Littlepage looks for balance
By Jerry Ratcliffe
Published: June 22, 2008

Virginia director of athletics Craig Littlepage sat down with Daily Progress sports editor Jerry Ratcliffe this week for an annual question and answer session on various topics concerning the Cavaliers’ athletic program. Today is the first of a two-part series concluding in Monday’s edition.

Daily Progress: Craig, congratulations on another strong year for UVa athletics. It appears that Virginia will record another top 20 finish in the Director’s Cup, a finish that certainly must make you proud?

Littlepage: I think we were 16th or 17th, somewhere in that range in the next-to-last points standings, and it looks like we will probably finish ahead of Duke, which was ahead of us in early June. On the other hand, Florida State, which was behind us, will move ahead of us on the basis of a national championship in track and field and going to the College World Series.

Finishing in the top 20 is good. Our goal is to move up and be in the top 10 and be a consistently performing program in the top 10. In order to do that, you have to win a national championship or two along the way. I’m very pleased with the performances we had in some of our sports that we weren’t expecting, and a couple of sports are on the verge of breaking through and gaining us some points in the future, so, things are pretty solid.

Q: Cracking the top 10 and consistently remaining in that elite group is truly a challenge. Can Virginia reach that goal, considering the competition?

A: The schools that are above us in those standings, Stanford, Texas, Penn State, Nebraska, Georgia, are programs that have a great ability to generate resources. I think we’re doing a fantastic job in our own right. We don’t need quite what Ohio State needs to move its program along. We’ve been successful in terms of enhancing the level of support that we are generating for the program and we’ll continue to push forward.

Q: Let’s turn our attention to academics. There seems to be a substantial debate, or at least discussion out there among the fan base concerning Virginia’s great academic standards. Some view those standards as an advantage in recruiting athletes; some disagree and argue it’s a handicap. What are your feelings, having been a coach and administrator at UVa?

A: The answer to the question lies in one’s expectations and lies in one’s approach to how they do their business. If we wanted to look at reasons why we can’t achieve, we can look at something like academics as being something of a roadblock.

But, I think our coaches come to the University of Virginia with an understanding of what the academic situation is and will see value in the fact that we do have a competitive academic environment because it attracts prospective student-athletes that are looking for that sort of challenge, not only in the classroom but also of competing in the ACC. I am of the approach that having a competitive academic program is something that enhances our ability to be a competitive program.

Q: So, you don’t agree with those who view it as a handicap to recruiting athletes?

A: If you looked at the Who’s Who in Division I athletics, and you can look at the Director’s Cup standings as one measurement, but not the only one, you start with Stanford. I don’t think anyone questions its academics. Then there’s UCLA, North Carolina, Michigan, Southern California, Florida, Tennessee, Texas, Cal-Berkeley, Arizona State, Duke, Georgia, Virginia, Ohio State, Wisconsin. These are all schools that are comparable.

Now, we don’t have a 40,000-student body and hundreds of different academic programs and numbers of different options where athletes may be able to pre-select or identify themselves and connect with a specific academic program, but certainly any of these schools would be perceived as being a top 10 sort of program in their own right, and are excellent academic programs. You can just go down the list, Notre Dame, Wake Forest, Penn State, Brigham Young and on and on. These are in the top 20 to 25. So, I don’t think that academics should be perceived as something that keeps us from being able to aspire from being a top 10 athletics program.

Q: But there’s an argument out there that Virginia’s coaches can’t get the same kids into school, particularly in some of the major sports, that many of its competitors can, making for an uneven playing field and perhaps putting more pressure on coaches. Would you agree?

A: The question is whether our pool of qualified prospective students is as vast as the pool that those with whom we compete, either in the ACC or those in terms of national, are the same. The quick answer is no. We have a somewhat limited pool on the basis of what it takes to be successful at the University of Virginia. I don’t think that anybody would question that statement.

As I mentioned before, our coaches come here with the realization that this is the way that it is and have a plan that in spite of these perceived roadblocks, to produce a competitive team. Once the students are here, is there the will to support or student-athletes, so they can be successful? I think the University and the athletic department have done a number of things to make sure that we are providing the necessary structure and resources for them to be successful.

Q: Some boosters, and even some former coaches have suggested that perhaps Virginia create a new, worthy curriculum in which athletes can thrive and benefit without devaluing a UVa diploma.

A: As it relates to the academic programming, I think the University, in an ongoing fashion, looks at the program and tries to adapt to the needs of the student body, to the leaders of the institution. A year or so ago, the development of the Batten Leadership program at the University is an example of the institution adapting to a particular need or the particular interests of students.

So, I would say yes, the University continually looks at academic programming and what it is students have an interest in. The athletic department can’t drive that conversation. That’s something that would take place at the Board of Visitors level, and the University educational policy committee would be part of that conversation. Something our student-athletes have an interest in over time, such as media studies, communication, journalism, those are the kinds of things I know students are generally interest in whether they’re thinking about future careers in broadcasting or some level of media. It’s something to talk about. I think the University continues to look at its program.

Q: Wasn’t one department that was popular with athletes, Rhetoric and Communications, done away with years ago?

A: Yes, probably in the late ‘80s or early ‘90s. There are still courses in media studies, but not a formal department as it was at that time. It was popular with athletes, but also with students generally. A lot of students talk about it now, or an enhancement.

Q: Let’s switch gears to another area. Virginia has some of the finest athletic facilities in the ACC, if not the nation. Anything juicy happening?

A: There are a number of things that would kind of be in the back of our minds, but we don’t have any capital projects now planned. But it would be great to have an indoor facility, the nature of a field house, that we could bring our field teams inside during December and January when it’s too cold or have ice and snow on the ground.

