Dr Ayers, Mr Miller,

I want to thank you for giving me an audience. I know this must be difficult.

I am speaking today as a parent of a UR Student Athlete, and as a 17 year member of the UR community, about which I care deeply. I have no privileged information about this decision, or the process through which it was arrived at. Nor do I have a question for either of you. Instead, I would like to make a brief statement that I believe reflects the hundreds or thousands who feel that the decision to substitute Lacrosse for soccer and track was a mistake.

I do not believe that this is about GPAs, SATs, field space, student athlete ratios, recruiting demographics, multi-culturism, recent soccer and track successes, or the possibility future National Championships in Lacrosse. While these all may have played a small part in the decision, they serve now to deflect us away from the central question, and that is: What was the impetus for UR to turn its back on decades of Alumni and 55 of its own Students in favor of an unknown entity?

It is very unusual for a University to drop one men’s sport and add another. Sports are often dropped for budget reasons, or to meet the provisions of Title IX. However, this decision was not made for either of these reasons. It appears that the Board of Trustees is saying: “We simply want them more that we want you”.

I stand before you with the unshakable belief that, without the persistent efforts of a small number of wealthy and influential board members, this would never have happened. I find it sad and even troubling that important decisions at our school are for sale to the highest bidder. While that may be the way of the world, is does not need to be the way of our world.

I believe that we have reached a critical mass of good people who feel that the driving force behind this decision and the process by which it was arrived at are not worthy of The University of Richmond. I respectfully request that this decision be re-examined, and that options for reinstating our soccer and track programs be re-explored.

Thank you

Peter Albright
Father of Men’s Soccer player Timmy Albright ‘15

Dear Admissions Staff,

I am writing to formally inform you of my resignation from the position of tour guide in the office of admissions at the University of Richmond. As you know on September 21st, Athletics Director Jim Miller notified my teammates and I that the University of Richmond will no longer be sponsoring a men’s soccer program after this fall. Listening to the empty rhetoric from Mr. Miller throughout the meeting regarding the decision and how it was made really brought into question the integrity of this University and over the past two weeks it has not improved at all.

As a tour guide and a student-athlete on the men’s soccer team I have told many stories about how much this university cares about its students, uses the vast financial resources to make anything attainable and pursues the Richmond Promise. I can never tell those stories honestly and with confidence that these prospective students will have that experience.

On September 21st, The Board of Trustees and President Ayers made a decision that completely went against the Richmond Promise, in cutting the two highest earning GPA’s for men’s sports in the athletic department and also cutting the worlds game and one of the most diverse sports on campus. On September 21st, the Board of Trustees, without transparency, behind closed doors, told a group of young men that have dedicated their lives to representing the University of Richmond, that they mean nothing to them. On September 21st, I became a victim of money in higher education at a university that I truly believed was growing above that and had genuine compassion for its students.

Giving tours was truly the highlight of my day. Taking families around the lake and telling them about the great opportunities that this school gives to people was unique and fulfilling. Furthermore the people that I interacted with on a daily basis in the Office of Admissions were caring, compassionate and outstanding stewards for the University. In August when I suffered from a knee infection that not only threatened my season, but my ability to walk again, it was not Jim Miller, Laree Sugg or anyone in athletics that reached out in support, it was Jeanne Hollister from admissions. When Jim Miller and Laree Sugg told us the news that the University had turned on us, the first person that offered their support was Jeanne from admissions.

Writing this letter and leaving the Spider Key Society family has truly been one of the hardest things I have done in the past two weeks. Last spring when I began working in admissions, I really found a home. I was not an “admission slot” as Dr. Ayers labeled me; but I was Zac a student who represents all that is right at Richmond and everything it has to offer. Hopefully over the coming months discussions will be had about the sacred 13 percent of student-athletes that are apart of each class at the University of Richmond and I know some of those conversations will be with people in admissions. All I ask is that during those discussions you think of the countless other student athletes that represent the University on a daily basis as tour guides. Do not simply think of us as “admission slots”, but as Emily Parisi, Samantha Cicconi and Zac Brown.

I truly respect the work that is being done in the office of admissions. I thank you for the character-shaping experience I had as a tour guide representing a University that I held to the highest standard. Sadly, after the actions of the University on September 21st, I no longer feel as if I can be a positive representative of this institution.

