Gov. Warner pushed Tech inclusion in ACC growth
By WARREN FISKE AND HARRY MINIUM, The Virginian-Pilot
© June 20, 2003

RICHMOND -- After laboring tirelessly to ensure that Virginia Tech was a part of any expansion by the Atlantic Coast Conference, Gov. Mark R. Warner declined comment Thursday on reports of a breakthrough for the Hokies for fear that a reported deal could still unravel.

Thanks to the efforts of the University of Virginia, which held the final vote needed for the expansion to be approved, ACC presidents reluctantly agreed Wednesday morning to consider adding Virginia Tech, several news organizations have reported. A formal vote on Tech's inclusion in the ACC could come as early as this weekend.

Warner has argued that exclusion from the conference would be detrimental to Tech's vaunted football program and the state's economic interests.

Tech is a member of the Big East Conference. Last month, the rival ACC offered membership to three of the Big East's most powerful football schools -- the University of Miami, Syracuse University and Boston College.

Tech did not receive an ACC invitation and was left with the prospect of playing in a depleted Big East Conference.

Losing the three schools would almost surely have left the Big East bereft of membership in the Bowl Championship Series, which has contracts with the four largest football bowl games, a lucrative contract with the ABC television network and stages the national championship game.

Playing in a conference without a BCS membership would have deprived Tech of millions of dollars and any real hope of playing for the national championship, school officials have said. Tech lost to Florida State in the 1999 national championship game.

Warner, an avid sports fan, played one bargaining chip -- U.Va., which is a member of the ACC. Before expansion can occur, at least seven of its nine members must vote to offer membership to the new schools. U.Va. ended up as the critical seventh vote. Warner has pressured U.Va. President John T. Casteen III to oppose expansion unless Tech is included. On Wednesday, that strategy appeared to have succeeded.

The potential breakthrough is still shaky, however, and many officials declined to discuss it out of concern that it could still unravel.

Tech would have to pay a $1 million exit fee for leaving the Big East. Under state law, that money would have to come from athletic revenue or private sources, not from taxpayers.

Sources close to Warner and Casteen said that Casteen, who has been at U.Va.'s helm for 13 years, hardly needed to be reminded that cooperating with a governor is in his long-term interest. By the time his term expires in 2006, Warner will have had an opportunity to name 16 of 17 members to U.Va.'s governing Board of Visitors. Casteen reports to those appointees.

``Any university president that ignores the urging of a governor of the commonwealth leaves himself in some jeopardy,'' said state Sen. John C. Watkins, R-Chesterfield. ``John Casteen has been around the block. He knows what it's all about.''

Watkins is among 19 Tech graduates in the General Assembly, many of whom made recent calls to Casteen and Warner. Among them is Sen. John H. Chichester, R-Stafford, chairman of the powerful Senate Finance Committee which has a large say in allocating state dollars.

Chichester said he spoke to Casteen last Friday and sensed that there was little hope for Tech's inclusion in the ACC. He also said he is unaware of any effort to tie funding at U.Va. to Casteen's efforts in behalf of Tech.

``I don't operate that way and I'd sure be disappointed if anyone else did,'' he said.

Chichester, who said he's ``elated'' by Wednesday's development, added that the state has a strong interest in seeing Tech athletics succeed. The school recently spent $37 million enlarging its football stadium under the premise that the Big East would remain a major conference.

He said Tech football also is important to the economy in Southwestern Virginia, where hotels and restaurants fill up when the Hokies play.

Other politicians also joined the fray. Attorney General Jerry W. Kilgore, who is Tech's lawyer, joined four other spurned Big East schools in a June 6 lawsuit to stop the ACC's expansion. Tech would be required to drop the suit as a condition of negotiating with the ACC.

``We will do whatever is in Tech's interest,'' said Tim Murtaugh, Kilgore's spokesman.

Virginia's two U.S. senators, Republicans John W. Warner and George F. Allen, wrote letters urging the presidents of Miami, Syracuse and Boston College not to bolt the Big East.

Allen, a former U.Va. quarterback, expressed frustration with the whole situation.

``I'm on the Foreign Relations Committee and I've found the process of bringing nations into NATO simpler and cleaner than the acrimonious process that we've been through with the ACC and the Big East,'' he said Thursday.


Allen said the ACC's raid underscores the greed in college sports.

``This whole thing is about money,'' he said. ``They can talk about caring about students and athletics. But the bottom line is that it's all about money.''

 

ACC says it’s not about the money; what will Tech say?
The Virginian-Pilot
© June 21, 2003

You can believe him or not, but Dean Bonham swears the ACC’s raid on the Big East is not driven by money.

“I can’t emphasize that enough,’’ Bonham said, “although I can’t get anybody’s attention on it.’’

So, why should Bonham have anybody’s attention in the first place?

Only because he’s the marketing guru from Denver, Colo., whom ACC commissioner John Swofford entrusted more than a year ago to help direct the conference into the uncertain future of college athletics.

Since the ACC’s effort to lure Miami, Boston College and Syracuse from the Big East into an expanded, 12-team ACC went public, the loudest cry has come from those lamenting how big-time college sports have become nothing but an overt money grab.

Bonham took time Friday to dispute that notion in the strongest terms.

“It really is frustrating to me to see so many inches given to the issue of it being all about money, when that simply is categorically not true,’’ Bonham said.

He was hired, he said, to help shed light on whether to attempt such a bold move, as well as the countless factors involved in it. In dozens of meetings and teleconferences over 18 months, Bonham said discussion centered mostly upon non-economic issues.

Bonham said he and the ACC “vigorously and diligently’’ explored everything from the cultural match of prospective new members to student welfare, graduation rates, travel costs and the problems of division realignment.

Foremost, however, was the dramatic changes that could be in store in college sports over the next decade, especially as they pertain to football and TV contracts. The ACC, Bonham said, sought to position itself as advantageously as possible for what lies ahead.

If that still sounds like all roads lead to the bank, well, Bonham sounds dead serious when he says, “I would have advised against this expansion’’ if the question was strictly whether it made economic sense.

“I don’t spin and I don’t lie,’’ Bonham said. “Those are the facts.’’

As they relate to Virginia Tech, of course, the facts just got a whole lot easier to swallow. After much acid reflux, the School the ACC Forgot has suddenly become the School the ACC Can’t Live Without.

With the wheels wobbling on the ACC’s once-sleek expansion train, the ACC is dangling a fat, juicy carrot before a starving Hokie Nation.

Now, if an invitation to join the ACC comes, the suspense will be in seeing if Virginia Tech — which is supposedly pledged to saving the Big East and joined a lawsuit to prove it — can grab that carrot without self-inflicting a serious case of whiplash.

Inviting the disenfranchised is clearly a stroke of genius from the ACC … unless it is a desperate reach … unless it is a mixture of both.

In this unbelievable adventure, nobody on the outside really knows what gamesmanship lurks in the halls of academia, where all pretense of educational mission above athletic conquest has been proven, finally and forever, to be a crock.

