|
Replies: 25
| visibility 1
|
Orange Blooded [2753]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 5047
Joined: 10/18/06
|
Clarify for me on the ACC schedule business . . .
Feb 11, 2014, 1:31 PM
|
|
I realize whether or not to go to 9 conference games is a legitimate topic of discussion, but this idea of 8+ 1 SEC game seems - having nothing really to do with conference scheduling - is just rank intrusive involvement from the ACC - centralizing ALL decisions for it's members (not just legitimately CONFERENCE-related decisions), and treating the member institutions like mere cogs in the centralized wheel of "Mother Conference." Yes, what I mean to say is, the ACC is communist.
I understand some of the factors for the interest and desire to be involved in that way, but justifying it is another matter. If they're going to discuss changing the "conference schedule," then fine, but let's revisit the definition of the word "conference," before we go forward. Conferences are definable, they have members, and those members are identifiable, and Vanderbilt, Arkansas, and LSU are not among them, therefore, those teams have zilch to do with our "conference" schedule.
Even if they want to discuss such a plan - they shouldn't, but even if they do, they ought not raise it under the guise of a "conference scheduling" matter. If they want to order the member schools around like subsidaries rather than member instituions, they ought to man up and simply say what they're doing . . the ACC wants to force, coerce, command, compel, or strong-arm their members to do X. Anything else is an insulting lie.
|
|
|
|
 |
Heisman Winner [108390]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64974
Joined: 2/25/06
|
1 man, i vote... that's how loose confederations such as
Feb 11, 2014, 1:38 PM
|
|
conferences work.
i'm not sure mother russia worked that way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2753]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 5047
Joined: 10/18/06
|
That's only half the story . . .
Feb 11, 2014, 1:44 PM
|
|
That's just the procedural method for arriving at a decision for any given issue. But there are still the substantive limits of what can be decided at the "confederation" level of any such organization. If Congress passed a law, in line with all constitutional procedural requirements, to take away your free speech rights, would you be okay with it?
First and foremost is what the ACC has authority to do, and only after that does procedure matter. If one-man-one vote is used to "pass" a resolution that the organization does not have the authority to enforce, then we're talking about bureaucratic tyranny plain and simple. If the ACC told us we had to nix the tradition of letting the fans on the field, or say, passed a rule sayng that teams could not enter the field from anywhere other than field-level doors (meaning no running down the Hill), we would not rebel merely b/c we disliked the result, we'd rebel b/c we'd realize those things are not the ACC's province or authority to decide.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [108390]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64974
Joined: 2/25/06
|
ok, i'd suggest tigernet might not be the place to "fire"
Feb 11, 2014, 1:53 PM
|
|
your grass roots plea for conference purview restrictions or limitations.
perhaps you should go find the articles that make up the conference's scope and see if your argument(s) holds water.
i'd think it and/or they don't, but if they do, i'd take that up with your iptay rep or go directly to our AD then onto clemson's president.
i know a good lawyer that might help if it will include billable hours?
until then, i'd suggest the acc is on firm ground and i'm going to be ok with whatever the presidents decide.
also, it's not johnny swofford's fought[sic].
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2753]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 5047
Joined: 10/18/06
|
Re: ok, i'd suggest tigernet might not be the place to "fire"
Feb 11, 2014, 2:59 PM
|
|
I have not read the ACC by-laws on this. But given the general failure to hold organizations accountable to the limits of their power, be they the civil authorities, regulators, the NCAA, or the ACC, and given the tendency of constituents to be lead like sheep, I'd say it's not necessarily a safe assumption that the ACC is on solid ground. The NCAA was not on solid ground organizationally when it fined Penn State $60 Million, but we heard precious little (next to nothing), in the way of holding them accountable for overstepping their authority.
Of course, I could be wrong - maybe there is a clause somewhere giving the ACC plenary authority over such matters. I doubt it, but maybe I'm wrong. If I am wrong, I would still say this is, philosophically, the tail wagging the dog.
If, as one of the posts in this thread said - that this is merely an effort to "provide" willing SEC opponents, and not compel, then that would answer my concerns on this. I had not heard that before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [108390]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64974
Joined: 2/25/06
|
go read, you were wrong about mother russia and that was
Feb 11, 2014, 3:47 PM
|
|
a lay up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2753]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 5047
Joined: 10/18/06
|
You need to be more specific . . .
Feb 11, 2014, 3:57 PM
|
|
I'm not catching what you mean.
My point was that when an organization's actions transcend the limits of it's substantive power, it is not a legitimate excuse to claim that it did so by means of legitimately exercised procedural means. I was responding to your "one man, one vote" comment. Making decisions by way of a majority vote may be fine, but those decisions must be confined to something the organization has jurisdiction for in the first place. There is no possible way that point was incorrect.