We continue to consider the possibilities of future enhancements of existing facilities, such as baseball and soccer, for example. We’re doing some work now with softball that will be completed in the fall in trying to bring that facility up to a standard that allows us to recruit and compete at a higher level. There’s been some talk about a diving tower, but no formal project. Those are the primary ones that are sitting out there on wish lists, but no concrete plans at this point and time.

Q: We are aware that donors could pledge, for example $1 million a year for a 10-year period toward the support of John Paul Jones Arena. But overall, is fundraising complete for that facility or ongoing?

A: It’s ongoing. We’ve raised $127 million or $128 million or so. That’s not all cash in hand. Some pledged, as you said, over a number of years. We continue to be out raising money for the arena.

 

Keeping an eye on the future
By Jerry Ratcliffe
Published: June 22, 2008

This is the 2nd in a two-part question and answer session with Virginia director of athletics Craig Littlepage on various topics concerning the Cavaliers’ athletic program with Daily Progress sports editor Jerry Ratcliffe.

Daily Progress: Yesterday we concluded that portion of the interview discussing a future wish list, and at the top of that list was a new field house for Virginia’s field teams. What would have to happen to make a field house a reality?

Littlepage: We would have to have a formal plan in place for what the programming is that would be built into it — would it include locker rooms, offices and so forth. It would have to go through a formal process through the University to get it into the planning, a project that could be studied, built, and then there’s the financial question. For any project at the University, we have to have a certain amount of money in hand before anything can start.

So, there’s the study, the conceptual piece of it, the design piece of it, then the funding ... what it takes to put the financing together, to build it, to operate it. It’s not just that you’re raising money potentially to build a facility, but what are the operating costs? You have to think in terms, particularly now because of the increase in the cost of utilities, that it becomes even more important to understand how you’re going to recover the costs of running a building either through an endowment, or through cost sharing of activities that might be held at the building, etc.

Q: Should it happen, what would be the ideal location for such a field house?

A: If we built a stand-alone field house, I would think the place would

be where University Hall, the Cage and Onesty Hall are currently sitting. There just aren’t many plots of land in the area of the University that give us the square footage and acreage that area gives us.

Some of the programming in that type of facility would be what is already in University Hall, such as locker rooms. There may be other ways of having an indoor facility. There have been possibilities discussed such as a bubble over one of the existing fields.

Q: What’s up with University Hall? How is it being used and just what’s in it?

A: It is still a functional building. There have been a number of things that have taken place in University Hall that have and will make it a useful building for six, seven years or longer. We have enhanced a number of locker rooms in there. We still have the weight room, the equipment room, our Lifeskills offices are in there, facilities, game event operations. There are a lot of functions that take place, just not the highly visible activities such as basketball. It’s still used for camps, not just basketball camps. So, it still gets a lot of use.

Long-term, it would be nice if the facility, or rather that space, can be used much more effectively to meet the needs of more of our sports programs. If we had the field house, you could take care of football, lacrosse, baseball, field hockey, who knows what else ... possibly a running track and all sorts of things that would be better use of the space than it is now. University Hall is limited now because of things it doesn’t have.

Q: Is it true that University Hall has asbestos inside?

A: There is asbestos in the building. I don’t think that’s a secret.

Q: Moving on, perhaps the most controversial issue since our last annual Q&A last June has been the reseating policy of Scott Stadium. There has been great debate amongst the fan base, some seeing the need for it due to the reality of financially supporting modern-day athletics, others feeling their loyalty had been betrayed and choosing not to renew their season tickets. Looking back on it, was the reseating decision a mistake?

A: I think it’s something that we needed to do, without a doubt. The conversation I’ve had with peers around the country is that if schools haven’t done it already, then they’re talking about doing it, and will probably be doing it in the future.

Circumstances evolved to the point that this was the time frame we felt we had to do [the reseating]. I think that the issues in doing it are pretty much the same everywhere, in that many of our fans become accustomed to being in a certain seat and they see it as their seat. Change is very difficult. But in order to fully support our program to the levels that allow us to sustain success, which I think many people are pleased with, we have to be able to have different ways of generating revenues that will allow us to do that.

Q: Elaborate on the issue of generating revenues, if you will.

A: Just as an example, a couple of things have occurred in the last few months, such as if you look at the increase in the amount of cost of utilities, they could increase 15 to 20 percent in one year. Then, the associated costs with the increase in travel. We are an enterprise that is heavily dependent upon the ability to travel with teams, with coaches in terms of recruiting, and bringing prospects to Charlottesville.

There are any number of areas where we have to look at the operational costs and the increase of operational costs in terms of doing the same things next year that we did this year. So, some of those increases in doing business — just to do the same thing, not to do more — go up 15 to 20 percent. Then you have the increases in terms of tuition. [The athletic department] is paying the true cost of scholarships at the University. We don’t get fee waives (discounts) like some schools, so when we recruit an out-of-state student-athlete, we’re paying the $38,000 of whatever that number is now, the full cost of that particular student’s education. In-state students, well, that’s $13,000 or $14,000, or whatever that number is.

Q: So, just the scholarship bill alone continues to cost you large amounts of money, considering the vastness of your athletic program?

A: We have a high percentage of out-of-state students among our population. We have a scholarship bill of roughly, maybe $11 million. Those same scholarships next year are going to cost eight or nine percent more than that, just in order to do the same thing.

The rationale of the reseating is a reflection of the realities of how we continue to do our business and, in particular, how we are able to sustain the type of success we have in terms of graduation and competitive success.

Q: As you mentioned, change is always difficult. Was the backlash from portions of the fan base more than you anticipated?

