Lawsuit by 5 from Big East is shameful
TOM SORENSEN

Weak lawsuits are for the weak.

A woman spills coffee on herself so she sues the fast-food restaurant for making the coffee too hot.

A woman decides she'd rather be with a man other than her husband so the husband sues the new guy for alienation of affection.

Schools decide they want to play in an athletic conference other than the one they're in so the league sues them and the new conference.

Five Big East schools are suing Miami, Boston College and the ACC for something akin to alienation of affection. If I were a fast-food restaurant, I would make sure any coffee I sell to the five is as weak and as lukewarm as they are.

Can you imagine the ACC suing North Carolina if it wanted to leave? The ACC is too strong. Schools don't leave the ACC, they hope to join it.

The five Big East football-playing schools -- Connecticut, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Virginia Tech and West Virginia -- filed their suit in Hartford, Conn. Smart move. Taxpayers in Connecticut helped build a $90 million football stadium for the state university. As lame as the lawsuit is, it has a better chance if it stays in the Connecticut courts, which under the circumstances confer a Cameron Indoor Arena-like advantage.

What the Big East Five and the Big East fail to understand is that if somebody doesn't want to be with you, they don't have to be with you. Spouses leave. Employees leave. Schools leave, too.

If an athletics director at Connecticut gets an offer to become athletics director at -- let's randomly pick an ACC school and call it North Carolina -- will the university sue him, too?

How desperate these schools must be. Where's their pride?

Pittsburgh, you've won a national championship in football. Connecticut, you've won a championship in men's basketball and in women's basketball you collect them.

Rutgers, you're the school from which James Gandolfini, aka Tony Soprano, graduated. Hey, Tony, you offer your name and your time to raise money and attention for your alma mater. You really want to be linked with a school this soft? Maybe send Christopher over there to change some minds.

Virginia Tech, are you insane? Your president visits the ACC in May. You want to join this conference the way a 16-year-old girl wants to join the A group in school. But because you don't bring a TV market such as South Florida or Boston, you're excluded, which is a loss for the ACC as well as yourselves.

So in a pique of anger you sue the conference you courted and the schools that were chosen? You ought to be embarrassed.

West Virginia, I figured you were saving your suit for the Virginia band.

Institutions of higher learning attempt to instill certain qualities in their students, among them character, independence and strength. To these qualities, the five plaintiffs should add one more: If you don't get what you want when you want it, go to court.

The woman who sued because her hot coffee was hot, you think she went to Rutgers or Virginia Tech?


 

AD: UVa could not have blocked expansion
Craig Littlepage says he believes the ACC's expansion vote May13 would have passed even if Virginia had voted against it.
By MARK BERMAN
THE ROANOKE TIMES

Some Virginia Tech fans see Virginia as a villain in the ACC expansion drama. UVa athletic director Craig Littlepage disagrees.
ACC presidents could vote in a conference call today to formally invite Big East members Miami, Syracuse and Boston College to come aboard. That was set in motion when the presidents voted on May13 to expand from nine members to 12.

Virginia president John Casteen cast one of the seven pro-expansion votes that day, with seven the minimum needed for the measure to pass.

"I don't think the University of Virginia's position by itself was going to impact whether expansion went through or not," Littlepage said.

Some Tech fans are mad that UVa didn't block the ACC's expansion dream by voting no on May13, or feel UVa should have tied its yes vote to a guarantee that Virginia Tech would be one of the newcomers. UVa requested that day that Tech be brought aboard but did not insist upon it as a quid pro quo requirement for its yes vote.

UVa could not have blocked expansion, said Littlepage.

"The sentiment among the conference was that expansion was good for the ACC in terms of preserving and enhancing the future. The expansion vote was going to be a positive vote," Littlepage said. "Regardless of who voted what way, I think at the end of the voting, out of the nine votes there were going to be seven in favor of it.

"The way that the ACC has always operated is that at the end of all the debate and everything, what is best for the conference is what happens. If we had voted differently, somebody else in my opinion probably would have voted in such a way that expansion was approved. A change in our vote I don't think necessarily was going to mean the expansion was not going to happen. Somebody would have changed their vote. That's the way the conference has operated so many times in the past."

On May16, Casteen cast the only no vote when ACC presidents voted to hold formal talks with Miami, Syracuse and BC. Duke and North Carolina, which had cast no votes three days earlier, were among the eight schools voting for the trio. A UVa proposal to make Tech one of the expansion targets reportedly received five favorable votes, two short of the minimum needed.

