>>>>> " " == Curtis J Fry <[log in to unmask]> writes:
 
 > On Tue, 14 Mar 1995, John Edwards wrote:
 
>> No, there's no chance of it. If they wanted to have the teams that
>> "have played at the highest level over the whole year" competing
>> for the NC$$ Championship, it would be a four-team affair involving
>> the four conference pennant-winners.
>>
>> IMHO, if a team can't win their league, they shouldn't win the
>> National Championship.
>>
 
 > How can you say that if a team doesn't win their league then they
 > shouldn't win the national championship.
 
Easy.  He said it, and I agree with him.
 
 > Does this also mean that in the NHL, if you don't finish first in
 > your divsion you shouldn't get a shot at the Stanley Cup.
 
That is absolutely what it means.  What's wrong with that?
 
 > What you said was way off and if you were a real sports fan you
 > would know that rarely does the first place team win the big
 > show....(LSSU?)
 
I'm sure he knows about it, and doesn't like it.  You see, the NHL
waters down the regular season by letting so many teams into the
playoffs.  Basically, it means that the regular season means
practically nothing, since a team has to play only as well as is
needed to get into the playoffs.
 
Why should the regular season champion have to prove themselves all
over again?  The proof of a team's greatness should be how they
performed over the entire season, not just in a short series, where
anything can happen.
 
For that matter, I'm in favour of eliminating the conference
tournaments.  Why should the regular season champion have to beat the
same old teams that they already beat?  Doesn't the tourney for all
intents and purposes nullify the regular season champion?  Who is the
real conference champion, the tourney winner or the regular season
winner?
 
I consider myself a "real sports fan" and just because you don't agree
with my opinion makes me no less of a "real sports fan."
 
 
-Alan Harder
 [log in to unmask]
 Go Blue!