View Single Post
02-12-2013, 02:10 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 302
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
A little critical observation...

Virtually everyone here in the alignment discussions, in all the threads, (or in almost whatever discussion really), has something in mind that they particularly want or that they think they want. Everyone gives their arguments or explanations for why a certain format would be better; everyone tries their best to tie it up with a nice little bow to present the preference in the most attractive way,... But in the end, none of the explanations really matter to most involved in the discussions, even to the ones giving the explanations. More than half the those explanations are flawed anyway, or they go very contrary to what another group of hockey fans want. In the end, all that's important is what You want; trying to justify it with explanations of how it's better is nothing more than fluff. And you know, in the end, whether it's you changing your preference in 3 years or so, or another group of people who become more outspoken for a different preference 3 years or so down the road,... sooner or later there's going to be cries to make changes again because some group of fans will have gotten tried of the way things are. And just like always, explanations about 'what is better and for what reasons',... that will again all be pointless dribble. You want what you want, or what you think you want!
Lol take her easy it is HFBoards, I don't think NHLPA, is looking to us for answers.

Anyways I wouldn't call it a three conference system, because playoff seeding doesn't change, and you would still have conference based games.

It'd be simply using another game type, call a three conference model if you like, but what I espcially like about it, is that it doesn't need to be enforced on everyteam, and there is the option to change it an annual basis.

Regardless, I think mathematically this idea does have some merit.

HugoSimon is offline   Reply With Quote