Were they torn or were they told? Their two votes could have made a difference or no?

Very good question. Glad someone picked up on that.

They knew it was going to pass and voting wouldn't have made a difference. Better to not make any enemies.

The biggest shocker IMO was the AAC voting against it.

(01-14-2016 12:10 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  They knew it was going to pass and voting wouldn't have made a difference. Better to not make any enemies.

The biggest shocker IMO was the AAC voting against it.

What would the percentage have been if Pac12 voted no?

(01-14-2016 12:10 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  They knew it was going to pass and voting wouldn't have made a difference. Better to not make any enemies.

The biggest shocker IMO was the AAC voting against it.

On the shallow level, the new rule allows some of the AAC's competitors to hold their own CCG's without needing to expand. On the deeper level, the AAC has as much skin in the game in regards to the Majors getting to 16 and making rules for more divisions and conference tournaments.

Maybe the Pac-12's representative just missed the vote. That was my thought when I read that the Pac-12 didn't vote but that the conference had issued a statement saying that they supported the change.

The Pac-12's rep is UCLA AD Dan Guerrero, who is also on the NCAA men's basketball oversight committee. Maybe they were meeting at the same time, or maybe Guerrero missed the vote for some other reason.

(01-14-2016 12:41 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Maybe the Pac-12's representative just missed the vote. That was my thought when I read that the Pac-12 didn't vote but that the conference had issued a statement saying that they supported the change.

The Pac-12's rep is UCLA AD Dan Guerrero, who is also on the NCAA men's basketball oversight committee. Maybe they were meeting at the same time, or maybe Guerrero missed the vote for some other reason.

Abstaining means that you formally declined to vote...not that you missed the vote.

(01-14-2016 12:44 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 12:41 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Maybe the Pac-12's representative just missed the vote. That was my thought when I read that the Pac-12 didn't vote but that the conference had issued a statement saying that they supported the change.

The Pac-12's rep is UCLA AD Dan Guerrero, who is also on the NCAA men's basketball oversight committee. Maybe they were meeting at the same time, or maybe Guerrero missed the vote for some other reason.

Abstaining means that you formally declined to vote...not that you missed the vote.

This AP article says, "The Pac-12 didn’t vote but later said it supported the change." Doesn't say whether Guerrero was there or not.

(01-14-2016 12:53 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 12:44 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 12:41 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Maybe the Pac-12's representative just missed the vote. That was my thought when I read that the Pac-12 didn't vote but that the conference had issued a statement saying that they supported the change.

The Pac-12's rep is UCLA AD Dan Guerrero, who is also on the NCAA men's basketball oversight committee. Maybe they were meeting at the same time, or maybe Guerrero missed the vote for some other reason.

Abstaining means that you formally declined to vote...not that you missed the vote.

This AP article says, "The Pac-12 didn’t vote but later said it supported the change." Doesn't say whether Guerrero was there or not.

Are you trying to infer that the PAC didn't send a representative for one of the biggest decisions in recent times of college sports? If Guerrero didn't attend then he made a choice to not vote (thus purposely abstaining).

I would say it is more likely that the PAC's abstain vote was an answer to something else.

(01-14-2016 01:17 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 12:53 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 12:44 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 12:41 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Maybe the Pac-12's representative just missed the vote. That was my thought when I read that the Pac-12 didn't vote but that the conference had issued a statement saying that they supported the change.

The Pac-12's rep is UCLA AD Dan Guerrero, who is also on the NCAA men's basketball oversight committee. Maybe they were meeting at the same time, or maybe Guerrero missed the vote for some other reason.

Abstaining means that you formally declined to vote...not that you missed the vote.

This AP article says, "The Pac-12 didn’t vote but later said it supported the change." Doesn't say whether Guerrero was there or not.

Are you trying to infer that the PAC didn't send a representative for one of the biggest decisions in recent times of college sports? If Guerrero didn't attend then he made a choice to not vote (thus purposely abstaining).

Well, neither of us were there, so we don't know. Maybe some enterprising sportswriter will track him down and find out what the deal was. He was obviously doing other things at the NCAA meeting today, as http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/...-nba-draft and http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca.../78748228/ indicate.

