The University of Richmond (U.R.) cut
their men's soccer and track teams without warning, and established
their men's club lacrosse team as a new varsity sport. This decision
resulted in major uproar and commotion not only amongst the soccer
and track teams, but other students, alumni, donors, and people
across the country. Besides being simply unfair to U.R.'s soccer and
track teams, there is more going on – this is an issue of politics
in sport.
Allow me to lay out the scene: Mr. Jim
Miller, U.R.'s Athletic Director, announced this decision was not
made within the Athletic Department, but at the “Board of Trustees”
level. According to NCAA title IX, the number of men's and women's
teams must be equal; therefore if lacrosse was added without cutting
the other teams, it would be in violation of NCAA rules. The Board of
Trustees said they had conducted a year long study to decide which
sports the school should have, “...looking at budgets, admissions
issues and everything else you could imagine...[1]”
After conducting this study and working through all the data, it was
clear the Board of Trustees wanted to add a men's lacrosse team.
Originally anonymous, there was a
rather large donation of $3 million given to U.R. Where this
anonymous donation came from, no one knew at the time; however, two
prominent Trustees involved with sports on both sides of this issue
did stand out – Paul Queally and Bobby Ukrop.
Mr. Queally is the proud parent of two
Richmond students and his previous contributions have resulted in the
building of Queally Hall. A junior on the
lacrosse team requesting anonymity said, “Mr. Queally has
financially helped our team, and our coach, Glenn Carter, has often
spoken at practices about how much Queally’s donations have helped
the team. [3]”
According to The Collegian,
U.R.'s newspaper, Mr. Queally's youngest son is in high school and
his Facebook profile picture portrays him playing lacrosse.
Mr. Ukrop is a
fellow Board of Trustee member and has been associated with the men's
soccer team. He had been a longtime supporter of the University, and
after the decision had been made final to cut both soccer and track
for lacrosse, he resigned from the Board of Trustees.
It was later
revealed that the large donation was made by Mr. Queally.
When Mr. Miller
made the announcement to the soccer and track teams that they were to
be cut, not one of the Board of Trustees was in attendance. The news
was also delivered just four hours before a U.R. Soccer game – not
the best time, in my opinion.
Patrick Love, a junior cross country
runner was noted as saying, “From an
international perspective, they mentioned that they want to promote
diversity with this decision, which is so not true because lacrosse
kids are almost all from the Northeast.” (Click
to read more)
There is a misconception here. Lacrosse
players are not all from the Northeast. The sport has grown in
the Northwest, Southwest, Midwest, South and Southeast. This being
said, if you look at the United States where the sport is played, the
Northeast could be considered a mecca of sorts. So, Mr. Love is
correct in that having a lacrosse team in the Northeast is not quite
promoting diversity.
According
to Richmond BizSense, Richmond's premier source of news and
information, “In the past week, groups of alumni and students have
sprung up in attempts to save track and soccer. Track boosters bought
a full-page advertisement in the school newspaper with a stirring tag
line:
“Money can buy a lot of things, like this ad or even a lacrosse
program, but it can’t buy honor.” This is a
direct shot on how this whole situation was handled as dishonorable
to the kids, parents, alumni, boosters, and the entire community.
The criticism on this situation by
alumni was extremely harsh. An article written to The Collegeian
by former student, Keith Donohue, takes a look at “The Daddy”
about how his donation of $3 Million influenced this decision:
“The
Daddy’s son plays high school lacrosse and is slated to attend
Richmond next year. Surprise! A reliable source suggests that the
primary reason why the university president expedited the decision to
add lacrosse was that The Daddy pledged to also fund a new campus
visitor center. [3]”
This
is ridiculous, and makes me extremely upset. Politics in sport
has happened ever since I can remember; not only in the news, but in
personal experiences. I clearly remember back to Little League, when
All-Star voting would come around. I played for the same team with
the same coach through the 6th grade when I quit. The head
coach was a real pushover; his wife was a doctor and had influence on
his decisions even when it came to his baseball team. Every single
year he would announce two all-star representatives from our team,
and every single year his son would get one of the spots. His son was
far and away not one of the best players on the team, not by a long
shot. I always felt snubbed and it bothered me that outside factors
played such a role in sports.
Another example of
this is high school lacrosse. I came from a school known for its
powerhouse nationally ranked, top ten football program - not for its
lacrosse club team. We were a relatively new team when I joined and
certainly had our ups and downs. No one from Skyline ever got
recognized in lacrosse by the Washington High School Boys Lacrosse
Association (WHSBLA), Washington State lacrosse's governing body. The
WHSBLA committee is made up of 5 head coaches, all of school
sanctioned teams, and have been around forever. They tend to only
select the kids from where lacrosse has a history, and label Skyline
as being a strictly football school.
Other teams were
school sanctioned because they had been around longer, and had custom
Nike jerseys, matching team lacrosse cleats, and donated money to the
WHSBLA because they had it. We were just a club sport, had cheap
Warrior uniforms, everyone just used their football cleats and we
used our extra money for new practice balls, nets and equipment.
During my junior year, my best friend was the face-off guy, and led
the state in draw wins and ground balls. I came in 5th in
the state in ground balls, and neither of us received all-state
accolades. When we were seniors, he led the state again in both
categories, shattering his records, and I came in third in ground
balls – nothing. Both of us played summer ball with players who
made up the All-State teams, so it was sort of ironic. We both ended
up at good lacrosse schools; him at Ohio State, and myself at
Endicott. Again, it just goes to show how sometimes things should
ethically work, just don't.
These examples show
that at any level, no matter the relationship or influences, people
can be swayed. When it comes down to it, yes, people should evaluate
the outcome of their decision, but that to simply protect the
purification of sports needs to be the number one goal: to not taint
the game has got to be the number one duty. Tainting the game for
personal gain cannot be a factor in making decisions that affect
kids, adolescents, young adults, and even professionals for the rest
of their lives. The most trivial decisions can have dire
consequences, so I urge people to follow ethics first and foremost.
Ask yourself if what you are doing feels right; if it is morally
just.
No comments:
Post a Comment