No World Cup before 2013

[SirKillalot]

I don't know if you can provide figures or not, but if I had to make an educated guess i'd say you're wrong...most events in the Olympics are pure and simple things nobody gives a hoot about...

take curling for example, I'm sure the best 1% might do it for a living and have sponsorships etc..the rest have day jobs ...same goes for almost every discipline except for the team sports where you can be one of the bunch and still make a living with your sport





umm right yeah, for amateurs , you're just rephrasing what I said, the original purpose of the Olympics was FOR AMATEURS



so? Soccer does it and it hasn't been removed, obviously has something to do with popularity and relevance of the sport worldwide...plus, at least soccer allows teams to send as I said 2 experienced players to the Olympics per team, such as Brazil bringing Ronaldinho in 2008, at least that gives something to look at even if the rest of the team are junior up and coming players...the MLB didn't send not 1 professional athlete , yeah that's bound to piss some people off specially when you are considered a fringe sport out of the USA/Japan and the Caribbean ..it's obvious the guys at the IOC haven't supported baseball and softball for a long time now

plus the World Baseball Classic is soooo much better

For Winter Olympics, almost all athletes are Pro's. Yeah, let's take curling. According to the norwegian skipper. Most of those guys who were in the Olympics were pro's. Canada got their own pro-league(?) and China had trained for it for a long time. Norway was kind of happy being an amateur team finishing with silverware.

Most of the sports now, the athletes are on the national team. That's their job. The national team gets sponsored, so that is were their money come from. Might be different in some Eastern-Europe countries and in Asia.

 

[SirKillalot]

The World Cup should be held two years from the Olympics and it should be held in season with the same type of break that was given for the Olympics.

The World Championships don't mean much to us N. Americans because it takes place during our playoffs after a long and grueling season. The best players simply aren't there.

This should also be done not in cooperation with the IIHF but with the various leagues. So the NHL, KHL and the Swedish Elite league sign some sort of revenue sharing deal (all the other smaller leagues will follow suit) based on some sort of formula. You can then alternate the host between N. America and Europe.

Point 1. Yes, for most people in N.America that is true. But in europe it is. And, no many of the best players might be there. But, the best teams aren't there. Brodeur, Miller, Backström just among goalies might be there if the league ended now.

 

[pouskin74*]

You fail to understand how things work in Europe and especially in Russia. Revenue sharing? Medvedev farts and it's $100 million. What's the point in "share" some thousands of tickets selling.
What's really needed is good conditions and same rules for everyone. And it will never happen at the World Cup.

not bad

 

[Renbarg]

You fail to understand how things work in Europe and especially in Russia. Revenue sharing? Medvedev farts and it's $100 million. What's the point in "share" some thousands of tickets selling.
What's really needed is good conditions and same rules for everyone. And it will never happen at the World Cup.

TV contracts. Ad revenue. Ticket sales don't even begin to make a dent.

You do realise that all those leagues are part of the IIHF?

That's a bit like saying all the NHL-teams should forget about the league and just deal with each other.

Not to mention that the players represent countries, and those countries are definately members of the IIHF. All these nations - and thus the IIHF - have to agree to such a tournament and revenue sharing. While it's definately possible to hold such a tournament without the IIHF, it can't be done without the IIHF-members. The IIHF isn't some sort of organisation that forces its will on the nations, it exists through its members.

Yes but wouldn't member nations be more willing to interrupt their season if it meant a bigger payday. Honestly I'm not sure how the IIHF divvies up the profits but I'd be willing to bet they take a good chunk of it. Why not cut out the middle man? I mean the original world cup was not organized by the IIHF but by the NHL. It could be done but no matter what you need the cooperation of the KHL to make anything half way decent. So why not just bring everyone else in?

 

[Renbarg]

Point 1. Yes, for most people in N.America that is true. But in europe it is. And, no many of the best players might be there. But, the best teams aren't there. Brodeur, Miller, Backström just among goalies might be there if the league ended now.

