European championship?

[Drake1588]

The issue is a major philosophical difference. The IIHF views this tournament as a way to 1) fill its coffers every year (which is why having the World Championships any less often is a non starter for IIHF, which relies on those annual funds); and 2) grow the game of hockey.

The federations here gripe about tournaments where they play many games against teams other than the top-seven countries. They ONLY want to play good teams. Those elimination games can be so good, and the mismatches are so bland, that they would prefer that international tournaments feature only the best national teams (hence, they prefer invitationals). They hate playing 12-2 drubbings. That is why you frequently hear calls during such tourneys for the field to be reduced to fewer teams. This happens most often at the WJCs, but it's apparent more generally as well.

It is accurate when Europeans charge that the NHL and North American federations and fans don't care much about growing the international game. North American invitationals would feature the top seven clubs, plus Switzerland and Germany, plus another, and perhaps cut it off there. Something in the 10-12 team range is fine here. Not so much for the IIHF.

 

[Slimmy]

The issue is a major philosophical difference. The IIHF views this tournament as a way to 1) fill its coffers every year (which is why having the World Championships any less often is a non starter for IIHF, which relies on those annual funds); and 2) grow the game of hockey.

The federations here gripe about tournaments where they play many games against teams other than the top-seven countries. They ONLY want to play good teams. Those elimination games can be so good, and the mismatches are so bland, that they would prefer that international tournaments feature only the best national teams (hence, they prefer invitationals). They hate playing 12-2 drubbings. That is why you frequently hear calls during such tourneys for the field to be reduced to fewer teams. This happens most often at the WJCs, but it's apparent more generally as well.

It is accurate when Europeans charge that the NHL and North American federations and fans don't care much about growing the international game. North American invitationals would feature the top seven clubs, plus Switzerland and Germany, plus another, and perhaps cut it off there. Something in the 10-12 team range is fine here. Not so much for the IIHF.

"plus Switzerland and Germany".. huh. Where do you think those teams/federations would be today without the international tournaments? They wouldn't have developed at all, much less created any interest in their home countries.
Don't try to spin this into USA - Canada being to good to play minor hockey nations. They've both fielded good teams and still lost to teams like Switzerland and Denmark.
The real reason is the funds/profites not going into the NHL's coffers. A world cup of hockey, which excludes those not deemed worthy of playing agains Canada/USA and hosted by Canada or USA sounds like a bad deel for the rest of the hockey world and should never be realized.
Untill the NHL stop with their gangster tactics, the WC is going to be trivialized and undermined by media and bigwigs of NHL in northamerica. Hopefully people in NA realize that international tourneys like the WC is good for hockey everywhere and that it actually is good exciting hockey to watch, untill then there's not much to say on the matter.

 

[Drake1588]

I'm with you, and I was criticizing the North American view. It's a failing of the North Americans that they don't take a more active role in growing the game, and it's the chief raison d'etre of the IIHF, in my view. They take the broader international view where the NHL takes a far more parochial view.

From the standpoint of fans in North America, they just enjoy high-level, competitive games. The losing teams in those drubbings say that they benefit from getting shellacked 10-3; fans in North America counter that those learning experiences would be best relegated to the play-in rounds. Even fans who recognize that the IIHF is working to grow the game don't have any interest in watching the Kazakhstans and the Ukraines play.

 

[Slimmy]

I'm with you, and I was criticizing the North American view. It's a failing of the North Americans that they don't take a more active role in growing the game, and it's the chief raison d'etre of the IIHF, in my view. They take the broader international view where the NHL takes a far more parochial view.

From the standpoint of fans in North America, they just enjoy high-level, competitive games. The losing teams in those drubbings say that they benefit from getting shellacked 10-3; fans in North America counter that those learning experiences would be best relegated to the play-in rounds. Even fans who recognize that the IIHF is working to grow the game don't have any interest in watching the Kazakhstans and the Ukraines play.

