Carry the Flag Press Conference Speech
Thank you all for coming today. My name is Scott Byrnes. I’m a 1991 graduate of the University of Richmond, and a 4-year member of the men’s varsity soccer team. On September 21st, 2012, the University of Richmond announced that it was cutting its men’s soccer and track teams to make way for a men’s varsity lacrosse program. Understandably, the current men’s soccer and track team members, their parents and the soccer and track alumni were very disappointed with that decision and we have banded together in protest.
We have written letters to president Ayers and athletic director Jim Miller. We distributed a petition and gathered signatures. We printed t-shirts, flags and scarves. We attended meetings and planning calls. We produced videos and developed a website. We placed advertisements in newspapers. We also took our story to the media.
That’s an incredible amount of work, fueled by some intense emotions. To the uninitiated University of Richmond faculty member, administrator, student or trustee, I could even see how that amount of work and emotion might be perceived as overkill.
I’ve seen a few Tweets and Facebook comments to the effect of ‘look, the University dropped a couple sports programs. It happens all the time. Get over it!’
The fact is, however, this decision was anything but run of the mill. The motivations behind it, the systematic manipulation of individuals, the abuse of power, the stonewalling of alumni. These are the reasons why the members of the Carry the Flag consortium are so upset.
We are here today to expose the true motivations behind the decision to bring on men’s varsity lacrosse and to cut men’s soccer and track. At the end of the day, one individual—a powerful University of Richmond alumnus, donor and member of the executive committee of the board of trustees—was determined to establish a varsity lacrosse team at Richmond.
He used his power and influence to make that dream a reality, at the expense of the dreams of many more people at the University, and at the expense of the principles on which this University prides itself.
Sadly, he was not alone. He found a supporting cast in the form of several high ranking University of Richmond administrators, all driven by the lure of money—‘philanthropy’ to use their term. No matter what you call it, philanthropy, fundraising, donations…money is money.
And power is power. It can be used in a positive way, and it can be used in a negative way, such as sealing out the efforts of an organized group of alumni in order to advance your own agenda.
I realize these are strong accusations, and I don’t make them lightly. I plan to lay out the facts as we have come to know them and then let the University of Richmond faculty, students and alumni weigh them.
Although many of my comments today are centered on the historical efforts of the soccer alumni to aid the soccer program, I want everyone to know that the soccer and track contingent have been, and will continue to be, united under the Carry the Flag umbrella.
Furthermore, as I recount the journey of the soccer alumni, I ask everyone to keep in mind that, in many ways, the administration’s treatment of the track team was even more callous. I will circle back to that point at the conclusion of my remarks.
As I have already mentioned, in just the past six weeks the Carry the Flag consortium has been on a long journey. The fact is, the University of Richmond soccer alumni embarked on a related journey eighteen months ago. The goal of that journey was to help bolster the men’s soccer program, a program that we recognized was struggling.
In April of 2011, a core group of soccer alumni banded together and devised a plan. The first step of that plan was to reach out to the extended group of soccer alumni with a rallying cry for support. I’d like to read an excerpt from an email that was sent out to the soccer alumni on June 8, 2011.
After recounting the personal and professional successes enjoyed by many of the soccer alumni, I went on to address the soccer program itself. The following is a direct quote from that email…
And I quote, “Unfortunately the [soccer] program has not continued to evolve the way most of us had hoped. Over the last five years, Richmond Soccer has fallen on hard times. The team moved to the A-10 [conference] in 2001, a much weaker soccer conference than the CAA. The soccer stadium has been taken over by the football team, forcing the soccer team to play home games 10-minutes off campus. The locker room, practice facilities and practice gear have deteriorated. Recruiting has suffered. The team’s aggregate record over the past 4 years is 17-49-7. There are even rumors that soccer may be demoted to a club sport, with all scholarships stripped.
We could debate the reasons for the administration’s lack of focus on soccer. It’s not a revenue sport. There’s been limited involvement from the alumni. Football and basketball continue to monopolize much of the athletic department’s focus. Rather than belabor the negatives, however, we’re mobilizing to make a positive change.
A committee of soccer alumni has formed, with representatives from each era. Jim Popp, Jim Brady and myself are committee representatives for the old guard (1994 and earlier). Below are the major goals of the committee:
1) Bring soccer back to Richmond with an on-campus, natural grass stadium that will support the men’s and women’s programs.
2) Elevate soccer scholarships to top-20 program levels.
3) Secure quality on-campus practice facilities that can be used by the men’s and women’s teams.
4) Improve locker rooms and practice gear.
5) Ensure the coaching quality is sufficient to lead the team to top-20 status, given proper support as described above.
The path to achieving these goals is clear. The soccer alumni must get more involved. We need to show the University that we have a voice and a strong desire to move the program forward.” End quote.
Again, that was an email sent on June 8, 2011.
What was the response by the soccer alumni to this email? Over the next two weeks, I received over 80 emails from soccer alumni, eager to pick up the flag and carry it in support of the men’s soccer program. This was not an effort of a few; this was an effort of many.
Collectively, we determined that that best way to convince the University administration of our sincerity was to become the #1 donating team among all sports teams at Richmond. For the fiscal year ended June 2011, we did just that. With a 27.69% participation rate, the men’s soccer alumni had the highest percentage of fundraising participation of any men’s sport.
With that as an opening statement, our campaign was underway. It was time to formalize our plan to help men’s soccer, and take that plan to the University of Richmond administration for consideration.
Unbeknownst to the soccer alumni, however, it seems another group of individuals had launched their own campaign. At the heart of this other campaign was a powerful University of Richmond donor, intent on establishing lacrosse as a varsity sport. While the soccer alumni had formed a steering committee to help bolster the competitiveness of the soccer program, it seems another steering committee had formed to advance the lacrosse agenda. Based on the events that have unfolded over the past two years it appears that members of the lacrosse committee included the powerful donor who also happens to be a member of the board of trustees, President Ayers, Athletic Director Jim Miller and Vice President of Advancement, Tom Gutenberger.
The major donor’s motivations have never been a secret. He has been a strong advocate for lacrosse at Richmond for years. He has donated to the University of Richmond men’s lacrosse club team. His son also happens to be a very accomplished high school lacrosse player. Who wouldn’t want to see his son play a varsity sport at his alma mater?
That’s compelling and even admirable motivation. I have a son who plays soccer. I also have a daughter who swims. I would love to see my kids become Spider varsity athletes. What’s wrong with that? Absolutely nothing.
So we understand the motivations of the major donor. What was motivating the other lacrosse committee members? Well, as a University President facing constant pressure to fundraise, as a Vice President of Advancement (whose primary job responsibility is fundraising), as an athletic Director transitioning into a full-time fundraising role, who wouldn’t want to make a major donor happy? Who wouldn’t want to help him establish a varsity lacrosse team at Richmond?
Quite honestly, at this point, all is still well. It would be hard for anyone to see anything wrong with the scenario I’ve described so far. Adding another sports team at Richmond is a great idea.
Unfortunately, by President Ayers’ own admission, it’s expensive to establish a new varsity sports team.
Let me quote President Ayers, from his town hall meeting address to students and faculty on September 30, 2012. President Ayers said, and I quote, “Adding sports is expensive. We looked hard at that. The most viable scenario we could develop added more than a million dollars a year in labor and operating costs, before we address questions of facilities or scholarships or additional support staff in athletics. To give you an idea you have to multiply that by 20 to establish an endowment that would sustain that.” End quote.