The twists of the ACC’s maneuvering are such that new questions, with no real answers, emerge practically by the hour. As in, is it too late to call the whole thing off? With so much poison in the water, and because the ACC is so committed, it probably is.

In which case, what nimble turns of phrasing can Virginia Tech use as it swoons into the ACC’s bosom, which it surely must.

To cover itself, and claim a prize — ACC membership — the school has dreamed of for only about 200 years, Tech seems to have no choice but to suffer the slings of being a blatant turncoat.

An unenviable position, but a temporary one.

Tech would be the ACC’s 13th team. If by expanding to 12, the ACC was to become richer from a championship football game, how can splitting the pot 13 ways, or maybe even 14 depending on which shoe drops next, make financial sense?

That would be a legitimate question, except Bonham already said there are more important things.

What remains a puzzle, however, is how poor John Casteen III, the University of Virginia’s president, can enjoy his trip to Europe with both of his arms in casts? Pro ’rasslers have nothing on Virginia Gov. Mark R. Warner when it comes to pinning appendages behind backs.

Evidently, Warner bullied Casteen into the deliciously ironic position of throwing himself on the tracks to protect Tech’s athletic interests — underscoring, of course, the gritty reality that college sports do not wag the dog, they are the dog.

That above all will be true in Bonham’s changing landscape.

 

Virginia Tech awaits call of ACC

The nine ACC presidents will hold a conference call today and could decide to enter into formal talks with Tech.

By MARK BERMAN
THE ROANOKE TIMES

   Virginia Tech could get some good news from the ACC today.

    The nine ACC presidents will hold another conference call about expansion this morning. The presidents put Virginia Tech back on the table as an expansion candidate Wednesday.

    At least seven presidents would have to vote in favor of holding formal talks with Tech. The presidents voted last month to talk with three other Big East schools - Miami, Boston College and Syracuse.

    "If I were making the call, I'd still require it to be in writing," William Latham, vice rector of the Tech Board of Visitors, said Friday of any ACC desire to hold formal talks. "Because some people have their own personal agendas. I'd want a written proposal with specifics."

    Latham was not sure whether Tech President Charles Steger has informed the ACC he is willing to talk.

    "That is in process, but I don't know where in the process," Latham said. "It'd be idiotic not to talk or at least say we'll listen. We have an obligation to the institution ... as well as to the alumni and the supporters of the athletic program to attempt to hear what everybody's saying.

    "We have over a lot of years wanted to become a part of the ACC."

    Dean Bonham, the consultant the ACC hired last year to study expansion, is now looking at how the Hokies measure up.

    "The ACC is evaluating a number of scenarios, including the Virginia Tech scenario," said Bonham, who runs The Bonham Group. "We [in his firm] are evaluating the Virginia Tech scenario specifically.

    "On a scale of 1 to 10, the economics of whether Tech makes it or not is a 2. ... Any school that becomes part of the ACC has to fit culturally, they have to fit philosophically and they have to fit economically."

    Two weeks ago, Tech, Connecticut and three other Big East schools sued the ACC, Miami and BC in an attempt to stop the defections. Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal gave Tech something of a warning Friday.

    "As of today, Virginia Tech is still a member of the Big East and an active plaintiff in our lawsuit. So far as we know, it remains committed to our legal cause and has no intention to defect from the Big East," Blumenthal said in a statement. "We will not speculate on what actions, if any, we will take if Virginia Tech defects. We reserve all options."

    Blumenthal also had harsh words for the ACC.

    "The ACC's desperate overtures to Virginia Tech underscore the core strength of our case - that the ACC is willing to stop at nothing to destroy the Big East as a football conference," Blumenthal said. "The ACC is so blinded by its obsession to win at all costs that it will expand even though adding a fourth Big East school will reduce revenue for the ACC's universities - undermining the ACC's original justification for its Big East raid. The ACC has and continues to engage in actions that they will be held responsible for."

    ACC presidents have had three conference calls since last Tuesday without taking a vote on whether to invite Miami, Syracuse and BC. Seven yes votes are needed; Duke, North Carolina and UVa are considered holdouts. Adding Tech to the mix is seen as a way to get UVa to vote yes.

    Of course, if the presidents hold another vote today on Miami, SU and BC, and if Duke or UNC decides it would rather be in a 12-team league than a 13-team league, expansion could still pass with Tech left out.

    Bonham had recommended the ACC expand to 12 teams. He said he has not yet been asked to make a recommendation on a 13-team league. This is not the first time Bonham has studied the idea of a 13-team league. He said in the past 18 months he evaluated "every scenario you can imagine" for the ACC.

    Bonham contends that power, not money, is the big reason the ACC wants to expand.

    "Had my opinion been based solely on economics, I would have advised the ACC not to expand," said Bonham, whose sports and entertainment marketing firm is based in Denver. "It doesn't make economic sense for the ACC to expand. There is not a financial windfall here.

    "The ACC should consider expansion, but it has much more to do with the ACC's voice at the table. ... It is about the place the ACC has at the table in the next 10 years affecting change in the collegiate world. That's what it's about. Economics enters into it, but it's way down the list. If you focus just on economics, the only decision you can come to is you don't expand."

    The four schools must pay the Big East $1 million if they notify the Big East by June30 they want to join the ACC for 2004-05. That sum doubles if they wait until after June30.

    If expansion doesn't take place until 2005-06, the four schools have until June30 of next year before the Big East penalty doubles to $2 million. So the ACC presidents don't feel a pressing need to hammer out expansion by the end of this month.

    "Our presidents have said that they're not bound by June30," ACC assistant commissioner Mike Finn said. "I think everybody would like to get the process concluded as soon as possible, but when other issues come up ... I can't see them just adhering strictly to that date."

Tech dialed in to phone-fest
ACC brass scheduled to talk today
BY MIKE HARRIS
TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER Jun 21, 2003


The Atlantic Coast Conference's presidents and chancellors are scheduled to meet again by telephone this morning. Virginia Tech is quite eager to learn the results of that call.

Tech's athletic future is up in the air. Will it remain in the Big East, or what might be left of it if the ACC expands? Or will it soon be moving along with Miami, Boston College and Syracuse into the ACC?

"Our alumni would like to see us in the ACC," said William C. Latham of Haymarket, vice rector of the school's Board of Visitors.

That didn't seem possible when the week began. The ACC expansion train was moving along without the Hokies, to the point where they joined the other Big East football schools in a lawsuit against the ACC, Miami and Boston College.

But those expansion plans bogged down, and the Hokies were back in the ACC game. The ACC needs yes votes from seven of its nine members. North Carolina, Duke and Virginia were opposed to the original plan.

University of Virginia President John Casteen III brought up the idea of considering the Hokies again. Georgia Tech President G. Wayne Clough paid a visit to Virginia Tech President Charles Steger.

