This article is being posted online on R. Panth's behalf.

So Boston College has accepted an invitation to the Atlantic Coast Conference. Isn’t that a surprise?

While it is not a surprise in that BC’s intentions were well-known, it is difficult to understand why BC would be so eager and anxious to join a conference that left them hanging at the altar a few months ago. In an effort to explain the rational behind such a move, Boston College’s President and Athletic Director used overused clichés and convenient half truths. While everyone knows BC is going to the ACC for the money, Boston College President Father William Leahy cited athletics, finances and academics as the reason behind the move to the ACC.

Academics, he said.

It’s obvious that the ACC needed a 12th member to stage a lucrative football championship game. That’s the reason that they were willing to invite the same school that they had shunned and practically humiliated a few months ago. The ACC stands to make millions in football revenue by adding BC and they have truthfully said as much. Boston College gained entry into a better football conference and also stands to make millions in additional revenue from football. They just didn’t say as much. They tried to stress academics - as if conference affiliations ever promoted academic collaboration.

Why question our intelligence by using "academics" as a reason? The reason is simple. While this move helps Boston College’s athletic department’s revenue, it absolutely hurts Boston College in every other way.

They have been tempted by a football playoff game that they will never be a part of. The last time they beat Miami was close to 20 years ago and even that win required a Hail Mary pass from Doug Flutie. It’s hard to see them ever beating out Virginia Tech, Miami and Florida State in the same year.

Non-revenue sports like baseball, softball, volleyball and other Olympic sports now will have to travel to the Carolinas, Virgina and Florida to play most of their road games. Short day trips around New England and to New York/New Jersey are no more. This increases the travel costs for these non-revenue sports and also hurts the athletes’ academics because of an increase in time lost from class. Yet Father Leahy stresses that he made the move for academic reasons?

In 20 plus years in the Big East, Boston College had developed rivalries along the east coast with schools like Georgetown, Syracuse, Providence College, UConn, Notre Dame. In one big move, all the rivalries are gone. Instead of a game with St John’s and U Conn in New York that the alumni has grown to look forward to, BC can look forward to games with Wake Forest and Clemson in Carolina that shouldn’t even get its most ardent fans excited. A ticket scalper’s nightmare.

Regardless of sport, Boston College can forget about having any tournament being held within 500 miles of Boston as well. Why would the other 11 athletic directors all want to fly their track and field teams up to Boston when they can simply bus down Tobacco Road? Any parent sending a son/daughter to play at BC should look into investing in a condo in Raleigh-Durham.

Recruiting in big time college sports is probably as important as, if not more important than, coaching. Boston College, because of their move to the ACC, should lose whatever recruiting foothold they had in Big East country while having to compete with Duke, Georgia Tech and Virginia (clearly superior academic institutions) for student athletes in the south. Good Luck.

So while the people at Boston College try to explain to its alumni base that the move to the ACC helps the school in a variety of ways, it simply is not true. It helps them financially and hurts them in every other way imaginable - even academics.

In basketball, they clearly lose because of lost rivalries. In football, they will be spectators and have no chance of winning. In all other sports, they lose by a landslide because of increased travel costs. Academically, the student athletes lose class time because of increased travel. In recruiting, they need to redirect their efforts and target a different area.

Yet they make up for all those drawbacks by making a million or two more per year? Is it really worth it? Maybe it wouldn’t be worth it if it weren’t for the fact that, if one were to believe Father Leahy, they did it for academic reasons.