44 pages, and so far as I can tell, no one has said that skiing in the East sucks. Ski where you want - it's better than not skiing.
However, I am curious about people living in the Midwest who take ski trips to Eastern US or Western US resorts. If the travel time is the same to go East or West, which is chosen more often?
I think one of the biggest determining factors is which one can be driven in a day or less vs flying, although for probably a good number of skiers, skiing is skiing, and maybe easier if you don't have to struggle with mastering a new skill like skiing deep powder.
It's all relative I suppose; I started skiing in NJ at age 7. Took my first trip to Hunter at 12, and Killington at 15. I didn't make it out West until 20 or 21 (1981 or 82). First trip was to Altabird, and got dumped close to 3 feet on our first day. Yeah, I struggled with the snow, and the altitude, but was pretty much hooked.
During my 9 years of house shares and season passes at K-mart, I made yearly trips to CO or UT with mixed results. Not every trip convinced me that the West was all that much better than the East, depending on the season, or even the day either were having. It was only after moving to VT in 2003, and living/skiing/working there for 4 years that I decided to broaden my horizons and move to CO; partly due to cumulative frustration with the traditional 3-4 freeze/thaw cycles per Winter, but mostly for better job opportunities.
I now live in Georgetown, 8 blocks from where I work, 12 miles from where I ski, make more money, and typically don't see rain from Nov-May, although some years, we don't get a ton of snow.
If someone had told me 20 years ago that all this was possible, I would have made the move much sooner, but can definitely understand why many are satisfied doing what I did all those years. Job, family, friends, some decent winters, and 100 other excuses delayed the move, and I really have no regrets either way. Hell, at one time I though I wanted to move to FL so I could ride bicycles all year long...