Can Syracuse and Pitt still vote at the upcoming meeting?

[Rumrunner]

While there may have been some doubt over who wields the power pre-defection, assuming SU and Pitt no longer have voting rights:

*It takes 75% of all BE members to approve football-only members or all-sports members

8 basketball onlies
6 football

Assuming the board doesn't accelerate TCU's right to vote (how powerless must TCU be feeling?)

The football only schools need to pick off 5 bb only schools to reach the 3/4th threshold, assuming the fb school stay united. The bb onlies would need 3 fb schools.

A lot of speculation that uofl is all-in on a new BE. They with USF, Cincy and 8 bb's might try to go nuclear and get a grant of media rights provision and/or an astronomical withdrawal fee.

Is the BE contract a majority-only contract for financial provisions?

 

[Mr.Phat]

Good questions. I'd like to know what the BE governance structure is now that Syrapitt are lame ducks - and especially because Marionette vowed to keep them shackled to the conference for the requisite two years from now. Seems to me they have a huge conflict of interest if allowed to vote on substantive issues affecting the conference when they are leaving.

 

[Rumrunner]

Good questions. I'd like to know what the BE governance structure is now that Syrapitt are lame ducks - and especially because Marionette vowed to keep them shackled to the conference for the requisite two years from now. Seems to me they have a huge conflict of interest if allowed to vote on substantive issues affecting the conference when they are leaving.

But at the same time, having to live with the consequences of decisions that would impact them over the next two years. Definitely a two way street conflict. I would hope that the bylaws have a provision that a withdrawing member can't vote on certain things, but this is the Big East.

Also, who is attending the meeting? Just Presidents of the football schools, in which case they have the power to do nothing on their own, or does it include all of the members?

 

[MattMang23]

To answer the original question, I don't think Cuse and Pitt are even going to be at the meeting, let alone voting. I believe the meeting is for the remaining schools only.

 

[gars44]

I'd think they have the right to vote. Either they're in the conference or they're out. I think they're in for the next 27 months. They should have the right to vote unless you kick them out. And I wouldn't kick them out. No sir. They vote.

 

[mcs333]

Pitt and cuse were not invited to Sunday's meeting

 

[gars44]

Pitt and cuse were not invited to Sunday's meeting

Well, they probably signaled that they would rather not be invited. If they wanted to be there they would have every right. I want them for the full 27 months.

 

[jordoo]

Hmm its a weird situation. I agree with a couple of the above posters. If SU and Pitt are in the BE for the next 27 months then they should have a vote. As soon as they agree to some earlier time table to leave losing their vote should be part of that agreement.

As an SU fan I would hope that since we have moved on we would have the integrity to leave the decisions to the other teams since we have no future in the BE. I doubt any increase in the buy out penalty of whatever steps taken to keep teams in the BE could effect teams that have already been accepted to another conference so whats the point of SU voting on the future of the remaining teams. That would be as bad as ND and the bball only schools voting on the BE fball TV deal . . . . . . . . . . oh ya that's why we aren't part of the EB anymore.

 

[OHusky]

If Cuse and Pitt have any ethics (do they? I suspect they do), they will either not show up or abstain. They've already sabotaged the BE and I doubt they want to add to their legacy by scheming to further undermine the conference.

 

[TRest]

No Pitt and SU, but TCU included at meeting according to Dom Amore of the Courant. He is "live-blogging" the meeting, which will be difficult as I doubt he will be included inside the room.