> Clearly, the best choice is to have the WCHA absorb the two CHA teams.

Well, no. That is not clearly the best choice. That is a convenient
choice for everyone else. If "take them for the good of college hockey"
is the argument, the same argument can be made for some conference
realignment, "for the good of college hockey."

Scheduling an 11-team league in a fair manner, given the various
constraints is almost impossible. It is not clear that scheduling a
12-team league with the same constraints is really any easier.

This would all be a lot easier if the WCHA arenas were all within
slapshot distance of each other, but they aren't.

Even ignoring financial cost, is Alabama-Huntsville a good fit for the
WCHA? I don't know. Sometimes it is hard to figure out what the WCHA
really is, given the mix of schools.

Bemidji has a much stronger case -- location, tradition, similarity to
the other Minnesota state schools...

But lets talk about financial cost. For some of the WCHA teams, their
budget depends on the "big draw" games for home ticket sales (I believe
some schools charge more for the tickets to those games too). Diluting
that further by adding teams that displace high income home games could
be a disaster.

Does adding either school make the WCHA more attractive to sponsors and
TV? Bemidji is probably attractive enough to sponsors who are already ok
with the various Minnesota schools. TV? Again, BSU probably works in the
Minnesota/North Dakota (Grand Forks) market as well as
anyone. Huntsville? Not so much.

   --david

ps: and the obligatory Big 10 conference talk, since no one else took
the bait: it doesn't really help other than forcing realignment (or at
least change) on the WCHA and CCHA.