MsTechAnalysis
Jolly Good Fellow
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2002
- Messages
- 1,816
I actually got responses from FSU, NCState(hippocrit) and now UNC. Moeser's is BY FAR THE LONGEST. Never received anything from Pres. Clough or Dave Braine!
Here's his response, take what you will from it:
Thank you for sharing your recent comments about the Atlantic Coast
Conference expansion process. As you likely are aware, the University of
Miami and Virginia Tech have accepted offers to become the newest members
of the ACC starting in 2004-2005. We at Carolina welcome them, and we will
do everything we can to make their participation in the ACC a success.
During deliberations with my fellow ACC presidents and chancellors in
recent weeks, I expressed concerns about several aspects of various
proposals being considered. I did so knowing that our trustees, Athletics
Director Dick Baddour, many of our alumni and members of our faculty
shared these views about issues ranging from the impact on
student-athletes to how such changes would affect the ACC culture, long a
strength.
I also have great respect for the many people like you – alumni and
non-alumni alike – who have weighed in on this issue. The opinions of
Carolina alumni are particularly important to me since their generous
support is a major reason why we have a successful athletics program that
is highly regarded around the nation. In this case, the alumni I did hear
from expressed a wide range of viewpoints about the complexities of ACC
expansion, but no clear consensus.
Throughout this process, I expressed concerns to my fellow ACC presidents
and chancellors because it was my responsibility to do what I believed was
best for Carolina athletics and the university.
First, I was worried about the welfare of our student-athletes and the
potential negative impact of expansion on the geographical footprint of
the conference. And, equally important, I was concerned that expansion
could negatively affect our revenues. It is true that expansion is, in
part, about money. One argument for expansion was based on projections of
huge new television contracts and income from football championships. I
was not confident that those projections were accurate. If the projections
fall short and Carolina’s revenues drop, it could result in our having to
re-examine the overall scope of our current athletics program. That is
more of a concern at Carolina than at any of the other universities
because we field 28 varsity sports – more than any other school.
We respect the democratic process in which the majority of the ACC
President’s Council voted to expand the conference. Then it was important
to continue participating in the discussion in order to affect the outcome
and raise Carolina’s issues. That was also my sole objective in voting to
support exploratory discussions with Miami, Boston College and Syracuse. I
cast my vote without providing a final endorsement of those three schools.
That was made clear to my colleagues on the council.
At another crucial stage of our deliberations, I proposed a compromise
that would have expanded the conference to 10 teams by adding just Miami.
It would have been a natural geographic extension of Florida State’s
membership in the conference, and it would have significantly strengthened
the ACC’s competitiveness in football. It would also have helped allay
some of our concerns about any potential negative impact on our other
non-revenue sports as well as preserve traditional rivalries especially
important to Tar Heels. In the end, our position did not prevail. We
accept the process that guided expansion, and we will do all we can to
make it work in every aspect of the implementation period.
Our commitment to excellence in the Carolina athletics program is
unwavering. Our oft-stated goal is to become the leading public university
in the nation. Part of that goal is being the best that we can be in
academics and athletics, in football, basketball and the Olympic sports.
The strength of the ACC has always been the collegial relationships among
its member institutions, and we welcome Miami and Virginia Tech into that
great culture.
Sincerely,
James Moeser
Here's his response, take what you will from it:
Thank you for sharing your recent comments about the Atlantic Coast
Conference expansion process. As you likely are aware, the University of
Miami and Virginia Tech have accepted offers to become the newest members
of the ACC starting in 2004-2005. We at Carolina welcome them, and we will
do everything we can to make their participation in the ACC a success.
During deliberations with my fellow ACC presidents and chancellors in
recent weeks, I expressed concerns about several aspects of various
proposals being considered. I did so knowing that our trustees, Athletics
Director Dick Baddour, many of our alumni and members of our faculty
shared these views about issues ranging from the impact on
student-athletes to how such changes would affect the ACC culture, long a
strength.
I also have great respect for the many people like you – alumni and
non-alumni alike – who have weighed in on this issue. The opinions of
Carolina alumni are particularly important to me since their generous
support is a major reason why we have a successful athletics program that
is highly regarded around the nation. In this case, the alumni I did hear
from expressed a wide range of viewpoints about the complexities of ACC
expansion, but no clear consensus.
Throughout this process, I expressed concerns to my fellow ACC presidents
and chancellors because it was my responsibility to do what I believed was
best for Carolina athletics and the university.
First, I was worried about the welfare of our student-athletes and the
potential negative impact of expansion on the geographical footprint of
the conference. And, equally important, I was concerned that expansion
could negatively affect our revenues. It is true that expansion is, in
part, about money. One argument for expansion was based on projections of
huge new television contracts and income from football championships. I
was not confident that those projections were accurate. If the projections
fall short and Carolina’s revenues drop, it could result in our having to
re-examine the overall scope of our current athletics program. That is
more of a concern at Carolina than at any of the other universities
because we field 28 varsity sports – more than any other school.
We respect the democratic process in which the majority of the ACC
President’s Council voted to expand the conference. Then it was important
to continue participating in the discussion in order to affect the outcome
and raise Carolina’s issues. That was also my sole objective in voting to
support exploratory discussions with Miami, Boston College and Syracuse. I
cast my vote without providing a final endorsement of those three schools.
That was made clear to my colleagues on the council.
At another crucial stage of our deliberations, I proposed a compromise
that would have expanded the conference to 10 teams by adding just Miami.
It would have been a natural geographic extension of Florida State’s
membership in the conference, and it would have significantly strengthened
the ACC’s competitiveness in football. It would also have helped allay
some of our concerns about any potential negative impact on our other
non-revenue sports as well as preserve traditional rivalries especially
important to Tar Heels. In the end, our position did not prevail. We
accept the process that guided expansion, and we will do all we can to
make it work in every aspect of the implementation period.
Our commitment to excellence in the Carolina athletics program is
unwavering. Our oft-stated goal is to become the leading public university
in the nation. Part of that goal is being the best that we can be in
academics and athletics, in football, basketball and the Olympic sports.
The strength of the ACC has always been the collegial relationships among
its member institutions, and we welcome Miami and Virginia Tech into that
great culture.
Sincerely,
James Moeser
