sabres.gif (4521 bytes)

Still no vote on ACC expansion
By Jerry Ratcliffe  / Daily Progress sports editor
June 12, 2003
 

Presidents from the nine ACC schools conducted a conference call for the second consecutive day on Wednesday with league commissioner John Swofford but no vote was taken on proposed expansion.
“The discussions tonight by the Council of Presidents moved the process along and were constructive,” said Swofford of the call that lasted a little more than two hours. “Just as before, it will be up to the Council to decide the direction and timing of the process.”
Swofford went on to say that just because no vote has been taken that observers should not conclude that the process has slowed down or is falling apart, but rather “about where we expected things to be.”
Unlike Tuesday’s conference call, there were no representatives from the three prospective Big East schools — Miami, Boston College or Syracuse — included in the conversation. Presidents from those three institutions participated in a portion of the first call.
Swofford said that there will not be another conference call between the ACC presidents until early next week.
Asked if he expected an official vote to be forthcoming in the next call, the ACC commissioner said: “I wouldn’t be surprised if they wanted to vote or didn’t want to vote.”
Swofford said Wednesday’s call was a continued discussion of a number of details that are important to the presidents but he declined to disclose any of the issues.
“The presidents are being very thorough in the detail aspects of it in terms of what they want to know before they reach a comfort level of finalizing where we will end up,” Swofford said. “There’s some things they want to think about that we talked through today in regard to some of those details.”
Apparently one of the major sticking points is Virginia president John T. Casteen III’s opposition to expansion unless Virginia Tech is included in the mix.
“There is no apparent change in UVa’s position on ACC expansion,” said an ACC source who spoke on conditions of anonymity.
When the ACC presidents first voted in favor of expansion in early May, Casteen supported the move. Only North Carolina and Duke opposed. However, when the presidents voted on which three schools would be invited to join the ACC, Casteen made a proposal to include Virginia Tech.
The proposal fell short of the required votes as four other ACC schools supported Casteen’s suggestion. Miami, BC and Syracuse all received the necessary votes.
Since that time, Casteen has opposed expansion without the inclusion of Virginia Tech, which could put expansion in jeopardy. The ACC bylaws require at least seven of the nine schools to be in agreement on official league votes.
Casteen has been under intense pressure, described by some as “unprecedented pressure” by Virginia Gov. Mark R. Warner to support Virginia Tech’s entry into the ACC. Warner has attempted to lobby governors from Maryland and North Carolina, who have backed off the issue and consider it a private matter among the ACC and its members.
Warner has also attempted to get the NCAA involved by requesting that NCAA president Miles Brand create mediation of the expansion. However, Brand has also declined to get involved.
“The request from Governor Warner is understandable,” said Brand. “However, this office has no authority to intervene in the autonomy of institutions to determine their conference alignment nor is there any historical precedent to do so.”
Brand said he would provide the suggested mediation only if invited to do so by the ACC.
Virginia Tech president Charles Steger said in a media conference call that Warner’s proposal for mediation was constructive.
“The damages that we anticipate could happen are very real in nature,” Steger said. “I hope that the ACC will reconsider their action and possibly sit down with us and try to work this thing out.”
Virginia Tech was one of five Big East schools that filed a lawsuit against the ACC, Miami and Boston College last week in an attempt to thwart the expansion effort. Swofford specifically singled out Tech in a statement released Sunday night that pointed out “one of the plaintiffs initiated a visit to our office last month and expressed a desire to join” the ACC.
A league source confirmed that Steger, vice president Minnis Ridenour and athletic director Jim Weaver visited the ACC office in Greensboro, N.C., on May 6, more than a week before the league announced the schools it would invite to join.
Steger bristled when asked if Virginia Tech would have been part of the same effort to destroy the Big East, which the lawsuit is accusing, had the Hokies gotten its wish to have been included in ACC expansion.
“I’m not going to speculate on what didn’t happen,” Steger said.
According to one source, attorneys representing the ACC, Miami and BC, met Tuesday to plan how to best represent those clients. The timing of the suit, prior to the conference call, was meant to intimidate ACC presidents into voting against expansion, the source said.

 

 

Shed no tears over future of Virginia Tech athletics
The Virginian-Pilot
© June 12, 2003

Virginia Gov. Mark R. Warner’s continued nosing into the ACC-Big East fray on behalf of Virginia Tech is getting embarrassing. Sen. George Allen’s ranting sound-bite on TV the other night about the ACC’s assault on the Big East being all about money went beyond embarrassing and straight to humiliating.

