I'm not a big fan of this. I think you make the playoffs irrelevant as soon as you start manipulating them so that the "top" teams meet in the Grey Cup. Besides, who's to say one team is the best just because of its record? Look at the NBA as a perfect example: Last year the East was 1. Cleveland, 2. Orlando, 3. Atlanta, and 4. Boston. Now, according to the people who want the best teams in the league to play in the championship, Cleveland should've been in the NBA Finals, but were they the best team? Considering Boston eliminated both Cleveland AND Orlando, I'd say no.
I think they should leave the playoffs the way they are.
Agree Chief, often in other leagues the best teams in the regular season don't meet in the championship. And even if two teams from the same division meet in the GC some year once in a while, it adds to GC lore even if the ratings might take a licking in such years.
The current system isn't perfect, no system is, but I think it's pretty close without completely getting rid of the east and west divisional think all together.
yup. the Best teams in the league don't necessarily win! the true best teams that do win are those that are the best prepared for the playoffs.
I think the best teams that won Stanley Cups, like some of those 80's Oilers teams didn't go out and get 120pts in the season necessarily but when it was time to play for real they kicked the crap out of the other teams.
That's a garbage article. It ain't broken so don't fix it...
The whole point of playoffs is to determine the best team.
What the hell is the point of having playoffs if you're just re-doing the regular season.
I prefer the playoffs the way they are now with 8 teams.
However, if the league ever expanded to 10 teams it would make sense to just have one division w/ 1 and 2 getting a bye. 3 playing 6, and 4 hosting 5 in the semis. Expansion teams would likely be in the East and having 2 east expansion teams makes it way too easy for Mon, Ham, and Tor to rack up wins against inferior opponents.