"Our position institutionally was very clear. We did put Virginia Tech on the table," Littlepage said. "The preferred combination of schools were the three the ACC ended up extending the invitations to. There were reviews of other combinations of schools. But the three that have been invited, according to the research that apparently was done, seemed to indicate those were the three strongest as a combination."

Tech wanted to be one of the schools being brought aboard with Miami. Virginia Tech athletic director Jim Weaver saw the Hokies being located in the ACC's backyard as a plus because the ACC's travel costs would be low, but Tech's location was actually a negative. The ACC wanted to branch out to a new part of the country.

"Penetrating the Northeast was a priority," Littlepage said. Adding BC and Syracuse "was going to provide us with a different geographic footprint and a different market to penetrate."

TV markets were also a factor, said Littlepage. BC has the large Boston TV market, and Syracuse provides another new TV market in the Northeast - albeit a much smaller one than Boston. Adding another TV market in Virginia wasn't enticing to the ACC.

"A person in the TV industry would suggest the market isn't grown as a result [of adding Tech], when compared to bringing in teams that expand the footprint of the league, where you're actually broadening the footprint and the exposure and the ability to penetrate the market," Littlepage said.

In publicly lobbying for the ACC to take Tech along with Miami, Weaver said he hoped the ACC would take note not only of the Hokies' successful football program but also of Tech being located "right in the middle of ACC country."

"I would think in this day and age of tremendous travel costs that it would be more economical to have, for all your sports and especially the Olympic sports, somebody that's in the middle of your geographic territory where most of the schools can drive," Weaver said in April.

Littlepage said the ACC has been discussing expansion since 1997. The ACC formed a strategic planning group, comprised of athletic directors and faculty athletic representatives, to study expansion in the fall of 2001.

Tech and four other Big East football schools sued the ACC, Miami and BC last week in an effort to stop the defections. The lawsuit contends Miami and BC were involved in "secret negotiations" with the ACC. The suit states that one or more of the defendants approached and persuaded Syracuse to be the third expansion candidate.

Miami was reportedly adamant that Syracuse and BC be the other expansion targets because it has a lot of alumni in the Northeast and draws a lot of its students from the Northeast.

"The University of Miami's like 'New York South,'" former Virginia Tech and Miami basketball coach Bill Foster said.

 

Singletary selects Virginia
.By TED SILARY
silaryt@phillynews.com

Basketball and football aren't the only games Sean Singletary can play with aplomb. He's also pretty darn talented at possum.

After hinting all spring during a white-hot recruiting process that he would wait until the fall to make a college decision, Singletary, a 5-11, 175-pound senior-to-be at Penn Charter School, has put up both hands in stop-this fashion.

The winner? Virginia.

The talented and savvy point guard, a first-team Daily News All-City selection, will play basketball for sure. Football, in which he's a wideout/defensive back/return man, is a possibility. He was a second-teamer in that sport.

Hoop Scoop, a recruiting service, ranks Singletary as the No. 1 rising senior in the Delaware Valley. At Virginia, he will join 6-9 John Bartram forward Jason Cain, who will be a freshman this fall.

Singletary is the second PC senior-to-be to commit. Forward Rob Kurz is in Notre Dame's fold.

"Basketball's my first love,'' Singletary said. "But if there's an opportunity to do both sports, I might look into it. I've talked about that with my parents [Jacqueline, Harold]. They said to try, if I think I want to.''

Singletary was offered hoops scholarships by 15 schools: Virginia, Kansas, Indiana, Connecticut, Villanova, St. Joseph's, Drexel, Vanderbilt, Rutgers, UCLA, Kentucky, Clemson, Iowa State, Pittsburgh and Syracuse.

Singletary, who last winter averaged 18.6 points, 5.9 assists and 3.1 steals for the Inter-Ac champions, said he developed a strong bond with Virginia assistant Walt Fuller, a former star at Monsignor Bonner and Drexel and later a Drexel aide.

"He was the guy who recruited me the most, going back to the first time contact could be made,'' he said. "He believed in my ability to help a big program long before my name popped up on the various lists and some of the 'national' schools started calling. I trusted him. Had a good relationship with him.

