HJS wrote:pick6pedro wrote:HJS wrote:pick6pedro wrote:HJS wrote:eagle9903 wrote:Back to 2003, aren't you conflating issues? Wasn't there one issue where Virginia refused Cuse in favor of Virginia Tech at the behest of the governor and then following that a mostly separate albeit related issue where the Carolina schools, led by NC State, tried to block us, with some idea that they would aspire to get ND instead, which only ended due to desire to have a championship game? Regardless, I don't know if they could have changed the bylaws if Virginia didn't want them to do so. I don't know if they require a majority, unanimity, etc.
The ACC needed a super-majority to expand (7-2... 6-3 could block it). Duke and UNC were against expansion... period. Nonetheless, the other 7 schools were for it. Until... Governor Warner realized what would happen to VaTech. He then forced UVA to block ANY expansion (including just Miami) unless it included VT. They conference acquiesced and agreed to include VT in place of Cuse. That was brought to a vote (again with Duke and UNC against). In a shot outta the blue, Maryanne Fox switched NCS's vote to no. She would only agree to Miami and VT and demanded that the ACC explore more options than just BC for the 12th spot. Maryanne Fox was on the Board of Notre Dame. The word was that they reached out to her and said they would be interested in joining the ACC. As such, she blocked BC. The ACC immediately reached out to ND. They quickly realized that ND only was willing to do an affiliation in FB (4 games a year). They then came back to BC and brought us in.
Right. But the important part is about changing the by-laws (which you made seem simple to do). If you can't get a super-majority to agree to expansion, how are you going to get a super-majority/unanimity to take away those protections right after they were used?
Because they had the 7-2 vote right up until the very end when Warner shrewdly realized he could block the whole thing. They would have had no problem getting a 7-2 vote to change the bylaws months earlier.
You're assuming that 1) the exact same analysis that each school used for expansion at that exact time would be used for amending voting protocol and 2) changing the voting requirements requires the same level of agreement as a vote on expansion matters.
The consulting company made a presentation to all the schools and they voted to give Swofford authority to ask the 3 schools to submit an application. They had the 7-2 at that point. Word got out... they formally received applications to join (which actually came from more than the 4 schools ultimately in discussion), they did that whole dog-and-pony-show nonsense and then everything went nuts when they sat down to vote on formally making the offer. Once again... it should be noted that they changed the bylaws after the mess to make it easier for next round (Pitt and Cuse).
What does the first part have to do with changing the voting protocol or who would be open to it and who would be opposed?
I'm having trouble finding where the by-laws were changed to make expansion easier...in fact it should be noted that Pitt and Cuse were accepted with a unanimous vote.