So, according to president Ayers, it would take a $20 million endowment to establish a men’s varsity lacrosse team at Richmond. Then it would take another $20 million endowment to establish a women’s sport to balance the title IX equation. And that’s not even including scholarships.
In the face of that reality, the lacrosse steering committee had a problem, didn’t they? The University didn’t want to incur the expense of bringing on another men’s varsity sports team. And they certainly didn’t want to pay to bring on more women’s programs to balance out the addition of men’s lacrosse under Title IX.
So how do you bring on men’s varsity lacrosse? How do you satisfy the interests of your major donor?
As we stand here today, with a full account of the events that have unfolded over the past two years, the answer to that question is clear: you couldn’t simply add men’s lacrosse; you had to steal a couple men’s sports programs, namely soccer and track.
This is where it all went wrong. This is where the noble intentions of a few individuals wanting to do something positive, add a sports program, turns ugly. This is the point at which there is a complete and utter failure of leadership.
But how do you go about stealing a couple of Division 1 sports programs? How do you go about stealing these programs when they boast the #1 and #2 GPAs of all sports teams on campus? How do you go about stealing these sports programs when one of them has a group of alumni who have mobilized and are offering assistance, including fundraising, to bolster the program?
I will tell you how you do it, in 6 easy steps. As I recount these steps, I suspect that those in the audience today, and those who watch this video will be as disgusted as the soccer alumni were when we uncovered them.
Step 1 - Assemble Your Inner Circle
If you’re going to be successful, you need to assemble a strong team. Each team member should be highly motivated to see the effort through. As we’ve already highlighted, the members of the lacrosse inner circle include the major donor, President Ayers, Jim Miller and Tom Gutenberger. The motivations of these men are clear – it’s all about the money.
Step 2 - Call for a ‘Study’
People like studies. They’re tangible, defensible and official. Create a Sports Mix study to gather and evaluate data to support your decision to bring on a varsity lacrosse team. You will need a committee to oversee the study and present the results.
Step 3 - Stack the Deck
A study needs a hand-picked committee. Choose wisely. Your committee will consist of eleven members, eight of whom will report directly to you, President Ayers.
Of the eight that report directly to you, there will be two members of the lacrosse inner circle, athletic director Jim Miller and VP of advancement Tom Gutenberger.
The three who do not report to you will include:
The Assistant Vice President for Recreation and Wellness, a man who championed the Richmond men’s club lacrosse team through its meteoric rise in club status since its inception.
An Associate Professor of Public Policy, a man who stood up at the town hall meeting on September 30th passionately defending the decision to cut the two sports teams—with the #1 and #2 GPAs on campus—on the basis that it would free up funds to bring on one additional university scholar. If that’s not hypocrisy, I don’t know what is. Scholars? Here are your scholars, sir, the members of the men’s track and soccer teams. And in addition to excelling in the classroom they happen to be holding down the equivalent of full time jobs.
The final member of the Sports Mix Committee is a Professor of Music. I have never met, nor have anything against this music professor, but I have to question the relevance of adding a music professor to your sports mix committee.
Well, you’ve chosen wisely, Dr. Ayers. Eight of the eleven committee members report directly to you, and among the other three you already have a staunch lacrosse supporter.
You’ve also done well to exclude those who might object to your plans to supplant soccer and track with lacrosse, namely the three members of the board of trustees’ athletic council: Susan Quisenberry, Elaine Yeatts and Robert Ukrop.
Step 4 - Massage the Numbers
You own the data. Make it tell the story you want it to tell.
President Ayers, at the town hall meeting on September 30, where you addressed students, faculty and alumni, you were asked to explain why the University couldn’t bring on men’s varsity lacrosse as an additive sport, without having to drop the men’s soccer and track programs.
You cited several reasons:
One, a point that I’ve already highlighted, it’s too expensive to bring on additional sports.
The second reason you cited was that by bringing on additional sports, the University would exceed the magic number of 13% athletes to total students. President Ayers went on to say that with 13% athletes, Richmond has one of the highest percentages of athletes to students among the schools it competes with for students. Technically, your statement was accurate, president Ayers.
On the University of Richmond Website, there is, in fact, a list of schools with whom the University of Richmond ‘competes for students.’ Here are a few of the 12 universities featured on that list:
- University of Virginia
- University of North Carolina
- Boston College
- Cornell
These are large universities, Ed. The average enrollment of these 12 universities is 8,604 students compared to Richmond’s 3,017 students. Of course they are going to have a lower percentage of athletes to total students; they have over 2.5 times the number of total students.
Interestingly enough, there’s another list of universities against which Richmond benchmarks itself. It’s also featured on the University’s website, right above the list of universities we compete with for students. This other list is entitled Information Task Force Peer List. This list of 29 schools includes small, private, academically rigorous universities, some of which include Bucknell, Colgate, Davidson and Lafayette.
What is the average enrollment of these universities? It’s 2,842. With roughly the same number of total students as Richmond, and a similar academic profile, shouldn’t this be the list of universities against which Richmond benchmarks itself for athlete to student ratios? What is the average percentage of athletes to total students at these schools? It’s 18.05%, compared to Richmond’s ratio of 12.23%. So, in fact, Richmond has one of the lowest percentages of athletes among the universities it benchmarks itself against.
When Lori Schuyler got wind of this analysis, she was quick to point out that many of the universities on the list of 29 against which Richmond benchmarks itself are Division 3 schools. As such they do not offer scholarships, and therefore, it’s not a fair comparison.
Okay, so, let’s only include the Division I schools among the list of 29 universities against which we benchmark ourselves. You are left with 10 Division I schools. The average enrollment of these 10 Division I schools is 3,200 students; that’s almost exactly the same size as Richmond. What’s the average percentage of athletes to total students among these 10 Division I schools? It’s 16.2%, compared to Richmond’s 12.23%.
This is a classic case of massaging numbers and telling half-truths to support a decision that had nothing to do with athlete to student ratios to begin with.
Massaging the Numbers – Extra Credit
President Ayers made the following statement at the September 30th town hall meeting, and I quote, “Our athletic program looks more like that of a large public university than that of the small private university we are.”
Really? Let’s compare ourselves to the University of Virginia and the University of North Carolina, both large public universities with whom we compete for students.
UVA has 12 men’s and 13 women’s varsity sports while UNC has 13 and 15, respectively. Richmond has 8 men’s and 9 women’s varsity sports. That doesn’t seem comparable to me. Perhaps what you meant was that our annual athletics budget was similar to a large public university.
UVA and UNC’s annual athletics budgets are $72 million and $70 million respectively, while Richmond’s annual athletic budget is roughly $23 million. That’s less than on third the budget of these large public universities. It’s not even close.
Extra credit question #2. On October 7, parents of the Richmond soccer players were given a chance to question you, president Ayers and your Chief of Staff, Lori Schuyler. At that meeting, one of the parents asked Ms. Schuyler what affect would dropping men’s soccer and track (the school’s #1 and #2 sports team GPAs) have on the overall sports team GPAs at Richmond. Ms. Schuyler said dropping these programs would have absolutely no negative impact on the overall Richmond sports team GPAs.
How is it possible that dropping your school’s #1 and #2 GPA teams would not affect the University’s sports teams’ overall GPA? The only way this could be possible is if the school was projecting men’s varsity lacrosse to post a team GPA at least on par with men’s soccer and track?
