Summary

• Working Vision draft iterations to continue
  • Priorities are on the right track but adjustments will be made to language
  • More details to be added for some priorities

Further meeting detail

Present

• Jake Bodner
• Joel Conzelmann
• Kevin Cunningham
• Jeff Hagan
• John Moore
• John Palladino
• Karl Seibert
• Matt Trenary
• Tom Warburton
• James Wilber

Detailed notes

• Audience
  • Mainly for us now
  • Will eventually tailor different visions for different audiences
• Prioritization overview
  • Trying to balance long- and short-term goals
  • These are defaults and subject to change, especially donor interests
  • Seibert:
    • First thought was to get very specific on timeline and goals
    • But too much depends on donations
• Access for all players
  • We are currently providing access, but the target here is at the higher levels while maintaining access
  • Suggested language of “Opportunities for players at all levels”
• Admissions and increased budget priorities
  • What about additional student resource items like study tables, etc?
  • Wilber: Do these go with admissions?
    • Trenary: Not sure these move the needle compared with admissions
    • Seibert: Could tie them in with operational items
  • Palladino: Trainers are high up as a prioritization
    • Trenary: Increased budget was originally just trainers, but there are more items needed
  • Warburton: Suggested language of “player support”
  • Moore: Should provide more build-out on these items. i.e., What does admissions mean? What does full-time coaching mean?
• Admissions
  • Hagan: Specify 0 players admitted
  • Warburton: Provide some details on academic abilities of applying players
  • Palladino: Is Admissions really the top priority?
    • Responses: These items are all tied together. Need all.
• High-level priority summaries
  • What’s the priority, what’s the benchmark, what’s the funding
• Full-time coaching
  • Palladino: This means coaches employed within the university?
    • Yes
  • Seibert: And market-rate compensation
  • Assistants within university pre-varsity isn’t clear
• Field/facility
  • Purpose is to use this to talk to potential lead donors
  • Hagan:
    • Space to honor our legacy is key
      • Something smaller at Mitchell in the short-term?
      • Should help grow the larger vision
      • Can go to games now, but no backdrop for additional conversation
  • Bodner: Elbel would be amazing from a student perspective, especially recruiting
  • Warburton: The recognition of older eras would encourage donations
  • Wilber: Shared space model is where we are, but ownership is interesting to consider
• Prioritization method
  • Palladino: This is prioritized by on-field impact?
    • Yes
• Increased budget
  • Palladino: Where does access to facilties fit in?
    • Trenary: Rec Sports relationship with Athletics is the current issue. Need to talk to Athletics
    • Bodner: And funding if we wanted to consider something off-campus
  • Wilber: We’re going to have bumps and this is all going to help us overcome them
  • Endowment numbers are good to see here
• Access for all
  • Wilber: We’re doing a good job here
  • Hagan: Agree. But should get our facilities and endowment to a place that reflects our rich tradition
• 2021-2022 Development Impacts
  • Hagan:
    • This is a good slide
    • Referenced past meeting with David Canter who highlighted some key areas for the U. Keep him involved.
  • Wilber: Best place to find big donors is in current donor pool. Keep working our small events.
• Specific language around women and men equity
  • Hagan: Should be well thought-out
  • Palladino: Makes sense but how do the current separate endowments fit if there’s a shared endowment?