I speculate that the PAC abstained because even though it didn't have an overt reason to oppose what the Big 12 wanted, it still has lingering aspirations to raid the Big 12, so it has a general disinclination to do anything that makes the Big 12 stronger/more stable.

And this vote strengthened the Big 12.

Pac couldn't decide internally on the "Politically Correct" way to vote. So, they decided not to.

(01-14-2016 12:16 AM)Dasville Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 12:10 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  They knew it was going to pass and voting wouldn't have made a difference. Better to not make any enemies.

The biggest shocker IMO was the AAC voting against it.

What would the percentage have been if Pac12 voted no?

Excellent question! As it was, the vote was 77% for, 23% against. Anything greater than 75% takes effect immediately.

Had the Pac-12 voted "NO", the vote would've been 67% for, 33% against - and the rule change would've been postponed.

A "YES" vote by the Pac-12 would've had no effect.

(01-14-2016 12:41 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Maybe the Pac-12's representative just missed the vote. That was my thought when I read that the Pac-12 didn't vote but that the conference had issued a statement saying that they supported the change.

The Pac-12's rep is UCLA AD Dan Guerrero, who is also on the NCAA men's basketball oversight committee. Maybe they were meeting at the same time, or maybe Guerrero missed the vote for some other reason.

Drank too much beer and had to go to the bathroom?

(01-14-2016 11:26 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 12:16 AM)Dasville Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 12:10 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  They knew it was going to pass and voting wouldn't have made a difference. Better to not make any enemies.

The biggest shocker IMO was the AAC voting against it.

What would the percentage have been if Pac12 voted no?

Excellent question! As it was, the vote was 77% for, 23% against. Anything greater than 75% takes effect immediately.

Had the Pac-12 voted "NO", the vote would've been 67% for, 33% against - and the rule change would've been postponed.

A "YES" vote by the Pac-12 would've had no effect.

I was wondering if that had something to do with it. He wasn't in the room and maybe didn't care to be. They had already counted the votes.

(01-14-2016 01:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 11:26 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 12:16 AM)Dasville Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 12:10 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  They knew it was going to pass and voting wouldn't have made a difference. Better to not make any enemies.

The biggest shocker IMO was the AAC voting against it.

What would the percentage have been if Pac12 voted no?

Excellent question! As it was, the vote was 77% for, 23% against. Anything greater than 75% takes effect immediately.

Had the Pac-12 voted "NO", the vote would've been 67% for, 33% against - and the rule change would've been postponed.

A "YES" vote by the Pac-12 would've had no effect.

I was wondering if that had something to do with it. He wasn't in the room and maybe didn't care to be. They had already counted the votes.

Well, if he didn't care and the Big 12 stuck with the ACC, total Deregulation would have passed. Which is what I thought Bowlsby and Swofford wanted. Guess I was wrong.

(01-14-2016 01:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 12:41 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Maybe the Pac-12's representative just missed the vote. That was my thought when I read that the Pac-12 didn't vote but that the conference had issued a statement saying that they supported the change.

The Pac-12's rep is UCLA AD Dan Guerrero, who is also on the NCAA men's basketball oversight committee. Maybe they were meeting at the same time, or maybe Guerrero missed the vote for some other reason.

Drank too much beer and had to go to the bathroom?

Probably not beer. The UCLA message board fans who don't like Guerrero call him "Chianti Dan".

(01-14-2016 03:12 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 01:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 12:41 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Maybe the Pac-12's representative just missed the vote. That was my thought when I read that the Pac-12 didn't vote but that the conference had issued a statement saying that they supported the change.

The Pac-12's rep is UCLA AD Dan Guerrero, who is also on the NCAA men's basketball oversight committee. Maybe they were meeting at the same time, or maybe Guerrero missed the vote for some other reason.

Drank too much beer and had to go to the bathroom?

Probably not beer. The UCLA message board fans who don't like Guerrero call him "Chianti Dan".

He was probably drinking wine in Italy. He fancies himself a connoisseur if Italian wines.