I haven't seen any comment on the status of this, and from the staff I have talked to they don't seem to see the issue. It is impossible to say that (for example) a 8-0-2 in one conference is better than 7-0-3 in the other.
For example, let's say that this upcoming season Re; wins conference A, barely beating out wf with a 7-0-3 record. In conference B HD wins the conference with an 8-0-2 record. Let's say Re; beat HD in the inter conference matchup, however regardless of this specific result it doesn't change the argument. HD now gets to force Re; to play wf because they had the "better record". What is the point of conferences and playoffs if you are going to decide right then and there that HD has the best performance in the division? If you're going to hand them the advantage there, why don't you also just hand them the division title? The point of playoffs is to sort out the differences in schedule that each team had, because you cannot say that one was more impressive than the other.
If this rule is really going to be implemented, I like Rookie's solution in the quoted message. Out of the two conference winners, the team that beat the other in the inter conference match gets the advantage.
Maybe I'm the only one who really see's the issue here, but the only justification I got from a staff member was basically that the ends justify the means because "they still have to play the winner of ____ vs _____ in finals though". I was also told that this is a rare situation, but the problem is more deeply rooted than a specific situation where a team gets screwed, it's about comparing records immediately post-season.
The teams I named are purely for the purpose of painting a picture, it's obvious that this situation was built to prove a point, but I'm sure you can see how screwed over Re; would feel and as I said before it goes deeper than just any specific situation.
Please fix this
Don't think I could've put it better myself. The "rare situation" argument is just a logical fallacy. Just because something only has like a 10% chance of happening doesn't mean it should be left untouched. It's strictly a worse scenario than just fixing the rule so it doesn't happen at all. There is simply no downside to preventing the undesired event from happening to begin with. 100% success is better than 90%.