U of Richmond to drop men's soccer

Along with track and field to make way for lacrosse.

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/sport...ens-lacrosse-drop-mens-soccer-tra-ar-2224044/

Always disappointing to see a program disappear, particularly given the city's history with the College Cup.

very sad to see.. looks like coach peay knew something a few months ago

Thanks, Title IX.

I watched countless games at UR during the 14 years I attended and lived in Richmond. While they never were a top caliber team, the men they produced were good citizens and were tremendous influences on my kids. I always hoped one of my boys would play for UR. So sad.

"Yes, thanks, Title IX." --- Every female athlete since 1972.

You know, Richmond chose to do this, right? You get that, right? And that there are 204 other DI schools who are also obligated to abide by Title IX who haven't gotten rid of men's soccer, right?

But, hell, f*** equal opportunity if it's going to apply to someone else and not me, personally. I'm not a woman, what the hell do I care?

Lacrosse? And they thought they were having trouble competing in soccer?

Ever occur to you that folks on the men's side of soccer would love something resembling equal opportunity to women's soccer?

If you were even an occasional forum participant, you might have some credibility to discuss this point.

I hear what you're saying when looking at soccer in isolation. But, men generally have much more opportunity in college sports overall. It seems particularly hard to me to blame Title IX here, where they've decided to add men's lacrosse in lieu of soccer. They could have chosen to add women's sports as well if they wanted a new men's sport. But, instead they chose to cut soccer. To me, Title IX seems like a good scapegoat for cutting a program that was struggling.

Hopefully we won't get stuck in a back-and-forth about this, but it bears asking whether a struggling women's program would be subject to the same treatment. Richmond offers its women soccer, track, and lax, not just one out of three.

By making these changes, Richmond is dropping 75 male athletes and adding maybe 35. This is definitely a move that will please the Title IX bean counters.

No need to get in a long back and forth on this. Your point is a valid one. I mainly responded to your first post because you dismissed the first poster on the issue because he wasn't even an occasional poster. Fair enough, but it begged a response from someone who posts at least occassionally (which I am).

To answer your question, I don't think a women's program would be treated the same if the school already has more men participating in sports. No doubt, that is in part because of Title IX's existence, but it's also in part because of the choices Richmond's administration decided to make that are different than other schools might make in the same situation. On your point of dropping 75 to add 35, I don't really think Title IX requires them to decrease the overall number of men to add lacrosse. I hesitated to say that because, I didn't want to get us on a tangent that would extend the conversation unnecessarily. But no doubt, the bean counters as you say will be satisfied.

To be clear, as a former college soccer player and a current fan, it saddens me that Richmond has chosen to drop soccer, I hope more schools don't make the same bad choice. I think we definitely agree on that, so let's leave it at there (If you feel compelled to respond to the above, that's fine, but no need to - I think your position is a valid one).

Did anyone consider the demographic of the typical lacrosse player vs. the typical soccer/track athlete ? Less diverse, higher income which means probably higher profile student and more alumni $$$ in the future. To me this is not a Title IX issue but a let's have more rich white kids on our campus so they can become rich donors in the future. Dropping track alone would have gotten them to their numbers, this has a lot more than that written into it.

What is the function of college soccer in regard to professional soccer.

I think the last few posters have sufficiently covered Title IX well enough.

I have to object to this response - Just because someone is not an active poster, doesn't mean that they aren't a frequent reader/lurker. I think Ken's body of work is sufficient for him to have credibility in the college forum.

We're not a closed clique.

Just my opinion....

The functions , , ..., are linearly dependent if, for some , , ..., not all zero,

(1)

Does that mean some programs can't even line the field properly?

Closed clique? Of course not, but would *you* show up on a forum and immediately began lecturing others about equal opportunity? I kinda doubt it.

*I feel bad for the players at Richmond and the ones who were committed to go their to play next season. And I feel bad for those in the Richmond community who enjoy going to UR games, though it's not like they can't get their college soccer fix in town by going elsewhere.

*I do not blame Title IX at all in this. Nor do I blame football, in which UR is quite competitive at the 1-AA level. This is a choice about what sports best fit their profile and budget. They chose lacrosse, and I think they're right. UR is a good but not great very expensive private school. IE, it's PERFECT for lax bros.

*As a college soccer fan, I know a program being dropped should sadden me, but this doesn't. IMO, there are too many poor soccer programs in D-I, watering down the level of play. Yes, this trickles down and limits opportunities in D-I for some players, but ultimately I think college soccer would benefit by being able to present a better product to the public and having more better teams play each other does that.

(I'd actually like to see D-I men's soccer split, a la football, into 1-A, which offers about 13-14 scholarships and has about 50-70 programs, and 1-AA, which would field about 4-5 scholarships, allowing some schools to have the sport but not have to go "all-in" in terms of funding and those schools that want to take the sport seriously can do so and have a much better level of play. But that's a discussion for another forum.)

Blaming Title IX or the women's sport is a cop out. They are not thriving off of this dumb unilateral move disguised as a strategic plan. Despite the idea that the endowment will make Richmond more competitive in some areas such as women's soccer, the UR women's soccer team has been rallying support for salvaging the men's program as well, so don't blame the women for this.

The school made a decision to take one step forward and two steps back. The blame falls on the AD and board, not the federal gov. The lax team should have been given a motive: if you really want your glorified club sport, and an endowment will be established to preserve scholarships for ALL sports, then it should have been for ALL athletes. Don't steal from the soccer team.

The October 5 doubleheader at Richmond will be a rally the flag for the men's soccer program. It is bring your own flag night, the women play La Salle at 5:00 and the men play GW at 7:30 PM. A lot of alums are coming out and friends of the program to make a statement of support for the team. I expect it to be a great turnout.

