Presidents from the ACC’s nine schools are expected to conduct their
next conference call on Wednesday but not necessarily to have an official vote
on expansion.
League athletic directors had a conference call on Monday to report to ACC
commissioner John Swofford on progress made toward some issues that have been
a source of concern by some of the presidents. One of the major sticking
points, according to one source, is that Duke doesn’t want the ACC split into
two divisions for basketball.
If the conference expands to 12 teams by adding Miami, Boston College and
Syracuse, it would split into two, six-team divisions for football and hold a
conference championship game. Such a game could generate another $10 million
in revenue for the league.
It has been suggested that Duke and North Carolina would prefer a one
division, 12-team basketball league with a round-robin schedule. That would
preserve all the rivalries that has made ACC basketball the premiere hoops
conference in the country.
Swaying opposition
Perhaps that is the carrot the ACC can dangle in front of Duke to sway the
school toward voting for expansion. Currently, insiders say Duke, North
Carolina and Virginia are prepared to vote no, which would kill expansion. The
ACC needs seven of its nine schools to vote yes in order for the process to
gain official approval.
Asked last week if there were troubling issues that could block expansion,
Swofford said, “I’m not really going to get into those various issues. They’re
all related to things you’ve written about and read about. [Divisions are] a
part of it.”
Some schools have concern about what division they would belong to. Even in
football, Miami would prefer being in a division opposite Florida State.
Taking time
Swofford said the league is in no hurry to get the job done and isn’t bothered
by the June 30 deadline that faces the three Big East schools. The Big East
bylaws call for a school leaving the conference to pay a $1 million penalty
unless the school or schools defect after June 30. At that time, the penalty
rises to $2 million.
But Swofford didn’t expect to be finished by now.
“I think it’s a continuation of a process that has now pretty much fulfilled
what’s in our bylaws,” said the ACC commissioner. “From here on out, it’s
really determined by the decisions of our presidents as to what more they want
to know and when they ultimately choose to vote.”
Swofford also said that expectations that the ACC would conduct a vote among
its presidents on expansion after site visits to the three Big East schools
were premature.
“Those were outside expectations, not particularly internal expectations,”
Swofford said.
Conference call recap
The first conference call between presidents and Swofford last week were
simply reports about the visits to the Miami, BC and Syracuse campuses. That
was the one where the presidents of the three Big
East schools participated for part of the call.
Last week’s second conference call gave the ACC presidents an opportunity to
voice concerns, discuss issues that were important to their particular
schools. Swofford said that some major issues for some schools may not have
concerned other members quite so much and vice versa.
Big East report. Meanwhile, there are reports out of the Big East that if
expansion fails, that the Big East is strongly considering a confederation of
an eight-team football league and an eight-team basketball league.
If that is the case, that means the Big East would add two basketball schools.
DePaul, Marquette, Dayton and Xavier are reportedly the leading candidates.
What that also means is, if ACC expansion fails, then the Big East is looking
to expand its basketball schools by raiding other conferences.
Excuse me, but isn’t that what the Big East is raising such a commotion about?
Another scenario has the eight Big East football schools possibly expanding to
12 so that it could split into two, six-team divisions and conduct a
championship game. Louisville, Cincinnati and Central Florida are possible
targets.
Maybe I’ve missed something here, but if the Big East doesn’t mind raiding
other leagues as it did the Atlantic 10 a few years ago, then why is it suing
Miami and Boston College for wanting to leave and join the ACC?
Oh, the hypocrisy.
Sizing up the debate about expansion
By DOUG DOUGHTY
THE ROANOKE TIMES
Does Syracuse understand that it can go 8-3 in football and be passed over by some bowl in favor of a Clemson team that has gone 6-5?
That's a way of life in the ACC.
ACC Commissioner John Swofford may be considered the most powerful man in college athletics if he is successful in annexing Miami, Syracuse and Boston College, but he still has no influence with the Tangerine Bowl.
That's enough bowl-bashing for now, although it is one of my favorite pastimes. The main issue on the floor is ACC expansion and, while I don't pretend to have a crystal ball, I will say I hope it falls apart.
Did I say I hate to fly? That might be coloring my thinking. This year, I drove to East Lansing, Mich; Tallahassee, Fla. (twice); and Jamaica, N.Y. Annual road trips to Miami, Syracuse and Boston might drive me out of the business.
