MsTechAnalysis
Jolly Good Fellow
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2002
- Messages
- 1,816
This came from the BC Board but it's an FSU Post about info on expansion - this is very interesting and sounds like someone who knows what's going on -please judge for yourself:
This is from MMA1 on the FSU board, not sure if it was posted here or not. Good read:
As I promised these are the facts as we know them, 6/19/2003 on the ACC expansion situation:
As we all know, the last Conference call produced no vote. It instead started with a lot of conversation about issue press leaks and where the Conference stood on the 3 schools being considered as ACC members. The story from the Washington Post about amending the ACC bylaws was suppose to be Conference Confidential. Someone leaked this to the Post and it was done to aid the process. However, it turned out no harm was inflicted. This caused a lot of intense conversation and it soon became a dead issue. However, certain things became evident:
UNC & Duke: Never wanted expansion in the first place. They voted YES initially to vote No the second time in order to kill the process. They would buy time with each Conference call and without a 7th vote, could get the issue tabled because of lack of support. They used delay tactics by stating all kinds of concerns and asking for concessions, thus slowing the process down and have it tabled because of the time factor. This is a favorite Political maneuver used by both the Senate and House on certain issues being debated.
UVA: They were a flat out NO vote until it was learned that UNC and Duke would not longer support expansion. When I mentioned in my previous thread the UVA President Casteen “Polling” the UVA Boosters and other members of the “Wahoo Family”, it was determined they could not overcome the entire VA State Govt. Therefore, Casteen was asked to pursue VT. When he mentioned this at the Conference call, UVA would vote in UM, BC and VT. However, FSU and NCSU said no and as we know UM would not go for this. Swofford then said how about all FOUR schools. This could be done by UVA agreeing to vote for SU (They voted against them the first time) and FSU and NCSU (two for the four (DU and UNC the others) who in the first vote, vote against VT) voting for VT. This would allow the needed 7 votes for all four schools and leaving Duke and UNC’s NO votes with no impact. This is something that being looked at and is NOT a done deal. This is because of the following:
1. VT is still a named Plaintiff on a lawsuit against the ACC. Therefore the ACC will not formally talk to them. That is why the GT President, a personal friend of the VT President, spoke to him about this issue and if they would be interested in the ACC. VT is going to role this by their BOR and see if it has them interested.
2. The financials may not work. The numbers are being crunched as we speak and if they work, the chances are much better. The problem is, though VT has a great FB program, they have nothing else much to offer. The projected revenue for the first 3-5 years are for 12 schools and a 13th may not work. More to come later on this as we get it.
3. VT may not even want to join the ACC. If this is the case, it may free UVA to vote YES for UM, BC and SU because they were able to get VT a chance to join and they declined. It is seriously doubtful VT would decline.
4. The VA State Attorney would have to agree to remove the State of VA’s name from the lawsuit.
The ACC has NOT stared the process necessary to add VT as of yet. This could start once they have themselves removed as Plaintiffs on the Lawsuit.
Some may say the ACC is “desperate” and why now a 13th school. Here are things to consider:
A) The ACC within 3-5 years were going to look to expand to 14 schools. The thinking was, why not add VT now because they are the random element and allows UVA to cast the 7th vote and expand by one school later. I will say VT was not in the future plans of the Conference. They are necessary in order to get UVA’s vote. This is not unprecedented. When the old Big 8 was expanding, they only sought UT and TAMU from the old SWC. However, the TX State Govt. said if you go without Baylor and Texas Tech, you will leave with no state funds. As we know, the Big 8 expanded with Baylor and TTU included with UT and TAMU. So don’t think our situation is strange, it’s actually déjà vu! It’s part of getting thinks done and only moves up the ACC future expansion plans.
The issue about Miami only being voted in was never considered. This was started by a Sunday article by Gregg Doyel of the Charlotte Observer and had no bases of fact.
I will not single out posters who thought this had merit. However, I will caution you if Doyel wrote it, it’s most likely more of an editorial and not responsible journalism. I also will not single out posters who are not posting accurate information. If anyone sees a questionable post about expansion, please e-mail a Moderator. If they cannot answer it, they can ask me and I will try.
With that issue dead, MikeySurf, of the Wagon (UVA Board) posted the VT issue and that SU may be the odd team out. I asked him to be very careful as to what he posts. There is no way SU can be out of this because UM will not go without them. This is now a confirmed fact.
The VT issue was also suppose to be Confidential and to be released at a later date (within one week of last weekend), but this was leaked to the Post as well. I was aware of the VT issue with the UVA President over the weekend, but I was told the “GAG ORDER” was on. We pretty much know who leaked the ACC By-Law issue. We believe the same source leaked the VT situation.
I will say that you will be able to tell if the 4 schools are going to be voted into the ACC by the next scheduled tele-conference call of the ACC Presidents. This means the 7 votes are there.
There are still obstacles in the way on this and I will say don’t start drinking champagne as of yet. Divisional Alignment has to be discussed again and with a 13th school, will be challenging. I do know of a couple of other issues that I was told not to talk about and they must be resolved in order to expand the Conference. It will be difficult to get this done by June 30th. However, it may be done by July 30, which would mean a 2 million dollar fee for the 4 schools to leave the BE.
The ACC wants to get expansion completed by the end of this month. There is NO plans and no schools are being mentioned as a 14th member, regardless of what you may hear in the future. UCONN is NOT being considered for ACC membership!!!!!
