On the ball

At the top of the University’s official athletics Web site, under the word “Virginia,” between the Cavalier logo and an image of the Rotunda, sits a motto: “Uncompromised Excellence in Intercollegiate Athletics.”

That first word is no accident.

In the past year, the University laid out an ambitious plan to make the Virginia athletics program one of the nation’s 10 best. Yet all involved remain steadfast, Athletic Director Craig Littlepage said, in their determination to avoid compromising “the founding principles of the institution” in pursuit of that goal.

“It would be easy to just go out and pursue the athletic distinction, but … it wouldn’t be worth it to any of our constituent groups to achieve preeminence athletically if it is done at the expense of what is expected of all of our students generally at the institution,” Littlepage said.

That means complying with the vast and complex network of NCAA rules and regulations, but moreover it means maintaining the University’s academic reputation and tradition of honor. Student-athletes have to be students as well as athletes. The athletic department has to truly embrace the University’s core mission, not act as an all-but-separate entity concerned only with trophies and championships.

Judging by its graduation rate, the University has done a good job in recent years. An NCAA report released last fall calculated that 82 percent of the student-athletes who enrolled as Virginia first-years in 1995 went on to earn their degrees over the next six years — a percentage that ranked eighth in Division I and tied with Penn State for first among public universities.

“Up to this point, we’ve generally been able to combine the emphasis on athletic success with academic accomplishment,” said Edward L. Ayers, dean of the College and Graduate School of Arts & Sciences. “But it will require constant effort to prevent the attention, adrenalin and rewards of athletic accomplishment from tempting us away from our high academic standards. Only a few schools have accomplished that on a consistent basis.”

Virginia’s sports teams have been strong for years, but some in the University community were uncomfortable “talking about pursuing athletic success because of the concern that there were [undesirable] consequences that would result,” Littlepage said. Some concern remains that success on the court or field might come at the expense of success in the classroom, but the University’s academic and athletic leaders feel more confident in their ability to avoid those pitfalls.

In spring 2002, U.Va. was comfortable enough to compile a first annual report for athletics that set six main goals for the next 10 years:

• Graduate 100 percent of the student-athletes who complete their NCAA eligibility at Virginia;
• Win 70 ACC championships and 12 national championships;
• Fully endow all athletic scholarships and athletic department operating expenses;
• Build the highest quality athletic facilities;
• Recruit the best student-athletes nationally; and
• Comply with Title IX, which largely means providing ample opportunities for female student-athletes.

The goals stand in stark contrast to a report by a University task force two years ago that raised the idea of putting the varsity teams in tiers of importance that would determine their funding. In many cases, the earlier proposal only would have affirmed a general policy of prioritization that is followed by athletic departments throughout the country, but its opponents argued it would nearly kill off lower-profile men’s sports such as wrestling, tennis and golf.

The Board of Visitors decided against the recommendation — one of several suggested in the report — and took a stance that Littlepage echoes today: “If we as an institution want to be among the best … then we should aspire to do that across the board. Athletics should be a part of it.”

To accomplish this complicated mission, the athletic department needs to have the right people involved: administrators and coaches who understand and support the University’s unique demands and student-athletes who view college as more than a stepping stone to a career as a professional athlete.

“You don’t have any choice but to take [academics] seriously at this school,” said football coach Al Groh (Commerce ’67). “We emphasize to the players [who are considering Virginia that] we’re looking for guys who want to go to college and earn their degree. That’s different than being in attendance.”

Chris Canty (Economics ’04), who starts at defensive end for Groh, concurred: “The University will not cut any corners for you just because you’re involved in athletics.”

After all, only a small percentage of these student-athletes will be able to live off their athletic talents after college. The rest will need their degrees. Swimming and diving coach Mark Bernardino (Commerce ’74, Curry ’78) said that is especially true in a sport, such as swimming, that offers almost no professional opportunities. Even Shamek Pietucha (Biology ’99), a former all-American and Olympian who stands with the best swimmers in Virginia history, decided to pursue his academic dreams at the University of Calgary Medical School.

“You’re going to be a swimmer, but you’re going to be a student, because your future is not going to be determined by how fast you swim,” said Bernardino, a Virginia coach since 1978.

“We’re educators,” added Dennis Womack, now in his 23rd year as baseball coach. “My job as a coach is for our players to get a degree. I don’t think that’s just lip service. I think that really is the way that we as coaches feel about it.”

