I believe Fishy has been right all along

[Yawkey Way]

This is never how things work in committee. You never go against someone's interests if it's not a do-or-die issue for you.

I don't know about this. I've been on large committees and "committees" of one (me). On the large committees, my personal experience has been that there can be on occasion( as you correctly pointed out ) a dominant member that has sway over the others and can get their particular wishes to prevail. But in such cases, and almost without exception, it has generally been a senior member of that board, or the Chairman of that Board ( thats elected by the other board members )that persuades the others to adopt his or her particular quest. In the case of BC, they were not a senior member, nor was their President a Chairman, nor hast here been any suggestion that I 'm aware of that BC as a new member had an unusual level of power and influence they could utilize on the others to have their issue ( keep Uconn out ) prevail upon all the others. Swofford had such clout. FSU and Clemson,, and the 3 schools within the High Tech Corridor of ' Carolina ( and perhaps even ND ) had such clout ( and still does )... but BC ? I don't see them with this level of power and influence that you think they have to get a school in or out of the ACC... any school for that matter. My hunch is that BC was not in particular favor of Louisville coming into the ACC either.. but its pretty clear, BC's position on Louisville took no bearing at all either with what Swofford, the other ACC School's ( and the networks input ) finally decided to do re. Louisville. I know this is not all that persuadable to you, but thats ok too. We can just agree to disagree on the level of power and influence that BC has within the ACC.

 

[upstater]

I don't know about this. I've been on large committees and "committees" of one (me). On the large committees, my personal experience has been that there can be on occasion( as you correctly pointed out ) a dominant member that has sway over the others and can get their particular wishes to prevail. But in such cases, and almost without exception, it has generally been a senior member of that board, or the Chairman of that Board ( thats elected by the other board members )that persuades the others to adopt his or her particular quest. In the case of BC, they were not a senior member, nor was their President a Chairman, nor hast here been any suggestion that I 'm aware of that BC as a new member had an unusual level of power and influence they could utilize on the others to have their issue ( keep Uconn out ) prevail upon all the others. Swofford had such clout. FSU and Clemson,, and the 3 schools within the High Tech Corridor of ' Carolina ( and perhaps even ND ) had such clout ( and still does )... but BC ? I don't see them with this level of power and influence that you think they have to get a school in or out of the ACC... any school for that matter. My hunch is that BC was not in particular favor of Louiisville coming into the ACC.. but its pretty clear, BC's position on Louisville took no bearing at all either with what Swofford, the other ACC School's ( and the networks input ) finally decided to do re. Louisville. I know this is all that persuadable to you, but thats ok too. We can just agree to disagree on the level of power and influence that BC has within the ACC.

It boggles the mind that you're contesting it when the whole event was described by a BC administrator. You totally twisted and ignored what I wrote as well. I said, WHEN the interests of a less than powerful member are in play, the rest of the group will DEFER to that member because they have no stake in the game. The logic behind this is simple to understand. If you cross the member when you have NOTHING at stake, then you may find yourself with enemies when the time comes for your interests to be voted on in the event that your interests conflict with someone else's. This is why committee work is so crazy and that less than optimal decisions seem to come out of committees that have single vote rights. If you're a candidate in such a situation, you're most often likelier to win if you're the second best of the choices.

This reminds me of when my high school band won battle of the bands. We had a singer with a monotone Billy Child-ish type voice. But we could play OK. all the other bands were asked to rank the best bands to determine the winner. There were two bands that played together for a longtime (a Springsteen knock-off and a Motley-Crue outfit with a screaming singer who no one could understand). Both those bands voted each other #3 (you weren't allowed to vote for your own band). We were voted #1 by both bands presumably because our monotone singer made us very unthreatening. Surprise surprise, we won.

 

[Yawkey Way]

It boggles the mind that you're contesting it when the whole event was described by a BC administrator. You quote]

I am aware of BC's position on Uconn 's application to the ACC... But I am not aware of any evidence or reports that the other ACC schools in meetings deferred to junior member, new member, BC 's quest to keep Uconn out of the ACC. It bestows a stature of power and influence that new member BC did not have, and does not have, in the ACC. We even have a poster fan from North Carolina on another thread on here that stated for us that BC wishes were not given preferential deference re. the decision on Uconn. Logically, we know that in almost all committees, new members to committees generally don't have their particular issues prevailing upon the more senior members of the committees, unless those senior members of the committes feel the same way to begin with. Bottom line, if Swofford and FSU, Clemson, Carolina schools wanted ( or want ) Uconn in the ACC, BC's position on this would not have prevented them from doing so. Again, we both here can simply agree to disagree on this.. no problem..

 

[upstater]

You are just trolling now since you totally ignore people's and simply repost your own drivel. You totally ignored what I wrote. I will totally ignore your troll post in the future.

 

[Yawkey Way]

You are just trolling now since you totally ignore people's and simply repost your own drivel. You totally ignored what I wrote. I will totally ignore your troll post in the future.

No problem. For the record however, I have not engaged in personal attacks with you, nor have caste your posts as " your own drivel ". But we both should be able to agree that if either one of us believes the discussion sinks to this level, then its best for both of us not to attempt any future quest for civil dialogue with one another.. so I support your ignoring of my future posts on here if this is now your decision.

 

[StevieDude]

No problem. For the record however, I have not engaged in personal attacks with you, nor have caste your posts as " your own drivel ". But we both should be able to agree that if either one of us believes the discussion sinks to this level, then its best for both of us not to attempt any future quest for civil dialogue with one another.. so I support your ignoring of my future posts on here if this is now your decision.

You're a piece of work. Just go away