Uh oh!

purple font and all.

HateRed said:

---

Guys, I think we have the votes. Why else would they leak news line this WAAAAAY ahead of time?

---

They're taking off early for a 4-day weekend.

Oh,
And this has Mack fscking Brown's behind the scenes shenanigans all over it. (/s sorta)

Time for Cal and Stanford to slip nc state 500,000 each to flip the vote

BearGreg said:

---

UNC President supportive of the additions. Clearly their Board of Trustees don't agree. Whether they force him to vote in opposition is unclear but feels likely. NC State now has the whip. Unlike UNC, they don't have realistic options with B10 or SEC if ACC implodes. That aligns with Cal.

---

Seems like the most logical conclusion. I find it absurd that they're over here complaining about a money gap and then literally refusing money in their 11th hour statement.

sycasey said:

---

My question is: wouldn't the UNC President have spoken with the trustees about this already? It's been a major topic for weeks! What's with this 11th hour nonsense?

---

Very good question.

Does anyone know the structure or governance of the UNC Board of Trustees? Does the UNC President have to follow the Trustees? Or are they simply saying - we don't like what you're doing and we're putting it on record.

So a very minor amount of googling produced this:

UNC-Chapel Hill Chancellor Kevin Guskiewicz appeared before a special meeting of the UNC System Board of Governors Wednesday to explain his plan to fully cover tuition and fees for in-state students whose families earn less than $80,000 a year.

The plan would apply only to students enrolling at UNC-Chapel Hill, not other campuses within the UNC system.
Both the plan and how Guskiewicz announced it have been strongly criticized by some members of the board of governors and the university's own board of trustees, all of whom are political appointees of the state legislature's Republican majority. Members have questioned the timing of the decision and an announcement from Guskiewicz that seemed to link it to the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision on race in college admissions. UNC-Chapel Hill and Harvard University were defendants in that federal lawsuit; the court ruled that both universities' use of affirmative action in its admission programs were unconstitutional. Guskiewicz didn't share his plan with either board before announcing it publicly. Nor did he explain how the plan could affect smaller campuses within the system that can't afford to match the tuition program at Chapel Hill.


While I don't know what power the board of trustees has over the chancellor it seems he may not have a problem going against the political appointees, seems like they enjoy blowing some hot air like all pols do.

AUOso said:

---

So a very minor amount of googling produced this:

UNC-Chapel Hill Chancellor Kevin Guskiewicz appeared before a special meeting of the UNC System Board of Governors Wednesday to explain his plan to fully cover tuition and fees for in-state students whose families earn less than $80,000 a year.

The plan would apply only to students enrolling at UNC-Chapel Hill, not other campuses within the UNC system.
Both the plan and how Guskiewicz announced it have been strongly criticized by some members of the board of governors and the university's own board of trustees, all of whom are political appointees of the state legislature's Republican majority. Members have questioned the timing of the decision and an announcement from Guskiewicz that seemed to link it to the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision on race in college admissions. UNC-Chapel Hill and Harvard University were defendants in that federal lawsuit; the court ruled that both universities' use of affirmative action in its admission programs were unconstitutional. Guskiewicz didn't share his plan with either board before announcing it publicly. Nor did he explain how the plan could affect smaller campuses within the system that can't afford to match the tuition program at Chapel Hill.


While I don't know what power the board of trustees has over the chancellor it seems he may not have a problem going against the political appointees, seems like they enjoy blowing some hot air like all pols do.

---

More....

Each constituent institution of the UNC system is headed by a chancellor, whose duties are outlined in Section 502 of the Code of the Board of Governors. The Chancellor is vested with complete executive authority, subject to the direction of the President of the UNC System. The Chancellor is responsible for carrying out policies of two governing boards: the UNC System's Board of Governors and the University's Board of Trustees. The Chancellor also makes recommendations to the president regarding academic program development, personnel matters (subject to policies of the Governors and Trustees), and budget development. The Chancellor maintains wide discretion in decision-making with regard to student affairs (subject to policies of the governing boards) and other aspects of the administration of the University, as provided under the General Statutes of North Carolina and the UNC Code.

Looks like we've got ourselves another UC Regents peeps! Gene Block read that statement and lit a cigar.

AUOso said:

---

AUOso said:

---

So a very minor amount of googling produced this:

UNC-Chapel Hill Chancellor Kevin Guskiewicz appeared before a special meeting of the UNC System Board of Governors Wednesday to explain his plan to fully cover tuition and fees for in-state students whose families earn less than $80,000 a year.

The plan would apply only to students enrolling at UNC-Chapel Hill, not other campuses within the UNC system.
Both the plan and how Guskiewicz announced it have been strongly criticized by some members of the board of governors and the university's own board of trustees, all of whom are political appointees of the state legislature's Republican majority. Members have questioned the timing of the decision and an announcement from Guskiewicz that seemed to link it to the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision on race in college admissions. UNC-Chapel Hill and Harvard University were defendants in that federal lawsuit; the court ruled that both universities' use of affirmative action in its admission programs were unconstitutional. Guskiewicz didn't share his plan with either board before announcing it publicly. Nor did he explain how the plan could affect smaller campuses within the system that can't afford to match the tuition program at Chapel Hill.


While I don't know what power the board of trustees has over the chancellor it seems he may not have a problem going against the political appointees, seems like they enjoy blowing some hot air like all pols do.

---

More....

Each constituent institution of the UNC system is headed by a chancellor, whose duties are outlined in Section 502 of the Code of the Board of Governors. The Chancellor is vested with complete executive authority, subject to the direction of the President of the UNC System. The Chancellor is responsible for carrying out policies of two governing boards: the UNC System's Board of Governors and the University's Board of Trustees. The Chancellor also makes recommendations to the president regarding academic program development, personnel matters (subject to policies of the Governors and Trustees), and budget development. The Chancellor maintains wide discretion in decision-making with regard to student affairs (subject to policies of the governing boards) and other aspects of the administration of the University, as provided under the General Statutes of North Carolina and the UNC Code.

