New Olympic Format?

[12# Peter Bondra]

I know everybody came here thinking the IIHF proposed one but no.

I know everybody will think that "Your team lost due to game 6 and you want to change the system cause of that. If Slovakia won, you wouldnt have posted". Partly true but this current system bases way too much importance on game 6. I thought it would be nice if the prelims has a bigger meaning than just warming up. So I came up with a new system:

NHL stops 4 days before the Olympics and due to them being in Vancouver = not a lot of flying.
Only 8 teams = big 7 plus some qualification during the summer so that NHL-ers can participate.
Only 3 teams go on, WJC style. Winner of Group straight into semi's. The quarterfinals are played best of 3 games, semi's too.
Finals and Bronze Medal Game = 1 game.
The whole olympics start Friday like this time.
First game played on Saturday.
Next round of games played Sunday.
Rest on Monday.
Last round of prelims on Tuesday.
Rest on Wednesday.
Thursday, Friday = quarters.
Rest on Saturday.
IF needed, Sunday = last game's of quarters.
Monday = Rest.
Tuesday, Wednesday = Semi's
Thursday = rest.
Friday = semi's (if needed)
Saturday = rest.
Sunday= Bronze and Gold Medal games.

If quarters end in 2 games, then the schedule can change etc.

This kind of schedule would put more emphasis on the prelims as only 6 out of 8 teams advance. I know that one Big 7 team wouldnt go through and the group with 4 teams from the Big 7 would be in a disadvantage and thats the biggest problem of my idea. There wouldnt be such a thing the Slovakia-CZE game where a team which has a 100% record plays its worst game in the quarters and goes out. Team would need to win twice. I wouldnt want 2 game's series as the team winning the 1st would in the 2nd game trap as much as possible.

Pro's of this system: Less emphasis on 1 game, less non Big-7 Countries, Group Play has some kind of meaning.

Con's: Non Big-7 Countries have it very hard to advance in this tournament, one Big 7 team not advancing, winner's of semi's resting too much (maybe a con).

I also put this together cause this system can be a bit unfair. A team like CZE beats ITA, GER, gets into the quarters where they beat us (Im not saying they didnt deserve it, they did) and then lose in the semi's and will finish better than a team who lost only 1 game. Slovakia has a record of 5-1 while CZE has a (so far) record 3-4 but will finish higher.

Your thoughts about this? I put this together in like 20 minutes so it has its bugs and I know it may be horrible but would it be good or bad?

Click to read more...

 

[Lateralous]

I would actually prefer to see a 16 team tournament with teams broken into 4 groups for the preliminary round. I realize this wouldn't provide the most exciting preliminary games but it would allow more countries to participate and since the pro participation in the Olympics is being sold at a way of growing the sport, why not? Between Norway, Belarus, Ukraine, France and Denmark, you could find 4 more teams.

The prelims would be 4 groups of 4 teams with each team playing every team in their group once. That would shorten the prelims down to 3 games because the 5 games this year was just too much. From there, the top 2 in each group would move to the quarterfinals and the tournament would be played out the same way it is now.

With this type of schedule, they could start play on the first wednesday of the olympics and play 4 games a day for the next 6 days. That would take them to Monday. After taking tuesday off, the quarters would be on the second wednesday, semis on friday and the gold metal game on sunday, just before the closing ceremonies.

 

[12# Peter Bondra]

Wouldnt that need more stadiums though? I was working with only 2 like this year but Im sure that in Vancouver you could find 4 rinks with 6000+ seats.

 

[Jussi]

I'd prefer a 10 team tournament so there wouldn't too much "needless" games. Because the games are in Vancouver, 4 days before and after (3 days might do as well) should be enough for a break. NHL sseason could be normal (ie. number of games) except start the season 2 weeks earlier to make room for the break and a less hectic schedule.

 

[12# Peter Bondra]

I thought about a 10 game tournament but the problem is, you have 2 groups of 5 and every round of games 1 team rests due to being 5 in a group.

 

[Force]

16 Teams.
France, is not that bad, Norway is not that bad, Belarus is really not bad, Japan would be an enritchment to the Olympics.

