Hokies deny ACC commissioner's claim
Swofford response singles out Tech

John Swofford says Virginia Tech initiated a meeting at the ACC office last month "and expressed a desire to join" the league.

By MARK BERMAN
THE ROANOKE TIMES

   ACC Commissioner John Swofford took a shot at Virginia Tech on Sunday.

    Swofford fired back two days after Tech and four other Big East schools sued the ACC and two of the ACC's three expansion candidates, Miami and Boston College, in an effort to stop the schools from leaving the Big East.

    "We are disappointed with the actions taken, particularly when one of the plaintiffs initiated a visit to our office last month and expressed a desire to join the Atlantic Coast Conference," Swofford said in a statement Sunday.

    Tech athletic director Jim Weaver said Sunday he went with Tech President Charles Steger and executive vice president Minnis Ridenour to the ACC office in Greensboro, N.C., on May6. That was 10 days before the ACC snubbed Tech and voted to hold formal talks with Miami, Syracuse and BC. Weaver, who in April and May publicly lobbied the ACC to take Tech if it were going to add Miami, said Tech wanted to gauge how the expansion process was developing.

    "Our goal was and is to keep the Big East together. When they met with Swofford, that's the first thing they told him," Tech spokesman Larry Hincker said Sunday. They told Swofford "if the Big East were no longer to be viable, we would be a good candidate for the ACC. But we said at that time to Swofford and we say now our goal is to keep the Big East together.

    "It's not entirely correct to say 'expressed a desire to join the ACC' because it makes it sound like we were trying to bolt the conference and that wasn't the case at all."

    The lawsuit accuses Miami and BC of taking part in "secret negotiations" with the ACC. Hincker said Steger, on the other hand, made his Big East colleagues "fully aware" of his conversations with Swofford.

    Weaver said it wasn't wrong for Tech to want to be part of ACC expansion because, unlike Syracuse and BC, Tech is in the "natural footprint" of the ACC.

    Steger could not be reached for comment, and Ridenour refused to comment.

    The presidents of the ACC schools will reportedly hold a conference call Tuesday, at which time they could vote to invite the three schools. The ACC statement said league officials "continue to move forward with their process and deliberations concerning the possibility of expansion."

    "This process is not complete, but we do plan to continue," Swofford said.

    The lawsuit accuses the ACC, Miami and BC of engaging in a "scheme" to "destroy" the Big East and cause financial harm to Tech and the others. The suit states Miami and BC abandoned their contractual obligations to the Big East; Syracuse was not named in the lawsuit.

    "The ACC has acted properly and legally throughout this process and is unaware of any conduct by Miami, Boston College or Syracuse that would violate the terms of their by-laws or that could bind them to the Big East against their will," Swofford said.

    Weaver said on April25 that if the ACC added Miami, Tech wanted to come aboard as well. On May2, Weaver said Tech officials were "doing everything we possibly can to position Virginia Tech for inclusion in the expansion if it occurs."

    "You talk to your colleagues in the ACC, and your presidents do what they need to do," Weaver said on May2.

    The ACC voted to expand to 12 teams on May13, three days before picking the schools.

    "I feel there a lot of things we bring to the table that lot of other institutions don't," Weaver said hours after the May13 vote. "Hopefully, the people in the ACC ... I'm sure they know what those issues are because we've communicated. Through President Steger and the athletic administration we've not left any stone unturned."

    Hincker said Tech's lobbying doesn't negate the lawsuit's contention that an ACC raid would damage the remaining Big East schools. Hincker said Tech is no longer interested in joining the ACC.

    "If we were asked to join today, we wouldn't go," Hincker said.

Swofford: Expansion plans proceeding
ACC 'will continue to be proactive'
BY JEFF WHITE
TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER Jun 09, 2003

The lawsuit filed Friday by five Big East schools won't stop the Atlantic Coast Conference from proceeding with its plans for expansion. That was the word from ACC Commissioner John Swofford in a news release last night.

The plaintiffs - Virginia Tech, West Virginia, Connecticut, Pittsburgh and Rutgers - hope to stop the ACC from adding three other Big East members: Miami, Boston College and Syracuse.

