FB: Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[Redtooth]

https://d2o2figo6ddd0g.cloudfront.net/t/y/f00bkruixg7uxi/Bylaws1819.pdf

Sections D and E made for interesting reading on the train ride into work.

Lifted from Section E:

"Notice of the Presidents' Council intent to invoke any disciplinary action must be made in writing and delivered to the affected member and all other voting members at least thirty (30) days prior to the date that the action is proposed to be taken."

"Any decision to suspend or terminate membership must be made by at least a three-fourths affirmative vote of the entire Presidents' Council. The member institution in question shall not be allowed to vote, and the required three-fourths majority shall be determined based upon the remaining voting members (currently 9 members based on 12 members eligible to vote)."

"The expulsion shall take place at the end of the then-current academic year."

So, if #TomToss is for real: 1) then the April 18, 2019 meeting will be the official notification date to fulfill the requirements of the existing by-laws; 2) The Tommies don't get a vote and it has to beat least 9 vs. 3 to carry; 3) it would become effective at the end of the current school year.

Point #1 seems iffy to me, but it seems the general public is being kept at arm's length concerning the conduct which may have gotten St. Thomas into this bind. We may or may not ever know what the cause was if the meeting is closed.

Point #2 also seems iffy to me, but more likely, if the charges are legit. As has been suspected, Concordia, Bethel, St. John's and St. Benedict would be the 4 nay-sayers, effectively killing the proposal. This is where politicking comes in and anything could happen.

Point #3, if the resolution passes, it means there will be a lot of scrambling for schedules next season/year if the Tommies cannot compete in the MIAC.

Thanx for sharing Oz!

Couple quick points Art....while Section E provides the grounds for expulsion for cause, that is not what is being proposed with UST.  What the Presidents will be voting on is a change to the Bylaws that effectively removes (in the case of UST) and prevents (future schools) from having an total undergraduate enrollment larger than a number the Presidents feel comfortable with.  They will select a number that is lower than UST could reasonably get down to and higher than the existing enrollment of all the other schools.  What is crazy about this situation is that UST's enrollment has not changed much during the last 10 years.....hardly grounds for changing the Bylaws, but this is the best the secret cabal of Presidents came up with.  Please note, not all the Presidents were in on this plan nor will they support it.  Also, at least one school you have listed as supporting UST will likely support the Bylaws modification for UST removal.

[OzJohnnie]

No worries, Art.  It is good reading.  I found this in Section E interesting as well given all the talk about amending by-laws to include enrolment numbers.

Membership privileges may be suspended or terminated if a member engages in any of the following:
1. Failure to pay membership dues, fines, or officials assessments

2. Any action or inaction which constitutes a violation of the Conference's Bylaws, including a failure to abide by regulations set forth by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)

3. Any action or inaction which reflects poorly upon the reputation and integrity of the Conference

4. Failure to comply with Conference scheduling requirements.

1, 2 and 4 are out.  3 is where the action is at.  And what that argument is I do not know.


By the way, Article IX governs the legislative process and includes this:

Section B.  Amendments to the Bylaws The Bylaws consist of information relevant to the purposes of membership, governance and legislative authority of the MIAC. These Bylaws may be amended by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the Presidents of the member institutions (based on current membership, 9 affirmative votes are required).  Notice of a proposed amendment to the Bylaws must be communicated to the Presidents of each member institution at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of the meeting at which the amendment is to be voted upon.  Approved changes shall be effective the succeeding June 1, unless otherwise noted.

If they were to amend the by laws on something like enrolment, then it would need to be voted on in two seperate council levels.  If the April 18th meeting counts as one of those meetings (which I'm not sure this 18th meeting is high enough in the chain) then the specific bylaw proposal would have been sent to each school already.  And it wouldn't take effect until June 1 2019, meaning they couldn't vote to expel UST before the end of next year, which means UST would be there for two more years.  I think.

So I don't think it's actually a bylaw play.  I think that bylaw thing is an empty threat meant to show seriousness about whatever argument is being made about "Any action or inaction which reflects poorly upon the reputation and integrity of the Conference."

