So, as we discussed here once before, the ECHL (East Coast) is merging with the WCHL (West Coast) after this current season, and had to come up with what to do about the name. Take a peak at this, I understand the reasoning, but geez - http://www.echl.com/news/?cat=1&id=1162
So now is it the "Each Coast Hockey League"?
Edit: note that the "Western Conference" now consists of one division of Gulf Coast teams and one division of West Coast teams.
Post Edited (05-21-03 06:47)
That's hilarious. It should just change its name to a symbol.
Greg,
Ya know, that crossed my mind when I first saw the articles a couple days ago...
No, really, I swear :-).
-Fred
Edit: "The league formally known as the ECHL"
Post Edited (05-21-03 13:05)
Well, Toronto was in the Western Conference until 1998. Detroit (eastern time zone) still is. Hockey just seems to follow late 18th century ideas of "West".
Atlanta will always be west; St. Louis will always be east. 1975 is the appropriate moment to freeze all league alignment forever.
QuoteGreg wrote:
Atlanta will always be west; St. Louis will always be east. 1975 is the appropriate moment to freeze all league alignment forever.
The NFL did a pretty decent job of keeping the nuclei of the old divisions together when they realigned into four divisions per conference. Atlanta and New Orleans (and Carolina) are still together, but now it's called the South instead of the West. I thought for sure they would send the Cowboys out west with the Rams and Niners, but they kept that wonderful Quadrangle of Hate (Giants-Cowboys-Eagles-Redskins) together. And the AFC Central basically split by nuclear fission.
The old NHL finessed this nicely with the named divisions. Bettman got rid of them during a hissy fit of NBA'izing the league, but nothing compares to the Norris Division. ;-)
The NFL did an excellent job of realigning. They realized that maintaining prime rivalries was more important than geography. Examples: they kept Kansas City with the AFC West and kicked out Seattle in order to keep the old AFL West together. Likewise they kept Miami in the AFC East instead of Indy in order to maintain the old AFL East grouping.
You mean the "Porous Division".
JH
Well, "excellent realignment" presumes that realignment was necessary, which presumes that previous expansions were necessary. It's a matter of taste. Personally, I can't name a franchise added after 1979 that has added anything to pro sports with the possible exception of the Ottawa Senators. Winnng teams and champs, yeah of course, but... ick.. fake teams.
Post Edited (05-23-03 20:12)
Agreed Greg. But given that they were expanding, which at least did even out the NFL divisions and simplify scheduling, the NFL did a very good job IMO.
That's true, although as a Seahawks' fan I thought it was horrible (though I fully recognize that since somebody was going to get screwed, "last in, first out" was the best way to do it).
Well, the Seahawks did spend their first season (way back when) in the NFC West with the Rams and Niners.