Virginia Tech then let the Big East know it would listen if the ACC wanted to ACCtalk.

If the ACC seriously wants to talk will likely be determined in this morning's call.

The following actions could be taken today:

One of the three schools could change its mind and the original expansion plan could go through, leaving the Hokies out. However, sources say this isn't likely to happen. UNC and Duke are opposed to expansion, and Virginia is under political pressure to look out for Virginia Tech. ("We really appreciate the effort Gov. [Mark R.] Warner has put into this," Latham said.)
The league could table all expansion talk for an indefinite period, another option that isn't expected.
The league could decide to further examine the Hokies as members. The next step would be an official site visit to Tech's campus, as required by the ACC's bylaws. Visits have already been made to Miami, BC and Syracuse.
No official invitation can be extended until after a site visit. Official invitations haven't been extended to anyone yet.

"People ask what we're going to do, and we don't have anything yet," said John G. Rocovich Jr. of Roanoke, the rector of Tech's Board of Visitors. "When we have something and we have an idea of what the something is, then we can address that."

Tech's Board technically doesn't have to approve a switch from the Big East, should an invitation come. Steger can make that decision himself, and the Board can ratify it at a later meeting.

But a decision of that magnitude, Rocovich and Latham said, would require much consultation with Board members.

"There would be the same kind of questions anybody putting together a business deal would do," Latham said. "What we'd do would depend on the specifics of the offer. Do we split the revenue stream equally? In other words, are we an equal shareholder? Are we an equal participant in the scheduling?

"In my opinion, a meeting of the Board of Visitors isn't necessary. Solicit opinions and make the call. I'm confident he will make the right call."

Said Rocovich, "From what I'm reading and hearing, something may be in the offing, but it's awful hard to speculate on a proposition you haven't seen yet. We'd have to look at it . . . it could be an attractive proposal. It could be a close call.

"Or it could be one of these things if, in fact, some of the speculation is correct that there's some manipulation going on and some maneuvering. It could be a proposal where they could say, 'Well, we asked them to join and they said no.' But it could have such onerous conditions tied on to it that nobody with a functioning brain would ever say yes."

The situation has already bruised feelings and damaged relationships in the Big East. Latham said his preference is that both leagues remain intact.

"The most hurtful part of the whole process is what it does to the Big East. I think that's deplorable. Again, it's a business deal," Latham said.

And it's a deal, he said, that Tech must investigate - despite the bruised feelings.

"You can't cut your nose off to spite your face. That makes no sense," Latham said.

 

ACC biggest winner if Tech joins
JOHN MARKON
TIMES-DISPATCH COLUMNIST Jun 21, 2003
Contact John Markon at (804) 649-6892 or jmarkon@timesdispatch.com

Now that the Atlantic Coast Conference's expansion plot has taken turns unexpected by even the plotters, it's time to consider something I would have sworn would have never happened during my lifetime - membership by Virginia's two big-time athletic programs in the same league.

My feeling is that there would be one very clear winner if it came to pass.

It wouldn't be athletes. At one time, participation in the geographically compact ACC would have been a plus for athletes at Virginia Tech, but there's nothing compact about the projected new-look ACC.

In regard to missed classes and travel time, megaconferences are a bad deal for all serious student/athletes. Projected increased revenues might keep a few sports alive, but only until the basketball coach asks for his next raise.

In terms of recruiting, Tech and Virginia are already hyper-competitive in terms of attracting in-state football players. It's hard to see how being in the same league would or could up the ante. At some point, ACC membership might help Tech become a player in terms of Top 100 basketball recruits, although the Hokies' brief Big East membership was supposed to have done that and has not.

Grads and fans may not notice much of MARKONa difference, either. The schools are pure and simple rivals, and common conference affiliation wouldn't increase or diminish the rivalry.

The late Lewis Grizzard, an Atlanta newspaper columnist, once drew a memorable character sketch of an aging Auburn frat boy who admitted he divorced his first wife "because she just didn't hate'Bama enough." That's a college rivalry. Now or 20 years from now, I would not seat Cavaliers and Hokies next to each other at a conference basketball tournament.

So, where's the real winner? It's the conference itself.

In states where the big-time schools play in two or three different leagues, fan focus and media spotlight always . . . repeat, always . . . tends to be on the schools as opposed to the leagues.

As a Virginia newspaperman, I can remember when the ACC had real "market share" in Virginia. It was before Virginia Tech (and Virginia, for that matter) asserted itself as a national football power.

State papers would once routinely send writers to ACC games not involving Virginia. This is rare now in basketball and almost never happens in football. Things like announcements of all-ACC teams in major sports were legitimate front-page stories.

It's still that way in states such as Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Oregon, Michigan, Washington, etc., where the large majority of the focus falls on one conference. If the SEC is treated like a major league in Alabama, it's because it's the only major league they have. In North Carolina, the ACC still is probably more "major league" than three actual major leagues, the NFL, NHL and NBA.

Offerings such as the ACC's currently lame football Game of the Week TV package ("Duke vs. Clemson? Didn't they play last week?") might actually inspire some bidding wars in the state if competing stations in Richmond, Roanoke and Norfolk felt they'd be acquiring three or four Virginia games plus three or four Tech games.

This couches the issue in the ACC's preferred language, dollars.

One of the reasons Virginia Tech has been traditionally excluded from the ACC, of course, is that some league members felt the Hokies contributed only a redundant media market. They may find there's a difference between market penetration, which they hope to gain with Syracuse and Boston College, and legitimate, tangible market share.

The possible inclusion of Virginia Tech won't do a thing to ennoble the ACC's rapacious expansion process or Tech's comic posturing both for and against it. At some point in the future, however, conference officials might wonder why so many people thought a second Virginia member was a bad idea for so long.

 

Attention turns to Hokies
By NEIL AMATO : The Herald-Sun
namato@heraldsun.com
Jun 20, 2003 : 11:18 pm ET

A far-flung meeting of ACC presidents will occur this morning by telephone, likely discussing the inclusion of Virginia Tech in its expansion plans.

Several ACC leaders are out of town, and at least two -- Virginia president John Casteen and N.C. State chancellor Marye Anne Fox -- are traveling in Europe. Still, they are scheduled to be on the phone together this morning at 9 a.m.

This will be the fourth conference call among school leaders since the league completed its site visits to Miami, Boston College and Syracuse. The previous three calls, lasting a total of eight hours, produced lots of talk but no vote on adding the three schools and becoming a 12-team league.

Seven "yes" votes are needed to approve expansion. Duke and North Carolina have said they are against expansion, though e-mail correspondence among UNC officials indicates a move there to add Miami only. Virginia's Casteen is for expansion but faces stiff pressure from the state's politicos to oppose any additions that do not include Virginia Tech.

Now, however, Virginia Tech, is an option as a 13th school, a move the Connecticut attorney general called "desperate." The inclusion of the Hokies could offer political cover for Casteen, who would be able to provide the needed seventh vote if Virginia Tech were included. If the Hokies decided not to listen to the ACC, Casteen could vote "yes" knowing the vote wasn't affecting his university's sister school.