"I'm a quiet person. Spending so much time on the phone was wearing on me. I was at the point where I was starting to build relationships with the coaches from Kansas, Indiana, Connecticut...It didn't seem fair since I knew that my first choice was Virginia. I kept things pretty secret. The only people who knew I was going to decide early were my [coaches] and parents.

"Virginia never pressured me, but there was a rumor going around that a point guard from Virginia was being heavily recruited by Virginia and that the scholarship was going to go to him or me. I figured, 'Let's get this done. Why take a chance on maybe losing out?' Virginia's a great school and in the [Atlantic Coast Conference] and I decided I wanted to be there.

"I didn't really want to go to a big-time power. I wanted to help a pretty good school take that next step. Maybe I can help Virginia get back to those Ralph Sampson days.''

Singletary, an East Mount Airy resident, is currently on the injured list. He dinged his right shoulder (shooting arm) in a football game last fall and hurt it again 3 weeks ago during an AAU tournament held at Virginia. He will be inactive until June 17-22, when a camp for Top 100 players, sponsored by the NBA Players Association, takes place at Virginia Commonwealth.

"The first time I hurt it, I only did a week of physical therapy,'' he said. "I'm doing it right this time.''

Though he might do so in college, Singletary is unsure whether he'll play football next fall at PC.

"After the summer, if it looks like I have a chance to make All-American in basketball, I'll probably just concentrate on that,'' he said. "The fall tournaments are very important .''
 

U.Va. vote key?
Without it, ACC might not expand
BY JEFF WHITE
TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER Jun 10, 2003

Atlantic Coast Conference athletic directors met on a teleconference yesterday to try to cement plans for expanding the league to 12 schools.

At some point this week, perhaps as early as today, the presidents of the ACC's nine schools are expected to vote on whether to extend invitations to the University of Miami, Boston College and Syracuse.

If Virginia's John Casteen votes to add those three Big East schools, ACC expansion almost certainly will be approved.

To be offered admission, a school must have the backing of at least seven ACC members. Six are solidly pro-growth: Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Wake Forest, N.C. State and Maryland. Of the other three schools, Duke and North Carolina appear the most likely to vote no.

In a two-page memo sent Friday to her counterparts around the ACC, Duke President Nan Keohane said she had serious concerns about expansion and that unless "this situation changes dramatically within the next few weeks, I cannot support expansion."

UNC officials, including Chancellor James Moeser, also have expressed strong reservations. Moeser sent a letter to the ACC's other presidents and chancellors Thursday in which he raised several concerns about expansion.

U.Va.'s Casteen promised May16 to "keep advocating for Virginia Tech at each opportunity." His statement came after the ACC voted to begin formal discussions with Miami, BC and Syracuse. Casteen said he had voted against "moving to discussion with a list of universities that did not include Virginia Tech."

Tech has since joined four other Big East schools in a lawsuit against the ACC, Miami and Boston College. Moreover, a Tech spokesman was quoted in yesterday's editions of The Roanoke Times as saying of the ACC, "If we were asked to join today, we wouldn't go."

Nevertheless, Casteen may be feeling political pressure to vote against expansion. By doing so, assuming Duke and UNC voted likewise, U.Va. could block expansion and help Virginia Tech by ensuring that the Big East remained intact, at least for the near future.

Attempts to reach Casteen and U.Va. Athletic Director Craig Littlepage for comment yesterday were unsuccessful.

When ACC presidents voted May13 on whether to add three schools, the outcome was 7-2 in favor of expansion, with UNC and Duke voting against. U.Va., while voting for expansion, asked that Virginia Tech be among the three schools offered membership. Despite Casteen's support, however, the Hokies didn't receive the necessary votes three days later, and the ACC turned to Miami, BC and Syracuse.

Both UNC and Duke voted in favor of beginning formal discussions with those schools. Keohane said she did so for two reasons.

"First, since the vote to expand had been taken, Duke wanted to be able to participate constructively in discussions about how an expanded conference might be refigured," Keohane wrote in her memo.

The "second reason," Keohane said, "was that given the rather unusual political pressures our group faced at that particular point, I was unwilling to be instrumental in ending all expansion conversations because of factors not internal to the ACC."

She was referring, presumably, to the political climate in this state, where Gov. Mark R. Warner had told U.Va. officials he wanted them to block ACC expansion unless Virginia Tech were invited to join.

Keohane said she is "now concerned that the kinds of substantive discussions we anticipated before a final vote would be taken have not materialized, and show no prospect of doing so."