 

[desmond]

I would love to see one eight team pool, every team plays each other during prelims. Top four advance to semis: one vs. four, two vs. three.

 

[Lateralous]

Wouldnt that need more stadiums though? I was working with only 2 like this year but Im sure that in Vancouver you could find 4 rinks with 6000+ seats.

Actually, it would be less games:

12 teams playing 5 games per in the qualifying round = 30 games
16 teams playing 3 games per in the qualifying round = 24 games

 

[Force]

I would love to see one eight team pool, every team plays each other during prelims. Top four advance to semis: one vs. four, two vs. three.

I think Italy and Kazachstan held their onw damn good. I think its those teams that are not packed with firepower that add charme to the tournament. An 8 team tourney would be as boring as the Worldcup. If every game is best on best then there's no way to tell whats good and whats superb.

 

[Jazz]

8 is too little.

We need to have at least 10, and preferably 12 teams to allow the 2nd tier nations a chance.

Given your format, Germany was seeded 8th, and they would have been in Turin and not Switzerland...and Swizterland would not have received this boost to their program they just got.

 

[Lateralous]

I think Italy and Kazachstan held their onw damn good. I think its those teams that are not packed with firepower that add charme to the tournament. An 8 team tourney would be as boring as the Worldcup. If every game is best on best then there's no way to tell whats good and whats superb.

Agreed. Also, the upset wins by Switzerland this year and Belarus in 2002 were some of the most exiciting games played in any of the NHL-included olympic tournaments.

Having the extra teams is similar to the early rounds of the NCAA basketball tournament. No match-ups between powerhouses and not every game is going to be close, but when there is a close one, it's about as exciting as it gets. Switzerland, Belarus and even Latvia, showed that the exciting games might not be as few and far between as some people might have expected.

 

[jcpenny]

Wouldnt that need more stadiums though? I was working with only 2 like this year but Im sure that in Vancouver you could find 4 rinks with 6000+ seats.

Yeah but they have to be olympic sized rinks

 

[e-e]

A team like CZE beats ITA, GER, gets into the quarters where they beat us (Im not saying they didnt deserve it, they did) and then lose in the semi's and will finish better than a team who lost only 1 game. Slovakia has a record of 5-1 while CZE has a (so far) record 3-4 but will finish higher.

you could still see slovakia 7:1 czecks 3:5 after semiF

 

[Force]

pff not neccesarily. The ice size is overrated anyway. As long as the QF + is on the main arena (official size)

 

[12# Peter Bondra]

8 is too little.

We need to have at least 10, and preferably 12 teams to allow the 2nd tier nations a chance.

Given your format, Germany was seeded 8th, and they would have been in Turin and not Switzerland...and Swizterland would not have received this boost to their program they just got.

Thats why there would have been a tourney before the Games.

But if there were 4 Olympic Rinks, then there could be 16 teams. I was couting with only 2 rinks.

 

[Jazz]

Thats why there would have been a tourney before the Games.

But if there were 4 Olympic Rinks, then there could be 16 teams. I was couting with only 2 rinks.

Still, one spot only for the 2nd tier is simply not enough.

 

[Czech Your Math]

Alternative Playoff Formats

Probably should stay with 12 teams in 2 groups, if you want to include the up and coming nations (who played better than ever in this tournament), have a balanced and fair schedule, etc.

If the tournament format were to change, I think one of these two would be fairest:

1. Use Page(?) playoff format like in curling (at least I learned one thing from this sport), and adapt it to hockey: 2nd place teams in each group play. Loser finished 4th. 1st place teams in each group play. Loser plays winner of game between 2nd place teams. Loser of that finishes 3rd. Now two teams are left, I believe the team that won the first game between 1st place teams must be beaten twice by the other team, while they only have to win once.

2. Double Elimination Playoff: 2 teams from each group. A1 vs. B2, A2 vs. B1. Let's say A1 and A2 win. Then A1 plays A2, B1 plays B2. Loser of B1-B2 game finishes in fourth place. Winner plays loser of A1-A2 game (loser finishes 3rd). Winner of that plays winner of A1-A2 and must beat that team twice in a row.

Also, in either format, once their are two teams left, could turn it into best of 3 (tie goes to team unbeaten going in) instead of one team having to beat other twice in a row.

