> 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.