With all due respect ... no kidding, Sen. Sherlock.

Look, the people who run Virginia Tech are big boys and girls, thank you. They are big boys and girls who, make no mistake, would have broken their ankles racing to accept one of the ACC invitations that went to Miami, Syracuse and Boston College.

They can handle whatever does or does not happen to the Big East. They don’t need Mom Allen or Pop Warner, to pun badly, running to the principal because the other kids won’t let their Sonny play anymore.

Yes, what the ACC is up to is cruel, mean and nasty. Yes, it stinks, if you care about even playing fields and sharing the wealth and all that rot.

And yes, honorable sirs, it is about filthy, dirty money, to say nothing of power and influence.

Try to scrape your chins off the floor.

The ACC, however, did not invent conference raiding. And this will hardly be the last of such brass-knuckled gamesmanship, whether or not the Big East manages a miracle comeback with its Hail Mary lawsuit hurled late last week.

Speaking of which, after all the ACC’s back-room maneuvering to position itself to accept the Treasonous Three, it is sorely naive to believe the ACC failed to anticipate the Big East’s legal gambit, which most judge to be more bark than bite.

Everybody sues everybody, for crying out loud, about anything. If the Big East is going down, naturally it would go down blustering, its fists flailing. It’s the American way.

That’s why it’s intriguing to see that the Big East’s campaign of media posturing and governmental bleating may have, at least temporarily, grabbed the horse by the tail and dragged him back into the barn.

Evidently, the ACC has been intimidated just enough to force a delay in its expansion vote, although this still has the markings of a done deal.

The process is so far along that it’s hard to believe the ACC would expend all this energy and subject itself to an attack on all flanks, only to cave in the clutch and allow a supposed fence-sitter like, say, the University of Virginia, to scrap the whole thing.

Certainly, as a fan, I’d hate to see the passing of Big East basketball. And I don’t see at all where, as some suggest, ACC hoops would be hurt. That ACC football would take a gigantic leap in stature, influence and income is a given.

Would Virginia Tech take it in the neck? Big time. Would it be athletic Armageddon for the Hokies? Not likely, because you can believe that a conference siege or two is well under way as Tech and the other spurned Big Easters jockey for as painless a landing as possible.

The painful truth, of course, is that Virginia Tech and the Big East got done unto before they could do unto someone else. If that sounds pretty much like politics, it answers why certain governmental grandstanders just can’t stay away.
 

 

 

Braine has encountered unrest at GT

By DOUG DOUGHTY
THE ROANOKE TIMES

   Reports out of Atlanta and Laramie, Wyo., did not paint a very bright picture for a pair of former coaching colleagues with Southwestern Virginia ties.

    Roanoke native Lee Moon, who played football at William Fleming and VMI, was fired Tuesday after seven years as the athletic director at Wyoming.

    Moon coached at Virginia with Dave Braine, who preceded Moon as the athletic director at Marshall and later served as the AD at Virginia Tech.

    Braine's comments in Wednesday's edition of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution indicated that he feels embattled after six years as the athletic director at Georgia Tech.

    "There are people who want me fired, and they've gone to the president and asked me to be fired," Braine told Journal-Constitution columnist Jeff Schultz.

    Schultz said a claim was made recently for the Internet domain, "FireDaveBraine.com."

    The complaints with Moon and Braine are along the same lines - their choice of head football coaches. First-year Georgia Tech coach Chan Gailey took the Yellow Jackets to the Silicon Valley Bowl, where they were beaten by Fresno State 30-21 after losing to Georgia in the regular-season finale 51-7.

    Braine also felt some of the fallout when a lack of oversight was blamed when 10 football players were declared academically ineligible. The losses included running back Tony Hollings, the leading rusher in Division I-A before a September 2002 injury.

    A story in the Laramie (Wyo.) Boomerang cited Moon for his "success in hiring coaches and running a balanced athletic budget in compliance with Title IX and a clean department with no violations."

    Moon felt he lost the confidence of supporters during the tenure of football coach Vic Koenning, dismissed in November after posting a three-year record of 5-29, including 1-20 in the Mountain West Conference.

    "It's been very difficult, getting beat up over Vic Koenning and what he should or shouldn't do," said Moon, 55. "People asked whether they should fire Lee Moon or fire Vic Koenning. It was very tough on me."

    MAROONS RELOAD: Roanoke College men's basketball coach Page Moir has recruited two players from the Freedom High School team in Morganton, N.C., that finished 27-1 after reaching the 4-A state quarterfinals.

