So the Ducks barely made the playoffs meaning they probably had a really terrible seed. Typically the team with the lowest seed goes against the team with the highest seed first so shouldn't they have played the Hawks in the playoffs?
shareThought about that too. I have a possible theory.
Bombay refused to give in the Banks issue. So not only was Banks not allowed to play for Hawks, but the Hawks had to forfeit every game in which he had played for them that season. Assuming they didn't let him play the game when they pulled him off the ice during warm ups, and the Hawks had one game left after that, they would have a 2-12 record. After the Ducks beat the Huskies, they had a 1-11-1 record, giving Ducks the 8 seed, and Hawks at 7. In this set up they wouldn't face each other until the finals.
That makes sense I guess so we’ll go with that. That would mean the hawks had to first beat the number 2 seed (really number 3) and then probably went against the number 3 seed (really number 4). And then the ducks beat the number 1 seed (really number 2) and then the number 4 seed (really number 5)
shareexplained above and in another thread. However, although not a plot hole, more a suspension-of-disbelief thing for me, is that, even with Banks now in the team (so at full strength), they needed a last second "one out of five" shot from Fulton to scrape a victory against the worst team playing in the league. Yet, in the next game, they're comfortably beating the top seed and then cruise to victory in the semi-finals too.
I suppose the explanation is that they bonded with that trip to watch the North Stars, and Banks was now more accepted as part of the group, and so they gelled more as a team going into these play-off games?