The five Big East schools that filed suit Friday hope to stop the ACC's expansion plans. The ACC issued a news release Sunday night in which Commissioner John Swofford fired back at the plaintiffs.

The ACC's legal counsel is Smith Moore LLP of Greensboro, N.C., where the conference is based. Erik Albright, a lawyer for Smith Moore, yesterday told the Winston-Salem Journal, "We believe that this lawsuit has no merit."

 

Will legal hurdle trip ACC plans?
BOB LIPPER
TIMES-DISPATCH COLUMNIST Jun 10, 2003
Contact Bob Lipper at (804) 649-6555 or e-mail blipper@timesdispatch.com

This is where we're headed now - the part about who gets the china and the flatware and the Matisse print in the living room. Five jilted Big East lovers, Virginia Tech among them, have reached the conclusion that it's a have-your-lawyer-call-my-lawyer moment. Oh, and just in case anybody cares, the first kickoff is 81 days away.

The lawsuit in question was filed last Friday in a Connecticut court the Big East Five hope is the Cameron Indoor Stadium of jurisprudence. Everything I know about the law I learned from watching Matlock and Judge Judy, but at first blush it strikes me that reputations and millions of dollars could be at stake here.

Ditto the length of John Swofford's and Charles Steger's noses.

This lawsuit ostensibly was hatched to prevent Miami and Boston College (and unindicted co-evacuator Syracuse) from bolting to the ACC. What it really seeks are pounds of flesh, payable in tall stacks of bullion. That or a cloud cover that might induce reluctant corporate raiders in the ACC to kill expansion by voting no when the three nominees come up for their final hearing.

"Whenever there's litigation, there's always embarrassment, there's always disruption, there's always expense," Gary Roberts, a Tulane professor and co-author of the leading case book on sports law, told the Hartford Courant. "Even though the ACC thinks they're going to win at the end, they may just say, 'To hell with it, we're happy the way we are.' If one school changes its mind because of this lawsuit, it may deter the ACC from going forward."

The one mind could belong to Virginia President John Casteen. His North Carolina counterpart, James Moeser, voted against expansion last month and indicated last Thursday in a letter to league CEOs that he's prepared to do so again. Duke's Nan Keohane cast the other negative May 13 ballot - it takes three to block a piece of legislation - and followed Moeser's lead with a Friday for-eyes-only memo that voiced her lingering opposition to expansion.

So it's no stretch to suppose Moeser and Keohane will just say no when Miami, BC and Syracuse come up for a vote. That could leave it to Casteen to throw this baby out with the bathwater - and he should. Not just to protect Virginia Tech. But because it's the right thing - the right thing for college sports in general and the right thing for U.Va.'s interests.

Or do you believe the Cavs should potentially sacrifice traditional bonds with, say, UNC in order to ship their tennis team to Onandoga County, N.Y.?

ACC expansion stinks. It stinks because it's built on the phony argument that only 12-member conferences matter (tell it to the Pac-10). It stinks because other schools - Tech being only one among them - will be damaged. It stinks because it perpetuates the arms-race madness of campusball.

That said, "it stinks" likely doesn't hold up in court - not even with a 35-page lawsuit that accuses the defendants of concocting a "deliberate scheme" to "destroy the Big East." And did I mention that one of the plaintiffs - Virginia Tech - publicly lobbied for inclusion in the ACC mix? Talk about a naked reverse.

Steger, Tech's president, even ventured to Greensboro on May 6 to chat up ACC commish Swofford. Swofford says Steger came to press Tech's case for ACC admission. Steger says he merely wanted to get general information on ACC expansion plans. Swofford all but accuses Steger of lying.

So it goes for the Big East Five and their venture into divorce court. First comes love, then comes marriage. Then come depositions and words to disparage.

 

Keohane: I won’t approve current expansion plan
By NEIL AMATO : The Herald-Sun
namato@heraldsun.com
Jun 10, 2003 : 12:55 am ET

Duke president Nan Keohane says her school has "real concerns" about proposed ACC expansion, questioning the motivation to add three schools and wondering about the potential divisional alignments of a 12-team conference.

In an e-mail message she sent to the ACC’s eight other presidents and chancellors, Keohane vowed to vote against expansion "unless this situation changes dramatically within the next few weeks."

