Non-Key Tweets | Page 62 | The Boneyard

Non-Key Tweets

upstater said:
Not only that last part, but they don't have approval of over 60% of the schools. They've done the count and they are short.

This is why the West Virginia crazies are finally like the squirrels who finally found a nut (albeit accidentally).
Expand ...

Interesting. I still do not buy the private school part, though. If BC and Wake, for instance, were booted, the ACC could just replace them with UConn and UCF or Cincinnati and actually wind up in better financial shape. The Big Ten knows that and wouldn't want to do something that advances the ACC bargaining position going forward.

As far as not having at least 60 percent of the votes, is there a link you have handy suggesting that? I had been under the impression that they had a consensus on most of the proposals within the P5..
 
woomba said:
When the term subsidy is used AD budgets they usually refer to forced student fees that everyone must pay or it coming out of the general funds, not some special funding that the state gives specifically for athletics (does such a thing even exist?)
Expand ...

If you're telling me that student fees are covering 17 million dollars, well then I don't know what to tell you back. As for whether the subsidy is from the state or not: The fact that there is a 17 million dollar subsidy from another budget means by default that the subsidy is from the state. Although I'm sure you're correct in stating that the subsidy doesn't come from a pot labeled "athletics subsidy budget", I'm also sure that the source of it is our state government, one way or another (unless it's coming from the endowment, which I thought normally carried stipulations on the type of use)...
 
kyleslamb said:
Interesting. I still do not buy the private school part, though. If BC and Wake, for instance, were booted, the ACC could just replace them with UConn and UCF or Cincinnati and actually wind up in better financial shape. The Big Ten knows that and wouldn't want to do something that advances the ACC bargaining position going forward.

As far as not having at least 60 percent of the votes, is there a link you have handy suggesting that? I had been under the impression that they had a consensus on most of the proposals within the P5..
Expand ...

The council apparently proposed 60% being the threshold, which was not satisfactory to the big schools. The difference is 39 schools = 60% and 43% = 65%. This tells me there are a lot of 65 schools who are not on board. If they had 43 schools, then they could pass the new rules, and after the rules were passed, it would take 60-65% of the schools to invalidate them in the future.
 
UConnDan97 said:
If you're telling me that student fees are covering 17 million dollars, well then I don't know what to tell you back. As for whether the subsidy is from the state or not: The fact that there is a 17 million dollar subsidy from another budget means by default that the subsidy is from the state. Although I'm sure you're correct in stating that the subsidy doesn't come from a pot labeled "athletics subsidy budget", I'm also sure that the source of it is our state government, one way or another (unless it's coming from the endowment, which I thought normally carried stipulations on the type of use)...
Expand ...

The way you phrased your original answer you made it sound like only public schools can subsidize their ADs and that it denotes government funding. Subdidizing happens across most schools, public and private and it just means any revenue source that isn't generated by the AD itself.

It's just that private school numbers are not visible to the public because they generally don't have to disclose that figure.
 
upstater said:
The council apparently proposed 60% being the threshold, which was not satisfactory to the big schools. The difference is 39 schools = 60% and 43% = 65%. This tells me there are a lot of 65 schools who are not on board. If they had 43 schools, then they could pass the new rules, and after the rules were passed, it would take 60-65% of the schools to invalidate them in the future.
Expand ...

So basically your opinion is that they're probably about 4-6 votes shy of where they need to be and that's why they're pushing for 60 percent rather than 65 percent? That does make sense, certainly. I just disagree on the private school aspect as I think that's being pulled from thin air (ha ha).
 
upstater said:
The council apparently proposed 60% being the threshold, which was not satisfactory to the big schools. The difference is 39 schools = 60% and 43% = 65%. This tells me there are a lot of 65 schools who are not on board. If they had 43 schools, then they could pass the new rules, and after the rules were passed, it would take 60-65% of the schools to invalidate them in the future.
Expand ...

And what happens in the end if those schools don't get on board with the schools that actually generate TV revenue?
 
.-.
kyleslamb said:
So basically your opinion is that they're probably about 4-6 votes shy of where they need to be and that's why they're pushing for 60 percent rather than 65 percent? That does make sense, certainly. I just disagree on the private school aspect as I think that's being pulled from thin air (ha ha).
Expand ...

Hard to see it as a public/private split. Schools like Baylor and TCU strike me as the kind of schools that would be first on board. Vanderbilt isn't competing in the SEC recently by accident. Boston College's only angle is to limit supply.

Wake is in over their heads, Northwestern probably pretends they care about academics....

Stanford can buy all these schools with their spare change but not sure what they want.
 
kyleslamb said:
So basically your opinion is that they're probably about 4-6 votes shy of where they need to be and that's why they're pushing for 60 percent rather than 65 percent? That does make sense, certainly. I just disagree on the private school aspect as I think that's being pulled from thin air (ha ha).
Expand ...

With the West Virginia crew, there's always going to be an element of craziness. I do think however that it's very likely it's the private schools resisting simply because it's much harder to justify such stipends at a private school.
 
whaler11 said:
And what happens in the end if those schools don't get on board with the schools that actually generate TV revenue?
Expand ...