A: I don’t think there were surprises in terms of the view of some fans that were concerned about not being able to maintain the seats that they had for a period of years. We tried to do everything possible to provide the information, to provide the options so that people could learn what they could do to retain their seats or to move to other seats that were still very good seats.

The process itself was very labor intensive. Our staff members and the VAF, and the ticket office spent a lot of time on the telephone, answering e-mails, visiting with people one-on-one, and talking about reseating during our VAF socials in order to better communicate. While there were some that still were not happy, I think people still had a feeling that they were given information, and there was a level of service there in terms of communication that they had the information they needed to make the decisions on whether to renew or not, to go to a different section or not.

Q: Unlike recent years, the football season ticket allotment has not yet been sold out. Do you know how many chose not to renew, did you take a bigger hit than expected, and what is the current count on the 2008 season ticket situation?

A: I think in the end, things went about as well as we could have possibly hoped they would in terms of the process of season ticket holders choosing their seats when their number was called. I think people were generally pleased with the way in which things were handled.

We’re approaching 35,000 sold. Similar to past years at this state when we’ve had tickets available, we’re doing some marketing of mini-packages that will continue on sale through the next four weeks. We’ve sold out of the “kickoff” package that includes the USC game. We’re still selling the “ACC” package, which includes conference games. Some time in July, we’ll sell what remains as single game tickets.

Q: Some fans have commented that they were surprised to learn that they ended up with better seats than they previously had, rather than worse seats, which they anticipated.

A: That’s what we tried to communicate early on was that if you have questions, if you’re not certain, contact our staff and our staff can walk through all the options with you and that you shouldn’t assume it’s the worst. It wasn’t a surprise there would be a reaction. We were prepared for that. And, [backlash] is not unusual when you do something like reseating your stadium or arena. We will continue to work with those who might buy tickets from this point forward. We think we’ll have another successful season ticket campaign before it’s all said and done.

Q: You mentioned previously that your fund-raising for the entire athletic department is ahead of pace. What are those numbers at this point and time?

A: Our fund-raising has exceeded the $16 million mark with six months remaining in our annual campaign. Last year we finished the year at $14.8 million in the annual campaign, so we’re pleased with our progress.

 

Energetic Udofia draws attention
By Whitey Reid
Published: June 22, 2008

Blazing end-to-end speed. Offensive poise. Uncanny defensive feistiness.

No, there was little doubt who was one of the most entertaining — and effective — players at the weeklong NBA Top 100 Camp that wrapped up on Saturday.

Rising high school senior Mfon Udofia, one of Virginia’s top guard targets for the class of 2009, looked like an Energizer Bunny — one who had just downed about 10 cups of coffee.

“He’s probably the best defensive guard in the camp,” said recruiting guru Bob Gibbons. “He can really play defense and is versatile.

“He can play point or second guard. He’s no [former Virginia guard] J.R. Reynolds as a scorer, but he can play like him and I think he could be one of the best defensive players in college basketball. If they could get him that would be a huge catch.”

When you look at the gangly 6-foot-2, 180-pound Udofia, it’s hard not to see similarities between the Georgia native and Boston Celtics guard Rajon Rondo. Udofia, who is lightning-quick, says he has heard that comparison a lot.

“Yeah, people tell me I get after it like Rondo,” said Udofia, smiling. “That’s cool because I like the way Rondo plays. He’s a good guard.”

Udofia, a left-hander with long arms, said he could see himself someday suiting up for Virginia.

“I have a great relationship with Coach Leitao and his staff,” said Udofia, who plays at Miller Grove High in Stone Mountain, Ga.. “I really like the way they play — just up and down. They let their guards go, as you can see from how Sean Singletary went off.”

Udofia is rated as a 4-star recruit (out of five) and the eighth-best point guard in his class. He is also considering Georgia Tech, Texas, Miami and Wake Forest, among others.

“I’m still wide open at this point,” he said. “I’m going to narrow my list down [soon] and then by the fall take all my visits.”

Of course, you can never put all your eggs in one basket in recruiting. To that end, UVa is also looking at 3-star point guard C.J. Harris.

Harris, a rising senior from Mount Tabor High in Winston-Salem, N.C., has offers from Wake Forest, Clemson and Virginia Tech. He said he’s hoping to get one soon from Virginia.

“They’re showing interest, but not like full-throttle interest,” said Harris, who plans on signing during the early period this fall. “They call me every now and then and stuff like that.

“I’m still wide open. [Virginia] would be a good fit. They need a combo guard and somebody who could take [Singletary’s] role. I could do that.”

Harris is known for attacking the basket. “That’s my bread and butter right there,” he said.

Andy Muse, Harris’ high school coach, said he wouldn’t be surprised to see his star end up at UVa.

“They’ve seen him play three times during the high school season,” Muse said. “I think they have high interest. It’s just a numbers game right now, but I think an offer’s in the near future.”

Barring an unexpected player defection, Virginia looks to have only two scholarships for its 2009 class. That’s why Leitao and staff have to be pretty choosy with who they offer.

Raleigh, N.C., big man Ryan Kelly is considered one of the top overall targets. Virginia also likes swingman Tristan Spurlock of Montrose Christian in Maryland.

In 2010, UVa will have four scholarships available. Targets for that class include Cummings High (Burlington, N.C.) point guard J.T. Terrell and

6-foot-6 wing Travis McKie of John Marshall High in Richmond.

Terrell sports offers from Miami and Wake Forest. McKie, who Gibbons ranks as one of the top five players in his class, has been offered by Virginia, Virginia Tech, Boston College and Maryland.

“The in-state schools are great,” said McKie, who plays AAU for Boo Williams. “They show you the most love because they’re in-state.”