And we're back to the nature of the thrashings.  And that Niki Lauda clip all over again.

https://youtu.be/NjyIrLKgbbA

[OzJohnnie]

Couple quick points Art....while Section E provides the grounds for expulsion for cause, that is not what is being proposed with UST.  What the Presidents will be voting on is a change to the Bylaws that effectively removes (in the case of UST) and prevents (future schools) from having an total undergraduate enrollment larger than a number the Presidents feel comfortable with.  They will select a number that is lower than UST could reasonably get down to and higher than the existing enrollment of all the other schools.  What is crazy about this situation is that UST's enrollment has not changed much during the last 10 years.....hardly grounds for changing the Bylaws, but this is the best the secret cabal of Presidents came up with.  Please note, not all the Presidents were in on this plan nor will they support it.  Also, at least one school you have listed as supporting UST will likely support the Bylaws modification for UST removal.

You've got the inside gossip, Redtooth.  I just have my idle musings.  If they are doing the bylaw play then they are doing that.  I thought that rule 3 on reasons for expulsion gave a much more obvious path to #texit, but I don't know squat, really.

[OzJohnnie]

Couple quick points Art....while Section E provides the grounds for expulsion for cause, that is not what is being proposed with UST.  What the Presidents will be voting on is a change to the Bylaws that effectively removes (in the case of UST) and prevents (future schools) from having an total undergraduate enrollment larger than a number the Presidents feel comfortable with.  They will select a number that is lower than UST could reasonably get down to and higher than the existing enrollment of all the other schools.  What is crazy about this situation is that UST's enrollment has not changed much during the last 10 years.....hardly grounds for changing the Bylaws, but this is the best the secret cabal of Presidents came up with.  Please note, not all the Presidents were in on this plan nor will they support it.  Also, at least one school you have listed as supporting UST will likely support the Bylaws modification for UST removal.

You've got the inside gossip, Redtooth.  I just have my idle musings.  If they are doing the bylaw play then they are doing that.  I thought that rule 3 on reasons for expulsion gave a much more obvious path to #texit, but I don't know squat, really.

There's a lot of room for arguments around option 3 (and even option 2) hidden in the depths of the bylaws, including this one.

https://www.miacathletics.com/about/resources/administrators/policies/AppendixN.pdf

[jamtod]

Couple quick points Art....while Section E provides the grounds for expulsion for cause, that is not what is being proposed with UST.  What the Presidents will be voting on is a change to the Bylaws that effectively removes (in the case of UST) and prevents (future schools) from having an total undergraduate enrollment larger than a number the Presidents feel comfortable with.  They will select a number that is lower than UST could reasonably get down to and higher than the existing enrollment of all the other schools.  What is crazy about this situation is that UST's enrollment has not changed much during the last 10 years.....hardly grounds for changing the Bylaws, but this is the best the secret cabal of Presidents came up with.  Please note, not all the Presidents were in on this plan nor will they support it.  Also, at least one school you have listed as supporting UST will likely support the Bylaws modification for UST removal.

You've got the inside gossip, Redtooth.  I just have my idle musings.  If they are doing the bylaw play then they are doing that.  I thought that rule 3 on reasons for expulsion gave a much more obvious path to #texit, but I don't know squat, really.

There's a lot of room for arguments around option 3 (and even option 2) hidden in the depths of the bylaws, including this one.

https://www.miacathletics.com/about/resources/administrators/policies/AppendixN.pdf

I could see this as plausible if something were brought to the attention of the conference or council or whatever and some sort of correction or warning was handed down to GC to change his approach, which was ignored. In particular because complaints about running up the score and things of that nature which GC gets flack for are entirely judgment calls. I've not heard of anything like that happening.
And there were more circumstances this last year where the foot was fully taken off the gas, ball turned over on downs through kneeling, kneeling or punting in situations that previously would have been run up the middle by a 4th string lineman, things like that.

[OzJohnnie]

I could see this as plausible if something were brought to the attention of the conference or council or whatever and some sort of correction or warning was handed down to GC to change his approach, which was ignored. I've not heard of anything like that happening.
And there were more circumstances this last year where the foot was fully taken off the gas, ball turned over on downs through kneeling, kneeling or punting in situations that previously would have been run up the middle by a 4th string lineman, things like that.

You're right, of course, which I why I think this is all just so much bluster and whinging.  Passive/aggressive BS.  Perhaps that is why they are going with the bylaws change.  They missed their opportunity to do this the right way.  Or they did the the right way, UST responded appropriately and now they want to toss their toys out of the cot.

Dunno, but I'm still a stay vote.

Vote "No" on #TEXIT

[jamtod]

I could see this as plausible if something were brought to the attention of the conference or council or whatever and some sort of correction or warning was handed down to GC to change his approach, which was ignored. I've not heard of anything like that happening.
And there were more circumstances this last year where the foot was fully taken off the gas, ball turned over on downs through kneeling, kneeling or punting in situations that previously would have been run up the middle by a 4th string lineman, things like that.