No one is forced too. What's important here is that teams/federations everywhere are allowed to develope in international competitions and feel that they have a shot at playing the best.

 

[Drake1588]

Well, I might have been unclear. I wasn't suggesting that anyone has a particular problem with the game where Kazakhstan plays Ukraine. They just won't watch that one.

They do suggest that a short tournament where instead of an extra Canada-Russia game, or Sweden-Finland, or Czech-Slovakia, the top seven clubs are instead playing the Kazakhstans and the Ukraines in the round robin format, where those lesser clubs have no chance to emerge, makes for less of a stellar display of hockey than might otherwise be the case.

I can understand their point, but I do sympathize with the need to allow for the emerging teams to crack the top seven. There are years where I'd have put Switzerland in the #5 position or so, at that temporary moment in time. It does happen, rarely.

That said, tournaments with 12 or so in the 'finals' instead of 16 or so might well make for better television. You need to have a valve release whereby the best of the lesser clubs get the chance to play the best in the world, but I'm not sure you need to have five or seven slots for that purpose.

The biggest problem with the weaker countries is that the teams that win the play-in rounds are often not the teams that actually play in the eventual finals, and so the team that shows up gets throttled. That will happen when a national program is lacking in depth, at all levels (but especially at the WJC and U18 level).

 

[NyQuil]

It's not a bad idea.

However, as a Canadian, I think exposure to the big ice and international style of hockey by some of our players is a good experience that serves us well for the Olympics.

As it is, the WCs are essentially a European tournament anyway, just as the World Cup is a North-American tournament.

 

[Slimmy]

Well, I might have been unclear. I wasn't suggesting that anyone has a particular problem with the game where Kazakhstan plays Ukraine. They just won't watch that one.

They do suggest that a short tournament where instead of an extra Canada-Russia game, or Sweden-Finland, or Czech-Slovakia, the top seven clubs are instead playing the Kazakhstans and the Ukraines in the round robin format, where those lesser clubs have no chance to emerge, makes for less of a stellar display of hockey than might otherwise be the case.

I can understand their point, but I do sympathize with the need to allow for the emerging teams to crack the top seven. There are years where I'd have put Switzerland in the #5 position or so, at that temporary moment in time. It does happen, rarely.

That said, tournaments with 12 or so in the 'finals' instead of 16 or so might well make for better television. You need to have a valve release whereby the best of the lesser clubs get the chance to play the best in the world, but I'm not sure you need to have five or seven slots for that purpose.

The biggest problem with the weaker countries is that the teams that win the play-in rounds are often not the teams that actually play in the eventual finals, and so the team that shows up gets throttled. That will happen when a national program is lacking in depth, at all levels (but especially at the WJC and U18 level).

I understand where you are getting at but I don't at all agree that Northamericans are only interested in watching the big hockey nations compete. Canadians love cheering for the underdogs and upsets are always (oh, well) fun to watch.
The main problem or obstacle here is the NHL. The percieved notion that the World Championships is a european tournament that favoures the european countries is the view put forth by the NHL and parroted by the media in NA untill every northamerican hockey fan feels animosity toward the tourny and the IIHF.

 

[Drake1588]

You are absolutely correct where the underdog is concerned, but that's only when we're talking about a team of the caliber of a Latvia or a Germany or a Switzerland at certain points in time, teams which have each shocked the world periodically over the past decade or so with one or more big upsets in international play. The flip side to those scenarios is that those were very, very good clubs, and they showed their mettle as the elite clubs of the play-in rounds.

The question, I think, is how many slots teams outside the top seven should receive for the Finals. I don't think that the NHL would ever hold an invitational and ONLY invite the top seven, or even propose a field as small as the top seven plus one token club. There is always going to be allowance for teams outside the top seven, probably 3-5 teams for a field of 10-12. The question is how many slots that teams sitting outside that mix earn.