Jim Miller-

I am writing to you in shock, frustration, anger and sadness over your summary decision to eliminate the men's soccer program at the University of Richmond. Certainly, in your decision there are numerous debatable talking points. For instance, you highlight the fact that lacrosse is the fastest growing high school sport in the country. Yet, you don't mention that soccer has been in the top 10 of high school sports for years. Clearly a sport not embraced or supported under your tenure. Additionally, you talk of ensuring “access and affordability" in your press release when, in actuality, the University ranks in the top 25 in the nation in tuition fees. Clearly a school committed to a specific demographic. There are blatant discrepancies in your public vision statements and your organization's actions.

However, my point focuses on the ideology that now seems to embrace the University; clearly demonstrated by your decision. It is apparent that the University has foregone what should be incorporated within an institution of higher learning – tradition, values, commitment and dedication, among others – and has, instead welcomed big money and strong politics. I am sure your young MBA team presented you with the Net Present Value of all the 'non-revenue' sports and showed you a bottom line; minimizing losses and costs. No doubt Title IX dilemmas had you also determine that cutting a team was more cost efficient than adding a new one.

My understanding of an elite University is one which embraces it's own brand, one that relishes the successes of its programs and, more importantly, rushes to embrace and support the same programs' failures and defeats. Collegiate athletics are far greater than a 'bottom line number'.

As an active duty Commander in the United States Navy, I live under the tenets of Honor, Courage and Commitment. They are the cornerstones of my professional and personal life. These are the very minimum principles to which a University should aspire. In a time when people look for organizations and people to uphold moral courage and elevated principles, one would think that a University aspiring for national positioning would embrace and welcome such attributes. However, with a lack of leadership and closed-door politics, you helped cement into the minds of students, faculty, staff and alumnae that, what truly matters is money. Mr. Miller, I am just a modest man with modest means and naively still believe in values that are rarely exhibited these days. I truly wonder how a school with a $1.87 Billion endowment can NOT embrace such beliefs.

One of the most frustrating aspects of this entire prospect is that this email will, ultimately, fall on deaf ears. The alumnae have consistently reached out to you and the University in an attempt to help, support and embolden the program. Yet, responses were always muted. Embarrassingly for us, just last year you initiated an alumnae drive competition that we rallied behind as you readily accepted our donations with no trepidation.

Sadly, I am sure you and your department discussed the 'emotional backlash' that will initially occur. And, yes, you are probably sitting there wading through it all knowing that, over time, it will die down and you can brush us aside and move on with your "strategy". It is truly a shame that you, the Board of Trustees and the University can categorize as “acceptable” the anger, sadness and hurt of the many groups that have strongly supported the soccer program and the school over all these years.

I cherish my time as a Spider graduate and feel completely betrayed by your decision and the underlying principles the school seems to now embrace. As a combat veteran with over 20 years of military service I can tell you that I have made very difficult decisions in my life to include putting myself and fellow wingmen and aircrew in harms way. However, those decisions seem to pale in comparison to the decision I must now try to make; determining my future ties to a school I truly loved.

Sincerely,

CDR Carlisle Lustenberger, US Navy
RC ’91 RL ‘98

Dear Mr. Miller,

As a soccer coach who has been part of the incredible growth of soccer in Richmond during the last thirty years, I am extremely disappointed at the current decision to remove men's soccer as a varsity sport at the University of Richmond. I also volunteered as an assistant coach with Tim O'Sullivan when he was at the helm of Spider soccer, and I also worked for many years at the Spider Soccer Camp - which became one of the most successful camps in the state. I moved with Coach O'Sullivan when he moved to VCU and coached with him for a number of years until my other career obligations increased. Also, very importantly, I am also a true proud Spider, as I received my M.A. from the university.

As a result, imagine my complete dismay and total disbelief when you recently announced the decision to replace soccer with lacrosse. Soccer is the number one sport in the world - no other sport has its universal impact. For many years, the sport thrived at U of R , I remember attendances of 2,000 and more for games against UVA and William and Mary. In many ways U of R was at the center of the dramatic growth of the sport in the Richmond area. This was definitely reflected when the NCAA Tournament was successfully held in Richmond bringing national attention to the university.

By 2012, many in the local soccer community felt that the program was lacking in direction - the appointment of Leigh Cowlishaw, even as an interim coach, definitely gained the attention of the community. Finally, many of us in the soccer community felt that the university was renewing its commitment to a sport that had 'lost its way'. My middle son, Evan, plays for Longwood who played U of R a week ago - I was impressed by Leigh Cowlishaw's work with the team, I left the game saying to myself, "In time, his coaching ability, commitment and love for U of R will turn this program around."

