Chancellor Shaw and Jake Crouthamel Address SU's Conference Affiliation
6/30/2003 8:50:33 PM | Men's Basketball, Football
The following is a transcript of the question and answer session.
KS (Kenneth Shaw): I am, of course, disappointed that Miami has chosen to go to the ACC. Their departure leads a number of unresolved issues. But this is what I do know: First, in our recent deliberations with Miami, the presidents and athletics directors of the BIG EAST football conference made a strong, competitive offer to keep Miami as a member of the conference, and Miami gave us every opportunity to do that. I can’t thank enough my BIG EAST colleagues for the dedication they've shown during this very difficult time. Secondly, those of us remaining in the conference have developed a much stronger bond, one which will serve us well as we deal with the challenges of the future. Third, the conference has successfully faced challenges in the past. This one will require resiliency. It will require determination and commitment, and it will require a great deal of creativity, attributes that I believe the members of this conference have in abundance. We will meet this challenge and others, and we will come out of this situation stronger as institutions and as a conference.
My thanks to Miami for working with us, for responding to our questions, our offers and the many phone calls that they received. But now it is time for us to move on, and we will move on and we will move forward. The BIG EAST is alive and well.
I'm ready to take questions, and I know that Jake Crouthamel is too.
Q: How disappointed are you that the ACC wanted that 12-team superconference, and they go expand, and they only get two teams, which is 11? So, they don't have that lucrative title game that they wanted. How frustrating is it to see that happen?
KS: I would say that I think the ACC should be disappointed. They had as their intent, it would appear, two things. One was to bag Miami for their conference, and the second to expand to three. They've obviously achieved their first goal, and it is clear from the situation before us that that was their major goal. They must have some frustration that they haven't gone from nine to twelve, but from Syracuse University's perspective, we knew from the get-go that it was Miami that they wanted. And we knew that they also wanted to expand to twelve. It was also clear to us that we were expendable. As was Boston College, and I would submit, as was Virginia Tech. They got part of what they wanted. If they're frustrated, that's too bad. At this point, for Syracuse and I think the other BIG EAST institutions, we're ready to move forward.
Q: Can you talk about the conversations you had with Dr. Shalala and Paul Dee over the weekend, and what kind of offers were made to them?
KS: I can start and I'll be probably more general than you would like. There were a number of people engaged in these conversations. Leadership from the five institutions that would have remained had Boston College and Syracuse and Miami gone forward, minus Virginia Tech, leadership of that group was placed in the hands of Chancellor Mark Nordenberg of Pitt, who did a very able job of providing Chancellor Shalala with information, things that we would do to try to respond to their particular needs. I personally probably had a half dozen conversations with President Shalala, and Jake can tell you about his long discussions with Paul and with others. But it's sufficient to say that from about Tuesday night through Sunday night, our phone lines were hot. Our cell phones were hot, some of us had serious brain damage as a result of it. I'll be OK. But we spent an awful lot of time on this. I think it would probably be inappropriate for me to outline any of the details of the kinds of things we put on the table. But let's put it this way – we put on the table issues and suggestions that acknowledged the fact that Miami was a very important part of the BIG EAST, and as football goes, the marquee school. And secondly, acknowledged that they had peculiar travel problems that we would try to address through any offers that we made. And so we dealt with those issues, and I think we made a very strong, a very solid offer. Jake, do you want to add anything about your discussions with Paul?
JC (Jake Crouthamel): Paul and I had any number of discussions during the course of this week and most especially Saturday and Sunday. I don't want to get into any of the details either, but I think that having had the opportunity to listen to the Miami press conference, while I share the Chancellor's disappointment, I'm not surprised when you zero in on what it is that they were zeroing in on when push came to shove – geography was a key point in that, welfare of student-athletes was a key point in that, and some of their non-revenue sports, most especially baseball, where they had been non-affiliated for so many years. They're in a strong baseball conference now. And I think that those issues became compelling as the hours wore down to zero hour, and those kinds of issues are difficult to discuss with alternatives.
