This wasn't my assertion, I only restated it, but why not? IF it joins the Catholics, why would the fact that it is listed separately in the by-laws matter? I thought that the Catholics leverage was because of numbers, not because of any special contract right. I think the strongest argument against is that ND had already left before the Catholics. It can't go back in time and rescind the earlier resignation to get a more favorable deal. Just curious what your thoughts are.
Actually, the Catholics didn't have leverage because of numbers. They couldn't dissolve the conference with their numbers. Their only leverage was their contractual rights. The Catholics never held a gun to anyone's head in this because they didn't have any bullets. They took what was theirs and then paid for the rest.
Here is some of the language on that:
“The second option would be to simply vote to dissolve the league. The Catholic schools have 7 of the 10 votes which is the 2/3 majority they would need to pass such legislation. But a clause in that by-law requires at least two of the dissolving votes to be football school members.”
See link here:
http://ajerseyguy.com/?p=4272#more-4272
Even more:
http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=606580&page=2
1. The Big East CAN be dissolved by the basketball-only members between now and July 1st. Temple does NOT have a vote on this. Why? Because under section 12.01, conference dissolution can be approved by 2/3 of the conference “Directors”, and because “Directors” are defined in section 3.01 as CEOs of conference “Members”, and because under section 14.01(b) Temple is a “Football Affiliate” this year rather than a “Member” (because it only plays football in the conference). Moreover, section 14.01© explicitly states that “The CEO of a Sports Affiliate [e.g. a Football Affiliate] shall not be a Director of the Conference.”
2. On the other hand, despite having a 2/3 voting majority of “Directors” between now and July 1st, the basketball-only members CANNOT convert the Big East to a non-football conference. That’s because section 3.01 defines any matter relating to participation in football as a “Football Action”, and goes on to say that any vote on a matter constituting a “Football Action” requires majority approval from the Directors of the schools that play football and all other sports within the conference (referred to as the “Division I-A School Directors”). So discontinuing football participation would presumably require a majority vote from among the CEOs of UConn, Cincinnati and USF.