The University of Richmond’s decision to drop its Division I men’s soccer team and its men’s track and field, and to replace them by adding a varsity program in men’s lacrosse came under heightened questioning after an article on the matter ran in The Washington Post Thursday. According to the Post, the choice to add one sport and discontinue two was not coincidence or based on a binding economic dilemma. Instead, the shrouded rationale remains unexplained and looks more than anything to be the result of the political momentum of donors. The University of Richmond should have done a better job articulating why it made such a significant athletic decision.
In April, the University of Richmond’s governing Board of Trustees met with an 11-person task force — of which only one member, the athletics director, had a connection to sports — that had been commissioned a year prior to assess the finances of the school’s athletics. Specifically, the task force outlined the costs for beginning varsity teams in lacrosse, a prospect that had been gaining popularity at the University of Richmond. This task force found the amount of money required to start men’s lacrosse would be about $2 million. This summer, the school was well on its way to this goal, having already fundraised $3 million from donors interested in seeing the Spiders take the field in men’s lacrosse.
It came as a surprise, then, when the University of Richmond did decide to add lacrosse in September — and simultaneously acted to end the school’s varsity programs in men’s soccer and men’s track and field. Besides just wanting to add lacrosse — which is a sport of growing popularity, especially on the East Coast, where an overwhelming number of the NCAA’s only 61 Division I varsity teams reside — no valid explanation has been given for the elimination of the two programs. Jim Miller, the University of Richmond athletics director who was on the original task force, said axing the two sports would bring no financial benefit. University of Richmond President Ed Ayers, meanwhile, said the school would save $100,000 annually without men’s soccer and men’s track and field, according to The Washington Post.
One possible explanation surrounds the implementation of Title IX, the stipulation in U.S. law that requires colleges to provide equal opportunities in athletic-related endeavors. The University of Richmond previously had a varsity women’s lacrosse team, but not one for men. Under this variance, however, the school had struck the correct proportions of funding and scholarships required by Title IX. So by adding a men’s lacrosse team, the school would have had to provide a proportional amount of funding and scholarships for its women athletics; according to The Washington Post, it might have needed to create a new women’s sport altogether. Cutting two men’s programs could have had the counterbalancing effect of allowing the University of Richmond to add men’s lacrosse without adding more women’s sports teams.
Regardless, the decision remains unclear — students, coaches and fans have protested, demanding a justification. This is about more than just money, as such an immediate removal of two prominent sports without notice affects the livelihood of those students and coaches directly involved in such programs. The University of Richmond may be correct to be overhauling what is the sometimes bloated field of intercollegiate athletics. But it has done so in a style that is junior varsity.
Read More
PARTING SHOT: On the art of walking and chewing gum
By Nathan Onibudo | YesterdayStudent journalism, and maybe even life more generally, is about holding space for multiple conflicting truths.
PARTING SHOT: Confessions of a nepo baby
By Grace Thrush | 2 days agoWhile I can’t point to one specific “aha” moment where I finally started to dispel my self-consciousness and claim my pride for the paper, I got there gradually over the course of my term as managing editor.
PARTING SHOT: Asked and answered
By Honor Wood | 2 days agoLooking back, the answer has been abundantly clear all along. I did it for the people.