Q: Why is it that you folks were left behind? Why didn't the ACC take Syracuse?
KS: In other words, to add a third school?
Q: Yes. Why did they stop at eleven – you folks or BC could have been a nice twelve. I'm not interested in BC. Somebody must have said "Why not us? What'd we do wrong?"
KS: That's a good question. I really don't know. I think the easy answer to part of that question – if you ask "How were they going to get Miami?" – was, they weren't going to get Miami if they didn't get Virginia Tech. And so, for whatever reason, they stopped at that point.
Q: Did anybody say why?
KS: No. Not to me. How about you, Jake?
JC: Nor to me.
KS: And, frankly, I don't expect an answer. This was all in discussion stage and pre-marriage stage, so I didn't expect an answer. It was certainly a little bit different than I imagined it to be, but, frankly, at the end of the day, I'm not unhappy that Boston College and I will share the same fate as the rest of our BIG EAST colleagues.
Q: Buzz, you just mentioned "pre-marriage" type thing?
KS: Yes.
Q: Well, if I was getting married and somebody pulled out at the altar, I'd say "Why?" Was it a logical question that could have been asked by you folks?
KS: It might have been, but let's put it this way, maybe you'd like to know why – I probably wouldn't. I'd probably want to move on. That's why I didn't want to know why. If you want a very short answer, the votes weren't there for anybody else. The votes were only there for Miami if they took Virginia Tech. They probably exhausted a lot of their goodwill by then.
Q: Are there any plans or preliminary plans underway concerning the future of the BIG EAST?
JC: Well, I have preliminary plans to get our group together as soon as possible. I'll start on that tomorrow. When I say "together," I mean not necessarily physically together, but to start communicating with one another and to consider how we move forward and some options that we may want to create, to explore. In fact, some options that we may want to attempt to create, and we've got to be creative, as the Chancellor said, we've got to be creative in our thinking and our planning as we look to the future. And we can't dwell on the past. That's history. We've got to look to the future and what kind of opportunities we have now.
Q: Jake, along those lines, you said the BCS automatic bid for the league would probably be in trouble without Miami, would probably be in jeopardy, and now Miami and Tech are gone. Look three years down the road when the contract ends. A lot of things could happen yet, but where are you on that situation now? Do you think there's any chance of saving it?
JC: Well, my feelings now are no different than they were a month ago or a year ago or two years ago. Without Miami and now without Virginia Tech, if we weren't suspect without Miami, we clearly are without Miami and Virginia Tech. We don't know what the new BCS agreement is going to say about conferences, we don't know whether there are going to be exclusions, we don't know whether there are going to be at-larges offered for some conferences. What we need to do is position ourselves within the next three years so that whatever happens with the BCS, we've got to try and find a place for us. And that's what we've got to work on during these next three years.
Q: In finding a place for yourself, do you mean the BIG EAST finding a place for itself, or Syracuse finding a place, perhaps in another conference?
JC: Well, we are going to – the BIG EAST as we know it today – will exist for one more year. At the end of that year, we don't have any idea what it's going to look like, other than Miami and Virginia Tech are not going to be a part of any resolution. That's the only thing we can guarantee. We can't really speculate on anything other than that.
KS: I would answer it the same way, except to say our expectation is that the six colleagues that we have will in some way reconstitute themselves, whether it's under the BIG EAST umbrella or whatever. We will continue to be a Northeast school and to play institutions in the Northeast. And just how that's going to be reconfigured, as Jake said, we don't know. But we do know that it will require more creativity than is usually the case. But folks, let's be honest and realistic here about the BIG EAST – it has always been a more creatively developed conference, and it has done things that are different than some of the more traditional conferences. It has responded to the kinds of challenges that we face, being that kind of conference. It was created for a purpose, and it's worked very well. We're simply now going to have to use that same creativity to fashion something that's going to work for us.
