Semi- Final Format

[Class A]

Ok. So the Qtrs for the NA teams will be (NA1 vs NA4) & (NS2 vs NA3). Same goes for the European pool. So what happens when the teams reach the semis. Is there a cross-over? I guess only 2 teams from the European pool will come overseas to NA. Do the NA pool teams play each other till the final? Does anyone know? I would like to find out. Can't seem to find it anywhere. Thanks,

Click to read more...

 

[Jazz]

Winner of NA1 vs NA4 plays winner of E2 vs E3 in one semi

Winner of E1 vs E4 plays winner of NA2 vs NA3 in the other semi

only 2 come over (to North America) from the European pool.

 

[helicecopter]

Winner of NA1 vs NA4 plays winner of E2 vs E3 in one semi

Winner of E1 vs E4 plays winner of NA2 vs NA3 in the other semi

only 2 come over (to North America) from the European pool.

Another thing that sucks in this format, the quarters should be: NA1 vs E4, NA2 vs E3, NA3 vs E2, NA4 vs E1. It should be obvious.

 

[ACC1224]

Winner of NA1 vs NA4 plays winner of E2 vs E3 in one semi

Winner of E1 vs E4 plays winner of NA2 vs NA3 in the other semi

only 2 come over (to North America) from the European pool.

are you assuming this format ? the World Cup site just lists semi-final on the schedule.

 

[degroat*]

Another thing that sucks in this format, the quarters should be: NA1 vs E4, NA2 vs E3, NA3 vs E2, NA4 vs E1. It should be obvious.

It's not obvious when you take into consideration the goal was to have the European pool play games in Europe and the North American Pool play games in North America.

 

[Jazz]

It's not obvious when you take into consideration the goal was to have the European pool play games in Europe and the North American Pool play games in North America.

Stich is correct here, they wanted to play as many games in Europe as possible, including as many elimination games as possible. But cross-over was necessary at some point, so the compromise is that they cross over in the semi final and have 2 elimination games in Europe.

are you assuming this format ? the World Cup site just lists semi-final on the schedule.

Partly - I only know that there will be cross over at this point. The only other (though in my mind less likely) option is to have the highest remaining seed on one side play the lower remaining seed on the other side. I don't think this is likely, so I'll stick with the option I posted earlier.

 

[ACC1224]

Stich is correct here, they wanted to play as many games in Europe as possible, including as many elimination games as possible. But cross-over was necessary at some point, so the compromise is that they cross over in the semi final and have 2 elimination games in Europe.



Partly - I only know that there will be cross over at this point. The only other (though in my mind less likely) option is to have the highest remaining seed on one side play the lower remaining seed on the other side. I don't think this is likely, so I'll stick with the option I posted earlier.

How do you know there is a cross over? I've never seen that written anywhere. You would think they would mention it on the official site. www.wch2004.com

 

[Jazz]

How do you know there is a cross over? I've never seen that written anywhere. You would think they would mention it on the official site. www.wch2004.com

I read it somewhere a while ago...might have been when they first announced the tournament 18 month (or so) ago, and I noted that they were doing it different than last time...

(In 1996, there were no elimination games in Europe, and only 3 teams per pool made it. QFs had E2 vs NA3, and NA2 vs E3 and all these playoff games were in North America.)

Keep this in mind, if there was no cross-over it would make sense for the remaining 2 European teams (after the QFs) to play the final game in Europe as well.

 

[wilka91*]

The semi final is a cross over.

All the information can be found here : http://www.old.swehockey.se/infoaf/worldcupofhockey2004.htm

 

[ACC1224]

I read it somewhere a while ago...might have been when they first announced the tournament 18 month (or so) ago, and I noted that they were doing it different than last time...

(In 1996, there were no elimination games in Europe, and only 3 teams per pool made it. QFs had E2 vs NA3, and NA2 vs E3 and all these playoff games were in North America.)

Keep this in mind, if there was no cross-over it would make sense for the remaining 2 European teams (after the QFs) to play the final game in Europe as well.

A crossover wouldn't surprise me because they would want to set it up so Can plays U.S. in the final. I just hadn't heard anything about it.

If there isn't a crossover they would want both Semi's in NA for tv.

 

[ACC1224]

The semi final is a cross over.

All the information can be found here : http://www.old.swehockey.se/infoaf/worldcupofhockey2004.htm

thanks....strange the WCH2004 site wouldn't have that.

 

[helicecopter]

It's not obvious when you take into consideration the goal was to have the European pool play games in Europe and the North American Pool play games in North America.

If you play E1-NA4 and E2-NA3 in Europe, giving like fair the home advantage to the team qualified as 1st and 2nd, then you have the same amount of games in Europe that you have in the apparently true format.
I would say more. In the unlikely situation that Slovakia or/and Russia qualified as first or second in their North American group, they should be awarded a semifinal in Europe in their homeland.

