I looked at the ice hockey schools north of Penn State to penetrate New England, as you mentioned, and the only one I think that would fit the B1G mold as a great affiliate addition would be Boston University. They are an AAU school (2012) in Boston with great hockey tradition (5 national championships - 2009 most recent - and 21 frozen four appearances).

They really need 2 hockey programs. Just about every school in the Big Ten has some sort of hockey program (D2, D3, club) and if they are paying each hockey schools an extra 2 million a year, it may make it worth it to officially add the sport.

I don't see a quality hockey affiliate out there, but I do think this puts more emphasis on getting Notre Dame (w/ both hockey/LAX) with either Boston College (hockey) or Syracuse (LAX).

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...

I think the B1G would definitely benefit from hockey or lacrosse teams being created from within the conference and by adding full-time programs and not affiliates, but why do you think Boston University is not a "quality hockey affiliate?" It adds a big market for hockey, is an AAU school, and has a great history in collegiate hockey?

Everything you said about Boston U is true, but I didn't chose the right word when I said "quality." Yes, they could be a quality affiliate however they play in Hockey East, which at the moment is a better hockey conference and has other great local membership in New England. To leave that for the Big Ten would be "awkward" for both parties.

Plus its not really the Big Ten's M.O., they have only ever offered an affiliate membership to JHU at LAX who was everything you listed for Boston U however they were already independent and ONLY participated in D1 as a LAX member (all other sports D3). And there really isn't a JHU(LAX) like school out there in hockey at the moment. If Boston U's hockey team was relocated to MIT, Carnegie Melon, Case Western, Tufts, or Emory then I think they'd be a great candidate, but as is I don't think the Big Ten will come calling.

Nebraska and Northwestern are the next to add IMO.

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...

Ohh I see. I can understand that. I could see Nebraska bringing up a team if Nebraska-Omaha can support one. Northwestern being in Chicago is a most definitely.

Believe me, the B1G has probably approached the Ivy League schools en masse as a consideration. Not saying it would happen, and obviously, the scholarship issue, among others, would be a top issue, but don't think for a second that the Big Ten wouldn't do things for programs like Cornell and that cluster that they wouldn't do for Notre Dame or Boston College.

Outside of the Ivies and the unlikely BC and ND, I think RPI could fit. Rennselaer isn't the ice hockey equivalent of JHU lacrosse, but it's a respectable program, a research giant, at the doorstep of the North Atlantic, and while not in the AAU, runs in those schools' circles.

While I do think it's the east where the Big Ten wants to move, whether into New England for hockey or lacrosse, or the southeast for the revenue sports, I also think Denver might get some consideration, for all of its programs. If any PAC school ever considers fielding ice hockey or lacrosse, they'll probably get a B1G invite. And if Toronto ever wants to join the NCAA, I'm sure there's one on the table for them, too.

Everything looks like UNL is poised to someday soon play hockey at the D1 level, but I don't know if UNO, or the entire Nebraska regency, don't throw up some fights against it. UNO sunk so much money and dropped several programs to make hockey one of its priorities. No way UNL gets to smoothly field one and directly into the Big Ten. No way.

I shall keep it general here since reading multiple posts.

Ice Hockey - That may be the one sport for partial membership in the B1G given the uniquess of certain regionalization. The B1G may go only as far on this to assure balance and sufficient numbers. The focus may be to develop within, a part mentioned above.

Raiding the SEC - There is a dream thread on this site, use it people.

Vanderbilt - They certainly do have SEC rivals though less intense than most others. Ole Miss has been the permanent cross division rival and their record of playing each other goes to the time when they both began intercollegiate sports. Kentucky is a border neighbor, and games with VU are generally competitive even if it is to escape being the fb bottom dweller for certain years. Kentucky-VU bb is one of the more intense rivalries in the conference. Such is not a joke.

Conference revenue - There is no question the B1G has a significant plurality on TV earnings, and the BTN has shown a lucrative start. How that may look in 10 years or 15 years is not all clear. The B1G shall remain up there, given their composition, locations, foundation, and existing investments. However, that does not mean that will retard the strides of others as it pertains to TV and marketing development. A super division will effect all this with the lower profile conferences grasping for crumbs.

SEC TV - ESPN hiring Paul Finebaum for the SEC network, and producing a talk show out of the network's regional base in Charlotte, NC may not be something to ignore. Give it time, something is developing here.

Missouri - ranked in the AP top 25. Doesn't look like they are showing misgivings.

Big 12 - Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Baylor, Oklahoma all ranked. The Iowa State--Texas results, may show parity outside the revenue aspect and it is not at the very top. This conference may not break apart and they may not want to. If they want to add and renew the ccg, they certainly can do so. Getting ten of their members to dump the GOR with promises by three other conferences at the same time is not happening. The Big 12 has enough to control much of its future.

B1G expansion - Will they be 16 or more? Not anytime soon. If AAU membership remains a must, that's the way they define it. But AAU membership and automatically prefering the B1G did not play-out with the ACC which revised their own formula for being elite, however questionable it may be defined. It worked in Louisville's behalf.

SEC expansion - May one day add two in the east and move Missouri to the west. Not anytime soon either. Probably nothing else shall come from the Big 12.

Rutgers, Maryland - Maybe Maryland is really happy now they'll not be seeing FSU in the future. Rutgers shows steady improvement and I believe it was not a bad Big Ten addition. Maryland and Rutgers will indeed give the Big Ten extended east coast exposure that will favor enhanced recruiting and cable subscriber sales. But that should not get over-stated too soon. Under-whelming expectations have been displayed before when it comes to a collection of east coast schools, meaning real east of Penn State. Value is there, but breaking all the limitations is no guarantee.