Q: Jake, is there any way the BIG EAST can continue without doing just what the ACC did – taking teams from other conferences?
JC: Well, there is only one independent out there in major college football that I'm aware of. If that school doesn't move, you have to start looking at schools in other conferences. If you're going to expand, there's no other place to expand. So I think the answer to that is yes. Who that might be, what conferences that might be, I have no idea.
KS: And whether expansion is the sum and substance of our response to our situation is something I don’t think we should conjecture at this point, other than to say, our response is going to have to be more creative than that.
Q: Has this whole process hurt the image of higher education in this country and maybe exposed how the universities in this country are controlled by college athletics?
KS: It's really hard to say about the "image" thing – first of all, right now I'm in the Midwest, and I think with the exception of people that really closely follow athletics, it's a non-issue. It's an important issue to us, but keep in mind, over the last two months we have announced major gifts, major naming gifts at the University, and we will be announcing other major initiatives that in the scheme of things are far more important than what we're talking about here today. Now I think what it has done – because there's a group of people who have said for a long time that higher education as it deals with big-time athletics has been hypocritical at times – for those that believe that going in, this offers them more ammunition. I think it maybe says something about the amount of time that we had to spend on this over the last month or so, vis a vis the most important things that institutions of higher education can do. But you know, the criticism and the cynicism that some have felt, certainly those that have felt it aren't going to be made to feel much happier as a result of what we've gone through.
Q: Chancellor Shaw, the ACC is now at eleven. Seems like an odd number. There's been plenty of conjecture that there's one more spot. Would Syracuse potentially fill that spot?
KS: The answer is no.
Q: Why?
KS: Well, we've been through a process that from start to finish, I don't recall a time when I've received a telephone call that hadn't occurred after we had already heard about it from the Internet. And it's pretty clear that it's impossible to have any kind of discussions that aren't immediately leaked and a matter of public information. I'm just not interested in that.
Q: You talk about moving forward and moving ahead for the BIG EAST. I wonder if you guys are inclined to perhaps try to convince some of your colleagues that maybe this lawsuit is going to waste a lot of that time of moving forward. Do you have any inclination to get them to try to drop it so that you can focus on moving forward?
KS: Both Boston College and I probably don't have as much credibility on the issues, since we didn't engage in the lawsuit in the beginning. So I feel a little reluctant pressuring my colleagues that are part of the lawsuit. I can only say that we have no intention of joining it, for the reasons I mentioned. It's really time to move forward now. But not all of that is in the hands of the schools. As you know, the attorney general in Connecticut has been involved in this.
Q: Do you plan to join the lawsuit?
KS: No, we don't, for the reasons I mentioned. It's time to move forward.
Q: Do you think that a split between the basketball and football schools is inevitable? Have your interests become too different?
JC: It's clearly an option and something we need to explore further. We have looked at that issue probably for the better part of three years, talked about it formally and informally, and talked about it with our non 1-A members in the BIG EAST Conference. It certainly is something we want to explore. I would say that under the previous circumstances, we really didn't have an opportunity to do that because we were a conference of fourteen, and it was difficult to expand beyond that, just for the 1-A football schools. But now that we are not eight, we are six, that's something we have to look at as one of the options.
Q: To follow up on that, do either of you have a number in mind, or do you have an idea that we'd like to have ten football schools and petition the NCAA to change the championship rules? Do you have any thoughts, preferences?
JC: We had no cause to consider that until this morning. And we haven't had a chance to really get together and talk about it.
Q: Dr. Shaw, you sound like you're a little perturbed at how the ACC handled it, just talking about the weeks and not wanting to go through this again, you said. Can you talk about how they handled this and how you felt during the process?
