Air Force joined the AHA so they could play Army, they are not going to move 
to the WCHA, We can talk about this till we are blue in the face but it 
isn't going to happen. Also, Air Force couldn't compete on a regular basis 
against the WCHA teams would end up in the cellar of the WCHA on a 
consistant basis. The AHA is a good fit for them.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rowe, Thomas" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 12:51 PM
Subject: Geographic alignment


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