Should Nations be able to enter multiple teams in National Tournaments?

[BruinsFan37]

The UK breaks up into separate teams for soccer normally (England, Scotland, Wales,)

I could see an argument (if not agree with it) for breaking Canada up similarly (especially with Quebec)

But a straight Canadian 1st team and 2nd team...

No.

 

[Xspyrit]

The UK breaks up into separate teams for soccer normally (England, Scotland, Wales,)

I could see an argument (if not agree with it) for breaking Canada up similarly (especially with Quebec)

But a straight Canadian 1st team and 2nd team...

No.

Scotland and Wales are countries, Quebec is not, no matter how many times they tried

But if Canada wants to dilute their talent and have Provincial teams, I wouldn't be opposed to it lol

 

[Elvs]

The UK breaks up into separate teams for soccer normally (England, Scotland, Wales,)

I could see an argument (if not agree with it) for breaking Canada up similarly (especially with Quebec)

But a straight Canadian 1st team and 2nd team...

No.

England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are typically refered to as countries within a country. When FIFA was formed, the four countries had already been competing against eachother for a couple of decades, and so they got to keep it that way.

I'd personally like to see them compete as the UK in football like they do in other sports, but seeing how Northern Ireland (on the men's side) have failed to qualify for the World Cup since 44 years, and Wales since 64 years, I'm not losing any sleep over it.

Scotland last made it to the World Cup 24 years ago, but did not get past the group stage. Scotland might also become an independent country in the near future.

England is the only UK country likely to qualify for the World Cup at any given time, let alone making any kind of noise there. In the last 24 years, they have been the only UK country represented, and if anything they are weakend by not competing as the entirety of the UK.

Canada having a second team at the ice hockey world cup, which is a much smaller sport than football with only a handful of nations having a legit chance of winning, gives them an unfair advantage.

 

[BlueBaron]

Lol.
No.
Canada doesn't need a b team.

 

[Taluss]

Interesting idea but no because it will only help 1/2 Countries. Canada and USA as well Id imagine?

 

[Peat]

People call it "best on best" because it's the best players of one country facing off against the best players of another country.

But if you wanna argue over definitions, sure, you could say the all star game is best on best. No one cares though. (Not saying no one watches it, I'm saying players nor fans takes it seriously and people don't care about the outcome. It's a friendly gimmic, nothing more).

Correct on the bolded. An international tournament in which the NHL doesn't fully participate, meaning that countries aren't sending their best, doesn't count as best on best. Best on best is international competition in which every player from the NHL is available.

 

[Steerpike]

The UK breaks up into separate teams for soccer normally (England, Scotland, Wales,)

I could see an argument (if not agree with it) for breaking Canada up similarly (especially with Quebec)

But a straight Canadian 1st team and 2nd team...

No.

Yeah this is the only context in which it makes sense. Quebec has its own language. Like the distinction between England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, you could say that it's a separate "nation". (Although obviously not a separate "state")

With the shitshow that is hockey Canada, maybe they should split the Canadian teams into provinces. It would make it much more fun to watch the international competitions. However ... I really only think Quebec has a distinct enough identity to actually make sense.

A "B" team is rreally lame though.

 

[NyQuil]

However ... I really only think Quebec has a distinct enough identity to actually make sense.

You should visit Newfoundland.

 

[mattihp]

Correct on the bolded. An international tournament in which the NHL doesn't fully participate, meaning that countries aren't sending their best, doesn't count as best on best. Best on best is international competition in which every player from the NHL is available.

The NHL playoffs are not best of best either, some top players don't make it.

 

[Elvs]

Correct on the bolded. An international tournament in which the NHL doesn't fully participate, meaning that countries aren't sending their best, doesn't count as best on best. Best on best is international competition in which every player from the NHL is available.

What tournaments are we talking about? World Championships? Olympics without NHL'ers?

Is there a case to be made that Canada should have multiple teams in these tournaments, when they "only" have a bronze medal from the last two Olympics combined? Or when they lost to Latvia at the World Championships last year and nearly missed the quarterfinals?

Seeing how Canada tends to send their D or E teams (or worse) to the World Championships... Do we really need to see them send another team at the end of the alphabet as well?

I'm honestly confused as what you are trying to say.

 

[North Cole]

I'm sure we would love to see a team beat itself for a gold medal. Already feel kind of bad for the loser of a gold medal game, imagine losing to your own countrymen because you're on the B team. Lmao.

 

[KingsFan7824]

Of course not. You get your one team, and one chance at a medal. There's nothing broken about that.

 

[jonlin]

They should let Russia have one first

I suppose NHL will have a Team Russia/Athletes from Russia? Isnt the NHL-based Canada Cup/World cup a closed NHL tournament or do IIHF rules actually stand?

 

[teravaineSAROS]

The average fan wouldn't take the tournament seriously.

I can't speak for North Americans but here in Europe people didn't care for the World Cup because it didn't feel serious with the Team Europe and Team North America gimmick.

 

[bobholly39]

I had initially voted option 3, but changed to no.

I will say as a Canadian fan i've enjoyed our recent string of dominance of course (I like winning) in 2010, 14 and 16, but.....it does get a bit boring when you're such strong favorites each time. It would be more fun to win against tough competition/longer odds.

It would be great if teams from US or Russia or Sweden or such could mount a really tremendous lineup/challenge at the next best on best tournament. That's why the idea of a Canada 2 sounded interesting, but on further thought it would be kind of lame.

 

[Fataldogg]

Its a policy that would only benefit one country, Team Canada. No other country would benefit from this. And who wants to see Team Canada A vs Team Canada B?

 

[MasterofGrond]

Yeah who cares it'd be weird and maybe fun

 

[spiny norman]

Lopsided result.