Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire
I don't get why that is. For as long as I can remember, the east standings have usually been structured like this:
1. Solid contender that can hold its own against top western teams and goes to the Grey Cup
2. Mediocre team that can occasionally pull it together and challenge #1
3. Mediocre team that can't challenge #1 and loses the playoff spot in the crossover
4. Total basketcase team that hardly wins a game
|
While there have been times western teams have faltered (Saskatchewan, Calgary, BC have all had their struggles with survival at points in their history) I think the tendency for eastern ones to be on thin ice for extended periods, or on repeated occasions, has translated to their performance. But there was always one good team that was strong across the board.
And even when "stable", in many cases poor ownership has affected management. Poor management decisions affected coaching and personnel, which was then reflected on the field. This seemed to be the story in Hamilton during much of the 1970s, 80s, and 90s.
Even with stable ownership, the Ticats took a long time to strengthen their overall structure. Lots of mistakes, the wrong people calling the shots, signing the guy who would take the team to championships without filling the roster with a solid supporting cast, etc. With better management and coaching the winning records haven't come easily, though the team has been a lot more competitive since 2012.
It's frustrating.