It would suck to drop down from 3rd to 4th, but I think we would have been thrilled if someone at the start of the season told us the San Jose pick would be 4th overall pre-lottery.
I think they need to separate playoff seeding and lottery seeding. That article says that with both a 68-game rollback and point percentage, the exact same teams make the playoffs.
What I am suggesting is that the 16 teams in the playoffs, whatever way they want to seed them, that's fine.
The lottery standings then should be gone over in a complete case by case basis starting from the bottom with Detroit, and moving all the way up to 15.
Teams spots shouldn't be changed if the following things are true, I'll use San Jose as an example for obvious reasons...
1 - The most GP by any team is 71. San Jose has played 70 games. Even if San Jose played 1 more game and won, they would not leap frog any teams that are at a disadvantage because they played 71 games. An example, even if San Jose played 71 games like the 5th from the bottom Ducks, even with a win, they would still be 2 points behind the Ducks.
2 - The team has played the exact same GP as any other team they are directly competing with a spot for. The Kings and the Sharks are directly competing for the 3rd from the bottom spot. They've both played the same amount of games. Why is it fair for there to be a rollback to 68 that results in the Kings being "worse" than San Jose?
So in short, a rollback should only be used on each specific spot as a tie breaker if there is a close-able gap between more than one team, and if any two teams directly competing for a spot haven't played the same amount of games.