"We are disappointed with the actions taken, particularly when one of the plaintiffs initiated a visit to our office last month and expressed a desire to join the Atlantic Coast Conference," Swofford said in the release.

"Regardless, the ACC and its nine member institutions will continue to be proactive in the evaluation of opportunities that best serve the interests of the league, our member institutions and our student-athletes."

Virginia Tech is the plaintiff to which Swofford referred. Tech's athletic director, Jim Weaver, and its football coach, Frank Beamer, said this spring that they hoped the ACC would consider the Hokies if it chose to expand. Tech officials visited the ACC's office in Greensboro, N.C., on May 6.

According to Charles Steger, Tech's president, the trip was a fact-finding mission to learn the ACC's plans regarding expansion, not a bid to join the conference.

The five Big East schools filed their lawsuit in Hartford, Conn., against the ACC, Miami and BC. Until Friday's developments, the ACC was expected to issue invitations to Miami, BC and Syracuse, perhaps as early as tomorrow. Syracuse is not named in the suit.

The presidents of the ACC schools were scheduled to discuss expansion on a conference call with each other early this week, a source said last night. That teleconference may be rescheduled in the wake of the lawsuit.

In the release, Swofford defended his conference's courtship of the three Big East schools. "Conference expansion and institutional realignment is not a new concept and is not a creation of the ACC," he said.

Swofford cited the creation of the Big 12, Conference USA and the Mountain West, the expansion of the SEC and the Big East's additions since 1990.

"This trend is likely to continue whether or not Miami, Boston College and Syracuse join the Atlantic Coast Conference," he said.

NCAA schools "are free to associate with other institutions that they deem most in harmony with their academic and athletic mission," Swofford said. "The ACC has acted properly and legally throughout this process and is unaware of any conduct by Miami, Boston College or Syracuse that would violate the terms of their by-laws or that could bind them to the Big East against their will, should they desire to change their current conference affiliation."

ACC bylaws require that a formal vote be taken among the nine presidents before invitations can be extended. At least seven schools must approve each candidate.

"The process of expansion is complicated and requires due diligence," Swofford said. "The process is not complete, but we do plan to continue, and ultimately our member institutions will decide whether or not expanding is a viable option."
 

ACC vows to move forward on expansion plans
By Dave Johnson
Daily Press
Published June 9, 2003

Despite a lawsuit that seeks to block his league's expansion plans, ACC commissioner John Swofford vowed Sunday to press forward in forming a 12-team superconference and took a swipe at one of the plaintiffs.

Virginia Tech, West Virginia, Connecticut, Pittsburgh and Rutgers are trying to prevent Miami, Boston College and Syracuse from leaving the Big East for the ACC, an action they say would cause "irreparable harm." The suit was filed Friday morning in a Hartford, Conn., Superior Court against the ACC, Miami and Boston College - but not Syracuse.

"We are disappointed with the actions taken, particularly when one of the plaintiffs initiated a visit to our office last month and expressed a desire to join the Atlantic Coast Conference," Swofford said in a statement. "Regardless, the ACC will continue to be proactive in the evaluation of opportunities that best serve the interests of the league, our member institutions and our student-athletes."

The plaintiff in question is Virginia Tech, which sent three officials - president Charles Steger, executive vice president Minnis Ridenour and athletic director Jim Weaver - to Greensboro, N.C., on May 6 to lobby ACC officials for inclusion.

Needing seven of the conference's nine presidents to vote in their favor, the Hokies fell two short of being an expansion target. In comments to reporters Friday afternoon, Pittsburgh president Mark Nordenberg accused the ACC of "secret dealings." Swofford reacted by saying his conference did nothing outside the rules.

"NCAA institutions are free to associate with other institutions that they deem most in harmony with their academic and athletic mission," Swofford said. "The ACC has acted properly and legally throughout this process and is unaware of any conduct by Miami, Boston College or Syracuse that would violate the terms of their by-laws or that could bind them to the Big East against their will, should they desire to change their current conference affiliation.

"Conference expansion and institutional realignment is not a new concept and is not a creation of the ACC. The last decade has seen unprecedented movement between conferences with some of the most notable examples being the creation of the Big 12 Conference, Conference USA and Mountain West Conference and the expansion of the Southeastern Conference, in addition to the Big East's four expansions since 1990. This trend is likely to continue whether or not Miami, Boston College and Syracuse join the Atlantic Coast Conference."

