WJC: Format Change Ruined the Round Robin

[777]

I believe this is the 4th year with the new format, but is anybody with me?

Old Format:
2 groups of 5
#1 seeds - bye to semis
#2 & #3 seeds - cross over and play in quarter finals
#4 & #5 seeds - no medal round

New Format:
2 groups of 5
#1-4 - cross over and play in quarters
#5 seeds - no medal round

In the old format it felt like every round robin game was crucial. If you're a supporter of a top country you wanted to win every game to get the bye. If you're a support of a middle country you knew every game was crucial to keep the tournament alive.

Now I feel like the round robin is fairly irrelevant for most countries, just wake me up when the games matter. Even getting the #1 or #2 seed doesn't guarantee you a favorable draw as a good team could have dropped a game or two and slipped down the standings but still easily qualified to move on

The only reason I can see for changing the format is $$$, but would love to hear other's thoughts now that we've had a few years with the new format.

Click to read more...

 

[Jaykay]

Totally agree, there's not much to play for in the round robin.

 

[patnyrnyg]

I agree. Does the US-Canada game really matter on Saturday? Both are in the medal round. Guess you could say pairings in the QF's, but both will be favorites to advance to the semis. Is Russia really going to be hurt by losing to both the US and Canada?

 

[CanCHI]

I agree. Does the US-Canada game really matter on Saturday? Both are in the medal round. Guess you could say pairings in the QF's, but both will be favorites to advance to the semis. Is Russia really going to be hurt by losing to both the US and Canada?

Matters to both countries hockey fans and the players on the ice as it is the biggest rivalry for both countries and the game that means the most regardless of the standings.

Actually you are right, who cares

 

[patnyrnyg]

Matters to both countries hockey fans and the players on the ice as it is the biggest rivalry for both countries and the game that means the most regardless of the standings.

Actually you are right, who cares

If the US wins saturday night, but then Canada wins the tournament, is Saturday going to matter? US beat Canada in the prelims in the 2010 Olympics, too.

 

[TheBeastCoast]

It's a trade off. I will take better quarterfinals instead of a round robin that truly matters. Plus if you have watched Group A at all this year the entire premise of this thread kind of gets poo pooed. 4 of the 5 teams just battling it out for the 2-4 spots.

 

[Jaykay]

The winner of the game might end up with Finland. What kind of prize is that?

 

[TheBeastCoast]

If the US wins saturday night, but then Canada wins the tournament, is Saturday going to matter? US beat Canada in the prelims in the 2010 Olympics, too.

What's your solution? lol just not play prelim games?

 

[PanniniClaus]

Completely disagree. Could not stand the bye for 1st, gave the 2 or 3 seeds virtually no chance at the finals and even if they did get in they had nothing for the final.

I like the extra QF games and I like the fact that the bottom 2 in each group fight for relegation. Sitting in HFX watching relegation crossovers in 2003 was totally painful, when you consider the fact there could have been another exciting QF game played.

I hope they never go back.

 

[TheBeastCoast]

The winner of the game might end up with Finland. What kind of prize is that?

I don't know Finland has looked awful...there is a reason they might(they won't) finish 4th.

 

[patnyrnyg]

It's a trade off. I will take better quarterfinals instead of a round robin that truly matters. Plus if you have watched Group A at all this year the entire premise of this thread kind of gets poo pooed. 4 of the 5 teams just battling it out for the 2-4 spots.

How are the quarterfinals better? Having two 1 vs 4 games makes them better?

 

[TheBeastCoast]

How are the quarterfinals better? Having two 1 vs 4 games makes them better?

I'm assuming you didn't watch Denmark take Russia to a shootout last year? [MOD]

 

[patnyrnyg]

What's your solution? lol just not play prelim games?

No, lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol. Top-3 move on with the the winner of each pool getting the bye to the semis.

 

[patnyrnyg]

Completely disagree. Could not stand the bye for 1st, gave the 2 or 3 seeds virtually no chance at the finals and even if they did get in they had nothing for the final.