I keep reflecting on a point made last month by Virginia Tech offensive coordinator Bryan Stinespring:
Look at all of the actions that the NCAA has taken in the sake of parity - limits on scholarships, staff size, practice hours, days spent recruiting. If parity and fairness are so important, where is the NCAA right now?
You can't give a recruit $9 - and I'm not saying you should - but you can bribe a school, as the Big East did, in essence, with its $9 million guarantee to Miami.
The ACC wasn't much better, informing the Hurricanes that they were likely to receive $9.7 by jumping leagues. Call me naive, but does it all have to be about money?
If there is a fairness issue, presumably it will be decided in court. Let's say the court rules in favor of the five schools that sued the ACC, Miami and Boston College and there is an injunction. How do the current football-playing members of the Big East coexist?
The suit changed everything. In the weeks that preceded it, Virginia athletic director John Casteen said in a board of visitors meeting that it didn't matter to him if the ACC expanded to 12 or 14. Maryland athletic director Debbie Yow made comments along the same lines.
Presumably, if the ACC went to 14, Virginia Tech would have been on that list. The Hokies already had five of the necessary seven votes to be included in expansion. Why then did school spokesman Larry Hincker say June8 that "if we were asked to join today, we wouldn't go?"
Whatever happened to hedging your bets?
A call to Hincker on Monday revealed that his comments were made only after school president Charles Steger had voiced similar sentiments on a conference call earlier that day. By joining the suit, Tech may have given up its last, best chance of getting into the ACC, but the Hokies did not undertake legal action frivolously.
If there had been any indication from Swofford or other highly placed officials that Tech had a chance of getting in the ACC - now or in the future - Tech might have held out. There wasn't.
Every day, there is a published or broadcast report to support almost any viewpoint. At noon Monday, ESPN Radio reported that Duke and North Carolina would vote against expansion, as if that were a foregone conclusion.
Duke and North Carolina have expressed reservations, but Virginia was the lone vote against entering discussions with Miami, Syracuse and BC. Although North Carolina and Duke have expressed reservations, Virginia is still seen as the closest thing to a no vote.
If North Carolina voted against expansion, the Tar Heels would be flying in the face of one of their own. Swofford is a Carolina alumnus and former football quarterback who served as Tar Heels athletic director from 1980-97.
If no more than one other school votes no, expansion passes. At this point, I still wouldn't bet against it.
Problems continue with BCS
PAUL WOODY
TIMES-DISPATCH COLUMNIST Jun 17, 2003
Call Paul Woody at (804) 649-6444 or e-mail him at pwoody@timesdispatch.com
Scott S. Cowen, president of Tulane University, is upset.
He's upset that Tulane's board of trustees had to spend time evaluating the
athletic program to determine its future.
Cowen is upset that college athletics appear to have trumped college academics
in terms of importance and prestige at many colleges and almost all of the major
football powers.
Cowen's concerns are not without merit.
The solution for anyone with these concerns is simple: either drop Division I-A
football or dismantle the Bowl Championship Series.
At Tulane, the former was considered and rejected. Now, Cowen wants to lead the
movement to accomplish the latter.
Cowen is upset that Tulane is shutout of the BCS and must struggle to make
financial ends meet in its athletic department.
He wants college athletics to be placed in their proper perspective, with the
emphasis on the "student" in student-athlete.
An unsettling question remains, though. Would Cowen be as upset if Tulane, which
is in Conference USA, were a member of a BCS conference?
Maybe not.
If we look deep into the hearts and minds of Virginia Tech fans everywhere,
would the Hokies be as upset about the potential dismantling of the Big East if
the they had been invited to join the ACC along with Miami?
Probably not.
Perspective is everything in life and college football programs. For the past
four years, Virginia Tech has been in a much better position than Tulane. The
concern for the Hokies, as well as Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Connecticut and West
Virginia, is that if the Big East breaks up, they will be much closer to joining
the Tulanes of college football than the Florida States.
Blame the BCS.
The BCS is the reason football drives the decision-making process of
conferences. The BCS is a primary reason the ACC is attempting to become the
premier football conference in the country, even if that means the demise of at
least one other premier athletic conference.