 

[Slitty]

I want an oldschool pure round-robin tournament of the 8 best teams in the World. Each game is meaningful: and although there is always a possiblity for an upset, the best team still wins. It could be scheduled so that the expected favourites or the top ranked teams play each other in the end so there is more chance of having a deciding game.

Another possiblity, if you're scared of meaningless games which happen under the current format anyways, is to have two groups of 4 teams. A round-robin in each group with the top 2 advancing to a final round-robin of 4 teams. Every game will be meaningful, garunteed.

 

[helicecopter]

With the current system (12 teams and 7 clearly better than the others), they should do like in the U20 WJC:
The firsts of each group gain a pass to the semis, the second and third teams go the quarters; fourth, fifth and sixth are out of playoff with those positions counting something for the qualification process to the next Olympics. That way every game of the preliminary rounds would have its importance. I would say it wouldn’t take a genius to come up with this system and realize it would make for a more interesting and much fairer tournament.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Speaking of the future, with more countries improving like Belarus for example, I would like the following format:
15 teams, 3 groups (my problem with 4 group of 4 teams is only three games would be guaranteed for each team and we would have 1 crappy team in addition.)

Three teams from each group make through. The two worse third placed teams (less points and eventually worse goal differential) play each other in a pre-playoff round.

The team with the best record CHOOSES its opponent for the quarters, then the next group winner with the 2nd best record picks its opponent, then the other group winner picks its opponent out of the three left qualified teams. The two left teams match up for the 4th quarterfinal.

The men Olympic tourney start the day of the opening ceremony if that’s showcased in the afternoon (17days available), the next day otherwise (16days available). There are at least 15 days available this way.

Day1: preliminary rounds teamA rests
Day2: preliminary rounds teamB rests
Day4: preliminary rounds teamC rests
Day6: preliminary rounds teamD rests
Day8: preliminary rounds teamE rests
(So four games for each teams in 8 days)

Day9: head-to-head game between the 8th and 9th record teams (the worst 3rd placed ones) (10min overtime)

Day11: quarterfinals (no contemporary games!) best of two, first game (no overtime).
Day12: quarterfinals (no contemporary games!) best of two, second game.
IF they win one game each, it’s sudden death overtime! (after intermission and clean ice)
Day14: semifinals (20min sudden death overtime if needed)
Day15,evening: 3rd place final (20min sudden death overtime if needed)
Day16: afternoon: final (20min sudden death overtime if needed)

Teams achieving the medals would play 8 (or max 9) games along the tournament in 16 days (it’s 8 in 12 days now).

This would be GREAT imo. The games in the preliminary round would be quite important and the winners of the groups would be rewarded; the quarterfinals are the games that provide a double opportunity for the medals (semifinal, a win means silver at least; still bronze medal game if you lose), usually the difference maker to decide if the tourney is a failure or not for a team, thus the two games..together with the opportunity for the group winner to call the opponent that should prevent undeserved medals (could be the case for the Czechs this year for example). An apparent downside is that you could think of the three groups as already decided with three spots available as much as now there are four spots for sixth teams.. well, first of all in my format the winners would be rewarded, second, remember I am suggesting this format for few years away from now, when for example Belarus, Kazakhstan, Latvia should be able to threaten at least Switzerland and Germany to make through. So that would be hopefully something like a 12 teams race for 9 spots with the inside race for the first spots.

NHL regular season always down to 72 games and the season starts one week earlier in Olympic years (so that can shut down at least 5 days before the start of the tournament and can resume three days after its end).

 

[Lateralous]

With the current system (12 teams and 7 clearly better than the others), they should do like in the U20 WJC:
The firsts of each group gain a pass to the semis, the second and third teams go the quarters; fourth, fifth and sixth are out of playoff with those positions counting something for the qualification process to the next Olympics. That way every game of the preliminary rounds would have its importance. I would say it wouldn’t take a genius to come up with this system and realize it would make for a more interesting and much fairer tournament.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Speaking of the future, with more countries improving like Belarus for example, I would like the following format:
15 teams, 3 groups (my problem with 4 group of 4 teams is only three games would be guaranteed for each team and we would have 1 crappy team in addition.)