You're right, of course, which I why I think this is all just so much bluster and whinging.  Passive/aggressive BS.  Perhaps that is why they are going with the bylaws change.  They missed their opportunity to do this the right way.  Or they did the the right way, UST responded appropriately and now they want to toss their toys out of the cot.

Dunno, but I'm still a stay vote.

Vote "No" on #TEXIT

I'm actually going to go ahead and blame our 2 losses last year on this kinder gentler more sportsmanlike GC. Damnit, if Perra had been slinging it while up 60 early in the season maybe he wouldn't have looked so darn lost and confused later on.

[art76]

Couple quick points Art....while Section E provides the grounds for expulsion for cause, that is not what is being proposed with UST.  What the Presidents will be voting on is a change to the Bylaws that effectively removes (in the case of UST) and prevents (future schools) from having an total undergraduate enrollment larger than a number the Presidents feel comfortable with.  They will select a number that is lower than UST could reasonably get down to and higher than the existing enrollment of all the other schools.  What is crazy about this situation is that UST's enrollment has not changed much during the last 10 years.....hardly grounds for changing the Bylaws, but this is the best the secret cabal of Presidents came up with.  Please note, not all the Presidents were in on this plan nor will they support it.  Also, at least one school you have listed as supporting UST will likely support the Bylaws modification for UST removal.

Ah, the old end-around, instead of direct confrontation. Thanx for the clarity Redtooth.

So, it seems to come down to politicking - or perhaps more crassly stated, "who are you in bed with?"

However this mess gets divvied out, it is going to make for some interesting football games this fall.

Yikes, is all I got.

[Smitty Oom]

https://d2o2figo6ddd0g.cloudfront.net/t/y/f00bkruixg7uxi/Bylaws1819.pdf

Sections D and E made for interesting reading on the train ride into work.

Lifted from Section E:

"Notice of the Presidents' Council intent to invoke any disciplinary action must be made in writing and delivered to the affected member and all other voting members at least thirty (30) days prior to the date that the action is proposed to be taken."

"Any decision to suspend or terminate membership must be made by at least a three-fourths affirmative vote of the entire Presidents' Council. The member institution in question shall not be allowed to vote, and the required three-fourths majority shall be determined based upon the remaining voting members (currently 9 members based on 12 members eligible to vote)."

"The expulsion shall take place at the end of the then-current academic year."

So, if #TomToss is for real: 1) then the April 18, 2019 meeting will be the official notification date to fulfill the requirements of the existing by-laws; 2) The Tommies don't get a vote and it has to beat least 9 vs. 3 to carry; 3) it would become effective at the end of the current school year.

Point #1 seems iffy to me, but it seems the general public is being kept at arm's length concerning the conduct which may have gotten St. Thomas into this bind. We may or may not ever know what the cause was if the meeting is closed.

Point #2 also seems iffy to me, but more likely, if the charges are legit. As has been suspected, Concordia, Bethel, St. John's and St. Benedict would be the 4 nay-sayers, effectively killing the proposal. This is where politicking comes in and anything could happen.

Point #3, if the resolution passes, it means there will be a lot of scrambling for schedules next season/year if the Tommies cannot compete in the MIAC.

Thanx for sharing Oz!

Couple quick points Art....while Section E provides the grounds for expulsion for cause, that is not what is being proposed with UST.  What the Presidents will be voting on is a change to the Bylaws that effectively removes (in the case of UST) and prevents (future schools) from having an total undergraduate enrollment larger than a number the Presidents feel comfortable with.  They will select a number that is lower than UST could reasonably get down to and higher than the existing enrollment of all the other schools.  What is crazy about this situation is that UST's enrollment has not changed much during the last 10 years.....hardly grounds for changing the Bylaws, but this is the best the secret cabal of Presidents came up with.  Please note, not all the Presidents were in on this plan nor will they support it. Also, at least one school you have listed as supporting UST will likely support the Bylaws modification for UST removal.

Using my context clues, are you suggesting that Concordia is in favor of the Bylaw modification?

[USTBench]

https://d2o2figo6ddd0g.cloudfront.net/t/y/f00bkruixg7uxi/Bylaws1819.pdf

Sections D and E made for interesting reading on the train ride into work.

Lifted from Section E:

"Notice of the Presidents' Council intent to invoke any disciplinary action must be made in writing and delivered to the affected member and all other voting members at least thirty (30) days prior to the date that the action is proposed to be taken."