How do the recruiting styles of Leitao and Tech counterpart Seth Greenberg compare?

“Leitao’s cool,” McKie said. “There’s something about him that’s just real cool. Greenberg is real funny, active. Leitao is laid back and chill.

“One is excitable. The other is cool.”

Which personality suits McKie more?

“I could be both,” he said, laughing.

 

2 men and 1 rival got Tech to ACC
By David Teel
Daily Press
June 22, 2008

The deal was done. Syracuse, Boston College and Miami were bolting the Big East to join the Atlantic Coast Conference.

"I would say absolutely," University of Virginia athletic director Craig Littlepage says.

"It looked like the fix was in," then-Virginia Gov. Mark R. Warner says.

Why and how those plans unraveled five years ago have been shrouded in secrecy and debated by conspiracy buffs since.

How did Virginia Tech come to replace Syracuse in the ACC's expansion? Why did the Hokies' most bitter rival, the University of Virginia, help make it happen?

"This is delicate," Tech athletic director Jim Weaver says.

Delicacy aside, some of the principals are revealing details for the first time, and the principals agree that two men wielded considerable influence. They lobbied colleagues, pressured skeptics and reminded folks of who was in charge.

The most visible was Warner, who attended neither Virginia nor Virginia Tech.

The other was William Goodwin Jr., who attended both.

Goodwin is a wealthy businessman and renowned philanthropist most comfortable in the shadows. Warner is a wealthy businessman and — now — a Democratic U.S. Senate candidate most comfortable in the spotlight.

An unlikely pair. An unlikely goal.

Five years ago Tuesday, they got their wish: The ACC offered membership to Tech.

"Having Virginia Tech in the ACC has been fantastic for (the state of) Virginia, and it's been great for Virginia Tech," Goodwin says. "From every aspect, I can't think of a better result."

"It was a wild ride," Warner says. "I never, never would have predicted it."

As governor from 2002 to 2006, Warner began most of his days riding an exercise bike and reading news clips prepared by his staff. During the spring of 2003, more and more of those clips pertained to ACC expansion.

The conference then included nine institutions, the University of Virginia among them.

Hoping to promote the league's sagging football image and to broaden its television appeal, ACC officials courted Miami, Boston College and Syracuse.

"There was very, very little respect for Virginia Tech during the early planning stages for expansion because they didn't bring anything more to the table financially than Virginia did," says Dave Braine, then Georgia Tech's athletic director and the Hokies' AD from 1988 to 1997.

Conversely, Tech had coveted ACC membership since the conference's establishment in 1953. The league's tradition, revenue and geography surpassed that of the Big East, then the Hokies' home.

But while athletic directors such as Braine, Florida State's Dave Hart and Clemson's Bobby Robinson first advocated and planned expansion, the final decision rested with the leaders of the conference's nine universities.

That distinction proved critical.

'Much bigger than sports'
On May 6, 2003, Tech President Charles Steger, then-Executive Vice President Minnis Ridenour and Weaver traveled to ACC headquarters in Greensboro, N.C., to plead their case to conference Commissioner John Swofford and other members of Swofford's staff.

The meeting lasted a scant 28 minutes, Weaver recalls.

Ten days later, ACC presidents voted to pursue Miami, Boston College and Syracuse. Swofford and other conference representatives then visited those campuses — tours that included news conferences and clear professions of intent.

"We feel really comfortable with the situation at all three of these schools," North Carolina State athletic director Lee Fowler said during the final visit, June 4 at Syracuse.

Two days later, Tech and four other Big East institutions filed a lawsuit in a Connecticut court, accusing the ACC of conspiring to destroy the Big East. The suit sought "hundreds of millions of dollars" in damages.

Yet, while vowing publicly to preserve the Big East, Tech continued working privately toward ACC inclusion.

"A couple of people in Southwest Virginia said, 'Hey, you know Tech's trying to get into the ACC,'" Warner recalls. "The first time I heard it, I think, I was in the middle of budget battles or whatever, so it wasn't like I was smart enough to leap on it. …

"(But then) it hit me that this was something that was much bigger than sports. This was in a lot of ways about economic development for Southwest Virginia. … It just seemed to make such good sense."

Most University of Virginia partisans vehemently disagreed. They considered ACC membership a trump in their ceaseless competition against the Hokies, and to them, the notion of aiding their rivals was preposterous.

But any chance that Tech had of entering the mix hinged on Virginia. ACC bylaws required seven votes to approve expansion, and with Duke and North Carolina opposed, Virginia was positioned to insist on Tech.

U.Va. President John Casteen has never discussed expansion details publicly and didn't respond to an interview request or e-mailed questions.

Littlepage says that he was "uncomfortable" with including the Hokies but that "due to a lot of different factors, it came about, and we've all moved on."

He declined to elaborate.

Warner explored every conceivable angle, calling friends such as North Carolina Gov. Mike Easley and Miami President Donna Shalala to promote Tech and the economic effect of its rabid following.

But the focus of Warner's politicking was Charlottesville, home of U.Va.

"President Casteen was always supportive (of Tech), but his board got a little wobbly," Warner says, referring to the university's Board of Visitors, members of which are appointed by the governor.

"I had to refresh the memory of some board members that they serve at the pleasure of the governor," Warner says with a smile. "That this was not about U.Va. versus Tech, ... it was in the best interest of the state.

"After a few candid conversations with a couple of board members, I think they understood. And the board stood solid."

Friend from Tech and U.Va.
Warner's and Tech's staunchest ally on Virginia's 16-member board was Goodwin, then the vice rector.