When the parent then asked how the Sports Mix committee projected a team GPA for the incoming men’s varsity lacrosse team, Ms. Schuyler said the committee used the GPA of the University’s women’s varsity lacrosse team as a proxy.
No, that’s not a mistake. That’s actually what she said.
Maybe a better approach would be to use the cumulative GPA of the Richmond men’s club lacrosse team? When the soccer parent made this suggestion, Ms. Schuyler said that wouldn’t be a fair comparison. The amount of time a club team member must dedicate to his sport is not nearly as significant as the time commitment required by a varsity athlete (like a varsity soccer or track member). As such, given an apples to apples comparison, one would expect a club team member’s GPA to be higher than a varsity team member’s GPA because the club team member has more time to study.
Point taken Ms. Schuyler, and a nice gesture on the part of the Sport Mix committee to weigh all the variables in order to arrive at a fair comparison. All the same, the soccer parent requested to see the cumulative GPA of the men’s club lacrosse team. Alas, the University would not provide that information.
Step 5 - Hide the Ball
Keep all potentially incriminating evidence under wraps, including people.
You have the power. You control the data. You also control the people. There’s no reason you can’t hide the ball.
- First and foremost, do not publicly release the Sports Mix Study.
- Do not release the University’s Richmond men’s club lacrosse team GPA for the past two years.
- Do not release the names of donors who have already donated to or verbally committed to make a donation toward the construction of the University’s new visitors center along River Road.
Here’s a list of DOs when hiding the ball:
- Do put a gag order on the University of Richmond tour guides so they don’t say anything about this fiasco to prospective students.
- Do strongly remind board of trustee members to stay quiet about board discussions and decisions.
- Do send emails to University administrators advising them not to distribute any information that might be harmful to the University on this matter.
Step 6 - Seal out the Competition. . . the Soccer Alumni
Identify all potential threats to your plan and stomp them out.
Threat #1 – The soccer alumni. In order to stand up lacrosse as a varsity sport at Richmond, you needed to displace soccer. You needed the 8 men’s soccer scholarships, and the 26 men’s athletic slots that soccer affords. You also needed the men’s track slots to support a 40-member men’s varsity lacrosse team. If someone came along and bolstered the men’s soccer program with financial assistance and other aid, a la the men’s soccer alumni, your plans for lacrosse would be in jeopardy.
How should the inner circle address this risk? Well, you as the inner circle will ignore the soccer alumni’s efforts and offers to help bolster the program. Instead, you will serve up Tom Gutenberger to listen to the soccer alumni plans. You will have Tom Gutenberger tell the soccer alumni that President Ayers is aware of their efforts and that he supports their efforts. At no time, however, will you grant the soccer alumni a meeting directly with President Ayers directly.
Meanwhile, the lacrosse inner circle will aggressively pursue its plan to replace soccer with lacrosse. If any soccer alumni hear whispers that the soccer program is in jeopardy, simply mislead them. Tell them it is highly unlikely that soccer will be dropped. Tell them that no one at the University wants to drop any sports programs.
By the time the soccer alumni figure out what’s going on, lacrosse will be voted in by the trustees as a varsity sport. Soccer will be out. It will be too late for the soccer alumni to do anything about it.
Is it a little hard to believe that University administrators would purposefully stonewall and deceive a group of alumni? Does it sound a bit sensational? Well, listen on.
Going all the way back to June 2011, the soccer alumni were hearing rumors that the program might be in jeopardy. Every time we approached Tom Gutenberger or Jim Miller with these rumors, however, we were assured that neither soccer nor any other sport teams at Richmond were going to be cut.
Let me share a few examples. The following is an excerpt from an email from soccer alum Jim Brady to the soccer alumni steering committee on August 3, 2011…
And I quote:
“Guys,
I met yesterday with Tom Gutenberger, VP of Advancement. This is a summary of the discussion:
· He was well aware of the interest the soccer alumni [to engage with] with the University
· He believes there is a push for Men’s LAX as a Varsity sport (probably with the addition of Women’s Crew) and a coordinated effort with soccer on campus makes sense. Eliminating a Men’s Sport will NOT be an option.”
End quote.
Next data point. On August 8, 2011, a soccer alumnus, and member of the soccer alumni steering committee, made direct contact with the major donor that was pushing the lacrosse agenda. The soccer alumnus’ objective was to work with this major donor to advance the interests of both soccer and lacrosse. The following is an excerpt from the email, dated August 8, 2011. And I quote…
“[Dear Major Donor,] knowing your interest in men's lax as well as your experience in working with the UR administration on infrastructure projects, we would like to explore your possible interest in discussing a men's lacrosse - soccer alliance to promote the growth of both @ UR. I look forward to connecting [with you] at the end of August! “ End quote.
The alumnus did manage to have a phone conversation with the major donor at the end of August. And during that conversation, the major donor listened intently to how the soccer alumni had organized to assist the soccer program and what our specific plans were to engage with the University. A week after that initial conversation, however, the major donor told the soccer alumnus that it would be inappropriate for him to engage directly with the soccer alumni because he held a seat on the board of trustees.
What wasn’t apparent to us at the time, but is perfectly clear now, is the fact that the soccer alumni were a threat to the major donor and his plans to bring on lacrosse. If we were successful in bolstering the soccer program, how could he displace a struggling soccer team with lacrosse? Of course he didn’t want to engage with us! He was already a member of the executive committee of the board of trustees; he had the inside track, and he made sure he kept that advantage.
Next data point. Here’s another email from Jim Brady, dated September 28, 2011, sent to all the members of the soccer alumni steering committee. And I quote…
“All, Quick update…I met with Jim Miller (AD), Tom Gutenberger (VP of Advancement-Development), and Jasmon Coleman (Asst AD) yesterday. Overall, I think the meeting was positive. Miller said soccer was not going anywhere (men’s or women’s) and overall they are not looking to eliminate any sport.”
Next data point. By January 2012, the soccer alumni felt like our overtures to assist the soccer program were being ignored by the University administration. Allow me to quote from an email I sent to the soccer alumni steering committee members on January 23, 2012.
And I quote, “Hello Gentlemen, I feel like we've been dancing around this thing for a while now with no real commitment or even engagement by the administration.I suggest this crew get together for one final planning call to finalize the following:
1) Confirm what Jimbo and Stu have heard from Jim Miller and [the major Donor].
2) Finalize the message we're going to take to Jim Miller
3) Define some specific actions we hope to see from the University with respect to the soccer program
4) Establish what the soccer alumni are willing to do in turn (e.g., fundraising)
5) Nominate a person or group of people to take the message to Jim Miller and Dr. Ayers.”
End quote.
Days after my email, the soccer alumni steering committee did have our planning call. We did hammer out the aforementioned action items. We did secure a meeting with Jim Miller for February 10, 2012. It was finally time to get down to business.
On February 10, 2012, six members of the soccer alumni steering arrived at Azzuro restaurant, just off campus to meet with Jim Miller. Two committee members drove down from Washington DC and one flew in from Florida, expressly for the meeting.
Guess what? Jim Miller was no-show. Tom Gutenberger did show up, however, and we shared our action plan with him. Gutenberger assured us he would socialize our plan with Jim Miller.
