Discussion in 'International Tournaments' started by Art Vandelay, May 14, 2006.
The most interesting part is No.3 about the Olympics.
Hmmm, sounds interesting. Most players will probably play in the NHL anyway but the players out side the top 6/7 nations might have some problems. Is there any country in Europe who have the smaller rinks?
Anyway, good thing they will play at the best arena aviable.
Hmm that is kind of interesting. I like watching the bigger sheet in the Olympics myself. Just kind of a break from the game we are seeing on a daily basis.
I don't like this break from tradition, especially with all the recent calls for the NHL to switch to bigger ice.
That's strange, considering that at the time of the bid being awarded to Vancouver, VANOC claimed that GM Place could be converted to an Olympic sized rink. I guess they realized that was a dream that couldn't be fulfilled.
I prefer the small rink myself. We'll get to see a lot more physical hockey.
Not a good idea. Olympic rinks should stay as they are. Home ice should be a big enough advantage for Canada, no need for this kind of trickery.
Trickery? It said that all the teams agreed to it. If they hadn't all agreed on it, I'm sure they would have done something else.
Trickery or not, this plays into the strength of Canada. Wasn't the rink in Salt Lake also NHL size?
I'm not sure, but I seem to recall that Finland has smaller rinks than Sweden?
And Finland. And USA. And Switzerland.
No, it was not, it was the standard Olympic size.
BTW - do you have an updated link - the one posted now points elsewhere.
I don't know where it is now but this is what it was about:
1. The teams agreed on the Olympic format of 12 teams (like this year)
2. The rankings after the 2008 WCH (Canada) will determine the top 8 countries who will directly qualify for the Olympic tournament. The reamaining 4 spots will be known in february 2009 after the pre-Olympic tournament ends.
3. Due to the long distances between cities in 2007 (Russia-St. Petersburgh, Moscow) and 2008 (Canada-don't know the two cities Halifax?) the quarterfinals will be played under the new system. There won't be crossing groups like it was 'til now (1F-4E, 1E-4F). The quaretrfinals will be played within the groups (1E-4E, 2E-3E) so that teams don't have to travel before the semifinals.
I guess it's easier not to cross groups when the distances are so big and that's OK, but it won't be as interesting. But it's only for the next 2 WCHs. Where is the championship in 2009?
Switzerland. 2010 in Germany.
and Sweden and Russia(if they can make everything right with their NHL players by then)
This is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned. The best team will win regardless of the size of the ice surface.
Too bad, I like the Coliseum.
I personally think the big-ice vs. small-ice argument is one of the most over-rated and over-hyped myths of hockey.
It is merely an excuse that European countries have used for years to explain why Canada has won so many tournaments in the past.
As a Swede I think we are having a big advantage everytime we play Canada in the WCH, on small ice, Canada don't have as big advantage as we do on big ice because our players have more small ice experience, but often we in Sweden for example have 2-3 "depth players" who aren't as good on small ice.
I think its great not to cross groups. For example this time Czech, Canada, US and the Finns would know that they are gooing to meat each other in the QF when they play the first game. Would defenitly turn up the atomsphere a notch.
What about the QF winners?
Will it be E1/E4 vs E2/E3
E1/E4 vs F2/F3?
PS. Torrus, long time no see....
I think they will cross for the SF; so E1-E4 vs. F2-F3. They mentioned only the QF being from the same group.
My apologies Jazz, will be back soon.
From the next year on there won't be ties anymore and a win gives you three points. That's what I heard in the radio today.
No ties? I'd think that implies a shootout, there's no way they'd do continuous OT for a first round game.