The ACC's nine presidents reportedly have a conference call scheduled for Tuesday, at which time it's possible they could take a vote. Days before the suit was filed, Swofford had predicted expansion would be complete by the end of the month. But the legal process could at least delay that - which would be costly.

If the three schools want to join the ACC for the 2004-05 academic year, they must pay a $1 million exit fee by June 30. But if they announce after that date, the fee doubles to $2 million.

"Every conference in the country expressly allows a member to withdraw and has by-laws that detail the notice requirements and all financial obligations a member must satisfy to do so," Swofford said.
 

ACC head 'disappointed' by litigation

6-9-03

By TIM PEELER, Staff Writer
News & Record

Two days after five Big East schools filed a lawsuit to slow down the ACC's expansion dreams, ACC commissioner John Swofford issued a formal response on Sunday, vowing that the league won't be deterred by legal action. He also suggested that a lawsuit filed in Connecticut on Friday by five current members of the Big East had no legal merit, because the ACC has followed all appropriate guidelines in pursuing Boston College, Miami and Syracuse for inclusion in the 50-year-old ACC.

"We are disappointed with the actions taken, particularly when one of the plaintiffs initiated a visit to our office last month and expressed a desire to join the Atlantic Coast Conference," Swofford said in a statement released from the league office Sunday evening. "Regardless, the ACC and its nine member institutions will continue to be proactive in the evaluation of opportunities that best serve the interests of the league, our member institutions, and our student athletes."

Virginia Tech president Charles Steger visited the league's offices at Grandover on May 6, though he told the Associated Press on Friday that it was not to seek an invitation to join the league. The ACC did consider the Hokies, but a vote of league presidents came up two votes short of approving the Blacksburg, Va., school as an expansion candidate.

"I didn't ask the ACC presidents about us joining," Steger said. "I asked them if they could give me some sense of what they saw happening... I didn't ask them to take Virginia Tech into the ACC."

However, Steger met with Swofford, and none of the league's presidents were in attendance, according to a league spokesman.

The league has completed much of the evaluation process for inviting the three schools into the league and made visits to all three campuses. All that remains is for the league's nine presidents to extend formal invitations, something that could happen later this week, though no timetable has been set. However, a vote can be called at any time by Clemson president James Barker, chair of the ACC's Council of Presidents.

"The process of expansion is complicated and requires due diligence," Swofford said. "This process is not complete."

Swofford said Friday's lawsuit, which was filed in Connecticut, by Virginia Tech, West Virginia, Connecticut, Rutgers and Pittsburgh against Miami and Boston College would not be successful because the ACC has acted within NCAA rules in pursuing the three Big East schools.

"NCAA institutions are free to associate with other institutions that they deem most in harmony with their academic and athletic mission," Swofford said. "The ACC has acted properly and legally throughout this process and is unaware of any conduct by Miami, Boston College or Syracuse that would violate the terms of their by-laws or that could bind them to the Big East against their will, should they desire to change their current conference affiliation."

ACC's Expansion Plans May Be Disrupted by Lawsuit
By Josh Barr
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, June 9, 2003; Page D05

Atlantic Coast Conference expansion, thought to be a foregone conclusion as recently as the middle of last week, is no longer a slam dunk after five Big East schools filed suit Friday against Miami, Boston College and the ACC.

Instead, with a conference call looming Tuesday during which ACC university presidents are expected to vote on final approval of expansion, there is an element of uncertainty, sources familiar with the situation said.

"As soon as I saw the lawsuit, I knew there would be a much-increased chance of the expansion plan being derailed," one source said. "There was a strong likelihood that anyone on the fence -- anyone that had voted yes but had concerns -- would likely have their concerns heightened by the potential of litigation.

"Anything is possible. Who knows how a president is going to react . . . to a several-hundred-million-dollar lawsuit and all the accompanying negative publicity that goes along with that? I wouldn't be surprised if something happens [today] where the call is called off. I can't think of a scenario that would surprise me at this point."

