For a brief idea of what has happened, please read the executive summary put together by The Richmond Track Alumni Steering Committee below. Please find the entire report at
http://www.wearerichmondtrackandfield.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/reconfiguration-paper1.pdf
.
Executive Summary
In 2011 the University of Richmond created a task force, which included eight members of the
President’s cabinet and the Vice President of Recreation and Wellness, to study the university’s current
sports mix and offer recommendations to the Board of Trustees.
• On April 21, 2012, athletic director Jim Miller announced that the Board of Trustees decided to keep the status quo within the athletic department and that the university was so positive about the success of the current sports that it was looking for ways to enhance those sports.
• Abruptly, on September 21, 2012, the University of Richmond announced an athletics reconfiguration. In favor of elevating Men’s Lacrosse from a varsity sport within Recreation and Wellness to a Division I sport, the Men’s Soccer and Indoor/Outdoor Track & Field programs were discontinued.
• Shortly after the September announcement, President Ayers stated that this reconfiguration decision was made in the spring of 2012, yet due to financial constraints, implementation had been postponed. To this point, no explanation of the astounding communication inconsistency
has been provided.
After the Board of Trustees took the task force’s recommendation that adding Men’s Lacrosse was in the
University of Richmond’s best interest, the university had to produce a viable way to make it happen.
• It has been divulged that the University of Richmond did not want to increase its student-athlete
population due to a false claim that the ratio is already the highest among schools that the university competes against for students.
• The University of Richmond also did not want to add any additional institutional support in order to advance athletics, even though the financial performance of the school with regard to endowment progress and philanthropic giving has been among the best in the nation over the
last five years.
• As a result, the possibility of adding a women’s sport in addition to Men’s Lacrosse was not deemed a viable option.
Ultimately it was decided that the combined resources and roster spots of Men’s Soccer and Indoor
Track & Field, in addition to a $3M donation in support of Men’s Lacrosse, could be used as a basis to
elevate Men’s Lacrosse to the Division I level.
• While President Ayers and the Board of Trustees regularly maintain confidentiality of the board’s proceedings, an opportunity was selectively presented to lacrosse supporters during 2012 to raise necessary funds to promote the sport to Division I status.
• This information and similar opportunities were withheld from the Men’s Soccer and Indoor/Outdoor Track & Field teams, as well as women’s varsity club teams
Men’s Outdoor Track & Field was eliminated in order to provide 20 additional roster spots to the athletic
department to be used on both underserved men’s teams and overflowing women’s teams.
• One of the stated benefits of the reconfiguration was that it would help all currently existing sports be able to compete for conference championships and national recognition.
• However, based on a large examination of Division I schools that offer only Cross Country, the elimination of Track & Field will have a crippling effect on the already nationally prominent Cross Country team that won a conference championship and finished 24th at the NCAA Division I Championships in 2010 without the aid of any athletic scholarships.
•The athletic department has no set plan for how to use these additional roster spots at this time, and has only offered one possible example. The coach of the team used in the example has voiced his displeasure publicly regarding the reconfiguration.
President Ayers has not consistently modeled the high standards of the University of Richmond.
• The university’s code of conduct requires members of the University of Richmond community to be respectful, fair, and civil; to speak candidly and truthfully; and to promote conflict resolution.
• At an open forum on September 30, 2012, President Ayers was combative and condescending towards his audience leaving many to wonder about the direction of the university. Video recordings of this event are available.
• The statistical claims that have been relied on to support the reconfiguration have been proven
false and misleading.
• In-depth research disputes nearly every reason given thus far, calling into question the intent and reasoning behind this reconfiguration.
• President Ayers has rejected the thoughtful inquiry of impacted student-athletes and other stakeholders, stating the the decision is final and will not be further discussed.
There are reasonable solutions available.
• The Board of Trustees has the power to reopen discussions and to implement effective remedies.
• The University of Richmond has the ability to immediately reinstate the Men’s Outdoor Track & Field team with no negative impact on the benefits of the reconfiguration. There is no Title IX impact and no significant cost to bring back Outdoor Track & Field.
• Additionally, there is a viable possibility to save Men’s Soccer and Indoor Track & Field by adding a women’s sport. The University of Richmond can set a wonderful precedent if it chooses to accept this challenge.