    Freedom point guard Clint Zimmerman received some Division I baseball interest before deciding to join 6-foot-5 teammate Curtis Killen at Roanoke, where Zimmerman has been given the green light to play basketball and baseball.

    Zimmerman and Killen will join a Southwestern Virginia contingent that includes Cave Spring point guard Matt Hamilton, William Byrd's 6-foot Andy Fralin, 6-3 Chris Finney from North Cross and 6-8 Ben Lawler from Abingdon.

    MORE RECRUITING: North Carolina State's perennial search for a point guard has landed the Wolfpack a proven commodity in Tony Bethel, who averaged 10.8 points and had a team-high 121 assists last season while starting all 34 games for Georgetown (19-15).

    Bethel, who will have two years of eligibility starting with the 2004-05 season, played at Montrose Christian Academy in Rockville, Md., where one of his teammates was Levi Watkins, a sophomore for the Wolfpack last season.

    Maryland has received a commitment from James Gist, a 6-8 forward from Good Counsel High School in Wheaton, Md., alma mater of former Virginia standout Roger Mason Jr. Gist was rated the No.47 junior in the country by Prep Stars.

    The top-rated player among a group headed to Oak Hill Academy next year is Josh Smith, a 6-8 combination forward from Powder Springs, Ga., who is 11th on Prep Stars' junior list. Also Oak Hill-bound is the No.37 player on that list, 6-2 Rajon Rondo from Louisville, Ky.

    JAVIER, NOT JAVY: Atlanta Braves catcher Javy Lopez, who has 18 home runs, is not to be confused with Colorado Rockies left-hander Javier Lopez, a former UVa baseball player who is quietly putting together one of the most remarkable seasons among major-league relievers.

    Lopez, who played first base and pitched at UVa, has not allowed a run in 21 relief appearances dating back to April19 and has a 0.72 ERA overall. Lopez, 25, was selected by Arizona in the fourth round of the 1998 draft and spent time in the Boston organization.

 

 

2nd ACC call yields no vote
Commissioner John Swofford says the ACC presidents "want to be as thorough as possible."
By DOUG DOUGHTY
THE ROANOKE TIMES

For the second day in a row, the ACC presidents spoke by telephone Wednesday evening without voting on prospective members Miami, Syracuse and Boston College.
"The next call of the council of presidents will take place no sooner than early next week," ACC Commissioner John Swofford said in a statement released to the media.

"Just as before, it will be up to the council to decide the direction and timing of the progress."

The ACC held two votes last month related to expansion. In the first, Duke and North Carolina were the only dissenters when presidents voted 7-2 to explore expansion from nine to 12 teams. In the second, only Virginia voted against entering formal discussions with Miami, Syracuse and Boston College.

Presidents Nan Keohane of Duke and James Moeser of North Carolina had expressed concerns in correspondence with the other ACC presidents last week.

After the ACC presidents' conference call Wednesday, Swofford to reporters who were at ACC headquarters in Greensboro, N.C.

"I don't think it is a step backwards in the process," Swofford said of lack of a vote on invitations this week.

"I think our presidents look at this as a major decision and they want to be as thorough as possible. I think things get into the newspaper and then there becomes a certain public expectation and time frame.

"Internally, this isn't something we do with regularity."

The ACC presidents had received a letter earlier in the day from five of their Big East counterparts, but that was not discussed, Swofford said. The presidents of Virginia Tech and the other four schools want to meet with the ACC presidents.

"We feel quite certain that no ACC president would want to rush to judgment on such a potentially harmful plan without having complete information," the Big East presidents said in the letter, made available to The Roanoke Times and other media outlets.

"We believe we have insights to share that could not be effectively communicated by anyone else."

The letter was the latest in a series of moves by the Big East to postpone or kill ACC expansion. Last week, Virginia Tech and four other Big East programs filed suit against the ACC, Miami and Boston College.

If any of the schools were to leave the Big East, they are required to pay $1 million, an exit fee that doubles after June30.

"The only thing that we've ever said about the end of the process is we felt like it would be completed by the end of this month," Swofford told reporters after the conference call.

"There seemed to be some expectation coming back from the site visits that there would be an immediate vote. Those were outside expectations, not internal expectations."

Swofford confirmed that the teleconference Wednesday involved only the nine ACC presidents and did not include presidents from Miami, Syracuse and Boston College, who were on the call Tuesday.

