From: Scharschmidt, Richard To: Drake, Michael V. Subject: FW: DRAFT speaking notes for Tuesday call Date: Monday, December 9, 2019 10:23:12 AM Attachments: Autonomy 5 NIL Strategy Call - President Drake Chair notes.docx Autonomy 5 meeting - Commissioners messaging d v.3.docx Re DRAFT speaking notes for Tuesday call.msg image001.png Importance: High
Dr. Drake,
Please see email below. I’ve also attached Wallace Loh’s response and Jim Delany’s subsequent reply to this message, following the “v3” document.
Thank you,
Rich Scharschmidt Executive Assistant Office of the President 205 Bricker Hall, 190 N. Oval Mall, Columbus, OH 43210 614-292-2424 Office / Mobile [email protected]
From: Mobile - Jim Delany
Michael , thanks for willingness to chair Tuesday s meeting . Also congratulations on Buckeyes winning conference Championship Game last night .The attachments should provide some guidance of the call flow from both presidents and commissioners perspective . If anything changes I ll let you know but to date none of the 5 commissioners have offered any changes to Larry s draft which resulted from 2 earlier panning calls last week . Thanks Jim
Begin forwarded message:
From: Larry Scott
I've also drafted suggested notes (separate document attached) for us Commissioners to frame the issues and our recommendations. I've left blank which of us will take which sections.
Jim and I wanted to get President Drake his notes on Monday, so if you have any comments or suggestions on those please try to reply by Sunday evening.
Regarding the Commissioner notes, any early comments appreciated but we can fine tune at our meeting on Tuesday. However, if you'd like to take the lead on a particular section (which I thought we could divide up amongst some of us) let me know.
Thanks and good luck with games this weekend.
Best,
Larry Autonomy 5 NIL Strategy Call
Call Details Tuesday, December 10 3 ‐ 4 p.m. ET / 2 ‐ 3 p.m. CT / Noon ‐ 1 p.m. PT Dial in: 1‐866‐228‐9389 (no pin required)
Participants ‐ ACC: Dr. Randy Woodson (NC State); Chancellor Kent Syverud (Syracuse); Commissioner John Swofford ‐ Big 12: President Burns Hargis (Oklahoma State); Dr. Victor Boschini, Jr. (TCU); Commissioner Bob Bowlsby ‐ Big Ten: President Wallace Loh (Maryland), Dr. Michael V. Drake (Ohio State); Commissioner Jim Delany; Commissioner Kevin Warren ‐ Pac‐12: Chancellor Phil DiStefano (Colorado); President Michael Schill (Oregon); Commissioner Larry Scott ‐ SEC: President Jere Morehead (Georgia); Commissioner Greg Sankey
Agenda with Speaker Notes for Dr. Drake
1) Welcome and Purpose of Call
Thank you to everyone for being available for this call, and your leadership on this important issue facing college sports. All our universities have been following carefully this Name, Image, and Likeness issue as legislation emerges on a state and federal level, and the NCAA is embarking on a rules change process to our bylaws around name, image, and likeness. As many of the presidents and chancellors on the call have been, our commissioners have been engaged in productive conversations over the last couple of months. With our support, our commissioners have been discussing the need for our 65 universities that make up the Autonomy Five to take the lead on a collaborative approach. Based on those discussions, we felt that now would be a good time to convene the commissioners and presidential leadership to hear their thoughts, see what kind of alignment we may have, and chart a course going forward. We have an hour for today’s call, and have sent around an agenda as follows: 1. Discuss the federal legislative coalition that our commissioners envision; 2. Review and discuss how we work with the NCAA on this effort; 3. Determine the level of alignment we have on our core foundational principles and messaging for this effort; 4. Wrap up by talking about next steps
2) Proposed Federal Legislative Coalition
The first topic is how we engage Washington DC and federal lawmakers. To outline how our commissioners are thinking about this coalition and our collaborative federal approach, let me turn to XX.