Keohane and UNC chancellor James Moeser originally voted against expansion a month ago, citing concerns related to travel, missed class time, uncertainty over financial projections and the loss of traditional rivalries.

Keohane, who is resigning as Duke’s president in June 2004, wrote that she did not want the same divisions for all sports in an expanded ACC, a guideline given to the presidents by the league office, according to the e-mail. While noting that athletics directors and faculty athletics representatives had tinkered with divisions, Keohane wanted more time to work out the issue.

"As presidents and chancellors, we have spent virtually no time discussing specific ideas for [divisions]," she wrote.

The e-mail is the first sign that a lawsuit filed Friday by five Big East schools was having an effect on a voter who will decide whether to add BC, Miami and Syracuse, although Keohane already was against expansion.

"We are being charged with acting in bad faith by colleagues at other Big East universities," Keohane wrote. "In order to feel even minimally comfortable with voting for an action that will have serious consequences for these peer institutions, I would have to be considerably more positive than I am now that the decision is actually the best one for our student athletes and for our conference."

The suit alleges a plot by BC, Miami and the ACC to destroy the Big East. It was filed in state Superior Court in Hartford, Conn. Syracuse is not a defendant in the suit. The plaintiffs are the five football-playing schools that would be left in the Big East if ACC expansion goes through. They are Connecticut, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Virginia Tech and West Virginia.

Keohane’s comments, a similar letter sent Friday to ACC leaders by UNC chancellor Moeser and the legal frenzy might not be enough to stop expansion in the ACC, which needs seven votes to become official. ACC commissioner John Swofford said in a statement Sunday night that the conference was pressing on with expansion.

The ACC’s presidents are scheduled to be part of a conference call today, two sources confirmed. The call is scheduled for 4 p.m., one source said. It is possible, although not likely, that the call could include the formal vote to invite BC, Miami and Syracuse.

The events of the past few days could have changed the timetable for a vote or changed the minds of the nine leaders.

Keohane, however, has not wavered in being against expansion, even though she voted to begin conversations with the candidates so that Duke could "participate constructively in discussions about how an expanded conference might be configured."

Based on the first vote of 7-2, just one "yes" vote would have to be changed for expansion not to occur. One expert in sports legal issues, a law professor at Duke, said the lawsuit could have its desired effect without ever being heard.

"One of the things it might do is raise people’s consciousness [about] the harm they may be causing to other institutions, even if it’s not a legal harm," said Paul Haagen, co-director of the Center for Sports Law and Policy. "If there’s a fence-sitter president, they’re becoming aware there might be some damage to other schools, and it might slow these people down."

Keohane wrote she was skeptical of some of the positives given by expansion proponents, and her desire for more discussion in the next few weeks might indicate that a vote is further off than expected. Either way, Keohane doesn’t like the way expansion is proceeding.

"The ‘pros’ include a number of things that appear problematical to us at Duke — including the financial consequences of expansion," she wrote, "and the much-vaunted threat that the rest of the world is shifting, so we have to shift in response. In the course of our deliberations, I have been given no evidence to assure me that these are truly ‘pros,’ and have seen some reasons for concern."

Keohane also has concerns about the divisional alignment, specifically how it could affect Duke’s rivalry with UNC. Various published reports have placed Duke and UNC in the same division or in an opposite one with the two schools continuing to meet every year in football and twice every season in basketball.

Swofford said at last week’s ACC campus visit to Syracuse that progress had been made in breaking down divisions. He also stressed that the final call on how 12 teams would be split — two divisions in football enables the winners to meet in a lucrative league title game — would be up to 12 presidents, if the league grew, not the current nine.

"I think everybody understands that if you do this, you do it with the big picture in mind," Swofford said. "It may not be exactly what Maryland would want. It might not be exactly what N.C. State would want. It might not be exactly what Syracuse would want. But in the whole scheme of things and in the big picture and in the long run, it makes sense and the benefits of it far outweigh some of the individual concerns that any particular institution might have."


 

Vote on expansion may not come today

6-10-03

By TIM PEELER AND ROB DANIELS, Staff Writers
News & Record

The chief executive officers of the ACC's nine schools seem to have a lot to talk about when they gather by teleconference this afternoon to discuss the final phases of expansion.

Enough, perhaps, to delay a vote on whether to extend formal invitations to Boston College, Miami and Syracuse today, as has been widely suggested for the last week.