 

 

Big East chiefs: Rush not right
Meeting with ACC leaders sought
BY EDDIE PELLS
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Jun 12, 2003

Big East presidents sent letters to their ACC counterparts yesterday, seeking a meeting about their expansion plans and urging them not to "rush to judgment."

The Big East schools want to know more about the plans to invite Miami, Boston College and Syracuse to the Atlantic Coast Conference, so the presidents asked Clemson's James Barker, the chairman of the ACC presidents, to arrange the meeting.

"We feel quite certain that no ACC president or chancellor would want to rush to judgment on such a potentially harmful plan without having complete information, and we believe we have insights to share that could not be effectively communicated by anyone else," the Big East presidents wrote in the letter obtained by The Associated Press.

ACC leaders received the letter yesterday afternoon, just hours before they were to hold a teleconference to discuss the plan. ACC Commissioner John Swofford was not immediately available for comment.

U.Va. President John Casteen declined to comment on the letter. According to a U.Va. spokesman, Casteen received the letter, is reviewing it and will consult with the other ACC presidents.

On Tuesday, ACC presidents discussed the matter for more than two hours but did not vote.

"We are now requesting that you work with us to arrange for a discussion," the letter said. "We do so respectfully and in the spirit of collegiality and open communication that has long been one of the hallmarks of American higher education."

The letter is the next step in the Big East's attempt to stop the ACC expansion plan, which would take it from nine to 12 teams and strip the Big East of three of its core football schools.

Last Friday, the five schools that would be left behind - Pittsburgh, Connecticut, Virginia Tech, West Virginia and Rutgers - sued the ACC, Miami and BC, seeking millions in damages and an injunction against expansion.

The letter, from the presidents of the five schools, was the latest indication that the Big East is still interested in resolving the matter without going to court. On Tuesday, Big East presidents held a conference call with reporters in which they urged the NCAA or another impartial party to mediate.

Attorneys for the Big East contacted Swofford and the presidents and athletic directors of the ACC schools, along with Miami, Boston College and Syracuse, notifying them that they wanted to take their depositions for the lawsuit.

Also yesterday, the attorney general for Connecticut, where the lawsuit was filed, sent a letter to lawyers for the ACC, Miami and Boston College demanding they turn over a variety of documents and memos related to any communication among the schools and conference regarding the expansion.

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said he initially made the request on Monday but got no response. He said he will bring further legal action if he does not hear from the defendants' attorneys by noon today.
 

 

 

Pause in the cause of ACC expansion
BOB LIPPER
TIMES-DISPATCH COLUMNIST Jun 12, 2003
Contact Bob Lipper at (804) 649-6555 or e-mail blipper@timesdispatch.com

We've reached the point in this ACC expansion/Big East demolition epic where we don't know if we're watching history in the making or "Groundhog Day 2," with John Swofford in the Bill Murray role and Donna Shalala as his love interest.

You know how they turn off the clocks at midnight on General Assembly getaway eve to hammer out the last-ditch drafts of legislation? That's where we are on the matter of ACC expan- sion - a holding pattern.

Tuesday's presumed referendum on ACC nominees Miami, Boston College and Syracuse didn't take place after 2½ hours of palavering. The league's presidents were scheduled to convene again by phone last night, with a tabulation of yeas and nays still no sure thing. This either suggests Swofford doesn't have the votes or that university CEOs are haggling over which division gets BC's hockey team.

Speaking of politics, it says here Gov. Mark R. Warner is correct in his attempts to cover Virginia Tech's back and lean on Virginia President John Casteen to vote against - and perchance deep-six - ACC expansion.

I don't know Warner. I do know he went to George Washington and Harvard Law, meaning he has no rooting interest in this scrum. I do know he presides over the nation's 12th-largest state and that said state has two major players in big-time campusball. I do know that one of those schools could be damaged severely should the ACC pull off its zero-sum raid of the Big East.

This involves more than touchdowns and recruiting advantages. We're not talking about whether it's the Cavs or the Hokies who sign some hot-shot cornerback from Newport News. We're talking about a university's well-being.

Look, I think most of us can agree sports siphons too much attention, energy, space and currency from higher education - but there it is. Given that terrain - given the impact a high-profile team can have on a school's visibility, applicant pool and cash flow - Warner wouldn't be true to his calling if he didn't do what he could to look out for Virginia Tech.

