Daly: Hope to have World Cup of Hockey 2020
- Thread starter AmericanDream
- Start date
8 teams and 2 groups is not that good. Skip the Team NA and play it just like back in the Canada Cup days. Six or seven teams (with Team Europe) where everyone faces every team once. Top 4 advances.
Easy.
Easy.
mattihp
Registered User
Teams:
Team Canada without righty shots
Team USA + Norway without lefty shots
Team Russia without facial hair
Team Mascots
Team Coca-Cola
Team Arby's
Team Pepsico
Team Dorito
Team Canada without righty shots
Team USA + Norway without lefty shots
Team Russia without facial hair
Team Mascots
Team Coca-Cola
Team Arby's
Team Pepsico
Team Dorito
How can a international tournament be taken seriously if
- it's very irregular
- you never know if it'll be canceled after confirmation
- you never know how teams are made up in next tournament (like U23 and European outcasts)
Regularily is a corner stone of a proper tournament. It can't be held randomly when it happens to be optimal time for business organization arranging it.
- it's very irregular
- you never know if it'll be canceled after confirmation
- you never know how teams are made up in next tournament (like U23 and European outcasts)
Regularily is a corner stone of a proper tournament. It can't be held randomly when it happens to be optimal time for business organization arranging it.
Nino33
Registered User
- Jul 5, 2015
- 1,828
- 441
I didn't like the 2016 World Cup (especially the two teams you mentioned), but I think the cornerstone for relevance is best-on-best
If the Olympics aren't best-on-best the most relevant international competition will be whatever the NHL's involved with (just like it was 1976-1996), however infrequent/uncertain things are
The Worlds are held every year, only national teams, and they aren't taken seriously (because they're not best-on-best)
I dunno... If we are talking about what's relevant in the context of "do the masses care" than I think roto (and others) have a point. Despite the fact the CC/WCup has generally been "best-on-best" it hasn't achieved a ton of relevance outside of Canada. To be honest, I think a small handful of iconic moments has helped to mask over the fact that even in Canada the tournament hasn't exactly been a "hot ticket" through much of its existence.
...and with the said, I still don't think Daly, or anyone else that would have to be involved, is really all that serious about organizing a WCup in '20. The potential labour strife just provides everyone a convenient excuse not to bother.
...and with the said, I still don't think Daly, or anyone else that would have to be involved, is really all that serious about organizing a WCup in '20. The potential labour strife just provides everyone a convenient excuse not to bother.
Last edited:
Nino33
Registered User
- Jul 5, 2015
- 1,828
- 441
And all those supporters have the Worlds every year and the Olympics every 4 years - if "best-on-best" isn't the key issue why are they complaining about what the NHL does with the World Cup or whether the NHL is involved in the
Olympics?
If it's not to have best-on-best competition, what other reason would there be to have the NHL even have to be mentioned or involved in international play in any way?
Did OAR's victory over Germany this spring have relevancy outside of Russia/Germany?
Is the Olympic/Worlds relevancy primarily connected to nationalism and not hockey?
Does the hockey world recognize OAR's victory as important/relevant?
IMO the answers are no, yes, and no
I bet you that more people in the world could tell you which two teams faced each other in the 2018 Olympics than the 2016 World Cup finals. I'm guessing the TV ratings were also significantly higher. Anyway, what's your definition of "relevancy"? Was the 2018 Olympics some sort of testamente who the two best countries in hockey are? No, but people still enjoy to watch their country win something big. An Olympic gold is an Olympic gold. Your country only has a chance of winning once every four years, and thus the stakes are high. In what way is the Stanley Cup winner important or relevant? Three weeks later everything is reset. It's not really a testament to who the best teams are. If you were to run a simulation 10 times you could get 7 different winners. But we realize it's a damn hard trophy to win, the stakes are high and we enjoy watching the outcome.
Last edited:
Not sure I understand your point, but I think just about everyone would agree the Olympic tournament is far better (and relevant) when it's "best-on-best", and the IIHF WC would be far better (and relevant) if it was "best-on-best". A lot of people also think the NHL/PA's WCup would be far better (and relevant) if it had the structure/elements we see in just about every other tournament calling itself a World Cup/Championship.