Two athletics directors in the league said they thought a vote today would be unlikely, and another wasn't sure.

"The presidents can do whatever they want," said one AD.

But several speed bumps have slowed the most ambitious annexing project in the league's 50-year history, including a lawsuit filed on Friday in Connecticut against the ACC, Boston College and Miami, and some strongly worded reservations by Duke President Nan Keohane, who sent a staunchly anti-expansion e-mail to the league's other eight presidents on Friday.

That e-mail, which did not go to ACC Commissioner John Swofford, was forwarded to the Associated Press on Monday.

"I voted in favor of entering formal conversations for collegial reasons," Keohane said in the e-mail. "I believe that was the right decision at the time. However, I am now concerned that the kinds of substantive discussions we anticipated before a final vote would be taken have not materialized, and show no prospect of doing so."

The league would not comment on Keohane's e-mail. An ACC spokesman said Swofford did not see the text of the message before he left the offices at Grandover shortly before 7 p.m.

Both Duke and North Carolina voted against pursuing formal discussions with the three schools on May 13, but seven other CEOs voted in favor of it, allowing the process to begin. The league began formal conversations on May 16, and visited all three campuses, as is required by ACC by-laws.

But Keohane apparently wants to know more before Duke, a charter member of the league, will support adding the three schools. Specifically, she wants the league to address her questions about student welfare, divisional alignment and the lawsuit that was filed. North Carolina president James Moeser has expressed similar concerns.

"We are being charged with acting in bad faith by colleagues at other Big East universities," Keohane wrote. "In order to feel even minimally comfortable with voting for an action that will have serious consequences for these peer institutions, I would have to be considerably more positive than I am now that the decision is actually the best one for our student athletes and for our conference."

Swofford said in a statement released Sunday evening that the league was sure the lawsuit had no merit. However, the five Big East schools that sued the ACC, Miami and Boston College have requested that the discovery phase of the suit be accelerated so the suit can proceed quickly.

"We believe that the lawsuit has no merit," said Erik Albright, the ACC's attorney. "We intend to litigate in the court, rather than in the media. We refer you to the comments released (Sunday) by -- Swofford.

"We don't plan to comment further at this time."

Duke, UNC might vote against ACC expansion
DAVID DROSCHAK
Associated Press

RALEIGH - Atlantic Coast Conference expansion is shaping up to be a lot tougher to pull off than expected.

The leadership at Duke and North Carolina now have serious concerns about adding Miami, Syracuse and Boston College and might vote against the plan. The ACC needs the approval of at least seven schools in the nine-team league.

The potential glitch comes three days after five Big East schools sued the ACC, Miami and Boston College to try to stop the teams from defecting.

Duke president Nan Keohane, in an e-mail to her colleagues obtained by The Associated Press on Monday, said the Blue Devils were prepared to vote against expansion unless additional issues about student welfare, travel costs and divisional alignment were addressed by the league.

"I voted in favor of entering formal conversations for collegial reasons," Keohane wrote in the e-mail, sent Friday. "I believe that was the right decision at the time. However, I am now concerned that the kinds of substantive discussions we anticipated before a final vote would be taken have not materialized, and show no prospect of doing so."

North Carolina president James Moeser sent a letter to the ACC presidents Thursday, expressing similar concerns. Moeser did not return a call Monday seeking additional comment.

ACC presidents were to hold a conference call Tuesday, but it was unclear if they would vote.

No other presidents at ACC schools have publicly expressed concerns. Clemson's James Barker, head of the ACC presidents, refused to comment when asked if a vote would be taken soon.

Duke and North Carolina were at first outspoken opponents of expansion, but agreed on May 16 to enter into talks with Miami, Syracuse and Boston College. That vote was unanimous.

Now, Keohane believes the expansion plans may be moving too quickly after site visits to the three Big East schools ended last week.

"To use the lingo familiar in our region, Duke is not willing to buy a pig in a poke," Keohane wrote.

Keohane is also worried about the lawsuit filed Friday to try to derail the ACC expansion, which would create a 12-team superconference and virtually destroy the Big East as a football league.

"We are being charged with acting in bad faith by colleagues at other Big East universities," the Duke president wrote. "In order to feel even minimally comfortable with voting for an action that will have serious consequences for these peer institutions, I would have to be considerably more positive than I am now that the decision is actually the best one for our student athletes and for our conference."