So, while the soccer alumni were being ignored, stonewalled and misled, the lacrosse inner circle was advancing their agenda. The final push was at the April 2012 board meeting where President Ayers recommended that lacrosse be adopted as a varsity sport and men’s soccer and track be dropped.
The following is a direct quote from president Ayers at the town hall meeting with students and faculty on September 30, 2012, where he refers to the decision that was made in the April 2012 board meeting.
And I quote: “The task force and I were convinced by last spring this was the best approach for Richmond. It was also clear that the plan could not be enacted without philanthropy. So the plan was defined, just as I have described it here, but we chose not to vote on it, enact it or announce it until we knew we could accomplish it.” End quote.
So in the April 2012 board meeting, the decision was made that soccer and track would be dropped, but that plan was put on hold until the necessary philanthropy could be raised.
Fast forward to one month later. On May 18, 2012, two members of the soccer alumni steering committee (myself and Jim Brady) met with Tom Gutenberger again, this time in his office. In that meeting, we presented Gutenberger with designs and costs for a soccer stadium. This was a detailed, itemized construction plan, gathered from another university that had recently built a state of the art soccer stadium. Jim Brady and I made it clear that the soccer alumni were ready to spearhead a fundraising effort to finance such a stadium as well as to achieve the other objectives outlined in the soccer alumni’s strategic plan to bolster the program.
At the conclusion of the meeting, Gutenberger reiterated that he did not believe men’s soccer was in jeopardy of being cut. Furthermore, he went on to say that the University was considering on-campus locations for a soccer stadium. Jim Brady and I reaffirmed the soccer alumni’s desire to support the program in any way possible, including fundraising, and we looked forward to hearing back from Tom regarding the possible location for a stadium.
We have recently come to learn that Tom Gutenberger was in the April 2012 board meeting, the very board meeting at which President Ayers said the decision to cut men’s soccer and track was made. How can, one month later, Tom Gutenberger tell Jim Brady and I he doesn’t believe soccer is in jeopardy? How can he tell us that the University is evaluating on-campus locations for a natural grass soccer stadium, when the soccer program was a dead man walking?
Fast forward to August 2012. Jim Brady meets with Tom Gutenberger again to see if there’s any decision by the University on a location for a soccer stadium. Following that meeting with Gutenberger, Jim Brady sent the following email to the soccer alumni steering committee members, summarizing the discussion. I now quote from that email, dated August 21, 2012:
“Guys, just a quick update…I met this morning with Tom Gutenberger (was at my request). Overall, I think the program is fine. LAX has some vocal donors but it doesn’t have real support due to the fact no one wants anything cut. Actually, they have talked more about adding women’s sports (crew potentially) if LAX comes about but he didn’t think it was likely. Also, lots of field discussions around soccer and the debate is now centered around lights or no lights…” End quote.
One month after Gutenberger made these statements to Jim Brady, the University of Richmond formally announced that it had cut men’s soccer and track.
Congratulations, president Ayers. Your plan was successful. You sealed out the soccer alumni long enough to cut the program and replace it with lacrosse. You couldn’t afford to have the soccer alumni learn that the soccer program was in any real jeopardy before your plan was executed. If the soccer alumni did have any indication the program was in real jeopardy we would have taken our argument directly to the board of trustees and you couldn’t afford that, could you? You and the major donor already had the inside track with the board of trustees and you were determined to keep that advantage.
Therefore, you had Tom Gutenberger, your direct report and member of the Sports Mix committee, a man who obviously knew everything there was to know about the decision to bring on lacrosse and cut men’s soccer and track, mislead us until the very end.
With a full account of the facts, we now know exactly what happened.
Following the April 2012 board meeting, the major donor led a fundraising effort that produced a $3M endowment for the men’s lacrosse team. With this donation in hand, the lacrosse inner circle had overcome the final remaining objection to elevate men’s lacrosse to varsity status and drop men’s soccer and track.
The lacrosse inner circle took this final piece of the puzzle to the board of trustees on September 20, 2012 and hammered it home. It wasn’t pretty, but they got the decision they were looking for.
Do you think people weren’t going to see through your subterfuge, president Ayers? Do you think we are fools? We are not fools, sir, we are student, faculty and alumni of the University of Richmond!
I suspect the board of trustees weren’t even aware of the efforts by the soccer alumni to help bolster the program, an effort that began eighteen months ago. I’m sure neither president Ayers, nor Tom Gutenberger, nor the major donor told the trustees anything about that effort.
If they did, then how could the board of trustees and the Sports Mix Committee assert that they had evaluated all possible options before making their decision to drop men’s soccer and track.
Let me quote president Ayers from the September 30 town hall meeting, And I quote, “We modeled dozens of scenarios. This task force met 90 minutes every week for over a year and used the most sophisticated data gathering analysis you can imagine. We thought of every possibility.” End quote.
You thought of every possibility, Ed? You had an organized group of soccer alumni banging on your door to help, offering to fundraise and provide other support and you didn’t engage with us once!
Is it standard operating procedure for the University of Richmond’s board of trustees to ignore the overtures of its alumni to help? I sure hope not. Because if that’s true, we’re in far more dire straits than I fear.
I also suspect that the broader board was unaware of the personal motivations of the lacrosse inner circle. They probably weren’t aware that the inner circle had stacked the deck, massaged the numbers, hidden the ball, and sealed out the competition – namely the soccer alumni and student body.
Well, let me ask the members of the University of Richmond board of trustees. In light of all these facts, do you still believe it was the right decision to drop men’s soccer and track? In light of all these facts, do you feel a grave injustice has been done? If so, I humbly ask you to re-instate both the men’s track and soccer teams effective immediately. I ask you to reinstate these programs to levels, both participants and scholarships that existed before this egregious error was made.
I also humbly request that you allow the University of Richmond alumni to provide the support and financial assistance we’ve been fighting to provide over the past eighteen months, assistance that we believe can elevate these sports teams to heights worthy of the athletes that play them.
To all University of Richmond alumni and other donors. If I may be so bold, I’d like to ask you a question. Is this the kind of leadership we want guiding the University? Individuals who cherish power and money at the expense of all else? If what I’ve shared with you today concerns you, I encourage you to cast your vote. I encourage you to cast your vote in terms that men like those at the heart of the lacrosse inner circle can understand. I ask you to withhold your donations until the University board of trustees sets this thing right.
Finally, on a very personal note, I’d like to address the current soccer and track team members. From all the soccer and track alumni, we couldn’t be more proud of you guys.
For the track team members, you are the epitome of the student athlete. Achieving both on the track and in the classroom, despite no scholarships and no acclaim, that’s the true spirit of collegiate athletics. The fact that you guys were treated as mere collateral damage, as ‘slots,’ as heads for the taking, is emblematic of everything wrong with this decision.
To you, the current soccer players. The soccer alumni has watched as your soccer stadium was pulled out from underneath you and converted to a football stadium. We watched as you were sent 10 minutes off campus to play games. We watched as coaches left. We have watched you following the abrupt announcement that your program had been dropped. And in the face of very long odds, we’ve watched you fight on and keep hope. You have carried the flag with honor and distinction, gentlemen. In fact, you haven’t just carried the flag, you’ve raised the bar.
I really can’t articulate how excruciating it has been to watch these events unfold, and to see the pain inflicted on such a fine group of young men. It’s been like watching your little brother being bullied by an older, more powerful opponent and being helpless to do anything about it. I hope you know by now that we’ve been fighting like hell for the past eighteen months to get to you.
