University of North Carolina Athletics
Tar Heel Monthly: Baddour on ACC Expansion
September 15, 2003 | General
Sept. 15, 2003
This month, Tar Heel Monthly's Adam Lucas sat down with UNC athletic director Dick Baddour to discuss the ACC expansion process and its ramifications for the future.
Tar Heel Monthly: UNC voted against ACC expansion. Does that affect Carolina's ability to move forward now that two new teams have been admitted to the ACC?
Dick Baddour: Absolutely not. I've contacted the athletic directors and faculty representatives at Virginia Tech and Miami and welcomed them to the ACC. Virginia Tech and Miami are fine schools that are very competitive. For North Carolina, it was never about those individual schools. Our expansion concerns centered on student-athlete issues, how significant changes could alter the league's culture and what the financial impact expansion may have on the individual schools. But now we will move forward. Expansion has dominated the headlines for too long. North Carolina will move forward as part of the new ACC.
THM: We've ended up with an 11-team ACC that includes Virginia Tech and Miami. Was this a combination that anyone could have foreseen?
DB: This was clearly not in anybody's forecast. The ACC had informal expansion conversations as early as four or five years ago. We talked about adding a tenth team at that time, but the financial projections didn't support doing so. More recently we discussed going to 12 teams and playing a football championship game between division winners. During that discussion, an 11-team league with these two schools was not contemplated. When a strategic planning committee was appointed about 18 months ago, that committee did not look at an option of 11 schools. When the consulting group reported to the athletic directors, faculty representatives, and presidents, they did not present an 11-school scenario. In fact, from a marketing standpoint the consultants said we should be looking at 12 schools and with two schools located in the northeast. The combination with Virginia Tech and Miami was a surprise to everybody, and it only came about in the last conference call with the presidents.
THM: At one point it seemed as though an expansion plan with Miami, Boston College, and Syracuse was a foregone conclusion, and ACC representatives were very visible on those campuses. Did you have a sense that it might not be as easy as was being portrayed in the media?
DB: Chancellor Moeser and I understood there were a number of issues that still needed to be addressed before a final vote of approval would be given, so I was concerned about the media portrayal of the visits as being an afterthought.
I participated in the May 16 conference call when the decision was made to look more closely at those three schools. It was clear that although Chancellor Moeser and President (Nan) Keohane thought the process should be allowed to continue, it was by no means an absolute in their minds. They made it clear to their colleagues that even though they were voting to let the process continue, there still were significant issues that needed to be discussed and addressed before they could vote in the affirmative.
The part of the expansion process in the ACC bylaws that includes on-campus site visits to schools needs to be evaluated. In fact, I would go so far as to say that part of the process is flawed. That process was developed many years ago with independent schools in mind, and it was developed when there wasn't such overwhelming media attention given to expansion. I suspect site visits to Georgia Tech and Florida State (the last two schools to be added to the ACC) were conducted virtually anonymously and -that can't happen today. It is unfortunate that schools received a visit and then were not invited. In the future, that must be done in a different way to protect those schools and the conference.
THM: North Carolina has been portrayed by a few people as one of the "bad guys" in the expansion process. Are you confused about how that perception came about?
Dick Baddour: I can't speak for other schools, I can only speak for North Carolina. But you can ask any of the other presidents or AD's or faculty representatives, and they will tell you North Carolina has been consistent from day one in expressing our concerns. We are entitled to an opinion on expansion just like anybody else, and we expressed serious reservations all along. I talked with (former Virginia athletic director) Terry Holland recently and told him we were getting some criticism. He said, 'Dick, you've been expressing the same concerns for four years. North Carolina's position has been clear. Some might disagree with it, but no one can say North Carolina hasn't been up front about its position.'
Working with Chancellor Moeser and (faculty representative) Jack Evans was a very positive experience. We had frequent conversations with each other and with our colleagues on campus, in the ACC and nationally. Chancellor Moeser took a leadership role with the presidents, and his opinions were clear, well understood, and respected. I wish we had the opportunity to consult with our faculty earlier in the process, because we greatly value their input. The ACC had requested we keep expansion talks in confidence and we honored that request until the story broke in April.
I would also like to point out that much of the media coverage has been positive in regards to the position that North Carolina maintained throughout the expansion debate, including the compromise proposal for a one-team expansion that Chancellor Moeser and I endorsed.
THM: You mentioned serious reservations. What were they?
Dick Baddour: We had three concerns. First was the existing culture of the ACC, and the fact that what we had worked quite well. There are plenty of schools and conferences that envy what the ACC has. We believe we were not presented with a compelling case that the league would be harmed if the ACC did not expand. There is a lot of speculation out there about the league becoming a minor player nationally if we didn't expand, but right now that is all speculation. No one showed compelling evidence we would be negatively impacted by staying at nine schools. The ACC is a major player on the national scene and we believe it would continue in that role.
The second reason was student-athlete welfare, which includes travel issues and time spent away from class. A lot of the dialogue Chancellor Moeser and President Koehane wanted to have centered on those concerns and they were concerns our faculty echoed, as well. We wanted to have those discussions before voting to expand.
