July 18, 1999

We're obviously excited at this time of the year, as we head into a new football season with two new head coaches.

Last year, football-wise, was very good for the Atlantic Coast Conference. Last year, we ended up with two teams in the top 10 for the second straight year, had the nation's best record against non-ACC AP-ranked opponents, won more games against BCS conference opponents than any league in the country, and tied with the Big 12 and the Big 10 with an NCAA-high five consensus All-American selections.

Our league continues to be the all-time winningest bowl conference, with an 81-70-5 all-time mark. We're the only conference to have every one of our teams play in a bowl game since 1990. And only one conference has had, over the last three years, more first round NFL draft picks than the ACC. There were seven players from the ACC on the NFL Pro Bowl rosters in the past year, and 183 on NFL regular season rosters.

So I think we are coming off a year in which the arrow certainly points up in ACC football, when you consider those kinds of facts. I think it's a credit to our institutions and their programs. I think there are things that sometimes aren't known to the general public in terms of football in this league. I think it's something that our institutions and our coaches and our programs can be very proud of. When you consider those things and couple them with the kind of commitment that's at the institutions, from a facilities standpoint and otherwise, I think we have a lot of reasons to feel very good about Atlantic Coast Conference football and its future.

In hindsight, in terms of the conference as a whole, it was also a very good year. During the 1998-99 year, we had 10 teams in national championship games. We didn't win as many of them as we would have liked to have won, but it says a lot about the league and its overall balance and its commitment to overall balance. We had three titles out of those 10 teams that got to national championship games -- Virginia men's lacrosse, Maryland women's lacrosse and Duke women's golf.

Even more interesting, from a public standpoint, probably the four most popular national championship games are football, men's basketball, women's basketball and baseball. And we had a team in every one of those games. That is something that has never happened for us before, I don't know whether it has happened elsewhere or not. But to be in those four games, and to be in six other national championship events in one year is a terrific thing for our schools.

There is tremendous excitement surrounding the football season, with Carl Franks and Tommy Bowden, two new head coaches, coming into the league. We're certainly excited about that, and about the renewed interest at Duke and Clemson. And we're going into the year with a team that is ranked in many circles number one in the country, in Florida State. So there is a lot to look ahead to and to be excited about for people who follow ACC football.

There are a couple of things I want to mention in addition to that. One would be that in the course of the year, we will have the first ACC-Big 10 Challenge (in men's basketball). That's something that we think will be very good for both leagues and very interesting from a fan's standpoint. The ACC and the Big 10 are the two winningest conferences in NCAA Tournament play, so I think it is fitting that we head into this. As I said, we certainly look forward to that. It is a two-year agreement to begin with, with the opportunity to extend it beyond that, which we will examine after the two years. But going into it, we would expect it to go beyond the two years. There will be four games in each conference territory, mostly on home courts, and then a neutral site game. So we think that will be something very positive.

Our women's basketball tournament will come to Greensboro for the first time. We have worked hard on continuing to built the tournament. It's coming off three years in Charlotte in which it progressed each and every year. We did break our tournament attendance records last year, even though we haven't yet reached the levels we would like to see it reach. Hopefully, we will be able to reach those levels as the tournament moves to Greensboro. As you know, the women's East Regional was held in Greensboro and set attendance records for a women's regional, with Duke winning it. It gives us something very positive to build on.

Let me open it up for questions at this point.

Can you bring us up to date on the expansion situation?

There's just a continuation of discussions about it. As I indicated before coming here, we would have no formal announcement to make about expansion and didn't expect to. It is something that we've talked a great deal about over the last two years and have continued to talk about various possibilities, both in our own league and what's going on around us. I think what's important from our standpoint is that we be proactive in our thinking. I think sometimes the fact that we talk about our discussions about expansion lends some momentum to some people feeling that it means we're going to do something. What we think is important is that we are proactive in our considerations. It's one thing to stay at nine and do that by deliberate decision, and it's another things to stay at nine and do it out of neglect or because you weren't paying attention to your business.

One of the things that I have seen over the last two years in this role is a group of athletic directors that are relatively new together and a group of faculty representatives that are also relatively new together, but they've really come together in terms of their ability to deal with issues in a very, very effective way. That's been something in this league that I think has made it the league it is. We had a fair amount of turnover in those key positions in a relatively short period of time, and obviously a turnover in my position as well. I feel very good about this league, as far of where we are in this league and our efficiency and ability to do our business and to do it in an effective way and in a way that this league is used to. I say that in response to your question about expansion because I think you need that when you're talking about something as important as that is.

This conference has been and continues to be very deliberate in consideration of the expansion issue. We've only added an institution twice since 1953, in reality. Virginia came in a few months after the original seven in 1953, but I don't think that would be considered an expansion but rather a continuation of the founding institutions. There is a process that is there. What I would tell you is that there is nothing formal. We have not reached a formal stage at this point, and I don't know that we necessarily will. But I also think that whether we do or don't, this group will have very thoroughly evaluated what it feels is best for this league.

