Can anyone find the bylaw thread from a month or so

[upstater]

ago?

Someone posted about the amendment that required two schools from each faction to dissolve. That person provided a link.

I tried the search engine and couldn't remember enough keywords to find anything.

The word by-law with a dash in between is too short for a search on its own.

 

[Dann]

i tried looking quick but didn't see it. your talking about the BE bylaws and how it could blow up right?

the c7 can't blow it up alone, they need 2 fball schools to vote also to blow it up. uconn and cincy would be the 2 as usf and temple wouldnt have that option to do it then go elsewhere.

but to your point, b10 gets 3 acc schools and uconn. cincy to the acc gets them back to 12 so they still have a ccg. those 2 vote with c7 to blow up the league and the c7 can now run with the credits name and brand. wala magic.

 

[jostar1]

I couldn't find the thread, but per Blaudschun:

"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 dissenting votes to be football school members."

http://ajerseyguy.com/?p=4272#more-4272

 

[upstater]

i tried looking quick but didn't see it. your talking about the BE bylaws and how it could blow up right?

the c7 can't blow it up alone, they need 2 fball schools to vote also to blow it up. uconn and cincy would be the 2 as usf and temple wouldnt have that option to do it then go elsewhere.

but to your point, b10 gets 3 acc schools and uconn. cincy to the acc gets them back to 12 so they still have a ccg. those 2 vote with c7 to blow up the league and the c7 can now run with the credits name and brand. wala magic.

Right, I'm looking for that clause. Hard to find.

 

[Dann]

@upstater maybe this thread?

http://the-boneyard.com/threads/big-east-conference-bylaws-pdf.30045/

 

[upstater]

@upstater maybe this thread?

http://the-boneyard.com/threads/big-east-conference-bylaws-pdf.30045/

Thanks, but I found that one. This was a longer one with a lot of commentary.

 

[jostar1]

I found this explanation of the bylaws:

Thanks to the OP for posting the by-laws, the information is very helpful. Here's my reading on two key issues:

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.

http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=606580&page=2

 

[upstater]

Well done, thanks.

This is materially different than what we read earlier. It's not that 2 schools from each faction are required to dissolve the conference. Rather, 2 football schools are needed because there are only 3 football schools voting (if you don't count Temple). But shouldn't they count Temple? It's irrelevant.

 

[CTMike]

If I recall the thread, Upstater, there was some speculation that the bylaws linked to weren't complete. Some people felt they were too short... some actual media members (not just internet bloggers) were quoting things that weren't in the version we were reading.

Me, they seemed complete enough to me, and I think jostar1 is right on with the relevant clauses. But I'm not even an internet blogger, just an internet commenter.