William Latham, an influential member of Virginia Tech's Board of Visitors, said Friday that, to his knowledge, no official offer had come from the ACC to begin formal talks. But the expectation is that today's ACC conference call would address that, leading quickly to a campus visit in Blacksburg, Va., if seven presidents vote "yes."

Georgia Tech president Wayne Clough has talked with old friend Charles Steger, the Virginia Tech president, about Virginia Tech's interest, which is clouded by the school's inclusion in a lawsuit seeking a halt to expansion and millions of dollars in damages against Miami, Boston College and the ACC.

While some have said that Virginia Tech would need to remove itself as a plaintiff in the lawsuit to begin talking with the ACC, Latham wasn't so sure.

"My view is it would have to be in reverse," Latham said. "We've got to have an offer before we withdraw. My view is you can't overplay your hand."

Latham said Virginia Tech would listen intently, mainly because so many of its supporters want to join the ACC.

"We have 170,000 alumni around the world as well as a large group of supporters who have not necessarily graduated from Tech," Latham said.

"Virginia Tech has always wanted to be a part of the ACC. So the attitude would generally be that we are to hear and/or see in writing an ACC proposal, reserving the right to make our own judgment call."

Latham said Steger would make the final decision, with help from members of the Board of Visitors, if an offer came.

Messages left with several Virginia Tech officials were not returned Friday.

Meanwhile, UNC chancellor James Moeser is taking a different position on expansion, writing that he supports adding Miami but not Syracuse and Boston College.

Moeser, responding to a UNC graduate's e-mail message critical of the chancellor's expansion stance, wrote: "I have not opposed expansion if it is the right expansion. For example, I have proposed inviting [Miami] to join the conference as a 10th member. I do not favor the addition of [Syracuse and BC], which spreads the footprint of the conference in another direction away from our base."

UNC faculty chairwoman Sue Estroff, who is retiring from her post at the end of this month, and faculty secretary Joseph Ferrell also wrote to Moeser that the Miami-only option was the best compromise in a movement they don't support.

Adding Miami and no other school, however, is unlikely.

Under current NCAA rules, conferences need 12 teams to split into divisions and hold a conference championship game in football. Such a game has been highly profitable for the Southeastern Conference.

Playing in a 10-team league likely would keep ACC rivalries intact in basketball because no divisional split would be needed. Divisional alignments were one of the sticking points for Duke and UNC in the expansion talks.

No matter how many schools the league tries to add, the clock is ticking.

The Big East's exit fee for schools wishing to leave July 1, 2004, would double to $2 million if those schools don't notify the conference by June 30 of this year.

Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut's attorney general, said in a statement that his office, which is helping to represent the University of Connecticut in its suit against the ACC, Miami and BC, would monitor the dealings of Virginia Tech with the ACC.

"The ACC's desperate overtures to Virginia Tech underscore the core strength of our case -- that the ACC is willing to stop at nothing to the destroy the Big East as a football conference," Blumenthal said. "The ACC is so blinded by its obsession to win at all costs that it will expand even though adding a fourth Big East schools will reduce revenue for the ACC's universities -- undermining the ACC's original justification for its Big East raid. ?

"As of [Friday], Virginia Tech is still a member of the Big East and an active plaintiff in our lawsuit. We will not speculate on what actions, if any, we will take if Virginia Tech defects."



 

Va. Tech has little reaction
Wait and see on ACC
By Joe Burris, Globe Staff, 6/20/2003

Virginia Tech, one of five Big East schools suing the Atlantic Coast Conference, Boston College, and Miami to prevent the ACC's expansion plan, yesterday tried to distance itself from published reports that it, too, may receive an invitation to join the conference.

The school issued a prepared statement stating it had not been extended an invitation ''either formally or informally to join the Atlantic Coast Conference.''

The statement added: ''We do not know if [an invite] is forthcoming. We are not in a position to comment on news reports. We have heard of many what-if scenarios, but we cannot comment on rumors, innuendos, and intimations.

''The expansion plans are the work of the ACC, and we have to wait and see what the ACC wants to do.''

The statement comes one day after ACC officials confirmed the conference had made informal contact with Virginia Tech and that it was considering adding it to the three Big East Schools -- BC, Miami, and Syracuse -- it has targeted for expansion.

The ACC is said to have earlier opted against extending an invite to the Blacksburg, Va., school, which prompted the Virginia Legislature to apply pressure on the University of Virginia to protect the interests of Virginia Tech.

The University of Virginia is said to be a possible swing vote among the nine-member ACC -- seven votes are needed for approval. Two schools, Duke and North Carolina, have steadfastly opposed expansion.

With the other six schools said to be in favor of expansion, an inclusion of Virginia Tech would take pressure off Virginia.

William C. Latham, a member of Virginia Tech's Board of Visitors, told the Associated Press yesterday that this new development is ''absolutely a double-edged sword. It's too simplistic to call it a can of worms -- it's a bucketful of worms.'' Virginia Tech officials could be regarded as hypocrites if they accepted an invitation to join the ACC. If they stay in the Big East, ''We'd have a lot of people very unhappy,'' Latham said.

Latham told the AP he spoke with Virginia Tech president Charles Steger yesterday, but would not say what Steger told him about the latest developments.

A government source told the AP Wednesday that Steger planned to call board members yesterday to gauge how they felt about a possible invitation.

Meanwhile, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said the lawsuit has been assigned to a judge in Tolland County, Conn., and that the group has requested a set schedule for depositions of presidents and athletic officials from BC and Miami.

When asked about the ACC possibly extending an invitation to one of the plaintiffs in the suit, Blumenthal said: ''Whatever lack of clarity may exist in [yesterday's] statement hopefully will be remedied [today] after the [Virginia Tech] Board of Visitors have had a chance to consult its president.

''If anything, this overture to Virginia Tech strengthens our lawsuit. It underscores the core claim that the ACC will stop at nothing to destroy the Big East as a football conference.''

When ACC director of media services Tim Lucas was asked if the league considered the suit in its consideration of Virginia Tech, he declined to comment specifically on the school but said that the lawsuit ''has not been a major point of discussions.'' However, the suit has become a point of contention within the Big East. Yesterday, BC spokesman Jack Dunn issued a prepared statement scoffing at suggestions that it engaged in illegalities in its decision to consider the move.

''At no time did Boston College take any action regarding conference expansion that was illegal or inappropriate,'' said Dunn, who said it is unprecedented to have member institutions of a conference sue one another. ''In fact, as the plaintiffs know, the reason the complaint is devoid of any specific allegations of wrongdoing by Boston College is because no evidence of wrongdoing exists.

 

All Eyes on Virginia Tech
ACC, Big East Both Court Hokies; More Talks Today
By Josh Barr
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, June 21, 2003; Page D02

With ACC university presidents scheduled to meet via conference call this morning to discuss expansion, it remains unclear exactly what the league's next move will be.