That goes for Casteen as well. The tax dollars that pay Casteen's salary go into the same piggy bank as the tax dollars the state collects from Roanoke Valley hotels and restaurants every time Tech tees it up at Lane Stadium. There's a whole state out there beyond Mr. Jefferson's University, in other words. Yes, Casteen's primary obligation is to his own place of employment. But, yes, there's a larger issue and greater good at stake here.

Good as in good will. Good as in good neighbors.

Fact is, the Tech/U.Va. connection is unique to this episode. Last time I looked, Appalachian State, Oglethorpe and Wofford wouldn't be undermined by ACC gain at Big East expense. Tech would be. Ditto Pitt, Rutgers, UConn and West Virginia. Like U.Va., they're colleges - not mom-and-pop groceries to be shrugged off when Food Lion runs them out of town.

Warner could've been speaking on behalf of the Unwashed Five when he asked NCAA czar Myles Brand to mediate the ACC/Big East fuss. Not our problem, insisted Brand - the same guy who recently said it was "time to turn down the volume" on big-time college sports. Now he practices benign neglect - not even an expression of concern - as one BCS league attempts to put another BCS league on life support.

Maybe he just doesn't want to take sides. The voters in this toss-up have no choice.
 

 

Delay of gain? ACC still on hold
League chiefs don't vote again
BY JEFF WHITE
TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER Jun 12, 2003

For the second straight day, the presidents and chancellors of the Atlantic Coast Conference's nine schools convened on a teleconference to discuss issues related to the league's expansion plans.

For the second straight day, the ACC's Council of Presidents talked for more than two hours. And for the second straight day, the presidents did not vote on whether to extend invitations to Big East members Miami, Boston College and Syracuse.

When that vote will be taken is unclear.

"Just as before," ACC Commissioner John Swofford said in a statement, "it will be up to the Council to decide the direction and timing of the process. The next call of the Council of Presidents will take place no sooner than early next week."

An ACC source said the league's presidents "move at their own speed" and "are just being deliberate and very, very thorough."

Asked why the presidents chose not to schedule another teleconference this week, the source said, "They've got some other things to digest. They've seen an awful lot in two days. There are also some travel issues."

For part of Tuesday's conference call, the presidents from Mi- ami, Syracuse and BC joined their ACC counterparts. Big East officials did not participate in last night's discussion, Swofford told reporters outside the ACC offices in Greensboro, N.C.

The teleconference "was a continued discussion of a number of details that are important to our presidents," Swofford said, "and they're being very thorough in the detail aspects of it in terms of what they want to know before they reach a comfort level of finalizing where we will end up."

N.C. State's chancellor, Marye Anne Fox, told the Raleigh News & Observer, "We have a lot of issues we have to address. I think we're making progress."

Among those issues is divisional alignment. If the ACC expands to 12 schools, it is likely to split them into two divisions. Duke does not want the same divisions to "be instituted for all sports," its president, Nan Keohane, wrote in a memo Friday to her counterparts around the league. "Duke does not believe this is in the best interests of our student-athletes, or the conference as a whole."

Duke wants different divisions for football and basketball, a source said yesterday.

To be offered admission, a school must get affirmative votes from at least seven ACC members. Six schools solidly favor expansion, but the other three - Duke, North Carolina and Virginia - are not thought to be ready to support it, for various reasons. U.Va. President John Casteen wants Virginia Tech to be part of a 12-school ACC and, a source said yesterday, is likely to vote against expansion if the Hokies aren't included.

Six days ago, five Big East schools - Virginia Tech, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, Rutgers and Connecticut - filed suit in Hartford, Conn., against the ACC, Miami and BC in an attempt to stop expansion, which the plaintiffs contend will destroy their conference.

Yesterday, the presidents of those five Big East schools wrote a letter to Clemson's James Barker, who chairs the ACC Council of Presidents, and sent copies to each of his counterparts. The Big East group asked the ACC's presidents to "work with us to arrange" a face-to-face discussion of the ACC's expansion plans.

"We do so respectfully and in the spirit of collegiality and open communication that has long been one of the hallmarks of American higher education," the Big East presidents wrote.

"Obviously, we are not fully informed of the forces that have taken you to this point. In that sense, meeting you could be instructive for us. However, we also feel quite certain that no ACC president or chancellor would want to rush to judgment on such a potentially harmful plan without having complete information, and we believe we have insights to share that could not be effectively communicated by anyone else."

Swofford said the ACC's presidents were aware of the letter but didn't discuss it during their latest teleconference. According to a spokesman at U.Va. last night, Casteen had received the letter, was reviewing it and would consult with the other ACC presidents. Collectively, they would determine an appropriate response.