Has there been an informal show of hands or vote?

No, that's something we purposely stay away from, if and until it reaches a point where it's time to do that. We just have not reached a point where there's anything formal that I can report to you, and again I don't know whether we will reach that point or not.

Was there anything different in your discussions today with the faculty reps than with the athletic directors yesterday?

No, I would simply describe it as a continuation of where we've been for a while. Expansion is the kind of issue that issue that goes in and out of focus. Sometimes it is more in focus in the group than at other times. At this time of year, when there aren't quite as many demands in your face as an athletic director, you may focus a little more on it that at other times. I remember at this session last year, we probably spent 80 percent of the time talking about expansion. Some of that is simply the time of year. And I think we all realize that in intercollegiate athletics, there is a certain amount of flex, and you never know exactly when some things may break.

Can you explain what you mean by "being proactive," outside of the discussions here?

Well, what I mean by being proactive is mainly within our own league, making certain that we are talking about our own future and whether we are better off as nine or whether for the future we would be better off with an additional team or more, as well as discussing what's going on around us and what potentially may go on around us in other leagues. I think it's just a case of staying in touch with the world around you and making certain that expansion is on our agenda, whether or not we make a move toward bringing another institution in.

When he was Commissioner, Gene Corrigan used to say that if a conference is too large, it's almost a misnomer to call it a conference because you lose some traditional rivalries. In your mind, is there a number that you'd feel uncomfortable with, in terms of certain schools not playing each other every year or not playing home-and-home in basketball?

I don't know that there's a number. I think if you look at the WAC and its situation, going to 16 members and being as spread out as it was, for whatever reason it imploded. I think you can get too large, but what's best for one conference isn't necessarily best for all conferences. Just because something works well for somebody else doesn't mean that it's going to work well for you.

When you talk about the ACC and the SEC and the Big 10 and the Pac-10, you're talking about conferences with a great deal of tradition. We're a conference that is still small enough that everybody plays everybody in football and plays a round-robin in basketball. You can couple the fact that our schools like that with the tradition and culture of the league, and how it has gone about its business in the past and the importance of relationships within the league. I think that what you end up with is a situation in which if this league expands, it won't do it any other way but after a great deal of thought and evaluation.

And plus, you don't necessarily know who is out there that would or would not want to be a part of your league. I know the schools we have feel very good about this league. That doesn't mean that everybody feels the same way as those of us who are in it. But we feel it is special for a lot of reasons, and don't feel that necessarily bigger is better. But, I would say again, it is an ongoing process, and I think it is unpredictable if and when you reach a point in time when that process leads to activating a desire to add new members.

I'd assume you'd want all of your decisions to be unanimous, but if talks on expansion were to proceed, how many votes would it need?

Our bylaws require seven votes to add another member, so seven of the nine institutions would have to vote to do that, and it would have to occur at the CEO level. With Florida State, it was six of eight that were required.

Wasn't FSU selected unanimously?

At the end, it formally and technically was unanimous. There was some concern right up until the very end. There's aren't many of us around the league anymore who were part of that decision, but bringing Florida State into the league internally was not an easy process. Now in hindsight, I think it is very obvious that it would have been a huge mistake not to have done that, when you look at what happened, especially in football in two respects -- the Bowl Alliance and the BCS, and what happened with football television, because the CFA television package came unraveled, and that put us in a position that we had been in in basketball forever, that is that you have to do your football television contracts as a conference rather than a broader grouping of schools as it had been at one time with the NCAA and after that with the College Football Association. It strengthened us tremendously as a league to have Florida State as a part of us for those two issues.

Where to deliberations go from here?

We talk about it at almost every meeting, and that's by design. Our next meeting, officially, is in October.

Do you have a short list of schools you're looking at?

Well, we do talk about scenarios, and you can't help but talk about some schools when you talk about scenarios. As you would expect, it wouldn't be appropriate for me to discuss those.

Have any of those schools been approached?

No. Athletic directors talk all of the time about various things, but has there been any approach of a formal nature from the league to a school? No, there has not been.

Is there a sense among the athletic directors and faculty reps that the ACC might want to beat other conferences to the punch and trigger something?

No. It's not a question of beating people to the punch, it's a matter of being aware, and if another conference does some things does it put us at a disadvantage. That's what we try to evaluate because we want to maintain our place at the table nationally if not enhance it. I think staying put can be a proactive decision, or are we better off with more numbers, whether it's one of two or three.

Is there a point where all of the expansion talk stops?

That's a good question. I suspect there probably isn't. I guess if all of a sudden we became 12 or 16 it would probably stop. We may confuse you without intending to do so simply because of our continuing discussions, but we think those discussions are important. I can't predict if or when those discussions will culminate will the addition of a school, but in today's world I think it's important that we continue to talk about it.

How much of the undercurrent in these discussions has to do with the balance of power between traditional football schools and traditional basketball schools in this league?

Different schools look at issues from different perspectives. That's part of being a league, is understanding that and accepting that and working with each other to ultimately do what's best for the whole.