As for whether or not the ACC is doing this, rests, as you rightly point out on it's constitution, by-laws, governing documents, etc. which I have not read. So, like I said earlier, I doubt it is within their power, but I could be wrong.
There was no particular point made by me about Mother Russia, there was merely an implicit reference made for the purposes of analogizing the ACC to the Soviet Union inasmuch (and only inasmuch) as it sometimes seems to put the cart before the horse by trying to corral the members to serve the interests of the whole, rather than having the whole operate in the interests of the members.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [108390]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64974
Joined: 2/25/06
|
i understand your point, you're attacking an organization
Feb 11, 2014, 4:08 PM
|
|
based on what you fear and not what you know; good luck with that.
go read. how hard is that to understand?
and no, it's not communism. the organization was formed when its members came together voluntarily in loose confederation as 'like-minded' members in an effort to help facilitate collegiate sports... yay team.
scheduling? that'll keep you up at night.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2753]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 5047
Joined: 10/18/06
|
There's two options. . . .
Feb 11, 2014, 8:07 PM
|
|
you're either not very intelligent, or you're not very honest. I think it's the latter.
You said "go read," and that I was "wrong about Mother Russia." Now I gather from your follow up post that you mean to read generally (not something in particular), but that was by no means clear from the first post, and you gave nothing to clarify it, so there you have it.
Second of all, "communist," is hyperbole here, and you seem unable or unwilling to acknowledge that (again, I think it's the later) - instead choosing to insist on a literal interpretation so that you may shoot down the straw man which is unrelated to my argument. If you think I was accusing the ACC of a literal, gulag-style form of nationalism, then I can't help you. But I know you're smarter than that.
But hyperbole aside, the accusation that they are overstepping their bounds in terms of by-laws is speculation, but well founded speculation, and something I am clear and honest about as speculation.
And the criticism that they are overstepping what authority they ought to have (as opposed to what the by laws say) is more of a commentary on what the purposes and proper parameters of a conferences authority should be, do not depend on whether or not that is currently being practiced in every respect or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [108390]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64974
Joined: 2/25/06
|
Re: There's two options. . . .
Feb 11, 2014, 8:15 PM
|
|
"perhaps you should go find the articles that make up the conference's scope..."
go read. you've said you haven't, yet you continue the the attack? that's up to you...you're now attempting to turn this into a philosophical debate on "should" when it began it was "can or can not".
you called it 'mother conference', i simply called that ludicrous and told you why; you pointedly called it communism... do i really need to go on?
you even suggested that it was only 'half' of it, so you admittedly got half of it wrong...
i offered you a number of options to further your quest, it's up to you to do so or not, at this point, idc.
deer lowered, drew was right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2753]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 5047
Joined: 10/18/06
|
Re: There's two options. . . .
Feb 11, 2014, 8:52 PM
|
|
It's not wise to bash the "philosophical" debate. Is and ought aren't the same, and if we settle for is as the standard for ought, then that'll lead to all sorts of problems. From the minute you mentioned the by-laws, I clarified that I was claiming two things (a) it's probably not within the conferences power and (b) even if it is, it ought not be. Nothing wrong with that distinction at all. Otherwise, we just capitulate that whatever is, is always fine.
Now, by saying I "pointedly called it communism," well, if by that you mean that I claimed that the ACC is a literal nationalist form of civil state that practices mass systematic murder and torture, then no, I did not. If you mean that I used the word in a very decipherable and clear form of hyperbole, then yes I did. I'll leave it to you to decide which is a more reasonable assumption.
I didn't get anything half wrong. I did admit there is a gap in my knowledge on the ACC by laws, but as long as I"m up front about that, there should be no problem. I have not read them yet, but I'll get around to it, and if it turns out that they do grant the ACC authority, then I will say I was wrong on that assumption but I still think it ought not have that authority.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [108390]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64974
Joined: 2/25/06
|
not bashing a philosophical debate, simply pointed out
Feb 11, 2014, 9:14 PM
|
|
yours had changed.
i have zero interest after showing the error in your original and related statements. i'd suggest in the future you chose you words more wisely, it'll go more smoothly than the retrenching of your admittedly uninformed attacks on conference or you pushing forward your fears because 'we should be fearful'?
if i wanted philosophy, mrmatt isn't interesting or required reading; the rabbit hole just isn't that deep.
no offense, you just don't move the needle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2753]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 5047
Joined: 10/18/06
|
Re: not bashing a philosophical debate, simply pointed out
Feb 11, 2014, 10:58 PM
|
|
There was no retrenching going on. All I did was issue greater degree of specificity in expounding on my original comments, which is fairly normal in most exchanges.
