So, you assume that the people running the Big 10 would invest what it 
takes to start up a hockey conference without noticing that a rule would 
cause that all to be wasted in a couple of years?  Or do you think it 
might be the case that they made sure that the rule said that six teams 
are needed to form a conference, rather than stating that it must be a 
majority?

Based on a conversation I had years ago with someone who had worked in 
the conference offices, it's the former, not the latter.

On 10/30/2013 11:10 PM, Bob Griebel wrote:
> On 10/30/2013 10:04 PM, John Edwards wrote:
>>  and I think Chicago is likely - particularly if the B1G 10* is 
>> behind it.
>>
>> *-calculations made using Base 6.
>>
>
> Hmmm, but by the time a potential Chicago Frozen Four rolls around, 
> the Big 6/14ths Hockey Conference may be obsolete.  When Penn State's 
> upgrade to varsity hockey satisfied the Big 10's own rule that a Big 
> Ten Conference must be created for any sport in which half the Big Ten 
> schools participate, 6/12 = 50%.  But after Maryland and Rutgers come 
> aboard, 6/14 will equal 42.8571429%.
>
> And who knows who's yet to come aboard.  There are schools in other 
> time zones where broadcast sponsors would be delighted to benefit from 
> expanding market coverage.  Does the Big Ten have a minimum threshold 
> dissolution rule?
>
> Bob
>

-- 
J. Michael Neal

I've opened the box and I've touched the treasures of the earth
They're buried on the island far away
And I'm here in England with the map burning my pocket
Dreaming of diamonds..
Such a blinding secret to bear.