[Goose]

Good article on how the ACC deal came together. 

Notes importance of Condi Rice (and Muir) given “instability on the academic side”. 

https://sports.yahoo.com/it-is-insane--h...wMPfl5C10_

Interesting article. It seems that Stanford pursued the ACC earlier and more aggressively than I had realized.

FWIW, when I was in Hawaii, I heard from a Stanford insider that representatives of Clemson, Florida State, and North Carolina privately told Stanford officials at the end of the process that they now supported expansion. They said that their schools voted "no" for reasons of public perception and campus politics. Their votes were not needed to approve expansion, and they didn't want to go on record as "yes" votes, even though they privately had come around to favor expansion.

I can believe that, but IMO they were in a win-win situation. They could hold out, get 4 (or more) no votes and perhaps increase distension leading to the desired dissolution. They also could hold out and not get 4 votes. If that happened (which it did), they get to make their point and make many extra million dollars per year. What they actually "favor" is leaving. The millions are a nice consolation prize. About the new admits, they really care not either way, because they want this to be a very temporary situation (for themselves anyway).

[Goose]

Good article on how the ACC deal came together. 

Notes importance of Condi Rice (and Muir) given “instability on the academic side”. 

https://sports.yahoo.com/it-is-insane--h...wMPfl5C10_

Interesting article. It seems that Stanford pursued the ACC earlier and more aggressively than I had realized.

FWIW, when I was in Hawaii, I heard from a Stanford insider that representatives of Clemson, Florida State, and North Carolina privately told Stanford officials at the end of the process that they now supported expansion. They said that their schools voted "no" for reasons of public perception and campus politics. Their votes were not needed to approve expansion, and they didn't want to go on record as "yes" votes, even though they privately had come around to favor expansion.

I can believe that, but IMO they were in a win-win situation. They could hold out, get 4 (or more) no votes and perhaps increase distension leading to the desired dissolution. They also could hold out and not get 4 votes. If that happened (which it did), they get to make their point and make many extra million dollars per year. What they actually "favor" is leaving. The millions are a nice consolation prize. About the new admits, they really care not either way, because they want this to be a very temporary situation (for themselves anyway).