You're painfully simplistic in your thinking. First you try to pin me to the wall on the communism comments, not having the honesty or intelligence to recognize hyperbole, then you tell me my original comments are "admittedly uninformed." But there is a meaningful difference between acknowledging particular points of ignorance and being generally uniformed. You act like a person cannot derive from the history of the sport and the traditional purposes, authority, and activities of conferences, surmise some accurate understanding of what conferences can and cannot do, what's part of their role and what is not. I can, I assume most can, and that was a presupposition to start with. If it turns out that concerning the ACC's rules in particular that I was wrong, then I will have been wrong on that. No biggie. But the lion's share of history of the sport, as well as the history of conferences and their formation, supports what I'm saying concerning purposes and "philosophy" of conference authority, even if I'm wrong about the current by-laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2753]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 5047
Joined: 10/18/06
|
Re: There's two options. . . .
Feb 11, 2014, 8:59 PM
[ in reply to Re: There's two options. . . . ] |
|
As far as the "half" thing goes, I was not saying anything I had previously said otherwise about. You merely cited one man one vote as if that settles the affair. I was not claiming that one man one vote - or one school one vote, in this case, is somehow an illegitimate procedural standard - it's fine. I was merely stating that the procedural method by which decisions are made is only a part of any legitimate assessment of whether a decision is authoritative or not.
If the state legislature passes a law according to all procedural requirements, but the law says you are not allowed to marry a redhead, or attend baseball games, or speak in public about politics, or drive a red car - then all procedural niceties aside, they are overstepping their bounds b/c they have no such substantive authority. Nothing about this is half wrong at all. It contains no implicit rejection of procedure. It merely acknowledges that procedure requirements are necessary but not sufficient to establish overall legitimate authoritative action. So I didn't say I got anything half wrong, I just said you gave "half the story," regarding that matter. But the half you got wrong is the controlling half in this case, b/c the half you got right (procedure) was not something I even contested.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4947]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6981
Joined: 10/12/06
|
Re: That's only half the story . . .
Feb 11, 2014, 2:04 PM
[ in reply to That's only half the story . . . ] |
|
Actually the SEC does have a rule against fans entering the field after a game. Although they can't stop you they can punish the member institution for allowing it to happen.
In the case of scheduling an SEC opponent. Some conference members wanted a 9th game to provide built in SOS builders. Other ACC teams are apposed to this because of OOC rivals that are already part of the schedule. The ACC would not force anyone to play an OOC game. They would simply make an arragement with the SEC to provide conference teams to play against the teams the SEC provides. Similar to the deal with ND to provide 5 games against ACC opponents. That allows the teams that do not already have a built in quality OOC opponent in their schedule to obtain one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2753]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 5047
Joined: 10/18/06
|
Re: That's only half the story . . .
Feb 11, 2014, 2:49 PM
|
|
Well if that is the arrangement, merely contracting with the SEC to make such teams available, but not forcing ACC members to participate, then that is a lot different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2753]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 5047
Joined: 10/18/06
|
Re: That's only half the story . . .
Feb 11, 2014, 3:03 PM
[ in reply to Re: That's only half the story . . . ] |
|
Not that anyone would want to pass up a game with Notre Dame, but are you saying that participation in this is voluntary for the ACC schools? So, if say, Duke or Virginia says they don't want to play ND during their scheduled window, the ACC would not "lean" on them or punish them somehow? Now obviously no one will do that, but the answer to the question gets at the heart of whether it's voluntary or not. I find that hard to believe that it's voluntary, b/c they'd be obligating ND (or the SEC) to be available, while not having the obligation be actually obligatory on the other end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4947]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6981
Joined: 10/12/06
|
Re: That's only half the story . . .
Feb 11, 2014, 4:00 PM
|
|
You are confusing the ACC's ability to arrange business decisions with their ability to force teams into a situation. Of course the ACC would expect ACC teams to agree to participate in these games. These are arranged business agreements between the conference and another entity. The schools themselves have input into the decisions but once the agreement is made it is expected that member institutions fulfill the agreed upon terms. If member institutions flat out refused then they would not enter into an agreement in the first place. Like you said ND and the SEC would also be obligated to agree to the terms the same as the ACC.
Clemson would never choose to play on Thursday night but the ACC has entered into an agreement with ESPN and due to the terms Clemson is expected to participate in Thursday night games occasionally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2753]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 5047
Joined: 10/18/06
|
Re: That's only half the story . . .
Feb 11, 2014, 8:34 PM
|
|
No, I'm not confusing any of that. I'm just recognizing that the business arrangements and the policies those arrangements enforce are tied together, therefore, since the arrangement will be obligatory, the policies they arrange should either be voluntary agreed to by all schools (not just a majority), OR, if they are implemented by a majority vote against the wishes of some schools, then they should only cover matters about which the conference has authority to do so.
I am not against the general principle of the minority being obliged to adhere to the results of votes. I agree that if a school is on the losing side of a vote, and the matter is indisputably w/in the conferences jurisdiction, then that's just the way it is. But if they are going to do something that is not strictly the conferences to decide (like non-conf schedules), then it ought not be obligatory.
