Division leaders still make the playoffs, right?

Question

How is that any different than what some of you are arguing about being 5th place in a new division and not making the playoffs.  It's a rare occasion, leading your division and making the playoffs for that strict reason alone, but didn't an NFL team finish 7-9 and make the playoffs last year, Seahawks I think.

Some of you are saying "it's not fair to finish 5th and be better than a 4th place team in another division and miss the playoffs while they make it"

Okay, division leaders have made the playoffs, not only made the playoffs, been given a top 3 spot in the playoffs for a long time now, and how many complaints have you said about that?  But NOW all of a sudden it's a big deal?

And what if you finish, oh 10th in the west, but your point total would get you 6th in the East, again, that's another complaint you are throwing out.

I just had to get that out.  Buncha babies.

What is one thing you like about this supposed new allignment, and one thing you dislike about it?

Leafsfan29-Embrace the drought! · Accepted Answer

Yes....the only real occasion where the six-division setup was gong-show horrible 2006-07 when ATL made the playoffs as the SE champ with 87 points (the SE division that year was s***tacular) and got swept by a 6-seed NYR team.

Again...unless you scrap all divisions/conferences, have one 30-team ladder with the top 16 making the playoffs you're never going to achieve some perfect harmonious option (and even then you'd have teams bitching).

Nick L · Answer

I've always had a problem with division leaders getting higher seeds. I have a problem with the top 4 from each new Conference playing a mini-4 then being re-seeded. It's a bunch of nonsense work for nothing. There was early talk about removing divisions and making things simple with two conferences only. The idea was to attract more casual viewers and to make it simple for new fans. There was then talk about swapping Columbus or Detroit out of the West for Winnipeg and putting the team into the East to make it simple. The NHL went the completely opposite way and just complicated things more, not to mention making lop-sided conferences.

What I like: More games against Washington and Carolina.

What I Dislike: The playoff setup. It just seems like an unnecessary mess.

jay k · Answer

One thing I like about this alignment.... especially for the east, is that they kept rivalries together. The Atlantic stays together and then you add in Washington. NBC will have a ***** with the Caps-Pens matchups. I think the two Florida teams will really benefit from this new re-alignment. There are always a great number of Leafs, Habs, and Sabre fans who attend those games, which can help boost attendance a bit for those 3 extra games per season.

One thing I am not sure I like is only playing the other teams in the current conference alignment twice per season. As an example, Boston will only play the Rangers and Flyers twice per season, rather than four times.


Also, gotta feel bad for the Isles and Canes right now.... being aligned with the Rags, Devils, Pens, Caps, and Flyers with only four of them making the playoffs.

mattapan26 · Answer

As far as I am concerned, it's the current Northeast Division plus Florida and Tampa Bay.  It might mean that we will see less of old rivals like New York, Philadelphia, Detroit and Chicago.  Three of the original six are in Conference C which should keep the old hatreds among Montreal, Toronto and Boston alive and well.

Shakey Rustie · Answer

Like: Travel, and regional rivalries.

Dislike: Two conferences 50% of the teams make the playoffs, two conferences 57% of the team make the playoffs. How is that fair?

Trending News

Division leaders still make the playoffs, right?

5 Answers