Six major conferences and Notre Dame - a total of 63 schools - along with the
top tier postseason bowls created the BCS in 1998. Its purpose was, and still
is, to determine a "national champion" in Division I-A football.
The idea that the BCS also would control the vast majority of the money
available through the bowl payoff system might have entered into the creators'
minds as well.
A non-BCS school has to be ranked among the top six teams in the country in
order to be considered for a BCS slot. That means the 54 non-BCS schools almost
always are shut out of a chance to win the national championship and, more
importantly, a chance to earn millions of dollars for a bowl-game appearance.
Admittedly, even in the best of times, Boise State's chances of besting Ohio
State or Miami in the polls, in the computer rankings or on the field are close
to nonexistent.
However, the same could be said for Rutgers, Duke and Kansas, all members and
beneficiaries of the BCS alliance.
The BCS is everything in Division I-A football. It has become the driving force
toward the creation of a few super conferences that eventually could control all
the postseason money in college football.
The current squabbling among conferences, universities and college presidents
over the expansion of the ACC at the expense of the Big East is unseemly and
undignified. Too much time is being spent on an issue that should be a small
part of a university's mission.
If there is to be chaos in college football, let their be chaos in determining
how to establish a playoff system that gives all 117 teams a chance, however
farfetched that chance might be, of winning a national championship.
We've had enough chaos over how to make the rich richer.
Atlantic Coast Conference presidents are tentatively set to convene, via conference call, on Wednesday morning and might vote on expansion at that time, a North Carolina State spokesman said Monday.
Spokesman Tim Lucas said by telephone that chancellor Marye Anne Fox's office was told a call has been set for 7 a.m. Wednesday, but stopped short of calling it definite.
ACC commissioner John Swofford will decide during the call whether he has enough support to hold a vote on extending invitations to Miami, Boston College and Syracuse.
The schools will accept the invitations if offered, sources have said. There is urgency for all parties to resolve the matter before July 1, when the Big East exit fee jumps from $1 million to $2 million.
In fact, UM officials have informed Swofford they would like an answer by the end of the month, a UM official said by telephone Monday.
Swofford discussed details of expansion with ACC athletic directors via conference call Monday. Division alignment remains a major issue among the athletic directors, who want to preserve as many games as possible against natural rivals.
Among ACC expansion proponents, there's hope Duke will become the seventh "yes" vote to expand. It is believed the ACC has six "yes" votes but needs a seventh among Duke, North Carolina and Virginia before invitations can be extended.
FSU president T.K. Wetherell has predicted expansion will happen this week. Another ACC source expressed optimism, but said expansion wasn't certain.
FSU has denied reports it would consider changing conferences if the ACC votes against expanding. The Southeastern Conference could pursue FSU or UM if ACC expansion doesn't materialize.
Kilgore: 'My role is protecting Va. Tech'
Attorney general is Tech's counsel
By Dave Johnson
Daily Press
Published June 17, 2003
When he was elected attorney general 19 months ago, Jerry Kilgore never expected
to find himself involved in the heated rivalry that is Virginia Tech vs. the
University of Virginia.
But today, some Cavaliers backers are angry at Kilgore for, as they see it,
taking sides in the ongoing battle between the Big East Conference and the
Atlantic Coast Conference. Earlier this month, Kilgore approved Tech's
involvement in a lawsuit that aims to disrupt the ACC's expansion plans. And
when a motion was filed Friday to begin depositions on July 1, Kilgore's name is
listed as Tech's counsel.
That isn't out of the ordinary. One of the attorney general's responsibilities
is providing legal representation to state schools. In other words, Kilgore is
Virginia Tech's lawyer, just as he is Virginia's lawyer. And since U.Va. is not
a defendant - the ACC, Miami and Boston College are - there is no conflict.
"The case is not about me as an attorney general choosing between the University
of Virginia and Virginia Tech," Kilgore said Monday afternoon. "I want, like
most state officials, for both schools to prosper and thrive in good
conferences. But I also recognize Virginia Tech's situation. Virginia Tech is
the economic catalyst for Western Virginia.
"My role is protecting Virginia Tech. Virginia Tech believes promises were made
and promises have been broken. They relied on the promises made that would keep
the Big East intact. Anytime you make a decision, you realize that some people
may not like it. But it was the right thing to do to protect Virginia Tech."
