In the past it seemed the there were two leagues because of geography. The WPSL was in the west and the W-league in the east. I was wondering why teams like Steel City chose the WPSL over the W-league, or if they weren't good enough for the W-league.
Well, I know for one thing, the W-League is fairly careful about its expansion, as it already is chock full of teams, whereas the WPSL just went national a couple or so years ago (They came to be as a result of a secession by a few disenchanted W-League teams, apparently). As far as one league's worth over the other, I don't know. I have a feeling it's somewhat cheaper to run a WPSL team (I think that was one of the reasons for the aforementioned secession). Not sure what other advantages there are. The USSF and/or FIFA see both leagues as having the same divisional status. However, the W-League is probably superior. It does have more history, especially on a national level. Talent, as well, although that gap is closing somewhat because of the WUSA's issues.
If they are the same caliber of talent it would be nice to see the champions play each other. Sort of like how the super bowl started between the NFL/AFL. IMHO since the WUSA it is more important than ever to build the sports popularity with the semi-pro grass roots, and a consensus national champ might help improve each leagues' status.
Either that or maybe pressure the USSF to redesignate the WPSL as a lower division league than the W-League. I'd prefer it this way although it seems just as improbable. Why do I prefer it that way? Because it seems the WPSL is run more loosely than the W-League. For instance, much more liberal subbing rules, and roster rules.
This will never happen. Too much animosity between the two years, especially with some of the movement recently of W-League teams breaking into the WPSL (ex. Maryland Pride).