How do you think the Western conference stacks up against the Eastern conference? For the most part, I think the East is stronger with the Southern Division (as a whole) being the toughest. But I don't see too much disparity accross the conferences. Both have their powerhouses and both have there whippin' boys. what do you think? mikey
Overall, I'd say the East has more good clubs. Out here, it's basically Seattle and Milwaukee. Minnesota's doing OK, then throw everyone else but Indiana and Calgary in a pot and pick lots. East has Charleston, Richmond, Atlanta, Rochester in the top spots, all of whom could win the whole thing. Montreal seems to be doing better this season, and a few others such as Toronto and Charlotte can sting you on their day.
East is stronger The East is deeper and stronger. Seattle has a great record and a good team, but it is aided by its home field which is the equivilant of indoor pinball soccer. They have played well on the road but are still vulnerable. Milwaukee is good too but also is beatable. The other five teams vying for the final four playoff spots all are capable of winning the conference. Will be very interesting come playoff time.
The last place team in the East, Pittsburgh Riverhounds, tied the 2nd place team in the West, Milwakee Rampage. I also think that the east is better but not by too much.
Here's a bit of objectivity. There are 40 interconference matches on the 2002 schedule, and 27 of them have been played. In Western Conference houses, results are: Western 5-4-3 Eastern (W-D-L) 8 matches remaining In Eastern Conference houses: Eastern 9-2-4 Western 5 matches remaining Total: Eastern 12-6-9 Western Eastern have the lead by 3 matches, but with most of the remaining matches in Western houses the gap is likely to narrow. This objective analysis of results supports the opinions voiced by all of the above fans. Spot on, dudes!