Toggle sidebar

New World Cup Format!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Birko19

Birko19

Registered User
Aug 13, 2002
11,189
3
Hamilton, Ont
Visit site
To be honest, I'm not so impressed with the World Cup format, I mean they have 2 groups with 8 teams, and eventually everyone makes it to the next round, that sounds pretty stupid to me, the other thing I don't like is the games being played in different countries, why don't they stick with one country and play all the games there? my suggestion of a good World Cup format would be similar to the WC Soccer format, this is what I mean:

- 16 Teams involved. (WC Soccer has 32 teams but Soccer is a more popular sport).
- 4 Groups, 4 teams in each group.
- Held in one country, Canada, USA, Sweden, or whatever.
- Only first and second place teams from each group make it to the next round.

Here's a good example:

Group A: Canada, Finland, Italy, Norway. Let's assume (1st: Canada, 2nd: Finland)
Group B: USA, Czech Republic, Ukraine, Switzerland. (1st: USA, 2nd: Czechs)
Group C: Russia, Germany, Poland, Latvia. (1st: Russia, 2nd: Germany)
Group D: Sweden, Slovakia, Belarous, Japan. (1st: Sweden, 2nd: Slovakia)

QF's:
Canada vs Germany - let's assume the winner is (Canada)
USA vs Finland - (USA)
Russia vs Slovakia - (Russia)
Sweden vs Czech Republic - (Sweden)

SF's:
Canada vs Russia - (Canada)
USA vs Sweden - (USA)

3rd place match:
Russia vs Sweden - (Russia)

Finals:
Canada vs USA - (Canada) ;)


Now is't this format much more fun? I think this is 100 times better then the current format.
Click to read more...
 

Erik

Registered User
Jul 28, 2004
419
0
Tampa, FL
I'd have to agree that sounds better but the NHL and NHLPA could come up with all sorts of reasons as to why that doesn't work.
 

H/H

Registered User
Aug 27, 2004
308
0
16 teams would be unnecessary. First off, the tournament would take too long. Remember that this is played in the offseason and will eat into the endurance of the players in the NHL season.

Plus, 10 of the 16 teams would basically be what Germany is in this tournament. Candy in the hands of children.
 
ES

ES

Registered User
Feb 14, 2004
4,189
841
Finland
I prefer the system used in 1996. After round-robin, group winner to the semis, last home. Group second played against other group third. QFs were played in NA.
 
Jazz

Jazz

Registered User
Aug 9, 2004
3,447
2
Vancouver, Canada
www.forums.internationalhockey.net
Birko19 said:
....

- 16 Teams involved. (WC Soccer has 32 teams but Soccer is a more popular sport).
- 4 Groups, 4 teams in each group.
- Held in one country, Canada, USA, Sweden, or whatever.
- Only first and second place teams from each group make it to the next round.

....
Click to expand...

As much as I would love to see this one day be feasable, I don't think the hockey world is ready for it yet... There would be too many blowouts that would be counterproductive to:

  • the lower ranked teams,
  • the tournament itself (not sure how many would watch Canada at full strength pummel Norway),
  • and to the Top-7 teams (too many games against lower ranked teams will cause bad-habits to develop)

Don't get me wrong, I am the biggest proponent of spreading the game and making it more popular world-wide.

I would not keep the format as it either.

I would expand it to 10/12 teams (2 groups of 4/5 with the top-4 of each making the QFs). The would allow the next tier of hockey nations (the Swiss, Latvians and Belorussians) to play against the best. Plus, I would hold the tournament in a country that does not start with a "C" and end in an "A" i.e. hold it entirely in Europe every other time
 
Bon Esprit

Bon Esprit

Registered User
Jan 24, 2004
4,859
438
I'd prefer the old Canada Cup format. Only 6 teams, tournament in Canada and USA.
 
Clumsyhab

Clumsyhab

Registered User
Feb 22, 2004
8,062
1,175
Montreal
The format is OK, but could be better. I would like it to be like the CFL playoffs.

- Two groups, let's assume A &B
- 4 teams in each group
- Last team of each group doesn't get into the playoffs
- 1st team of each group gets directly to the group's final
- Winner of 2nd and 3rd in the group to play against #1 team of the group
- Winner of #1 vs #2/#3 in group A vs Winner of #1 vs #2/#3 of group B

What do you think?
 

H/H

Registered User
Aug 27, 2004
308
0
I like the regular standard tournament format.

Two groups, 4 teams in each.

1st team of Group A meets last team of Group B
2nd team of Group A meets 3rd team of Group B
3rd team of Group A meets 2nd team of Group B
4th team of Group B meets 1st team of Group B

The format of this current World Cup is a bit weird. Probably because they wanted a way to have both the US and Canada in the finals.
 
Last edited:
kacz

kacz

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,626
12
www.youtube.com
Birko19 said:
To be honest, I'm not so impressed with the World Cup format, I mean they have 2 groups with 8 teams, and eventually everyone makes it to the next round, that sounds pretty stupid to me, the other thing I don't like is the games being played in different countries, why don't they stick with one country and play all the games there? my suggestion of a good World Cup format would be similar to the WC Soccer format, this is what I mean:

- 16 Teams involved. (WC Soccer has 32 teams but Soccer is a more popular sport).
- 4 Groups, 4 teams in each group.
- Held in one country, Canada, USA, Sweden, or whatever.
- Only first and second place teams from each group make it to the next round.