I'm pretty confident in saying far more people watched Russia/Germany than any other hockey game played in the last four years... So in that context, yes Russia/Germany had relevancy. Does any serious person who follows hockey honestly think that the game was to decide "global hockey supremacy", or whatever grandiose title you want to attach to a short two week tournament?... No, of course not.
As far as "nationalism" goes... How is the CC/WCup different in that regard? National anthems are played, plenty of flags are waved, and a promotional blitz about it being "Canada's game" and/or "Canada against the world" is run.
Last edited:
USA population: 265 million
Germany population: 83 million
USA-Canada (2016 World Cup): 766,000 viewers on U.S. channel ESPN
Germany-Latvia (2017 World Championship, group stage game): 2,400,000 viewers on German channel Sport1
Seriously, does anything else need to be said?
Germany population: 83 million
USA-Canada (2016 World Cup): 766,000 viewers on U.S. channel ESPN
Germany-Latvia (2017 World Championship, group stage game): 2,400,000 viewers on German channel Sport1
Seriously, does anything else need to be said?
JETZZZ
Registered User
Partly because the whole point of the Canada/World Cup was to be a best-on-best tournament and the last one couldn't even get that part completely right. No matter how many times they kept insisting it was. (The only positive change in 2016 was finally committing to running it every 4 years...which has already potentially gone to shit).
The Olympics relevancy is connected to both the nationalism and the hockey. A gold medal in ice hockey is still pretty darn special even if it isn't best-on-best. (But yeah, as a hockey fan, Id like it a hell of a lot more if it was best-on-best.)
Nino33
Registered User
- Jul 5, 2015
- 1,828
- 441
Agreed
For hockey and "worldwide competition" it's best-on-best or nothing for me.
I'm a big advocate of a round robin where everyone plays everyone (and then playoffs) myself
FYI - I had no real interest in the 2016 World Cup, and never watched a game of the U23 or Team Europe on principal (I think I watched part of a couple round robin games)
It's not any different. Or any different than the Olympics 1998-2014.
If I see a difference/if there is a difference, generalizing...it's NA cares most because it's best-on-best & Europe/Russia cares most for nationalistic reasons (which is why the Worlds is so much less popular in NA, as is the Olympics when it's not best-on-best but it doesn't seem to matter to the EU or Russia)
It would be really nice to have the tournament back, but I hope they have learned from the harsh criticism towards the gimmick teams. This really was a bad joke. In the case they want to experiment with any kind of "mixed teams" again, I would much rather hope for the NHLPA setting the Olympic participation as a condition sine qua non during the Collective agreement bargaining (it could be not so problematic in the case that China is willing to invest some extra money). It sort of doesn't matter to me, whether there will be a tournament called World Cup, Canada Cup, of the Olympic Games, I just would like to see a best-on-best international tournament again.
Regarding the World Cup format, in my opinion, maybe a 10-teams format could be quite interesting, although rather improbable in reality: CAN, USA, RUS, SWE, CZE, FIN, SUI, GER, SVK, DEN. 2 groups, 5 teams each, winner goes directly to the semi-finals, teams placed 2-3 play qualification games. I generally like this format, where the group winner gets directly to the semis, because it makes the group stage more interesting, plus, when a team has a great group stage, it really provides some advantage, and all the effort cannot be spoiled by perhaps a single individual mistake in the quarterfinals. The negative of this format for many people would be, that it can be clear too early, which teams are getting through, and obviously, there would be some clear favourites and clear outsiders in the group stage. At the same time, at the Olympics, it used be the same, and even the "smaller" teams, knowing they cannot be relegated, played fearlessly against the favourites. It was a different matter from the WCH, where an underdog often stops trying after allowing one or two goals to the favourite and concentrates to the games important from the perspective of the relegation struggle.
