Playoff Standings Question

[Guest DatsyukianDeke13]

I was checking out the standings and noticed that Vancouver is in 3rd place with 94 pts, yet Phoenix is in 4th with 100. I'm assuming it is because of divisions? Doesn't seem to make sense though, I don't know why they just wouldn't go 1-8 with highest to lowest point totals.

1. x-San Jose 75 102

2. x-Chicago 73 99

3. Vancouver 75 94

4. x-Phoenix 76 100

5. Nashville 76 92

6. Detroit 75 91

7. Los Angeles 74 90

8. Colorado 74 89

[Buppy 1,720]

I was checking out the standings and noticed that Vancouver is in 3rd place with 94 pts, yet Phoenix is in 4th with 100. I'm assuming it is because of divisions? Doesn't seem to make sense though, I don't know why they just wouldn't go 1-8 with highest to lowest point totals.

1. x-San Jose 75 102

2. x-Chicago 73 99

3. Vancouver 75 94

4. x-Phoenix 76 100

5. Nashville 76 92

6. Detroit 75 91

7. Los Angeles 74 90

8. Colorado 74 89

Yes, the three division winners get the top 3 seeds. No problem with it really, even though the third seed usually seems to end up with fewer points than the 4th. (Back in 99 or 2000, the Wings were the 4th seed, despite having the 2nd best record in the entire league, lol) I don't think it makes much difference though, so I don't see any problem with rewarding teams for winning their division.

[RedWings 79]

If we would take the entire nhl ranking from 1st to 16th to play the playoffs, we would not see a lot of Eastern Conference teams too!

I guess that is done to assure that every market in the NHL has some team to cheer about in the playoffs.

[pjgj13 30]

Last I checked, Buffalo was SIXTH best in the east but would get the 3rd seed. I don't like "giving" the division winners the top 3 seeds. Give them automatic spots in the playoffs and rank them according to points.