Division 4? Don't know. But the words of the presidents saying the new rules aren't going to pass sound ominous to a certain point-of-view.
 
upstater said:
Division 4? Don't know. But the words of the presidents saying the new rules aren't going to pass sound ominous to a certain point-of-view.
Expand ...

Seems to me that just means fewer programs circle the wagons.
 
upstater said:
With the West Virginia crew, there's always going to be an element of craziness. I do think however that it's very likely it's the private schools resisting simply because it's much harder to justify such stipends at a private school.
Expand ...

I could most definitely see the private schools being reluctant to pass some of those proposals. That absolutely seems credible. However, from what the Big Ten seeks to accomplish, the suggestion that kicking out the private schools would win them the battle would also eventually lose them the war. Furthermore, they can't arbitrarily kick people out or else they'll get clobbered by antitrust issues. Even if they could come up with some sort of baseline required to indirectly impact some of those private schools, it could have far-reaching implications and wind up hurting just as much as it would help.

I think there is an element of truth to what he's saying from a standpoint the Big Ten would love to make the ACC unstable enough to where members leave in mass exodus, which would make the GoR debates moot and would provide an avenue to pursue UNC and/or UVA. In the meantime, the private schools in the ACC might be standing in the way of autonomy, which further complicates the bigger picture. I just think he's connecting the dots incorrectly on the specific motives.
 
kyleslamb said:
I could most definitely see the private schools being reluctant to pass some of those proposals. That absolutely seems credible. However, from what the Big Ten seeks to accomplish, the suggestion that kicking out the private schools would win them the battle would also eventually lose them the war. Furthermore, they can't arbitrarily kick people out or else they'll get clobbered by antitrust issues. Even if they could come up with some sort of baseline required to indirectly impact some of those private schools, it could have far-reaching implications and wind up hurting just as much as it would help.

I think there is an element of truth to what he's saying from a standpoint the Big Ten would love to make the ACC unstable enough to where members leave in mass exodus, which would make the GoR debates moot and would provide an avenue to pursue UNC and/or UVA. In the meantime, the private schools in the ACC might be standing in the way of autonomy, which further complicates the bigger picture. I just think he's connecting the dots incorrectly on the specific motives.
Expand ...

I agree. I don't buy anything besides the kernel at the center of all this.
 
.-.
The composition of the Steering Committee on Governance: there are actually eight members including the chair, who is the president of Wake Forest (Nathan Hatch). The other seven members are the chancellors and presidents of:

UCLA
SIU Carbondale
UC Irvine
Wright State University
Rice University
University of South Carolina
Kansas State University

Only five play FBS football, only four are from the P5, and the B1G is not represented.
 
billybud said:
The composition of the Steering Committee on Governance: there are actually eight members including the chair, who is the president of Wake Forest (Nathan Hatch). The other seven members are the chancellors and presidents of:

UCLA
SIU Carbondale
UC Irvine
Wright State University
Rice University
University of South Carolina
Kansas State University

Only five play FBS football, only four are from the P5, and the B1G is not represented.
Expand ...

Dr. Michael Drake, the current Chancellor of UC Irvine and member of this committee, will be the new President of Ohio State effective June 30, 2014.
 
kyleslamb said:
"The NCAA Governance Steering Committee's current proposal says that for the Power 5 conferences to create new legislation they would need approval from two-thirds of the 65 Power 5 schools and the 15-athlete voting bloc plus four of the five major conferences. The Power 5 conferences, including the SEC, want a 60-percent threshold among themselves and athletes and three of the five conferences. They also want the ability to interpret new rules passed."'
Expand ...

This is really about the desire to consolidate power among the Big Ten, SEC and PAC12 vs. self preservation of the Big 12 and ACC. 60% of 65 schools equals 39 votes. The B1G, SEC, and PAC members total 40 members and of course represent 3 of 5 Conferences. That would enable the P3 conferences to steer legislation unencumbered, which could include moving towards 4 super conferences. Conversely, a super majority and 4 of 5 conference requirement would enable the two "marked" conferences to block legislation detrimental to their existence. I can't imagine the ACC or Big 12 wanting to move off this point.
 
billybud said:
The composition of the Steering Committee on Governance: there are actually eight members including the chair, who is the president of Wake Forest (Nathan Hatch). The other seven members are the chancellors and presidents of:

UCLA
SIU Carbondale
UC Irvine
Wright State University
Rice University
University of South Carolina
Kansas State University

Only five play FBS football, only four are from the P5, and the B1G is not represented.
Expand ...

But again, why would this steering committee care whether the P5 have a 60& or 65% threshold? They are clearly representing the interests of members of the P5. S. Carolina is a yes to lower the threshold. UCLA and K State, we don't know about. But the other schools? Why would they care?
 
upstater said:
But again, why would this steering committee care whether the P5 have a 60& or 65% threshold? They are clearly representing the interests of members of the P5. S. Carolina is a yes to lower the threshold. UCLA and K State, we don't know about. But the other schools? Why would they care?
Expand ...

