ACC not likely to vote today
The ACC says its long-awaited expansion vote might not happen until late this month.
FROM STAFF AND WIRE REPORTS

The ACC might not vote on expansion until the end of the month, according to a statement released to the media Tuesday afternoon.
The nine ACC presidents will talk via conference call at 7 a.m. today for the third time in nine days, but there is no indication a vote will be taken today on whether to invite Big East members Miami, Boston College and Syracuse.

"The nine ACC presidents who will make the decision on conference expansion may not formally vote on the matter until late this month," the ACC said in its release.

Schools seeking to leave the Big East must pay $1 million, an exit fee that will increase to $2 million after June 30.

The ACC presidents spoke by teleconference for a total of five hours over two days last week but reached no consensus on whether to add the three schools. At least seven of the presidents must vote in favor of expansion for it to occur.

Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) said Tuesday the chances of Virginia voting yes are "slim." There has been political pressure on UVa President John Casteen to vote against expansion because of the effect it would have on Big East member Virginia Tech.

"What Virginia is doing is looking out for the best interests of all the people in the Commonwealth of Virginia," said Allen, a former Virginia quarterback.

Virginia Tech and four other Big East schools filed a lawsuit two weeks ago against the ACC, Miami and BC, seeking damages and an injunction to stop the defections.

"The lawsuit is directly responsible for this delay and the schools' second-guessing of a supposedly done deal to accept the three schools," Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, one of the plaintiffs' main lawyers, said Tuesday. "We've slowed the defection of these schools. We mean to stop it."

The presidents voted 7-2 on May 13 to expand to 12 teams, with Duke and North Carolina voting no. UVa voted yes but requested Virginia Tech be one of the expansion targets. Three days later, the ACC voted 8-1 to hold formal talks with Miami, Syracuse and BC; UVa cast the dissenting vote.

Duke and North Carolina have recently voiced concern about travel costs, student welfare and projected football revenues of an ACC title game and future TV contracts.

"There's a group that doesn't want expansion to happen, and they will do about anything to stop it," Florida State President T.K. Wetherell told The Tallahassee Democrat this week. "They are trying to make us the bad guys. Florida State is not the only school that wants expansion."

The first teleconference among the presidents reviewed the site visits and included the heads of Miami, Syracuse and Boston College.

The second teleconference last week included just the nine ACC presidents. Talks ranged from divisional play to student welfare to finances, according to North Carolina State Chancellor Marye Anne Fox.

"This is not a done deal by any means," Fox said last Friday. "The things that we have not had enough time to discuss so far are divisional structure; who would play one time and two times in basketball and how that would rotate and what that would do to conference rankings; and equity in travel. All of those things have not at all been resolved, let alone presented to the other three [Big East] presidents."

ACC Commissioner John Swofford discussed details of expansion with ACC athletic directors via a conference call Monday, according to The Miami Herald.

The five Big East schools' New York law firm retained a public relations company that launched an anti-expansion offensive last week. The Greensboro, N.C., law firm representing the ACC in the suit has now hired a public relations firm of its own.

 

Wait gain? ACC may put off vote
Teleconference set today, but decision expected later
BY DAVID DROSCHAK
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Jun 18, 2003

RALEIGH, N.C. - The Atlantic Coast Conference said it may not vote on adding Miami, Syracuse and Boston College until later this month, further prolonging the league's expansion saga.

The statement issued by the league yesterday came on the eve of another scheduled teleconference today among the school's top leaders and ACC Commissioner John Swofford, who insisted last week there was no timetable for a vote.

The ACC's nine presidents and chancellors spoke by teleconference for a total of five hours over two days last week but reached no consensus on whether to add the three Big East schools or remain a nine-team league.

The three Big East schools each have to pay a $1 million exit fee if they bolt to the ACC. That penalty doubles after June 30.

"The ACC is engaged in a thorough, member-driven, strategic planning process designed to ensure the long-term viability of the conference," Ron Wellman, Wake Forest's athletic director and chair of the ACC athletic directors, said.

