the regular season does mean something you need to win enough games to get enough points to qualify for it.
Do teams stop playing when they've clinched? Are the standings just two different piles of teams; one for "in" and one for "out"? No, because the regular season is obviously about more than just whether or not you qualify for the playoffs, and it's sold to consumers to be more than just whether or not you qualify for the playoffs.
and no winning certain games so they can not play Team A is not a motivating factor for the players.
Of course matchups matter to players and teams, just as they do to fans. It's a motivating factor for the team, and part of the excitement for fans. The more you win, the easier your opponent. That's the concept that these tournaments are inherently supposed to be following, and what they claim to be following.
pretty much in any system the top teams in the league are pretty much guaranteed a playoff position by December so not sure how this one is any different
In every other suggested format, matchups aren't determined until the very end of the season. There is something to play for and follow until the very last games.
it's not the NHL's fault that the Bruins are so far ahead
No, it's the NHL's fault for having a broken, stupid system that allows situations like this.
look at the west for example there is no position that's set
Central's 2/3 matchup was established pretty early last year too.
at the end of the day I don't get entertained by the standings
Most fans do get a sense of entertainment, excitement, suspense, etc. from following the standings and potential matchups. It's bad business to have a system that eliminates that and removes pretty much all impact of winning./losing less than halfway through a season.
also the NHL needs entertaining series all 4 rounds the divisional play downs certainly accomplish that much more then the conference system. first round used to suck no good matchups all series were pretty predictable, now your going to have two terrific series in the first round between us and Tampa and whoever doesn't win the Metro.
That's just flat out not true. First round matchups were always exciting; arguably a lot more-so when it wasn't the same teams facing each other every time. There are never guarantees in hockey and upsets happened all the time. That's why a freaking monkey was better at predicting outcomes than hockey analysts.
You don't need powerhouses eliminating each other early to have a good series, and while you may have some exciting first round series, the point of these tournaments is to have better and better matchups as it progresses and the field decreases, but we often get the opposite. Nobody wants to start with a bang and end with a whimper. When you can find more entertaining and more closely matched battles in each of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd rounds than the SCF, you have a problem.