Summary

Aligned on

• Long-term vision includes separate varsity and club teams, all under the Michigan Rugby umbrella
  • Main focus, especially in the short-term, is on the individual elements of a successful program (e.g., admissions, facility, coaching, etc.)
  • Can reassess years into vision
• Men and women should collaborate
  • Clarity of vision and mechanics of fundraising will determine exact collaboration
• Intro presentation for Rec Sports development team is ready to share

Other significant notes

• Cadence of monthly calls and weekly email works

Further meeting detail

Present

• Jake Bodner
• Jared Bosma
• Kevin Cunningham
• Wes Farrow
• Jeff Hagan
• Mike Lisi
• John Moore
• Vanessa Rojano
• Karl Seibert
• Ben Shapiro
• Matt Trenary

Detailed notes

• Outreach
  • Palladino doing a great job involving 2010s players and some are joining the Bench
  • Trenary reached out to some 2000s players
  • Bodner and Trenary led a Zoom with the current team
    • Positive and receptive
    • Some explicit support of varsity+club
    • General support for increased competitiveness
  • All are encouraged to contact their network for feedback or interest
• Cadence
  • Monthly calls should be set going forward. Roughly second Thursdays at 8p.
  • Weekly emails work
  • Slack also an option if anyone is interested
• Intro presentation to Rec Sports development team
  • The Rec Sports development team is Kyle Nowels and Lexi Chaput
    • Lexi is a friend and supporter of our team’s work. Used to work in Club Sports, now in development position for Rec Sports.
    • Kyle is in development for Student Life. Very helpful and responsive with alumni info and development insight.
    • Our giving history and good behavior helps us develop these relationships
    • Women’s team is also working with them
  • Seibert: How will they react to desire of varsity?
    • Trenary:
      • This is one of our questions in the presentation.
      • They will definitely continue to support club development but they won’t help raise funds for another department.
      • Regardless, will help us with questions revolving around fundraising timeline / mechanics
    • Cunningham:
      • Presentation is great
      • I see this process as three steps
        • Clarify/define mission
        • Clarify strategy to get there
        • Raise funds
      • How do St. Mary’s and BYU succeed as club teams?
        • Trenary:
          • Their club sports is under Athletics so there are lots of benefits/resources
          • They’ve adopted a varsity mindset, possibly to the detriment of new/participatory players
        • Seibert:
          • They have the players
            • Arkansas State for example is a club but provides in-state tuition for out-of-state players, and then they recruit South Africans.
            • BYU has polynesian influence
          • Other teams have similar financial support but are in 20-30 range of rankings
• Discussion on pursuing varsity+club in parallel with pursuing individual elements of successful programs
  • Seibert:
    • Many individual elements are doable now with money
    • Admissions assistance is key though and that makes me supportive of varsity+club
  • Hagan:
    • Admissions issue is astounding
    • Curious about women’s perspective
  • Rojano: Admissions support would be great. We have the same issue.
  • Shapiro: Is there any other way to get admissions assistance?
    • Trenary: Other ways would be unprecedented. Though can’t rule out personal connections with influential people.
  • Moore: Are there other examples of teams moving to varsity, like lacrosse?
    • Trenary:
      • Lacrosse is a good analogy because men and women moved together. I can share some intel on the process.
      • Main factor is money. (A big reason why Stanford cut 11 sports yesterday.)
  • Trenary: How do we make this decision about varsity+club and parallel individual element pursuits? I want to provide space for dissent.
    • Farrow: Seems like a good idea to pursue what we need right now while still pursuing varsity
      • Trenary: Agree on short-term pursuits. But do we need to make that big decision now?
    • Seibert:
      • So many people can say no on varsity. And if they do, then we continue to pursue individual elements
      • But do we include this varsity aspiration? I think we should.
    • Hagan:
      • Agree
      • It’s not like if we miss varsity we lose the rest
      • Can always change down the line
      • Is the issue the potential of turning people off? Not too worried about it.
        • Trenary:
          • Yeah, mostly worried about turning people off
          • But your answer is good. It doesn’t change short-term objectives
    • Shapiro: What would the affiliation/integration between varsity and club teams look like?
      • Trenary:
        • Good question. Michigan Rugby and rugby overall have always valued community. No one wants to split the community.
        • There’s potential for some crossover of players either direction or even to the men’s club or helping coach the high school team after graduating
        • This is atypical as compared to say lacrosse where the club team just moved up
        • There will be a clear separation since the teams would be in different departments
        • Facility should be able to be used by both
      • Farrow: Could make sense for a varsity 7s team and a club 15s team given Olympics, etc.
        • Trenary: Have thought of this as well. Definitely potential though the model doesn’t currently exist.
    • Trenary:
      • Summary is that varsity is in the timeline but we’ll pursue individual elements
      • Reach out to network for feedback
      • Women may be on different varsity timeline
• Discussion of men’s and women’s collaboration and any concerns of donor solicitation for joint campaign
  • Cunningham:
    • Depends on vision and target. Needs to be clear.
    • Sees the MRF as a place to give and the MRF can coordinate how to best support
  • Farrow:
    • Clarification that the current endowment is not in the MRF
      • Cunningham: Does U have a say in how we use endowment?
        • Farrow:
          • Yes. We couldn’t use the U endowment to buy land in Ann Arbor for example.
          • Having an endowment within the MRF would provide control but it doesn’t currently exist.
        • Trenary:
          • Yes, though that doesn’t really limit what we use it on as a club sport
          • Technically a quasi-endowment so could potentially be used for large things within the U in the future, but that’s not how it was chartered
  • Seibert:
    • Crisp vision is important
    • We should work together no matter the pursuit of varsity
    • Cal men financially assist other women’s teams on campus
  • Lisi:
    • 501(c)(3) status needs diversity of benefactors, like supporting the women’s team in addition to the men
  • Farrow:
    • Beneficiary pool for single sport is generally good enough
    • But strategically it’s good to address support of women
  • Lisi:
    • Collaboration is good anyways
    • Men’s alumni size and depth would help with women, varsity pursuit, field, etc.
• Project timeline
  • Main items
    • Clarification of varsity pursuit
    • Establish initial timeline
    • Prioritize field/fieldhouse
    • Clarify collaboration between men and women
  • Made progress on some of these tonight
  • From these we can clarify vision and estimate fundraising goal
• Summary
  • Varsity in vision but not the only goal
  • Continue collaboration progress between men and women
  • Reach out to your network
  • Monthly calls, weekly emails, Slack if you want it
  • Trenary to provide notes and updates