Impossibility of consensus-it takes 11 of 14 to make policy changes

[Rumrunner]

Exit fee change requires 11 of 14 schools to vote in favor;
Grant of media rights 11 of 14;
Addition of football-only members also requires 11 of 14 to be in favor;
Addition of all-sports members requires 11 of 14

TCU can't vote.
Pitt and SU can't vote.
ND gets to vote on who becomes a football member



Temple will get a no from Villanova, who then needs to lobby for just two more no's;
UCF will get a no from USF


Providence, Seton Hall and St. John's basically can block expansion for football schools and hold veto power over any substantive decision

What a mess.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Exit fee change requires 11 of 14 schools to vote in favor;
Grant of media rights 11 of 14;
Addition of football-only members also requires 11 of 14 to be in favor;
Addition of all-sports members requires 11 of 14

TCU can't vote.
Pitt and SU can't vote.
ND gets to vote on who becomes a football member

Temple will get a no from Villanova, who then needs to lobby for just two more no's;
UCF will get a no from USF

Providence, Seton Hall and St. John's basically can block expansion for football schools and hold veto power over any substantive decision

What a mess.

You made that post up. FAIL.

 

[Rumrunner]

You made that post up. FAIL.

I have no idea what you mean by that post. Delicately put, you're odd.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

basketball schools don't vote on football only members, just all-sports members. You are perpetuating this silly myth that the basketball only schools have caused this mess, when in reality, it was Pitt and Syracuse's fault, with help from WVU, UConn and Rutgers.

 

[BlueMAB]

Miami, V. Tech, BCU, and the ACC had nothing to do with it.

Right.

 

[Rumrunner]

So Jack Bogaczyk who is the sports editor of the Charleston Daily Mail, WVU's paper, is wrong when he wrote this morning:

"Big East balloting on policy change and membership need a three-fourths majority (or 11 of 14 right now; TCU is not yet a voting member and Pitt and Syracuse won't get votes as exiting members).
The entire membership votes on any membership additions, not just football members on football-only schools. So, a Marquette or DePaul would vote on a Navy admittance for football."

http://dailymail.com/Sports/201110042186

basketball schools don't vote on football only members, just all-sports members. You are perpetuating this silly myth that the basketball only schools have caused this mess, when in reality, it was Pitt and Syracuse's fault, with help from WVU, UConn and Rutgers.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Miami, V. Tech, BCU, and the ACC had nothing to do with it.

Right.

Throw ESPN into that bucket too.

That said, I am one of those people that think a person or organization can make some of its own luck. We are not solely victims of fate. I would say Pitt and Syracuse are 60% responsible for this mess, WVU is 20%, and UConn and Rutgers are 20%. The OBE teams could have just waited for Comcast instead of engaging in the nonsense of the summer with WVU and the last month with Pitt, Syracuse, UConn and Rutgers.

One of the most insightful books about how lack of trust can upset equilibriums is the Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman, about the lead up to World War I. Obviously, a much more serious situation that a few schools changing athletic affiliation, but nonetheless relevant to any situation where an equilibrium is upset and multiple, independent parties are forced to act with imperfect information.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

So Jack Bogaczyk who is the sports editor of the Charleston Daily Mail, WVU's paper, is wrong when he wrote this morning:

"Big East balloting on policy change and membership need a three-fourths majority (or 11 of 14 right now; TCU is not yet a voting member and Pitt and Syracuse won't get votes as exiting members).
The entire membership votes on any membership additions, not just football members on football-only schools. So, a Marquette or DePaul would vote on a Navy admittance for football."

http://dailymail.com/Sports/201110042186

I do not think that is right, because I remember a basketball AD saying back in April (when Villanova was upgrading) that the football schools could add whoever they want as long as it does not impact the basketball league. Furthermore, the vote on Villanova was 5-3, with UConn, Louisville, USF, Cincinnati and Syracuse in favor, and Rutgers, Pitt and WVU against. The basketball schools didn't vote on villanova, because otherwise the vote would have been 13-3.

 

[Rumrunner]

I do not think that is right, because I remember a basketball AD saying back in April (when Villanova was upgrading) that the football schools could add whoever they want as long as it does not impact the basketball league. Furthermore, the vote on Villanova was 5-3, with UConn, Louisville, USF, Cincinnati and Syracuse in favor, and Rutgers, Pitt and WVU against. The basketball schools didn't vote on villanova, because otherwise the vote would have been 13-3.

Without the bylaws themselves or an official statement from someone of import, I guess we can only speculate. The old constitution just said that 3/4th were required to vote. Affiliate members could only vote on matters pertaining to their sport. Section 3.03 of the old constitution.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Without the bylaws themselves or an official statement from someone of import, I guess we can only speculate. The old constitution just said that 3/4th were required to vote. Affiliate members could only vote on matters pertaining to their sport. Section 3.03 of the old constitution.

