Sports Cuts | Web Update

Student-athlete ratio likely to increase despite sports cuts

Published: March 4, 2013, 2:03 am ET
Managing Editor

Although the University of Richmond made a decision in the fall to decrease the number of Division I athletic teams it sponsors, it did not adopt a fixed ratio of student-athletes, and the actual percentage of student-athletes is likely to change from year to year, President Edward Ayers wrote in an email to The Collegian last week.

Soccer alumnus Scott Byrnes said that this statement contradicted what Ayers had said at the Save Our Sports forum held in September when soccer and track were being dropped and lacrosse was being added as a varsity sport.

During the September forum, Ayers and other participants mentioned several times that 13 percent of each incoming class was made up of student-athletes.

“The fact is that 13 as a percentage is a large number,” Ayers said in September. “It’s not a goal we’re trying to get to; it’s a number we find ourselves in. The 13 [percent] are why we cannot add another sport.”

The university cannot increase the number of sports that it currently has if it wants to remain competitive more broadly for students with other talents, Ayers said at the forum in September.

However, the nature of cross country and track and field teams allowed the university to add more athletes to the athletic program than were taken away after the reconfiguration, despite the fact that the number of teams was lowered.

According to RichmondSpiders.com, the official website for Richmond athletics, the most recent soccer roster had 26 players; cross country and track and field combined had 21. With 12 runners allowed to remain for cross country competition, this removed 35 athletes from the Richmond Division I athletic program. With 64 added roster positions after the reconfiguration, this could lead to 29 more athletes coming to campus if individual athletes fill all of the freed roster positions.

“I cannot recall seeing anyone speak so fluidly outside both sides of their mouth as President Ayers,” Byrnes said. “I hope that the University of Richmond faculty are not going to let him get away with it.”

Athletic director Keith Gill said that the university committee did consider the size of the athletic program relative to peer institutions in its decision-making and that the ratio of student-athletes was one indicator of the relative size of the athletic program.

He also confirmed Ayers’ statement that achieving a specific ratio of student athletes was not the objective of the decision. The decision was made to reduce the number of teams, while adding men’s lacrosse, in order to strengthen the overall athletic program, Gill said.

Byrnes said that the ratio of athletes to students had been stated as a major issue at the fall forum because the university could not afford to increase the ratio. At a later date, Ayers told parents of former soccer players that it was the Richmond faculty who had taken a hard line on the athlete to student ratio and that he was intent on respecting their wishes, Byrnes said.

“The faculty members weren’t worried about athletic slots,” Byrnes said. “They were worried about the number of athletes.”

The current numbers show that the reconfiguration would bring more athletes onto campus, which is against the rationale Ayers used in September about the faculty not wanting to increase the ratio of athletes to students, Byrnes said. A board of trustees member, who requested anonymity, reiterated this statement about faculty not wanting more athletes at school, he said.

Through personal contact with faculty who were upset by the decision and the results of an anonymous survey of 92 faculty members that showed 87 percent would endorse an alternative reconfiguration that kept soccer and track, while adding lacrosse and women’s crew, Byrnes said he did not believe that the faculty were collectively behind the reconfiguration, despite Ayers’ comment.

“They feel like they’ve been hoodwinked,” Byrnes said. “A college environment is supposed to be open. If there is one industry or environment where fear of reprisals should not exist, it should be a university.”

Contact staff writer Kylie McKenna at kylie.mckenna@richmond.edu

Related Article Topics

, , , ,
Comments »
To post a comment, leave your first and last name and a valid e-mail address. Comments may not appear immediately because they must be approved by a moderator before posting. No registration is required, but you may sign in with DISQUS, Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo, or OpenID.
  • Mark Sakalosky

    Ayers has no credibility and should be asked to resign immediately. Each day that passes without action damages UR’s reputation, and that negatively impacts UR’s students, faculty and alumni. We are the UR community, we have the responsibility of ensuring that UR’s administration acts with integrity and transparency in the best interests of the community.

  • Gregory Hoffman

    Faculty were worried about the number of athletes because of purported poor academic performance, Mr. Byrnes. They’ve communicated as much.