I believe that North American fans love watching one of the top seven truly threatened by a good, solid hockey team that can play at a similar level, keep the games close, grind it out, chip away, and stand a good chance of winning. Hell, there have been times in the last five years when one could well question if Slovakia was even still the #7, and lack of development recently in certain top seven countries could mean change for that upper plateau of the top-seven hockey countries. There definitely needs to be room for teams to break into that top tier.

What I think holds true is that North American fans hate mismatches, though, and dislike watching games where the two clubs are clearly not on the same plane. It's when the field grows well beyond 12 that I think the debate is perhaps worthwhile. Play-in rounds should be able to determine the, "best of the rest," I would think.

 

[Drake1588]

The NHL's chief concern, I think, is that it wants a piece of the pie. It is not averse to international competition, but it does feel that if it is going to contribute a disproportionate share of the players in a tournament, then it should reap at least some of the economic windfall. Owners feel that their players under contract are subject to injuries, and this risk is offset by no proceeds to the NHL. The IIHF, for its part, treats the proceeds from international tournaments as part of the dues paid by the federations to the IIHF, and its primary means of sustaining itself and thereby funding IIHF efforts to grow the game. The IIHF wants to assume a role similar to that of FIFA, and the NHL has long resisted conformity to this model. It has the clout to do so, while the talent pool between the various national leagues in football/soccer is more diffuse, making the leagues less powerful relative to FIFA than the NHL is relative to the IIHF.

It's a fundamental disconnect that has been going on for some time, and if it isn't resolved soon, the threat of NHL withdrawal from the Olympics, and increased emphasis on holding NHL invitationals like the World Cup of Hockey, will grow. The World Cup of Hockey is tremendous financial windfall for the NHL. It's starting to look like Sochi is increasingly likely, but the NHL may well determine that will be its last year of participation.

 

[Slimmy]

You are absolutely correct where the underdog is concerned, but that's only when we're talking about a team of the caliber of a Latvia or a Germany or a Switzerland at certain points in time, teams which have each shocked the world periodically over the past decade or so with one or more big upsets in international play. The flip side to those scenarios is that those were very, very good clubs, and they showed their mettle as the elite clubs of the play-in rounds.

The question, I think, is how many slots teams outside the top seven should receive for the Finals. I don't think that the NHL would ever hold an invitational and ONLY invite the top seven, or even propose a field as small as the top seven plus one token club. There is always going to be allowance for teams outside the top seven, probably 3-5 teams for a field of 10-12. The question is how many slots that teams sitting outside that mix earn.

I believe that North American fans love watching one of the top seven truly threatened by a good, solid hockey team that can play at a similar level, keep the games close, grind it out, chip away, and stand a good chance of winning. Hell, there have been times in the last five years when one could well question if Slovakia was even still the #7, and lack of development recently in certain top seven countries could mean change for that upper plateau of the top-seven hockey countries. There definitely needs to be room for teams to break into that top tier.

What I think holds true is that North American fans hate mismatches, though, and dislike watching games where the two clubs are clearly not on the same plane. It's when the field grows well beyond 12 that I think the debate is perhaps worthwhile. Play-in rounds should be able to determine the, "best of the rest," I would think.

No one likes mismatches among the top teams. I get no joy out of watching Sweden pummel Italy or France. Just for the record.

I'm not sure whether you are actually advocating an invitational or not. Your main argument is that there's too many slots for lower tier teams. Fair enough. IIHF have not set an absolute cap for teams in the WC's what I'm aware of. They constatly try to balance the quality of the competition and the developement of hockey world wide.
They see to the best interest of hockey as a sport and not as a business. That's the major reason why the IIHF and the NHL are at odds, as we have concluded.

Hockey is a small sport. The revenue of the international tourneys should be focused on investing and developing hockey programs in minor hockey nations aswell as maintaining the quality of the tournies on all levels.
It should not be used to fill the coffers of the NHL fatcats. I'm not saying that any form of compensation to the respective clubs is unthinkable but seeing as FIFA has enourmous economical muscles compared to the IIHF and clubs of equal or much greater stature in the Premier League, Seria A, Bundesliga, La Liga and so on, It's mindboggling how the NHL reasons. They are the General Motors of Hockey, that's become painstakingly clear.