Can you make a financial case for 10 teams, or would you have to expand to 12?

Sure, I don't think you have to go to 12 just because you go to 10. Obviously, finances in today's world are a very important aspect of this. It's tough for an athletic director to talk about expansion and consider bringing in a school that would bring less than a full share with it, because that means it would be costing the existing schools money. With Title IX and the inflationary demands and competitive demands that are on our schools, that's a tough thing to do.

When Florida State was coming in, it was easy to project that they would be add more to the pie than they would take out. You didn't have to be a CPA to figure that out. And yet that was still not an easy process. In 20-20 hindsight, it looks like it should have been simple, but at the time it wasn't.

If you expand, would your TV contracts automatically be renegotiated?

Yes, in either direction -- if anybody left or if we added anyone, our TV contracts are renegotiable.

Does that make it a little easier, knowing that the renegotiations would bring revenue in?

What would make it easier was if this was the old days in which television markets and TV revenues weren't such a prominent part of all of this. That's what would make it easier, if we could go back 25 years.

How quickly could a new team be in competition in ACC play?

The toughest sport would be football. It took Georgia Tech six years before they were playing a full ACC schedule, it took Florida State two, I believe. I was amazed at how quickly Florida State was playing a full schedule. The other sports are not very difficult.

Would the ACC consider football-only members?

We talked about this a lot five or six years ago, and I'd say it's come up briefly in the recent past. I don't think that's something that's in the cards in this league. I think there's a feeling within this league that you're either a full member of the ACC or you're not a member. That direction would be something that would be very inconsistent with this league's philosophy.

Do you believe the ACC will expand?

I really don't know. I don't think it would be fair of me, even if I thought I did know, to answer that. I think my job at this point is to be reflective of where we are as a league and represent our nine institutions. Whether I think we should or should not, if that is expressed it will be done privately in our meetings, because that is what I think is appropriate.

Is it fair to say that one of the things that will make this decision difficult is that at some point the ACC is going to have to decide what kind of league it wants to be, and to change at this point risks losing those things that makes this conference unique?

I think that's fair to say. I think this league has made up its mind about what it wants to be and is comfortable with what it is. The question, in looking ahead, is evaluating whether we need to be something a little different in order to progress and continue to improve and get better, and if we make those changes do we lose what we feel so good about at this point?

What is the process of evaluation?

Three of our current members have to nominate an institution. If an institution is being nominated that is within the state of an existing member, that member has to be one of the three making the nomination. Then there would be an on-site visit of that institution, then there would be a formal vote of the Chief Executive Officers.

Are you at any of those stages?

No, weren't not at any of those stages at this point.

If you're nominated once, can you be nominated again?

There's nothing in the bylaws that prohibits that.

Can you do anything at the conference level to increase revenues for the schools?

Most of the revenues we distribute are television revenues. Our football television contracts run through 2005 and our basketball contracts have several years remaining on them as well.

One of the things you have to look at in evaluating expansion is the per-institution dollars are what's important, not the gross. Our conference divides those revenues equally, and I don't see a trend toward changing that.

What do you hear about the possibility of adding a fifth bowl to the Bowl Championship Series?

We talked about that for the first time at our BCS meeting in April. I'd say it's in the early phase of discussion. We talked about if you did it, would you create a new bowl or use an existing bowl. What probably stimulated it as much as anything was the fact that in the last several years, although last year was the first year of the BCS, you have had teams that were very deserving of playing at that level being left out, such as North Carolina and UCLA two years ago and Kansas State and Arizona last year. So I think that's why that has arisen.

Is there any push to have a fifth bowl tie-in?

Yes, I'd love to have a fifth bowl tie-in.

How close is that to happening?

We're not as close as I'd like us to be, because I'd like for us to already have it, because that's what our schools would like to have. You can talk about whether that's a good thing or not, but when you're in this profession, if you can assure that a fifth team in your league will go to a bowl, it's helpful. Now, you can argue about whether things should be that way or not, but given the fact that they are, we would like to have a fifth tie-in. It's something that we have talked about and are still working on. We've never had a fifth tie-in.

Have you talked to any specific bowls?

Yes. There aren't many left out there that have a slot, although there are more now than there were two years ago. Two years ago, Virginia was 7-4 and ended up getting left out because Notre Dame kicked a field goal on the last play of the game in Hawaii, unfortunately. You don't feel good about that happening, because Virginia most definitely deserved to be in a bowl that year. We were 7-4 one year when I was at North Carolina and got left out. But there are so many bowls now, I worry about getting to a point where we're not going to have enough qualified teams to play in them if we keep going. But the other side of the coin is the more bowls there are, it's probably less important it is that we have a fifth tie-in, because there are going to be some more bowls open. You just run out of numbers.

Is there some rationale to front-loading the football schedule this year with so many big games early in the season, like UNC vs. Virginia in the first week and FSU vs. Georgia Tech in the second week?

No, not really. To be fair to the schools, we try to spread what we think will be our best games out as much as we can. This year we've got some good ones right off the bat that we think will create some interest early.