Not the kind of statement you might expect of a Cavalier season-ticket holder
and a graduate of U.Va.'s College at Wise, which at the time, though still
affiliated with the university, was called Clinch Valley College.
Tech's football program generated a $3.6 million profit in the 2001-02 year. The
year after Michael Vick led the Hokies to the 1999 national championship game,
applications jumped from 16,200 that year to 18,410 in 2000. Kilgore says the
economic benefits are clear.
"We have to connect the dots here that a good sports program does bring the
college more recognition from a national level," Kilgore said.
"And playing in a good conference makes a difference in the economic development
standpoint that more visitors will come to your region and cause you to have to
employ more people."
Though much was made of Kilgore joining the lawsuit on Friday, he had approved
of Tech being listed as a plaintiff prior the filing on June 6. Though Kilgore
is listed as Tech's counsel along with Jerry Cain and Kay Heidbreder, the case
will be handled by attorney Jeffrey Mishkin of New York.
With seven votes needed for expansion, there appears to be only six schools in
favor with North Carolina, Duke and Virginia in opposition. U.Va. president John
Casteen has been under political pressure from Gov. Mark Warner to protect
Virginia Tech's interests.
Kilgore was encouraged by last week's chain of events, which included two
lengthy discussions among the league's nine presidents but no vote being taken.
With the clock ticking - after June 30, the Big East's exit fee doubles from $1
million to $2 million - a third conference call is expected to be held today.
"I think filing the suit has caused people to step back and ask more questions,
and I think that's important," he said.
"The vote has been delayed now time and time again because of these questions
we've proposed."
The chief executive officers of the ACC's nine schools will conduct another expansion-related conference call at the unusually early hour of 7 a.m. Wednesday, but it's still not clear that they will vote on inviting Miami, Syracuse and Boston College into their ranks then.
High ranking officials at two current members said Monday that the odd time of the call doesn't necessarily suggest that a vote will take place. Like two such discussions last week, the call is expected to be informational in nature. As of Monday night, no specific action was planned.
An athletics director said the nine ADs spoke by phone for 30 minutes on Monday to discuss divisional alignment and other logistical issues. They will forward the consensus of their talks to the CEOs in time for the Wednesday teleconference.
Last week's two CEO teleconferences focused on issues stemming from ongoing litigation filed June 6 against Miami, BC and the ACC and on observations from the visits to the campuses of the prospective members. The ancillary matters have been discussed in detail but haven't been finished.
Expansion proponents will need seven votes from the current nine schools to invite the three prospective members, all of which are expected to accept. Duke and North Carolina appear to oppose the move and N.C. State and Virginia have expressed reservations.
John T. Casteen, UVa's president, is under public heat from his state's governor and attorney general to reject any expansion plan that doesn't include Virginia Tech, the Commonwealth's largest institution. Yet he faces far less pressure than CEOs of flagship universities in other states might face.
UVa receives less than 9 percent of its funding from the legislature, an uncommonly small percentage for a state institution. (N.C. State, for example, derived 43.6 percent of its budget from the state in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2002).
In terms of athletics, UVa is almost entirely self-sufficient. The legislature cannot, therefore, put up major roadblocks to the construction of the school's $130 million basketball arena. Preliminary site work on the facility has begun now that the athletics department has generated nearly $80 million in private pledges, and full-fledged construction will begin this summer.
Virginia Gov. Mark Warner (D), who cannot succeed himself when his term expires in January 2006, would have to go to a lot of trouble to exact political revenge if he wanted to. He would have to identify Casteen foes and secure their legislative-backed appointment to UVa's supervisory body, the Board of Visitors, in March of 2004 and 2005.
In legal matters, the ACC has hired local counsel in Connecticut in defense against the pending litigation. Hugh F. Keefe, named one of the five best lawyers in the state in a 1990 Connecticut Magazine survey, will represent the league when and if the matter comes to court.
Greensboro attorney Erik Albright said he and Keefe will work jointly in responding to a motion for expedited discovery filed last week by the plaintiffs. West Virginia, Virginia Tech, Connecticut, Pittsburgh and Rutgers sued Miami, BC and the ACC, alleging improper conduct and seeking to block the expansion efforts. Albright said the ACC response is due next week.
As of Monday, no hearings had been set and no judge had been selected in the matter.
Even if the ACC's high-profile expansion succumbs to legal and political pressure and internal squabbling, leaders of other NCAA conferences say they won't be scared to try expansion.
"Frankly, I don't think this will have any major impact on what other leagues may want to do in the future," said Karl Benson, commissioner of the Western Athletic Conference
Mountain West spokesman Javan Hedlund said his conference will expand if and when it wants, regardless of the ACC precedent.
"As long as you follow the protocol there's not a whole lot anyone can do to stop it," Hedlund said. "Do everything right, and (opponents) don't have a leg to stand on."
Rather than intimidating future expansionists, the ACC's struggles may light the way.
Benson says the ACC suffered a public-relations black eye by trying to expand in secrecy. That black eye has throbbed in the wake of a lawsuit filed by five Big East schools who say the ACC conspired with Miami and Boston College long before their activity came to light, a claim ACC Commissioner John Swofford denies.
"I think this situation will cause schools and conferences to put as much sunshine as possible on any type of expansion," Benson said. "Do everything in the open, or you're going to get hammered for it."
The Mountain West has formed an opposite interpretation of the ACC's struggles. According to Hedlund, the ACC hasn't been secretive enough.
"You try to make sure it's more quiet than this," he said.
Hedlund cited secrecy and efficiency as key differences between the ACC situation and a much more streamlined secession from the WAC by five schools. In 1998, Brigham Young, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado State and Air Force left the WAC to form the core of what became the Mountain West.
Those schools met at a Denver airport and hammered out an agreement in hours. The rest of the WAC learned of the mutiny one hour before the news release hit the national wire services. The ACC's process has included news briefings, site visits and conference calls among chancellors -- the next of which could be tonight.
"Ours was kind of quiet," Hedlund said. "You've got to be careful with something like this."
Former Big Eight Commissioner Chuck Neinas, a consultant for several conferences, doesn't think the ACC's front-page struggles will stop the kind of conference fine-tuning that saw Penn State join the Big Ten in 1989, Florida State join the ACC in 1991 and East Carolina go to Conference USA in 1999.
"Those are one-school moves ... and what's going on in the ACC won't stop those situations," Neinas said.
Nor will the Big East group's lawsuit stop leagues from courting schools in other conferences, Benson said.
"The legal questions that the Big East has introduced will probably make conferences and schools seek clearer guaranteed legal protection before they do anything," Benson said. "Frankly, as long as a school leaves a conference in the right way, I don't see any legal recourse for the conference losing those schools."
Big East women's coaches worried
Coaches in the Big East said the possible defection of three schools to the ACC would harm all sports in the league, but especially women's athletics.
"All the gains we've made, ... I think would be disastrous," Connecticut women's basketball coach Geno Auriemma said. "There will be less opportunity for women."
Auriemma spoke on a telephone news conference with four coaches of women's teams in the Big East -- all of whom predicted dire consequences.
At stake is the potential loss of millions of dollars in revenue from TV deals and the lucrative Bowl Championship Series.
If the Big East breaks up, the BCS would pull its automatic berth -- and $13 million in guaranteed revenue.
West Virginia women's soccer coach Nikki Izzo-Brown said she is counting on that football money to keep the program moving forward.
"This is going to be devastating to us," she said. "... We're very concerned about our recruiting, our facilities. But the biggest thing is, this raid is just going to be a snowball effect."
Insisting that Florida State is not directing the Atlantic Coast Conference expansion effort from a bully pulpit, university president T.K. Wetherell is curious as to who keeps attempting to pick a fight with the Seminoles.
"It's clear there's a group that doesn't want expansion to happen, and they'll do about anything to stop it," Wetherell said Sunday. "If there isn't a good rumor going around, they'll make one up and someone will report it.
"They are trying to make us the bad guys ... Florida State is not the only school that wants expansion."
Wetherell disputed a second report in the past week from the Charlotte Observer that stated FSU has made it clear since 2001 that it would explore another conference affiliation if the ACC didn't "lure Miami away from the Big East."
