[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by smiggy77

Actually there were far better counters that you chose to ignore.

Which were...?

Why don't you paint a picture of what you envision the NHL to look like rather than going on a senseless rant (which warrants ridiculous responses IMO).

Expanding the playoff format to include more teams. It could mean giving the top seed in each conference a first round bye and adding two league-wide wildcard spots.

I would actually take it farther than that if it were up to me. Before you scoff at the idea of a larger playoff format, go ask the NCAA how 'horribly' their large playoff basketball format has been working out for them.

Your one strong point was that of the 108 point teams. Down side of the divisional format, but people also need to remember that with this format the teams don't play a balanced schedule. So 108 in one division MIGHT notmean the same as 108 or even less points in another division,

They play more games in their own division against tough competition, so 108 points is actually a more impressive feat in that division than it would be in another.

Very good teams overcome adversity and win anyway.

This is only true to a certain extent. No team in the NHL can have infinite depth.

Originally Posted by smiggy77

What defines a good team and a bad team for you? (serious question)

For most people, it's the standings that helps quantify this, so I'm confused as to what you would think is good and what is bad.

The standings paint much of the picture. There are, however, some situations where very good teams miss the playoffs due to things happening outside of their control (ie: disproportionate amount of man games lost injuries by key players). This is why expanding the playoffs would make it less likely that a good team would miss out.

I also think that a team's performance 6 months in the past is not indicative of how good a team they are today.