Olympics: Korea hockey teams granted place in OG2018

[jekoh]

Are you sure? I had the impression they just changed it so that Korea could hoard some decent imports.

You can read the previous statutes and bylaws here : http://www.iihf.com/fileadmin/user_...F_Statutes_and_Bylaws_May_2011_Amendments.pdf

 

[Hawksfan2828]

Well, that's ridiculous.

Although it feels like cheating, it will definitely help them to avoid getting completely run over by some of the powerhouses. I've seen a number of their DivIA games and goaltending for them has been atrocious. Not to mention that they have the bodies of 16 year-olds.


'Easily get beat 30-0' sounds like an overstatement, but you'd definitely see record-breaking numbers (post-1998).

I wouldn't be suprised in the slightest if it went as far as 20-0, or worse.

Dude Canada's womans team played Korea once and the final score was something like 88-0.

If Canada didn't show mercy they could easily beat Korea 30-0, however most top teams would treat a match against Korea as a glorified scrimmage.

Hell, I could put together a team of local guys that could beat Korea.

 

[Ub the Bub]

I wouldn't be suprised in the slightest if it went as far as 20-0, or worse.

Don't be absurd. I'd say Canada straight up losing to Korea in a shutout is more likely than 20-0.

Dude Canada's womans team played Korea once and the final score was something like 88-0.

Have you seen the Korean women's team play? It's a joke! Like they'd be crushed by a team of 11 year olds... Can barely even be called hockey. The Korean women have crazy long to go before they're even passable... The Korean men however are a completely different story. It's not unfeasible that they'd atleast be able to get close to the bottom teams like Latvia before 2018, especially considering how Latvia has slumped in the last few years.

 

[Urbanskog]

Don't be absurd. I'd say Canada straight up losing to Korea in a shutout is more likely than 20-0.


Have you seen the Korean women's team play? It's a joke! Like they'd be crushed by a team of 11 year olds... Can barely even be called hockey. The Korean women have crazy long to go before they're even passable... The Korean men however are a completely different story. It's not unfeasible that they'd atleast be able to get close to the bottom teams like Latvia before 2018, especially considering how Latvia has slumped in the last few years.

What?

I'd say it's quite opposite, they advanced to the Olympic quarterfinals for the first time in history in Sochi and they were very impressive in Minsk. And no, Korea won't come close to Latvia, Latvia is light years ahead of Korea.

 

[garbageteam]

I dunno if Korea is even close to the level of Italy or Kazakhstan, which seems like the bare minimum standard to be remotely competitive in ice hockey.

 

[IIHFjerseycollector]

Dude Canada's womans team played Korea once and the final score was something like 88-0.

If Canada didn't show mercy they could easily beat Korea 30-0, however most top teams would treat a match against Korea as a glorified scrimmage.

Hell, I could put together a team of local guys that could beat Korea.

you arent talking about the Korean mens team right?

 

[KyleMills*]

Go Team Korea!

 

[BayStreetBully]

Good for Korea, they deserve a place in the tournament as hosts. Especially considering their improvement over the past 10 year period. As for the rest of the teams, you still only have to be among the top 11 countries in the world, so if you're truly good enough to make the tournament, you'll be there.

 

[Falconone]

Does anyone know what the 'rules' are for consideration for player qualification. For example, could a player be the grandson of a Korean national and be eligible for the Korean National team? Would it be possible in that situation for a player to receive or be eligible for dual citizenship in Korea?

 

[Urbanskog]

Does anyone know what the 'rules' are for consideration for player qualification. For example, could a player be the grandson of a Korean national and be eligible for the Korean National team? Would it be possible in that situation for a player to receive or be eligible for dual citizenship in Korea?

Whether you have any Korean heritage or not is irrelevant. You can only represent Korea if you have played two full seasons there (four if you have previously represented some other country on international stage) and have obtained the South Korean citizenship.

 

[xxxx]

I do have an issue with Korea. First, the tournament should be played with the BEST teams possible. Korea is nowhere near top 18 teams in the world, let alone top 12. The same applies for the Olympics as an event. Why do you do it in Korea for heaven's sake? Why we can't have more olympics in countries like Norway, Austria, Finland, Canada, USA, Russia, Switzerland....this is the same **** as the FIFA World Cup in Quatar....it's silly. I do know that having the OG in Korea has some positives, and I will enjoy watching a different country, their culture, etc.... but in terms of winter sports... it's not good imo.

 

[xxxx]

Don't be absurd. I'd say Canada straight up losing to Korea in a shutout is more likely than 20-0.

What do you expect? That Korea will play 1-5 games with elite teams?

 

[Falconone]

Whether you have any Korean heritage or not is irrelevant. You can only represent Korea if you have played two full seasons there (four if you have previously represented some other country on international stage) and have obtained the South Korean citizenship.

So then the question might be does South Korea grant citizenship/dual nationality to someone? And under what circumstances would they do so?