After three conference calls failed to produce a vote in favor of adding Miami, Boston College and Syracuse, the story's latest twist involved a midweek meeting between Virginia Tech President Charles Steger and Georgia Tech President G. Wayne Clough. Officials from Virginia Tech and the ACC have said little since, each apparently waiting for the other to make the first public move in any courtship. With both sides trying to avoid public relations hits, the central issue in any process to include Virginia Tech in the expansion is timing.

"There have been intimations through intermediaries," said another source with knowledge of the discussions. "Any conversations have been in code. No one has said to anybody, 'If you got an offer, would you say yes?' It just hasn't been that blunt."

The ACC wants Virginia Tech to remove itself from the lawsuit five Big East schools filed against the ACC, Miami and Boston College, sources have said.

According to Rutgers President Richard McCormick, who said he spoke with Steger yesterday afternoon, Virginia Tech does not want to pull out of the suit without some sort of assurance from the ACC, preferably in writing.

Regardless, there remains little question that Virginia Tech is interested in the ACC.

"This thing was a chess game, with Virginia in check," said the source with knowledge of the discussions. "Then someone came up with a brilliant move, and all of a sudden it was Virginia Tech in checkmate.

"Then you say, 'It's been nice being in the Big East, but what happens to Virginia Tech?' Only in the old English movies do the guys on the ship say, 'It's been nice knowing you,' and have a drink and then go down with the ship."

However, adding Virginia Tech to an expansion plan that would form a 13-team league is not the only idea that the university presidents are expected to consider, a source said. The presidents likely will revisit a proposal to add only Miami, the source said, an idea that was considered during the presidents' most recent meeting this past Wednesday.

North Carolina Chancellor James Moeser, who along with Duke President Nan Keohane has solidly opposed expansion, said in e-mail communications to alumni this week that he sees merit in the idea of inviting only Miami to form a 10-team league. Moeser wrote that he has proposed the idea to other presidents but has found little support.

"It shores up our southern flank and keeps [Florida State] solidly in the fold," Moeser wrote to one alumnus in an e-mail that was obtained by The Washington Post. "I have offered to support such a limited expansion to my ACC colleagues, but as yet that idea has not caught on with more than a few. I still believe it is preferable to the proposed [12-team] expansion, which we have serious reservations about."

Adding only Miami would not allow the ACC to stage a potentially lucrative conference championship football game. And it remains unclear whether Miami would accept an offer that does not include Boston College and Syracuse, whose northeast locations are attractive to Miami.

The source said other proposals likely will be discussed but declined to offer specifics.

One idea the ACC had been researching was amending its bylaws so that a two-thirds vote (six schools), instead of three-quarters (seven), would be enough to pass expansion. Amending the bylaws requires only a two-thirds vote, but another source said the idea fell from consideration because there is a 30-day waiting period before a bylaw can be changed.

"I don't know what to expect," Rutgers President Richard McCormick said yesterday. "It is the most curious, astonishing situation that I have ever observed in intercollegiate athletics or higher education."

Asked whether the latest developments indicate the ACC is operating on the fly, Wake Forest President Thomas Hearn replied, "Heavens, no."

The ACC university presidents are expected to discuss financial and other projections for various scenarios during this morning's conference call. Then they will decide whether to move forward with Virginia Tech. In the meantime, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said Virginia Tech remains a part of the lawsuit filed to keep the Big East intact.

"So far as we know, it remains committed to our legal cause and has no intention to defect from the Big East and accept the ACC's importunings," Blumenthal said in a statement yesterday. "We will not speculate on what actions, if any, we will take it Virginia Tech defects. We reserve all options."
 

Tech's fate is up to ACC
Presidents to discuss today if Hokies fit into their plans
By Norm Wood
Daily Press
Published June 21, 2003

With the Atlantic Coast Conference's nine presidents meeting via teleconference this morning to continue expansion discussions, Virginia Tech will be the hot topic. However, it is uncertain whether the Hokies will be pleased with the discussion.

The ACC's presidents could vote to begin discussing expansion with Virginia Tech, and to determine when they can formally visit the school, according to a source. If they vote yes, Tech would be the fourth Big East school targeted by the ACC. The conference's presidents have already voted to pursue Boston College, Miami and Syracuse.

However, the teleconference may not get that far.

Duke University president Nan Keohane and University of North Carolina chancellor James Moeser are opposed to ACC expansion. Yet, it's possible either one could change their mind and support the ACC's original 12-school plan in an attempt to keep the conference revenues from being split even more.

If that happens, as the fourth school Virginia Tech would be left out.

Despite statements to the contrary from the ACC, West Virginia University president David Hardesty still believes the ACC may be using Virginia Tech as leverage.

"Eventually, other leagues and conferences and the BCS are going to get nervous about what is going on, if they aren't already," Hardesty told Metronews.com on Thursday.

"It's hard for me to believe where we are. It's unbelievable that we've advanced to this course on the intercollegiate scene."

One of the reasons ACC Commissioner John Swofford has pushed expansion is because he wants the conference to enjoy the economic benefits of a conference championship game in football.

According to NCAA rules, a conference must have a minimum of 12 members to stage a championship game. The ACC currently has nine members.

On the other hand, if the ACC presidents vote to include Virginia Tech, the school's board of visitors will likely in turn vote to begin communicating with the ACC soon. Phone calls to nine of the 14 members on Virginia Tech's board of visitors were unsuccessful.

Virginia Tech's participation in a lawsuit along with Big East representatives Connecticut, Pittsburgh, Rutgers and West Virginia against the ACC, Miami and Boston College could be brought up this morning as a strike against the Hokies. Why extend an invitation to a university that is suing the inviting conference?

As of Friday evening, Virginia Tech was still listed as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, but would certainly drop out if it enters into negotiations with the ACC. Richard Blumenthal, the state of Connecticut's attorney general, is representing the plaintiffs.

"The ACC's desperate overtures to Virginia Tech underscore the core strength of our case - that the ACC is willing to stop at nothing to destroy the Big East as a football conference," Blumenthal said. "The ACC is so blinded by its obsession to win at all costs that it will expand even though adding a fourth Big East school reduce revenue for the ACC's universities, undermining the ACC's justification for its Big East raid. The ACC has, and continues, to engage in actions that they will be held responsible for."

 

Another strange turn of events
Published June 20 2003
David Teel

Virginia Tech to the ACC? Mark Warner wielding more influence on Tobacco Road than Mike Krzyzewski? Charles Steger high-fiving people he's suing? Two embattled athletic directors force-feeding a bogus concept to an entire conference?

Folks, it just doesn't get any more weird. The World Pole-Sitting Championships? A British rock fan attempting to sell flu germs (think vial of mucus) he says he caught backstage from Paul McCartney?

All dog-bites-man stuff compared to the ACC expansion saga that turned during the last two days with stunning overtures to Virginia Tech.