In particular, sources said, there is concern that Duke, North Carolina and Virginia -- the last of which unsuccessfully tried to include Virginia Tech in the three-team annex that also includes Syracuse -- could vote against expansion, ending a 20-month process. Any candidate for membership needs affirmative votes from seven of the nine current ACC members in order to receive an invitation.

ACC Commissioner John Swofford, who last evening issued a statement reiterating that the ACC will continue to be proactive in expansion, and his staff will determine a final timetable.

If Swofford knows he has the votes for expansion, Tuesday's call likely will occur as scheduled. If the outcome of a vote is unclear, the call could be delayed. If it is clear more than two schools are against expansion, a vote will not take place Tuesday.

Duke President Nan Keohane and North Carolina Chancellor James Moeser previously have voiced their concerns regarding expansion, and their positions have not changed. Last Thursday, Moeser sent a letter to the eight other ACC presidents, expressing concerns about expansion's impact on student-athletes, projected financial figures and cultural issues of inviting three new members.

"My vote will ultimately rest on the resolution of these issues," Moeser wrote.

North Carolina's faculty council executive committee previously unanimously voted against expansion. A similar committee at Duke met late last week to discuss the matter.

"I think this is in a high state of flux," said Duke law professor Paul Haagen, vice chair of the school's academic council executive committee. "I think most people believe the immediate impact is very slight on these institutions. But the immediate impact on the Big East is very considerable, and I know people in our university and central administration are concerned about the collegiality of the action."
 

Perkins to announce resignation
By Mark Blaudschun, Globe Staff, 6/8/2003

As if there weren't enough turmoil surrounding the University of Connecticut athletic department, the Huskies will take another jolt today when athletic director Lew Perkins announces his resignation to take a similar position at the University of Kansas.

When contacted last night, Perkins declined comment. But according to sources within the UConn athletic department, Perkins will take over at Kansas July 1, in what has been termed a whirlwind courtship and a "can't afford to turn down" offer.

The timing of the move is particularly difficult for Perkins because UConn and four other members of the Big East are involved in a lawsuit against Boston College, Miami and the Atlantic Coast Conference about the defection of those two schools along with Syracuse.

"The timing looks bad," said one source at UConn. "But there are times you have to do what you have to do to ensure the security of your family. And I think that is what Lew is doing."

Perkins, 58, has been at UConn for 13 years and was an instrumental figure in the school's success in men's and women's basketball and the elevation of the football program from Division 1-AA to 1-A, which includes the opening of a 40,000-seat, $90-million stadium in East Hartford this summer.

Although Perkins grew up in New England -- he is a native of Chelsea -- his background includes a four-year stay at Wichita State.

The Kansas job became available when Al Bohl was fired this spring. With Perkins gone and the turmoil around the Big East building, UConn officials will have to act quickly. Former UConn associate AD Jeff Hathaway, who is now at Colorado State, and UConn associate AD Tom McElroy loom as early front-runners to succeed Perkins.
 

Possibilities seem endless for ACC, Big East
By Mark Blaudschun, Globe Staff, 6/8/2003

With the lawsuit filed Friday by five Big East schools against Miami, Boston College, and the Atlantic Coast Conference, the future for the Big East and ACC is on hold, but perhaps not for long.

The consensus, even among the five schools that sued -- Rutgers, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, Virginia Tech, and Connecticut -- is that it is unlikely they will be able to force BC, Miami, and Syracuse to remain in the Big East. And to that end, indications from officials in both conferences are that the ACC presidents will still vote Tuesday to offer invitations to the three schools.

From the Big East's standpoint, the most desirable is that the suit -- which claims that BC and Miami conspired to destroy the Big East, while being courted by the ACC -- will cause one or two of the ACC university presidents to change their minds about expansion. With seven of nine votes necessary for approval, and North Carolina and Duke expressing reservations about going from nine to 12 teams, it would only take one change of heart. If that doesn't happen, however, the ACC and Big East must move on.

Here are the most likely alignments for each conference:

For the ACC, divisions are the key, with Miami, which is the belle of the ball, having the most say. Miami football coach Larry Coker has said he would prefer not to play in the same division with Florida State.

In that case, the ACC could look like this:

Division A -- Miami, BC, Georgia Tech, Maryland, Duke, and North Carolina.