Like you, we have been thwarted by some powerful individuals. But also, like you, we never gave up. And today, gentlemen, after a very long journey indeed, I think we have finally broken through.
Carry the Flag!
We have written letters to president Ayers and athletic director Jim Miller. We distributed a petition and gathered signatures. We printed t-shirts, flags and scarves. We attended meetings and planning calls. We produced videos and developed a website. We placed advertisements in newspapers. We also took our story to the media.
That’s an incredible amount of work, fueled by some intense emotions. To the uninitiated University of Richmond faculty member, administrator, student or trustee, I could even see how that amount of work and emotion might be perceived as overkill.
I’ve seen a few Tweets and Facebook comments to the effect of ‘look, the University dropped a couple sports programs. It happens all the time. Get over it!’
The fact is, however, this decision was anything but run of the mill. The motivations behind it, the systematic manipulation of individuals, the abuse of power, the stonewalling of alumni. These are the reasons why the members of the Carry the Flag consortium are so upset.
We are here today to expose the true motivations behind the decision to bring on men’s varsity lacrosse and to cut men’s soccer and track. At the end of the day, one individual—a powerful University of Richmond alumnus, donor and member of the executive committee of the board of trustees—was determined to establish a varsity lacrosse team at Richmond.
He used his power and influence to make that dream a reality, at the expense of the dreams of many more people at the University, and at the expense of the principles on which this University prides itself.
Sadly, he was not alone. He found a supporting cast in the form of several high ranking University of Richmond administrators, all driven by the lure of money—‘philanthropy’ to use their term. No matter what you call it, philanthropy, fundraising, donations…money is money.
And power is power. It can be used in a positive way, and it can be used in a negative way, such as sealing out the efforts of an organized group of alumni in order to advance your own agenda.
I realize these are strong accusations, and I don’t make them lightly. I plan to lay out the facts as we have come to know them and then let the University of Richmond faculty, students and alumni weigh them.
Although many of my comments today are centered on the historical efforts of the soccer alumni to aid the soccer program, I want everyone to know that the soccer and track contingent have been, and will continue to be, united under the Carry the Flag umbrella.
Furthermore, as I recount the journey of the soccer alumni, I ask everyone to keep in mind that, in many ways, the administration’s treatment of the track team was even more callous. I will circle back to that point at the conclusion of my remarks.
As I have already mentioned, in just the past six weeks the Carry the Flag consortium has been on a long journey. The fact is, the University of Richmond soccer alumni embarked on a related journey eighteen months ago. The goal of that journey was to help bolster the men’s soccer program, a program that we recognized was struggling.
In April of 2011, a core group of soccer alumni banded together and devised a plan. The first step of that plan was to reach out to the extended group of soccer alumni with a rallying cry for support. I’d like to read an excerpt from an email that was sent out to the soccer alumni on June 8, 2011.
After recounting the personal and professional successes enjoyed by many of the soccer alumni, I went on to address the soccer program itself. The following is a direct quote from that email…
And I quote, “Unfortunately the [soccer] program has not continued to evolve the way most of us had hoped. Over the last five years, Richmond Soccer has fallen on hard times. The team moved to the A-10 [conference] in 2001, a much weaker soccer conference than the CAA. The soccer stadium has been taken over by the football team, forcing the soccer team to play home games 10-minutes off campus. The locker room, practice facilities and practice gear have deteriorated. Recruiting has suffered. The team’s aggregate record over the past 4 years is 17-49-7. There are even rumors that soccer may be demoted to a club sport, with all scholarships stripped.
We could debate the reasons for the administration’s lack of focus on soccer. It’s not a revenue sport. There’s been limited involvement from the alumni. Football and basketball continue to monopolize much of the athletic department’s focus. Rather than belabor the negatives, however, we’re mobilizing to make a positive change.
A committee of soccer alumni has formed, with representatives from each era. Jim Popp, Jim Brady and myself are committee representatives for the old guard (1994 and earlier). Below are the major goals of the committee:
1) Bring soccer back to Richmond with an on-campus, natural grass stadium that will support the men’s and women’s programs.
2) Elevate soccer scholarships to top-20 program levels.
3) Secure quality on-campus practice facilities that can be used by the men’s and women’s teams.
4) Improve locker rooms and practice gear.
5) Ensure the coaching quality is sufficient to lead the team to top-20 status, given proper support as described above.
The path to achieving these goals is clear. The soccer alumni must get more involved. We need to show the University that we have a voice and a strong desire to move the program forward.” End quote.
Again, that was an email sent on June 8, 2011.
What was the response by the soccer alumni to this email? Over the next two weeks, I received over 80 emails from soccer alumni, eager to pick up the flag and carry it in support of the men’s soccer program. This was not an effort of a few; this was an effort of many.
Collectively, we determined that that best way to convince the University administration of our sincerity was to become the #1 donating team among all sports teams at Richmond. For the fiscal year ended June 2011, we did just that. With a 27.69% participation rate, the men’s soccer alumni had the highest percentage of fundraising participation of any men’s sport.
With that as an opening statement, our campaign was underway. It was time to formalize our plan to help men’s soccer, and take that plan to the University of Richmond administration for consideration.
Unbeknownst to the soccer alumni, however, it seems another group of individuals had launched their own campaign. At the heart of this other campaign was a powerful University of Richmond donor, intent on establishing lacrosse as a varsity sport. While the soccer alumni had formed a steering committee to help bolster the competitiveness of the soccer program, it seems another steering committee had formed to advance the lacrosse agenda. Based on the events that have unfolded over the past two years it appears that members of the lacrosse committee included the powerful donor who also happens to be a member of the board of trustees, President Ayers, Athletic Director Jim Miller and Vice President of Advancement, Tom Gutenberger.
The major donor’s motivations have never been a secret. He has been a strong advocate for lacrosse at Richmond for years. He has donated to the University of Richmond men’s lacrosse club team. His son also happens to be a very accomplished high school lacrosse player. Who wouldn’t want to see his son play a varsity sport at his alma mater?
That’s compelling and even admirable motivation. I have a son who plays soccer. I also have a daughter who swims. I would love to see my kids become Spider varsity athletes. What’s wrong with that? Absolutely nothing.
So we understand the motivations of the major donor. What was motivating the other lacrosse committee members? Well, as a University President facing constant pressure to fundraise, as a Vice President of Advancement (whose primary job responsibility is fundraising), as an athletic Director transitioning into a full-time fundraising role, who wouldn’t want to make a major donor happy? Who wouldn’t want to help him establish a varsity lacrosse team at Richmond?
Quite honestly, at this point, all is still well. It would be hard for anyone to see anything wrong with the scenario I’ve described so far. Adding another sports team at Richmond is a great idea.
Unfortunately, by President Ayers’ own admission, it’s expensive to establish a new varsity sports team.
Let me quote President Ayers, from his town hall meeting address to students and faculty on September 30, 2012. President Ayers said, and I quote, “Adding sports is expensive. We looked hard at that. The most viable scenario we could develop added more than a million dollars a year in labor and operating costs, before we address questions of facilities or scholarships or additional support staff in athletics. To give you an idea you have to multiply that by 20 to establish an endowment that would sustain that.” End quote.
So, according to president Ayers, it would take a $20 million endowment to establish a men’s varsity lacrosse team at Richmond. Then it would take another $20 million endowment to establish a women’s sport to balance the title IX equation. And that’s not even including scholarships.
