Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="TruDomGopher, post: 1284620, member: 4159"] Wow--I read through Flugaur's twitter thread and I'm still trying to digest the implications. Initial thoughts: B1G has jumped the shark and now plans on abandoning the conference model for letting television run things and has just brought the idea of pay-for-play from a single game concept to a conference wide endeavor. (My worst fear.) Or--the B1G is far more confident in their ability to grow B1G schools than I thought. I remember when Rutgers joined--Delany said they were a "project" and they were confident that Rutgers would grow over time. (I think he was referring primarily to football.) Seemed confident enough. So...if you can't entice a school you want, in say, Texas or other desired geography, then find a school you can [U]grow[/U]. Rice is AAU but doesn't come close to B1G metrics otherwise, especially in sports. However, an affiliate thing [U]might[/U] work if--big if--it includes a path to full membership. Otherwise, it's simple pay-for-play. Rice, based on geography, suddenly starts looking like a B1G target? Never in my wildest dreams would I have picked Rice as the traveling partner that brings in UConn but if it works out that way--and UConn has a path from affiliate to full membership--then by all means: Yes, an affiliate membership could work. Rice? No idea but it's at least something fresh and interesting to mull over. How would you'll feel about that? [/QUOTE]