Virginia Tech, you'll recall, was the odd school out in the ACC's plans. Virginia president John Casteen lobbied for the Hokies but was outnumbered by those who preferred to add three other Big East schools - Miami, Boston College and Syracuse.

With their 12-team nirvana in sight, and with visions of a $10 million football championship game dancing in their deranged heads, ACC honchos visited their three targeted campuses. They toured stadiums, sipped wine, staged news conferences and made goo-goo eyes at one another.

"Dog and pony shows," one envious observer called them.

But a weird thing happened on the way to nirvana. Check that. Lots of weird things happened.

To paraphrase that oracle of the weird, Warren Zevon:

Now I'm hiding in Greensboro

I'm a desperate man

Send lawyers, guns and money

The has hit the fan.

Indeed, it has.

Duke and North Carolina remain adamantly opposed to expansion. Casteen, to the astonishment of his ACC colleagues, refuses to support any plan that excludes Virginia Tech, leaving expansion one vote shy of the seven required for passage.

As ACC presidents conference-called their way into paralysis, Virginia Tech joined four other Big East football leftovers in an angry lawsuit against the ACC, Miami and Boston College. Gov. Mark Warner turned some political screws into Casteen's hide, and Attorney General Jerry Kilgore added his name to the lawsuit.

Wednesday was the breaking point. Desperate to secure Casteen's support, expansion advocates agreed to approach Virginia Tech about becoming the conference's "lucky" 13th.

Someone call the Irony Police.

Swofford, his job and credibility at stake, reaches out to a university that's suing him. Virginia Tech, an ACC wannabe for 40-plus years, entertains overtures from the conference it is suing.

And the greatest irony of all: Hokies celebrating the president at Virginia, a school that many of them hold in utter contempt.

Amid the irony, the ACC's upside-down power structure. Florida State and Georgia Tech, the conference's most recent additions, are driving the expansion train, and their respective athletic directors, Dave Hart and Dave Braine, face uncertain futures in light of departmental failings.

Meanwhile, Duke and North Carolina, the ACC's linchpins for most of its 50 years, offer the lone voices of reason, refusing to accept the expansion propaganda that bigger is better. But their refusal probably doesn't matter.

If Hart, Braine and their allies are willing to divide revenue 13 ways instead of 12 (Virginia Tech brings no additional television money), if their desperation knows no bounds, then expansion will happen, and Virginia Tech will help assure the destruction of the conference it sued to save.

Cynics will say the ACC is crassly playing Virginia Tech, hoping the notion of 13 is so distasteful to Duke or North Carolina that one will change its mind and agree to 12. Perhaps the ACC's motives are suspect, but sources at both schools said Thursday that a reversal is unlikely.

Purists will say that Virginia Tech should, if invited, decline ACC membership. After all, two days after filing suit Steger said publicly that the university was no longer interested in the ACC.

Should Virginia Tech fall on the sword of principle? Absolutely not.

If the ACC extends an invitation that includes fair entry fees and revenue sharing, Virginia Tech's Board of Visitors must swallow its collective pride and accept. Given the alternative (a gutted and revamped Big East), the long-term viability of the athletic department demands it.

Gov. Warner, a Harvard Law man, has worked tirelessly for Virginia Tech's inclusion in the ACC. Krzyzewski, winner of three national basketball championships at Duke, has fought expansion with equal vigor.

Guess who's more likely to prevail.

Welcome to News of the Weird.

 

Moeser prefers just Miami

6-21-03

By ROB DANIELS, Staff Writer
News & Record


University of North Carolina Chancellor James Moeser has told friends and colleagues this week that he advocates the addition of Miami and only Miami to the ACC, but he has found little support among his fellow chief executive officers in the conference for a limited expansion plan.

According to e-mails available through the state's Freedom of Information Act, Moeser's opinion is based at least in part on geography.

The ACC, which has nine member schools, has conducted formal talks with Big East Conference members Miami, Boston College and Syracuse about joining the Greensboro-based league. Seeking to ease the political pressure being applied to the University of Virginia on behalf of Big East member Virginia Tech, one school's CEO has spoken informally with Tech officials, who appears willing to listen if the ACC decides to enter formal talks aimed at also bringing the Hokies into the league.

The CEOs are expected to speak by phone this morning -- presumably to discuss whether to explore inviting Virginia Tech, which is in the awkward position of being a litigant against the conference and a potential member. Tech and four other Big East schools filed suit against Miami, BC and the ACC on June 6 in Connecticut, seeking to quash expansion by alleging bad faith and restraint of trade. No hearings have been scheduled in the matter.

The CEOs of UNC and Duke have stated their opposition to any major expansion by the ACC, and UVa President John T. Casteen has suggested that political pressure from Gov. Mark Warner and others will compel him to vote against any proposal that does not include Virginia Tech as a member. Any vote on prospective members will require seven votes for passage.

Moeser told R. Benjamine Reid, a lawyer from Miami and a member of the UNC's Board of Visitors, that he has found no internal opposition to suggesting Miami as the ACC's only new member. The Board of Visitors is a 160-member body charged with assisting the chancellor and its Board of Trustees in enhancing the university's academic and social mission.

"To my mind, including Miami creates a geographically contiguous footprint that is not unmanageable with regard to the student-athlete welfare issue (time away from class), as well as the costs of travel," Moeser wrote. "It shores up our southern flank and keeps Florida State solidly in the ACC fold. I have offered to support such a limited expansion to my ACC colleagues, but as yet that idea has not caught on with more than a few. I still believe it is preferable to the proposed expansion, which we have serious reservations about."

Florida State officials have advocated expansion, but have not threatened to leave the league if it remains at nine members. Departure would cost any member at least $7.5 million according to ACC bylaws and the league's current financial statement, which tax returns suggest is the strongest of any NCAA conference.

In an e-mail to a UNC alumnus, Moeser wrote, "I do not favor the addition of two Northeastern schools, which spreads the footprint of the conference in another direction away from our base."

Moeser's Miami-only stance, while unpopular with some in the ACC, appears to have garnered support from others at Carolina.

"If you, James, feel that the future of the ACC -- and our place within it -- are at stake, then the Miami-only option seems to me to be an acceptable compromise," wrote Sue Estroff, chair of the UNC Faculty Senate.

 

ACC option: Grow, or else
E-mail Mark Bradley

The ACC has no choice: If it doesn't grow in size, it will shrink in stature. Too much has been invested in this proposed expansion for the plan to fail. If it takes making Virginia Tech a part of an unwieldy 13-team matrix -- heck, if it takes offering membership to every school in the Eastern time zone -- the ACC must do it. It's too late to turn back now.

The ACC showed this week that it stands ready to do whatever is required to get bigger. By making an overture to Virginia Tech -- a party that is, lest we forget, technically suing the ACC -- the conference underscored not only its desperation but its resourcefulness. Seven votes are needed for expansion to happen, seven from the nine members. Clinging to the dated belief that basketball matters more than football, Duke and North Carolina have resisted from the start. Put under political pressure because Virginia Tech wasn't in the original mix, Virginia also was prepared to vote "no."