 

[JLP]

Agree the NHL should keep its hands off revenues from international tournaments where players are choosing to participate. There's more to hockey than Buttman's quest to fund ice in the desert,,,

 

[Drake1588]

If it seems I'm conflicted, it's because I'm conflicted.

In a way, I believe the IIHF acts properly for an international hockey federation. It should be the IIHF's job to expand interest in the game, and act in the interests of the community at large (all members, mind you, including the North American members).

Where the NHL is concerned, however, I'm not sure they are behaving inappropriately. It's still a league. It may be the biggest, and hoard the world's best players, and represent far and away the most money spent on payroll and ancillary expenditures, but it's still just a league at the end of the day. It's in the business of making money for its members, expanding the number of people who watch NHL hockey, and eventually expanding the number of NHL clubs. I don't find its actions to be necessarily incorrect for a sports league. Its idea of growth is how to expand interest in Europe — and the world — in NHL hockey and NHL events.

The question is whether being the biggest hockey league carries with it responsibilities to act in ways that do not directly benefit the league, but which benefit the game of hockey as a whole. To me, that role is best left to the IIHF. The league carries on league business.

In some ways, I believe both the IIHF and the NHL act appropriately. They have different mandates, in my opinion, and expecting a league to act like an international federation is perhaps faulty.

 

[Slimmy]

I don't agree. It's in the NHL's best interest to see hockey grow as a sport world wide. Interest in the NHL would grow and more markets would open as a result. The NHL however has no interest in cooperating with other leagues or the IIHF, seeing they are the powerhouse of hockey and wish to remane so. However, they will soon have to revise their stance as competing leagues are on the horison and some already atracting star players. Theire arrogance and greed will only deterr fans around the world from watching the NHL, cementing their reputation as hostile toward the sport. They're not exactly exubering goodwill, here.

 

[Drake1588]

What really hurts international hockey, in my opinion, is that there is simply no counter to the NHL. FIFA successfully balances the world's various football leagues because there is no single dominant league, not even the Premier League (sponsored by Barclay's!), which makes far and away more money than everyone else in the hockey world. The NHL has no Serie A, no La Liga, no Bundesliga to check its behavior. What you have is a series of MLS leagues in hockey.

Call it a function of the degree of interest in hockey, and where that interest is concentrated, but the lack of balancing leagues to NHL preponderance gives the NHL so much power that a league which is only acting in its own self interest can cast a long shadow. It's a problem without a solution either. The KHL is not about to start operating on $60M payrolls (beyond 3-4 oligarch-sponsored clubs), not about to start charging NHL ticket prices to attend games. No other league is remotely close to challenging the NHL.

 

[Slimmy]

What really hurts international hockey, in my opinion, is that there is simply no counter to the NHL. FIFA successfully balances the world's various football leagues because there is no single dominant league, not even the Premier League (sponsored by Barclay's!), which makes far and away more money than everyone else in the hockey world. The NHL has no Serie A, no La Liga, no Bundesliga to check its behavior. What you have is a series of MLS leagues in hockey.

Call it a function of the degree of interest in hockey, and where that interest is concentrated, but the lack of balancing leagues to NHL preponderance gives the NHL so much power that a league which is only acting in its own self interest can cast a long shadow. It's a problem without a solution either. The KHL is not about to start operating on $60M payrolls (beyond 3-4 oligarch-sponsored clubs), not about to start charging NHL ticket prices to attend games. No other league is remotely close to challenging the NHL.

I agree that there is a major imbalance between the leagues, and NHL housing the great majority of the hockey talent in the world allows them to dictate the rules.
Fortunately there are realistic plans of a european league which could in the future rival the NHL. Aslong as they can attract sponsors, it could very well become a reality.
The "Champions Leauge" of hockey is also starting to take off. It is however a pre-season invitational at the moment but it is growing with several teams each year.
I feel optimistic and confident about European hockey and being able to atleast keep a larger part of the talent pool here in Europe will force the NHL to become more humble.