A Richmond native, Goodwin earned a mechanical engineering degree from Tech in 1962 and his MBA from Virginia in 1966. Ventures ranging from bowling to real estate netted billions, and in 2006, Business Week named Goodwin and his wife, Alice, among the nation's 50 most generous philanthropists — a list that included Oprah Winfrey, Warren Buffett, and Bill and Melinda Gates.

The Goodwins have donated more than $100 million to Tech, Virginia and Mrs. Goodwin's alma mater, Virginia Commonwealth.

Expansion "was well-planned by the ACC," Goodwin says. "But as it got up the chain to the board, we thought Tech would be a better fit (than Syracuse)."

So the Board of Visitors dictated that Casteen derail expansion unless the Hokies were included?

"I hate to use that word — 'dictated,"" Goodwin says. "That's a very strong word.

"Don't make Casteen look bad. Make him a hero. It wasn't that John was against it. He was very supportive, but ultimately, the Board of Visitors made the decision, John didn't. … I was able to help corral the needed votes."

How difficult was the corralling?

"It was not contentious at all," Goodwin says. "We had some tough discussion and differences of opinion."

And might Warner have swayed some board members?

"He didn't threaten to kick anybody off," says Goodwin, chairman of Richmond-based CCA Industries, a diversified holding company. "But clearly, it was a team effort."

Goodwin and Warner credit Ridenour and his Virginia counterpart, Leonard Sandridge, for tireless research into Tech's assets and the economic effect of its loyal fans.

"There had to be two or three different times where we thought it was dead," Warner says. "We got some good breaks. I'd love to claim it was some great master plan, that this all was some carefully executed strategy."

ACC presidents certainly had no master plan. Casteen adopted a Tech-or-bust stance, while the Duke and North Carolina camps remained opposed to all expansion options.

From June 10 to 21, the presidents convened four times via teleconference. Four times, they failed to reach consensus.

Then-Wake Forest President Thomas Hearn said later on the university's Web site, "A majority of our members, including myself, believed that we had taken a decisive vote that would lead to offers of admission to Boston College, the University of Miami and Syracuse University, absent any negative findings — of which there were none — from the site visits.

"A smaller group thought ... the crucial vote was yet to be taken. ... We entered a period of procedural paralysis, trying to find a way out of the impasse created by our failure to understand one another."

The impasse broke during a June 24 teleconference that lasted deep into the night.

Voting on each expansion prospect separately, the presidents approved Miami and — yielding to Virginia's demand — Virginia Tech.

Then-North Carolina State Chancellor Marye Anne Fox inexplicably withdrew her support of Boston College, but one year later, the group reconsidered and invited the Eagles, creating today's 12-school alignment.

"The presidents made the decision, and they told the ADs," says ex-Tech AD Braine, retired and living in Blacksburg. "None of the ADs even had a chance to talk, whether they wanted it to happen or not. Expansion was going to happen, and it was going to happen with Virginia Tech, period."

Not all smooth sailing
ACC affiliation has afforded each of the newcomers greater television exposure and spurred them to record revenues. Thanks in large measure to enhanced contracts with television partners ABC and ESPN, the conference distributed $137.7 million to its schools during 2006-07, a national high.

Most important to the accountants, the per-school share has increased, from $10.9 million in 2003-04 to $11.7 million in 2006-07.

"I really think (expansion has) been a success for them," says Dave Brown, ESPN's vice president of college football programming. "They're getting more games on (nationally) than ever before."

Ratings for ACC games on ESPN and ESPN2 also have improved since the arrival of Tech, Miami and Boston College, Brown says.

But higher ratings and revenue haven't precluded troubles for men's basketball and football.

ACC teams are a combined 19-15 in the past three NCAA basketball tournaments, the conference's worst three-year stretch since the advent of the 64-team bracket in 1985. Moreover, only four league teams made the NCAA field in 2006 and 2008.

Since expansion, ACC football teams are 0-4 in the Bowl Championship Series, lowering the league's total BCS mark to a national-worst 1-9.

No ACC team has earned an at-large BCS bid, and poor attendance at the fledgling conference title game prompted officials to move the event from Jacksonville, Fla., to Tampa, Fla.

Big East football, meanwhile, didn't splinter as many people suspected it would. The conference added Louisville, Cincinnati and South Florida, and it has since gone 3-1 in BCS games.

ACC teams are 23-16 against the Big East in the past four seasons — 7-11 the past two.

The ACC's commissioner since 1997, Swofford didn't respond to several interview requests or questions submitted by e-mail.

"I think it's still a little premature to say with any certainty just how much benefit has come to the conference," says Littlepage, the U.Va. athletic director.

"But I think the general feeling is that it's been a good move for the league."

Warner, a graduate of George Washington and Harvard, certainly thinks so. But the expansion experience taught him volumes.

"As governor, you're called some good names and some not-so-nice names," he says.

"But even during the worst part of the tax debate, I wasn't called as bad ... names as I was on some of the (Virginia) message boards: 'Raise my taxes, but don't let the Hokies into the ACC.'"

And now that he's running for the Senate?

"Many times, I hear 'You're a blankety-blank Democrat, but I'm still going to vote for you because you got our Hokies into the ACC.' …

"I much better appreciate now the level of the (Virginia-Virginia Tech) rivalry."

Since beginning ACC competition in the fall of 2004, Tech has won nine conference championships.

During the same span, Virginia has won a league-best 19, and Cavaliers teams are 59-28-1 overall against the Hokies.

Yet, many Cavaliers faithful still find their school's advocacy for the Hokies maddening.

"I would prefer not to try to give you an answer to that," says Littlepage. He pauses.

"This is the kind of thing I would look at," he says. "The success of their football program has, I think, elevated … all of our football programs."

