from Paul Grant of ESPN,

So, why wasn't the idea of using legends' names considered?

"It was considered, but dismissed rather quickly," (Bill) Daly wrote. "I don't think there was any strong feeling that we needed to move away from geographic descriptors and orientations, which makes it easier for the fans to follow. Also, while it's the nature of any exclusive list, I'm not sure assigning division names to four all-time great players is fair to the all-time great players who would necessarily be excluded in that process."

Fair point. Do you go heavy with the older guys, with the chance of alienating the younger or newer generation of fans, or do you go heavy with the newer names, thereby risking ticking off the older generation and/or fans who appreciate the game's history? Does a mix of both come off as compromised or forced (is Roy better than Sawchuk?)? Which four players would be considered the best? And how do you objectively make a decision about including players when so many of them still have connections to the game?

But surely something would have been better than dumping "Northeast" in favor of "Metropolitan."