And that seemed that -- a big fat veto for expansion, a heapin' helpin' of embarrassment for a conference that sees itself as less craven than, say, the cutthroat SEC. Here the ACC had embraced cold reality and moved to embrace football, and here the grand design was about to die a tabled death. The rationale for expansion was that growth was necessary to survive in the current marketplace. So what would the refusal to grow say about the ACC? That it's suicidal?

Give the expansioneers this: They saw the impediment and took evasive action. At the start of the week, some close to the process believed expansion was doomed. Now it lives large. Its proponents wrong-footed the obstructionists by moving to co-opt Virginia Tech, which is more appealing as a political lever than as an athletics program. If the Hokies say yes to the ACC, then Virginia will vote yes. If Virginia Tech decides to stay with its fellow litigants in the Big East, then Virginia still can vote yes, saying in effect, "Hey, we tried."

At this late date, it almost doesn't matter how many schools will join and how the bloated conference will be configured. What counts is that the bloating occurs. The proud ACC cannot afford to see itself humbled. It took a bold step forward with its desire to expand. Yes, it ruffled some tender sensibilities and touched off a round of handwringing over the Proper Role Of Intercollegiate Athletics, but expansion seems so clearly the proper course that common sense figured to secure its passage. Alas, common sense threatened to be trumped by self-interest.

Duke doesn't care about football because it doesn't really have a football program. (Manifest destiny, meet Mike Krzyzewski.) North Carolina likewise doesn't want to do anything that will shake the eminence of Tobacco Road basketball and thereby rile Dean Smith. Virginia was unnerved by the notion of angry elected officials. Viewed alongside the promise inherent in a mega-conference that would serve Eastern TV markets and lift the ACC to first-tier football status, these concerns sounded trivial. (Among Duke president Nan Keohane's stated objections is that a bigger ACC will mean more travel. And which men's basketball team toured nearby England last fall? Why, Duke's.)

The ACC began as most leagues begin -- as a compact confederation of neighbors. That was, however, 50 years ago. Fifty years from now, there will be no neighborhood leagues. There will be only sprawling collegiate conglomerates capable of negotiating TV contracts and forging bowl alliances. Fifty years from now, you'll either be vast or you'll be gone.

On Friday, Georgia Tech men's basketball coach Paul Hewitt was wearing a shirt bearing the ACC logo and the numeral "50." He pointed to it and smiled. "That's not about our anniversary," he said. "It's how many teams we're going to have."

Whatever it takes. For the ACC, growth is no longer an option. It's an imperative.
 

ACC has harmed itself
By CAULTON TUDOR, Staff Writer

In its effort to grow stronger in football by expanding, the ACC has wound up looking vulnerable, whimsical and self-destructive.
Regardless of what happens now, its reputation as a united, focused leader in college athletics has suffered.

Here's why:

1. Virginia politicians have taken control of the ACC's destiny with their strong-arm tactics in defense of Virginia Tech.

If the Hokies are included in ACC expansion, the politicians will have pulled off an amazing coup -- one that should have East Carolina fans rattling every chamber door on Jones Street in an effort to duplicate the same salvation for their Pirates.

If the ACC does not expand, the Virginia politicians still win by keeping the Big East intact.

2. By conducting such public business in almost total secrecy, the ACC presidents have trashed the spirit of their offices.

The clear message from the nine university leaders to fans has been that they deserve to know little about perhaps the most important issue in the league's 50-year history.

Not only has the presidents' behavior been unconscionable, their leadership has been laughable. At no point have they demonstrated any sort of genuine unity, compelling vision or accountability. This venture has been about as well-organized as a fraternity rush party.

What began as a motion to consider three teams -- Boston College, Miami and Syracuse -- has turned into a 13-team idea that could be bumped to a 14th, with Connecticut being widely mentioned.

Where does all this end? The presidents obviously don't have a clue. Even if they did, they're not talking.

3. Basketball has lost its prominence in the ACC.

Twelve-team basketball leagues barely function. If the ACC winds up with 13 or 14 members, it might as well be operating an ongoing NIT. The postseason conference tournament would have to be extended to five days or staged in four with two league members sitting it out.

In a 23,000-seat arena, each of the 14 schools would get no more than 1,640 tournament tickets, about 1,000 fewer than the current allotment.

Fearing the loss of league identity and traditional rivalries, most of the ACC's basketball coaches were at best cool to the notion of going to 12 teams. They couldn't possibly be happy with 13 or 14. With that many, the ACC would become the Big East in basketball.

To put this into some context, the ACC was a seven-team league entering the 1980s. If expansion now motors along to 14, there would be two seven-team divisions. Nationally, most fans would have difficulty naming all 14 teams, much less remembering which teams compete in which divisions.

4. The league's financial reasoning goes out the window.

To continue distributing $8 million to $10 million a year to each of its members, a 13- or 14-team ACC would have to land a historically lucrative television contract for football. If a weak economy doesn't make that possible, league schools would wind up with less than they're getting now.

So, the ACC has chased itself into a full-blown dilemma. What began as a dream for grand growth has morphed into a nightmarish image problem. It would take an act of Congress, if not the Virginia state legislature, to restore the enviable reputation that the league once enjoyed.


 

ACC/Big East battle grows more bizarre
By Mike Huguenin | Sentinel Staff Writer
Posted June 21, 2003

This whole ACC-Big East expansion brouhaha just keeps getting weirder and weirder.

Will a new-look ACC have 12 teams? Ten? Thirteen? Fourteen? Or will it stay at nine? What's the story on Virginia Tech? What about UConn? What are the lawyers saying? What does John Swofford say? Who did Donna Shalala call? What's Dave Hart's role in all of this? Does Virginia Gov. Mark Warner really care this much about college sports?

It has gotten to the point where asking who was on the grassy knoll would be appropriate.

There reportedly will be another teleconference today, and now comes word from The Washington Post that Virginia Tech, which was approached Wednesday by the ACC as an expansion candidate, is expected to actually say that it would enter formal discussions if the ACC desires.

Whoa. What about the lawsuit Virginia Tech is involved in with the other four Big East schools that would be left behind? What about all the blather that has emanated from Blacksburg and other Virginia environs, from Tech President Charles Steger on down, about how this expansion is horrible for college sports? Wouldn't that be just the epitome of hypocrisy?

Well, duh.

When it comes to big bucks, all colleges are hypocritical. And because Tech knows its athletic department would be strengthened financially with a move to an expanded ACC, this is seen by many observers as a no-brainer for Tech -- hypocrisy be damned.