Gov. Mark R. Warner and other political leaders in this state, sources said, have pressured Casteen to vote against any ACC expansion plan that doesn't include Virginia Tech.

Yesterday, during an appearance at Infineon Technologies semiconductor manufacturing plant in eastern Henrico County, Warner explained why he has advocated for Virginia Tech's interests.

"This is much more than simply an athletic decision," he said. "It means tens of millions of dollars to an institution like Virginia Tech if they excluded."

Warner said that if Tech were left in a depleted Big East, the university would lose valuable research projects and international partnerships because it no longer would be as prominent.

"If you're in a strong national conference, it raises your profile as a whole," he said. "If this was a case of the Big East going after certain ACC schools and U.Va. was excluded, I would do the same thing."
 

 

 

FSU threat spurred expansion
Seminoles pushed ACC for addition of football powerhouse Miami
GREGG DOYEL
Raleigh Bureau
 

In late 2001, Florida State Chancellor Sandy D'Alemberte challenged ACC Commissioner John Swofford to annex football powerhouse Miami or risk losing the Seminoles to another conference.

Although Florida State has changed chancellors, that threat -- confirmed Wednesday by four industry sources -- casts a pall over the ACC's stalled expansion effort.

The ACC chancellors held another conference call Wednesday without voting on expansion.

While one high-ranking ACC official called an FSU defection "unlikely," the combination of Florida State's eagerness to expand and staunch resistance elsewhere gives Swofford a combustible mixture should this expansion fail.

Florida State athletics director Dave Hart branded the ACC's anti-expansion schools as being "non-visionary" last month, saying the league needed to expand "for reasons that should be obvious."

They're not obvious to Duke, North Carolina and Virginia, which remained opposed to expansion through Wednesday's conference call -- a call Swofford had hoped would conclude with invitations to Miami, Boston College and Syracuse to make the ACC a 12-school superpower.

After the conference call, which Swofford called constructive, he said the chancellors wouldn't convene by phone again this week.

Should Florida State leave the ACC, it wouldn't be without takers. In one scenario, the Big 12 would jettison Baylor, Arkansas would move from the SEC to the Big 12 and Florida State would join the SEC. The Big East would be another -- and ironic -- possibility for the Seminoles.

That's speculation, but this is not: After two consecutive fruitless conference calls, this ACC expansion is running aground.

The external pressure on the league grew Wednesday from the public-relations campaign waged by the five Big East schools that have sued the ACC.

Chancellors of the plaintiffs -- Connecticut, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Virginia Tech and West Virginia -- wrote ACC chancellors to request "face-to-face conversations" to avoid a "rush to judgment on such a potentially harmful plan."

That missive drew laughter from the ACC office in Greensboro, a source said.

But the Big East group's maneuvers, along with mounting political pressure, appear to be wearing on Virginia Chancellor John Casteen, who has unexpectedly joined Duke and North Carolina in opposition. Three "no" votes would kill expansion, which is why Swofford didn't pursue a chancellor-level vote Tuesday or Wednesday.

Swofford has used the conference call to address anti-expansion concerns and to assure ACC chancellors that the lawsuit -- which seeks hundreds of millions of dollars in damages and an injunction against the proposed expansion -- won't make it to court.

Plaintiffs attorney Jeffrey Mishkin asked ACC and Big East officials Wednesday to preserve their records for depositions.

The number of people deposed, starting with Swofford, is likely to run well over 100.

That includes the chancellor, athletics director and various trustees and boosters from each ACC school.

 

 

Big East losing teams to ACC appears less likely
By BARRY JACKSON
Miami Herald
 

MIAMI - For the second straight day, the Atlantic Coast Conference was unable to come up with the seven votes necessary to invite the University of Miami, Boston College and Syracuse to join, leaving the ACC's expansion plans in question.

Unless the president of North Carolina, Duke or Virginia has a change of heart, ACC expansion - thought to be a sure thing a week ago - instead will be tabled indefinitely.

That would mean Miami remaining in the Big East Conference, which has filed a lawsuit against UM, BC and the ACC.

For the second straight day, the ACC's nine presidents spoke via conference call for more than two hours. Knowing he had only six likely "yes" votes to extend invitations, commissioner John Swofford did not call a vote.

The next conference call "will take place no sooner than early next week," Swofford said in a statement.

Supporters of ACC expansion hope the presidents of one of the three dissenting schools change their stance in the next week.