F1

 

[Urbanskog]

So then the question might be does South Korea grant citizenship/dual nationality to someone? And under what circumstances would they do so?

F1

Well, they've been naturalizing a few North Americans lately (Young, Swift, Radunske), so yes, they do.

Their soon-to-be new goalie (Matt Dalton) is a Canadian as well.

 

[BayStreetBully]

I do have an issue with Korea. First, the tournament should be played with the BEST teams possible. Korea is nowhere near top 18 teams in the world, let alone top 12. The same applies for the Olympics as an event. Why do you do it in Korea for heaven's sake? Why we can't have more olympics in countries like Norway, Austria, Finland, Canada, USA, Russia, Switzerland....this is the same **** as the FIFA World Cup in Quatar....it's silly. I do know that having the OG in Korea has some positives, and I will enjoy watching a different country, their culture, etc.... but in terms of winter sports... it's not good imo.

1. If you had even looked at the list of past hosts, you'd see they were all in those very countries you mentioned. Except Finland, as they have no mountains. They've always been held in NA or Europe, with the exception of Japan, and now Korea. What's more, countries like Switzerland, Norway, Sweden and Germany don't even want to host anymore, so if anything, blame them.

2. It's no tragedy that the likes of Belarus or Austria will be replaced by Korea for one Olympics. If you're not good enough to be a top 11 team, then sorry to be blunt but your absence will barely be noticed. I'm all for spreading the game of hockey. I enjoy watching countries like Belarus and Austria in the WHC, but I also enjoy watching hockey spread in the next tier of countries like Korea, Japan and Hungary.

 

[Exarz]

I do have an issue with Korea. First, the tournament should be played with the BEST teams possible. Korea is nowhere near top 18 teams in the world, let alone top 12. The same applies for the Olympics as an event. Why do you do it in Korea for heaven's sake? Why we can't have more olympics in countries like Norway, Austria, Finland, Canada, USA, Russia, Switzerland....this is the same **** as the FIFA World Cup in Quatar....it's silly. I do know that having the OG in Korea has some positives, and I will enjoy watching a different country, their culture, etc.... but in terms of winter sports... it's not good imo.

Same thing applies to the FIFA World Cup, previous hosts shouldn't have been qualified if they didn't host it. I don't see any problem with it. Having a home team play will get a better attendance, they will sell more tickets, it's a good way to try marketing the game and develop their hockey.

Having more Olympic games in the countries you named might be true in the future. If I'm not mistaken, they are talking about lower the requirements hosting the games?

 

[Siamese Dream]

Breaking news: Hockey isn't the only sport in the Winter Olympics

In 2012 Great Britain had to cheat and use dual nationals to not be embarrased in some of the big team sports in the Summer Olympics like Basketball and Handball because we aren't good at them

 

[Siamese Dream]

Are you sure? I had the impression they just changed it so that Korea could hoard some decent imports.

The eligibility rules have been 2 years for a long time, but generally a player has to play there for longer than that because they have to have lived in a country for x number of years to become a citizen if they aren't already one.

 

[jekoh]

The same applies for the Olympics as an event. Why do you do it in Korea for heaven's sake? Why we can't have more olympics in countries like Norway, Austria, Finland, Canada, USA, Russia, Switzerland.... this is the same **** as the FIFA World Cup in Quatar....it's silly.

Because none of these countries wanted it.

For your information South Korea won more medals at the 2010 Olympics than Austria and Finland and Russia and Switzerland. Not sure why any of these countries should be given the Olympics over Korea, especially since Russia just hosted it (as did Canada and the USA).

 

[jekoh]

In 2012 Great Britain had to cheat and use dual nationals to not be embarrased in some of the big team sports in the Summer Olympics like Basketball and Handball because we aren't good at them

The only dual national in the 2012 GB basketball team that wasn't a completely marginal player had been playing in Britain for 16 years, how is that "cheating"?

 

[xxxx]

Because none of these countries wanted it.

For your information South Korea won more medals at the 2010 Olympics than Austria and Finland and Russia and Switzerland. Not sure why any of these countries should be given the Olympics over Korea, especially since Russia just hosted it (as did Canada and the USA).

Maybe I was overreacting and should've just shut up. My bad.


Will be interesting to see a different culture, etc.

 

[Namejs]

2. It's no tragedy that the likes of Belarus or Austria will be replaced by Korea for one Olympics. If you're not good enough to be a top 11 team, then sorry to be blunt but your absence will barely be noticed. I'm all for spreading the game of hockey. I enjoy watching countries like Belarus and Austria in the WHC, but I also enjoy watching hockey spread in the next tier of countries like Korea, Japan and Hungary.

Denmark and Germany didn't make the top 12 and didn't qualify for Sochi. They have about a dozen NHL players combined and could realistically upset pretty much any team from the Big 8.

So what you're saying really doesn't make any sense.

The qualifying process for the Olympics sucks. It's a single round-robin tournament and the better teams often don't have a lot of their best players, because they're playing in North America. So luck/chance plays an unreasonable role there.