KS: To me, the leaks were the most problematic. Beyond that, I think that if you look at the brief history of this debacle, from the beginning I mentioned that Miami was what they were after, and if they took Miami, we would feel a strong inclination to go with them if given the choice. So I never have felt in this process that we were used. And the reason is that we're adults, and we knew going in, at least I felt going in, what their priorities were. And so, aside from the leaks, I don't have a lot to be critical about. The outcome is not something that I like, but the visit that they made to the campus was respectful, the talks were constructive, and all of that worked fine. Whether or not they can contain those leaks, I don't know, but it's an interesting way to do business.
Q: When did you first hear officially the University of Miami's decision? Did you hear from Donna Shalala?
KS: Yes I did. It must have been about eleven a.m. this morning.
Q: What did she say?
KS: That pretty much what Jake indicated he heard from the (Miami) press conference, that it was a hard decision, and in the last analysis it was not a financial decision as much as it was based upon their need – where their regional presence should be, and to minimize the amount of travel for their students, particularly those that aren't in the major sports.
Q: Jake, you mentioned that your BCS berth bid will come up in three years. Do you think that there's any chance it might be recalled in the final two years?
JC: Well, that's interesting. That really is a decision – well, it won't be recalled for at least one year because we'll be intact as a conference for one year. There is nothing in the BCS contract itself or the television contract with the BCS that deals with change in membership. I've scoured that thing and find nothing. So really I guess the decision as to whether we remain as a BCS conference through the expiration of the current contract will really be up to the commissioners of BCS conferences. And in conjunction probably with ABC.
Q: Do you feel, because of that, that it's important to move quickly? The presidents released a statement saying urgency was important. If you're looking to add schools to strengthen your conference, is it necessary to do that shortly?
JC: Well, I indicated that I was going to begin the process tomorrow. I hope that answers your question as to – "Is tomorrow shortly enough?"
Q: The ACC, for lack of a better term, raided the BIG EAST for these two teams and maybe three originally. And now there are indications, whatever word you want to use, you folks may turn around and raid other conferences yourself. Is that something you’re going to be able to do with a clear conscience? Will you sleep well at night knowing that you're going to do to another conference what the ACC has done to you folks?
KS: I would go back to what I said originally, that in responding to this we're going to have to use a great deal of creativity and clearly when you're brainstorming about what your options are, you don't leave anything out, you don't say we would never seek to add members from other conferences. But I can say that, if that's all we do, we're not doing our job and creatively responding to the situation we face. So the matter of sleeping in good conscience – I mean, I've been sleeping okay throughout this. And I think the reason I've been sleeping okay is that I've been very up-front with people about what our intentions are, and my guess is, as the BIG EAST presidents and athletic directors deal with these issues, they'll be similarly up-front.
Q: Jake, what's your take on that?
JC: Well, as I've said before, it's difficult to expand when there's no other way to expand, other than to look to other conference. I think that, as I said before, the fact that everybody but one of the major schools in the country is in a conference, if there's going to be expansion, or some change in membership, it's going to come from a conference. And I think people expect that, they don't necessarily like it, as we don't like it, but it's kind of a foregone conclusion. Is that good, bad or indifferent, I don't know. But it's reality.
KS: I guess there's another piece of it, too, that I would offer, and that is that it's quite unlikely that as we look to candidates, we're going to be taking someone from one of the other BCS conferences, to the point of weakening them. What makes this different is that we've clearly been weakened by this and we are a BCS conference. Conferences that aren't in the BCS have less a stake in this – adding one, subtracting one, is not the same kind of thing as it is in the BIG EAST Conference.
Q: Obviously, for basketball this makes sense that after a year, the two schools go to the ACC. How about for football scheduling purposes? Is this a major problem? Minor problem?
JC: Well, we're going to have to look hard at it, and we're going to have to look hard at it immediately. Miami and Virginia Tech have the same scheduling problems, and I'm not sure how we're going to be able to work them out. They're going to need to play games in the ACC, so they're going to have to free up dates, and they're going to have to drop opponents that might be available for us to play. So we're not exactly sure how this works itself out, nor do we know what kind of schedule Virginia Tech and Miami will play in the first year that they are members of the ACC. Remember, if you listened to Paul Dee's press conference, and Donna Shalala this afternoon, Miami came into the BIG EAST in 1991. We did not play a schedule until 1992. We declared a champion in 1991, but did not play a full round-robin schedule until 1992.
