If 74 Senators were in favor of accomplishing something, whether that be a bill or another matter, even considering the Majority Leader being opposed, little would practically stand in their way. The most glaring matter is if you have 74 Senators in favor of a matter (more than 3/5 (60) to invoke cloture, and 2/3 (67)) the Senators would be able to close debate and/or appeal rulings and precedent as necessary, or even invoke rule changes.
What follows below is a list of reasons and authorities backing up the previous point, but to speak to a practical point, they likely wouldn't be necessary. If the Majority Leader began attempting to block and interfere with the will of a supermajority of the Senate, who can (as shown below) bypass the Majority Leader, they are effectively weakening their own position and control over the Senate and schedule. With the 74 votes the Senators would be able to not only move and pass a motion to proceed to the measure, but also invoke cloture on the measure and ensure it reaches a vote and can't be filibustered. Arguably most Majority Leaders would allow such measures to come to floor for a vote, as to not effectively be undermined by the vast majority of the Senate (including members of their own party). Much of the Senate operates on custom/precedent and it would be in the Majority Leader's interest to maintain their power inline with precedent by not trying to obstruct a piece of legislation supported, again, by a supermajority. If it were closer to only a regular majority, than there is less they could do and the Majority Leader would have more grounding to attempt to obstruct, but even then the tactic could be questionable and cause a loss of faith among even their own caucus members.
Even barring my previous statements the answer is very simply yes, a majority of the Senate can set/ change the schedule if they so choose and current practice is mostly custom. (Especially with a motion to proceed + cloture)
Below is a variety of citations and quotes on the authority and tools the Senators would be able to use to achieve said goal.
motion to proceed to consider
A motion in the Senate, which, if agreed
to by a majority of those present and voting, brings a measure (e.g.,
bill) or matter (e.g., nomination) before the chamber for
consideration. Often referred to simply as a “motion to proceed.”
https://www.congress.gov/help/legislative-glossary
General information regarding agenda setting:
Routine Agenda Setting One way in which the possibility of extended
debate affects the Senate's procedures is in how the Senate determines
its legislative agenda—the order in which it decides to consider bills
and other business on the floor. When a Senate standing committee
reports a bill back to the Senate for floor debate and passage, the
bill is placed on the Senate's Calendar of Business (under the heading
of "General Orders").
The Senate gives its majority leader the primary responsibility for
proposing the order in which bills on the calendar should come to the
floor for action. The majority leader's right to preferential
recognition already has been mentioned, as has Senators' general
willingness to relinquish to him the right to make the motion
(provided for in the standing rules) for deciding the order of
legislative business—namely, the motion that the Senate proceed to the
consideration of a particular bill.
Whenever possible, however, bills reach the Senate floor not by motion
but by unanimous consent. Under the Senate standing rules, the motion
to proceed to a bill usually is debatable and, therefore, subject to a
filibuster. (The question of proceeding to certain matters—for
example, to a conference report or to executive session to take up and
consider a nomination on the calendar—is not, however, subject to a
filibuster, though the matter itself is.) Even before the bill can
reach the floor (and perhaps face a filibuster), there may be extended
debate on the question of whether the Senate should even consider the
bill at all.
https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/96-548.html
Further, again, even to the extent anything may violate Senate norms, or even rules, becomes effectively meaningless once you have 67 (2/3) Senators, let alone 74.
Enforcing the Senate Rules and Precedents The Senate's presiding
officer (whether it is the Vice President or a Senator of the majority
party) does not always call a violation of Senate rules to the
chamber's attention.5 The Senate can violate its procedures unless a
Senator, at the right moment, makes a point of order that the proposed
action violates the standing rules, a constitutional provision, or
another authoritative source of procedure (i.e., standing order,
rulemaking statute, or unanimous consent agreement).6
When a point of order is raised, the presiding officer usually makes a
ruling without debate. Under Rule XX, the presiding officer has the
option of submitting "any question of order for the decision of the
Senate." This is rare but may occur if the existing rules and
precedents do not speak clearly on the parliamentary question at
hand.7
Any Senator can appeal the ruling of the presiding officer on a point
of order. The Senate might then decide, usually by majority vote, to
uphold or overturn the presiding officer's decision.8 This vote
establishes a precedent that guides the presiding officer in deciding
future questions of order unless this precedent is overturned by
another decision of the Senate or by a rules change. Some rulemaking
statutes require a supermajority vote to overturn on appeal the
presiding officer's ruling on a point of order.9
Parliamentary actions taken on the basis of an informal practice, or
pursuant to a rule of one of the Senate's party conferences, are not
enforceable on the Senate floor. While informal practices and party
conference rules can affect actions taken in Senate committee and the
Senate floor, they are not invoked through an exercise of the Senate's
constitutional rulemaking authority. Hence, they do not have the
authority of Senate rules and procedures. Informal practices evolve
over the years as custom and party conference rules are adopted and
enforced by each party.