    What the plan did was get rid of one the two highest achieving teams on campus and replaced it with an unknown quantity in lacrosse and more football players who the faculty explicitly did not want due to their academic performance.

  • http://www.facebook.com/pete.norquist Peter Norquist

    The last paragraph of this article is probably the most obvious signal that the administration doesn’t get it: “Ayers will meet with the UFC to discuss transparency and other governance concerns… the meeting is designated as an executive session of the council and is closed to all except the UFC members and the president.”

    A closed meeting on transparency seems to defeat the purpose, yes? I understand there needs to be centralized decision-making at the top, so not all meetings should be open to the entire public, but can we please get some indication that this administration is not making decisions in a complete vacuum?

    From campus and alumni outrage to loosing support from the Ukrops, this sports decision has been a monumental mistake by the administration, and refusing to even discuss alternatives proves that they have no interest in rebuilding a relationship with a community that they clearly are not connected to in the least.

  • UR_Student

    Wonderful work, please keep publishing information in regards to this situation. President Ayers and the administration should not be allowed to stonewall UR’s students, alumni and faculty.

  • http://www.facebook.com/valenski Andrew Valenski

    It is truly embarrassing how this whole debacle has transpired. As a current UR student, it is sad to see that Ayers is the figurehead of this prestigious university.

  • Ray Troy

    Clearly if the concern was too many athletes, and the number of athletes increased even WITHOUT adding sports teams, then the number of athletes would have grown exponentially more if they had ADDED more sports teams.

    Not making a point about the merits of cutting soccer/track, but simple addition shows that this doesn’t in any way undermine the administration’s stated reasoning. Biased reporting isn’t needed to express disapproval with these changes.

    • Spiderfan

      According to RichmondSpiders.com, the official website for Richmond athletics, the most recent soccer roster had 26 players; cross-country and track and field combined had 21. With 12 runners allowed to remain for cross-country competition, this removed 35 athletes from the Richmond Division I athletic program. With 64 added roster positions after the reconfiguration, this could lead to 29 more athletes coming to campus if individual athletes fill all of the freed roster positions.

      Ray, yes, if track was kept & crew was added, then the number of student-athletes would increase by even more, though exponentially is a bit misleading. However, what this article points out is that if outdoor track & field was kept instead of having their spots redistributed, then the actual number of student-athletes on campus would not increase by nearly as much as it is now due to the nature of overlap between XC/indoor/outdoor. Under the current change, one XC/indoor/outdoor athlete becomes 3 athletes (one XC runner, and two new roster spots for other sports). Therefore for each roster spot track loses, the athletic department gains 2 new athletes. Those track athletes that do not do cross country are not enough to offset this, either. That is a contradiction to much of what has been told. Not sure that it is biased reporting; it might be that reality is setting in on just how much lying has been going on by those in the most powerful positions.

      • Hoping to stay a Spiderfan

        Good point Spiderfan. In addition, let’s recognize what the “three roster spots” of that one xc/indoor/outdoor track individual contributed to the school from the academic side. That is three roster spots (consisting of one individual) from a team of historically very high academic/extracurricular performers.

        Now, UR will get two additional academically subpar student athletes from UR athletic programs with weaker academic histories/trends (increasing strain on our professors).

        In addition, those two new athletic spots now take the spot of two more “regular” admits — what you might call people who on their own academic merit earned an acceptance to UR. Take a wild guess which ones the professors prefer…

        This is exactly what Ayers was trying to demonstrate he WANTED back in September.

  • Alumni Guy

    Did anybody notice during the recognition ceremony during the GW basketball game what sport the top male academic student athletes were from for the freshman, junior, and senior classes?

    Track & Field.

  • Alum95

    The same individuals, rehashing the same arguments. Move on already. It’s an academic institution first and foremost and I think UR does a darn good job at it!

    • Hoping to stay a Spiderfan

      Your point is moot when you look at the quality of academic individuals you are disenfranchising and the quality (or lack thereof) of those who are being added. If it were an academic institution first and foremost, let’s be honest, which teams would it be getting rid of?