But what if Tech says no? Hey, that may not be that bad for the ACC, either, if UVa President John Casteen truly is the guy holding up the expansion. Let's say Tech says, "Thanks, but no thanks." Why can't Casteen say, "Well, Tech had its chance and turned it down. Because of that, we now will vote in favor of expansion because, all along, the only thing we were worried about was Virginia Tech being left out in the cold. If that school is comfortable where it is, we're voting for expansion."

ACC bylaws stipulate that seven of the nine presidents must vote yes for the league to extend an invitation to a new member. Interestingly, those same bylaws can be changed, the ACC handbook says, "at any regular or special meeting by two-thirds [six of nine] of the members."

Hmmm -- doesn't that mean that the six schools in favor of expansion could vote to change the bylaws so that only six votes are needed to extend the invitations?

"That [changing the bylaws] is not something that we would prefer to do. Even in a difficult process like this you want your fellow schools to feel comfortable about what's coming next," Georgia Tech President G. Wayne Clough -- dean of the college of engineering at Virginia Tech before he was named president at Georgia Tech, interestingly enough -- told the Atlanta Journal Constitution. "But at the same time, I can't rule it out."

The bylaws say such an amendment must be proposed four weeks before it is voted on -- which means this thing could drag out a lot longer than it already has.
 

No offer yet to Va. Tech
But some say Hokies would support move
By CHIP ALEXANDER AND BARRY SVRLUGA, Staff Writers

Virginia Tech hasn't been asked yet to join the Atlantic Coast Conference. But if and when an offer comes, a number of Hokies believe it would be accepted.
William C. Latham, a member of the university's Board of Visitors, said Thursday it was "no secret" that many Virginia Tech supporters favored such a move, even though the Big East school is part of a lawsuit against the ACC.

"Generally speaking, a large majority of the alumni and supporters of Virginia Tech athletics think we ought to be in the ACC," Latham said.

"We had hoped years ago, before the Big East was formed, that we could get in the ACC. ... As a matter of fact, I think if we were ever given an opportunity and were to say no to it, we'd have some very, very unhappy supporters."

Thomas Rust, a member of the Virginia House of Delegates, said that even if Tech decided to reject an offer, Virginia would then be free to support the ACC's original plan to invite Miami, Syracuse and Boston College.

Virginia President John Casteen III has been under considerable pressure from Gov. Mark Warner and members of the legislature to oppose any expansion plan that does not include Virginia Tech.

"The bottom line is (if) an offer is tendered and we turn it down, Dr. Casteen can say to the governor and to the General Assembly, 'I've done all I can do -- I can now vote my conscience,' " said Rust, a former member of the Board of Visitors. "He would then vote yes. Virginia Tech, in turn, would be left in a significantly weakened conference.

"We would almost have to accept an offer."

Feeling-out process

The possibility of inviting Virginia Tech to be the ACC's 13th member surfaced Wednesday after a conference call of the ACC's presidents and chancellors. Without Virginia's support, the ACC has had trouble mustering the necessary seven of nine votes for expansion, because North Carolina and Duke also have voiced concerns about it.

No vote on expansion -- or the pursuit of Tech -- was taken during the conference call Wednesday, but Georgia Tech President G. Wayne Clough met informally with Virginia Tech President Charles Steger later in the day.

Clough, who spent 10 years as an administrator at Virginia Tech, still has a home in Blacksburg, Va., and is vacationing there. His mission was to feel out Steger.

"All I did was ask a question about whether or not they might be interested in the ACC. That was it," Clough said in a phone interview Thursday night, adding that Steger said Tech would get back to the ACC.

Latham and Virginia Tech athletics director Jim Weaver said they spoke Thursday with Steger. Both said they were told there had been no offer yet from the ACC. But they were clearly waiting for further news.

"We would evaluate any invitation that would be extended," Weaver said by phone Thursday. "But beyond that, everything is speculative in nature."

The university also issued a statement Thursday playing down media reports that the ACC was ready to add Virginia Tech.

Steger did not meet with the entire Board of Visitors on Thursday but called board members individually to gauge their interest.

Changing sides?

Tech's mere flirtation with the ACC appears to be a reversal. Last week, Steger signed a letter with other Big East presidents, saying "the ACC's contemplated actions would be highly destructive" to their schools. On June 8, Steger told USA Today, "If an offer [from the ACC] came today, we would not accept it."

Earlier this month, the Hokies joined four other football-playing schools from the Big East -- Connecticut, Pittsburgh, Rutgers and West Virginia -- in a lawsuit against the ACC, Miami and Boston College. The suit seeks an injunction preventing the teams from leaving the Big East, as well as millions of dollars in damages.

Weaver said he hadn't considered the legal ramifications of potentially joining a conference it is suing. Others have.

"I think we'd open ourselves up to the same charges leveled at the others," Rust said. "If the offer is made and we take it, we will be in a tough spot. Whatever we do, we'll be criticized."

Stephen Goodwin, one of the lawyers handling the case for West Virginia, said it could be changed by the Tech development.

"Obviously, it will create quite an addendum to the lawsuit, if in fact Virginia Tech is talking about or considering or does make some move [to the ACC]," he said.

Virginia Attorney General Jerry Kilgore, who had to approve Tech's part in the Big East lawsuit, said Thursday he now approves of the school's talks with the ACC because "the goal all along is that at the end of the day Virginia Tech and Virginia have good strong conferences."

Concerns remain

The ACC presidents and chancellors voted May 16 to begin discussions with Miami, BC and Syracuse after a motion by Virginia to consider Virginia Tech didn't muster the required seven votes. But the conference has since reached an impasse, with UNC and Duke opposing expansion after objections were raised by the faculty at each school.

Adding Virginia Tech would allow Casteen and Virginia to cast a "yes" vote. But what about UNC and Duke?

Richard Pfaff, a UNC history professor and member of the executive committee of the Faculty Senate, said he believed the UNC faculty still would oppose expansion.

"Yes, and not from sheer stubbornness," he said. "Until the concerns that we've expressed can be clearly alleviated -- and frankly, I don't see that they can be -- it's hard to imagine we could support this. I can't speak for the entire faculty, but I haven't talked to any one colleague who is in favor of this."

The faculty's concerns include how much time student-athletes would spend away from classes in an expanded conference.

The ACC presidents and chancellors, who talked for almost three hours Wednesday, did not have a conference call Thursday, and the next probably won't come until the weekend or early next week. Spokesmen at N.C. State and UNC said that neither chancellor -- Marye Anne Fox or James Moeser, respectively -- had an ACC teleconference scheduled.

The Associated Press reported Wednesday night that Casteen had proposed that Virginia Tech be reconsidered by the ACC, but Bob Sweeney, UVa's senior vice president for development and public affairs, said he didn't think it was merely a political ploy.

"My feeling is that [Casteen] is committed to having Virginia Tech as a partner in this thing -- he's been vocal about that," Sweeney said Thursday. " ... Virginia Tech is part of the Southeast tradition. It's a very natural fit. I honestly believe [Casteen's motives] are pure in what he thinks is best for Virginia."