"Any decision to suspend or terminate membership must be made by at least a three-fourths affirmative vote of the entire Presidents' Council. The member institution in question shall not be allowed to vote, and the required three-fourths majority shall be determined based upon the remaining voting members (currently 9 members based on 12 members eligible to vote)."

"The expulsion shall take place at the end of the then-current academic year."

So, if #TomToss is for real: 1) then the April 18, 2019 meeting will be the official notification date to fulfill the requirements of the existing by-laws; 2) The Tommies don't get a vote and it has to beat least 9 vs. 3 to carry; 3) it would become effective at the end of the current school year.

Point #1 seems iffy to me, but it seems the general public is being kept at arm's length concerning the conduct which may have gotten St. Thomas into this bind. We may or may not ever know what the cause was if the meeting is closed.

Point #2 also seems iffy to me, but more likely, if the charges are legit. As has been suspected, Concordia, Bethel, St. John's and St. Benedict would be the 4 nay-sayers, effectively killing the proposal. This is where politicking comes in and anything could happen.

Point #3, if the resolution passes, it means there will be a lot of scrambling for schedules next season/year if the Tommies cannot compete in the MIAC.

Thanx for sharing Oz!

Couple quick points Art....while Section E provides the grounds for expulsion for cause, that is not what is being proposed with UST.  What the Presidents will be voting on is a change to the Bylaws that effectively removes (in the case of UST) and prevents (future schools) from having an total undergraduate enrollment larger than a number the Presidents feel comfortable with.  They will select a number that is lower than UST could reasonably get down to and higher than the existing enrollment of all the other schools.  What is crazy about this situation is that UST's enrollment has not changed much during the last 10 years.....hardly grounds for changing the Bylaws, but this is the best the secret cabal of Presidents came up with.  Please note, not all the Presidents were in on this plan nor will they support it. Also, at least one school you have listed as supporting UST will likely support the Bylaws modification for UST removal.

Using my context clues, are you suggesting that Concordia is in favor of the Bylaw modification?

Considering Concordia's budget issues, I wouldn't be surprised. However, despite their budgetary woes, Concorida has had the ability to remain competitive, at least in football, because they really don't have any competition for players from the Red River Valley that fit their profile both academically and athletically (maaaaybe Jamestown or Morris, but that's a stretch).

[faunch]

I know this is the Gustie soccer team but it really is an appropriate video metaphor for U$T athletics:

https://twitter.com/Gustie_Soccer/status/1116126971505926148

[hazzben]

https://www.inforum.com/sports/football/1002715-McFeely-If-St.-Thomas-coach-promises-to-be-nicer-MIAC-should-keep-Tommies

I don't see this happening.
How would recruiting speech go, "If you come to UST you will be part of a team will challenge for a national title but at the same time won't beat any conference opponents by more that 2TDs. Whataya say? You in?"

I don't think it's the size of the victories but the spirit (or poor spirit as argued in the article) in which those thrashings are administered.

The article doesn't quote anyone, even anonymously, that claims this is the issue, though. The author merely asserts it. While I'm very willing to believe the issue is as per the article, the article has no more credibility than if I wrote it.

I have to say I'm really impressed at how message disciplined all the schools have been about this, despite the keen public interest.  No leaks, no insider quotes. Nothing since that reusse article that quoted Johnson. It makes me think the vote will be to stay. If it were a vote that kicks out UST then I would expect a lot of positioning in the press to justify the vote in advance.

And here I was thinking that it was you that wrote the article, Mr McFeely, based on some of the wording and the angle used. 

Funny you say that. I thought he could have cribbed it from these boards. His concluding paragraph is the same point and has the exact phrasing of hazzben's second point in his epic summary post from a few days ago.

The thing I found dubious is the contention that no one has ever told Caruso they don't appreciate his style, or lack there of. How do we know that's the case? There's really never been a cross word spoken at the end of one of these blowouts? Caruso's no fool, he's got enough emotional intelligence to know when another person is seething mad when they shake hands, and to realize it's because the scoreboard is blinking 70ish to 6ish.

[jamtod]

https://www.inforum.com/sports/football/1002715-McFeely-If-St.-Thomas-coach-promises-to-be-nicer-MIAC-should-keep-Tommies

I don't see this happening.
How would recruiting speech go, "If you come to UST you will be part of a team will challenge for a national title but at the same time won't beat any conference opponents by more that 2TDs. Whataya say? You in?"