Division B -- Florida State, Clemson, North Carolina State, Syracuse, Virginia, and Wake Forest.

In football, this would set up the potential Florida State-Miami ACC title game in most years, but that also would be the second meeting of the season for those teams, because they have said they want to continue their regular-season rivalry.

In this setup, each team would play the other teams in its division, and a crossover game would be designated for rivalries, such as Syracuse-BC, Miami-Florida State, and probably North Carolina-N.C. State. There would be another crossover game with a rotating opponent each season, meaning each team's schedule would consist of seven conference and four nonconference games.

In basketball, the divisions could remain the same, which would preserve home-and-home matchups for such rival schools as Duke, North Carolina, and Maryland. That would mean 10 conference games. Each school would play the teams in the other division once, which would add six games. It is also possible to create two rivalry crossover games -- for example, Syracuse-BC, North Carolina-N.C. State -- which would mean those teams would also play home-and-home each year.

Another scenario would be to have one 12-team division in basketball and designate certain teams as natural rivals who would play each other twice a year.

Yet another possibility would be to have Florida State and Miami in the same football division, with the stipulation being that they would play no later than the third week in September, allowing the loser to recover and get a possible BCS at-large spot.

That alignment would have Florida State, Miami, BC, Syracuse, Georgia Tech, and Clemson in one division, with North Carolina, Duke, N.C. State, Maryland, Wake Forest, and Virginia in the other.

It would be popular among the ACC's old guard for a couple of reasons. It would give one of the core ACC teams a chance to play in the title game each year and it would preserve the tradition of the ACC in basketball, with Clemson, Florida State, and Georgia Tech having to fend for themselves in what looks like a much tougher division.

One reason to buy into that proposal is that Clemson, Georgia Tech, and Florida State were the ringleaders of expansion. Thus, the message would be: You wanted expansion, here it is, live with it.

In the Big East, the master plan is for an eight- or nine-team football league and an eight- or nine-team basketball league under one umbrella, with the ability to cross over during basketball season to preserve some rivalries.

The setup would look like this:

In football, UConn, Pittsburgh, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, and Rutgers are the core five. An additional three would probably be Central Florida, South Florida, and Louisville. Temple, Army, Navy, Cincinnati, Marshall, and Memphis have been mentioned but are regarded as long shots. Getting into Florida again is essential, which is why South Florida (Tampa) and Central Florida (Orlando) become players.

In basketball, Seton Hall, St. John's, Villanova, Georgetown, Providence, and Notre Dame form the core. Additional schools could come from a group of Marquette, Saint Louis, Xavier, Dayton, and DePaul in the Midwest, and Boston University, Holy Cross, and Massachusetts in the East.

The argument is whether to go to the Midwest or keep it regional. And there is also a sentiment to maintain Boston as Big East base of operations, which would give the conference a presence in Boston, Philadelphia, Washington, New York, and the Midwest.

The divisions would play separate schedules, but would also play crossover games to maintain rivalries such as St. John's-UConn.

The idea at the end of the season could be to hold the first round of a 16- or 18-team Big East tournament at campus sites and have the eight or nine survivors come to New York to battle it out.
 

SPURNED: Big East suit a sordid end to marriage
By Lenox Rawlings
JOURNAL COLUMNIST

Romeo took poison. Gatsby took a bullet while floating in his pool. Out at the Casablanca airport, Rick watched Ilsa's plane depart and took a stroll with his newest best friend, Capt. Louis Renault.

Romances end tragically, fatefully or nobly. Musician Paul Simon enumerated the exit routes in '50 Ways to Leave Your Lover.' On Friday, five Big East schools came up with No. 51, a lawsuit that reads more like a jilted lover's irrational lament than a legal document.

The suit, filed in Connecticut Superior Court, says that the ACC, Miami and Boston College conspired to shrink the Big East and intentionally blow the hybrid league to smithereens. Prospective jumper Syracuse gets a pass for never vowing eternal loyalty.

The suit contends that the dastardly campaign to lure Miami, BC and Syracuse into the ACC will cost the Big East hundreds of millions of dollars and end life on this planet as we know it. The suit does not promise to end Rutgers football.