Goodwin, 67 and no longer serving on Virginia's Board of Visitors, isn't as diplomatic.

"I'll use a young person's cliche," he says: "Get over it. It's a new world."
 

ACC invite the 'best thing' to ever happen to Virginia Tech
By DAVID TEEL
¦ 247-4636
9:03 PM EDT, June 21, 2008

Weeks after commencement, on a blustery May afternoon, the Virginia Tech campus exhales. Except for the athletic complex.

Bulldozers break ground on a basketball practice complex; the softball and men's and women's track teams prepare for NCAA championships; administrators tout the department's latest academic efforts.

It is a spring like no other in Hokies history.

It is a spring that Atlantic Coast Conference membership made possible.

Five years ago Tuesday, in a reversal many of the principals still find stunning, the ACC voted Virginia Tech into the league of Hokie Nation's dreams. Five years later, Virginia Tech sports prosper like never before.

"The best thing that has ever happened to the university both academically and athletically is the invitation from the Atlantic Coast Conference," athletic director Jim Weaver says. "There is absolutely no downside. None."

Better students, athletes and coaches. Record revenue, attendance and television exposure.

More subsequent ACC championships than seven conference colleagues; improved graduation rates and grade-point averages; continuous facility upgrades and larger recruiting budgets.

"I don't know that anyone … would have predicted this for Virginia Tech," says football coach Frank Beamer, class of '69.

In May 2003, no one would have predicted ACC membership, much less excellence, for the Hokies.

Seeking to upgrade its football and enter lucrative television markets in South Florida and the New York-Boston corridor, the conference publicly targeted Big East schools Miami, Syracuse and Boston College.

Virginia Tech pleaded for inclusion and was rebuffed.

National rankings? Postseason tournaments? The Hokies were concerned more with survival. Panicked that the Big East might crumble, Virginia Tech joined a lawsuit to prevent ACC expansion.

But intervention by then-Virginia Gov. Mark Warner and subsequent infighting among the ACC's nine CEOs — University of Virginia president John Casteen was a pivotal figure — forever altered the landscape of college athletics (see story on Page A1).

During a June 24 conference call, 18 days after the lawsuit's filing, ACC officials extended offers to Virginia Tech and Miami.

"When it happened, we all kind of scratched our heads and wondered how," Warner says.

One year later, the ACC embraced Boston College to complete the current 12-school alignment.

The day of the ACC's invitation to his alma mater, Beamer was admitted to an Atlanta hospital with heart-related chest pains. He was discharged 24 hours later.

"Not that it was a tense time or anything," Beamer jokes.

The evening of the invitation, Weaver rose from bed — he learned the news from university president Charles Steger after 11 p.m. — and uncorked a bottle of champagne with his wife, Traci.

"That's as clear in my mind as the day my little guy was born," Weaver says.

No wonder. The Hokies had been pining for ACC inclusion since its founding in 1953. This was the conference that connected them to their Carolina neighbors. This was the conference that moved them into the same pricey neighborhood as their fiercest rivals — the Virginia Cavaliers.

After a lame-duck year in the Big East, Virginia Tech officially joined the ACC on July 1, 2004.

On Sept. 18, Blacksburg hosted its first ACC football game. Virginia Tech defeated Duke 41-17 en route to the conference championship.

'A PERFECT STORM'
Few questioned the Hokies' football pedigree. They had played in the 1999 national-title game, won the Big East three times and hadn't suffered a losing season since 1992.

Sure enough, Virginia Tech has earned two ACC championships in four years. The Hokies are 15-1 in conference road games and are 4-0 against Virginia.

But other than football and geographic convenience — seven league schools within 300 miles — what did Virginia Tech offer the ACC?

The women's basketball program was an NCAA tournament regular, but the men's basketball team had endured three head-coaching dismissals and made only two postseason appearances in the previous 18 years.

Olympic sports such as soccer, track, softball, swimming and baseball were underfunded woefully. Graduation rates for athletes lagged far behind most ACC schools.

"I always dreamed of being … in the ACC," swimming coach Ned Skinner says. "It was awesome, but it made me nervous. This was a big step up."

How big was evident in the Directors' Cup, the all-sport standings compiled by the National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics.

From 1994-2004, the Hokies' average ranking among Division I schools was 91st. Their best was 63rd, below all ACC schools and eons away from top-30 staples Virginia, North Carolina and Duke.

Since joining the ACC, Virginia Tech has finished 58th, 45th and 48th. Final standings for 2007-08 won't be unveiled until Thursday, but as of last week the Hokies were 39th, fifth among the ACC.

"We're not just content with being a football school," Weaver says. "We have the ability to be broad-based, and we're showing it."

That ability is rooted in money.

For the 2003-04 academic year, the Hokies' last in the Big East, Virginia Tech reported $38.9 million in athletics revenue on U.S. Department of Education disclosure forms. For 2006-07, the university reported an ACC-best $65.5 million.

That's $10.9 million more than any Big East school — Louisville took in $54.6 million — and a 68-percent jump in three years. Credit, in part, the ACC.

For example, Virginia Tech's share of conference television contracts and NCAA basketball tournament appearances was $11.7 million in 2006-07. The most the Hokies ever received from the Big East, Weaver says, was $5.1 million, with the norm about $2.5 million.

ACC membership also fueled donations to the Hokie Club, Virginia Tech's athletics fundraising arm.

In the fiscal year ending June 30, 2003, six days after the invite from the ACC, the club collected $14.4 million. Three years later, the amount was $24.7 million, a 72-percent increase.

Lu Merritt, Virginia Tech's lead athletics fundraiser, recalls December 2004 with particular fondness. The football team had just won the ACC title, and Dec. 31 was the deadline for fans to enhance their status for 2005 season-ticket location in the expanded Lane Stadium.