Q: On that note, to follow up, with the makeup of the BIG EAST – some football/basketball schools, some without football – looking just basketball, do you perceive this as a potential home run, or not losing any ground, just on the basketball side?
JC: Well, we certainly didn't lose. With all due respect to Virginia Tech and Miami, I don't think we lost any ground on the basketball side, and it might even provide for an opportunity to improve our situation on the basketball side, given certain circumstances.
Q: Have any athletic directors from other schools contacted you? Have any called and lobbied for their inclusion in the BIG EAST?
JC: Lately?
Q: Sure. Any time in the last two months?
JC: When I say "lately" I mean in the past few years. We have had, several years ago, inquiries from several schools who were interested in the possibility of at least pleading their case. At that time, it’s not that we were not interested in the schools, we were not interested in expansion. And so we never really got beyond that issue, or who would we take if we wanted to expand. We didn't want to expand.
Q: Traditionally, conferences, when they have a lame duck team, they make them ineligible for championships and things as such. Is that something you guys are going to discuss with respect to Miami and Virginia Tech this year?
JC: Again, we haven't had an opportunity to get together and meet on this. My guess is on the football side – I can't speak for the basketball side, and I'm not representing the football side – my guess is the champion is the champion. If they are worthy of being crowned the champion of the BIG EAST, then they should get their reward.
KS: I agree with Jake.
Q: The presidents, in their statement earlier today, said that the BIG EAST conference will go on and will look to get stronger. But in the meantime, what's the situation right now with Syracuse football? How precarious a situation is the program in, facing the loss of Virginia Tech and Miami?
JC: We're in the same situation as Boston College, West Virginia, Rutgers, Pitt. In exactly the same situation. Until we get our hands around this issue and get it resolved, we are all in a precarious position.
Q: Do you see any scenario where you can expand and not create one of these geographically unwieldy conferences – making the BIG EAST sort of the BIG EAST and a little bit further west than you might have thought you would have gone?
JC: Well, again, you have to look around at schools – if you're talking strictly geography and strictly the Northeast, then you can identify two or three division 1-A schools. But you have to, in your considerations, look at a lot of things. And this is not to downplay any school, but one of the reasons why Syracuse and Boston College were considered to be in the mix with Miami and the ACC was in fact geography and markets – television markets, interest markets. And you have to look at that, if you're talking about expansion. That must become one of the elements that you look at, and not just to expand to get more teams.
Q: All the sudden the BIG EAST could have a team from Chicago, say, to do that?
JC: Chicago Bears, is that what you're talking about? I'd rather have Texas.
Q: Jake, how concerned are you, in the immediate future, about trying to recruit athletes to play in a conference with so much uncertainty? And will that hurt the teams in the short run at least?
JC: Very concerned. And, yes, in the short run. But we're not in this for the short run; we're in this for the long run.
Q: Is the Big Ten on your radar screen though? They have eleven members…They could go either way.
KS: They could go back to ten, or go up to twelve, so maybe there's a shot on either side there. (Tongue in cheek)
JC: Certainly if they're going to be called the Big Ten, they should have only ten teams, wouldn't you think?
Q: Yes, I would think so, but the point is, they've got eleven, they might want to go to twelve, some people might be thinking you and Pittsburgh might be candidates. You've heard that before.
KS: We've heard it before, but you know, at this point, I think we've got to focus our energies on making this conference work. The more we dissipate our energies with lawsuits or discussions with other conferences, the less likely we're going to come up with something that's going to work for everybody.
Q: Chancellor, what are your feelings about Virginia Tech's actions over the past two months?