---

And...its not even the board of governors who issued the statement...its the board of trustees...read on...


"Each board of trustees shall serve as an advisor to the Board of Governors on matters pertaining to its institution and shall also serve as advisor to the Chancellor concerning the management and development of the institution," according to its website.

UNC-Chapel Hill is part of the UNC System, which is governed by a 24-member Board of Governors. Peter Hans is the president of the UNC System. ACC member NC State is also a member of the UNC System."

Some background on earlier fights he has had with his politically appointed board in the past:
(newsflash..they don't seem to get along very well)

There is a clause in the ESPN ACC deal that nobody is talking about and that is what this is all about. The contract states that ESPN had the right to cancel the entirety of the media rights deal if ACC membership drops below 15 members.
I strongly believe we do have the votes but these grifters are still clinging to the idea that someone has enough money to pay the exit fee and drop the member number below 15 and that espn would then invoke to cancel the contract thus allowing UNC to join elsewhere sans having to pay an exit fee.
Their board is 90 percent lawyers at first glance and so id gander that this is what it's all about.
They were probably hoping that they could entice fsu to make a run for the exits: that didn't happen; so now their hope is to force nd out by not adding us: and that's not going to happen either.
In fareness to them they probably don't want to be trapped, but in reality no other conference is taking them and they for dam sure don't have the money to leave so this comes across as desperate.
Even if they did, ESPN would still have to invoke and I have doubts that they would. Duke is still in the acc and as long as that's the case, espn ain't changing a ****ing thing.

Despite of all the financial concessions made by the incoming teams, when that money gets divided amongst 15 members I believe it comes out to roughly 6M per year. But that's if it's divided evenly. Then there the other monies that also get distributed to the conference that now get divided 18 ways. And the add travel incresaes..

It really might just be about the money.

Guskiewicz has been with the university since 1995, rising to dean of the College of Arts and Sciences before being named interim chancellor in February 2019, following the departure of Carol Folt. He has been permanent chancellor since December 2019. Chapman declined to say who informed her of the efforts to remove Guskiewicz.

Meanwhile, power officially shifted on the campus Board of Trustees as a new set of members elected officers. Dave Boliek is the new chair of the board and John Preyer is the new vice chair, while new trustee Malcolm Turner is the new secretary. Clayton Somers was re-elected as assistant secretary to the board. There were no other nominations for the positions and votes were unanimous. It was the first time the new board met as a group during a regularly scheduled meeting. At the meeting, Boliek said he is "not sure where those concerns came from" about the chancellor's status. The Board of Trustees has no authority to remove the chancellor

Why would ESPN let them out? The ACC is the biggest bargain in college football, even without FSU

UNC System President Peter Hans can recommend the chancellor be terminated. However, the UNC System Board of Governors has the ultimate authority to remove Guskiewicz as chancellor and can initiate that move on its own. In a statement, Hans said the "university's mission is teaching, research, and public service, not rumors and politics." "I would encourage everyone to take a deep breath, focus on that mission, and not chase conspiracy theories," Hans said. Board of Governors Chair Randy Ramsey could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

Read more at: https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/article252762403.html#storylink=cpy

Red Coyote said:

---

Despite of all the financial concessions made by the incoming teams, when that money gets divided amongst 15 members I believe it comes out to roughly 6M per year. But that's if it's divided evenly. Then there the other monies that also get distributed to the conference that now get divided 18 ways. And the add travel incresaes..

It really might just be about the money.

---

What is the added travel cost of flying your jet to the Bay Area instead of Boston an extra (7-10 times) per year?
10 trips times 2100 extra miles times 23 dollars per mile charter fee = 483k max extra cost
I call bs.
Absolutely about the money but not about the added travel cost

CNHTH said:

---

Red Coyote said:

---

Despite of all the financial concessions made by the incoming teams, when that money gets divided amongst 15 members I believe it comes out to roughly 6M per year. But that's if it's divided evenly. Then there the other monies that also get distributed to the conference that now get divided 18 ways. And the add travel incresaes..

It really might just be about the money.

---

What is the added travel cost of flying your jet to the Bay Area instead of Boston an extra (7-10 times) per year?
10 trips times 2100 extra miles times 23 dollars per mile charter fee = 483k max extra cost
I call bs.
Absolutely about the money but not about the added travel cost

---

IDK, but it's interesting that even though a lot money is in play, when it's distributed over so many parties it doesn't appear to be some giant windfall. Especially when you look at the possible downsides.

Agreed. The added travel costs are minimal on their side. They're not making that Bay Area trip every year either. If Cal, Stanford, and SMU are protected games, then the ACC only sends 6 teams to the Bay Area every year. Each team travels here once every 2 and 1/3 years. Sure, that's greater than 0, and sure they have other sports teams, but those teams will also not be traveling here every year.

Travel costs would not be minimal for anyone (Cal included) if we become full members of the ACC.

The question is do they accept us just as football members, football and basketball, or all of our sports?

ducky23 said:

---

So….basically a bunch of republicans are trying to score some cheap culture war points by owning the Libs. Super

What's next?

---

Boliek
https://amp.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/article272173008.html

Oh shyte

Reading that made me feel much better. So basically this "board" is made up of a bunch of clowns whose opinions the UNC president probably gives two shts about

Well….we knew this wasn't going to be easy. If anyone had "idiot republicans" on their bingo card, you win. I was betting on Godzilla showing up on the shores of Florida. Damnit!