UDP: After serving as Associate Director of Athletics at the U. of Arizona, you came to Dayton looking to fill the enormous shoes of Tom Frericks. Did you feel, initially, that you would try to take on a national role like Tom had, or were you more concerned with just getting your feet wet as an Athletic Director?

TK: There was no chance to get my feet wet. UD had put off the decision [on the] Great Midwest awaiting the arrival of the new AD. I hit the road to visit all of our current MCC members as a professional courtesy and to inform them that we were looking at the GMW option. In addition, I needed to visit all of the GMW programs to gather information and “introduce” Dayton.

UDP: What were some of your early goals for UD athletics? With the move to the Great Midwest, improving Dayton’s conference strength seemed to be first and foremost.

TK: It was overwhelming. We had little marketing capacity, and we were not raising any money. The scholarship support from the institution put us in the lowest 5% in the country. We had good people who were very strong on the operations side – witness our reputation around running NCAAs. The sense that I had was that with Mr. Frericks’ passing the division was at a standstill. No confidence, no initiative, no action. I knew that I would need to hire in areas where we lacked capacity: management, marketing, fundraising — not to mention coaches. In addition, I needed to educate the institution that the old business model was no longer valid. That model was built around a strong and independent men’s basketball program with everything else unfunded and essentially Division III. We would need institutional resources for scholarships to build an authentic broad-based program required for admission to a premier conference. And if you are not in a premier conference, you are not giving [men’s basketball] the best chance because only the top leagues get multiple bids.

UDP: Why wasn’t Dayton a good fit for the Great Midwest Conference and its spinoff Conf. USA? Was it a matter of bad luck in terms of wins and losses, or was UD just not as committed to hiring the full-time coaches and funding the necessary scholarships as they needed to be?

TK: The GMW model was programs that were funded to win a national title in men’s basketball at institutions with strong traditions located in great markets and playing in great facilities with great fan support. Not a bad plan! It was a good reality check for us on how far behind the curve we were in both basketball and our non-revenue sports. It certainly gave credibility to my arguments. On the plus side, it demonstrated that we still had the institutional will to compete at the highest level.

The GMW blew up over football issues. Without going into too much detail, the former Metro schools could not leave members behind unless the GMW offered up a sacrificial lamb as well. We were the obvious choice. C-USA is a poor fit for Dayton, and for DePaul, Marquette, and St. Louis as well. At that time I recommended that we join the A-10 even if given the chance to join C-USA.

UDP: For many years under Tom Frericks, basketball was king at UD much like football is to other schools. Dayton has experienced some recent success in its lesser-known athletic programs. Have you seen any unexpected benefits from UD’s increased commitment to its other sports?

TK: Basketball still is and will always be the king. It is our economic engine. There have been many benefits: students enjoy attending the soccer and volleyball games; our campus community takes pride in the achievements; we are getting national recognition in the industry and local recognition from the media; we are now more attractive as a conference member – (I don’t believe we’ve seen the last of the conference shake-ups).

UDP: Many schools have cut mens’ programs to bring themselves more in line with laws governing equality in sports. UD seems to be taking the other approach by adding womens’ programs such as track and rowing. On the surface, it seems like an issue dominated by laws and budget policies. Do you follow a more philosophical guide?

TK: Thanks for asking this one. We would be taking the same action if Title IX were repealed. All the great benefits of athletics competition and team membership in promoting character are just as important for young women as young men. One caveat: one reason we did not have to dismantle is that we didn’t have anything to dismantle! Remember, we have built our non-revenue program from scratch in the 90s so we could take decisions with the new game rules in mind.

UDP: Scholarships have increased from 45 to 82 since your arrival seven years ago. Is there still room for improvement?

TK: I am getting information from our Catholic school peers in C-USA and the non-football schools in the Big East. I would like to know how we stand against those schools. We are in about the middle of the Atlantic-10. The strategic key is put together the best mix of resources to the get best competitive results. An example, we actually took half of one scholarship out of mens’ and womens’ soccer to afford the practice fields at NCR. Both coaches believed that it was of greater competitive and recruiting value than the half scholarship.

We would like to keep our annual operating costs down, so our focus will be to advance our competitive position without adding annual operating expenses. That means facilities paid for by private donations. We have project plans that include a signature look and stadium feel for both soccer and the baseball/softball complex. We hope to have European-style seating on the north side of Baujan Field as early as this fall as stage one there. That means grass terraces for standing, lawn chairs, sitting on blankets – perfect for our great student crowds.

UDP: Were does football fit into the picture?

TK: We are committed to having a strong non-scholarship football program. We have been working to expand the PFL. Expect to see Davidson, Jacksonville, Austin Peay, and Morehead State as “Southern Division” members in 2001. Probably a couple of crossover games and a championship between the two division winners to conclude the season. It looks very promising.

UDP: People often get involved in activities and projects not necessarily related to their core job. Name something very gratifying that you’ve taken on since coming to UD?

TK: Candidly, if you do it right, this is a very demanding job. My discretionary time is family time. I love what I do, but our professional reality is that for much of the year we work regular job hours and then in addition work during the entertainment or discretionary time for most people. So, my discretionary time is family time or down time. When our daughters have grown that will no doubt change. As far as down time is concerned I play an occasional tennis tournament, enjoy golf and am an avid reader.

I have enjoyed a leadership position with the University of Dayton Task Force on Diversity in Community.

UDP: What’s been your toughest call?

TK: The most difficult part of the job is firing a good person who is doing his or her best, but cannot perform to expectations. Fortunately, I have not had to do that often.

UDP: You’ve talked about some of your early goals for this athletics program. What are some of your goals for the future? Has your vision grown as UD’s commitment to athletics has grown? Please be specific and not necessarily relating to men’s basketball.

TK: Vision is always emerging and goals are always emerging. Long term, any ideal future would reconnect us with DePaul, Marquette, and St. Louis. Regarding the other sports: no reason we can’t be nationally prominent in women’s basketball, and men’s and women’s soccer. We’re headed in the right direction in all three.

We are also supporting volleyball aggressively, but I just don’t see schools that look like us making it on the national scene outside of the privates on the West Coast. Perhaps we can be an exception. I’d like to see a D-I non-scholarship football national championship. We can be better in baseball and softball, but we are just not funded to excel at the national level. For the individual sports, we’re drawing some first-rate athletes under Lefty Martin’s leadership. Men’s and women’s tennis, men’s cross country, and men’s and women’s golf each share a single scholarship for the entire team. We want to provide each of those young people with a rewarding intercollegiate athletics experience.

QUICK HITTERS

UDP: What are some improvements you would like to see as far as UD Arena is concerned?

TK: The exterior is tired and the concourse is dated. We are considering a number of initiatives to present the facility well for another generation. Lots of possibilities including punching up the exterior without doing major structural work, suites, etc. Ohio State has done a great job with their concourse Hall of Fame. The financial key is to find corporate funding. Our biggest financial challenge will be the parking lot. We are looking at $3.5M to $3.8M for the total project. And we are not going to get somebody to put their name on that one.

UDP: With larger crowds attending UD basketball games, are steps being taken to improve logistics such as parking and traffic?

TK: We’re always looking at that. The reality is that you cannot get 13,000 people in or out all at the same time. My solution? Come early and stay to listen to Oliver.

UDP: Any improvements scheduled for Baujan and Stuart Fields in the near future?

TK: Plenty. See above. Also, I did not mention that we would like to address the squeeze on our shared resources as well. We’ve gone from 290 to 460 student-athletes in the 90s. That puts a lot of pressure on space. Academic support, strength and conditioning, and sports medicine are all bursting at the seams.