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