A big reason why these schools saw such favor for inclusion is their size. Even before the merger in NJ, Rutgers was a big school. Now, it's even bigger. Maryland was something like the ACC's second largest school.

The size component is one that got Missouri onto these studies, regardless whether they came/come out members of the Big Ten. Missouri was something like the Big XII's third largest school (and a distant one behind the Texas twosome of UT and aTm), and is the SEC's fourth largest (only just behind UGA for the third spot there). More than just the markets covered by the states where these schools reside, the number of alumni, and where they go, is of interest to the conference. I agree that the Big Ten was a bit off in its dealings with UM (especially if they were at one time about to be invited), but does UM become a way to protect the Big Ten's grasp of the midwest from an alumni base that's intermixed with other Big Ten school alumni? Maybe the Big Ten didn't expect the SEC to want Missouri, much like it felt it had things shored up with Rutgers and the apathy of the ACC?

We're running this Mizzou thing into the ground, but what developed cannot be overlooked. I am sure the B1G examined Mizzou before adding Nebraska, and we can all agree the message was Mizzou was not the B1G's top choice, and probably not the second or third choice given the conference turned east next. At the start, Mizzou looked liked an obvious pick. I would venture to say, considering all aspects, Mizzou would have been a more plausible choice than Nebraska. The B1G did not see it that way, at least initially or then. Maybe it was Nebraska fb success in recent decades; maybe it was a desire for a more west extension; maybe it was a clash of personalities among the decision-makers about Mizzou; maybe some key individual had animosity toward someone associated with the school; maybe some or near all of this. What weighed heavily, I believe, Nebraska had conducted a long-term, strategic, and discreet lobbying effort that proved successful. Something similar may be said about Rutgers. Maryland was a bit of a suprise, but not terribly unexpected. It took the right timing, the right administration of the school, couple with the financial concerns, and the enticements, to make it come together.

We see certain schools that we say may be better fits with others. Using South Carolina as an example, they were an ACC charter member as Maryland was. South Carolina looked in most dimensions, as an ACC staple. But Paul Dietzel took them out of the ACC to exist as an independent in all-sports which did not work out so well. And there were detractors about So. Carolina heading into the SEC. In any case, they got to be where they wanted most. Arkansas? Texas A&M? Those moves got questioned also to varying degrees.

There's talk of the need for Oklahoma to move, Kansas to move, and certainly Texas. On paper, one could argue Texas would be wise to follow Texas A&M into the SEC. The first problem would be to "follow". What would make sense does not make sense. Pride, control, attitude, protectionism, and perhaps targeted resentment drive so much of this. If Texas does not like certain SEC profiles, academically and/or athletically, then they are following their preferences not to go there, and they do have options. For the SEC, getting into the State of Texas with a major school was achieved. The dynamics are further diminished for UT and the SEC to be a pursued match. I expect Texas, and Oklahoma (with OSU) for that matter, will not end up in the SEC. It's fine, schools need to strive to be where, realistically, they are most happy.

Notre Dame makes sense for the B1G. But the Irish found yet another arrangement to do exactly what they wanted to do.

Mizzou and the SEC hooked-up by the right timing and opportunity. If the B1G missed an opportunity, that's their mistake if they see it that way now. Can a conference's mistake in decision-making be corrected? That depends on circumstances. And for Mizzou, they made the change and it is no longer about leaving a conflicted B12. I suppose Mizzou's resolve can get tested and be the object of luring. But prior factors are not the same as now or the new future, and the intensity of motives to change can go downward in short order to a comfort level that's secure. The question is has such already been reached. In a structural way, yes.

Posted in the Big XII thread, but more appropriate for this one: UNC emails released from the discovery of the UMD-ACC dispute.

UNC to the Big Ten? Probably never a real option.

Indiana AD Fred Glass...16's his "sweet spot."

I would only remind people who keep trying to lump Texas and Oklahoma together because of geography, rivalry or "tradition" that UT and OU had quite the healthy rivalry when they were in the Big 8 and SWC conferences. I see no need for them to stay in the same conference just to preserve the Red River Rivalry, when that rivalry will likely continue regardless.

Hamburger, you are correct that the two schools had a long and successful rivalry before the Big 12 was formed. However, that does not mean they don't want to be in the same conference now and in the future. That seems especially true for Oklahoma.

Fine points, however if Texas and Oklahoma split up it will be more difficult to play OOC than big in the Big 8/SWC days.

Conference schedules are going to 9 games which limits OOC opportunities. Add in a permanent OOC rival and it get really difficult.

Add to it that the state of Texas, A&M, and a large number of UT alums want to rekindle that rivalry OOC and it could be difficult if they split up.

OU may have the same issue if OSU doesn't come along for the ride either.

This is why I'm a fan of joining the PAC16 (<<<<as if yall couldn't tell) it keeps a nice chuck of UT/OU main rivals together and allows for a permanent OOC game against A&M/Nebraska.

And if the Big Ten is wanting UT, I highly doubt #2 is GA Tech. It'd be Oklahoma almost without a doubt.

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...

I don't know if the Big Ten would take Oklahoma without Texas. It's not just OSU, but the other issues handling them might entail, including the adjustment of the conference schedule to accommodate the RRR. Those kinds of concessions...I don't know.

I also have to wonder if the Big Ten is waiting for the PAC to do something, ANYTHING at this point. Or, waiting for another conference to expand to 16 first, since the Big Ten taking the lead on anything expansion-related is not like them, even if they have been vocal about preference for something other than 14 members.