KS: Well, first of all, you remember that I said early on that if we were to opt out – people were saying that all you have to do is say no, and this thing stops – I said no, someone will take our place. That someone was Virginia Tech. That wasn't any secret to anybody who has been close to this, that they have had this interest for some time, and that they in their own way have had conversations. I was looking to see if Virginia Tech was going to sue itself toward the end there, but beyond that, aside from saying they had eternal allegiance to the BIG EAST, aside from that, they made a decision about what they think is in their long-run best interest. That part I respect. It would have been better if they had been up front about it from the beginning, and in effect not joined the lawsuit and indicated they were willing partners if invited. Which we knew they were.
Q: Are you sufficiently satisfied with the current BIG EAST leadership? Do you think it's time for maybe a change?
KS: Now you're talking about the commissioner?
Q: That's correct.
KS: I think the most important thing is that we have to sit down and decide what we need and we shouldn't make an automatic assumption that we have what we need in leadership, or we don't have what we need in leadership. I don't think that this particular situation, the one that we face now, is a failure of leadership on the part of the commissioner. But having said that, I don't think that the situation we find ourselves in automatically assumes that it's the kind of leadership we do or don't need for the future.
Q: I'm just wondering if you could tell me where you were on Tuesday night when you got the phone call and what your reaction was.
JC: Tuesday night when we got the call from the ACC?
Q: Yes.
JC: I was walking upstairs to go to bed. And I stopped and came back downstairs and answered the phone, and had to brace myself against the counter, because I didn't expect anything quite like that.
Q: Who called you?
JC: John Swofford.
Q: How long were you on the phone?
JC: It didn't take long. I was speechless.
Q: Can you describe the tone of the call?
JC: Well, I think there was embarrassment because of the process that we had gone through and the explanation of what the process was about, and the fact that they were going through the process only because they had to go through the process. Decisions, apparently, had been made. Did I answer the question?
Q: Chancellor Shaw?
KS: I'm trying to think that far back. I was in New York, Tuesday night. We had just announced the major gift to name the School of Management. So I was feeling pretty good. And I came home (to SU's New York City center), must have been about 10:30, and Donna Shalala called and said, "You won't believe this." I didn't say anything. And then she told me, and I said, "You're right, I don't believe it." She said "That's what they did, and now we (Miami) have to look at what we're going to do." And I said, "Well, of course you do. Thanks for telling me." And then I believe I tried to call Jake, and he was probably on the phone with Swofford by that time. That's when all these calls started getting hot and heavy from Tuesday through Sunday.
Q: Buzz, a lot was made of this whole process about your personal relationship with Donna Shalala. Can you talk about how difficult or not difficult it was to put that aside and focus on business. And, Jake, Mike Tranghese, he was very active at the beginning with some very directed comments at the ACC, and then he wasn't doing anything public at all. Can you talk about how active he was?
KS: Donna and I have been friends and colleagues for quite some time, 15 or 16 years to be exact. Frankly, being friends meant that we would communicate with one another openly and as frequently as necessary. And I think that, at least friendship with Syracuse and Donna's alma mater for her Ph.D., put more pressure on her, but I never felt that as a result of that Donna would in effect make a decision based on that alone, that she had to make a decision based on what's best for her institution.
Q: Jake, Mike Tranghese had some very pointed comments at the beginning of this, but then wouldn't say anything publicly. Can you just talk about, to your knowledge, how active he was behind the scenes, because there wasn't anything said publicly from him after a couple of public comments.
JC: I think Mike realizes that his reaction, while privately appropriate perhaps, publicly could have been handled a little bit differently. And I think that came back to haunt him. As to his involvement in what else went on, I really can't speak to that because I'm not exactly sure what else did go on during that short period of time where we and Boston College were in. We obviously did not engage in any discussion with any of the other members of the conference. I know there was a meeting or two in Providence, and I think there may have been a meeting of the five 1-A schools, but I don't know any of the substance of those meetings.
