Nope
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Football schedule vote
Collapse
Support The Site!
Collapse
X
-
I'm interpreting the comments to be that only one of the meetings was an MIAA meeting... University Presidents have lots of meetings with lots of entities. The real question is why isn't the conference meeting arranged to meet the schedules of the only 12 people who really have to be there. If they aren't going to accommodate, they need to allow for proxy voting from other University staff (AD, VP, etc).Originally posted by Predatory Primates View PostWhy would they have 2 votes that required presidential presence at the same time?
Then again, all of this may just be two UPs deciding they have more important business to attend to.
Comment
-
Yes: Pitt State, Missouri Southern, Missouri Western, Emporia State, Northeastern StateOriginally posted by Shanghai Mule View Post
Do you know which schools voted yes, no and which two were absent?
No: Central Missouri, Central Oklahoma, Northwest Missouri State, Washburn, Fort Hays State
Abstain: Lincoln, Nebraska-Kearney
Without going into specifics out of respect for privacy, at least one of the abstaining presidents was unable to travel to the NCAA Convention for reasons beyond their control.
Comment
-
Two things about this:Originally posted by Brandon View PostThe conference bylaws require a presence to vote. The conference rules do not allow for proxy votes.
1.) I'm told that it isn't unprecedented for the league to suspend these by-laws... I don't know that it happens *often* and nobody has given me a specific instance where those by-laws were suspended but, I've been told by more than one person that it's happened before.
2.) I have also been told by a couple of people that this is going to make the league take a hard look at that particular by-law. One person said to me they were somewhat surprised that they didn't make a motion to change that rule right there on the spot.
Comment
-
So glad to see us on the right side of this. No idea how UNK would've voted (I'm somewhat inclined to think they would've been a No), but disappointed to see Lincoln couldn't be there to vote. UCO is the biggest surprise No to me. They have proximity to some of the LSC schools and they always struggle out of the gate in the conference.Originally posted by MIAAWeekly View Post
Yes: Pitt State, Missouri Southern, Missouri Western, Emporia State, Northeastern State
No: Central Missouri, Central Oklahoma, Northwest Missouri State, Washburn, Fort Hays State
Abstain: Lincoln, Nebraska-Kearney
Without going into specifics out of respect for privacy, at least one of the abstaining presidents was unable to travel to the NCAA Convention for reasons beyond their control.
Comment
-
pfft. the proposed "solution" bastardizes the cc.Originally posted by Predatory Primates View PostNo: Central Missouri, Central Oklahoma, Northwest Missouri State, Washburn, Fort Hays State
Fans and alumni of these schools should wake up mad at themselves every day..
i'm over the jackasses running this league.
i'm mad at them all.
i would have voted no to this particular proposal.Go Bearcats!
M-I-Z-Z-O-U!
Comment
-
Nearly every other conference at every other level of football has figured out non-conference and unbalanced schedules, but the MIAA can't?
Nearly every other sport offered by the MIAA has non-conference and unbalanced schedules, but football is just too big a challenge?
I really don't get it.
Comment
Ad3
Collapse

Comment