[GaryVoshol]

I'm not thrilled with the idea of sticky divisions. I can see the point in making for divisional pride (I never understood the point of divisional cheers, for example). But any scheme for defining the sticky has problems.

Geographic is least desirable. Wildstang could never play with or against Poofs or Pink? I don't think so.

"Once you win, you're in" sounds somewhat reasonable, but still creates never-again matchups. If last year was used as a base, Wildstang and HOT would always be competing together, and never see ThunderChickens or Rhode Rage.

I think part of the appeal of CMP is getting the opportunity to compete with and against a variety of teams. That's one reason the A-B-C-D schemes for assigning were not fair. Adjacent team numbers never got to play together.

I think one way of assigning teams would be based on the regional they qualified from. For example, first take all the teams that pre-qualified (originals, HoF, past winners) and distribute them randomly in the divisions. Then take teams that qualified from BAE NH and divide them among the divisions. Then from San Diego, Washington, and the other Week 1 events. Follow through week by week. At the end, distribute teams that got there by means other than qualifying. This would tend to distribute the teams both geographically and strength-wise.