East without West

by John Fontana on Apr 26, 2004 5:04 PM EDT in Media

There's a poll on TSN.ca that I find interesting and the results I find quite amusing.

Would you be in favor of the East not meeting the West during the regular season?

The staggering vote is for NO, that East should meet up with West. I'm part of the minority vote that decided that the East should stay East. Now why would I side like that?

Looking past the Ultra-traditionalist insistence that all Canadian Teams play each other, there isn't much reason why the East should play the West during the season. Oh sure, Eastern Conference cities would absolutely love to see some of the talent from out west -- I look forward to when the Colorado Avalanche visit the Lightning every single year because the games are so damned exciting. The problem is the big games inter-conference are so few and far between that it just isn't justified for schedule making.

Perhaps adopting an NFL like system of rotating-divisions from each conference should be taken up? It helps in the final schedule design but also limits trips out west. It doesn't kill off any National rivalries - it just delays them for a season or two during the division rotation.

The NHL needs to move past the Ultra-traditionalist stance on things if the masses are going to pick up the game... You don't market to a select few with a pro sports league. You want to appeal to the masses and maximize marketing and coverage. Unfortunately the Ultra-Traditionalist runs the NHL and it makes the league more backwards than Major League Baseball.

Tweet Comment 2 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I’m not entirely sure where wanting to see all teams play is an “ultra-traditionalist” attitude, other than the fact that it is a Canadian site that ran the poll.

Thing is – for me at least – even the bad interconference matchups are more exciting than yet another game against Minnesota or Columbus or Chicago.

Interconference play adds more flavour to the schedule. For every game you gain against a top rival, you gain a game against a mediocre opponent you dont want to see.

by Keith on Apr 26, 2004 5:04 PM EDT reply actions

I won’t get into the Ultra-traditionalist thing but as for wanting to see a different mix of teams than the same old mix every night – that’s part of the reason, actually, I am for barring conferences from playing each other.

Look, what happens when Phoenix visits anyone in the east? There’s no pizzaz, no rivalry. THis is the truth when Carolina goes out West too. I believe that having each conference play in their own division helps build rivalries and make those teams more entertaining.

Of coruse, when a certain team sucks for years on end because of bad management (the blackhawks) there is a detested attitude when seeing them as the opponent. But when they get better? They’re nto looked at as also rans but as a rival. You think Montreal fans are going to pass on watching the Lightning and the Habs at the Bell Center next season if the Lightning were to dispatch Les Habitants in 4 games?

What happens if Chicago turns it around and goes to Calgary and puts Ignila’s ass in a sling? Rivalry commences between the two cities and it boosts ticket sales, it helps the league.

Sometimes I complain that the divisions are too geographically aligned (Detroit in the West?! Columbus?!) and at others I think that we need to focus on Geography to develope the sport as a whole… Pitting East vs. West only on the Stanley Cup Final would boost interest for the final and TV ratings… And you and me have talked turkey about TV more times than not in private discussions.

The league’s got to do more than add extra offense to the game to market it…

by John F on Apr 26, 2004 5:04 PM EDT reply actions