Syracuse spokesman Kevin Morrow said the school is waiting on the ACC's decision.

"It was never imperative that a decision had to be made today, tomorrow or the next day," Morrow said. "As much time as is needed will be taken."

Officials from Miami and Boston College did not immediately return telephone calls seeking comment.

The five remaining Big East football schools - Connecticut, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, West Virginia and Virginia Tech - have filed a lawsuit to stop the expansion. The schools say the plan is a conspiracy that would weaken the Big East, whose members have spent millions on their football programs on the assumption the other schools would remain involved.

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said the delay in the ACC's vote will not affect his plans to vigorously defend the Big East.

"Indeed, the lawsuit is directly responsible for this delay and the schools' second-guessing of a supposedly done deal to accept the three schools," Blumenthal said. "We've slowed the defection of these schools. We mean to stop it."

Duke and North Carolina have voiced concern about travel costs, student welfare and projected football revenues of an ACC title game and future TV contracts. Virginia also has had to weigh political pressure from a state legislature that wants Virginia Tech included in the expansion mix.

At least seven of the nine presidents and chancellors must vote in favor of expansion for it to occur.

The ACC voted May 16 to pursue the three Big East schools, and site visits were completed two weeks ago.

The first teleconference among the conference leadership was to review the site visits, and included the heads of Miami, Syracuse and Boston College.

The second teleconference last week included just the nine ACC schools. Talks ranged from divisional play to student welfare to finances, according to North Carolina State Chancellor Marye Anne Fox.

 

Talk-and-balk presidents stall in making big call
BOB LIPPER
TIMES-DISPATCH COLUMNIST Jun 18, 2003
Contact Bob Lipper at (804) 649-6555 or e-mail blipper@timesdispatch.com

These ACC presidents gab more often and get nowhere faster than the babblers on "The View." At least Barbara Walters and Star Jones get ratings. Marye Anne Fox and T.K. Wetherell just get old.

Our esteemed academics - the Negotiating Nine - reportedly are scheduled for another telechat this morning. They will debate. They will discuss. They will deliberate. They will not ask how each other's chemistry departments are doing. They might not conclude the session with a vote - something people thought would happen last week until the Noodling Nine determined they needed to keep on dishing.

Talk is cheap.

Plundering a rival conference is cheaper.

I'm sick of expansion. I wish I'd never heard the word. I wish it and the concept behind it would disappear in a Greensboro minute. Mostly, I just wish the Navel-Gazing Nine would cast their ballots and end this expansion saga so the rest of us can move on with our lives and they can get back to trimming their library budgets.

There's not much more to con- sider here. The invitees have been targeted. The campuses have been visited. The lawsuit's been filed. The pols have weighed in. Miami, Boston College and Syracuse are waiting for the white puff of smoke from John Swofford's chimney.

Or the dark cloud that'll hover above them if they're forced to slink back to the Big East.

Swofford would have you believe this is strictly a business deal among consenting adults. That was his riff when asked recently how he felt about raiding another league. "What we're looking at is a continuing evolvement of the landscape in conferences," Swofford replied evenly - as if this was all about widening a two-lane blacktop or pruning some boxwoods.

It's considerably more of a bulldozing job than that. ACC real-estate developers get goosebumps when they talk about establishing a "bigger footprint" for their league - only that size-19½ wingtip would be planted firmly on the Big East's back. The ACC gets richer only if the Big East gets poorer. And if that leaves Virginia Techs, Pitts and UConns groveling for loose change at the side of the road, well, so be it.

Give Mike Tranghese this. If the Big East commissioner hadn't outed the ACC, this would've been a clandestine romance followed by a gala wedding reception, and any counterattack would've come off as muted afterthought. The lawsuit filed by the Left-Behind Five changed all that. I can't speak to its legal merits. But as public-relations theater, it's worth every clause. Portrayed (correctly) as land-grabbing opportunists, the ACC has been playing defense ever since. It might win this game - but at cost to its reputation and with riled politicians maybe more inclined to examine the BCS cartel that governs big-time football.