Wake Forest and perhaps K-State likely pushed for these higher percentages. Like I stated above, the ACC and Big 12 are wary of B1G, SEC and PAC unfettered "autonomy" and dominance. Non-P5 schools figure they benefit too if the P5 has to accommodate legislation that doesn't disadvantage smaller privates like Wake Forest. As for South Carolina, their President initially saw the merits of a supermajority before getting an earful from his conference mates at their conference meetings. Lastly, we all know how vocal the SEC, B1G and PAC commissioners have been coming out against the supermajority. However, here is Swofford's position:

From ESPN: Swofford does not have a position yet on whether requiring a supermajority is a good idea.

From USA TODAY: Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany, in two recent conversations with USA TODAY Sports, echoed similar concerns. ACC commissioner John Swofford declined comment Monday, saying he wanted to wait until Wednesday, after he'd had the chance to discuss the issue with presidents and athletic directors at the the conference's annual meetings.

Swofford wants autonomy, just not in a form that might further disadvantage its members or put the collective conference at risk.

EDIT: Wondering where ND stands on this issue?

USA TODAY: Though most of those associated with Big Five conferences and schools said they were opposed to the supermajority threshold, Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick told USA TODAY Sports he is "very much in favor" of the supermajority threshold. Notre Dame, which is joining the ACC in all sports except football (and also has a football scheduling arrangement with ACC members), would vote as part of that conference under the new structure.
 
Last edited:
.-.
itgoeslike said:
USA TODAY: Though most of those associated with Big Five conferences and schools said they were opposed to the supermajority threshold, Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick told USA TODAY Sports he is "very much in favor" of the supermajority threshold. Notre Dame, which is joining the ACC in all sports except football (and also has a football scheduling arrangement with ACC members), would vote as part of that conference under the new structure.
Expand ...

ND complicating things again for conference mates. Wonder if the ACC's position is largely influenced by ND.
 
upstater said:
ND complicating things again for conference mates. Wonder if the ACC's position is largely influenced by ND.
Expand ...

ND and the ACC have a mutual interest, which is the survival of the ACC. ND also knows that if the B1G and SEC has an unfettered path to legislation it could finally force them into a conference. We can probably predict how this interdependence works out— it ends badly for the host conference, while ND skates.
 
A "lifted" analysis:

By school, 60% is 39 out of 65. So 65-38=27 is enough to block ... so if the Big Ten and SEC both oppose, and vote conference party line, that is a veto.

Or the Big Ten and ACC oppose, or SEC and ACC oppose, that is also a veto.

But if there is united Big Ten / SEC support ... 39-28=11, either support from the ACC or the PAC-12 is enough to pass it.

2/3, however, is 44 required, so 65-43 = 12, giving a veto to every conference except for the Big12 on any issue where they can hold the party line.
 
billybud said:
A "lifted" analysis:

By school, 60% is 39 out of 65. So 65-38=27 is enough to block ... so if the Big Ten and SEC both oppose, and vote conference party line, that is a veto.

Or the Big Ten and ACC oppose, or SEC and ACC oppose, that is also a veto.

But if there is united Big Ten / SEC support ... 39-28=11, either support from the ACC or the PAC-12 is enough to pass it.

2/3, however, is 44 required, so 65-43 = 12, giving a veto to every conference except for the Big12 on any issue where they can hold the party line.
Expand ...

Good analysis, Billy. Where did you "lift" that from?
 
It can not be attributed since I lifted it from behind a pay site wall...I am sure it has also gone elsewhere to free sites as these posts tend to do...
 
.-.
LOL...and that date pre dates the post that I lifted...so it was already stolen goods...
 
The funny thing is that I have been at my "summer place" the past two months...on Braden Mountain here in Western North Carolina (cooler then Tallahassee).

Nobody around here is a UNC fan....there are more SEC and FSU fans in the bar....My guess is that UNC fandom stops somewhere in the North Carolina piedmont.
 
billybud said:
A "lifted" analysis:

By school, 60% is 39 out of 65. So 65-38=27 is enough to block ... so if the Big Ten and SEC both oppose, and vote conference party line, that is a veto.

Or the Big Ten and ACC oppose, or SEC and ACC oppose, that is also a veto.

But if there is united Big Ten / SEC support ... 39-28=11, either support from the ACC or the PAC-12 is enough to pass it.

2/3, however, is 44 required, so 65-43 = 12, giving a veto to every conference except for the Big12 on any issue where they can hold the party line.
Expand ...

Billybud. Good analysis, but there was a subtraction error in the last sentence. If 2/3 vote is required, 22 schools would be needed to block.
 
itgoeslike said:
ND and the ACC have a mutual interest, which is the survival of the ACC. ND also knows that if the B1G and SEC has an unfettered path to legislation it could finally force them into a conference. We can probably predict how this interdependence works out— it ends badly for the host conference, while ND skates.
Expand ...

I sure hope so.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,346
Messages
4,566,214
Members
10,468
Latest member
ADD3LA


Top Bottom