What is the better Elite competition to expand hockey, in the Olympics, or World Cup?
- Thread starter Jazz
- Start date
- Status
therealdeal
Registered User
- Apr 22, 2005
- 4,626
- 253
I think that the Best on best happens too often now, maybe only have the World Cup every 6 years if you're doing the Olympics.
hockey in the olympics goes out too many more viewers than world cup do, so the answer is rather easy.
Olaf Fub
Registered User
I like to see the World Cup get played in same year as the Summer Olympics, so we'd have an elite tourney every two years.
I'd also like to see it go back to being named the Canada Cup.
I'd also like to see it go back to being named the Canada Cup.
Obviously, no one in Europe is happy that in the World Cup, Canada is the organizing country, the judge, and the home team. And in Canada no one would have been happy if the World Cup was always played in the Czech Republic with Czech referees.
For that reason, unlike the World Cup, the Olympics are a legitimate international tournament. The WC would need to be impartial.
But, I think there's a place for both of them. I mean it's every 2 years!!! YEARS, not months!
For that reason, unlike the World Cup, the Olympics are a legitimate international tournament. The WC would need to be impartial.
But, I think there's a place for both of them. I mean it's every 2 years!!! YEARS, not months!
old kummelweck
Registered User
- Nov 10, 2003
- 25,217
- 5,319
BraveSirRobin
Ducks offseason
I like both. The World/Canada Cup is great because it's not disrupting the NHL season and you see hockey players play for their countries without the fear of a few top players drop out to heal for when the NHL restarts. However, the Olympics has that feel of tradition to it, and it's available to a larger audience. I don't know, I can't pick just one.
Sakaarnis
Registered User
MountainHawk
Registered User
i'd rather have the olympics... but instead of crowding the schedule in olympic years they should either have a shorter schedule... or start earlier in those olympic years
Olympics.
Having both makes no sense. Having a major best on best every two years makes it almost boring. Have it four years, and keep it at the Olympics.
Having both makes no sense. Having a major best on best every two years makes it almost boring. Have it four years, and keep it at the Olympics.
Ice Hockey is not a verry popular Sport.
Period.
So, other than Football, which is simply too big for the Olympics, the worlds most important Ice Hockey tornament should be happening within the olympics.
This is because this way you reach people and countries where ice hockey needs promotion, like Germany for example.
Having said this, bear in mind that the german DEL is one of the best (best in multiple aspects, finance, spectators, sponsorship) Leagues in europe. For comparison, look at England for example, ice hockey is almost not present there.
So the olympics are held every 4 years, the World Cup of (ice) Hockey should be held every four years as well, with a 2 years gap, so for example next time 2008.
The world cup should be expanded to 16 teams, played in 2 pools of 8 teams with the top 4 teams qualifying for a cross elimination knock out tornament.
That way, all nations would get to play a minimum of 7 games against world-class opponents, and nothing closes the gap faster than competing on top level.
http://www.iihf.com/news/Ranking2005.pdf
01 CAN
02 SWE
03 CZE
04 SVK
05 RUS
06 USA
07 FIN
08 SUI
09 LAT
10 GER
11 UKR
12 BLR
13 AUT
14 DEN
15 KAZ
16 SLO
Now for the important part:
Olympics, and World Cups should include NHL players.
In ice hockey there is the strange situation that all the top players play in one league. (Look at football where stars are scattered all over europe).
The WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS should explixitly DISSALOW the participation of NHL players and be held only in years where there is neither a world cup, nor olympic games.
That way, there would be a big international competition every year, with "the best" showing up in olympics and world cups, while up and coming players and teams can also compete in a "2nd Level" tournament that allows nations to build and show some depth, without beeing totally dependent on the NHL. (if Boston makes the Playoffs, Germany is without Sturm. Germany without Sturm doesn't stand a chance against all the rest of Canada nevertheless since they got Stars on every NHL team).
Conclusion: NHL Players show up internationally every 2 years only, World Cup's and Olympics.
In hockey, a "Continental Championship" makes no sense, so let there be a World Championship every 2 years, but without any Active NHL Players.
Championships feature 16 Nations to expose players to that level of play and transfer skill and experiece that way.
Period.
So, other than Football, which is simply too big for the Olympics, the worlds most important Ice Hockey tornament should be happening within the olympics.
This is because this way you reach people and countries where ice hockey needs promotion, like Germany for example.
Having said this, bear in mind that the german DEL is one of the best (best in multiple aspects, finance, spectators, sponsorship) Leagues in europe. For comparison, look at England for example, ice hockey is almost not present there.
So the olympics are held every 4 years, the World Cup of (ice) Hockey should be held every four years as well, with a 2 years gap, so for example next time 2008.
The world cup should be expanded to 16 teams, played in 2 pools of 8 teams with the top 4 teams qualifying for a cross elimination knock out tornament.