 

[Drake1588]

They are trying, but I am less sanguine about their prospects, to be honest. Players, like leagues, ultimately act out of their own self interest. They may prattle on about wanting to compete in the most competitive league in the world, with the best players, but it comes down to money (and eventually it equates to the same thing anyway). Pan-European reorganization will only accomplish so much without a corresponding increase in payrolls, television advertizing revenue, and gate receipts. It's ultimately a function of fan interest, and willingness to spend money on tickets and watch league play on television.

You can't really fault an individual or an organization for acting out of self interest, but you would hope to find more nodes cropping up internationally to offer a challenge to the NHL. Only external influences on the order of a genuine challenge from a rival league will prompt real change on the part of the NHL, not anything the IIHF should choose to do. The NHL needs another scare like that which the WHA presented in the 1970s to reform its practices where the rest of the world is concerned. It needs its Bobby Hull defection. Without it, I don't think you see much change; the owners will have little self-interested reason to change.

 

[Slimmy]

They are trying, but I am less sanguine about their prospects, to be honest. Players, like leagues, ultimately act out of their own self interest. They may prattle on about wanting to compete in the most competitive league in the world, with the best players, but it comes down to money (and eventually it equates to the same thing anyway). Pan-European reorganization will only accomplish so much without a corresponding increase in payrolls, television advertizing revenue, and gate receipts. It's ultimately a function of fan interest, and willingness to spend money on tickets and watch league play on television.

You can't really fault an individual or an organization for acting out of self interest, but you would hope to find more nodes cropping up internationally to offer a challenge to the NHL. Only external influences on the order of a genuine challenge from a rival league will prompt real change on the part of the NHL, not anything the IIHF should choose to do. The NHL needs another scare like that which the WHA presented in the 1970s to reform its practices where the rest of the world is concerned. It needs its Bobby Hull defection. Without it, I don't think you see much change; the owners will have little self-interested reason to change.

Again, I agree, for the most part.
There is, however, a lot of money to be had in a european hockey league, I am certain. Through sponsors, ticketsales , TV-rights coupled with the odd billionair, who want's to invest in a future EHL out of pure homerism, the league could rival the NHL in funds. The fanbase is there, the clubs with good solid foundations are there and the potential growth of hockey in Europe far outweighs the drawbacks or risks of leaving the domestic league, in my opinion.
They have already conducted inquiries of a joint venture with the KHL. But I'm not sure the russians would agree to anything less than a predominately owned and controled russian league which allows western teams to compete.
Well see how the negotiations pan out and maybe then we'll see hockey history make a radical turn.

 

[jekoh]

They do suggest that a short tournament where instead of an extra Canada-Russia game, or Sweden-Finland, or Czech-Slovakia, the top seven clubs are instead playing the Kazakhstans and the Ukraines in the round robin format, where those lesser clubs have no chance to emerge, makes for less of a stellar display of hockey than might otherwise be the case.

Russia is not playing Kazakhstan "instead" of Canada, they're playing Kazakhstan in addition to Canada. An 8-team tournament simply has fewer games.

 

[Drake1588]

I think what proponents argue is that there would be no fewer games in tournaments where you had a smaller field. You would have more meaningful matchups during the round robin phase and less blowout games.

You would not suddenly play three games instead of four if each pool shrunk from five to four clubs. The clubs would play another game(s) against good teams instead of game(s) in which the good teams paste the lesser clubs. Good matchups would replace the scheduled mismatchups in the round robin phase.

 

[jekoh]

I don't think that the NHL would ever hold an invitational and ONLY invite the top seven, or even propose a field as small as the top seven plus one token club.

Wait, isn't that exactly what happened last time around?

