A stunning final episode left many bewildered, many happy and many upset. Villains abound, with heroes in much shorter supply, according to most post-mortems. On TSL, grateful and relieved Hokies give thanks to University of Virginia president John Casteen. On the Sabre and the Wagon, many Virginia fans are calling for President Casteen's head. Hokie sentiment toward Casteen is understandable. Wahoo sentiment requires a more in-depth analysis.

The anti-Casteen crowd complain that Casteen's support for Hokie admission to the ACC nearly jeopardized expansion, could have contributed to the break up of the ACC, and placed Hokie interests above UVa's interests. Let's examine the assumptions underlying these criticisms.

Assumption #1: Casteen's position nearly jeopardized ACC expansion.

The evidence of such a supposed jeopardy is derived primarily from fan perception that with Duke and UNC firmly opposed to expansion, only the Virginia vote was needed to reach the magic number of seven yea votes. A further underlying assumption is that expansion with Miami, BC and Syracuse was the expansion option either most preferred by the other six votes, or the option that was best for the ACC. There are problems with these assumptions.

The addition of BC and Syracuse, while arguably adding additional television markets, unquestionably increased costs for all sports. Whether or not the added television market would ultimately offset the added costs is pure speculation on either side of the issue.

An argument can be made (and was made) that BC and Syracuse would alter the geographical footprint of the ACC in a manner that would weaken traditional rivalries.

An assumption was made that Miami was only interested in the ACC if BC and Syracuse were invited as well. This assumption was proven false.

An assumption was made that the sky would fall if the ACC didn't expand, in that FSU and Georgia Tech would definitely leave the ACC. The essence of this fear is that if expansion didn't happen at this time, it was dead forever and the ACC would disintegrate shortly thereafter. Not true. Expansion had been discussed before and it was not going to die, nor would the ACC disband if this particular vote didn't succeed. Moreover, the option of taking only Miami was never removed from the table. Additionally, there was other opposition to the inclusion of BC and Syracuse from schools that initially voted to consider them. Casteen had sympathetic allies in other schools.

Thus, to conclude that Casteen's vote somehow held the key to the existence of the ACC and all of Virginia's fortunes, is to gravely overstate what was really at stake. Moreover, most fan perception is naturally lacking the information available to Casteen as he negotiated the treacherous shoals of this process. To suggest that Casteen was recklessly jeopardizing the University of Virginia's future by "stubbornly" holding to a position in favor of Virginia Tech not only does a disservice to President Casteen, it wrongly reflects on President Casteen's decision-making abilities. Such a view ignores the financial analysis data that President Casteen relied upon as to the impact on the University of Virginia of the alternative outcomes. Such a position also fails to recognize multiple other dynamics at play.

Assumption #2: President Casteen placed Hokie interests above Virginia's interests.

President Casteen's position in seeking ACC admission for Virginia Tech is viewed by some Virginia fans as being implicitly anti-Virginia (the university, that is). Virginia politicians are also viewed as having co-opted Casteen and brought raw political force into the equation, all in favor of Virginia Tech at the expense of the University of Virginia.

There are problems with these assumptions. First, to assume that President Casteen would take action against Virginia's interests because politicians threatened his job is a truly unworthy and untrue allegation. President Casteen was not under the thumb of Virginia politicians. Casteen has in the past and consistently throughout this process argued for Virginia Tech's inclusion into the ACC. While rabid VT haters will only want "bad things" to happen to Virginia Tech, Casteen's vision for the University of Virginia and the state in which the University resides is bolder and far more grounded in what is truly best for the University of Virginia.

As two schools within the state of Virginia, there are multiple areas in which the fortunes of the two schools are inextricably intertwined. The two administrative staffs get together to discuss continued joint venturing on key federal research grants, shaping the curriculum with both schools to eliminate costly overlaps, public-private partnerships with industry (there is just such an initiative, with both schools and the aerospace industry), etc. President Casteen and President Charles Steger of Virginia Tech have a positive working relationship. The administrations of UVa and VT have never been closer. Financial concerns in the state of Virginia affect both schools. Financial problems at one school affect the other.

The advantages of both schools working together is really not subject to debate but by the most closed-minded of individuals. Rivalries can be fun and should be fun, but to allow a school rivalry to interfere with one's vision is not healthy. President Casteen's vision is quite clear as to how the fortunes of both schools are connected. He didn't need politicians to tell him that.

