|
|
#24
10-02-2007, 05:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Can anyone name one positive thing about having conferences in spo
[ QUOTE ]
Assani, Travel comes to mind, for one thing. [/ QUOTE ]Travel was a good excuse in the 50s, when traveling across the country was burdensome. These days, where all the clubs are so rich, they have chartered flights, the travel excuse is stupid. Why should the Phoenix Coyotes and San Jose Sharks play each other 8 times in a season (including 3 games in a row at one point!) while not playing some of east coast teams even once? Is a 6 hour chartered flight really that more burdensome than a 2 hour chartered flight? 
|
|
#25
10-02-2007, 05:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Can anyone name one positive thing about having conferences in sports?
conferences exist because they help build interest, which makes money
|
|
#26
10-02-2007, 05:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Can anyone name one positive thing about having conferences in sports?
[ QUOTE ]
Now I understand the need for divisions in the NFL- rivalries in the NFL, unlike other pro sports, are more based on regular season games(whereas in other sports, nearly every great rivalry stems from the postseason). So you want to have 2 DAllas/Washington or GB/Chicago games each year. Thats fine. But whats the point in conferences? And in the NBA, why not just lose divisions all together? [/ QUOTE ]The theory is that, if it is good for one sport, why isn't it good for another? I don't think you can take the position that CHI/GB is a good rivalry and they should play multiple times a year, but Suns/Lakers isn't a good rivalry and they should play a balanced schedule. Either it's good for all sports or no sports.
|
|
#27
10-02-2007, 05:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Can anyone name one positive thing about having conferences in spo
gus,
No argument here. I think it's a BS excuse too. Cost, logistics, and efficiency are way improved from back in the day. Which is why the 2-3-2 in the NBA is so stupid.
|
|
#28
10-02-2007, 05:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Can anyone name one positive thing about having conferences in spo
I wouldn't mind seeing two conferences for each sport, east and west, with no divisions. That doesn't bother me much.
|
|
#29
10-02-2007, 05:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Can anyone name one positive thing about having conferences in spo
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Assani, Travel comes to mind, for one thing. [/ QUOTE ]Travel was a good excuse in the 50s, when traveling across the country was burdensome. These days, where all the clubs are so rich, they have chartered flights, the travel excuse is stupid. Why should the Phoenix Coyotes and San Jose Sharks play each other 8 times in a season (including 3 games in a row at one point!) while not playing some of east coast teams even once? Is a 6 hour chartered flight really that more burdensome than a 2 hour chartered flight? [/ QUOTE ] The problem is not the one two hour flight, but the road trip scheduling. The NHL routinely schedules 3 games in 4 nights to be played on the road, which usually means at least one sloppy game and probably two. Plus, there's little at stake in inter-conference NHL games. To me, travel is still a viable excuse - playing an 82 game schedule + 20-25 games in the playoffs for the Stanley Cup winner is not easy. Then you have to factor in the games being on in different time zones, which is annoying for anyone on the East or West coast.
|
|
#30
10-02-2007, 06:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Can anyone name one positive thing about having conferences in sports?
Two reasons I can think of for geography based conferences and divisions:
1. Television. If you're on the East Coast and your team is playing a night game on the West Coast or vice versa, you won't be able to watch it if you have a job. 2. Rivalries. Rivalries tend to form with teams close to you. Fans can travel to watch their teams more readily and you're more likely to have a mixed allegiance city. Travel expenses are chump change for major professional leagues.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