ACC commissioner John Swofford has used a football title game and increased revenues from a new football TV deal after 2005 as selling points for expansion.

The ACC did not immediately return phone calls seeking comment on the Keohane e-mail.

The three Big East schools face a $1 million exit fee from the Big East. That figure doubles if they leave after June 30.

In another development, attorneys representing Big East schools suing the ACC, Miami and Boston College filed a request Monday to speed up the discovery process in the lawsuit.

A source familiar with the lawsuit who spoke on condition of anonymity told the AP the request stemmed from the discovery that the ACC, Miami and BC were discussing expansion as early as January 2002.

The lawsuit contends Big East schools invested heavily in their football programs in part because Miami president Donna Shalala made commitments to the conference. The source said information gathered over the weekend bolstered the lawsuit's argument that Shalala was making such statements - most notably, one on March 6, 2002 - during the same time Miami officials were holding secret talks with the ACC.

In a news release, plaintiff attorney Jeffrey Mishkin said his firm has "also reminded the attorneys for Miami, BC and the ACC of theirs clients' legal obligation to safeguard and preserve all evidence that may be relevant to the case."
 

Undaunted ACC set to roll out red carpet
League should issue invitations today to SU, BC and Miami despite lawsuit.
June 10, 2003
By Donnie Webb
Staff writer

Syracuse University may officially join the ranks today of the Atlantic Coast Conference, even while a lawsuit filed by angry Big East schools hangs over the process.

The nine college presidents of the ACC are conducting a conference call this afternoon and most expect the group will issue formal invitations to Syracuse, Miami and Boston College.

The three Big East schools have been in heavy membership talks with the ACC for the last month. Three separate teams of ACC officials conducted visits to each of the Big East campuses within the last two weeks.

The ACC presidents are expected to discuss those site visits, then move to vote on issuing formal invitations to Syracuse, Miami and Boston College.

Syracuse Chancellor Kenneth "Buzz" Shaw, Miami president Donna Shalala and Boston College president William Leahy are scheduled to join the conference call after the initial discussion of the site visits by the ACC presidents.

Shaw is traveling out of state visiting family in Illinois, said school spokesman Kevin Morrow, but will participate in this afternoon's conference call.

"There's really nothing to say at this time," Morrow said. "We're awaiting the conversation among the presidents, and we'll see what happens next."

Athletic directors or associates of the five Big East football schools being left behind met Monday at the league office in Providence, R.I. They met with Big East commissioner Mike Tranghese and discussed the suit filed Friday by Connecticut, Virginia Tech, Rutgers, West Virginia and Pittsburgh that seeks an injunction against ACC expansion and monetary damages. They also, according to a league source, worked on a contingency plan with the assumption that ACC expansion will happen.

ACC commissioner John Swofford said Sunday that the league's expansion initiative was moving forward, despite the suit.

The specter of the suit has generated speculation some ACC presidents could get cold feet about moving forward with

inviting Syracuse, Miami and Boston College. Duke and North Carolina voted initially against expansion. Virginia has fought to include Virginia Tech instead of Syracuse.

The ACC needs seven of nine presidents to approve the invitations. If the presidents vote to issue the invitations, the three prospective schools will be voted on one at a time.

Should the ACC formally invite Syracuse, is the school ready to accept?

"No comment," Morrow said.

The Big East took two public-relations blows on Sunday that appear to be signs of surrender.

Connecticut athletic director Lew Perkins announced that he's leaving the school to accept the athletic director's job at Kansas. His departure leaves the impression of jumping ship at the worst possible time. Associate athletic director Tom McElroy represented UConn at the Big East meeting on Monday.

Swofford said three Virginia Tech officials initiated a visit to the ACC office last month to seek membership. The visit came 10 days before the league formally entered into membership talks with Miami, Boston College and Syracuse. Virginia Tech is one of the Big East plaintiffs in the suit. Virginia Tech president Charles Steger said the meeting was to gather information and not ask for admission.

"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. "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."

Morrow said that Syracuse has no insight into whether ACC presidents are ready to expand or postpone. He said Syracuse athletic director Jake Crouthamel spoke Monday with an ACC representative who participated in the site visit. He said Crouthamel did not know about the Big East meeting on Monday in Providence.

"Conference expansion and institutional realignment is not a new concept and is not a creation of the ACC," Swofford said. "The last decade has seen unprecedented movement between conferences with some of the most notable examples being the creation 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."