Regarding the teams, I believe Danish hockey has been growing during the recent years, and in 2020, they perhaps could be competitive. As least at the World Juniors, they look rather solid since some 2015 or so, and this could bring some fruit. They already produced several serious talents, and I have high hopes for them to produce more during the 2 years to come. Also Germany has now some serious offensive talent to offer (Draisaitl, Kahun, I believe Macek will make the NHL soon, plus there are a few interesting players in their domestic league). Slovakia then is a traditional hockey nation, really many Slovaks watch their national team playing, even when it has been not precisely top notch during the recent years. Switzerland has now the best generation of players in hockey history in my opinion, an more talented guys are growing up. The "core" 6 teams are clear. Regarding, for example, Norway or Latvia, I see them rather on a downward trajectory now, their national teams rely on the effort of older guys, and I think in 2 years, as those guys get even older or quit their careers, they will no be very competitive.
In any way, lets hope for some best-on-best international hockey after a while, would be a lot of fun to watch.
Regarding the World Cup format, in my opinion, maybe a 10-teams format could be quite interesting, although rather improbable in reality: CAN, USA, RUS, SWE, CZE, FIN, SUI, GER, SVK, DEN. 2 groups, 5 teams each, winner goes directly to the semi-finals, teams placed 2-3 play qualification games. I generally like this format, where the group winner gets directly to the semis, because it makes the group stage more interesting, plus, when a team has a great group stage, it really provides some advantage, and all the effort cannot be spoiled by perhaps a single individual mistake in the quarterfinals. The negative of this format for many people would be, that it can be clear too early, which teams are getting through, and obviously, there would be some clear favourites and clear outsiders in the group stage. At the same time, at the Olympics, it used be the same, and even the "smaller" teams, knowing they cannot be relegated, played fearlessly against the favourites. It was a different matter from the WCH, where an underdog often stops trying after allowing one or two goals to the favourite and concentrates to the games important from the perspective of the relegation struggle.
Regarding the teams, I believe Danish hockey has been growing during the recent years, and in 2020, they perhaps could be competitive. As least at the World Juniors, they look rather solid since some 2015 or so, and this could bring some fruit. They already produced several serious talents, and I have high hopes for them to produce more during the 2 years to come. Also Germany has now some serious offensive talent to offer (Draisaitl, Kahun, I believe Macek will make the NHL soon, plus there are a few interesting players in their domestic league). Slovakia then is a traditional hockey nation, really many Slovaks watch their national team playing, even when it has been not precisely top notch during the recent years. Switzerland has now the best generation of players in hockey history in my opinion, an more talented guys are growing up. The "core" 6 teams are clear. Regarding, for example, Norway or Latvia, I see them rather on a downward trajectory now, their national teams rely on the effort of older guys, and I think in 2 years, as those guys get even older or quit their careers, they will no be very competitive.
In any way, lets hope for some best-on-best international hockey after a while, would be a lot of fun to watch.
Team NA was created for ratings purposes.
The biggest obstacle with these tournaments is attracting the casual hockey fans. The hard-core fans will be there, but there aren’t enough of them to generate good ratings for a game such as Sweden-Finland.
NHL solution was creating more teams (and games) where casual fans might have rooting interest.
Who knows? Maybe the tournament would have been a far bigger success had USA and NA made the knockout stage.
The biggest obstacle with these tournaments is attracting the casual hockey fans. The hard-core fans will be there, but there aren’t enough of them to generate good ratings for a game such as Sweden-Finland.
NHL solution was creating more teams (and games) where casual fans might have rooting interest.
Who knows? Maybe the tournament would have been a far bigger success had USA and NA made the knockout stage.
The magic of the Canada-Cup was that the matches between Canada and the Soviets had a true cold war-feel about them. East vs West, Rocky vs Ivan Drago, freedom vs tyranny etc.
None of that exists in this New world we live in.
None of that exists in this New world we live in.
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 18,074
- 12,729
Even that is part of the NHL's stupidity though. In order to make the young gunz team strong USA had to be stripped of several roster players. The success of one team would in some ways come at the expense of the other.
SotasicA
Registered User
- Aug 25, 2014
- 8,489
- 6,404
The 2016 tournament was one of my favourite international hockey tournaments. The 1996 World Cup was better, but nothing in between 1996-2016 was. The small ice, the entertaining hockey, the young guns team... all awesome.
My all-time favourite tourneys were the original Canada Cups.