There are other Virginians that genuinely want both Virginia and Virginia Tech to excel in their respective missions. This is not a conflict of interests. The synergies of working together far outweigh petty rivalries. Some Virginians that promote the best interests of both schools are responsible for huge sums of money coming to the University of Virginia. We are talking about sums of money that far surpass any income Virginia gets from the ACC each year. Even assuming a worst case scenario of the breakup of the ACC (a reductio ad absurdum assumption) the reduced athletic income to Virginia would pale in comparison to what interested Virginians bring to the table for UVa. Moreover, the essence of the criticism assumes that the University of Virginia's fortunes were gambled by President Casteen for reasons outside of UVa's interests. The facts belie these assumptions.

President Casteen consistently held the view that Virginia Tech's inclusion in the ACC was far better for UVa than the entry of Boston College or Syracuse. Financial analyses suggested likewise. Powerful allies of UVa also shared this view. There are individuals who wholeheartedly support the University of Virginia whose efforts have been truly gargantuan in the past and continue to be of such immense importance as to defy description of their importance. When such allies join with President Casteen in arriving at the conclusion that ACC expansion with Virginia Tech is best for UVa, you can rest assured that such a conclusion is not based on whimsical notions but rather hard financial data. Consider just a sampling of the accomplishments of President Casteen's allies:

1.) Raising over 60% of the funds for the building of the new Darden school. Put up $4.5 million their own money. Sought for the expansion of the Darden endowment that now allows the school to operate completely without any funding outside of its own funds.

2.) Before the market went into a slump, these allies insisted on a "hedge" on UVa's stock portfolio. Six months later the dot.com collapse started. This foresight saved UVa nearly $500K in its portfolio.

3.) They are critical components, along with Carl Smith and David Harrison, for the expansion of Scott Stadium, accounting for over $5 million to the project.

4.) They are driving forces for the expansion of the medical center and helped raise a substantial amount of funds for the project.

5.) They went to Hunter Smith and made the pitch for the performing arts center and marching band. The Smiths put up over $20 million and they raised $7 million additional to put the project in a position to move forward, immediately.

6.) When UVa athletic fundraisers were struggling to find the remaining $20 million to be able to break ground for the new basketball arena on time, they put up $5 million and personally went back to Paul Tudor Jones and got $12 million more. Also, they are now working with a major sponsor to put up $10 million to place the sponsor's name on the floor. It would leave only a marginal amount of money remaining for the construction costs.

7.) They have made literally millions of dollars in donations to the University of Virginia requesting that the donation be attributed as "anonymous," as they seek only the betterment of the University of Virginia, not their personal reputations.

8.) They have made countless smaller donations to different organizations affiliated with the University of Virginia.

These individuals are major players and critical fundraising allies with President Casteen. These individuals are working tirelessly for the University of Virginia and have a great vision for the University of Virginia. UVa could not have raised $1.6 billion for the endowment over the past decade without these individuals. While $9 million a year from the ACC is important, it pales in comparison to these individuals' role in support of UVa's fundraising efforts.

President Casteen's position in favor of Virginia Tech's entrance to the ACC was not the result him caving to base political pressure. President Casteen and the major financial players connected with the University of Virginia determined that it was in Virginia's long-term best interests to have Virginia Tech in the ACC rather than BC or Syracuse. President Casteen played hardball and he prevailed. President Casteen preserved the interests of the University of Virginia. To suggest that he was "risking it all" does a disservice to him, and it fails to recognize the broader vision he possesses. Moreover, the assumptions which underlie the criticism directed at President Casteen are assumptions devoid of hard facts.

BC and Syracuse versus Virginia Tech

BC and Syracuse were quite happy to tag along with Miami to join the ACC. Virginia Tech has for fifty years wanted to be part of the ACC, so it is not surprising that Hokies were panicked to see the Big East collapsing around them while being shut out once again of the main object of their heart's desires. Did the powers that be at Virginia Tech handle the process in the best possible manner? Of course not, but it is always easier to manage a matter with 20-20 hindsight than when you are in the eye of the hurricane. (Pun intended).

It is no secret that BC and Syracuse were the choices of Miami, which is why those institutions were even considered in the first place. The fact that Virginia Tech got seven votes while BC and Syracuse did not, can be attributed not just to President Casteen but also to the other six voters who determined that expansion with VT was in the interests of the ACC.

Was there a risk that Miami might spurn the ACC because their friends, BC and Syracuse, weren't invited? Possible, but not probable. Miami wanted the ACC. Florida State wanted Miami in the ACC. Florida politicians wanted Miami in the ACC. It was no secret that the Big East had irreparably ruptured relations with Miami. Miami wanted in the ACC in 1999, but the ACC failed to show significant interest then. Miami saw the benefits of ACC membership enjoyed by Florida State.

There are other factors that may never come to light, but rest assured that President Casteen and his allies were always looking out for the University of Virginia. Perhaps Casteen had more information about the relative dynamics at each school than message board readers. Ya think?