The rational that U of R wants to appeal to students in the North East was laughable and almost ridiculed by many Richmonders and Spider fans that I have spoken with. If that is the case, then mover the university to Boston or Hartford. Dropping the world's most popular sport at a prestigious university makes absolutely no sense.

Most importantly, the university has now created a special moment when it can reconsider its decision. Those people that have failed to grasp the true impact can now make an even better decision by restoring men's soccer as a varsity sport. Reconsidering a decision that does not reflect the university in a good light can only be a positive - I hope you have the courage to do so.

Sincerely,

Ted Jones

Since visiting the University of Richmond several years ago with my son, I was favorably impressed with the school and its administration. I was shocked to learn about the recent decision to replace soccer with lacrosse, which apparently is the beneficiary of a $3 million anonymous donation. In defending its decision, the President of the University indicated there is limited funding for sports in aggregate. The decision was made without any input from the student body as apparently students were not considered sensible enough to have a say in matters such as this. The administration’s treatment of its soccer and track athletes lacks compassion. By apparently selling one of its limited slots for sports to the highest bidder, the Board of Trustees has shown a lack of integrity. Replacing the greatest international sport with a relatively provincial sport also shows a lack of wisdom. The entire decision-making process demonstrated poor judgment on many levels. The Board of Trustees could redeem itself by finding a creative way to allow soccer and track to continue. If in fact the University is not large enough to handle soccer and lacrosse, of course the correct course would be to allow the beautiful game (i.e., soccer) to continue.

President Ayers,

For the past two weeks, I’ve found myself waking up at about 5 am every morning and narrating letters to you in my head while lying in bed. The topics vary from day to day –

Ethics – how the University can contemplate a landscape changing decision like eliminating the Men’s Soccer and Track teams while never disclosing that possibility to the student body and an alumni steering committee that had been seemingly working with the Athletic Department and Development Office for nearly 2 years,

Transparency – how an Athletics Strategic plan was formulated without key stakeholder input and why it cannot be shared in its entirety with the University community,

Special-interest – how sacrificing the good of the many for the desires of the few could be seen as the right thing to do when in reality it only serves to weaken a far reaching foundation of trust that has taken generations to build, and

Leadership – how a man who has built a personal brand of credibility over many years could sacrifice it all by not being able to take direction from his most important constituents.

I’ve read most everything there is to read on this topic-at least the information available for public consumption. I initially believed the University’s strategy to lay this decision at the feet of the impersonal, faceless Board of Trustees was brilliant; no need to put you or the Athletic Director in the line of fire. Since the University community hadn’t heard from you in the first week, I held in my heart that the man I’ve broken bread with on numerous occasions over the past 5 years and grew to admire as a man of strong moral character wasn’t part of this. However, based on your comments Sunday night, I’ve come to realize that I was wrong. Nonetheless, I still have faith that someone who prides himself as being “in-touch” with his students, faculty, and alumni will eventually see the light.

Like many in the University community, I’m still searching for the reason why the University would voluntarily disenfranchise thousands of constituents and throw away decades of goodwill. It is easy for those of us who have engaged in strategic planning discussions and development meetings with any variety of University personnel to recognize the reasoning you, the Athletic Department, and the Board of Trustees have provided is contrived. While you and the others suggest that this issue was evaluated from every angle, it clearly missed the most important one – public opinion. It is not a talent to take “research” and spin it into an argument to justify a self-serving decision. Companies mistakenly go-to-market everyday with products and services that somebody behind the scenes thought was brilliant and was supported by all the data they had at their disposal. But GREAT companies don’t prolong a bad decision by continuing to tell the customer they know their wants and needs better than themselves. They LISTEN to the customer, they change the decision, and they pull the product. These are often the most courageous decisions leaders need to make.

I’ve served on Richmond’s Alumni Recruitment Committee for over 10 years. The quality of the students I’ve interviewed during that time has consistently improved year-over-year. These students are coming from the best schools Atlanta has to offer – The Lovett School, Pace Academy, Marist, and many others. I’m also privileged to receive a summary of the admissions results every year and those statistics further prove that the quantity and quality of our applicants are improving as well. To suggest that adding lacrosse at the expense of Soccer and Track will open a pipeline to key high schools is illogical and insulting. What are you saying about our current student body and the schools we draw from today? Are they somehow inferior because they aren’t lacrosse factories?

You also commented that Richmond’s student-athletes as a percentage of the student body is one of the highest in the country. So what? Please explain to me, a former academic, all-conference member of the men’s soccer team, why this is bad. I attribute most everything I’ve accomplished in my professional career to my experience on the University of Richmond Men’s Soccer Team. The ability to perform in the classroom and on the field is a unique and special gift. The experiences of being part of a team, continuously investing in practice and preparation, dealing with adversity, recovering from disappointment, and simply competing day-in and day-out are attributes that every employer in the world looks for. I find it hard to believe that producing more of these individuals would be a negative for the University. The decision to eliminate the two highest GPA sports on campus clearly puts the emphasis on the wrong part of the “student-athlete” designation. Are you not trying to produce the best students? Are you not interested in developing real-world skills employers want?

We have a saying in my company “kill the snake”. It derives from Ross Perot’s famous quote “if you see a snake, kill it; don’t form a committee on snakes.” It simply means that when you see something that is so obviously broken, you fix it, you don’t continue to pretend it isn’t there. Well, there is a snake at the University of Richmond. Your students see it. Your faculty sees it. Your alumni see it. The Richmond community sees it. And a growing part of the country sees it. I’m pretty sure you see it. It’s time to kill the snake and reinstate the Men’s Soccer and Track teams.

Ritt Carrano
ECRSB ‘91
Men’s Soccer ’87 – ‘90

The University of Richmond recently announced last week that it will be dropping the men's track & field program (as well as men's soccer) in favor of starting up a men's lacrosse program. The decision has caused quite a bit of blacklash as expected from University of Richmond's current track & field athletes and coaches as well as alumni of the program, but the frustration and disapproval of the University of Richmond's decision has grown beyond those it immediately impacts to the student body and faculty of the school as well as those beyond in the track & field community. The Virginia high school track & field community is large and has had many of its top prep athletes as well as coaches attend, compete, and graduate from the University of Richmond, so the loss of the men's track & field program would be a huge loss for current and future high school athletes in Virginia to receive a top notch private university education and further develop as athletes in this Olympic sport as well as end the great pipeline of coaches which have come from that school in the form of its past student-athletes. On Sunday evening at 5P until 6:15 PM within UR's Ukrop Auditorium, a newly formly organized called UR - Save Our Sports will be hosting a public meeting and forum to hear from those who formulated the current plan to drop men's track & field and soccer and add men's lacrosse as well as those who oppose the plan and present to show their support.

It would be a huge boost for the efforts if many Virginia high school coaches, athletes, and parents can attend this forum to show their support for the coach Steve Taylor and the University of Richmond men's track athletes. After losing the James Madison University's men cross country and track program several years ago and now University of Richmond men's track program on the chopping blocks, opportunities are continuing to decreasing for high school track athletes to continue their athletic careers in college. Our state cannot afford to lose many more of our Division 1 track & field programs. Its a slippery slope right now in the college athletics scene with greedy administrations and boosters forgetting the original purpose of athletic programs at their schools as it seems that money outweighs integrity, honesty, transparency, and academic reputation. Many are hiding behind Title IX to justify cutting non-revenue men's sports to expand their major revenue or more so big budgeted sports like football. There is a strong public perception in this case that the administration and board of trustees was basically bought by a significant donator to bring men's lacrosse into the school (at the expense of men's track and soccer), which the school has unable to strongly dismiss that claim or perception. 

In the spring of 2011, the University of Richmond men in had the highest GPA's in the entire country for any Division 1 track & field program. Their program qualified for NCAA Nationals in cross country as recent as 2010 and been a consistent top tier program within the Southeast region without the help of athletic scholarships. In the program's glory days back in the 1970s and 1980s (when they had scholarships) under Coach Fred Hardy, they were a national powerhouse including at one point setting a world record in the 4x800 meter relay. Their program has been comrprised of truly student-athletes. They have had several athletes qualify for NCAA Nationals in track & field in recent years and sent athletes regular to compete for Team USA in the World Mountain Running Championships each fall.

An online petition (link below) has been started in support of the UR men's track & field program and at last check, signatures were approaching 10,000! Sign the petition below as a supporter of track & field and the common good of the sport. Virginia high school track & field needs and benefits from this collegiate program in our state! Be there on Sunday at 5 PM if you can!

The men of the University of Richmond Spiders’ Indoor and Outdoor Track and Field teams are the most recent victims of university politics.  Yesterday morning, the men of the indoor and outdoor track and field teams were notified that the Richmond athletic program had been “reconfigured” so that the close of the ’12-’13 season will see the track and field programs demoted to a club team.  The Richmond men’s soccer team is also being “reconfigured.”  The reason?  Roster spots. 

The university is cutting both men’s track and field and men’s soccer in favor of adding a men’s lacrosse team, rather than funding an additional women’s team to achieve the proper Title IX balance.  Richmond has been no slouch in the track and field arena over the past decade, both on, and off the track.  The men’s track and field program has been named an Academic All-America Team for each of the past 10 years (’03-’12); 2011 saw the Spiders achieve the highest cumulative GPA (3.51) of all men’s track and field teams in the nation, beating out Harvard and Duke; and the track and field programs has seen numerous All-American honors over the past decade.  Not to mention that all of this has been accomplished without scholarships.  When the Richmond men made the NCAA XC championships in 2010, none of the athletes were being paid a dime by the athletic department.  Though the cross country team will not be cut, it is no doubt affected by the deletion of the track and field program, as virtually all of the cross country athletes are members of the track and field teams as well. 

In an email sent to the Richmond athletes, University of Richmond Athletic Director, Jim Miller, sites that the decision was made to meet the “future needs of the university and the next generation of student athletes;” Hardly any consolation for the 19 track and field athletes who will return next year to an unfunded track and field team.  Miller’s further attempt at consolation was to state that the athletes would still be allowed to compete in a “limited number of meets,” just not conference, regionals, or nationals, but who wants to run those anyway?  The great news to Miller is that this “reconfiguration” will come with a new $3 million endowment from “multiple donors.”

Let’s get back to this issue of roster spots.  Cutting the Indoor and Outdoor Track and Field teams, along with the men’s Soccer team will free up 64 roster spots for male athletes.  The university wants to keep the number of student athletes consistent so as not to disrupt the proportion of student athletes to regular students on campus.  Saying that the track and field athletes are not regular students is hardly fair.  As stated above, none of these athletes are on athletic scholarship, and the university only provides minor assistance (minimal help for 2 athletes per year) with university admission.  That means that all other athletes are required to gain admission to the university on their own accord, as well as to find other means to cover the financial burdens of school.  Sounds an awful lot like a “regular student” to me.  What makes them different?  100 miles per week?  Back on the issue of roster spots, the lacrosse team requires 40 spots.  So what happens to the extra 24 spots?  Football and baseball rosters, perhaps? It’s hard to say for sure, but there are definitely some shocking inconsistencies in this plan.

As part of his reasoning, Miller added that this decision was the “most effective means for fulfilling the University's athletic strategic plan, which includes a commitment to enable our student athletes to achieve ambitious academic, athletic, and personal aspirations, and to compete successfully for conference championships and national recognition.”  Let’s think on this for a moment, while keeping the numerous accolades states above in mind.  The men’s track and field team appears to have achieved ambitions academic and athletic aspirations, as well as national recognition.

So what about the men of the Richmond Track and Field program?  In his statement, Miller said that “a University Task Force spent more than a year of extensive study and analysis before presenting its recommendations to the University’s Board of Trustees,” yet the members of the track and field team only found out this morning.  Several members of the team have already redshirted in order to return to Richmond for a 5th year.  Before I go on, remember that this 5th year is not just a time commitment for these runners, but also a financial commitment as none of the runners are on athletic scholarship.  The decision to run a 5th year comes at the cost of $50,000; one of the highest tuitions in the nation.  Now these runners are left trying to decide whether to stay with a crippled program, or pick up their lives and move elsewhere.

It is, to say the least, a very sad moment for the running community to see another track and field program succumb to politics.  We can only wish the affected Richmond athletes the best in this situation and hope that everything works out for them. 

As stated above, there are many inconsistencies regarding the University’s “reconfiguration” plan, and it can’t hurt to make a little bit of noise.  The program may already be gone, but we can still get behind these kids and help make their voice a little louder.  Below are the email addresses of the University of Richmond Athletic Director, Jim Miller, and the University of Richmond President, Edward Ayers.  Feel free to let them know how you feel. 

Jim Miller :   [email protected]

Edward Ayers :  [email protected]