If you wish to ask any questions, please post them, I will get to them, I promise!
This is from MMA1 on the FSU board, not sure if it was posted here or not. Good read:
As I promised these are the facts as we know them, 6/19/2003 on the ACC expansion situation:
As we all know, the last Conference call produced no vote. It instead started with a lot of conversation about issue press leaks and where the Conference stood on the 3 schools being considered as ACC members. The story from the Washington Post about amending the ACC bylaws was suppose to be Conference Confidential. Someone leaked this to the Post and it was done to aid the process. However, it turned out no harm was inflicted. This caused a lot of intense conversation and it soon became a dead issue. However, certain things became evident:
UNC & Duke: Never wanted expansion in the first place. They voted YES initially to vote No the second time in order to kill the process. They would buy time with each Conference call and without a 7th vote, could get the issue tabled because of lack of support. They used delay tactics by stating all kinds of concerns and asking for concessions, thus slowing the process down and have it tabled because of the time factor. This is a favorite Political maneuver used by both the Senate and House on certain issues being debated.
UVA: They were a flat out NO vote until it was learned that UNC and Duke would not longer support expansion. When I mentioned in my previous thread the UVA President Casteen “Polling” the UVA Boosters and other members of the “Wahoo Family”, it was determined they could not overcome the entire VA State Govt. Therefore, Casteen was asked to pursue VT. When he mentioned this at the Conference call, UVA would vote in UM, BC and VT. However, FSU and NCSU said no and as we know UM would not go for this. Swofford then said how about all FOUR schools. This could be done by UVA agreeing to vote for SU (They voted against them the first time) and FSU and NCSU (two for the four (DU and UNC the others) who in the first vote, vote against VT) voting for VT. This would allow the needed 7 votes for all four schools and leaving Duke and UNC’s NO votes with no impact. This is something that being looked at and is NOT a done deal. This is because of the following:
1. VT is still a named Plaintiff on a lawsuit against the ACC. Therefore the ACC will not formally talk to them. That is why the GT President, a personal friend of the VT President, spoke to him about this issue and if they would be interested in the ACC. VT is going to role this by their BOR and see if it has them interested.
2. The financials may not work. The numbers are being crunched as we speak and if they work, the chances are much better. The problem is, though VT has a great FB program, they have nothing else much to offer. The projected revenue for the first 3-5 years are for 12 schools and a 13th may not work. More to come later on this as we get it.
3. VT may not even want to join the ACC. If this is the case, it may free UVA to vote YES for UM, BC and SU because they were able to get VT a chance to join and they declined. It is seriously doubtful VT would decline.
4. The VA State Attorney would have to agree to remove the State of VA’s name from the lawsuit.
The ACC has NOT stared the process necessary to add VT as of yet. This could start once they have themselves removed as Plaintiffs on the Lawsuit.
Some may say the ACC is “desperate” and why now a 13th school. Here are things to consider:
A) The ACC within 3-5 years were going to look to expand to 14 schools. The thinking was, why not add VT now because they are the random element and allows UVA to cast the 7th vote and expand by one school later. I will say VT was not in the future plans of the Conference. They are necessary in order to get UVA’s vote. This is not unprecedented. When the old Big 8 was expanding, they only sought UT and TAMU from the old SWC. However, the TX State Govt. said if you go without Baylor and Texas Tech, you will leave with no state funds. As we know, the Big 8 expanded with Baylor and TTU included with UT and TAMU. So don’t think our situation is strange, it’s actually déjà vu! It’s part of getting thinks done and only moves up the ACC future expansion plans.
The issue about Miami only being voted in was never considered. This was started by a Sunday article by Gregg Doyel of the Charlotte Observer and had no bases of fact.
I will not single out posters who thought this had merit. However, I will caution you if Doyel wrote it, it’s most likely more of an editorial and not responsible journalism. I also will not single out posters who are not posting accurate information. If anyone sees a questionable post about expansion, please e-mail a Moderator. If they cannot answer it, they can ask me and I will try.
With that issue dead, MikeySurf, of the Wagon (UVA Board) posted the VT issue and that SU may be the odd team out. I asked him to be very careful as to what he posts. There is no way SU can be out of this because UM will not go without them. This is now a confirmed fact.
The VT issue was also suppose to be Confidential and to be released at a later date (within one week of last weekend), but this was leaked to the Post as well. I was aware of the VT issue with the UVA President over the weekend, but I was told the “GAG ORDER” was on. We pretty much know who leaked the ACC By-Law issue. We believe the same source leaked the VT situation.
I will say that you will be able to tell if the 4 schools are going to be voted into the ACC by the next scheduled tele-conference call of the ACC Presidents. This means the 7 votes are there.
There are still obstacles in the way on this and I will say don’t start drinking champagne as of yet. Divisional Alignment has to be discussed again and with a 13th school, will be challenging. I do know of a couple of other issues that I was told not to talk about and they must be resolved in order to expand the Conference. It will be difficult to get this done by June 30th. However, it may be done by July 30, which would mean a 2 million dollar fee for the 4 schools to leave the BE.
The ACC wants to get expansion completed by the end of this month. There is NO plans and no schools are being mentioned as a 14th member, regardless of what you may hear in the future. UCONN is NOT being considered for ACC membership!!!!!
If you wish to ask any questions, please post them, I will get to them, I promise!