What I think holds true is that North American fans hate mismatches, though, and dislike watching games where the two clubs are clearly not on the same plane. It's when the field grows well beyond 12 that I think the debate is perhaps worthwhile.

There's only been 6 games with a 5-goal margin at this year's WCh, none of them were top-7 teams beating bottom-4 teams but one was the gold medal game.

The same was true last year: the only top-7 team to beat a bottom-4 team by 5 goals or more actually finished in the bottom 4 themselves.

No one likes mismatches among the top teams. I get no joy out of watching Sweden pummel Italy or France.

I get no joy out of watching Sweden get pummeled 6-1 by Finland

 

[jekoh]

The question is whether being the biggest hockey league carries with it responsibilities to act in ways that do not directly benefit the league, but which benefit the game of hockey as a whole. To me, that role is best left to the IIHF. The league carries on league business.

Is it league business to organise international competitions to undermine existing ones?

I would argue it's not.

In some ways, I believe both the IIHF and the NHL act appropriately. They have different mandates, in my opinion, and expecting a league to act like an international federation is perhaps faulty.

No one is expecting the NHL to act like an international federation, what we would like is for the NHL to stop interfering and indeed as you put it simply carry on league business the way other leagues to.

 

[jekoh]

I think what proponents argue is that there would be no fewer games in tournaments where you had a smaller field. You would have more meaningful matchups during the round robin phase and less blowout games.

Evidence do not really suggest there would be less blowout games, other than as a consequence of simply having fewer games.

You would not suddenly play three games instead of four if each pool shrunk from five to four clubs. The clubs would play another game(s) against good teams instead of game(s) in which the good teams paste the lesser clubs. Good matchups would replace the scheduled mismatchups in the round robin phase.

If you cut the field from 16 to 12, then yes the teams would definitely play five round robin games instead of six. That's the whole point.

 

[Nakawick]

Russia is not playing Kazakhstan "instead" of Canada, they're playing Kazakhstan in addition to Canada. An 8-team tournament simply has fewer games.

That is not true. 8 teams is perfect for a round robin where all teams play each other and then the top 4 have the semi finals and then the finals. The minimum number of games a team would play would be 7, the most 9. More importantly, all of the best teams would play each other at least once. The tournament can easily be hyped by the media.

A true world cup of hockey would be something that every hockey fan should enjoy. Watching the best players in the world play hockey is something that any fan of the game should love no matter where they are from. The Olympics generally has most of the best players, but it is so compacted that the players arrive from their club teams one or two days before the tournament starts, have one practice then start playing, then can't even celebrate before leaving the next morning on their flights back to their club teams. The Vancouver tournament schedule was messed up. With 12 teams why have 3 divisions of 4, then some crazy Qualification round of one game, then the quarters. 12 teams should mean 2 divisions of 6 with crossover quarters.

What about having the 8 best teams play a World Cup starting at the middle of September. What a way to start the season. Have it every 4 years and rotate the tournament between North America, Europe and Russia. Base the 8 teams on the current IIHF rankings, or have spots available for the top 6 and have a qualification for the last 2 spots. Regardless, determining the 8 teams should be a moot point and there is an easy enough way to determine which 8 teams. Leave the world championships the way it is so that the lower ranked nations can still play in an international tournament each year. The soccer World Cup is 32 teams, but there are many more soccer nations. There is no whining about expanding the World Cup of soccer to 64 teams or 128 teams or 256 teams so that Easter Island, Greenland, Antarctica and Vatican City gets to play too. In hockey the teams are already divided into divisions, why are we complaining about this now?

The World Cup money is divided between the players themselves, or goes to the NHL when held in NA, the KHL when in Russia and the IIHF when in Europe or some type of split between the European hockey federations. Or simply divide the money for 1/3 to the players of the winning team, 1/3 to the IIHF and 1/3 to the host federation(s). Regardless, dividing the money should be easy.

I am a hockey fan.