"We raised $10 million — cash — that month," Merritt says. "It was a perfect storm for us."

The dividends have benefited every Hokies team.

Higher salaries attract and retain quality coaches. Additional scholarship money allows those coaches to recruit more ambitiously and aggressively.

Expanded academic support systems help athletes in the classroom. New and renovated facilities impress prospects.

"If you don't compete with the best in a lot of areas — on the field, in recruiting and with stadia — you have to accept the fact you're going to be in the bottom (of the conference) every year," men's soccer coach Oliver Weiss says. "Virginia Tech chose not to accept that."

Indeed, the Hokies are competing, and winning, and their fans are flocking to the ACC's more driver-friendly locales. But early returns were discouraging.

'SECOND TO NONE'
During Virginia Tech's inaugural year in the ACC, two of the school's 21 teams — football and wrestling — managed a winning conference record. The Hokies' combined league mark was 59-94, and four squads finished in last place.

The football championship, a surprising fourth-place in men's basketball and lingering ecstasy over ACC membership masked Weaver's overarching aim.

"We have a goal for our people to be in the upper echelon of the Atlantic Coast Conference, the top four," he says. "We're striving to do that in all of our sports."

It's an admirable if unrealistic target, one that no ACC school reaches.

Virginia Tech has yet to approach a break-even ACC record during an academic year — the best was 72-95-4 in 2006-07 — and its baseball, women's tennis, women's lacrosse and women's soccer teams continue to struggle.

But in 2007-08, eight Hokies squads met Weaver's top-four standard, nearly triple the three of that difficult first year. Virginia Tech's four ACC championships this academic year — football, softball and women's indoor and outdoor track — trail only Virginia's six.

Softball advanced to the Women's College World Series, men's soccer to the national semifinals. Football finished ninth in the Associated Press rankings, women's track 10th at the NCAA indoor championships, men's track 20th outdoors.

In four years of competition, one cycle of recruits, Virginia Tech has won nine ACC championships: one in men's golf, two each in softball, football, women's indoor track and women's outdoor track. That's more than seven of its conference rivals.

"I want to puff up over that," Weaver says. "But I don't want to give the wrong impression. … You've got to get the right bell cows, and those are the head coaches, and I couldn't be happier with ours than I am right now."

Virginia Tech's coaches, in turn, praise Weaver for spreading the wealth generated by football and men's basketball, sports that produce three-quarters of department revenue.

"He's a long-range visionary," Skinner says. "He genuinely has a broad-based approach. I've found him to be incredibly generous and supportive of what I do."

"Four years ago when (the school) really put its foot forward, the budget, the scholarships, everything quadrupled," wrestling coach Kevin Dresser says.

Virginia Tech's director of track and field, Dave Cianelli, calls his assistants "second to none in the country," and says pay raises kept them from accepting offers from other schools. Increased scholarship outlays allowed him to sign out-of-state recruits — out-of-state grants cost twice as much as in-state — such as All-Americans Kristi Castlin, Kristen Callan and Sherlenia Green, and national champion hammer thrower Spyridon Jullien.

The golf program's new River Course, designed by the renowned Pete Dye, "coupled with membership in the ACC has made us a viable player in recruiting," says 25th-year coach Jay Hardwick.

According to Hardwick, the dean of Hokies' head coaches, ACC competition lured rising senior Drew Weaver of High Point, N.C., to Virginia Tech. Last year, Weaver helped the Hokies to a share of the league championship and became the first American to win the British Amateur since 1979.

Drew Weaver, no relation to the athletic director, is not alone.

"If Virginia Tech was still in the Big East, I'd say there's no chance I'd be here," says Charlie Campbell, a rising junior from near Chicago and a starter on the men's soccer team. "The ACC is just second to none in soccer."

Swimmer Jessica Botzum grew up in Raleigh, N.C., the heartland of the ACC.

She had myriad college options four years ago but fell for Virginia Tech during her campus visit.

"I think I would have come here regardless," says Botzum, a two-time ACC swimmer of the year. "But (the ACC) made a lot of people's decision a lot easier. I would argue it played a huge role."

'BIGGER THAN WE REALIZED'
While off-Broadway programs such as swimming, golf and soccer often determine a school's Directors' Cup ranking, the franchise teams of football and men's basketball always dictate athletic department solvency and image.

Here again, the ACC has elevated the Hokies.

In four Big East basketball seasons, Virginia Tech was 17-47 in league play and never sniffed the NCAA tournament. In four ACC seasons, the Hokies are 31-33 in conference play, better than Virginia and fifth-best overall.

Virginia Tech advanced to the second round of the 2007 NCAAs and is among the two teams — North Carolina is the other — with winning ACC records the last two years.

"If you're going to coach in Virginia or North Carolina and you're not in the ACC, you're at a tremendous disadvantage recruiting because the ACC is not a tradition, it's a culture," coach Seth Greenberg says. "Being in the ACC gives us a chance to compete on a level playing field in our geographic footprint. It's bigger than we realized in terms of the impressions it has on kids."

The ACC has also energized basketball fans, generating routine sellouts at Cassell Coliseum, a rarity in the Big East days.

"If we were winning … in the Big East, would the energy and ownership be the same?" Greenberg says. "I don't think it would be, because our alums work with Carolina grads and Duke grads and N.C. State grads. And most of our students grew up watching the ACC."

Those ticket sales and the ACC's superior television contracts have turned Greenberg's program from a financial liability to asset. Virginia Tech reported a $600,000 shortfall for men's basketball in 2003-04, a $3.9-million profit in 2006-07.