Although that's possible - more so for North Carolina or Virginia - one ACC source close to the process said by telephone, "The longer it goes, the worse the chances are for expansion."

UM is prepared to join the ACC in 2004-05 at the earliest, but if the process isn't completed by June 30, the exit fee to leave the Big East jumps from $1 million to $2 million.

In a statement released by the ACC office, Swofford said, "The discussions tonight by the council of presidents moved the process along and were constructive... . Just as before, it will be up to the council to decide the direction and timing of the process."

Met by several North Carolina-based reporters outside his Greensboro, N.C., office after the meeting, Swofford said, "It was a continued discussion of a number of details that are important to our presidents.

"And they are being very thorough in the detail aspects of it, in terms of what they want to know before they reach a comfort level of finalizing where they end up."

Swofford said another conference call isn't scheduled and "there are some things the presidents want to think about that we talked through today in detail."

Asked if he expects a vote next week, Swofford said, "I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted to vote or didn't want to vote."

North Carolina and Duke are thought to be opposed to expansion because of concerns about how it would affect student welfare, student costs and the impact on natural rivalries.

Virginia is thought to be opposed because of political pressure exerted by Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, who suggested Virginia Tech would be at a disadvantage in a depleted Big East.

Unlike Tuesday's conference call, the presidents of UM, BC and Syracuse were not on Wednesday's call.

Presidents of the five Big East schools that filed the lawsuit (Connecticut, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Virginia Tech and West Virginia) released a statement after Wednesday's ACC conference call.

"We will continue to do everything possible to keep the Big East in tact, including pursuing all of our available legal options," the statement said. "We are encouraged by Virginia Governor Mark Warner's call that this dispute between conferences be mediated and we pledge our support for the governor's efforts."

Earlier, the presidents of the five Big East schools requested their first meeting with the ACC presidents.

The letter, sent to the nine ACC presidents, was e-mailed to reporters by the plaintiffs' public relations firm. Among other things, the five Big East presidents wrote, "We ... feel quite certain that no ACC president or chancellor would want to rush to judgment on such a potentially harmful plan without having complete information, and we believe we have insights to share that could not be effectively communicated by anyone else."

The ACC presidents did not immediately respond.

"We haven't spent a whole lot of time thinking about that," Erik Albright, the ACC's attorney, said by phone.

Also, the five Big East schools informed the defendants' lawyers that they will ask the Hartford (Conn.) Superior Court for a motion to depose dozens of people unless they quickly are made available for discovery.

Among the officials sought for potential depositions are Swofford; the presidents, athletic directors and several board of trustees members from UM, BC and Syracuse; the president and athletic directors of ACC schools; and ACC consultants.

The Charlotte Observer reported in Thursday's editions that in late 2001, Florida State challenged the ACC to add Miami or risk losing the Seminoles, potentially to the SEC.

Since then, FSU has changed presidents and even though it staunchly supports expansion, the school has given no indication it would leave if expansion were voted down.

 

 

ACC invitation is still on hold
Vote on expansion expected next week
By Mark Blaudschun, Globe Staff, 6/12/2003

After a second day of conference calls, the nine presidents of the Atlantic Coast Conference colleges still had come to no resolution on whether to officially extend an invitation to Big East schools Miami, Boston College, and Syracuse to join the league.

ACC officials said a vote, which originally had been expected to come this week, would not be taken until next week at the earliest. Seven votes are needed to approve the expansion. Representatives from the three Big East schools were not on last night's call after taking part in talks on Tuesday.

After the meeting, the ACC presidents again talked about moving forward. ''We have a lot of issues to address,'' N.C. State Chancellor Marye Anne Fox told the Raleigh News & and Observer. ''I think we're making progress.''

As for a timetable, ''Various media outlets are suggesting there is some imperative to move things along quickly,'' said Syracuse spokesman Kevin Morrow. ''There is not.''

ACC commissioner John Swofford also said the timetable remains uncertain. ''The discussions tonight by the council of presidents moved the process along and were constructive,'' said Swofford. ''There was no vote taken. Just as before, it will be up to the Council to decide the direction and process. The next call of the presidents will take place no sooner than next week.''

There also seemed to be no sense of urgency at the Heights. BC athletic director Gene DeFilippo and school president Rev. William Leahy were at Fenway Park watching last night's Red Sox-Cardinals game.

