rwilson99 said:
In the early part of the last century, the cup was commonly awarded times at the conclusion of a two game total goals series.
Pointing out the obvious, this isn't the early part of last century....
A full (or expanded) playoff requiring a minimum of 16 wins out of a 28 game battle will ensure a legitamate cup winner.
Well, one could say why bother with regular seasons at all...
Basically, only fans of the Lightning, who haven't had a banner raising, haven't had much of *anything* along the lines of celebrating a championship, whose players have yet to even see their names on the Cup, are going to feel somewhat ornery at the notion that we will be introduced as "Stanley Cup champions" for only 20 or so games as opposed to the normal 82. We've been robbed of just about everything that goes with a Cup win. You can't blame us for feeling a bit cantankerous at the thought that the Cup could go to, say, the Caps this year just because they perhaps go on a hot streak right off the bat.
I'd like to see a shortened season w/playoffs (although the idea that all 30 teams make the playoffs surely cheapens the whole thing), with some type of "championship" title but the Cup awarded in the next full season to the team that gets through 82 games, works through injuries and fatigue and pays the price of winning 16 games in a real playoff.
But, I guess that if there's even hockey played this year, we'll just have to go about repeating. Of course, everyone who is all for the Cup being awarded under these circumstances will very likely be criticizing that scenario if a southern or small market team takes the Cup again...