3) How We Work with the NCAA and Other Groups
All of us are engaged with the NCAA, and we have representatives from our universities and conferences on the NCAA’s NIL working group. At the same time, I know there are concerns about the NCAA’s ability to lead this effort in Washington. The feedback I’ve heard from the group is three‐fold: o First, it is our 65 universities in the Autonomy Five that have the most significant stake in the outcome of any legislation. The NCAA represents so many different interests and as we’ve seen through autonomy, it is best for the 65 universities to lead. o Second, there is a real concern about the image and brand of the NCAA in Washington. Given all the debates and issues over the last few years, the Blue Disc is not well received by members of Congress and Senators. o And third, related to that last point, our universities have the closest and best relationships with our representatives in Washington. Relationships with our 65 universities are what members of Congress and Senators care about. For those reasons, we think a coalition made up of our 65 makes the most sense, but we know the importance of collaborating with the NCAA. We also don’t want the NCAA to feel threatened, and we don’t want this to seem publicly or privately as a break away by the five conferences. Let me turn to XX to better explain how the Commissioners are thinking about approaching this issue with the NCAA.
4) Foundational Principles and Messaging
Our final agenda item is finding alignment on principles and messaging for the effort. We know within different leagues there have been many discussions about principles and messaging. The commissioners have also begun discussing this to see where there is alignment across the five conferences. Let me now turn to XX to share that progress and what they see as next steps for finalizing these principles and messaging.
5) Next Steps
Thanks everyone for joining us today for this productive conversation. Before we end, I’d like to have XX outline our proposed next steps. Commissioners Messaging for Dec 10th A5/presidents meeting
1) Welcome and Purpose of Call ‐ NA – Dr. Michael Drake will lead this
2) Proposed Federal Legislative Coalition
‐ Our five conferences already work together on our antitrust defense, and have built a structure to make important decisions and move forward. ‐ Our proposal is to build upon that and work together to launch a coordinated strategy, communications and outreach effort in Washington on a federal level. ‐ We believe that if we want to get responsible federal legislation, it is critical to be coordinated and aligned. We cannot have mixed messages or multiple proposals from the world of college sports. If we want to have influence, all major players in college sports and stakeholders need to be coordinated. ‐ Last week’s announcement by a group of bi‐partisan Senators emphasizes this fact. They are organizing in Congress, and we must be organized and coordinated. ‐ Our proposal is that our five conferences will jointly select a Washington‐based public affairs firm with the right experience and scale to manage the project. This firm will serve as the campaign manager or quarterback, and play a critical role in organizing us and ultimately executing the campaign. ‐ This effort would be jointly managed by all five conferences. The Commissioners would provide oversight and steer, working very closely with Gov’t affairs experts from our universities. ‐ We see great advantages of hiring one firm – it will help us navigate the process, keep good coordination among the 65 universities, serve as a central hub for our messaging materials, and help deploy the right resources at the right time on Capitol Hill. ‐ We believe we have urgency here. While there are different thoughts on whether a bill could go forward in this next year, it very clear that forums are already being held and opinions are being shaped right now. ‐ All of us have spoken to different Senators and Members of Congress interested in this issue, and with the formation last week of the bi‐partisan group of Senators, we believe the time is now to get our act together. ‐ More conversations will need to happen soon, hearings may be held as early as Q1 or Q2 of 2020. ‐ We need to be coordinated, and we need to be ready. We’d like the authority to come together and engage and hire a public affairs firm to help coordinate us.
3) How We Work with the NCAA and Other Groups
‐ For the reasons Dr. Drake mentioned, as we have done under Autonomy, we think the 65 schools that make up our conferences should take the lead in this effort. ‐ But we don’t think that it is advisable to brand this as an A5 effort – rather, we think it is very important to chart a course so that schools in other conferences could support us, and that the NCAA could support us. ‐ But notably, we don’t think Mark or the NCAA should be taking the lead in Washington. There are a couple of reasons we believe this: o First, the feedback we hear in Washington is that the NCAA does not have a good reputation with Senators or Members of Congress. o Second, the presidents and our government affairs leaders at our 65 universities have ongoing working relationships with these Senators and Members of Congress. These are the relationships that matter, and the Members and Senators care about their state universities and what they bring to their states and constituents much more than they care about our national trade association. ‐ But we don’t want the NCAA to feel threatened or sidelined – this will require diplomatic discussions, and at some point, this will require a group of presidents and commissioners sitting down with Mark. ‐ We as commissioners have had some initial conversations with Mark, but really believe it will be the voices of our presidents and commissioners collectively aligned that will be required.
