

[stuff deleted...]

  
As I recall, the author of the _original_ article that started the thread
claimed that he disliked the changing of the names for a variety of reasons. 
Roger, on one front you flamed him rather severely on the grounds that his
was a "jingoistic rant", but you also supported the name-changing on the
grounds that the current names are inappropriate because of the individuals
they represent. FWIW, I do not think the flaming was warranted, nor do I 
think you enhanced what credibility you have with it at all.  Just an 
observation...

However, that aside, the real question is whether you like the idea of
changing the names based on the reasons given for it (making it easier for
the 'casual fan'), or whether you like the idea of unique divisional names
based on individuals who do deserve the honour.  IMO, the latter is a nice
and unique touch that differs from other sports.  In addition, I do not
think that changing divisional names will have an effect on the number of
people that are interested in hockey, so it's a pointless exercise anyway.

If the current names are inappropriate, then that is a separate issue, not 
central to the original article.  Something to consider additionally is
whether or not players like Orr who 'contributed to the glory of the sport'
would have been able to do so _without_ an organized professional league to
play in.  In this case, honouring builders of the _league_ as opposed to
builders of the _sport_ becomes a chicken-and-egg type question. (although
it was the chicken.....)


Dunno if the Stein comparison is justifiable, since it doesn't look as though
his 'unanimous acceptance' to the Hall will hold up.

