Sterling Cooper
New member
Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus
Exactly. And anyone want to venture a guess as to how Indiana, Illinois, Purdue, NW and Iowa are going to vote? Gee, are they going to side with Minnesota and its imbecilic and incompetent ad or are they going to side with the schools responsible for that Brinks Truck with $22 million dollars of television money that gets backed up to their doorstep every year? Hmmmmm? That's a toughie!
And the Big Ten Presidents are not going to do any favors for Notre Dame.
SC: HISTORICALLY, INSTITUTIONS NOT SPONSORING A SPECIFIC SPORT HAVE DEFERRED JUDGMENT REGARDING MANAGING THAT SPORT TO THE INSTITUTIONS THAT DO SPONSOR THE SPORT. HOWEVER, THERE IS NOTHING PROCEDURALLY THAT WOULD PROHIBIT ANY MEMBER INSTITUTION FROM VOTING ON THE ADDITION OF A BIG TEN CHAMPIONSHIP SPORT, EVEN IF AN INSTITUTION DOES NOT SPONSOR THAT SPORT.
Exactly. And anyone want to venture a guess as to how Indiana, Illinois, Purdue, NW and Iowa are going to vote? Gee, are they going to side with Minnesota and its imbecilic and incompetent ad or are they going to side with the schools responsible for that Brinks Truck with $22 million dollars of television money that gets backed up to their doorstep every year? Hmmmmm? That's a toughie!
SC: THERE ARE NO STANDING PROVISIONS REGARDING “ASSOCIATE” MEMBERS. JUST LIKE IN THE FIRST QUESTION, IN ORDER TO ADD AN ASSOCIATE MEMBER IN A SPORT, THE ADMINISTRATORS COUNCIL WOULD NEED TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION THAT WOULD THEN BE REVIEWED BY THE BIG TEN COUNCIL OF PRESIDENTS/CHANCELLORS.
And the Big Ten Presidents are not going to do any favors for Notre Dame.