not -- and many high school folks seem to agree that a 2.3 core-course GPA is fully achievable, provided everyone understands the requirements -- it is still a huge change.

It also, apparently, has collegiate faculty concerned. On the first day of Division I faculty representatives and athletics directors meetings in Grapevine, Texas, some faculty athletics representatives expressed the same concerns we heard often this summer, most frequently from coaches -- that the change would lead to a massive wave of players being ineligible in 2016:

As a member of the NCAA’s Academic Cabinet, John Bruno, the faculty athletics representative at Ohio State University, believes in the need for tougher academic standards for incoming athletes. But during Sunday’s meeting, he questioned whether the NCAA would face a barrage of waivers to prevent that from happening. Others questioned if ESPN and the other television networks are ready for a potentially watered-down spectacle. “There are forces at work that would like for these rules to not be as strict,” Bruno said.

That seems a bit overblown, even conspiratorial. And yes, full disclosure, I (obviously) write for ESPN ... but I find it hard to believe any television network, ESPN or not, would be able to exert influence over individual academics decisions made by the NCAA Eligibility Center. That's not naïveté. It's just realistic. The rule is in place, and there's no going back now.

Bylaw Blog's John Infante, the Internet's go-to expert for all matters related to NCAA eligibility, responded today:

Many more initial eligibility waivers may be filed in August 2016, but that does not mean the NCAA has to approve. And between the combination of kids who “find a way” no matter what the requirements are and the fact that the new rules will not (or at least should not) keep prospects from enrolling in college, the long-term impact to the on-field or on-court product is likely to be minimal.

That seems more reasonable to me. There are major concerns about the class of 2016, and there may be a host of kids who didn't get the memo until it was too late. But it's still four years off. Coaches and athletics administrators at both the collegiate and high school level have every reason -- self-interest and the interests of their kids -- to make sure everybody understands what's required of them before there's no going back. And once that process begins, and the word is spread, and following classes have more time to realize the situation, the standards will become accepted and widely known.

At least, that's the goal. The first and most important step is awareness. The clock is already ticking.

Brad Wolverton
Chronicle of Higher Education
24 September 2012

Grapevine, Tex. — In the months following the NCAA’s steep punishment of Pennsylvania State University for its response to the Jerry Sandusky scandal, many people have expressed concerns about the dangerous precedent it could set. Among the chief worries is that the association might sidestep its traditional judiciary process and get involved in future cases involving alleged criminal activity by athletes.

Mark Emmert, the NCAA’s president, has tried everything he can to allay those concerns. And at the annual meeting of Division I-A faculty athletics representatives and athletics directors here on Monday, he provided a bit more context for the association’s Penn State penalties and why they probably won’t lead to similar intervention in the future.

If the Penn State violations had solely involved the criminal acts of Sandusky, the former Nittany Lions assistant football coach convicted in June of 45 counts of sexually abusing children, “We would’ve said, ‘Gee, what an awful circumstance, but it’s not our issue,’” Emmert told a group of faculty reps this morning. But “the institution’s failure to deal with those issues made it our issue.”

While plenty of people, including Graham B. Spanier, Penn State’s former president, have blown holes in the report the NCAA relied on to issue its penalties, the university’s acceptance of the report’s findings allowed the NCAA to impose its unprecedented penalties, which included a $60-million fine and four-year bowl ban.

The NCAA’s action has bewildered legal experts, compliance directors, and others who believe the association did not have the authority to institute such a far-reaching set of penalties, which also require the university to carry out dozens of recommendations to clean up its oversight of sports.

“Are you prepared to say this is different, it’s a one-and-done?” Josephine R. Potuto, the faculty athletics representative at the University of Nebraska, asked Emmert pointedly.

“If you’re asking me, ‘Will there be a case like Penn State in 10 to 15 years?,’ my answer is, ‘I have no idea. I certainly hope not. We all would hope and pray not,’” Emmert responded. “But in my 30 years of working in higher education, I’ve seen one case that would justify these extraordinary actions, and that was it.”

Potuto, a former chair of the NCAA’s Division I Committee on Infractions, then asked Emmert if the NCAA was considering writing a policy or bylaw, as some news reports have suggested, that would cover its ability to intervene as it did with Penn State.

“No, not precisely,” he said. “The authority I used in the Penn State case is something I never plan to use again.”

But in a tweet responding to Emmert’s comments, Michael McCann, director of the Sports Law Institute and a professor of law at Vermont Law School, said that legal precedent from a U.S. Supreme Court ruling allows the NCAA to issue sanctions without providing due process to its member institutions. Because of that, he wrote, “Emmert can change his ‘plans’ as he wishes.”

Bottom Up or Top Down, Part II: Rulemaking and Overrides