I would also like it if the conferences could have had a better grip on preventing sudden moves like this. There will be a ripple down effect if the A10 becomes less of a competitive home because of abandoning teams specifically to prioritize other, non A10 sports such as football and in this event, lacrosse. They need to encourage full participation, not cafeteria style members.

I don't know how the A10 will make a schedule with 13 teams. Can everyone play every team once for 6 home games and 6 away games?

Which brings us to why Title IX is always relevant to these discussions.

If Richmond was going to add 35 men's lax players without cuts, Title IX would also require it to add close to 50 female athletes, meaning probably two additional female sports and definitely a far bigger pricetag than just men's lacrosse by itself. Title IX makes cuts the only economical option.

economical option, you say. so it's still about money, not about cutting men's opportunities to make way for women. plenty of schools have supported men's soccer, including Richmond for a very long time. Richmond has decided it isn't worth the money anymore.

The problems I have with this are:
1) it was a unilateral decision, soccer was never consulted or given a chance to bargain. Adding lax and removing soccer is One step forward and two steps back.
2) soccer program was told on game day that it would be their last season, now go out and win one for us
3) cafeteria style participation in the A10 by a program that once tried to hoist the A10 commissioners cup every year. The now might as well be removed from such consideration, if not from the conference entirely.
4) according to insiders, soccer fundraising had been more successful than most other sports, and these were good students being quit on. there was just too much potential there.
5) WSOC and women's sports (and to some extent lacrosse) being scapegoated for what the board did to MSOC. The decision was made in spite of lacrosse, not because of it. If lacrosse were such a great investment, they should be able to afford volleyball/softball or somehow manage to have cake and eat it.
6) proponents of this saying that Richmond's demo will better cater to lax than soccer. That is ridiculous. Richmond's demo is/should be a lot bigger than these people say it is.
7) Cutting track won't even decrease very many enrollees since most of these athletes already participate in XC. Explain how this helps with the Title IX argument, I don't even see why it was done except for to save money or to lead to the eventual shift away from men's cross country as well.

Lacrosse is hypnotizing, all right... it is the only sport that has ever literally put me to sleep.

(At my first, last, and only ever Wings game in Philadelphia, I didn't even make it to the end, I nodded off!)

Hykos, you made a lot of good points. Are you willing to to share any thoughts about Clint Peay's pre-season departure? (It's lucky they were able to line up a good replacement at short notice.)

As for cutting track, that may have been necessary to remain within Title IX compliance. By replacing men's soccer with lacrosse, Richmond would likely have increased the number of male athletes, which is generally a no-no.

http://thecollegianur.com/2012/09/2...t-soccer-and-track-field/28698/#disqus_thread

I don't know about Clint's departure, but I met Jim Miller once at a basketball game a few years ago, and when I tried to steer the conversation toward Richmond's facility upgrades, specifically soccer, he changed the subject. It was obvious to me he was no soccer proponent, he didn't pretend to enjoy talking with me about it.

He's copping out to the board decision. It is his job to run athletics, he could have taken a stand for the program. Just like the interim coach is calling on him to. There are many vocal alums who are dismayed.

On October 5, the team will be hosting a flag day to support the cause. All fans are invited to carry the flag to show solidarity and support.

This is not a title IX issue. It is a selfish money grab. Men's soccer loses more money than women's volleyball and softball, and all of them are getting picked over by lacrosse because there is some sort of $ demand for lacrosse in certain circles and they want to jump in before the bandwagon takes off and leaves them behind. That none of the real sports can exist now at Richmond is not a decision about gender preference, it is simply because lacrosse is so vogue, and soccer is not seen for its special value.

I'm sure the donors money had something to do with it but from reading the article they had a wide variety of people on the committee and what caught my eye was admissions. If you are the admissions director and you add lacrosse you have just add a huge recruiting tool for the northeast. Also from a business stand point you have added a sport with a similar NCAA scholarship limit but carries over twice the number of players. So financially you have more students paying their own way. Now if they add women's lacrosse they can take care of their title IX issues and bring in even more money.

While I disagree with them dropping men's soccer from a financial side I see why they did it. I do feel they could have kept it and added men's lacrosse, women's lacrosse and another women's sport and still gotten the above mentioned benefits and even more by adding other sports.

Last, I was at a university with Men's lacrosse and they will be getting a whole set of new problems, as my experience with men's lacrosse players is that they are very much on the edge socially and there was always some one on the team in trouble with the school or the law.

Just to post it, here are the official announcements from the school:

Richmond Athletics Announces Sports Reconfiguration
Courtesy:Richmond Athletics
Release:09/21/2012
Statement by University of Richmond Athletic Director Jim Miller on the Addition of Men's Lacrosse and the Changes in the Athletic Program
September 21, 2012
http://www.richmondspiders.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_LANG=C&DB_OEM_ID=26800&ATCLID=205689650

Frequently Asked Questions
Courtesy:Richmond Athletics
Release:09/20/2012
Frequently Asked Questions on the Addition of Men's Lacrosse and Changes in the University of Richmond Athletic Program
http://www.richmondspiders.com/View...54&DB_LANG=C&DB_OEM_ID=26800&ATCLID=205689424

The Title IX topic was glazed over in the "infrequently answered questions."

Just what is this $3M fund that is talked about?

Answer #2: "Because there are only 65 Division I men's lacrosse teams, the University has the opportunity to build a highly competitive men's lacrosse program while the field is still relatively small."

Geez, footy, you are just too big at the collegiate level to be worth trying to be, ya' know, competitive and such.