Bob:
The thought of a Big Ten conference is not far fetched. You've got five
schools right now and it doesn't take much imagination to predict that Penn
State (once Joe Pa finally leaves), Iowa, Illinois or Northwestern fielding
a team. Once that happens (and I predict it will, based on $$$ alone), then
the WCHA will need to raid the CCHA to stay viable.

Money talks in all this and I don't see any reason why the shifting sands of
conference affiliation can't affect hockey just as it has done with football
and roundball.  Change is definitely in the wind.

Happy Holidays to All!

Greg Ambrose


> Clay and Ed,
>
> Squarely in the "who said logic need apply" category, I just want to
> comment on my inability to visualize a WCHA without CC or Denver. If
> ever such a conference materializes, they should call it something else.
>
> I loved the old days when my Michigan was in the WCHA. Colorado College,
> Denver, North Dakota, Minnesota, Michigan Tech, Michigan State, Michigan
> and newbie Minnesota-Duluth. Reconstituting that conference today in my
> fantasies, it would of course include Wisconsin. So, for an eight-team
> conference, I'd have to boot Minnestota-Duluth (sorry Bulldogs, nothing
> personal, just no emotional attachment) but the better choice would be
> to grow it to an even number, ten or twelve, by adding newbies with
> Duluth who would make it interesting. My choices, in order, would be
> UNO, St. Cloud, and Northern Michigan. Now, those eight, ten or twelve
> would be a conference to enjoy!
>
> But aside from fantasy considerations, it's as much virtual blasphemy to
> speak of a WCHA without CC and Denver as it would be to exclude North
> Dakota or Minnesota or Michigan Tech. They "are" the WCHA. Wisconsin
> "is" now the WCHA. Everyone else is transitory.
>
> Bob Griebel