In the face of that reality, the lacrosse steering committee had a problem, didn’t they? The University didn’t want to incur the expense of bringing on another men’s varsity sports team. And they certainly didn’t want to pay to bring on more women’s programs to balance out the addition of men’s lacrosse under Title IX.
So how do you bring on men’s varsity lacrosse? How do you satisfy the interests of your major donor?
As we stand here today, with a full account of the events that have unfolded over the past two years, the answer to that question is clear: you couldn’t simply add men’s lacrosse; you had to steal a couple men’s sports programs, namely soccer and track.
This is where it all went wrong. This is where the noble intentions of a few individuals wanting to do something positive, add a sports program, turns ugly. This is the point at which there is a complete and utter failure of leadership.
But how do you go about stealing a couple of Division 1 sports programs? How do you go about stealing these programs when they boast the #1 and #2 GPAs of all sports teams on campus? How do you go about stealing these sports programs when one of them has a group of alumni who have mobilized and are offering assistance, including fundraising, to bolster the program?
I will tell you how you do it, in 6 easy steps. As I recount these steps, I suspect that those in the audience today, and those who watch this video will be as disgusted as the soccer alumni were when we uncovered them.
Step 1 - Assemble Your Inner Circle
If you’re going to be successful, you need to assemble a strong team. Each team member should be highly motivated to see the effort through. As we’ve already highlighted, the members of the lacrosse inner circle include the major donor, President Ayers, Jim Miller and Tom Gutenberger. The motivations of these men are clear – it’s all about the money.
Step 2 - Call for a ‘Study’
People like studies. They’re tangible, defensible and official. Create a Sports Mix study to gather and evaluate data to support your decision to bring on a varsity lacrosse team. You will need a committee to oversee the study and present the results.
Step 3 - Stack the Deck
A study needs a hand-picked committee. Choose wisely. Your committee will consist of eleven members, eight of whom will report directly to you, President Ayers.
Of the eight that report directly to you, there will be two members of the lacrosse inner circle, athletic director Jim Miller and VP of advancement Tom Gutenberger.
The three who do not report to you will include:
The Assistant Vice President for Recreation and Wellness, a man who championed the Richmond men’s club lacrosse team through its meteoric rise in club status since its inception.
An Associate Professor of Public Policy, a man who stood up at the town hall meeting on September 30th passionately defending the decision to cut the two sports teams—with the #1 and #2 GPAs on campus—on the basis that it would free up funds to bring on one additional university scholar. If that’s not hypocrisy, I don’t know what is. Scholars? Here are your scholars, sir, the members of the men’s track and soccer teams. And in addition to excelling in the classroom they happen to be holding down the equivalent of full time jobs.
The final member of the Sports Mix Committee is a Professor of Music. I have never met, nor have anything against this music professor, but I have to question the relevance of adding a music professor to your sports mix committee.
Well, you’ve chosen wisely, Dr. Ayers. Eight of the eleven committee members report directly to you, and among the other three you already have a staunch lacrosse supporter.
You’ve also done well to exclude those who might object to your plans to supplant soccer and track with lacrosse, namely the three members of the board of trustees’ athletic council: Susan Quisenberry, Elaine Yeatts and Robert Ukrop.
Step 4 - Massage the Numbers
You own the data. Make it tell the story you want it to tell.
President Ayers, at the town hall meeting on September 30, where you addressed students, faculty and alumni, you were asked to explain why the University couldn’t bring on men’s varsity lacrosse as an additive sport, without having to drop the men’s soccer and track programs.
You cited several reasons:
One, a point that I’ve already highlighted, it’s too expensive to bring on additional sports.
The second reason you cited was that by bringing on additional sports, the University would exceed the magic number of 13% athletes to total students. President Ayers went on to say that with 13% athletes, Richmond has one of the highest percentages of athletes to students among the schools it competes with for students. Technically, your statement was accurate, president Ayers.
On the University of Richmond Website, there is, in fact, a list of schools with whom the University of Richmond ‘competes for students.’ Here are a few of the 12 universities featured on that list:
- University of Virginia
- University of North Carolina
- Boston College
- Cornell
These are large universities, Ed. The average enrollment of these 12 universities is 8,604 students compared to Richmond’s 3,017 students. Of course they are going to have a lower percentage of athletes to total students; they have over 2.5 times the number of total students.
Interestingly enough, there’s another list of universities against which Richmond benchmarks itself. It’s also featured on the University’s website, right above the list of universities we compete with for students. This other list is entitled Information Task Force Peer List. This list of 29 schools includes small, private, academically rigorous universities, some of which include Bucknell, Colgate, Davidson and Lafayette.
What is the average enrollment of these universities? It’s 2,842. With roughly the same number of total students as Richmond, and a similar academic profile, shouldn’t this be the list of universities against which Richmond benchmarks itself for athlete to student ratios? What is the average percentage of athletes to total students at these schools? It’s 18.05%, compared to Richmond’s ratio of 12.23%. So, in fact, Richmond has one of the lowest percentages of athletes among the universities it benchmarks itself against.
When Lori Schuyler got wind of this analysis, she was quick to point out that many of the universities on the list of 29 against which Richmond benchmarks itself are Division 3 schools. As such they do not offer scholarships, and therefore, it’s not a fair comparison.
Okay, so, let’s only include the Division I schools among the list of 29 universities against which we benchmark ourselves. You are left with 10 Division I schools. The average enrollment of these 10 Division I schools is 3,200 students; that’s almost exactly the same size as Richmond. What’s the average percentage of athletes to total students among these 10 Division I schools? It’s 16.2%, compared to Richmond’s 12.23%.
This is a classic case of massaging numbers and telling half-truths to support a decision that had nothing to do with athlete to student ratios to begin with.
Massaging the Numbers – Extra Credit
President Ayers made the following statement at the September 30th town hall meeting, and I quote, “Our athletic program looks more like that of a large public university than that of the small private university we are.”
Really? Let’s compare ourselves to the University of Virginia and the University of North Carolina, both large public universities with whom we compete for students.
UVA has 12 men’s and 13 women’s varsity sports while UNC has 13 and 15, respectively. Richmond has 8 men’s and 9 women’s varsity sports. That doesn’t seem comparable to me. Perhaps what you meant was that our annual athletics budget was similar to a large public university.
UVA and UNC’s annual athletics budgets are $72 million and $70 million respectively, while Richmond’s annual athletic budget is roughly $23 million. That’s less than on third the budget of these large public universities. It’s not even close.
Extra credit question #2. On October 7, parents of the Richmond soccer players were given a chance to question you, president Ayers and your Chief of Staff, Lori Schuyler. At that meeting, one of the parents asked Ms. Schuyler what affect would dropping men’s soccer and track (the school’s #1 and #2 sports team GPAs) have on the overall sports team GPAs at Richmond. Ms. Schuyler said dropping these programs would have absolutely no negative impact on the overall Richmond sports team GPAs.
How is it possible that dropping your school’s #1 and #2 GPA teams would not affect the University’s sports teams’ overall GPA? The only way this could be possible is if the school was projecting men’s varsity lacrosse to post a team GPA at least on par with men’s soccer and track?
When the parent then asked how the Sports Mix committee projected a team GPA for the incoming men’s varsity lacrosse team, Ms. Schuyler said the committee used the GPA of the University’s women’s varsity lacrosse team as a proxy.