4) Foundational Principles and Messaging
‐ All five conferences have begun working on defining our principles and messaging around this issue, and all are interested in continuing to get feedback from our campuses. ‐ A few big picture observations: o We all realize the need to explore opening up NIL rights, or what we would prefer to call “collegiate licensing opportunities” for our student‐athletes. o This change in messaging is important because no one really knows the term NIL, and we believe it is important to frame it as licensing opportunities four student‐ athletes within the college system, and not some inherent natural right. o We all believe it must fit within the structure of college sports and have limits so not to impact recruiting or create a pay for play professional environment. o As it relates to a federal bill, we have discussed how narrow or how broad we want to be in this effort – just stick to collegiate licensing opportunities or expanding a bill to look at other issues in college sports like salary caps. ‐ What we’ve initially heard through discussions with legislators in Congress is that we should stay narrow and focus on developing legislation that fits with the foundational principles we want to preserve in college sports. This messaging has resonated with reasonable legislators, and may be our best path forward. ‐ The main principles we want to preserve include: o Don’t want this new collegiate licensing regime to enable boosterism or be a vehicle for pay to play. o We don’t want students to be turned into employees – they must remain students. o And we don’t want this to undermine the equality that Title IX provides for in college sports. ‐ We believe these principles work for now in this initial phase. We will likely be pressed for more, but believe over the next couple of months we can work with responsible legislators to outline what this might mean for a federal bill that gives preserves what we want in college sports. ‐ Importantly, the bill will also have to give us and the NCAA the ability to enforce NCAA rules AND keep us from facing numerous antitrust lawsuits. Foreman, Amber N.
From: Mobile - Jim Delany
Thanks Wallace . All good points . I ve been under impression that NCAA is contemplating litigation v states on a interstate commerce basis but I don’t know that for sure . Look forward to this call . Jim
On Dec 8, 2019, at 10:37 PM, Wallace Loh
Hello Jim (and Michael and Kevin),
Thanks for the document on "autonomy 5 NIL strategy call."
Quick reactions:
1. The document focuses on emerging legislation at the "state and federal level" on NIL.
Yes, states have enacted or are planning to enact legislation. State legislation (for example, in CA) could influence federal legislation.
However, the document proposes hiring a Washington-based public affairs firm to help manage the process of influencing federal legislation. It says nothing about what about trying to influence state legislation?.
2. The three "main principles" this document wants to preserve are (a) not let NIL "enable boosterism or be a vehicle for pay to play"; (b) students remain students, not employees; and (c) not undermine Title IX.
The document says that "these principles work for now in this initial phase. We will likely be pressed for more [later]...." My guess is that state and/or federal lawmakers will press for more right now, not at some later date.
Should we discuss on the Tuesday call what are the additional "principles" that we agree on?
From talking informally with some state legislators and members of the MD congressional delegation, my guess is that they are not going to focus on (a), (b) and (c) principles. They'll go straight to the economic and racial justice issues of high pay for coaches, in contrast to capped stipends for student-athletes in FB and BB.
3. The document raises the important question of "how narrow or how broad" should be any proposed federal legislation. It proposes that we focus only on NIL and not on other issues (such as "salary caps").
Ideally, I agree that any proposed legislation "should stay narrow and focused." But this is a political judgment that should take into account the current "woke" climate, at least among Democratic members in the House of Representatives (and in state legislatures controlled by a Democratic majority). Among members of the MD delegation that I've talked with, they don't want students to be employees, nor do
1 they want to enable boosterism in any NIL arrangement. But they will want to discuss broader issues that are part of the on-going national conversation.
Thanks.
Wallace
On Sun, Dec 8, 2019 at 10:09 AM Mobile ‐ Jim Delany
Begin forwarded message:
From: Larry Scott
Following our call, I've drafted suggested note for President Drake to Chair the lead us through the meeting.
I've also drafted suggested notes (separate document attached) for us Commissioners to frame the issues and our recommendations. I've left blank which of us will take which sections.
Jim and I wanted to get President Drake his notes on Monday, so if you have any comments or suggestions on those please try to reply by Sunday evening.
Regarding the Commissioner notes, any early comments appreciated but we can fine tune at our meeting on Tuesday. However, if you'd like to take the lead on a particular section (which I thought we could divide up amongst some of us) let me know.
Thanks and good luck with games this weekend.
Best,
Larry
2