Wake Forest Magazine September 2003 - Past Issues - Wake Forest ...

How thorough was the review? Isn’tstudent-athlete travel time somethingthat got lost in the mix?Nothing was omitted. Some haveexpressed concern about travel timeand cost as a result of expansion,though this issue was studied. At WakeForest, and throughout our conference,our teams play national schedules andregularly travel across the country. Byplaying a larger conference schedule insome sports,Wake Forest will probablyrequire less travel time on our studentathletesand lower travel costs to theAthletic Department. It is considerablyeasier and less expensive to get to Miamithan it is to Los Angeles, or Portland,or Hawaii, which were all destinationsof our teams in the last couple of years.Why did the process become socomplicated after it became publicknowledge?The ACC presidents and chancellorsexperienced a serious communicationproblem with unfortunate consequences.When the final public steps of consultationwere approved, the majority of ourmembers, including myself, believedthat we had taken a decisive vote thatwould lead to offers of admission toBoston College, the University ofMiami, and Syracuse University, absentany negative findings—of which therewere none—from the site visits.(Otherwise I would never have voted togo forward.) A smaller group thoughtthey approved merely the completion ofthe due diligence required by our bylawsand that the critical vote was yet to betaken. At the end of that process of duediligence, we thus lacked the sevenvotes required to conclude the process,though a strong majority was in favor ofissuing formal invitations to the threeschools.We entered a period of proceduralparalysis, trying to find a way outof the impasse created by our failure tounderstand one another.Had we done what we had proposedon the planned schedule, this period ofindecision would have been avoided.The benefits and challenges of ACCexpansion would have been the focus ofthe public debate. Our failure to act ontime and as planned opened our processto sustained criticism, and called ourobjectives into question.What is your opinion of the result ofACC expansion?For the ACC, this process—withunforeseen complications—yielded agood conclusion.We are delighted bythe membership of Virginia Tech andthe University of Miami.They are fineschools with great athletic departmentsand will support our growing academicrelationships.Wake Forest and VirginiaTech already have a joint School ofBiomedical Engineering and otheremerging shared academic programs.The University of Miami, with its reachto the Americas, is one of the nation’smost promising private schools.However, we must acknowledge theembarrassment our process brought tothe ACC institutions, our presidents andchancellors and, more importantly, toBoston College and Syracuse University,which were affected by our flawedprocess. Speaking for myself and forWake Forest, I deeply regret the misunderstandingthat occurred among ourpresidents.What role did the ACC commissionerplay in this process?I commend the leadership ofCommissioner John Swofford.Thecommissioner guided our processappropriately, and, also appropriately,left final judgment in the hands of theCouncil of Presidents. He is a fineadministrator and leader of the AtlanticCoast Conference. Criticism of hisleadership is misplaced.The errorsand indecision were our own.You have been personally involved incollegiate athletic reform. Doesn’texpansion run counter to the aims ofthe reform movement?No, that’s another leap of cynicism. Letme simply point to, as I did earlier, thehistory of conference alignments andrealignments involving institutions everywhere.Conference affiliation is an evolvingfact. I suspect our process failure led tomuch of the negative public reaction. TheACC carefully studied the compliance andacademic outcomes of possible members.Our new members will have the samehigh standards we presently support andrequire.The purpose of expansion wasand is the protection of the integrity ofthe ACC as a premier conference, andfinding ethical fault with this object is,in my opinion, a mistake or a misunderstanding.We spoke to no institution that didnot want to speak with us.There wereno “hostile raids” going on.As the ACC’s smallest member institution,does expansion really serve WakeForest’s best interests?From the perspective of Wake Forest,the future security and strength of theACC is a primary concern.When thecommon interests of the ACC and allour members are involved, it is ourresponsibility to consider the interestsof the entire conference as well as ourown institutional concerns. RonWellman, a member of the committee,and Ed Wilson (’43),president of theConference last year, were firm in theirsupport of the Committee on StrategicPlanning and the plan to expand. Astrong and vital ACC is essential to allour members,Wake Forest included.It is difficult for sports fans to viewconference matters from a conferencepoint of view and with a long-rangeperspective.The presidents and chancellorswere required to make decisionsreflecting the interest of the entire conferencefor the future.The firm majorityof conference opinion was and is thatexpansion in the foreseeable future wasinevitable, and that we should expandwhen desirable institutions were availableand eager to join us.To do nothing—towait and see what evolveswithin the shifting structure of intercollegiateathletics—might have placed theACC in future jeopardy, for lack of suitablenew members. Our own membersmight have been tempted by otheroffers, and no one should discount thatpossibility had we taken no action in theface of strong majority opinion.ConclusionFifty years hence, there will be, I trust,another celebration like the one justpassed [the 50th anniversary of the ACC]that will recall these events as anotherchapter in our history as one of thenation’s premier academic and athleticassociations.This step was taken tosecure that future.September 2003 11