Here's a good example:

Group A: Canada, Finland, Italy, Norway. Let's assume (1st: Canada, 2nd: Finland)
Group B: USA, Czech Republic, Ukraine, Switzerland. (1st: USA, 2nd: Czechs)
Group C: Russia, Germany, Poland, Latvia. (1st: Russia, 2nd: Germany)
Group D: Sweden, Slovakia, Belarous, Japan. (1st: Sweden, 2nd: Slovakia)

QF's:
Canada vs Germany - let's assume the winner is (Canada)
USA vs Finland - (USA)
Russia vs Slovakia - (Russia)
Sweden vs Czech Republic - (Sweden)

SF's:
Canada vs Russia - (Canada)
USA vs Sweden - (USA)

3rd place match:
Russia vs Sweden - (Russia)

Finals:
Canada vs USA - (Canada) ;)


Now is't this format much more fun? I think this is 100 times better then the current format.
Click to expand...

This is too familiar to the World Championships, although I wouldn't mind seeing the format at the World Juniors used at the World Cup.
 
Mr. Penguin

Mr. Penguin

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
1,411
38
Finland
In my opinion 8 teams are enough and the current format is good enough, but I guess it would be good for hockey to have more countires. Since Austria and Swizerland start to be as good as germany, I think they could be added to the tournamnet like this:

[NA]
Austria
Canada
Germany
Slovakia
USA

[EU]
Czech Republic
Finland
Russia
Sweden
Swizerland

And Russia shoul be moved to the Europe group since it feels stupid that a big hockey country like Russia doesn't get any home games at all and a country like Germany gets a home game though they don't care about hockey at all.

The 4 first teams of each group advance to the quarter finals and the games would be played like this: 1NA vs. 4EU, 2NA vs. 3EU, 3NA vs. 2EU and 4NA vs. 1EU.

I think 1 final game is enough.
 

big_steve

Registered User
Dec 6, 2003
871
0
Newfoundland
The only things I would change would be to probably add Belarus and Switzerland, have the top 3 teams in each pool advance to the Quarter-Finals with the first place teams, receive a buy(not really sure I would rather this but anything to extend the tourney just a bit). Also I would have the second place North American team play the third place European team and vise versa. The rest is obvious but in the the finals I would make it a best 2/3 series. I would love to see that again.
 
Lexicon Devil

Lexicon Devil

Registered User
Apr 21, 2002
8,343
0
The only suggestion that I agree with so far is turning the finals back to a best-of-three.

So what if the round robin isn't of utmost importance? Teams are just finding their rhythm in the round robin, and you don't want to see teams eliminated for losing their first and second games that they've ever played together. Secondly, the round robin is still important as it is - this was obvious from yesterday's two games.

I disagree with the idea of the group winner getting a bye to the semi-finals. I just find the idea of byes unpalatable. As for 16 teams, that is ridiculous - nobody wants to pay good money to see 12-0 game against Japan.
 

big_steve

Registered User
Dec 6, 2003
871
0
Newfoundland
Lexicon Devil said:
The only suggestion that I agree with so far is turning the finals back to a best-of-three.

So what if the round robin isn't of utmost importance? Teams are just finding their rhythm in the round robin, and you don't want to see teams eliminated for losing their first and second games that they've ever played together. Secondly, the round robin is still important as it is - this was obvious from yesterday's two games.

I disagree with the idea of the group winner getting a bye to the semi-finals. I just find the idea of byes unpalatable. As for 16 teams, that is ridiculous - nobody wants to pay good money to see 12-0 game against Japan.
Click to expand...

I only really came up with the bye idea as a suggestion and a suggestion only. I'd rather the current WCH format. I guess I should've said that. But I would like to make it 2/3 in the finals.
 
Shoalzie

Shoalzie

Trust me!
May 16, 2003
16,904
180
Portland, MI
I'd definitely like to see them expand the field for the next World Cup and make the round robin games mean more. I'd like to see 12 teams (2 pools of 6 teams) and have the top 4 advance. After that, have the cross-pool matchups starting in the first round. The only way this whole would work is if they played the entire tournament in one area. I liked the idea of having afternoon games in North America, which were primetime games in Europe. Definitely have this tournament every four years like the World Cup for soccer. This'll never get as big globally as the soccer tournament but they should make this bigger than the World Championships.
 

Raimo Sillanpää

Registered User
Mar 11, 2003
1,848
199
Espoo, Finland
Why not just all 7 invited to 1 country. There everyone plays everyone once (6 games per nation). Then four best to semi-finals, and then a bronze match and a best of three final.

That's a maximum of 10 games for winning or silver medal nation.
I'd say, 24 days should be enough time from calendar for this.
 
Douggy

Douggy

Registered User
Dec 22, 2002
9,784
1
London, Ontario
Visit site
Raimo Sillanpää said:
Why not just all 7 invited to 1 country. There everyone plays everyone once (6 games per nation). Then four best to semi-finals, and then a bronze match and a best of three final.

That's a maximum of 10 games for winning or silver medal nation.
I'd say, 24 days should be enough time from calendar for this.
Click to expand...
That's the best idea yet, but it would take up too much time.

I say we have a 10 team tournament, 8 spots guaranteed for the top 8 in the IIHF Rankings, and the final two spots determined with a qualifying tournament.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom