WJC: Format Change Ruined the Round Robin
- Thread starter 777
- Start date
MeHateHe
Registered User
- Dec 24, 2006
- 2,557
- 2,934
I've argued in the past to expand to 12 teams, which will not really solve the OP's concern, but it does make the round robin a bit more meaningful, what with two teams missing the playoffs in such a format. I think the 8-12 teams are all pretty close to each other at this point, and having mor opportunity for those teams to stay established in the elite pool will be better for the international game as a whole. I'd envision two teams going down every year (one from each group) but it would still lead to more development among the elite pool.
I'm aware and those games were snoozefest where the Swiss barely tried to score, just played all out defend to avoid getting blown out.Do you really need me to come up with other examples of close games with the Swiss?
Several teams would have no chance after two rounds, and after 3 rounds there might just be 2 left. So while this will make every game more important for a couple of teams, those games will mostly be against opponents that are not motivated.
source
Registered User
- Jul 13, 2008
- 6,010
- 0
Belarus and Germany would be teams #11 and #12 in 2017.
Then in 2018, you would see 2 of France, Kazakhstan, Austria, and Norway promoted.
These teams can't compete with Canada, Sweden, Russia, and USA so you'd see more uneven games.
However it could be nice to see these lower teams battle it out for 7th/8th place.
Canada4Gold
Registered User
- Dec 22, 2010
- 43,000
- 9,192
Yeah I kinda liked the other format better. There was far more on the line early, and the best teams really have no real threat of not making the QF now, Finland this year aside has been an anomaly.
The 4 QF wouldn't be the worst idea if there were 12 teams, you'd be forced to probably have to win 2 games to make the QF. Wouldn't really change a whole lot at the top since you'd basically just get another free win type of game against the likes of Germany, Austria, Belarus or whoever but the bottom teams have 1 extra hoop to jump through.
The 4 QF wouldn't be the worst idea if there were 12 teams, you'd be forced to probably have to win 2 games to make the QF. Wouldn't really change a whole lot at the top since you'd basically just get another free win type of game against the likes of Germany, Austria, Belarus or whoever but the bottom teams have 1 extra hoop to jump through.
Canada4Gold
Registered User
- Dec 22, 2010
- 43,000
- 9,192
bad idea IMO, that would make it tougher for the likes of Denmark Latvia, and (occasionally) Swiss and Slovakia to stay up, relegating 3 would mean the same amount of spots stay up as now(9) but there's more competition for them. Relegating 4 would make it worse.
If they move to 12 then relegating 2 would be fine. Increased number helps the fringe type teams now to stay up which in turn should help in the long run, while giving teams who barely ever get up an opportunity at this level even if the go right back down again. Though I think I'd still only relegate 1.
source
Registered User
- Jul 13, 2008
- 6,010
- 0
Relegating 3 or 4 teams per year in a 12 team tournament means more meaningful games than if only 1 or 2 were relegated.
It also means the big teams could get upset in their 4th and 5th round-robin games by desperate Denmark/Swiss teams.
Canada4Gold
Registered User
- Dec 22, 2010
- 43,000
- 9,192
The goal isn't to make it reasonable that some world hockey power might be relegated to D1A as fun as that would be that's basically the opposite of the goal.
If they did increase to 12 the purpose would be to add more teams and increase the chances that the current fringe type teams stay in the top pool for extended periods to improve development. Relegating 4 teams would achieve the exact opposite of that.
MeHateHe
Registered User
- Dec 24, 2006
- 2,557
- 2,934
This tournament isn't just about crowning a champion, and the IIHF's long-term mission is about developing the sport beyond the elite six.
The best case scenarios for Canada, Russia, the US,, Sweden, Finland and Czech Republic is certainly a smaller tournament. The middling countries (7-14) only benefit with regular exposure to the elite teams, and that's why a slightly larger tournament would be better for the IiHF as a whole.
Not enough depth at this level to do a 12 team tourney. We still have a few blowouts, which we tolerate because they aren't as frequent as they were in the good ol' days. Adding a couple of teams that are below Latvia on the depth chart for the top teams to crush isn't very appealing.