Meanwhile, faculty groups at some ACC schools have joined the chorus in lobbying their CEOs to just say no.

"It's time to tell the professional sports managers at the ACC that we are universities first," UNC faculty chair Sue Estroff told the New York Times. "We are delighted we slowed this down. I hope it brings it to a grinding halt. I would like to hear nothing but the screeching of tires up and down the East Coast."

Florida State AD Dave Hart called expansion brakemen "non-visionaries."

Better they be defined as people of conscience. And if conscience comes with an arm-twist from your neighborhood attorney general, well, so be it.

 

Add foul expansion plot to college athletics' rot
JOHN MARKON
TIMES-DISPATCH COLUMNIST Jun 18, 2003
Contact John Markon at (804) 649-6892 or jmarkon@timesdispatch.com

Apparently, we've finally reached a crisis point in the course of the Atlantic Coast Conference's expansion plot, al ready the runaway leader for recognition as the Rotten Onion Story of the Year.

Rotten onion? The more layers you peel away, the worse it smells.

There's some sort of showdown conference call for ACC presidents today when they'll be given yet another chance to confirm last month's attempted hostile takeover of the Big East Conference, but the league said yesterday the vote may not come until later this month.

These showdowns actually were scheduled for last week, but ACC Commissioner John Swofford didn't have the necessary seven "yes" votes and called for a rain delay. Sooner or later, even Swofford, who has something close to zero credibility at this point, will have to stop talking about his "ongoing process" and admit his scheme's in trouble.

Or, as still seems more likely, he'll get his votes.

It would be a triumphant climax to a process that involved months of secret negotiations and several rounds of law yerspeak or outright lying in public by almost every party involved.

It also would land squarely on a shelf with the NCAA's multiplicity of ongoing rotten-onion stories that include:

A Florida State quarterback who was kiting checks because he was losing bets on football games . . . or maybe it was the other way around.
A conspiracy by the basketball coach and the president at St. Bonaventure to put a player on the floor even though they knew he was ineligible. Hey, who'd ever find out?
A football coach at Alabama who saved his best recruiting pitches for his favorite strip clubs.
A basketball coach at Iowa State who liked to crash dorm parties on road trips and then pose for photos being excessively affectionate to 19-year-old girls.
The University of Washington's football coach, who didn't understand why anyone was upset that he made a $5,000 bet on the NCAA basketball tournament.
It's been almost 30 years since I attended college, but I do remember that most of the people I met in athletics at that time were doing what they did because they had a sincere desire to participate in shaping the lives of young people.

These people, alas, already were on their way out. Some of the coaches and most of the athletic administrators I meet today seem to be nothing more than junior-grade empire builders. If the money tap were turned off in college athletics, they could all switch to telemarketing, for example, without a second thought.

Having a genuine concern for young men and women would seem to encompass all young athletes, not just the ones in your uniforms. It would also mean attempting to set an example worthy of being followed. I don't see how any of this fits in to the ACC's attempt to plunder the assets of another league. Expansion proponents also have been ripped for being greedy, but even Swofford admits there isn't that much extra money in it, particularly for the nine existing ACC schools.

The primary reason behind expansion seems to be the idea that there's only room for one 12-team "super conference" along the East Coast and that any amount of carnage is justified to make certain that the surviving conference carries the coveted "ACC" brand.

It's so 1980s Wall Street . . . and so unworthy of institutions of higher learning. You have to wonder how some of the ringleaders in this plot ever got within 100 miles of an office at a major university.

The only plus to the situation is its educational value. After watching the athletic directors and presidents of the Big East and ACC smile for the cameras while knifing each other in the back over the last few weeks, everyone ought to know them for exactly who they are.

