There is no language in the ACC’s bylaws and constitution covering dissolution of the conference, other than a standard boilerplate clause about the distribution of property. The North Carolina law governing the dissolution of nonprofits would theoretically apply, requiring only a majority of voting members to agree to it. (Notre Dame, for some reason, gets a full vote and not 20 percent of a vote, even though it only gets a one-fifth share of revenue. That has never been sufficiently explained.)

Because there is currently no mechanism in the ACC constitution or by-laws to dissolve the conference, so they would have to be amended to allow it to happen, which requires a 3/4 majority vote. ** Edited by tarheelblue at 7/17/2022, 8:05:27 PM

Unless they amend to add some language, why wouldnt state law govern? It does for everything else.

meet state required minimums. from the interweb re: North Carolina "Generally, board approval of the plan will require a majority vote of the directors, but check your articles of incorporation and bylaws for different voting requirements."

1. They dissolve it, and the FB-serious schools form their own new conference under a better TV deal. 2. They dissolve it, allowing the prime SEC/B10 targets to jump. 3. They stay together, hopefully finding a way for the FB schools to get paid more fairly compared to the market. IMO, 7 schools plus ND would need an iron-clad guarantee they have a better home (meaning an SEC or B10 invite on the table), which seems like a tall order. Also, it's a huge risk for us given the current state of VT FB. Who are the 7 best non-ND targets? Clemson FSU Miami NC UVA After that it's a pickem' for 2 of: Duke, NCSU, GT, VT and maybe Pitt, assuming the B10 goes light on ACC additions in favor of the likes of Washington/Oregon/Stanford. [I know Stanford alums, and getting into the B10 is a priority discussed at their fundraising events.] Weighing risk, I think #3 is the correct, albeit not most desirable, option for us.

"VT will always have a landing spot" aren't saying that anymore. They always assumed that the SEC would take one Va. school, and the B1G would take the other. Welp, that's no longer the case. Texas and OU to the SEC was a game changer and USC and UCLA just makes it worse. The fact that Stanford and Cal have no place in the P2 right now should make UVa nervous. The fact that Oregon and Washington have no place in the P2 right now should make VT nervous. The fact that states like Washington and Arizona have neither school in the P2 should make both schools nervous. VT needs to get its mojo back in football STAT. As of now, I think we should assume (even if we want to argue otherwise) that UVa is ahead of us in the expansion candidate horse race. And not being the top candidate in medium size state is not good spot. ** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 7/17/2022, 9:47:34 PM

Way back- the old Southern Conference broke up because the conference was just way too big I think. Also, the bigs did not want to play VMI,W&L etc..Also, this was before $ became such a big deal and keeping a conference where schools did not have to go many many miles.

if the media deal dies the GOR is effectively dissolved, and then we're back to familiar territory of exit fees and negotiations. takes a 3/4 vote (12) to change the constitution to waive all the penalties for departures but practically speaking if the 8 most profitable football programs don't want to be there, there isn't much point in having a conference. ** Edited by daveinop at 7/18/2022, 7:59:25 AM

I have looked and cannot find them. I’d also like to find a link to the ACC constitution. TIA