It may be that I just am misunderstanding what the ACC's intent (as an institution) is here. If they only intend to proceed with this if all institutions agree up front, then that's one thing (and the resulting arrangement of the particulars and the obligation to abide by them would be entirely legitimate). But if they intend on setting policy on non-conf schedules by a majority vote, then they are doing something they ought not do and simply claiming plenary authority over EVERYTHING b/c we happen to be in their conference. Unless my speculation about the by-laws is wrong, which could be, then the ACC has no business doing that.
Your example of Thursday nights is a good example. Now I don't like it that the conf is involved in the contracts for Thursday night games. But we lost those games and they are ACC games. It's not like the ACC forces us to play Georgia on a Thursday. If they did I think we'd all balk and ask by what authority they thought they were acting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2753]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 5047
Joined: 10/18/06
|
correction
Feb 11, 2014, 8:36 PM
|
|
I meant to say we lost that "vote" (regarding Thursday games), not that we lost those "games."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3573]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6516
Joined: 6/1/99
|
So I take it you hate the ACC/Big 10 Challenge
Feb 11, 2014, 2:09 PM
|
|
afterall Indiana isn't in the ACC and the ACC offices set that up with ESPN.
The ACC and the SEC look to be the lone holdouts to a 9 game conference schedule. If a scheduling alliance helps keep both conferences at 8, fulfill their commitment to ESPN, and helps their members with legit OOC games, I fail to see the downside.
The ACC and the SEC are about the only 2 with big intraconference rivalries so the national movement to 9 games hurts them more than others. And both need to work together so that their members (Clem/FSU/GT/USC/UF/UGA) don't get hosed in their schedules.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2753]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 5047
Joined: 10/18/06
|
Re: So I take it you hate the ACC/Big 10 Challenge
Feb 11, 2014, 3:17 PM
|
|
Two things:
First, I'm less bothered by this in basketball than football, b/c the schedule is longer, and in football any one game is a bigger portion of the season, and constitutes a larger chunk of the dynamic of the season. A basketball season is a longer marathon and can absorb more in the way of side-bar tournaments, travel, and non-conference scheduling variation than can football. This is not to say I'm totally fine with the conference simply dictating stuff to the schools - but to the extent basketball seasons are different than football - it bothers me a lot less. Some, but less.
Second, I don't mind the such arrangement/agreement generally - if all members consent to their own participation, rather than simply participating merely b/c they got outvoted by the others. If the ACC voted on this and say, Boston College was the sole hold-out, and got outvoted 13-1, I'd be opposed to any arrangement that forced BC to comply.
Obviously, if such a format were to be pursued, given there are two conferences of 14 teams each - it would have to be done in a comprehensive contractual format with a way to determine scheduling and rotation of the match-ups. Otherwise the SEC schools would be left hanging if certain ACC schools decided last minute not to comply. Say it was voluntary on our end, but not theirs, and Wake drew Alabama, and thought -"thanks but no thanks," and withdrew at the 11th hour. That would not only be unfair and unworkable for Alabama, but would make the workability of the whole arrangement very difficult. So I'm not opposed to some obligatory contractual scheme for the particulars, but only if the schools all agree to it. I wouldn't want the minority to just have to live with it. Accepting the results of being in the minority is one thing for strictly conference-matters, but going outside of that (non-conf scheduling) is a bit much.
but I don't think the schools ought to be "forced" to schedule out of conference in a way they are opposed to. Now, one could argue
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aficionado [184]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 481
Joined: 3/13/07
|
Re: Clarify for me on the ACC schedule business . . .
Feb 11, 2014, 2:12 PM
|
|
Could this be the small first step in forming the mega-conferences that will one day dominate the college scene?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93673]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95422
Joined: 12/25/09
|
...and a giant step for a 64 team playoff system.
Feb 11, 2014, 3:15 PM
|
|
Seems like a good place to start. Having two Conference Commissioners in the same room without the NCAA calling the meeting is a good start.
I think Slive and the other Commissioners are licking at the chops for an opportunity to undo the NCAA and move to a better system. As soon as they figure out how to make it economically sound it will happen.
I can see the little wheels turning now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2753]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 5047
Joined: 10/18/06
|
Re: ...and a giant step for a 64 team playoff system.
Feb 11, 2014, 3:23 PM
|
|
Personally I don't trust that. This is like replacing Al Qaeda with the Muslim Brotherhood. If the NCAA loses it's influence and power (and Praise God if it does), and it is simply replace with different self-interested admin-bureaucratic bean-counting nitwits, then all we'll have is a different flavor of administrative hellions running the show. I think it would be a step up temporarily, but then we'd need to be wary of what THEY would do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4504]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9112
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 25
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