There's apparently some chance expansion could be derailed. Thanks, perhaps, to some coaching from his boss in the governor's mansion, University of Virginia President John Casteen is a "no" vote, whether he wants to be or not.

Duke and North Carolina are the others. While officials at these schools are making all the appropriate, high-minded comments in public, what they're allegedly doing behind the scenes is leveraging their votes for concessions on divisional alignments, revenue sharing, etc.

There is no good side. Usually, the only thing you can do with a rotten onion is throw it out of the house.


 

Hey ACC, it's time for the vote
By CAULTON TUDOR, Staff Writer

The issue has been debated countless times, and the ACC presidents are expected to chew on it some more Wednesday morning.

Everyone has weighed in -- governors, legislators, faculty members, lawyers, butchers and bakers.

Enough already, ACC leaders. Vote! It's time, mercifully, for the expansion saga to end.

Really, the league's nine presidents have been mulling this since the fall of 2001. A consulting firm has been on the job since February 2002. Expansion has been out in the open since the April day that Big East Conference commissioner Mike Tranghese ripped his ACC counterpart, John Swofford, for attempting a secret kidnapping of Boston College, Miami and Syracuse.

Now it's time for the presidents to say yea or nay.

They'll probably talk Wednesday, but will they vote? Don't bet the ranch, or even a bottle of ranch dressing, on it.

The lines are clearly drawn. Six ACC schools want to make the leap. Duke, North Carolina and Virginia have reservations. The pros and cons, as perceived by each school, won't go away or change significantly. Unless one of those three schools switches sides, expansion will not occur.

This vote should have taken place a week ago. If nothing else, the three Big East schools deserve an answer. For more than a month, they have been floating like space debris, uncertain whether they'll be lured by the ACC's gravitational pull or strong-armed back into the Big East.

Along the way, Tranghese has publicly belittled Miami President Donna Shalala, and five Big East teams have filed a lawsuit that smacks of being little more than a publicity stunt.

The two ACC camps have shown less and less patience with each other.

As matters of sport go, this is an important decision. Its impact will be broad. Much money is at stake.

Still, it's not life or death. No one is going to be physically harmed. All of these schools will continue to try their best to compete and win at the highest possible level, no matter how the conference alignments shake out.

If the vote is yes, both leagues have a lot of reorganizing and planning to do.

The ACC's future composition would then be obvious. The Big East would probably change its posture from the hunted to the hunter. Yet another aggressive push for Notre Dame would have to made. If the Irish say no to joining the Big East in football, as expected, the league then would have to plunder Conference USA.

If the ACC fails to expand, the Big East would owe its hide to Virginia Tech and the political pressure that the Hokies have been able to put on Virginia.

When the developments of the past month are carefully dissected, Virginia Tech's in-state influence will be remembered as the major unexpected obstacle encountered by the ACC.

Early on, Virginia favored expansion, with no particular regard for Virginia Tech's status. As recently as a week ago, UVa athletics director Craig Littlepage was quoted in The Roanoke (Va.) Times as saying expansion would be good for the ACC.

But it became apparent yet again that Virginia president John Casteen still was feeling cornered by Hokies supporters and state political leaders. If he backed expansion, as almost everyone in the conference once assumed he did, the opposition of Duke and Carolina would carry no weight.

Now, of course, Virginia's vote is crucial, and if Casteen had his way, there might never be a vote.

Sooner or later, though, all of the lobbying must give way to a vote. The presidents need to ring the bell and call the roll.

 

Lawyer knows ACC
Erik Albright, who is defending the conference against the Big East's lawsuit, attended Duke
By LUCIANA CHAVEZ, Staff Writer

Attorney Erik Albright contends the ACC has a better argument than the five Big East schools that are suing it.
Now it's his job to prove it.

Albright is representing the ACC in its fight against an unprecedented lawsuit -- Boston College and Miami are co-defendants -- that is seeking hundreds of millions of dollars and an injunction to stop the ACC's efforts to lure three schools away from the Big East.

