(12-06-2017 06:23 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 01:44 PM)Bogg Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 01:35 PM)NoDak Wrote:  Well Notre Dame disliked the situation in Hockey East enough to get in bed with the Big Ten. Don't think ND especially likes that arrangement either.

Six in a conference is not preferred. Neither the MAC or ACC are likely to get to six or eight..

The MAC adding a couple affiliates to form a conference is entirely feasible. BC bailing on Hockey East and Notre Dame leaving the B1G (which is actually a really good fit for them in hockey) so they can start a conference with some G5 schools and a couple startups is a big stretch.

Notre Dame played in a hockey conference with Umass-Lowell and DII Merrimack. At least all the teams except Oakland would be FBS. BC hasn't had problems associating with those and Vermont, UNH, and Maine. The hockey world doesn't have many options. BC's option might be to leave the ACC so it isn't forced on them.

Yeah, BC would leave the ACC, and all that Power 5 money, and sac their football program over its hockey conference.

BC isn't leaving Hockey East and the ACC wouldn't force them too even if it had enough teams.

My guess is that Pitt would only even consider sponsoring hockey if a slot was eventually made available to them in Hockey East or the Big 10.

If the ACC got to 4 teams that sponsor hockey, which is the minimum number that I believe is required by conference bylaws for them to sponsor a championship, I could see them holding their own mini ACC championship at some point during or throughout the regular season (not for an autobid), while BC, ND, and whichever other teams continued to compete primarily in their home conferences. Sort of like some ECAC championships that are still held. This also happens in some Division 2 conferences with split memberships for different sports. That is far as it would go because there is never likely to be more than 4 or 5 ACC teams sponsoring hockey.