The topic of superiority east vs. west, I am sure will wait til after the
game.  And also make good fodder for the summer.  I think it just
oscillates from year to year. Certainly to us oldies from the 60s, there
is little difference in team level.  If you think there is, you should've
been there back in the 60s. Go look at the NCAA's. Virtually all blowouts,
east defeated by west. Things are much more even nowadays, and from the
perspective of the past, equivalent IMHO.  I don't think we should be
arguing est vs. west, but trying to spread the sport around, get it more
popular, etc.  Also, IMHO, the eastern fans are much more "ecumenical"
basically believing any college hockey is good hockey to watch ... fans of
the game.  We root for any eastern team vs the west.
 
In once posting a comment about more interleague meetings, I was told by
several people that one reason was economics, not travel, but that the
western fans would not come out to watch eastern teams (except for maybe
the top ones).  This attitude, IMHO, is why college hockey languishes in
popularity and is treated with disdain by ESPN (one of the reasons anyway)
....  I know I'll get flames, but I truly believe you cannot claim
superiority if your teams play mostly an "incestuous" schedule.  For
example, if the western teams had played more of the eastern teams this
year, it might have been a bit more obvious that there really was not that
much of a difference. In the language of science, do the experiment!
Without it, all is just opinion. Does the light go out when you close the
fridge door?
 
Tony Buffa
RPI '64, rooting for BU and hoping the game comes on at 31 minutes.
 
=======================
 
On Sat, 1 Apr 1995 [log in to unmask] wrote:
 
> While I'm mentioning that season of 1991-92, I recall that the folks
> out west spent most of that spring and summer talking about the All-West
> Phinal Phour, and the "superiority" of Western College Hockey,now that
> its an All-East (ahem, all Hockey East) Title Game, should we
> Easterners start claiming "superiority"?  I don't intend to, but it is
> food for thought.
>
===================