Never liked the format change...always liked notion of rewarding first place teams in their respective pools with bye to semis...For one thing, it made that annual ( or so it seemed ) spanking of Yanks (occasionally Russians or Swedes ) on New Years Eve a greater spectacle/ sweeter...
For another, Canada garnered lotza Gold in dem days...
deeeeepsigh
Edit: Another thing...don't know if anyone mentioned it?
...But after quarter finals , semis were played very next day/night...So team which earned bye was more rested than their opponent, a distinct advantage especially after a hard fought qf match!
Back in the day, it was rare for a team which failed to finish first in their pool, to win the 3, do or die games, in a row, needed to claim gold...although I can recall T-Canada doing it one time
Seems with the format change, IIHF brass made a conscious effort to try to level playing field, share the wealth/Gold, as it were...And It's Been Working!
***
Think about it...in the new format, someone would have to win 15 do or die games in a row, against tough opponents (no gimme games against bottom feeders destined for relegation ), to win FIVE GOLDS IN A ROW...something team Canada, under the old format, did TWICE!
deeeepsigh
Last edited:
MeHateHe
Registered User
- Dec 24, 2006
- 2,557
- 2,934
If your argument is that the reason the format change is a failure is because Canada doesn't win all the time, I don't think you'll get a lot of sympathy.
FTR, I think the OP is essentially right, that the current format gives teams too many second chances and puts too much weight on the knockout games. A team could win the tournament with a 3-3 record while another team could finish 4-1 and wind up in sixth place. I'm much more in favour of the team having to play well over the course of the 12 days, rather than reward the team that puts it all together over the last four or five.
I don't understand the desire to increase the importance of the round robin while diminishing the medal round. You will never get me on board for that.
Teams that don't get the bye have no chance so you may as well just have the top 2 in each pool playoff. You also have less 'money" games with 2 less QF's.
The current format is the best option right now. Not without fault but the best option.
Teams that don't get the bye have no chance so you may as well just have the top 2 in each pool playoff. You also have less 'money" games with 2 less QF's.
The current format is the best option right now. Not without fault but the best option.
MeHateHe
Registered User
- Dec 24, 2006
- 2,557
- 2,934
It depends on what you want to reward. If you want to reward teams that come together at the end, then the current format is fine. If you want to reward the team that plays the best over the course of the entire tournament, then the old format was better.
I'm not a fan of giving teams more second chances. Teams that battle hard for the first four games should have some reward over the teams that might have coasted or slept through the round robin. The only reward a first-place team has over the fourth-place team in the quarter final is last change. That's not much of a reward.
I realize there will be a pile of opinions on this but I would rather go 8 team round robin than the bye system. That truly rewards the entire body of work and everyone has to play 7 times.
The bye is too big of an advantage in a short tourney.
The best format by far was when there was 8 teams and you played each team once. At the end of your 7 games you had the standings from 1-8 and that was it. The schedule of the games was decided by how you finished the year before and for example if the previous year Canada won and Russia 2nd Sweden3rd... This year Canada would play in this order Swiss Slovakia Czechs Finland USA Sweden Russia...That worked perfectly and most of the time it all came down to the final day. The best way to make sure the best team won and that every game mattered.
These days you have a majority of games that don't mean anything and it shows in the crowds and the level of play. Another thing is there's not enough good teams to make it a 10 team tournament. At the Junior level to bring back the round robin 8 teams tournament would be perfect.
I didn't say it was a failure , just that I liked old format better...As for the rest? if team also ran doesn't like losing to Team Canada ( think they'd be used to it by now
) play better...and since turn about seems like fair play...don't expect sympathy from a Canuck 
Ah but u MUST EARN the bye...seems totally fair to me? Why fight all the way thru round robin will little to no reward? No wonder arena's r half empty
So No Denmark/ Cinderella Most Years ? Doesn't seem right to me...they want to grow the game, NO?
They want to grow the game? They want the most easy money more likely.
8 Teams round robin like in the 80's 90's= best format.
8 Teams round robin like in the 80's 90's= best format.
And Denmark could be there at times instead of lowly Swiss Slovaks... 10 teams is not competitive enough.