 

[Egil]

Whats the point of the preliminary round if everyone advances? What a waste of time. At least kick out the 4th place finishers and give the pool winners a bye into the semis...

 

[Jazz]

Whats the point of the preliminary round if everyone advances? What a waste of time. At least kick out the 4th place finishers and give the pool winners a bye into the semis...

I disagree...it does determine seedings...plus I remember some Swedes and Finns (in 1996) stating they didn't like the fact that in such a high tempo tournament, they had to wait like 6 days to play when they crossed over.

It's the same format as the last 2 Olympics (where all 4 advance). Ask Belarus if it is a waste of time!

 

[Jazz]

I disagree...it does determine seedings...plus I remember some Swedes and Finns (in 1996) stating they didn't like the fact that in such a high tempo tournament, they had to wait like 6 days to play when they crossed over.....

I did not elaborate properly - both Sweden and Finland were the class of the European Pool in 1996, and both finished 1-2 in the pool. Due to the fact that they European side started earlier (they had to to them a couple of days to re-adjust to North American time-zones when the cross-over happened) they had about 5-6 days off after finishing the European portion of the pool - and both played terriblely in their first games in on this side. Finland lost 5-0 to Russia, while Sweden fell behind early 2-0 to Canada before finally getting it's legs and taking the game to OT.

Keeping the Olympic format where all 4 teams from each pool make it for a better tournament overall, plus as Belarus taught us....you never know..

 

[mcfara]

Another thing that sucks in this format, the quarters should be: NA1 vs E4, NA2 vs E3, NA3 vs E2, NA4 vs E1. It should be obvious.

i agree, this is stupid, every other tourney EVER in every sport has done it like that (look at they olympics)

adam
http://www.sportslizard.com

 

[helicecopter]

Whats the point of the preliminary round if everyone advances? What a waste of time. At least kick out the 4th place finishers and give the pool winners a bye into the semis...

I agree, absolutely.
And it's even worse when you consider that there are teams (Russia and Slovakia) that would not even gain the home ice advantage winning their group.

 

[Jazz]

I agree, absolutely.
And it's even worse when you consider that there are teams (Russia and Slovakia) that would not even gain the home ice advantage winning their group.

Ok....I see the point you are trying to make...and I don't say I disagree...

The problem here is simply logistics.
Just tell me how you would have arranged for them to fly all the way back to Europe and then back to North America for the Championship final?

Should they win the group, they will have home ice advantage in terms of having the last change on the ice etc....

 

[helicecopter]

Ok....I see the point you are trying to make...and I don't say I disagree...

The problem here is simply logistics.
Just tell me how you would have arranged for them to fly all the way back to Europe and then back to North America for the Championship final?

Should they win the group, they will have home ice advantage in terms of having the last change on the ice etc....

etc...? What is there beside last change??
A tournament that takes into consideration logistics BEFORE fairness makes me wonder if it is something really serious for all the federations taking part.
As for the fly matter, make the tournament two or three days longer and you have the time to do the overseas flyes..also you could have two less quarterfinals by eliminating right away the fourth of both qualification groups, gaining back some time if you need.

 

[Jazz]

etc...? What is there beside last change??

Ok, I'm sure others will add here, but the "visting team" has to post their roster for that game first, then the "home team" posts (allowing them to make changes if they see fit), plus the last change on the ice, and they can choose which color jersey they want (don't laugh at this - ever wonder why we rarely see the Swedes wearing their Blue jersey?)

A tournament that takes into consideration logistics BEFORE fairness makes me wonder if it is something really serious for all the federations taking part.

I would like you to find me a high profile tournament where logistics do not take part...Any thing, including the FIFA World Cup have time limits in how long the tournament will last due to TV, other events, and especially the fact that casual people will lose interest if any tournament drags out too long...

As for the fly matter, make the tournament two or three days longer and you have the time to do the overseas flyes..also you could have two less quarterfinals by eliminating right away the fourth of both qualification groups, gaining back some time if you need.

That is the same point as above - they do not want to make the tournament longer (the CBA expires this year, but even if it didn't both the NHL and the European leagues want their players back), plus taking out the 2 quaterfinals you speak of would only take out one day (take a look at the schedule and you'll see why - just take out Tues Sept 7th where 2 QFs are played, and you only gain one day.
Plus I don't think any tournament organizer or even the federations want their players to fly back and forth over 9 time zones in a matter of a couple of days....It is easy for us to sit here and say it's easy, but to travel and play like that with jet-lag is simply non-sensical. Besides, it is pretty much proven that it is easier to fly from East to West than the other way around...

And with the fact that their needs to be a North American pool (and thus 2 teams have to play on that side) - tell me what is not fair?