Grandstanding plaintiffs Virginia Tech, Rutgers, West Virginia, Pitt and Connecticut asked for unspecified damages and a vague injunction that presumably would slow or stop the ACC marriage. When the two double-dealing scoundrels and Syracuse leave the Big East, the suit implies, that will leave five holdovers holding a leaking bag of TV dough and a bleak future.

Up until a few meals ago, Virginia Tech was still pushing political buttons and lobbying the ACC for admission over Syracuse or BC. Victimization must be a rapidly spreading disease. In court, however, it's nigh impossible for an aggressive applicant to mope around as a naive waif.

The Big East has expanded four times in 11 years. Virginia Tech became the 14th full member only two years ago. Of the five football schools filing suit, only UConn was an original Big East member in 1979, and UConn just recently upgraded to Division I football. But the suit dismisses all other expansions and membership fluctuations as fundamentally distinct from the present raid.

'This case does not involve any single school simply seeking a different direction or vision,' the suit says. 'Rather, this case involves a deliberate scheme initiated by defendants to destroy the Big East and abscond with the collective value of all that has been invested and created in the Big East.'

You can laugh now, or you can laugh later. ACC bosses, who characterize themselves as somewhat surprised and mightily disappointed, will not laugh out loud until a court kicks the desperate diatribe into the dustbin of sports history. That might take a while, given the influence of Connecticut's governor and attorney general on home turf with a possibly sympathetic judge and/or jury.

Immediate reactions suggest that the ACC will proceed on roughly the same timetable, possibly inviting the three new pledges to join the nine-team fraternity sometime next week.

If the process concludes before June 30, the Big East contract would let migrating schools pay $1 million each and leave after the 2003-04 school year. A later departure could cost the schools more money and block the move until after 2004-05. The ACC prefers delay from a business standpoint because it would facilitate scheduling changes and coincide with the expiration dates of existing TV contracts. With the suit escalating animosity, though, the three migrants most likely will push for a rapid transition to minimize lame-duck unpleasantness.

Miami, the grand-piano player in this orchestrated realignment, seems prepared to forge ahead. When the Big East commissioner tried to lay a public guilt trip on President Donna Shalala two weeks ago, Miami's resolve hardened. The suit rests significantly on the wobbly hypothesis that Shalala's loyalty pledges emboldened Big East schools to spend lavishly on football facilities, a claim that ventures far outside the conference's written contract. Expenditures included $37 million for improvements at Virginia Tech's stadium and $90 million, primarily in state funds, for constructing UConn's stadium.

'It is now clear,' the suit says, 'that the defecting school defendants' promises were not true and that they were simply readying themselves for the day that they could walk away with the value they were encouraging others to develop as 'partners' and sell it to the ACC.'

Miami's athletics director, lawyer Paul Dee, calmly brushed aside the notion that Miami and Boston College have implied fiduciary responsibilities as protectors of fellow Big East members. With a straight face, he sneered at the legal relevance of such a sweeping claim.

'We believe that everything we have done has been appropriate,' Dee said, 'and we think at the end of the day it will remain the university's election with respect to where it will be or where it won't be with regard to an athletic conference.'

In other words, old business partners are free to choose new partners so long as they fulfill their contracts. Within the context of universities' moral pretensions, the ACC's recruiting techniques may seem reprehensible or ethically questionable, but they don't appear illegal.

The Big East presumably prays for a windfall award from a bereaved jury of Connecticut taxpayers, but the chances of keeping the case in a state court and confining action to the first legal round are virtually nil.

A more plausible strategy: The Big East hopes that delay will allow skeptics within the ACC to mount a stronger campaign against expansion, especially faculty members protesting expanded travel and lost class time at the expense of commercial gains. If Virginia is serious about championing Virginia Tech, then Virginia can try to forge an alliance with original expansion opponents North Carolina and Duke. Three negative votes would unhinge the deal when the ACC passes judgment on the candidates.

That seems extremely unlikely. So does any plan that coaxes Miami, BC and Syracuse back into the Big East stew. The suit says: 'As troubling as the reasons underlying the defecting school defendants' course of conduct, which is based on their desire to make more money irrespective of the cost to their partners, is the subterranean manner in which the defecting school defendants have carried out their scheme.'

