Realignment: Did the CBA address this?
View Single Post
01-28-2013, 09:58 PM
Join Date: Jan 2013
I love how there are still posts that basically state "we need to retain the 2-conference system for 'fairness' sake when it comes to the post season". Having 2-conferences is not even close to fair for some teams, and there is no current way the 2-conference system can be "fair" when it comes to a post season setup.
Yes I will agree there is the potential with the 4-division setup that the fifth place team from a stronger division might miss out on the playoffs over a worse team that finishes fourth in a weak division. But you know what, "boo-hoo" because the playoffs are all about winning the Stanley Cup anyway. So if you can't finish fourth in your division, even if it is a strong one, then too bad you don't get a chance to compete for the Stanley Cup and be the best team in hockey that year. Yes, the regular system should be worth something.
Much better that a fifth place team miss out on the playoffs (even if they were more deserving than a fourth place team in another division) in a proposed 4-division setup, than have the number 1, 2, or 3 team OVERALL in the league continually be disadvantaged in the postseason, as we have now in the current 2-conference system.
*Note, the 2-conference system in my post refers to the current setup (or something similar with 1-team switched). Obviously radical changes such as coolboarders' post may have a different effect.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by atticus