-The 1940-48, 6 team league really isn't a viable comparison except on the surface. It has virtually nothing in common with the current NHL.

-What was the goal of the previous contraction effort? Was it for the same reasons, or did the teams just go under? I don't know the details on that and would be glad to learn. As for the WH>, I don't see adding teams to the NHL as contraction.

-This is an excellent point and one I didn't think much about. The easy answer would be to not bail out the next couple of teams in financial difficulties. In terms of fair market value being paid owners, I'm not sure how that would work. Let me think on it.

-Reducing the rosters would be a problem. I think a 3 line game would be less entertaining as all three lines would be exhausted late in periods, particularly in OT (and in the playoff OT marathons). Also, the 4th line is where many young players get a chance to learn the game and earn a spot, I don't want to see it get even harder for unknowns to break into the league.

Again, great points, and thanks!

Let's Go Caps!
www.washingtonhockey.com