"I think we have the better case," Albright said in a phone interview from his office in Greensboro. "The attorneys in this firm work well together as a team, and that makes it easier to handle a large matter like this."

Albright, 38, a 1987 Duke alumnus, graduated from Vanderbilt Law School, passed the bar and joined the Greensboro office of the firm in 1990.

He has represented the ACC in matters large and small since his arrival at Smith Moore LLP, a firm that was known as Smith Helms Mulliss & Moore before it split in 2002.

"The ACC called Erik [to represent it] because they had a level of trust with him," Smith Moore managing partner Steve Earp said. "Erik is a natural in front of judges and juries and any other group of people. But he obviously has the intellectual depth and background to take care of things, no matter how complicated."

Albright will be working with at least three other Smith Moore attorneys on the case, including fellow partner Larry Sitton.

Sitton said he and Albright most recently worked on one of the firm's largest cases, which pitted a banking company against an insurance company. Hundreds of millions of dollars were on the line.

Though neither could discuss specifics, both have the big-case experience the ACC will need.

"Insofar as the litigation is concerned, even though it's an unusual case, we encounter the same legal theories all the time," Sitton said. "In some ways, it's a contract dispute or an alleged breach of fiduciary duty. The legal complaints being made are things we deal with all the time."

Albright's familiarity with the law began early. His father, Douglas, is a Superior Court judge and a former Guilford County district attorney. Younger brother Stuart Albright is the current district attorney in Guilford County.

Albright, now a father to his own 3-year-old son with wife Holly, said he remembers going to court to watch his father try cases when he was 3 or 4 years old. "I've been around it and been interested in [law] for a very long time," he said.

Albright, who feeds his love for baseball as part of the group that owns the Class A Greensboro Bats, played second base at Duke from 1985-87.

His father played basketball at Duke from 1959-61. Stuart played football at Duke from 1987-91. And youngest brother Ethan, now a nine-year NFL veteran with the Washington Redskins starred at North Carolina from 1990-93.

It makes him well-suited to work this landmark case. And being one of the lead voices in the suit, which could have widespread implications for college sports, is an opportunity Albright welcomes.

"Having come through the ACC, I value the academic and athletic opportunities that it and my school gave to me," he said. "And because I believe in the ACC's right to associate itself with schools of its choosing, I believe in its philosophical position in this case as well as its legal position."
 

Virginia Will Not Vote 'Yes' For ACC
School's Ballot Key to Expansion
By Josh Barr
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 18, 2003; Page D01

Under considerable political pressure to protect the interests of in-state rival Virginia Tech, University of Virginia officials have informed ACC leaders that they cannot be the decisive seventh affirmative vote in the league's attempt to expand to 12 teams, according to two sources familiar with negotiations.

ACC university presidents will convene via conference call this morning, but the league yesterday released a statement saying a final vote on adding Big East members Miami, Boston College and Syracuse may not occur "until late this month."

The situation almost certainly will be resolved one way or another before June 30, when the exit fees for the withdrawing Big East schools double from $1 million to $2 million, if they move for the 2004-05 school year as anticipated.

Because the ACC needs seven of nine members to approve inviting new schools, Virginia's stance would seem to put additional pressure on North Carolina and Duke, which have been steadfast in their opposition to expansion, according to numerous sources.

However, there is another possibility: Three sources said that ACC leaders have asked their lawyers to examine the ACC Constitution and Bylaws, which stipulate that amendments can occur "at any regular or special meeting by two-thirds [six of nine] of the members." That means the six pro-expansion presidents could amend the bylaw concerning expansion to lessen the necessary votes to six.

There is, however, a stipulation that any "proposed amendment shall be submitted, in writing, four weeks before the meeting, through the commissioner to the Constitution and Bylaws Committee for reviews. The commissioner shall send complete copies of the proposed amendment to all members at least fifteen days before the meeting."