Coaches have to identify which potential recruits can get through the admissions process and then carry the academic load expected of a University student, said women’s lacrosse coach Julie Myers (Sociology ’90). That often eliminates some top-flight athletes, but it can also work in Virginia’s favor when a recruit is looking for a school that is demanding in both academics and athletics.

As might happen with an applicant who was a world-class musician or a son or daughter of an alumnus, some prospective student-athletes get the benefit of the doubt from the admissions office. Overall, once they are enrolled, “We try to treat all students equally,” said Rachel Most, an association dean in the College who was a varsity swimmer and lacrosse player at Temple University in the 1970s.

Many student-athletes who end up at Virginia have no problem achieving academic success. For some though, the transition from high school or from another university can be problematic.

“Purdue was a lot easier academically,” said women’s basketball star Cherrise Graham (College ’05), who transferred to Virginia for the 2001-02 school year. “Last year here, I struggled a lot with academics because I didn't really know what to expect. … Now I’ve adjusted.”

The athletic department has a host of systems in place to help student-athletes like Graham find their academic footing. Most first-years are required to regularly attend study hall, if only until they demonstrate they don’t need that structure. Other programs — tutors, individual mentors, personalized education plans — provide extra help.

“You have to be really organized and really plan ahead because the academics are really tough and you’re away a lot,” said women’s soccer captain Kelly Worden (English, Curry ’03).

At the same time, though, the University wants to teach student-athletes how to fish for themselves, as it were, instead of simply giving them a fish every day. Richard McGuire, who serves in multiple roles as an association dean and an associate professor in the College and the athletic department’s director of academic affairs, pointed out that giving a student-athlete too much help can in some cases “sustain a legacy of negative expectations.”

The University also has a transition program available primarily for student-athletes, transfer students and international students. This spring, Most will chair a committee formed to examine the possibility of expanding and improving the program.

Beginning in the fall, the athletic department will team with the Center for Undergraduate Excellence on a new Cavalier Research Scholars program, which will use the marketing power and visibility of Virginia athletics to provide funding and recognition for undergraduate researchers — athletes and non-athletes alike.

Yet even with these efforts, it’s not always easy to build athletic success “the right way,” as evidenced by scandals this spring at Villanova University, St. Bonaventure University, Fresno State University and the University of Georgia.

“There are pressures,” McGuire said. “It’s not easy for any of our athletes to balance the demands. But all in all, I think we’ve been able to keep a perspective. So far, so good.”

Puzzling over the price of success

Not everyone is confident in the University’s ability to balance its twin goals of athletic and academic prominence or supportive of the costly initiatives planned for the athletic department. With funding scarce at universities throughout the Commonwealth and academic budgets reduced, it is hardly surprising that some faculty members question the athletic department’s commitment to academics as well as the wisdom of raising $128 million in private donations to build an arena whose primary function will be housing the Cavalier basketball teams.

Athletic Director Craig Littlepage said he understands those concerns and in fact welcomes such calls for accountability, but he pointed out that the athletic department, by rule, cannot take state funds or tuition money away from the rest of the University and must instead fund its $33 million budget through NCAA and ACC revenue distribution and private donations.

Nor does raising funds for special projects such as the planned basketball arena, the recently completed baseball stadium and the major renovations to Scott Stadium, Littlepage said, hurt fundraising for the University as a whole. Some athletics donors — Paul Tudor Jones (Economics ’76), for instance — give generous gifts to academics as well. Others are Virginia sports fans whose only tie to the University is through the athletic department.

“And there can be a case made for the fact that a successful athletics program will in fact enhance the development initiative of the University as a whole,” Littlepage added.

Some members of the University community disagree, including many of the more than 400 faculty members who gathered in October for a rare assembly to discuss the state budget crisis. Religious studies chair Harry Gamble introduced what he acknowledged was a largely symbolic resolution asking President John T. Casteen III to delay the arena project until academic needs could be met.

“While many of us would be delighted to have top-10 athletics programs, they are worth little until we have top-10 academic programs,” Gamble told the assembly. “Maybe, someday, we can have both, but academics must come first now.”

The resolution was tabled after a caution from Casteen, who explained the relationship between athletic department and academic fundraising and expressed his concern about “breaking faith with donors who have already committed to this project and who look on athletics as an important part of student life.”

“I can see it both ways,” music department chair Elizabeth Hudson said in a later interview. “Right now, we're in an incredible crunch of resources, academically, and obviously we want to make sure those things are being addressed, and yet I don’t think necessarily the answer is to say we can’t grow with athletics.”