A lover who vents with such venom often wants a pound of flesh and a ton of money, not reconciliation.

A lover who pleads an essentially emotional case in the court of business law usually gets a blunt rejection notice anyway. The bitter medicine of acceptance, followed by the recruitment of Louisville and other replacement parts, would create future relationships and turn the page to another athletic romance.

Of course, poison still works faster.
 

Perkins Packing Up For University Of Kansas
12:34 AM EDT,June 9, 2003
By KEN DAVIS, The Hartford Courant

Less than three months before the major college football stadium he fought for is scheduled to open, Athletic Director Lew Perkins is leaving the University of Connecticut to become athletic director at the University of Kansas.
Perkins, who came to UConn in July 1990 after three years as athletic director at Maryland, is expected to be named as early as Tuesday in Lawrence, Kan.

Sources at Kansas said Perkins, 58, emerged as the leading candidate last week and negotiations continued throughout the weekend. Perkins will travel to Lawrence today and meet with Kansas Chancellor Robert Hemenway.

Perkins, who is expected to leave UConn by the end of June, declined comment when contacted at his home Sunday night. The Lawrence Journal-World reported May 29 that Kansas wanted a permanent athletic director in place by July 1.

"We're not confirming or denying anything," Hemenway told the Journal-World Sunday night. "We've had good discussions with Lew Perkins and I'll look forward to talking to him further. It's obvious that the process is moving forward quickly."

Perkins' departure would come at a difficult time for UConn. Perkins directed the upgrade of UConn football from Division I-AA to I-A and fought for construction of Rentschler Field, which opens Aug. 30 when the Huskies play Indiana. UConn is scheduled to become a member of the Big East football conference in 2005 but that move is in peril with the Atlantic Coast Conference close to finalizing an expansion plan with Big East members Miami, Boston College and Syracuse.

On Friday, Perkins joined with Gov. John G. Rowland, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and UConn President Philip E. Austin at the state Capitol. They announced an unprecedented lawsuit against Miami, BC and the ACC in an attempt to halt the expansion process. The ACC issued a release Sunday night saying it was proceeding with the expansion process despite the lawsuit and may vote on it Tuesday.

Kansas has been searching for an athletic director since April 9 when Al Bohl was fired after only 20 months on the job. A source said Perkins was contacted immediately after Bohl's firing and before the issue of ACC expansion became widely known. Despite that early contact, Perkins had never been mentioned as a candidate in newspapers or other media reports in Kansas.

Austin said Friday that Perkins first informed him of the expansion threat in mid-April, "a day or two" before Big East Commissioner Mike Tranghese was quoted publicly accusing the ACC of working behind closed doors to raid the conference.

A source said Perkins was informing many UConn coaches of his decision Sunday night. The news was characterized as an enormous shock to most members of the UConn athletic department. Most members of the athletic department expected Perkins to watch over the opening of the new stadium, see the Huskies into the Big East in 2005 and possibly retire four or five years from now after the football program was projected to finally become a moneymaker.

UConn had no announcement regarding Perkins Sunday and there were no details regarding a possible search process. Based on typical procedure, Austin will likely announce plans for a national search later this week.

If UConn chooses to stay inside its athletic department, Tom McElroy and Jim Marchiony could be candidates. McElroy, deputy director of athletics, is a former associate commissioner of the Big East and has been heavily involved in planning the opening of Rentschler Field. Marchiony, a former NCAA staff member, is associate director of athletics for external relations.

Another possible candidate may be Jeff Hathaway, Perkins' former right-hand man at UConn. Hathaway left UConn to become athletic director at Colorado State, where he has enjoyed tremendous success in fund-raising and with his teams' performance. Hathaway had been mentioned as a possible candidate at Kansas.

Perkins is under contract at UConn through July 30, 2005. He has a buyout clause that requires him to pay the university $200,000 if he accepts another college or professional job, unless he first obtains a release from Austin. A source said that release was unlikely, even though Perkins had kept Austin informed of his discussions with Kansas.

Efforts to reach Austin by telephone Sunday night were unsuccessful.

For the 2002-03 school year, Perkins received a base salary of $273,870. UConn also paid him $105,108 for the purchase of a qualified annuity or savings product. In addition to those payments, his contract provided him with 28 tickets to games in every UConn sport, home and away, in conference tournaments and postseason play.