I don't think it's the size of the victories but the spirit (or poor spirit as argued in the article) in which those thrashings are administered.

The article doesn't quote anyone, even anonymously, that claims this is the issue, though. The author merely asserts it. While I'm very willing to believe the issue is as per the article, the article has no more credibility than if I wrote it.

I have to say I'm really impressed at how message disciplined all the schools have been about this, despite the keen public interest.  No leaks, no insider quotes. Nothing since that reusse article that quoted Johnson. It makes me think the vote will be to stay. If it were a vote that kicks out UST then I would expect a lot of positioning in the press to justify the vote in advance.

And here I was thinking that it was you that wrote the article, Mr McFeely, based on some of the wording and the angle used. 

Funny you say that. I thought he could have cribbed it from these boards. His concluding paragraph is the same point and has the exact phrasing of hazzben's second point in his epic summary post from a few days ago.

The thing I found dubious is the contention that no one has ever told Caruso they don't appreciate his style, or lack there of. How do we know that's the case? There's really never been a cross word spoken at the end of one of these blowouts? Caruso's no fool, he's got enough emotional intelligence to know when another person is seething mad when they shake hands, and to realize it's because the scoreboard is blinking 70ish to 6ish.

Having been around him a bit and heard him speak, he's well aware of people's dissatisfaction with some of his methods. He generally just doesn't care (unless it was his AD or somebody like that that took issue with it) and is happy to justify the choices he makes and let you judge him for it one way or the other.

[OldAuggie]

https://www.inforum.com/sports/football/1002715-McFeely-If-St.-Thomas-coach-promises-to-be-nicer-MIAC-should-keep-Tommies

I don't see this happening.
How would recruiting speech go, "If you come to UST you will be part of a team will challenge for a national title but at the same time won't beat any conference opponents by more that 2TDs. Whataya say? You in?"

I don't think it's the size of the victories but the spirit (or poor spirit as argued in the article) in which those thrashings are administered.

The article doesn't quote anyone, even anonymously, that claims this is the issue, though. The author merely asserts it. While I'm very willing to believe the issue is as per the article, the article has no more credibility than if I wrote it.

I have to say I'm really impressed at how message disciplined all the schools have been about this, despite the keen public interest.  No leaks, no insider quotes. Nothing since that reusse article that quoted Johnson. It makes me think the vote will be to stay. If it were a vote that kicks out UST then I would expect a lot of positioning in the press to justify the vote in advance.

And here I was thinking that it was you that wrote the article, Mr McFeely, based on some of the wording and the angle used. 

Funny you say that. I thought he could have cribbed it from these boards. His concluding paragraph is the same point and has the exact phrasing of hazzben's second point in his epic summary post from a few days ago.

The thing I found dubious is the contention that no one has ever told Caruso they don't appreciate his style, or lack there of. How do we know that's the case? There's really never been a cross word spoken at the end of one of these blowouts? Caruso's no fool, he's got enough emotional intelligence to know when another person is seething mad when they shake hands, and to realize it's because the scoreboard is blinking 70ish to 6ish.

Having been around him a bit and heard him speak, he's well aware of people's dissatisfaction with some of his methods. He generally just doesn't care (unless it was his AD or somebody like that that took issue with it) and is happy to justify the choices he makes and let you judge him for it one way or the other.

I need to chime in here guys. I was thinking earlier, this situation says a lot about the leadership at UST, they just can't let Caruso mis-represent the school and the athletic program like this. Plenty of teams have actually won National Championships and avoided this situation. There have been indicators; Mount Union NC game, end of the game and Coach Kehres looking less that thrilled with Caruso. UW-Stout game as well and the victory formation blunder. It's been going on for a while and they don't seem to be able to or maybe they don't want to control him.

[Mr.MIAC]

UST is heading towards D1. A cabal might help them get there sooner than expected. So be it.

If UST is booted from the MIAC, the real losers will be: 1) fans of the MIAC, 2) MIAC athletes who strive for excellence, 3) MIAC schools that seek recognition for athletics, and 4) those who champion the quality of D3 athletics. Think of all the historical rivalries UST has with other MIAC schools and their fans--they will be gone. Think of the message sent to prospective MIAC student athletes--we want you to be good, but not too good...better stifle yourself. Think about how this would look to D3 stakeholders outside the MIAC. Two words: passive aggressive. Think about how it would be seen by those who already question the significance of D3 athletics. Isn't D3 supposed to be mediocre...?