I believe the football conference is a separate conference from this perspective, but you are right. We can only speculate.

 

[businesslawyer]

Throw ESPN into that bucket too.

That said, I am one of those people that think a person or organization can make some of its own luck. We are not solely victims of fate. I would say Pitt and Syracuse are 60% responsible for this mess, WVU is 20%, and UConn and Rutgers are 20%. The OBE teams could have just waited for Comcast instead of engaging in the nonsense of the summer with WVU and the last month with Pitt, Syracuse, UConn and Rutgers.

One of the most insightful books about how lack of trust can upset equilibriums is the Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman, about the lead up to World War I. Obviously, a much more serious situation that a few schools changing athletic affiliation, but nonetheless relevant to any situation where an equilibrium is upset and multiple, independent parties are forced to act with imperfect information.

An outstanding book, by the way.

 

[freescooter]

I do not think that is right, because I remember a basketball AD saying back in April (when Villanova was upgrading) that the football schools could add whoever they want as long as it does not impact the basketball league. Furthermore, the vote on Villanova was 5-3, with UConn, Louisville, USF, Cincinnati and Syracuse in favor, and Rutgers, Pitt and WVU against. The basketball schools didn't vote on villanova, because otherwise the vote would have been 13-3.

Nelson,

My understanding is that there is a 2-step process for adding football members. Step one is they have to be approved by the football schools. then, at least if they are being added as a full member, they need 75% approval of the whole membership. So no football member can be added that the football members don't approve since without their ok it never reaches the full membership. As we saw with the Villanova case, if the football schools don't want you, you don't get accepted for football. there are 2 opportunities for a football member to be derailed, at least in theory. As to football only members, I have no idea what the process is, since there was only 1 in the past, but if I were to speculate, I'd guess it is the same, though in that case I would imagine that the hoop schools would be less concerned with membership.

 

[Rumrunner]

Assuming that the constitution is as reported, and requires 3/4th's approval for football-only membership, all-sports membership and exit fee/media rights changes, such decisions require 11 members to approve.

One of the inherent instabilities in the Big East is the dichotomy between football playing schools and the basketball schools. Now those differences become more acute and less easilty resolved. The priorities of all schools used to be the success of the Big East. With the defection of Syracuse and Pitt, the priority for some schools has changed to survival. The idea of a "successful" Big East is now radically different to a DePaul, Providence, St. John's, Marquette, Georgetown than it is to a WVU, UCONN, UofL, Cincy.

If you're a basketball school like Providence, why dilute basketball with an ECU or SMU if at the end of the day, the hybrid model finally blows up. Once one of UofL, WVU or (especially) UCONN leaves, the football schools are a push for basketball competitiveness versus the danger they bring.

I just don't see any calculus that satisfies everybody, especially those schools with an out. One perverse result of SU and Pitt leaving at this point is before the defection, you needed 12 schools out of 16 to make changes, 8 football, 8 basketball. Now the margin for error has narrowed considerably, 11 of 14, 6 football, 8 basketball.

 

[gars44]

Without the bylaws themselves or an official statement from someone of import, I guess we can only speculate. The old constitution just said that 3/4th were required to vote. Affiliate members could only vote on matters pertaining to their sport. Section 3.03 of the old constitution.

bylaws can be changed quickly.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

basketball schools don't vote on football only members, just all-sports members. You are perpetuating this silly myth that the basketball only schools have caused this mess, when in reality, it was Pitt and Syracuse's fault, with help from WVU, UConn and Rutgers.

Blaming this mess on Pitt and Cuse is like blaming the failure of the levee system on the people who were smart enough to get out of New Orleans before Katrina arrived.

 

[ctchamps]

Blaming this mess on Pitt and Cuse is like blaming the failure of the levee system on the people who were smart enough to get out of New Orleans before Katrina arrived.

Those people who were quick to leave used the money allocated to fix the levees for other projects. They knew the problems they created by doing this so they took off. I think you better come up with a different analogy, because, although I agree with your premise about not blaming Pitt and Cuse, your analogy has flaws.

 

[CTMike]

All analogies are bound to have flaws... however, blaming Pitt and Cuse for taking guaranteed more money and stability versus the chance of maybe some day obtaining more money or stability is an entirely silly premise. It is the key flaw in all of Nelson's analysis. Schools are acting rationally and in their best interest. All the pledging of solidarity in the world would not stop a single school from taking guaranteed more money and more stability versus the possibility of maybe finding that in the future, if only other schools put aside their self interests.