Changing the constitution is considered a dramatic move by some sources. They expect that before that happens, at least one university president will depart from what have been described as cordial discussions to try to powerfully persuade counterparts to change their vote.

"I think some presidents are going to try to exert some leadership the next couple of days," one source said last night. "I believe there is greater potential for some of that paying off than by tinkering with the rules. I'm hoping the diplomatic measures will be fruitful."

Said another source: "Whatever it takes, don't you think they would try to make it work? Why trot us out to the three schools [for well-publicized site visits] and all that? They're probably going to have a very serious conversation about how we got so far out here and what changed. . . . Expect a lot of arm-twisting."

Perhaps, but ACC Commissioner John Swofford and others are believed to have tried a similar approach for the past week without success.

ACC university presidents last month voted 7 to 2 to pursue expansion, with Duke and North Carolina in opposition and Virginia among the expansion supporters. However, after Virginia Tech was not one of the Big East schools the ACC pursued, Virginia Gov. Mark R. Warner has tried to wield his influence to ensure Virginia Tech's position in major college athletics. Virginia Attorney General Jerry Kilgore has assumed representation for Virginia Tech in its part of a lawsuit against Miami, Boston College and the ACC.

Virginia President John Casteen is believed to support expansion, but the pressure to look out for Virginia Tech will prevent him from voting accordingly if his is the crucial seventh vote, sources said.

"We have the seven votes," one source said. "The seventh vote can't vote what they want. So it throws you back into Duke and Carolina mode."

Another source said: Virginia is "having a very hard time, but the fact that it all hasn't been resolved yet means things are still possible. That is a problem, though, the local politics there in the state."

While many around the league are sympathetic to Virginia's situation, they are growing frustrated with Duke and North Carolina, several sources said.

Conference athletic directors have been working with league officials to hammer out details surrounding expansion, such as divisional alignments and travel schedules, sources said, preparing for the presidents to reach a conclusion. The ACC yesterday retained the services of North Carolina's largest public relations firm -- French West Vaughan -- in an attempt to improve its image in the expansion debate, firm president and chief executive officer Rick French said.

Duke officials have informed the league that they are satisfied with the status quo and likely will not modify their position unless convinced otherwise. North Carolina also has been resolute, although Chancellor James Moeser appeared to leave an opening when he spoke with faculty leaders Friday, saying that the risk of not expanding must be weighed.

"They could always change," one source said. "It's not that they said, 'No, that's the end of it.' They sort of toy with it. It makes me wonder if they think the best defense is to drag this out forever and let it die a slow death.

"I don't think Virginia has a choice. And the other two will talk to you about it all you want. If you want to talk to them for the next two months, I'm sure they'll talk about it."

 

Miami alone enters picture
Source: League official explores a compromise
GREGG DOYEL
Raleigh Bureau

Struggling for now to garner support to expand the ACC to 12 teams, Commissioner John Swofford has begun lobbying ACC chancellors to consider inviting Miami only.

Swofford hasn't ruled out adding Miami, Syracuse and Boston College, a source said Tuesday night, but he is exploring a Miami-only scenario as a potential compromise to expansion holdouts North Carolina, Duke and Virginia.

Miami President Donna Shalala has told Swofford she would accept an invitation if Boston College and Syracuse also were invited, but she hasn't been as willing to come to the ACC alone, sources said.

The ACC announced it might not vote on expansion until late June. ACC presidents were scheduled to hold a conference call at 7 a.m. today -- their third call in the past eight days.

Swofford will not call a vote today unless he believes he has the necessary seven "yes" votes to extend invitations to the schools.

As of Tuesday, there were indications he did not have the votes, although that could change if one of the three dissenting presidents (at North Carolina, Duke or Virginia) changes positions.

While Swofford did not rule out a vote this morning, the ACC issued a statement that hinted at additional delays. The statement read, in part, "The nine ACC presidents who will make the decision on expansion may not formally vote on the matter until late this month."