The Observer reported Thursday that former FSU president Sandy D'Alemberte established an expansion-or-bust policy in 2001, but the newspaper issued a retraction two days later. In Sunday's editions, the Observer reported that it was athletic director Dave Hart, not D'Alemberte, who made the threat that FSU might leave the ACC if expansion didn't occur.
"Hart doesn't have the authority to do that," Wetherell said.
The FSU athletic director will have even less authority once Wetherell finishes implementing changes in the structure and procedures of the athletic department that were announced at a board of trustees meeting Friday. But Hart will continue to take the lead for FSU in the expansion discussions, Wetherell said.
The ACC is looking to grow to 12 schools with the additions of Big East Conference members Miami, Syracuse and Boston College. The Big East has filed a lawsuit in an effort to derail expansion.
ACC lawyers say the lawsuit has no legal merit. That position is supported by NCAA President Myles Brand, who said that individual schools have a right "to determine which conference affiliation is best for them."
Hart met with other ACC officials in Orlando this weekend during a national conference for athletic directors to come up with solutions to some of the issues that have delayed a final vote. Seven of the nine ACC presidents must vote in favor, but Duke, North Carolina and Virginia have not signed off on the final proposal.
Wetherell, who remains confident that expansion will be approved before the end of the month, said another teleconference between the ACC's Council of Presidents has not been scheduled for this week.
"At this point, there's nothing that's been planned, but that could change quickly," he said.
This still will be a big week for Wetherell. He will complete his radiation treatments for prostate cancer at Jacksonville's Mayo Clinic.
That's one fight the doctors have told him he is winning.
"I feel great. I got a lot of rest this weekend," he said.
ACC agenda: meetings
If the ACC presidents vote to extend invitations to Miami, Boston College and
Syracuse, it could leave Virginia Tech and other Big East teams behind and
scrambling to pick up the pieces.
Also, Big East decries expansion's effects on women's sports
By BARRY SVRLUGA, Staff Writer
Even with Florida State president T.K. Wetherell predicting the ACC will expand
by the end of this week, the league's Council of Presidents did not schedule
another conference call -- let alone a vote -- over the weekend.
The ACC's athletics directors likely will meet by teleconference today or
Tuesday to try to work on issues surrounding the potential additions of Miami,
Boston College and Syracuse. But it is the presidents and chancellors of the
league's nine schools that must vote.
The next conference call among the schools' CEOs likely will come by Tuesday,
though there's no guarantee it will end in a vote.
The presidents and chancellors met twice last week by phone for a total of five
hours, but they did not vote. It will take a 7-2 vote in favor of adding each
school for the ACC to expand.
Duke, North Carolina and Virginia currently are reluctant to vote for expansion.
On Sunday, coaches from the Big East said during a conference call with
reporters that ACC expansion would devastate women's sports.
"What the ACC is trying to do is strengthen the ACC, and they're doing it in a
way that will weaken the Big East," Connecticut women's basketball coach Geno
Auriemma said. "And by weakening the Big East, it now has a negative effect on
the majority of the sports -- mainly the women's sports -- that rely on the
promise of being in the Big East and having access to what the conferences have
decided is their revenue-sharing plan."
The five women's coaches on the teleconference said it is essential for the Big
East to remain a member of football's Bowl Championship Series, a major
revenue-generating cog that many schools use to support women's athletics.
The coaches also attacked the ACC's integrity.
"If [athletes] took a $25 pair of shoes, they're going to lose eligibility,
because we don't want them to be with one eye toward financial gain of any
sort," Rutgers women's basketball coach C. Vivian Stringer said. "Yet here,
there is a major raid. ... It's very hurting and upsetting, because I wonder how
that young athlete must look at this and realize it's all about greed, it's all
about power."
Yet the coaches said they realized that the college sports landscape is likely
to change, whether the ACC expands now or not.
"I don't think you can count on anything being stable anymore," Auriemma said.
"I wouldn't be surprised if there's change over the next 10 years that we'd look
back and say, 'I would've never thought that would've happened.' "
Auriemma said he didn't feel he could get a straight answer from his colleagues
at Miami, Boston College and Syracuse about their feelings.
"If you're Miami, you're probably jumping up and down saying, 'We'd love to be
in the ACC.' For them, maybe it makes sense."