https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL30788.html
Further agenda setting information/ proceeding:
Offering Agenda-Setting Motions and Requests Under chamber rules,
technically any Senator may offer the necessary agenda-setting motions
"to proceed to the consideration" of a bill, resolution, or item of
executive business. However, by long-established custom, in practice
only the majority leader or his or her designee offer agenda-setting
motions. (See CRS Report RS21255, Motions to Proceed to Consider
Measures in the Senate: Who Offers Them?, by [author name scrubbed]
and [author name scrubbed].) Items called up are often those on the
Senate's legislative or executive calendars, either reported by
committee or, in the case of bills and joint resolutions, placed on
the legislative calendar directly under Rule XIV (see CRS Report
RS22309, Senate Rule XIV Procedure for Placing Measures Directly on
the Senate Calendar, by [author name scrubbed]).
Motion to Proceed Alternatively, the majority leader may move to
proceed to the consideration of the measure or matter. Normally, this
motion is debatable. Debate on the motion can be ended only by
unanimous consent or by invoking cloture. If the motion to proceed is
agreed to, consideration of the bill begins without debate limits
(unless also imposed by unanimous consent or cloture).
There are few circumstances in which a motion to proceed is not
debatable. Motions to take up certain privileged items of business
(discussed in the next section) are not debatable. Although
infrequently used, debate is also prohibited on motions to proceed
offered on the beginning of a new legislative day during the "morning
hour" after the completion of "morning business." Under Senate Rule
VIII, a two-hour period known as the morning hour occurs automatically
at the beginning of a new legislative day, and within this two-hour
period, a period is reserved for the transaction of morning business,
such as the filing of committee reports and the receipt of executive
communications. Under this Rule VIII procedure, the motion to proceed
is not debatable if offered during the morning hour. If the motion is
agreed to, the measure becomes the pending business before the Senate.
At the end of the morning hour, any unfinished legislative business
pending on the previous day when the Senate adjourned will displace
the measure just taken up.
The non-debatable motion to proceed under Rule VIII poses many
parliamentary difficulties and is, therefore, rarely used by the
majority leader. In actual practice, the Senate almost always begins a
new legislative day under procedures established by unanimous consent,
rather than relying on the automatic procedures for a morning hour
contained in Rule VIII. Such unanimous consent agreements commonly
include a stipulation that the morning hour be "deemed to have
expired."
https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/98-836.html
Motion to proceed/ bringing measures to the floor:
Bringing Measures to the Floor in the Senate
In contemporary practice,
bills and resolutions (collectively, "measures") normally reach the
floor of the Senate for consideration either by unanimous consent or
through agreement on a motion to proceed to consider (often called
simply a "motion to proceed" or "MTP").1 Most measures considered
today reach the floor by unanimous consent; the motion to proceed is
normally reserved for situations when unanimous consent cannot be
obtained. In consequence, measures called up by motion are more likely
to be controversial or highly contested than those considered by
unanimous consent.
Unanimous consent to consider a measure may be granted in the form of
either (1) a simple request for unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to consider the measure, or (2) a broader unanimous consent
agreement that typically also prescribes terms for consideration, such
as limits on debate and amendments. If any Senator objects to such a
request, in either form, a motion to proceed may then be offered.
However, if the leadership is aware that objection would be raised to
such a unanimous consent request, the majority leader (or a designee)
may offer the motion to proceed without first seeking unanimous
consent. In these instances, the majority leader often files a cloture
petition at the time the motion to proceed is made.2
Senate Rule VIII, paragraph 2, which provides for the motion to
proceed, places no restrictions on who may offer the motion.3
Nowadays, however, the Senate normally cedes to the majority leader
the prerogative of calling up measures, either by motion or by
unanimous consent. Absent this deference, it would be difficult for
any majority leader to carry out his function of managing the
schedule, and in recent decades a substantial majority of motions to
proceed have been offered by the majority leader. Nevertheless, other
Senators have made that motion as well, sometimes without direction
from the majority leader. This report presents data on the total
number of motions to proceed offered in each recent Congress, with
particular attention to the small number of these motions not made by
direction of the majority leader.
https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RS21255.html
https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RS20668.pdf
I hope this helps.
