Subject:    ACC Expansion
Date:  Mon, 2 Jun 2003 08:10:31 -0500 (EST)
From:   Bob Eno <eno@indiana.edu>
To: "Big East-Arlene Walker-Andrews (Rutgers)" <arlenewa@rci.rutgers.edu>, "Edd Sewell (Virginia Tech)" <esewell@vt.edu>, "James Cassing (Pittsburgh)" <jcassing+@pitt.edu>, "Nahmin Horowitz (Syracuse)" <nhorwitz@syr.edu>, "Paul Panayotatos (Rutgers)" <panayot@ece.rutgers.edu>, "Stanley Cohen (West Virginia)" <scohen@wvu.edu>, "William Nathan (Temple)" <william.nathan@temple.edu>
CC:  "Michael Wasylenko (Syracuse)" <mjwasyle@maxwell.syr.edu>

Dear Big East Colleagues,

As mentioned in the update message you received last week, the Steering Committee of the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics (COIA) recommends that the faculty leaders who constitute the Coalition endorse a public statement concerning the proposed expansion of the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC).

As you know, early in May, by a 7-2 vote, presidents of schools in the ACC agreed to invite three members of the Big East Conference to join an expansion of the ACC to twelve teams, creating an intercollegiate athletics "super-conference," with prospects of adding features such as conference tournaments, and earning the increased national visibility that can lead to favorable media contracts and increases in football and basketball program revenues.  Should the plan go through, the Big East will have to reconfigure or dissolve.  The NCAA has indicated it will take no position on what it regards as a conference issue.  These events have generated a great deal of public comment, much of it available on media and newspaper websites, with news stories appearing every few days.  Since you are members of the Big East, you will be familiar with the details.

The ACC plan follows a growing trend towards the creation of super-conferences that the Steering Committee believes is inconsistent with the goal of intercollegiate athletics reform.  The current reform movement has been inspired, in part, by positive initiatives launched by ACC and other Division I-A presidents.  The COIA has supported these presidents in their reform efforts; now, the Steering Committee believes the Coalition should indicate publicly that initiatives such as the ACC plan undermine those efforts.  While it is doubtful that a statement of any kind will determine whether the plan goes forward, this is an important point to draw attention to the conflict between the current trend and reform goals, in order to influence subsequent events.

We are asking you now to consider and endorse a statement proposed by the Steering Committee for press release.  The statement is below.  It enumerates the problems the committee sees with the plan, and indicates criteria the committee believes should govern any reconfiguration of conferences.  We welcome your comments, and hope that you will agree that this is an important point at which to urge all schools to take a step back from the arms race.

Best,
Bob Eno
Indiana University

***********

PROPOSED STATEMENT ON THE ACC EXPANSION PLAN (2 June '03)

The Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics urges the presidents of universities in the Atlantic Coast Conference to reconsider their recent decision to invite three schools currently in the Big East Conference to join the ACC, creating a "super-conference" with enhanced tournament schedules and marketing opportunities.

The Coalition has joined recent initiatives for reform of college sports, refocusing attention on the primacy of the academic mission, and the need to step back from an "arms race" that has blurred the line between college and professional sports.  We see the ACC proposal and other moves towards the consolidation of super-conferences as in direct conflict with reform goals in the following respects:

1) The plan represents a strong endorsement of the growing commercialization of college sports, which is a major target of reform. Attempts to increase revenues and balance budgets through national marketing have led to a cycle of rising expectations and the growing arms race in college sports.  Over the full range of higher education institutions, these expectations generate such features as sharp increases in capital investment, rising athletics salaries, and inflated athletics staffs.

2) The consolidation of college sports into "major league" type structures that can raise the quality of competitive play accelerates the spread of professional standards of competition in college sports; this contributes to the widening gap between academic and athletics missions, and pervasive cynicism regarding the integrity of college athletics programs and the institutions that operate them.

3) Because the expansion would add pressure for increased season length through added post-season play and increased travel requirements for competition, it is realistic to anticipate further deflection of athletes' efforts away from academics, undermining both the academic and student welfare goals of reform.

4) In bypassing all meaningful consultation with faculty, and adopting this plan on the basis of business models and marketing needs related to athletics departments, the ACC will undermine reform efforts to put in place the balances of shared governance that can assure the primacy of the academic mission in institutional decision making.

5) In redesigning its conference solely with an eye towards athletics marketability, the ACC would move further from alternative shared bases of geography, academic comparability, and tradition that have allowed conferences to contribute to the academic mission by creating meaningful ties among faculties and student bodies.  Designing consortia solely on the basis of market considerations makes sense for professional leagues; it is inappropriate in amateur sports based on a common link to educational values.  The opportunistic behavior of institutions that has characterized the reconfigurations of athletics conferences in recent years has contributed to the growing cynicism about the connection between athletics and academic values.

The conduct and design of athletics conferences are key aspects of addressing the severe problems of intercollegiate athletics.  Goals that existing conferences should be working towards and that should govern any conference realignments include the following:

1)      Developing academic and cultural structures to reinforce and enrich relationships among conference schools, enhancing the connection between athletics and the academic mission;

2)      Limiting the commercialization of athletics and pressures to professionalize performance standards;

3)      Working towards conference-wide standards of athletics governance at member institutions, appropriately shared among faculties, administrations, and governing boards, that ensure accurate cost monitoring and budget transparency for athletics departments among member schools;

4)      Ensuring that season schedule length and travel burdens on athletes are not increased, and, wherever possible, are reduced.

The presidents of ACC schools have been active in the movement for intercollegiate athletics reform; we call on them to play a leadership role in aligning ACC conference governance with these goals.