My first reaction is that a CCHA/WCHA merger would be a good
idea. An interlocking schedule is a weaker idea. Of course, the
implementation details of either move would make a big
difference.
 
Here's what I think would work. Please remember that this is 100%
unofficial, just based on what I heard on the net and my
imagination...
 
1. 21 teams: 9 current WCHA teams + 9 current CCHA teams
	+ Notre Dame + Alaska-Anchorage + Alaska Fairbanks
 
2. 4 divisions: 3 divisions of 5 teams each, 1 division of 6
   teams. How to align the divisions would be one of the biggest
   sticking points.
 
3. Schedule: I like the friday-saturday series format that the
   WCHA uses. I also HATE unbalanced schedules.
 
    5-team divisions: Each teams plays
	all 4 teams in the division
		in 2-game home series	 8 games
	all 4 teams in the division
		in 2-game road series	 8 games
					16 games in the division
 
	7 teams not in the division
		in 1 home game each	 7 games
	another 7 teams not in the division
		in 1 road game each	 7 games
	2 teams not in the division
		in 0 games		 0 games
					14 games out of the division
					__
					30 league games total
 
    6-team division: Each team plays
	all 5 teams in the division
		in 2-game home series	10 games
	all 5 teams in the division
		in 2-game road series	10 games
					20 games in the division
 
	5 teams not in the division
		in 1 home game each	 5 games
	another 5 teams not in the division
		in 1 road game each	 5 games
	5 teams not in the division
		in 0 games		 0 games
					10 games out of the division
					__
					30 league games total
 
4. Points: all games are worth 2 points
 
5. playoffs: I see lots of possibilities:
	a. division regular-season winners in a 4-team playoff
	b. division regular-season winners and runner-ups in an
	   8-team playoff
	c. division regular-season winners and the 4 next best
	   teams in an 8-team playoff
 
PROS (vs. doing nothing with the current conferences):
 
1. Overhead savings: The resources that currently go into two league
   offices could be saved, or directed to new projects (better league
   publicity, etc). This probably isn't a lot from the financial point
   of view (compared to the team's budgets), but is a lot in terms of
   getting hockey people coordinated in their efforts, and not oding
   duplicate and possibly competing work
 
2. solves the 34-game limit problem
 
3. gets the Alaska teams into a league
 
4. Fans will be exposed to more teams: 11 league teams at home and 7 on
   the road (for the 5-team divisions)
 
5. opens up 2 more non-league games
 
6. preserves a reasonable balanced schedule (not perfect)
 
7. (most likeley) preserves most of the current "traditional" rivalries
 
8. Division play is worth more points than non-division play
 
 
CONS
 
1. Scheduling will be harder, especially working in the 1-game matchups
   and 2-game series (friday-saturday for 2-game series and friday-sunday
   for 2 1-games matches in a week?)
 
2. Aligning the conferences will be tough.
 
3. Some traditional rivalries will probably be lost
 
4. Not everyone plays everyone, so some teams will have a tougher
   league schedule than others, just on the basis of who they play,
   where
 
5. Travel expenses will probably go up, no matter how the divisions are
   aligned.
 
6. Loss of the two conference championship tournaments (replaced
   with one new tounament)
 
any comments?
 
	--david
 
ps: VERY Soon we can talk about actual games....
--------
david parter					[log in to unmask]
university of wisconsin -- madison		computer sciences department