View Single Post
Old
07-20-2013, 09:25 AM
  #279
LegionOfDoom91
Registered User
 
LegionOfDoom91's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 18,624
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfreak7 View Post
The outrage over the "Eastern Division" would be even worse than the outrage over the Met Division.

"OMG! How can they have the same name for the division AND the conference?!"
"Best team in the East?! WTF does that mean now?"
"Leave it to the NHL to not be able to come up with something new or original!"
"Bettman's just making the game confusing for new fans now!"


And there would be much more valid criticism over an Eastern Division. No longer would you be able to say, "The Flyers have just won the East" without having to clarify which East you're referring to. I'd say that's more of an actual problem than anything the Met has introduced.

I don't like the fact that the history of the Atlantic division is now a bit cheapened, but I really think this was the most logical option if you're not going with "legend" names. Metropolitan fits our division better than it does the other one, and "Atlantic" applies for the other division in the same way "Pacific" applies for Phoenix, Calgary, and Edmonton. The teams in the East are so geographically clustered that any geographical name is going to have some sort of incongruous overlap.
Personally I would have went with the old Patrick, Adams, Norris, & Smythe Divisions names.

LegionOfDoom91 is offline