I don't know how to post it here It's 3/4 vote for amending the constitution and bylaws...see below "1.6 BOARD VOTING REQUIREMENTS 1.6.1 Quorum. Except as provided under applicable law, this Constitution or the Bylaws, two-thirds (2/3) of all Directors present at a meeting of the Board shall constitute a quorum of the Board; provided that, in the case of any matter requiring the affirmative vote of more than two-thirds (2/3) of all Directors present, a quorum shall only exist if at least that number of Directors equal to such required vote is present. 1.6.2 Required Vote. Each Director shall be entitled to one vote each. Except as otherwise provided herein or in the Bylaws, if a quorum is present when a vote of the Directors is taken, the affirmative vote of a majority of all Directors present for such vote shall be an act of the Board. For the avoidance of doubt, all references in this Constitution or the Bylaws to the affirmative vote of: (a) a majority or two-thirds (2/3) of all “Directors present”, shall mean a majority or two-thirds (2/3) of all the Directors who are present at a Board meeting at which a quorum exists; (b) two-thirds (2/3) of all the Directors, shall mean two-thirds (2/3) of all the Directors of the Board, even if one or more of such Directors is not present for such vote (“Absolute Two-Thirds Matters”); and (c) three-fourths (3/4) of all the Directors, shall mean three-fourths (3/4) of all the Directors of the Board, even if one or more of such Directors is not present for such vote (“Absolute Three-Fourths Matters”). The Absolute Two-Thirds Matters are as follows: (i) any amendment to Article 2.5 of the Bylaws (Finances), (ii) selecting or changing the location of the Conference office, (iii) entering into or amending any Material Media Rights Agreement (as defined in Section 2.3.1(q)), (iv) the appointment, extension of the term, or removal of the Commissioner or the other matters set forth in Section 1.5.2.1.1, and (v) the initiation of any material litigation involving the Conference (but not, for clarity, the settlement of any litigation involving the Conference, which requires the affirmative vote of a majority of all Directors present for such vote). The Absolute Three-Fourths Matters are as follows: (i) the admission of new Members to the Conference pursuant to Section 1.4.3, (ii) the expulsion, suspension or probation of a Member pursuant to Section 1.4.4, (iii) any amendment of this Constitution, (iv) any amendment of the Bylaws (except amendments to Article 2.5), and (v) waiver of notice or other required process for a Board meeting pursuant to Section 1.5.1.5.2. 1.6.3 Constitution and Bylaws Amendments. The initial draft of any proposed amendment to this Constitution or the Bylaws shall be submitted in writing to the Directors or their designees at least four weeks before the Board meeting at which such amendment shall be considered. Revised drafts reflecting material comments received within 14 days shall be sent to the Directors at least 10 days before the meeting; provided that motions for further amendments may be considered and adopted by the requisite vote at the meeting. 1.6.4 Waivers of Eligibility Rules. An approved waiver of the ACC initial-eligibility rule or the intraconference transfer rule requires an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of the FAR Committee present at a FAR Committee meeting and voting on the request and not less than a majority of the total members on the FAR Committee. All FAR Committee members, including the FAR representing the Member requesting the waiver, are eligible to vote. The FAR Committee may invite persons other than FARs to attend any such meetings of the FAR Committee, including any compliance expert or other advisor; provided that no such persons shall count toward a quorum nor be entitled to vote on any matter. 1.6.5 Sports Operation Code Amendments. The Commissioner, after consultation with the ADs and SWAs, shall submit proposed amendments to the Sports Operation Code to the FAR Committee, which may adopt any such amendment by a majority vote of the FARs present and voting on the issue. 1.6.6 General Policies and Procedures Amendments. Unless the Board decides it will vote on any such proposed amendments, the Commissioner, after consultation with the ADs and SWAs, shall submit proposed amendments to the General Policies and Procedures to the FAR Committee, which may adopt any such amendment by a majority vote of the FARs present and voting on the issue. 1.6.7 Effective Date of Amendments. All amendments to the ACC Manual shall become effective July 1 following adoption unless otherwise noted in the proposed amendment or the resolution(s) adopting the proposed amendment." ** Edited by daveinop at 7/18/2022, 7:48:13 AM

States North Carolina law on non profits only require a majority vote. Notre Dame has equal voting power so that would be 8 of 15 to dissolve.

is that a minimum requirement or an absolute requirement? are organizations prohibited from adopting something more stringent? In the ACC it's a 3/4 vote to amend the conference Constitution

That would be pretty easy if the Acc wants to go the nuclear option to get out of its Espn deal. More than 8 would have homes. I think thats why there is some leverage to get this deal reworked.

including Notre Dame. People have assumed it is a super majority but the bylaws do not mention super majority.

This means the SEC and B1G go all in on destroying the ACC. 4 teams each. Which it doesn’t appear will happen as it will cut into the profits of each school voting on any expansion while strengthening the recruiting/NIL of any opponents being added. It’s possible that ESPN and Fox drive it through in the next round of expansion, assuming they are profitable on this round.

The B1G and SEC would have to be very organized to cheaply totally destroy the ACC the way that GOR is set up. Or the B1G or SEC either one would have to take 1/2 the present members in the ACC. I feel that latter scenario is the only one realistically possible. Those two highly competitive conferences could never agree on dividing up those ACC schools. That would also mean one conference would have to go to 24 members. Even that would hinge on the B1G being finished taking Pac schools which I think is not over. Does the SEC want eight ACC teams? Not if you go by what is now coming out of the SEC front office. I also don't think the conference money caused disparage has reached anything close to that point yet. Maybe in the years ahead?

ESPN wouldn’t want the ACC broken up and have to pay an SEC premium for four of the schools. The top 8-10 ACC schools could, in theory, talk with Fox for a nice pay raise for those schools under a new conference umbrella. ESPN would bump up the ACC contract to try to prevent that.

That is the most creative plan I've seen yet. It would take a leap of faith by eight top schools acting together, because Fox could not be part of the plan until after the breakaway. I think you're on to something Colonel. This depends on the accuracy of the "eight members" needed for dissolution. But the plan might be able to muster ten renegades, if needed. ** Edited by 33laszlo99 at 7/17/2022, 3:28:06 PM

I have read that if half the schools in the ACC left that would nullify the GOR. That would presently be seven ACC members.

However I read it only took half the Conference leaving to nullify the ACC GOR. I was just on a Hokie site a couple hours ago and a Hokie fan there was talking about forming 2 separate groups of 4 ACC members with each group of 4 requesting membership in the B1G & SEC. They said Miami, Georgia Tech, North Carolina & Virginia should request membership in the B1G. With Clemson, FSU, Virginia Tech & North Carolina State requesting membership in the SEC. They said that would nullify those GOR penalties. What the majority is saying on this thread appears widespread knowledge. I understand that a TV contract is literally what must be obliterated. What is your source. ** Edited by WarHog38 at 7/17/2022, 10:12:52 PM