While the ACC has maintained it would take its time in making a final decision, the process has been slowed considerably, with the lawsuit filed by the five Division 1A football-playing members of the Big East -- Rutgers, West Virginia, Pittsburgh, Virginia Tech, and Connecticut -- a looming factor.

Opinion on both sides is that the litigation filed in State Superior Court in Hartford last Friday had little chance of succeeding, but the purpose was to slow the process as much as prevent the defections.

''I've talked to attorneys who don't give it much of a chance,'' said one source in the Big East.

Boston attorney Harry Manion yesterday said he concurred with that opinion. ''I would say it's a long, long, long shot of even being brought to trial,'' said Manion. ''What it is is a leverage play by the plaintiffs to slow the process down. And that might work.''

In what has been a bizarre series of events, another strange twist occurred yesterday when the five Big East presidents sent a letter to their ACC brethren, asking for a face-to-face meeting. Less than a week ago, the same group of presidents had filed the suit.

''We're tightening the screws, while offering an olive branch at the same time,'' said one Big East official yesterday.

In the letter sent by Rutgers president Richard McCormick, chairman of the Big East presidents, to Clemson president James Barker, chairman of the council of presidents of the ACC, the Big East presidents reiterated their feelings of the harmful effect the defections would have on the conference.

''We believe the ACC's contemplative actions will be highly destructive . . . Unfortunately, our efforts to discuss these issues have not included any opportunity for face-to-face conversations with you or with our other presidential colleagues in the ACC. We are requesting that you work with us to arrange such a discussion.''

Whether those discussions take place remains to be seen.
 

 

 

Three schools, three reasons for voting 'no'
By CAULTON TUDOR, Staff Writer

With each passing day, it's getting more difficult for the supporters of ACC expansion to prevail, given the reluctance of Duke, North Carolina and Virginia.

The three schools have enough votes among them to block expansion, but their ultimate motivations vary. Here's a breakdown of the issues for each school.

Duke: Football, image and Nan Keohane's legacy.

The entire thrust of expansion is football, the one sport in which Duke has struggled for years. More television money and increased national stature for the ACC won't help the Blue Devils.

The cost of scholarships alone make football a money-loser at Duke, and the addition of Miami, Syracuse and Boston College to the conference would push the program further away from winning on the field.

Then there are Duke's academic reputation and faculty morale. The university community has increasingly sided against expansion, leaving Duke President Nan Keohane to face significant second-guessing and criticism on campus if she delivers the seventh and decisive "yes" vote.

Her decision also will play a major part in her legacy. Since Keohane arrived in the summer of 1993, Duke has enjoyed unprecedented growth and harmony. In her final year, expansion could well be her signature event.

Understandably, she wants to move cautiously.

UNC: Money.

Chancellor James Moeser has not accepted the notion that adding Miami, Syracuse and Boston College would bring more income and prestige to the ACC.

If anything, he's worried that Carolina would lose money because of a smaller ticket allotment for the ACC basketball tournament and a weak economy that would hurt television contract negotiations.

Like Keohane, Moeser is facing pressure on campus. The UNC faculty has hardly warmed to expansion after being kept out of the loop for so long.

Of the three schools, Carolina is the least likely to be persuaded to vote "yes."

Virginia: Politics.

UVa President John T. Casteen III faces the toughest dilemma.

Virginia's governor and a sizable delegation of state legislators are vehemently opposed to any ACC growth that would not include Virginia Tech.

On the other hand, UVa's fan base and most of Casteen's staff strongly favor Miami, Syracuse and BC. Virginia fans have no use for the Hokies and never will. To many of them, a "no" vote on expansion would be considered siding with the enemy. Casteen's popularity would be badly damaged, which could hurt fund-raising.

Then again, if he votes in favor of expansion, angry state legislators might retaliate by withholding some campus appropriations.

Among his fellow presidents, there's widespread compassion but growing frustration with his indecision. For Casteen, this problem will not go away unless Keohane or Moeser ride to his rescue.

And no, he can't abstain. Some high-ranking UVa supporters had thought that expansion, requiring a three-quarters vote in favor, might pass 6-2. But ACC assistant commissioner Brian Morrison said Wednesday that an abstention would count as a "no" vote.

"It has to be seven schools voting 'yes,' not 75 percent of those schools voting," Morrison said.

Expansion proponents believe they have resolved some of Keohane's reservations about travel, the demands on athletes and scheduling.

But in reality, those aren't the core issues and never have been.

Now, it comes down to this: Unless one of the three holdouts can be persuaded that expansion would be best for their school, it's not going to happen.