I like the extra QF games and I like the fact that the bottom 2 in each group fight for relegation. Sitting in HFX watching relegation crossovers in 2003 was totally painful, when you consider the fact there could have been another exciting QF game played.

I hope they never go back.

You were REQUIRED to watch the relegation games?

 

[PanniniClaus]

You were REQUIRED to watch the relegation games?

The organizers are also doing a different type of math (counting coins) so having more meaningful games in the package makes for better ticket sales.

I had a tourney pass and love watching hockey so yes, I went but I could not wait for them to get rid of that format...The format we have now was the original format when the tourney expanded to 10 teams.

I also enjoyed the 8 team play everyone format but I thought the playoff game format was even better.

 

[TheBeastCoast]

And, in Group B, Latvia-Slovakia is the only game that matters. Under the old format, Russia would feel some pressure right now going into their last game. The US and Canada playing for the bye Saturday would make it a big game. But yeah, at least we will get to see US or Canada play Switzerland, that will be exciting. A team should not be able to win 1 out of 4 games and move on.

The Swiss team that took Canada to OT in the pre-tourny games? Yeaaah who wants to see that matchup!!

 

[patnyrnyg]

The organizers are also doing a different type of math (counting coins) so having more meaningful games in the package makes for better ticket sales.

I had a tourney pass and love watching hockey so yes, I went but I could not wait for them to get rid of that format...The format we have now was the original format when the tourney expanded to 10 teams.

I also enjoyed the 8 team play everyone format but I thought the playoff game format was even better.

You might want to visit the thread on this page titled, "Poor Attendance".

 

[Statsy]

I did prefer the old format, but then again it's more games to watch, so I guess I'm okay with the 1-4 matchup.

 

[PanniniClaus]

You might want to visit the thread on this page titled, "Poor Attendance".

Can't control total attendance but I know that I can put more bums in seats with a QF game than I can with a relegation game. Your attitude leaves something to be desired.

 

[PanniniClaus]

I did prefer the old format, but then again it's more games to watch, so I guess I'm okay with the 1-4 matchup.

I realize I am an old dog here but this format is the old format.. they tried the bye format and the negatives outweighed the positives so they switched back.

 

[86Habs]

Bring back the 8-team round robin format that was in place until 1996.

 

[PanniniClaus]

Bring back the 8-team round robin format that was in place until 1996.

It certainly had it's positives although there were only 6 teams with any hope of competing back then and even the USA team was a pretty weak 6th most of the time.

They would not even show games with Poland, Norway, Switzerland and Germany, on TV back in the old days.

 

[86Habs]

It certainly had it's positives although there were only 6 teams with any hope of competing back then and even the USA team was a pretty weak 6th most of the time.

They would not even show games with Poland, Norway, Switzerland and Germany, on TV back in the old days.

You wouldn't see the same kind of blowouts now as you did in the good ol' days, though. The bottom tier teams now are much better than the bottom tier teams were back then. Sure, you might miss out on good stories like Denmark (I think a 10-team field is too much) but with a round robin format every game is essentially a must-win as you would need to go undefeated (or get significant luck / help) to win gold. That aspect is very appealing to me.

 

[patnyrnyg]

The Swiss team that took Canada to OT in the pre-tourny games? Yeaaah who wants to see that matchup!!

Pre-Tournament? Please.

 

[patnyrnyg]

You wouldn't see the same kind of blowouts now as you did in the good ol' days, though. The bottom tier teams now are much better than the bottom tier teams were back then. Sure, you might miss out on good stories like Denmark (I think a 10-team field is too much) but with a round robin format every game is essentially a must-win as you would need to go undefeated (or get significant luck / help) to win gold. That aspect is very appealing to me.

I don't think you would ever see them go back to that. They want the Gold Medal game, and that gives you even more meaningless games. If they were going to make any kind of drastic change, would rather just see a straight double-loss elimination tourney. I think that would be too extreme. Could you imagine a year where Canada was hosting and they lost their first two games?