That way, all nations would get to play a minimum of 7 games against world-class opponents, and nothing closes the gap faster than competing on top level.
http://www.iihf.com/news/Ranking2005.pdf
01 CAN
02 SWE
03 CZE
04 SVK
05 RUS
06 USA
07 FIN
08 SUI
09 LAT
10 GER
11 UKR
12 BLR
13 AUT
14 DEN
15 KAZ
16 SLO
Now for the important part:
Olympics, and World Cups should include NHL players.
In ice hockey there is the strange situation that all the top players play in one league. (Look at football where stars are scattered all over europe).
The WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS should explixitly DISSALOW the participation of NHL players and be held only in years where there is neither a world cup, nor olympic games.
That way, there would be a big international competition every year, with "the best" showing up in olympics and world cups, while up and coming players and teams can also compete in a "2nd Level" tournament that allows nations to build and show some depth, without beeing totally dependent on the NHL. (if Boston makes the Playoffs, Germany is without Sturm. Germany without Sturm doesn't stand a chance against all the rest of Canada nevertheless since they got Stars on every NHL team).
Conclusion: NHL Players show up internationally every 2 years only, World Cup's and Olympics.
In hockey, a "Continental Championship" makes no sense, so let there be a World Championship every 2 years, but without any Active NHL Players.
Championships feature 16 Nations to expose players to that level of play and transfer skill and experiece that way.
Olaf Fub
Registered User
MXD said:
Why to which point.
I'd like to see the Cup played between the Winter Olympics because I enjoy the tournaments.
I'd like to see it called the Canada Cup because it's the original name. The tradition of the Canada Cup means something. The World Cup is a soccer tournament.
Plus, it's held in Canada.
I love everything more about the world cup except one thing... it's runned by Canada. Canadian-biased referees etc. makes it impossible for any team to win.
therealdeal
Registered User
- Apr 22, 2005
- 4,626
- 253
dakdak said:
Wow, you really show those non-partisan views on the game right here.
Excellent post.
Something that really bugs me is:
"Hockey".
The reigning Olympic Hockey Champion is... Australia.
How can professional people come up with "World Cup of Hockey" for an ICE Hockey Tournament. I mean come on. Show some credibility and respect if you are talking about a world stage tournament. Seriously if India and Pakistan show up and want to play, what are you going to tell them? buy some skates?
"Hockey".
The reigning Olympic Hockey Champion is... Australia.
How can professional people come up with "World Cup of Hockey" for an ICE Hockey Tournament. I mean come on. Show some credibility and respect if you are talking about a world stage tournament. Seriously if India and Pakistan show up and want to play, what are you going to tell them? buy some skates?
Yeah... Olympics and thats it. I don't think anyone even saw/cared about the last world cup. I know I'm in no mood to see hockey in August with a bunch of out of shape players. During the Olympics, ever player is in shape and ready to go.
The Kingslayer
Registered User
Canada Cup doesn't sound like an international tournament. That's an awful name. World Cup is by far a better name. Because it does involve other countries other than canada...Olaf Fub said:
Firsov99
Registered User
- Feb 17, 2006
- 4,753
- 3,473
ScottyBowman said:
Well said. I would add that the Olympics would be better for fans, and the World Cup would be better for NHL owners.
P.S. Guys, enjoy this Torino Olympic hockey to the fullest because there is a good possibility that we won't see NHLers in 2010....
It's interesting that this is coming up. Soccer and basketball both send their best to the Olympics, and have a World Cup (World Championship) during the in-between year.
In terms of growing the game, the Olympics is the better way to grow. You're going to attract more people, more viewers. There's also much more history behind Olympic gold than that bizarre trophy the NHL had designed for the World Cup. (Someone actually paid money for that?)
I think there is a place for the World Cup, if it's done right. I think it might be best to alternate locations, like the World Cup of Soccer, if we could guarantee that the fans in the host country would turn out for all the games, not just the medal round games and contests involving the host team. It also has to be presented as a tournament that means something, by making the players care about it. (Gretzky did an excellent job of that for Canada in the last World Cup, because players knew that a strong performance would cinch their spot on the 2006 Olympic team).
In terms of growing the game, the Olympics is the better way to grow. You're going to attract more people, more viewers. There's also much more history behind Olympic gold than that bizarre trophy the NHL had designed for the World Cup. (Someone actually paid money for that?)
I think there is a place for the World Cup, if it's done right. I think it might be best to alternate locations, like the World Cup of Soccer, if we could guarantee that the fans in the host country would turn out for all the games, not just the medal round games and contests involving the host team. It also has to be presented as a tournament that means something, by making the players care about it. (Gretzky did an excellent job of that for Canada in the last World Cup, because players knew that a strong performance would cinch their spot on the 2006 Olympic team).
- Status
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
-
When was the last time you cried because of a playoff loss?- Latest: RussianShark
-