Virginia Tech football has used the ACC move and subsequent championships to redefine its recruiting base. Rather than scatter to Florida, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York, Hokies coaches now mine the talent from Washington, D.C., to Atlanta.

"Most of our recruiting is within a five-hour radius of Blacksburg," Beamer says, "and that (means) more kids come with their parents in a car for a weekend visit. When recruits have to fly, we can (by NCAA rules) only pay for the kid, so most times he comes by himself.

"I'd much rather sit here on a Sunday morning with a kid and his parents talking about Virginia Tech. It's better for us in the long haul when the parents are involved in the recruiting process."

In 2008, the Hokies could have up to 21 players from the Carolinas and Georgia, including potential starters such as Sergio Render, Dorian Porch, Josh Oglesby and Stephan Virgil. In 2003, Virginia Tech had four players from the Carolinas and Georgia.

Football's bottom line also has soared since joining the ACC.

The $40.6 million in revenue Virginia Tech reported in 2006-07 ranked 15th nationally and towered over the conference — Clemson was next at $32 million.

That's a 68-percent increase from the Big East farewell year of 2003-04 and translates into a $14-million-profit.

Weaver attributes the windfall to sales of club seats and luxury suites, and says that much of that money went to payments on the $79 million the university borrowed to finance two football stadium expansions.

The Lane Stadium improvements were planned long before Virginia Tech entered the ACC, but Weaver and Merritt believe interest in the conference spurred suite and ticket sales. Further, current construction can be traced directly to ACC affiliation.

The $22-million basketball building? A partnership with the town of Christiansburg on a $14.5-million swimming complex? Neither would have broken ground were the Hokies still in the Big East, Weaver says.

The men's and women's swimming programs are scheduled to occupy their new digs later this year, men's and women's basketball in 2009.

The baseball and softball stadiums were spruced up recently, a soccer stadium completed in 2003, lights added to the lacrosse practice field last year.

Next on Weaver's wish list: a three-story football-centric addition to the back of the Merryman Center that would house a locker room, offices and lettermen's lounge.

"I think the ACC has done much, much more for Virginia Tech than anybody thought possible," says Dave Braine, Weaver's predecessor as the Hokies' athletic director and a former AD at Georgia Tech.

'THIS IS FOREVER'
Facilities, fundraising, championships.

Weaver beams about all during a two-hour interview at his favorite breakfast haunt.

But nothing animates him like academics.

He brags about Virginia Tech's most recent graduation rate for athletes. He praises football for earning academic recognition from the American Football Coaches Association.

Such boasts and honors were unheard of when Weaver arrived in 1997, or when director of academic support services Chris Helms came aboard two years later.

"We saw some really good students and some really good athletes (then)," Helms says. "Now we're seeing a combination. In my opinion, there's an expectation driven by the students that we're going to be good (academically and athletically)."

Indeed, many of the Hokies' most acclaimed athletes are accomplished students, too.

Angela Tincher, the national softball player of the year, is an Academic All-American; women's track All-Americans Queen Harrison, Castlin and Green made the ACC's Academic Honor Roll, as did Botzum and Sean Glennon, the most valuable player of last year's conference football championship game.

In 1999, Helms' first year at Virginia Tech, the university reported a 53-percent graduation rate for the 1992 incoming class of athletes. In 2007, the rate was a school-record 76 percent for those who entered in 2000.

Among ACC schools, only Duke (90 percent) and Wake Forest (77 percent) were better.

Virginia Tech's four-class average of 69 percent ranks seventh in the conference.

Following the 2000 spring semester, five Hokies teams had cumulative grade-point averages of 3.0 or better.

This spring, 13 met that standard.

Three times in the last four years, Virginia Tech has made the AFCA's honor roll for a football graduation rate of at least 70 percent. In 1999, the program reported a 33-percent rate.

Helms and Weaver attribute the improvements, in part, to the ACC. They cite affiliation with renowned academic institutions such as Virginia, North Carolina, Duke and Wake Forest; they say additional athletics department revenue has supplemented salaries of quality academic advisors and allowed for the hiring of two learning specialists.

Most important, according to Helms, since joining the ACC, Virginia Tech coaches are signing more academically qualified and inclined athletes.

"In my estimation," Helms says, "it's better than ever."

Better than ever describes every aspect of Virginia Tech athletics.

Work remains, but given the Hokies' ACC infancy, Weaver believes "our best days are yet ahead."

Weaver used to consider Virginia Tech's best days the 1999 football season in which Michael Vick quarterbacked the Hokies to the national championship game opposite Florida State. Then came the ACC's invitation.

"That was a snapshot," Weaver says of 1999. "This is forever. This is a photo album, and you keep turning the pages."
 

By the numbers
Daily Press
 

3 Schools the ACC originally targeted for expansion: Syracuse, Miami and Boston College.

5 Years ago on Tuesday that Virginia Tech was invited into the ACC. Miami also was invited on that day. Boston College was a year later to complete the current 12-school league.

9 ACC titles in the last four years for the Hokies. Here are the titles by school: Virginia (19), North Carolina (17), Duke (16), Florida State 13, Virginia Tech 9, Georgia Tech 7, N.C. State 5, Maryland 5, Miami 5, Clemson 3, Wake Forest 2, Boston College 1.

68 Percent jump in athletic revenue of $38.9 million in 2003-04, the Hokies' last year in the Big East, to an ACC-best $65.5 million in 2006-07.

72 Percent increase in donations to the Hokie Club from 2003 ($14.4 million) to 2006 ($24.7 million).

76 Percent graduation rate for ?fathletes, a school record according to a 2007 report, for those who entered in 2000. That's better than all but two -- Duke (90) and Wake Forest (77) -- conference schools.