Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="itgoeslike, post: 979202, member: 3691"] 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:[I] Swofford does not have a position yet on whether requiring a supermajority is a good idea. [/I] From USA TODAY: [I]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.[/I] 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:[I] 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.[/I] [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach