OK, OK - all smoke.  You are never going to get serious league realignment because folks like their traditional rivalries.  What would the world of hockey be without Wisconsin v. Minnesota (UMTC)?  But if the CHA is going to disappear and those teams have to go someplace, maybe some minor realignment becomes possible?

Note first that the East has it cozy.  Density of teams, short travel distances - it really doesn't make much sense to try to divvy them up differently.  Second, Alabama is an outlier and you really can't do much about that.  Likewise, the two Alaska teams are forever isolated.  Interestingly, especially when you consider great circle routes, travel distances to and from them don't change much regardless of which conference they belong to so it doesn't make any sense to do something with them.  But why should Air Force be in the ATL conference other than that's where a traditional rival (Army) is?  Geographically it doesn't make much sense.  That's the most obvious move to me.  So here is what I think:

Start with the 5 big conferences as they currently exist and make these changes:

ATL loses Air Force but adds Niagra, Robert Morris and Alabama.  That brings them to 12 teams.

CCHA loses UN-Omaha but adds Michigan Tech.  For MTU this adds travel time for league play, but UN-O saves more than MTU loses.  OTOH, this isn't necessary so is the least important change proposed.

WCHA loses MTU, but adds Air Force, BSU, and UNO.

With or without the UNO-MTU switch, this yields 4 leagues of 12 teams (HE is unaffected) and may be the best we can do geographically.  Of course, convincing folks to make these changes is another problem, but can anyone suggest a better realignment?

Tom Rowe