My all-time favourite tourneys were the original Canada Cups.
And to add to this: Sport1 is a bit of a niche channel. Had this been broadcast on ZDF like the games of the national soccer team, the viewership would certainly have been even more impressive.
Why do you think there should be quarter-finals in the tournament with 2 groups of 4 teams? It's better not to have them. That makes the round-robin games way more meaningful.
Do you think having this tournament in NYC is a realistic scenario? Where would they be hosting it? Does MSG have time for a thing like this, or could they maybe be playing in Jersey in Prudential Center? As a Finn I wouldn't mind. NYC is the easiest destination in North America to travel to from Helsinki.
And if they decide to have some of the group stage matches in Europe, I wouldn't mind traveling to Stockholm, Prague, Bern or Copenhagen to see Finland play. Russia I'm not that keen on.
It would have also been better if Sweden had made the finals. I was in Toronto for the World Cup and I was following the ticket prices on the secondary market throughout the tournament. The prices of tickets to the finals plummeted when Europe beat Sweden in the semi-final, because people knew that it doesn't really make any sense to have Canada play European leftovers instead of an actual national team.
Last edited:
greasysnapper
Registered User
- Apr 6, 2018
- 2,588
- 1,694
The NHL and PA might sign off on another world cup, but some of these ideas with like 11 games formats, or teams with non-nhl players are ludicrous. It's not a tournament to see which country is the best at hockey, it's a money making event plain and simple.
Nino33
Registered User
- Jul 5, 2015
- 1,828
- 441
I don't/you misunderstood
My position is a 6-team tournament with a single round-robin group + semis/final would be best.
What you quoted was my responding to VLK...it was VLK advocating two groups/8 teams (like in the 1996 World Cup where they had quarterfinal games)
Here's my quote with the quote I was responding to added back in
For best-on-best I don't think there should ever be "groups" of teams, nor do I think there should be quarterfinal games
IMO my idea of a round-robin where everyone plays everyone & then semis/final is definitely the best way to make "round-robin games way more meaningful" (not adding teams whose idea of a successful tournament is to play well/maybe upset someone in a single game). It also guarantees that the top teams always play each other at least once during best-on-best tournaments
P.S. The Olympic round-robin has the most meaningless games of all, with 12 teams involved and everyone makes the playoffs!
The 2016-tournament required only 13 days; shorter than any previous World Cup or Canada Cup. Thanks to the tournament-format on one hand but on the other hand the fact that the tournament was held in one city only so there was no time required for travelling.
Nino33
Registered User
- Jul 5, 2015
- 1,828
- 441
The first pre-tournament game was held September 8th and the last game of the final September 29th...so in terms of players being unavailable for anything else it was a minimum of 23 days not 13 (and 23 days is with teams only gathering the day before their first game!) 2016 World Cup of Hockey - Wikipedia
Personally I don't think a few days either way matters in regards to a best-on-best tournament, nor do I think the 2016 World Cup is representative of how it should be done!
P.S. Another example of you can't just take the minimum days of tournament games into account...the 2018 Olympic hockey tournament was 16 days but the KHL took a 33 day break for the Olympics
Edenjung
Registered User
- Jun 7, 2018
- 2,749
- 2,672
Funny that you mention that, because i asked the ZDF and ARD if they could send more hockey because they now have more money freed up because of the Cl rights.
Both answered 2-3h later that day and the ARD said that the IIhF world cup had about 170.000 viewers about 0,8%. So there is no real a thing for that. But they want to show like the big events (olympics or the finals of the World cup [if they can get the rights]) but they don't have time to send the plyoff finals of the DEL live, because they a) lack the rights (even though they are cheap as f***) and b) in the Sportsschau (like sport center) we only have 30 minutes for other sport. And on saturday you have 1,5h for football. So you see there are other preferences here. But if the Nhl would manage to let the ZDF or ARD send out some weekday or saturday games for a little bit of money or even the stanley cup final, something could grow.
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
GDT: WCQF (Game 2) Winnipeg Jets vs Colorado Avalanche , 9:30pm ET, ESPN
- Latest: Boss Man Hughes