The third issue is the financial impact expansion would have on the existing schools. UNC operates 28 varsity programs, more than anybody else in the ACC. The department must generate the funds to support its programs. Our share from the ACC is roughly a quarter of our operating budget. Our football and men's and women's basketball operating budgets are competitive with the other schools, but the rest of our sports are in the bottom third of the ACC in terms of their operating budgets. We can't afford to lose money from the ACC in the financial split. Since every school, including the new ones, share equally in ACC revenues, we have concerns about whether additional schools would bring enough to the table to keep us whole.
Obviously, I recognize the counter-argument that the landscape nationally may change and expansion would protect the ACC for the future, both in NCAA governance and television markets. Those arguments are not without merit. But the other factors for us were more compelling.
THM: Why weren't they more compelling for the other schools?
DB: That's for them to say. They didn't necessarily give the weight to some of the factors that we did. I don't think there's a right or wrong. Again, the Chancellor, Jack Evans and I were repeatedly checking our facts with others in the industry, in and out of the conference, to make sure our reasoning was still making sense.
THM: Should people be concerned that this may be the end of the ACC basketball culture that we've known and loved? And how does expansion impact ACC football?
DB: I accept the notion that from a national perspective, the additions of Miami and Virginia Tech will enhance the ACC. However, I believe ACC football was already strong and was improving before we added any schools. I believe our football program is in the best possible hands. John Bunting will do a great job for us whether we expanded or not, and I feel the same way about Roy Williams with basketball.
Expansion was not a referendum on Carolina football. You cannot make the argument that UNC is not committed to an outstanding football program. You simply can't argue that. We have one of the highest operating budgets in the league for football, we have assembled a quality coaching staff which is well compensated, we have spent what is necessary to construct an exceptional facility, and we have a fan base that is passionate about football. We expect to be excellent in everything we do and football is no exception.
I am concerned about the impact expansion may have on football and basketball. This will force us to move away from the round-robin schedule that has been a part of making this conference the envy of others nationally. There is no way to have 11 teams without affecting some rivalries.
Carolina wanted to talk about some of the details, like division alignments and scheduling, very early in the process. Others wanted to expand, then hammer out the details. It was interesting that when we did talk about those details, many schools had reservations about the possible scenarios that were being discussed. In fact, many schools were saying they had to play North Carolina in football and twice in basketball. Well, we can't play everybody in this setup. None of our coaches are afraid of competition, but we aren't going to put them at a competitive disadvantage by requiring them to do something other schools aren't doing.
I am also concerned about the ACC Basketball Tournament. That's been at the heart of the ACC for a long time. It's a special event and not just because we have been so successful. We're going to have to take care as that develops to make sure we don't negatively impact the tournament. We know ticket distributions are going to decrease. That simply has to happen unless you don't bring every school to the tournament, and bringing every school to the tournament has been a basic part of our culture that should never change.
THM: Because of that ticket situation, does expansion mean the tournament has to be in a dome?
DB: I hope not. We need to spend a lot of time talking about that. I appreciate that you can get more people in domes, and we_ve done that once in Atlanta. But there is something special about a 22,000-seat arena and the feel you have in that size arena. I would predict, however, that the frequency of the ACC Tournament being played in North Carolina will change. I think it will rotate out of state more frequently once we fulfill our existing arena contracts.
THM: Late in the game, why did Carolina and Duke propose adding Miami only?
DB: One of the main points regarding expansion was to solidify ACC football, to position us nationally to maintain a spot in the BCS and get to 12 schools for a football playoff. However, we felt Miami would have met the first two concerns and there was the possibility of changing the NCAA rule on conference playoff games. In any event, adding a 10th team would have allowed the league time to make headway on that option and still be in a position to expand further at a later time.
THM: With 11 schools, will there have to be divisions for conference play?
DB: I don't think there will be divisions in basketball. We have to discuss these details, but in basketball you probably match up with two schools that are permanent partners whom you play twice every year. Then you rotate home and away games with four schools. With the other schools, you play them once a year, alternating home sites every other year.
In football, there could be an eight-game league schedule with two permanent partners and then a rotation. I don't think you'd see divisions of six and five schools, unless the NCAA allows us to play a conference championship game with 11 schools.
THM: Will the ACC need to revisit some of its football bowl tie-ins?
DB: We need to take a strong look at that. I think there would be interest in different or enhanced alignments on the part of the ACC and the bowls. However, our long associations with the Gator Bowl and Peach Bowl are special and should be maintained.
THM: One problem with 11 teams is that it leaves the prospect of adding another team looming overhead. Would Carolina have less of a problem with going from 11 to 12 teams than they did in going from nine to 11?
DB: I'm not speaking for the chancellor, but moving from 11 to 12 would possibly be much easier than it was moving from nine to 11. You may be able to make a more compelling point to go to 12 schools, provided the extra school could bring the additional revenue to keep the league whole.
Adam Lucas is the publisher of Tar Heel Monthly and can be reached at alucas@tarheelmonthly.com. To subscribe to Tar Heel Monthly, click here.