But Sidney Crosby, Ovechkin, Lindstrom, Zetterberg, Datsyuk and countless others won't be there. I mean the fact is that the best league in the world is in N. America. Would the Soccer World Cup not be a farce if half the players in Spain decided their home cup is more important and they won't represent their national team (it would never happen, but h if the Qatar Cup is held in Winter then hypothetically speaking there is a possibility).

 

[GKJ]

The World Cup was never an IIHF sanctioned tournament. That was run without their blessing, which is why they don't acknowledge it in their history. In the last one, that's why you had guys like Zubrus (is a Lithuania Int'l) and Nabokov (before he was allowed to become a Russian) in it.

 

[JVR]

Of course the "big" countries can live with the U-23 concept, for the smaller countries like Germany it would mean having to play without all it's NHLers and most established players.

They only have a chance to compete if they can call up all their good players from a 15-year cycle.

It would just lead to even more lopsided results.

 

[RedWingsRule]

I like how a Finnish newspaper with no online edition is the first to report this.

Seems odd.

 

[Theokritos]

The World Cup was never an IIHF sanctioned tournament. That was run without their blessing, which is why they don't acknowledge it in their history.

Not quite. When Hockey Canada initiated the Canada Cup tournament in 1976, that tournament was already sanctioned by the IIHF. In reverse, Canada rejoined the IIHF World Championship in 1977. And when the Canada Cup was reintroduced as World Cup in the 90s, it was actually a result of talks between the NHL and the IIHF about NHL-participation in the Olympics. The deal was: World Cup in 1996, Olympic Games with NHL "Dream Teams" in 1998.

 

[Past Considerations]

The World Cup should be held two years from the Olympics and it should be held in season with the same type of break that was given for the Olympics.

NHLPA actually wanted this already in Jan 2009: http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/story/2009/01/24/nhl-world-cup.html

 

[Past Considerations]

I like how a Finnish newspaper with no online edition is the first to report this.

Seems odd.

I don't know about that, but since the original source was Swedish Radio, it was not too hard to Google:

http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2688&artikel=4267512
http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2688&artikel=4284622 (update from 11th Jan, also comments from Bettman)

Readable Google translations:
http://translate.google.com/transla...a/artikel.aspx?programid=2688&artikel=4267512
http://translate.google.com/transla...a/artikel.aspx?programid=2688&artikel=4284622

You might want to listen the embedded audio file (direct link) because Bettman's answer from the press conference is in in English.

 

[slovakiasnextone]

Of course the "big" countries can live with the U-23 concept, for the smaller countries like Germany it would mean having to play without all it's NHLers and most established players.

They only have a chance to compete if they can call up all their good players from a 15-year cycle.

It would just lead to even more lopsided results.

It´s not just the countries like Germany. I believe that an U23 tournament wouldn´t be that much different from the WJCs and just like in that tournament there would be ony 4 countries that could seriously compete a year in and out- Canada, US, Sweden and Russia. Which pretty much means that there is no point in having both a WJC and an U23 tournament and that´s not even saying that nobody amongst fans would even care about such a tournament- IMO the Canadians have the WJC, which has become a tradition with them, so why should they care about a very similar tourney? The Europeans barely care about the WJC and I see no reason why it should be any different fora tournament whose only difference would be the 3 years of age.

 

[hammerwielder]

There needs to be a World Cup because (1) the first two have been sensational hockey; (2) it reduces the problem you see at the Olympics that too many good teams never face each other because of the overabundance of preliminary groups and the fact that theoretically a team won't have to face many of the best teams to win the gold, which I think somewhat diminishes the value of Olympic gold under the current format. I'm surprised there isn't more criticism of the format. World Cup has larger groups and there is a better chance you will have to go through everybody to win. Also I think the IIHF should get on board and at least co-sanction it to get it more legitimacy (Zubrus playing for Russia, for example, could never happen under IIHF rules) and that it should be held in the pre-season as before every two years between Olympics. If any tournament should go it should be the WC because the comparisons between teams and legitimacy of the victory is always skewed by who was in the best position to send elite level players to the tournament. Anything but best on best competitions are kind of lame and even if the WC has historical prestige in Europe that is because at least some of the countries (read USSR) could send their best teams until 1993 and we could witness at least those teams mercilessly clobbering every other team which, apart from a usually robust Swedish entry were far below the level of the two best teams. Now every country faces the same constraints, but not equally for any given tournament, so it is really hard to put much legitimate stock on who the winner was in any given year, although the IIHF gives the WC disproportionate cred in figuring out world rankings, which in view of the above is weird. The World Cup has a more level playing field with best-on-best competition and provides far superior hockey. World Cups should also rotate between North America and Europe, or even be 2/3 in Europe, to better reflect the relative weightings of the "big 7" in the rankings picture.