 

[TollefsenFan]

That is not true. 8 teams is perfect for a round robin where all teams play each other and then the top 4 have the semi finals and then the finals. The minimum number of games a team would play would be 7, the most 9. More importantly, all of the best teams would play each other at least once. The tournament can easily be hyped by the media.

A true world cup of hockey would be something that every hockey fan should enjoy. Watching the best players in the world play hockey is something that any fan of the game should love no matter where they are from. The Olympics generally has most of the best players, but it is so compacted that the players arrive from their club teams one or two days before the tournament starts, have one practice then start playing, then can't even celebrate before leaving the next morning on their flights back to their club teams. The Vancouver tournament schedule was messed up. With 12 teams why have 3 divisions of 4, then some crazy Qualification round of one game, then the quarters. 12 teams should mean 2 divisions of 6 with crossover quarters.

What about having the 8 best teams play a World Cup starting at the middle of September. What a way to start the season. Have it every 4 years and rotate the tournament between North America, Europe and Russia. Base the 8 teams on the current IIHF rankings, or have spots available for the top 6 and have a qualification for the last 2 spots. Regardless, determining the 8 teams should be a moot point and there is an easy enough way to determine which 8 teams. Leave the world championships the way it is so that the lower ranked nations can still play in an international tournament each year. The soccer World Cup is 32 teams, but there are many more soccer nations. There is no whining about expanding the World Cup of soccer to 64 teams or 128 teams or 256 teams so that Easter Island, Greenland, Antarctica and Vatican City gets to play too. In hockey the teams are already divided into divisions, why are we complaining about this now?

The World Cup money is divided between the players themselves, or goes to the NHL when held in NA, the KHL when in Russia and the IIHF when in Europe or some type of split between the European hockey federations. Or simply divide the money for 1/3 to the players of the winning team, 1/3 to the IIHF and 1/3 to the host federation(s). Regardless, dividing the money should be easy.

I am a hockey fan.

Well u say the 8 best teams.... Will u use the iihf ranking system or....???? The way i see it we got the world championship is for the weaker teams and the olympics for the badass Dnt need a third tournament. The world championsship is perhaps the most important tournament when young unknown players can prove themselves. For example Lars Haugen (Nor goalie) went from the norwegian league to the KHL because of the WC. This is good for hockey. Still i understand the NA point of view cause u allrdy got alot of stars and the stanley cup playoffs are important. I get it

Talking about the olympics and the schedule. First of all both NA teams made it to the final. Yes they had little time to get to know each other, but thats the NHLs/Federations problem. If team USA and Canada had the same roster during the wc and the olympics this wouldnt be a problem. The problem is that they dnt.

I also wanna say that a tournament like the WC is not about the players on the ice, but the country they represent Therefore i wanna say to all players that dnt wanna join the WC: **** the ****ing ****ers

 

[RusskiyHockey]

Some very interesting points raised in this thread. While I don't want Canada and U.S. out (if they can only muster B or C teams, so be it), I'd lower the number of participants to 14, if not 12. I really like the new format of two groups in which all teams play everyone once, followed by the elimination playoffs. I'd keep this format, but with 6 teams in each group. That would mean the likes of France and Latvia wouldn't make it every year, but surprises happen every year anyway. And having to play a max. of 8 games instead of 9/10 could make a difference between representing their country or not for some players.

Schedule coordination between the NHL season and the Euro leagues is of course difficult and the Worlds shouldn't be held in June. Some tweaking can be achieved though, I think. If the NHL reg. season starts in mid-September and playoffs begin in late-March, more NHLers would be available to play at the WC if it's held in its usual early/mid-May period. Also, the NHL playoffs could take a 3/4-day break (ie. between rounds 3 and 4) so as not to have games scheduled on the same days as the WC elimination round. This would allow hockey fans not to overburden themselves with too many important games on one days and would allow the WC to held more often in North America without overlapping schedules. I know it's wishful thinking as only $$$ runs in Bettman's blood, but I don't see why relations can't be improved.