Also, Korea is not the next tier after Latvia/Norway/Germany/Denmark/Belarus. Korea isn't even in the same tier as Slovenia or Kazakhstan. They're a really, really bad team with a 0% chance of defeating anyone in the Olympic Games.

Seriously, you're way out of your element.

 

[BayStreetBully]

Denmark and Germany didn't make the top 12 and didn't qualify for Sochi. They have about a dozen NHL players combined and could realistically upset pretty much any team from the Big 8.

So what you're saying really doesn't make any sense.

The qualifying process for the Olympics sucks. It's a single round-robin tournament and the better teams often don't have a lot of their best players, because they're playing in North America. So luck/chance plays an unreasonable role there.

Also, Korea is not the next tier after Latvia/Norway/Germany/Denmark/Belarus. Korea isn't even in the same tier as Slovenia or Kazakhstan. They're a really, really bad team with a 0% chance of defeating anyone in the Olympic Games.

Seriously, you're way out of your element.

If Denmark or Germany is good enough to upset a medal contender, then they should first earn their place by beating teams like Austria and Slovenia to qualify, which they didn't do.

The qualifying process is what it is. Any issues should be taken up with the IIHF. That's no reason to deny the hosts a spot in the tournament.

However many tiers you want to put in between Latvia and Korea, bottom line is neither is a contender. Latvia may play some close games with the contenders, but in the end the result remains the same- the top 7 or so countries will medal. It sounds like you're all for expanding the game of hockey to the lesser nations like Latvia and Denmark, but you want to draw the line after the top 16 or 18 nations. I am also for expanding the game of hockey, but am interested in including nations ranked 19-25. Countries like Hungary/Korea/Japan/Britain/Poland/Ukraine are a lot better than you give them credit for.

I don't see what the big deal is. Korea is the host, and hosts qualify. If Latvia truly deserves to play with the big boys like USA, Russia and Sweden, then just beat out teams like Norway, Denmark and Austria to book your spot, and be one of the top 11 countries in the world.

 

[xxxx]

Denmark and Germany didn't make the top 12 and didn't qualify for Sochi. They have about a dozen NHL players combined and could realistically upset pretty much any team from the Big 8.

So what you're saying really doesn't make any sense.

The qualifying process for the Olympics sucks. It's a single round-robin tournament and the better teams often don't have a lot of their best players, because they're playing in North America. So luck/chance plays an unreasonable role there.

Also, Korea is not the next tier after Latvia/Norway/Germany/Denmark/Belarus. Korea isn't even in the same tier as Slovenia or Kazakhstan. They're a really, really bad team with a 0% chance of defeating anyone in the Olympic Games.

Seriously, you're way out of your element.

Wholeheartedly agree.

 

[Namejs]

If Denmark or Germany is good enough to upset a medal contender, then they should first earn their place by beating teams like Austria and Slovenia to qualify, which they didn't do.

The qualifying process is what it is. Any issues should be taken up with the IIHF. That's no reason to deny the hosts a spot in the tournament.

However many tiers you want to put in between Latvia and Korea, bottom line is neither is a contender. Latvia may play some close games with the contenders, but in the end the result remains the same- the top 7 or so countries will medal. It sounds like you're all for expanding the game of hockey to the lesser nations like Latvia and Denmark, but you want to draw the line after the top 16 or 18 nations. I am also for expanding the game of hockey, but am interested in including nations ranked 19-25. Countries like Hungary/Korea/Japan/Britain/Poland/Ukraine are a lot better than you give them credit for.

I don't see what the big deal is. Korea is the host, and hosts qualify. If Latvia truly deserves to play with the big boys like USA, Russia and Sweden, then just beat out teams like Norway, Denmark and Austria to book your spot, and be one of the top 11 countries in the world.

Sorry, but it's painfully obvious you don't know what you're talking about.

Hockey is not a global sport. The further down the ranks you go, the weaker the teams are. And that regression is not linear, it's exponential.

The differences between 20-something ranked teams (Korea/Lithuania/etc.) and the 2nd tier nations like Germany/Belarus/etc. are H-U-G-E. They're enormous. A gap the size of the Grand Canyon. You get the idea.

You have a team comprised solely of elite professional athletes, most of whom are pretty much millionaires on the one hand, while on the other hand you have semi-pro or straight up amateur players, who play hockey alongside their everyday responsibilities and day jobs.

What the Koreans have done is they've bought a few pro players from North America, so that their national team wouldn't be as terrible. It's not going to improve their hockey pyramid and it's not going to expand the game of hockey either.

In fact, the expansion of the game of hockey is being hindered, because nations that would've actually gained from the added exposure (such as, say, Denmark) are not going to be there.

Is there a pro Greek baseball league 10 years after the 2004 Olympics? Nope. The artificial funding (which was there in the first place just so the Greek national team could save face in the Olympics, etc.) got cut, the imports ended their careers and that's how the story ends.