Big East: 'Don't rush to judgment'

The Big East Conference football schools - West Virginia, Virginia Tech, Connecticut, Rutgers and Pittsburgh - filed a lawsuit last Friday in the state Superior Court in Hartford, Conn., against the ACC and would-be ACC schools Miami and Boston College.

Such was the first of two admitted acts of desperation by the Big East in a last-ditch effort to prevent the ACC from raiding the conference of three of its most-prized members, Miami, Boston College and Syracuse.

The other act was the initiation of discussions with the ACC. The Big East presidents sent letters to each of the ACC Presidents Wednesday afternoon - just hours before a scheduled teleconference among the ACC presidents - beseeching a face-to-face meeting.

"We feel quite certain that no ACC president or chancellor would want to rush to judgment on such a potentially harmful plan without having complete information, and we believe we have insights to share that could not be effectively communicated by anyone else," the presidents wrote in the letter.

The invitation was complemented by a statement that was released late Wednesday night.

"We will continue to do everything possible to keep the Big East intact, including pursuing all of our available legal options," the statement read.

In the lawsuit, the Big East is accusing the ACC, Miami and Boston College of a "deliberate scheme to destroy the Big East and abscond with the collective value of all that has been invested and created" in the conference, according to the lawsuit.

In a telephone interview Wednesday afternoon, West Virginia president David Hardesty elaborated on the plaintiffs' case, particularly in regards to the issues with Miami and Boston College.

However, the Big East agreement does not require Miami or Boston College to remain in the conference, according to Haagen. Therefore, "it would be very, very difficult for [the Big East] to sustain this lawsuit."

In a statement Sunday, ACC commissioner John Swofford said that "Conference expansion and institutional realignment is not a new concept.... This process is not complete, but we do plan to continue."

But the attorney for the Big East, Jeffrey Mishkin, supported the merit of his clients' case, stating that the conference was "prepared to go to court." In fact, Mishkin told the ACC Monday that he would seek accelerated discovery, therefore forcing the defendants to present its evidence expeditiously. As such, the case would be placed on the Connecticut State Court's docket, and then advance to court quicker.