Three teams from each group make through. The two worse third placed teams (less points and eventually worse goal differential) play each other in a pre-playoff round.

The team with the best record CHOOSES its opponent for the quarters, then the next group winner with the 2nd best record picks its opponent, then the other group winner picks its opponent out of the three left qualified teams. The two left teams match up for the 4th quarterfinal.

The men Olympic tourney start the day of the opening ceremony if that’s showcased in the afternoon (17days available), the next day otherwise (16days available). There are at least 15 days available this way.

Day1: preliminary rounds teamA rests
Day2: preliminary rounds teamB rests
Day4: preliminary rounds teamC rests
Day6: preliminary rounds teamD rests
Day8: preliminary rounds teamE rests
(So four games for each teams in 8 days)

Day9: head-to-head game between the 8th and 9th record teams (the worst 3rd placed ones) (10min overtime)

Day11: quarterfinals (no contemporary games!) best of two, first game (no overtime).
Day12: quarterfinals (no contemporary games!) best of two, second game.
IF they win one game each, it’s sudden death overtime! (after intermission and clean ice)
Day14: semifinals (20min sudden death overtime if needed)
Day15,evening: 3rd place final (20min sudden death overtime if needed)
Day16: afternoon: final (20min sudden death overtime if needed)

Teams achieving the medals would play 8 (or max 9) games along the tournament in 16 days (it’s 8 in 12 days now).

This would be GREAT imo. The games in the preliminary round would be quite important and the winners of the groups would be rewarded; the quarterfinals are the games that provide a double opportunity for the medals (semifinal, a win means silver at least; still bronze medal game if you lose), usually the difference maker to decide if the tourney is a failure or not for a team, thus the two games..together with the opportunity for the group winner to call the opponent that should prevent undeserved medals (could be the case for the Czechs this year for example). An apparent downside is that you could think of the three groups as already decided with three spots available as much as now there are four spots for sixth teams.. well, first of all in my format the winners would be rewarded, second, remember I am suggesting this format for few years away from now, when for example Belarus, Kazakhstan, Latvia should be able to threaten at least Switzerland and Germany to make through. So that would be hopefully something like a 12 teams race for 9 spots with the inside race for the first spots.

NHL regular season always down to 72 games and the season starts one week earlier in Olympic years (so that can shut down at least 5 days before the start of the tournament and can resume three days after its end).

I would be all for your idea if there was any chance at all that the NHL would shutdown for that long + shorten their season, etc. The reason for me originally suggesting a 16 team tournament with only 3 preliminary round games is that it could realistically be done over the 1 1/2 weeks that were used during the Torino games without being quite as demanding on the players in terms of the travel schedule and number of games played in a short amount of days.

 

[helicecopter]

I would be all for your idea if there was any chance at all that the NHL would shutdown for that long + shorten their season, etc.

It would take a 24 days break (instead of 16/17). WOULD the league really believe in the olympic partecipation, it would be worth (all it takes is starting the regular season one week before).

 

[Lateralous]

It would take a 24 days break (instead of 16/17). WOULD the league really believe in the olympic partecipation, it would be worth (all it takes is starting the regular season one week before).

Hey, I'm all for it. However, with all of the talk that Vancouver will be the last time the NHL participates in the olympics, I seriously doubt that the break is going to get even longer than it is now.

 

[Egil]

I think 12 teams, 2 groups, top team in each pool gets a bye to the semifinal (guaranteeing a medal game), and then two crossover games between the second and third place teams in each pool.

This makes the prelim round more interesting (the Czech-Canada tame would have been to survive instead of being completely meaningless for example).

 

[McJadeddog]

im for any format that gets rid of the ridiculous 1 game elimination format.... bring in a series format somehow and then the games will actually have some meaning (though im not sure how you really can have a series format in such a short period of time)

 

[helicecopter]

I think 12 teams, 2 groups, top team in each pool gets a bye to the semifinal (guaranteeing a medal game), and then two crossover games between the second and third place teams in each pool.

Eh, that's exactly what i proposed in my post in the current situation. That's without any doubt in my mind the format they should have used in Torino.