Realignment plan approved; set for play through the 2015-16 season
View Single Post
03-07-2013, 08:31 PM
Join Date: Jun 2006
Originally Posted by
You keep saying this, but it makes no sense at all.
Each of the 16 East teams will play 28 games against the West teams (and 54 against the East)
Why is it not a valid measuring stick for the playoffs if the Habs get 45 points against the West, and in the same games, the Bruins get 12?
If the Standings are based on League-wide records then that is just fine. But if Boston dominates the Division but has a difficult time outside the Division and thus finishes below Montreal in the Division Standings, are the Division Standings an appropriate measuring stick for Divisional Playoffs? And in that example I put the focus on Boston; I could reverse that and put it on Montreal. If Montreal then sucked in the Division but gained most of its points outside the Division and finished near the top of the Division as a result, how does that appropriately represent the Divisional Standings?
But I'm just responding to your example, which I still think is somewhat beside the point. But still, I don't think what I was agreeing with Morris Wanchuk about is a serious issue. Yes, I was agreeing that it seems very contradictory that the League should go from a more Division-based schedule to a less Division-based schedule while at the same time going to a more Division-based Playoffs. But nevertheless, the primary purpose of Divisions should be to put the focus on rivalry matchups, and if the League chooses to do that more in the Playoffs than in the Regular Season, what's the big problem with that. Nothing really!
MY point in my response to Morris was more about playing so many games against teams which are not competing in the Standings, so many games against the other Conference, in sacrifice of games against teams which are competing in the Standings.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by MoreOrr