THE Elite League is set-up for the Braehead Clan to win every season – or at least that’s the view of many fans, who criticise the conference system and the ‘unfairly’ weighted scheduling structure it introduced.
Although they’ve not done it yet, the Clan came pretty close to topping the league last year – and as they begin to make another strong push, those angry fans are making their voices heard once again. But is the system unfair – and does it really matter?
In 2012, the EIHL conference system split the league into the mostly northern Gardiner Conference and the mostly southern Erhardt Conference – and split opinions to boot.
At the time, the league was already fairly divided, between those teams with spending power, broad fanbases and large arena venues – and those without.
The 2011/12 season’s top five teams entered the Erhardt, the bottom five the Gardiner – a move criticised as a division of the league into top and bottom tiers.
Before the separation, sides would play three home and three away games against every opponent in a flat, level league structure. Under the conference system however, schedules are weighted, with teams playing eight games inside, but only four outside, their own conference.
Backed by owner Neil Black’s business nous and deep pockets, plus an arena venue and large local fanbase, Braehead has emerged in recent years as one of the league’s strongest teams.
And, because they play the majority of their games in the ‘easy’ Gardiner Conference, are viewed by many as holding an unfair advantage over other title contenders.
The league title is by far the most prestigious prize in the EIHL, and some fans don’t like the prospect of it being won ‘unfairly’.
So why was the conference system introduced, and is it just Braehead that benefits? As mentioned, the league was – and is – divided between big, arena clubs and small, rink clubs.
The small teams usually stood no chance against the big boys, and few fans on either side enjoyed the predictably lop-sided scorelines. The weighted scheduling system meant that arena teams would play each other more often than they’d play the smaller teams, and vice versa.
More competitive games means more entertaining games – which is good for business. The conferencing also mostly represents geographical proximity, and reduces the amount of travel required – saving clubs money, and reducing travel fatigue for players. Geographically close match-ups also allow for more away support and stronger local rivalries, which all drives better ticket sales and creates livelier atmospheres. The system’s good for the fans, and it’s good for business.
The ultimate goal of the conference system, however, is the stability of the league.
British ice hockey has long been blighted by financial insecurity, with clubs and competitions alike struggling to stay afloat.
Yes, a number of Elite League sides are fairly secure – but without a decent league to compete in they’d be sunk.
Conferencing is making a positive difference to the game, with Gardiner sides slowing raising their level of competition. At present, the league leaders have roughly twice the points of last place – while the season before the introduction of the conferences, the league champions amassed four times that of last place.
The league is essentially twice as competitive – and only seems to be improving.
Is the conference system unfair? Absolutely: the teams compete for the same league trophy, but don’t compete for it in the same way.
But the system is helping the smaller sides to improve – without it, they, and the league, would be at a much greater risk of collapse.
The question of whether this lack of fairness matters is really a matter of perspective.
If the EIHL can turn the playoffs into the big trophy, then the uneven playing field of the league table will become less of an issue.
The Erhardt fans who hate the conferences have a valid gripe, but I think it’s the significance of the league table that’s all wrong, not the conferencing structure. And until we see an expanded post-season, those fans should probably have a think about whether they’d rather see their team compete in a slightly unfair league, or in no league at all.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here