Details of Perkins' financial package at Kansas were not available. Bohl was earning $255,000 a year to oversee the $27 million Kansas athletic department budget. Bohl's firing made national headlines because of his public dispute with Kansas basketball coach Roy Williams. Williams later left Kansas for North Carolina.

 

Five desperate schools wage War of the Roses (and Oranges)

By Greg Stoda, Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
Saturday, June 7, 2003
 

Even as nasty divorces go, this one's getting uglier by the day.

It's becoming increasingly difficult to figure out how much the Big East Conference loves the University of Miami and wants the Hurricanes to remain in the marriage, or how much five of its about-to-be-jilted member insitutions hate the Hurricanes and want to make them pay for giving up on the union.

This is bigger than The War of the Roses, a hysterically funny movie -- if you could work around the emotional wickedness -- about a husband and wife digging in against each other on what became a fight to their deaths.

This is more along the lines of The War of the Roses, Oranges, Sugars and Fiestas.

Because what Connecticut, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Virginia Tech and West Virginia are afraid will happen to them as Big East left-behinds is that their family will be financially ruined (see: lost opportunity for Bowl Championship Series football revenues) by the departures of Miami, Boston College and Syracuse for the Atlantic Coast Conference.

That's why those five insitutions filed a lawsuit Friday against Miami, Boston College and the ACC charging a "deliberate scheme to destroy the Big East and abscond with the collective value of all that has been invested and created in the Big East."

The schools contend they spent money on facilities based on the Big East remaining a viable entity on the college football landscape, which they contend the conference would not without Miami, Boston College and Syracuse.

They're right about that last part.

Basically, the Flabbergasted Five are saying Miami and Boston College broke a promise -- think of it as a wedding vow -- to honor their relationship with the conference. (There was no discovery Syracuse ever made such a promise, so the school wasn't named in the lawsuit.)

Moreover, they're saying the ACC is the meddling third party -- think of it as the other woman, or man -- and is at fault for trying to break up the marriage.

It's worth noting here that the Big East isn't suing. Five of its members are. The conference, in fact, recently offered Miami a bigger slice of its financial pie as an incentive to stay.

"We are aware of the complaint," a spokesman in Big East Commissioner Mike Tranghese's office said Friday. "We're not a party to it nor did we participate in the complaint."

Don't be mistaken about one thing: UM, as the most important element to the Big East's survival, is the primary target of the lawsuit. The Hurricanes are the conference ringleaders -- and ringleaders, too, in the consideration of the switch to the ACC. Boston College and Syracuse are followers. It's no coincidence UM President Donna Shalala's quote about having "no interest in leaving for any other conference" is a focus of the legal action.

But this is an act by five schools so desperate in their need for Miami to be a part of their lives they're willing to be embarrassed in their pursuit of the Hurricanes.

The Big East offers what amounts to a bribe if Miami will stay in the conference, but five of its teams sue for financial damages in seeking an injunction to keep the Hurricanes from leading an exodus to the ACC? How ridiculously contradictory is that?

The governor's office in Connecticut even got involved. Perhaps that's because the lawsuit was filed in Hartford Superior Court and because UConn, having recently completed a $90 million stadium, was set to become a football-playing member of the Big East in 2005.

But talk about hyperbole.

"This lawsuit reveals a back-room conspiracy born in secret, founded on greed and carried out through calculated fraud and deceit," Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said at a news conference.

The lawsuit charges fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and other illegalities.

But the suing institutions appear to be significant underdogs in this action, which isn't much different from conference life with Miami as a football opponent through the years.

"All of the allegations regarding what was said before, before, before, don't matter," said Alan K. Fertel, chair of the entertainment and sports law division of Ferrell, Schultz, Carter, Zumpano and Fertel in Miami. "They would have to prove the statements were false at the time they were made and that those statements were intended to induce the other institutions to rely upon them."

Almost impossible.

Futhermore, a Big East bylaw stipulates any institution can leave the conference by giving a year's notice by June 30 and paying a withdrawal fee reported to be $1 million.

But it's said there is a thin line between love and hate.

And this nasty divorce is proving as much.