No, that’s not a mistake. That’s actually what she said.
Maybe a better approach would be to use the cumulative GPA of the Richmond men’s club lacrosse team? When the soccer parent made this suggestion, Ms. Schuyler said that wouldn’t be a fair comparison. The amount of time a club team member must dedicate to his sport is not nearly as significant as the time commitment required by a varsity athlete (like a varsity soccer or track member). As such, given an apples to apples comparison, one would expect a club team member’s GPA to be higher than a varsity team member’s GPA because the club team member has more time to study.
Point taken Ms. Schuyler, and a nice gesture on the part of the Sport Mix committee to weigh all the variables in order to arrive at a fair comparison. All the same, the soccer parent requested to see the cumulative GPA of the men’s club lacrosse team. Alas, the University would not provide that information.
Step 5 - Hide the Ball
Keep all potentially incriminating evidence under wraps, including people.
You have the power. You control the data. You also control the people. There’s no reason you can’t hide the ball.
- First and foremost, do not publicly release the Sports Mix Study.
- Do not release the University’s Richmond men’s club lacrosse team GPA for the past two years.
- Do not release the names of donors who have already donated to or verbally committed to make a donation toward the construction of the University’s new visitors center along River Road.
Here’s a list of DOs when hiding the ball:
- Do put a gag order on the University of Richmond tour guides so they don’t say anything about this fiasco to prospective students.
- Do strongly remind board of trustee members to stay quiet about board discussions and decisions.
- Do send emails to University administrators advising them not to distribute any information that might be harmful to the University on this matter.
Step 6 - Seal out the Competition. . . the Soccer Alumni
Identify all potential threats to your plan and stomp them out.
Threat #1 – The soccer alumni. In order to stand up lacrosse as a varsity sport at Richmond, you needed to displace soccer. You needed the 8 men’s soccer scholarships, and the 26 men’s athletic slots that soccer affords. You also needed the men’s track slots to support a 40-member men’s varsity lacrosse team. If someone came along and bolstered the men’s soccer program with financial assistance and other aid, a la the men’s soccer alumni, your plans for lacrosse would be in jeopardy.
How should the inner circle address this risk? Well, you as the inner circle will ignore the soccer alumni’s efforts and offers to help bolster the program. Instead, you will serve up Tom Gutenberger to listen to the soccer alumni plans. You will have Tom Gutenberger tell the soccer alumni that President Ayers is aware of their efforts and that he supports their efforts. At no time, however, will you grant the soccer alumni a meeting directly with President Ayers directly.
Meanwhile, the lacrosse inner circle will aggressively pursue its plan to replace soccer with lacrosse. If any soccer alumni hear whispers that the soccer program is in jeopardy, simply mislead them. Tell them it is highly unlikely that soccer will be dropped. Tell them that no one at the University wants to drop any sports programs.
By the time the soccer alumni figure out what’s going on, lacrosse will be voted in by the trustees as a varsity sport. Soccer will be out. It will be too late for the soccer alumni to do anything about it.
Is it a little hard to believe that University administrators would purposefully stonewall and deceive a group of alumni? Does it sound a bit sensational? Well, listen on.
Going all the way back to June 2011, the soccer alumni were hearing rumors that the program might be in jeopardy. Every time we approached Tom Gutenberger or Jim Miller with these rumors, however, we were assured that neither soccer nor any other sport teams at Richmond were going to be cut.
Let me share a few examples. The following is an excerpt from an email from soccer alum Jim Brady to the soccer alumni steering committee on August 3, 2011…
And I quote:
“Guys,
I met yesterday with Tom Gutenberger, VP of Advancement. This is a summary of the discussion:
· He was well aware of the interest the soccer alumni [to engage with] with the University
· He believes there is a push for Men’s LAX as a Varsity sport (probably with the addition of Women’s Crew) and a coordinated effort with soccer on campus makes sense. Eliminating a Men’s Sport will NOT be an option.”
End quote.
Next data point. On August 8, 2011, a soccer alumnus, and member of the soccer alumni steering committee, made direct contact with the major donor that was pushing the lacrosse agenda. The soccer alumnus’ objective was to work with this major donor to advance the interests of both soccer and lacrosse. The following is an excerpt from the email, dated August 8, 2011. And I quote…
“[Dear Major Donor,] knowing your interest in men's lax as well as your experience in working with the UR administration on infrastructure projects, we would like to explore your possible interest in discussing a men's lacrosse - soccer alliance to promote the growth of both @ UR. I look forward to connecting [with you] at the end of August! “ End quote.
The alumnus did manage to have a phone conversation with the major donor at the end of August. And during that conversation, the major donor listened intently to how the soccer alumni had organized to assist the soccer program and what our specific plans were to engage with the University. A week after that initial conversation, however, the major donor told the soccer alumnus that it would be inappropriate for him to engage directly with the soccer alumni because he held a seat on the board of trustees.
What wasn’t apparent to us at the time, but is perfectly clear now, is the fact that the soccer alumni were a threat to the major donor and his plans to bring on lacrosse. If we were successful in bolstering the soccer program, how could he displace a struggling soccer team with lacrosse? Of course he didn’t want to engage with us! He was already a member of the executive committee of the board of trustees; he had the inside track, and he made sure he kept that advantage.
Next data point. Here’s another email from Jim Brady, dated September 28, 2011, sent to all the members of the soccer alumni steering committee. And I quote…
“All, Quick update…I met with Jim Miller (AD), Tom Gutenberger (VP of Advancement-Development), and Jasmon Coleman (Asst AD) yesterday. Overall, I think the meeting was positive. Miller said soccer was not going anywhere (men’s or women’s) and overall they are not looking to eliminate any sport.”
Next data point. By January 2012, the soccer alumni felt like our overtures to assist the soccer program were being ignored by the University administration. Allow me to quote from an email I sent to the soccer alumni steering committee members on January 23, 2012.
And I quote, “Hello Gentlemen, I feel like we've been dancing around this thing for a while now with no real commitment or even engagement by the administration.I suggest this crew get together for one final planning call to finalize the following:
1) Confirm what Jimbo and Stu have heard from Jim Miller and [the major Donor].
2) Finalize the message we're going to take to Jim Miller
3) Define some specific actions we hope to see from the University with respect to the soccer program
4) Establish what the soccer alumni are willing to do in turn (e.g., fundraising)
5) Nominate a person or group of people to take the message to Jim Miller and Dr. Ayers.”
End quote.
Days after my email, the soccer alumni steering committee did have our planning call. We did hammer out the aforementioned action items. We did secure a meeting with Jim Miller for February 10, 2012. It was finally time to get down to business.
On February 10, 2012, six members of the soccer alumni steering arrived at Azzuro restaurant, just off campus to meet with Jim Miller. Two committee members drove down from Washington DC and one flew in from Florida, expressly for the meeting.
Guess what? Jim Miller was no-show. Tom Gutenberger did show up, however, and we shared our action plan with him. Gutenberger assured us he would socialize our plan with Jim Miller.
So, while the soccer alumni were being ignored, stonewalled and misled, the lacrosse inner circle was advancing their agenda. The final push was at the April 2012 board meeting where President Ayers recommended that lacrosse be adopted as a varsity sport and men’s soccer and track be dropped.