 

[Muuri]

I like how a Finnish newspaper with no online edition is the first to report this.

Seems odd.

http://www.iltasanomat.fi/jaakiekko...u lähitulevaisuudessa /art-1288359481032.html

Here's the online version for you.

 

[Zine]

There needs to be a World Cup because (1) the first two have been sensational hockey; (2) it reduces the problem you see at the Olympics that too many good teams never face each other because of the overabundance of preliminary groups and the fact that theoretically a team won't have to face many of the best teams to win the gold, which I think somewhat diminishes the value of Olympic gold under the current format. I'm surprised there isn't more criticism of the format. World Cup has larger groups and there is a better chance you will have to go through everybody to win. Also I think the IIHF should get on board and at least co-sanction it to get it more legitimacy (Zubrus playing for Russia, for example, could never happen under IIHF rules) and that it should be held in the pre-season as before every two years between Olympics. If any tournament should go it should be the WC because the comparisons between teams and legitimacy of the victory is always skewed by who was in the best position to send elite level players to the tournament. Anything but best on best competitions are kind of lame and even if the WC has historical prestige in Europe that is because at least some of the countries (read USSR) could send their best teams until 1993 and we could witness at least those teams mercilessly clobbering every other team which, apart from a usually robust Swedish entry were far below the level of the two best teams. Now every country faces the same constraints, but not equally for any given tournament, so it is really hard to put much legitimate stock on who the winner was in any given year, although the IIHF gives the WC disproportionate cred in figuring out world rankings, which in view of the above is weird. The World Cup has a more level playing field with best-on-best competition and provides far superior hockey.

Yes, everybody understand you dislike WC, blah, blah blah...


Because of Olympic participation the World Cup has lost MUCH of it's appeal. The 2004 World Cup was nothing more than a huge cash grab for the NHL and (apart from a few games) it was evident in the mediocre level of play. Just look at Canada's on ice response to winning.....it was very 'ho-hum' unlike the olympic celebratory outburst.
Despite NHL threats, NHL participation in the Olympics will continue. It means too much to the NHLPA....much more than a world Cup.

World Cups should also rotate between North America and Europe, or even be 2/3 in Europe, to better reflect the relative weightings of the "big 7" in the rankings picture.

Will never happen. If the NHL is going to participate, it would have to be for the benefit of the NHL.
Considering its olympic grievances, under no circumstance is the NHL going to release its players for a tournament played 2/3 in Europe.

 

[jekoh]

(2) it reduces the problem you see at the Olympics that too many good teams never face each other because of the overabundance of preliminary groups and the fact that theoretically a team won't have to face many of the best teams to win the gold,

The 3 group format was just for 2010 hopefully they will return to 2 groups of six teams. And unlike the world cup, the Olympics have crossover quarterfinals, which means teams will likely have to face one more top team than they would at the world cup.

World Cup has larger groups

Are you really talking about the world cup of hockey, which has 4 teams in each group?

 

[Breakfast of Champs]

Ok im super confused. Is for sure not happening in 2011? I cant find any info on this at all, the only site that has anything is wikipedia and it says theres one in 2011. The world cup always seems to have very little build up or hype around it for some reason.

 

[Jussi]

Ok im super confused. Is for sure not happening in 2011? I cant find any info on this at all, the only site that has anything is wikipedia and it says theres one in 2011. The world cup always seems to have very little build up or hype around it for some reason.

Of course it isn't, they would've started hyping it a year ago. Bettman admitted it himself as linked in one of the above posts.