The statement also indicated a vote is expected by the end of June.

Miami has indicated it wants an answer by June 30, after which the Big East exit fee jumps from $1 million to $2 million.

Regardless of whether the ACC expands, the Big East plans to expand so it has eight football-only members and 16 members for basketball, ESPN.com reported. The Big East's revenue-sharing plan would change, allowing the eight football-only schools to keep a bigger share of the money.

If Miami, Boston College and Syracuse remain in the Big East, two more basketball-only schools could be added, such as Marquette of Conference USA and Xavier from the Atlantic 10, the report said.

If only Miami leaves for the ACC, then the Big East would pursue Louisville of Conference USA for football and basketball, and Marquette and Xavier for basketball, according to the report.

If Miami, Boston College and Syracuse leave, the Big East is expected to invite Louisville and consider South Florida and Central Florida, among other schools, for the other two slots, according to a source.

Among expansion proponents, there's hope the delay might prompt Duke President Nan Keohane or North Carolina Chancellor James Moeser to become the seventh "yes" vote.

But opposition remains.

"There's a group that doesn't want expansion to happen, and they will do about anything to stop it," Florida State President T.K. Wetherell told the Tallahassee Democrat this week.

"They are trying to make us the bad guys. Florida State is not the only school that wants expansion."

 

Debate could get hot
Conference call set for today
By LUCIANA CHAVEZ, Staff Writer

The presidents and chancellors of ACC schools will conduct their third teleconference in nine days this morning to discuss ACC expansion, and although they may not vote on the matter, the conversation could get heated.
The call is expected to be a contentious one pitting strong pro-expansion schools like Florida State and Georgia Tech against Duke, North Carolina, and Virginia, the three that remain unconvinced that expanding the conference to 12 teams would be the right move.

If any of the three chooses to support expansion, the ACC would have the necessary seven of nine votes required to make it happen.

In a statement released Tuesday, the ACC said the presidents may not formally vote on the matter "until late this month."

Time is running out. To get out of the Big East for $1 million apiece, Miami, Syracuse and Boston College have to inform the conference by June 30. On July 1, the exit fee increases to $2 million apiece if the three schools want to join the ACC in 2004-05.

Delaying the vote again could exacerbate an already tense situation.

North Carolina and Duke, which initially voted against expansion, have publicly voiced concerns about such issues as divisional alignment, scheduling, travel expenses and student-athletes' time away from classes.

UNC and Duke later voted in favor of beginning discussions with Miami, Syracuse and BC, and ACC committees have already made official visits to all three campuses.

Virginia, which voted in favor of expansion but against entering discussions with those three schools, is under significant political pressure to oppose any plan that does not include Virginia Tech.

Syracuse spokesman Kevin Morrow said Tuesday that his school wasn't getting impatient.

"It was never imperative that a decision had to be made today, tomorrow or the next day," Morrow said. "As much time as is needed will be taken."

Virginia Tech and four other football-playing schools in the Big East -- West Virginia, Pittsburgh, Connecticut and Rutgers -- have filed suit against the ACC, Miami and Boston College in an effort to block expansion.

There has been no indication from ACC officials that a compromise plan to add only Miami to the league is being considered.

Under NCAA rules, a league must have 12 members to conduct a potentially lucrative championship game in football -- one of the ACC's motivations for trying to add three teams.

With only 10 teams, the ACC would have to petition the NCAA's championships/competition cabinet for a rule change, which would then have to be approved by both the NCAA's management council and board of directors. The cabinet will meet later this month, but chairwoman Jean L. Ponsetto said she doubted the 12-team requirement would be altered.

"You have conferences that were formed or used that [rule] as a basis for what they've done in their own planning -- namely the SEC and the Big 12," Ponsetto, senior associate athletics director at DePaul, said in a telephone interview. "You'd probably get some opposition from those conferences. It's my opinion that this particular piece [of legislation] would have a hard time passing right now."