The following is a direct quote from president Ayers at the town hall meeting with students and faculty on September 30, 2012, where he refers to the decision that was made in the April 2012 board meeting.
And I quote: “The task force and I were convinced by last spring this was the best approach for Richmond. It was also clear that the plan could not be enacted without philanthropy. So the plan was defined, just as I have described it here, but we chose not to vote on it, enact it or announce it until we knew we could accomplish it.” End quote.
So in the April 2012 board meeting, the decision was made that soccer and track would be dropped, but that plan was put on hold until the necessary philanthropy could be raised.
Fast forward to one month later. On May 18, 2012, two members of the soccer alumni steering committee (myself and Jim Brady) met with Tom Gutenberger again, this time in his office. In that meeting, we presented Gutenberger with designs and costs for a soccer stadium. This was a detailed, itemized construction plan, gathered from another university that had recently built a state of the art soccer stadium. Jim Brady and I made it clear that the soccer alumni were ready to spearhead a fundraising effort to finance such a stadium as well as to achieve the other objectives outlined in the soccer alumni’s strategic plan to bolster the program.
At the conclusion of the meeting, Gutenberger reiterated that he did not believe men’s soccer was in jeopardy of being cut. Furthermore, he went on to say that the University was considering on-campus locations for a soccer stadium. Jim Brady and I reaffirmed the soccer alumni’s desire to support the program in any way possible, including fundraising, and we looked forward to hearing back from Tom regarding the possible location for a stadium.
We have recently come to learn that Tom Gutenberger was in the April 2012 board meeting, the very board meeting at which President Ayers said the decision to cut men’s soccer and track was made. How can, one month later, Tom Gutenberger tell Jim Brady and I he doesn’t believe soccer is in jeopardy? How can he tell us that the University is evaluating on-campus locations for a natural grass soccer stadium, when the soccer program was a dead man walking?
Fast forward to August 2012. Jim Brady meets with Tom Gutenberger again to see if there’s any decision by the University on a location for a soccer stadium. Following that meeting with Gutenberger, Jim Brady sent the following email to the soccer alumni steering committee members, summarizing the discussion. I now quote from that email, dated August 21, 2012:
“Guys, just a quick update…I met this morning with Tom Gutenberger (was at my request). Overall, I think the program is fine. LAX has some vocal donors but it doesn’t have real support due to the fact no one wants anything cut. Actually, they have talked more about adding women’s sports (crew potentially) if LAX comes about but he didn’t think it was likely. Also, lots of field discussions around soccer and the debate is now centered around lights or no lights…” End quote.
One month after Gutenberger made these statements to Jim Brady, the University of Richmond formally announced that it had cut men’s soccer and track.
Congratulations, president Ayers. Your plan was successful. You sealed out the soccer alumni long enough to cut the program and replace it with lacrosse. You couldn’t afford to have the soccer alumni learn that the soccer program was in any real jeopardy before your plan was executed. If the soccer alumni did have any indication the program was in real jeopardy we would have taken our argument directly to the board of trustees and you couldn’t afford that, could you? You and the major donor already had the inside track with the board of trustees and you were determined to keep that advantage.
Therefore, you had Tom Gutenberger, your direct report and member of the Sports Mix committee, a man who obviously knew everything there was to know about the decision to bring on lacrosse and cut men’s soccer and track, mislead us until the very end.
With a full account of the facts, we now know exactly what happened.
Following the April 2012 board meeting, the major donor led a fundraising effort that produced a $3M endowment for the men’s lacrosse team. With this donation in hand, the lacrosse inner circle had overcome the final remaining objection to elevate men’s lacrosse to varsity status and drop men’s soccer and track.
The lacrosse inner circle took this final piece of the puzzle to the board of trustees on September 20, 2012 and hammered it home. It wasn’t pretty, but they got the decision they were looking for.
Do you think people weren’t going to see through your subterfuge, president Ayers? Do you think we are fools? We are not fools, sir, we are student, faculty and alumni of the University of Richmond!
I suspect the board of trustees weren’t even aware of the efforts by the soccer alumni to help bolster the program, an effort that began eighteen months ago. I’m sure neither president Ayers, nor Tom Gutenberger, nor the major donor told the trustees anything about that effort.
If they did, then how could the board of trustees and the Sports Mix Committee assert that they had evaluated all possible options before making their decision to drop men’s soccer and track.
Let me quote president Ayers from the September 30 town hall meeting, And I quote, “We modeled dozens of scenarios. This task force met 90 minutes every week for over a year and used the most sophisticated data gathering analysis you can imagine. We thought of every possibility.” End quote.
You thought of every possibility, Ed? You had an organized group of soccer alumni banging on your door to help, offering to fundraise and provide other support and you didn’t engage with us once!
Is it standard operating procedure for the University of Richmond’s board of trustees to ignore the overtures of its alumni to help? I sure hope not. Because if that’s true, we’re in far more dire straits than I fear.
I also suspect that the broader board was unaware of the personal motivations of the lacrosse inner circle. They probably weren’t aware that the inner circle had stacked the deck, massaged the numbers, hidden the ball, and sealed out the competition – namely the soccer alumni and student body.
Well, let me ask the members of the University of Richmond board of trustees. In light of all these facts, do you still believe it was the right decision to drop men’s soccer and track? In light of all these facts, do you feel a grave injustice has been done? If so, I humbly ask you to re-instate both the men’s track and soccer teams effective immediately. I ask you to reinstate these programs to levels, both participants and scholarships that existed before this egregious error was made.
I also humbly request that you allow the University of Richmond alumni to provide the support and financial assistance we’ve been fighting to provide over the past eighteen months, assistance that we believe can elevate these sports teams to heights worthy of the athletes that play them.
To all University of Richmond alumni and other donors. If I may be so bold, I’d like to ask you a question. Is this the kind of leadership we want guiding the University? Individuals who cherish power and money at the expense of all else? If what I’ve shared with you today concerns you, I encourage you to cast your vote. I encourage you to cast your vote in terms that men like those at the heart of the lacrosse inner circle can understand. I ask you to withhold your donations until the University board of trustees sets this thing right.
Finally, on a very personal note, I’d like to address the current soccer and track team members. From all the soccer and track alumni, we couldn’t be more proud of you guys.
For the track team members, you are the epitome of the student athlete. Achieving both on the track and in the classroom, despite no scholarships and no acclaim, that’s the true spirit of collegiate athletics. The fact that you guys were treated as mere collateral damage, as ‘slots,’ as heads for the taking, is emblematic of everything wrong with this decision.
To you, the current soccer players. The soccer alumni has watched as your soccer stadium was pulled out from underneath you and converted to a football stadium. We watched as you were sent 10 minutes off campus to play games. We watched as coaches left. We have watched you following the abrupt announcement that your program had been dropped. And in the face of very long odds, we’ve watched you fight on and keep hope. You have carried the flag with honor and distinction, gentlemen. In fact, you haven’t just carried the flag, you’ve raised the bar.
I really can’t articulate how excruciating it has been to watch these events unfold, and to see the pain inflicted on such a fine group of young men. It’s been like watching your little brother being bullied by an older, more powerful opponent and being helpless to do anything about it. I hope you know by now that we’ve been fighting like hell for the past eighteen months to get to you.
Like you, we have been thwarted by some powerful individuals. But also, like you, we never gave up. And today, gentlemen, after a very long journey indeed, I think we have finally broken through.
Carry the Flag!