WJC: Should relegate 1 or 2 teams?

[zorz]

I know fans of the medalling teams probably couln't care less about this thing, but the rest could. I think the change that was done that only 1 team relegates isn't very good. It makes relegation round games much less important and the whole phase of the tournament quite boring. You have 4 games in relegation round. In past years it was usually all open until the last game. Now it is likely going to be decided after 1, max 2 games. The rest will be pointless. They should let 2 teams relegate IMO.

Click to read more...

 

[Canada4Gold]

Thye should relegate 9 teams

Yeah should be 2 imo

 

[Kiraly]

I like the new divisional format and the relegation/promotion of 1 team. The groups are much more competitive based on these changes.

 

[wjhl2009fan]

I like the new divisional format and the relegation/promotion of 1 team. The groups are much more competitive based on these changes.

How would it make it much more competitve?

 

[vorky]

IMO it is good if one team promote/relegate in Division IA and lower. Among elite stage and Div IA should be one team relegate/promote and "play-off" or so among 9th from elite and 2nd from Div IA. I have no idea when this extra game (series) should be played. Just idea

 

[Canada4Gold]

How would it make it much more competitve?

the lower groups are more competitive. Before you'd have the 11th team possibly in group with 22nd team but now it's like 11-16 and 17-22 kind of thing, the 1B is lower than 1A.

It's better that way but I still would like 2 teams relegated

 

[ORYX]

How would it make it much more competitve?

Because the tournament only has one absolute attrocity instead of 2?

 

[Latgale_fan]

I don't think it matters much. Yeah it might matter for predictability/unpredictability but this year everybody thinks than Denmark and Latvia will decide who's going to relegate anyway, so the last game of relegation round will still (if no surprises occur) decide the relegatee. Yeah, there won't be much point of having, say, theoretical game Swiss/Slovakia vs Czech R. but isn't it like that usually? It was like that in 2010, yeah 2011 and 2009 were different but still i don't think it matters much...

What's better though is that in lower divisions teams will be able to play closer games and we won't see 10:0 for Germany or somebody else on daily basis. This year in DivI A Germany had only one such game and it was a good German team and the tournament was really interesting. Last year's Latvia's U18 DivI tournament was one of those where there was no point for us to really play vs teams we had. Had we better opponents, maybe we wouldn't move up but at least we'd see what our boys are really capable of.

This is bad for smaller teams like Latvia,Norway, Denmark, on the one hand, as now our possibilities to play in the elite, among the big boys lessen but at least we have better competition in Division 1

 

[PensFan101]

How would it make it much more competitve?

A lot of the strong D1 sides the year before get promoted because of a strong senior birth year, who all graduate. Countries like Kazakhstan that have been up recently have shown that, since their entry into the top flight the next season was terrible. Makes promotion more difficult and it means that a team like Germany, who along with Denmark, sometimes Belarus, are the ultimate elevator teams and may be more likely to stick at the top level where (especially in the case of Germany), they really belong.

 

[zorz]

A lot of the strong D1 sides the year before get promoted because of a strong senior birth year, who all graduate. Countries like Kazakhstan that have been up recently have shown that, since their entry into the top flight the next season was terrible. Makes promotion more difficult and it means that a team like Germany, who along with Denmark, sometimes Belarus, are the ultimate elevator teams and may be more likely to stick at the top level where (especially in the case of Germany), they really belong.

that's what I think brings more competition though. When team like Germany and other comparable teams have to really fight for staying up, not just beating 1 team which is even to them or worse. And now when Div. IA is more even than before, there is no reason to keep up so many teams IMO. That would be more logical before they changed the system to bring more even teams together.

 

[Latgale_fan]

A lot of the strong D1 sides the year before get promoted because of a strong senior birth year, who all graduate. Countries like Kazakhstan that have been up recently have shown that, since their entry into the top flight the next season was terrible. Makes promotion more difficult and it means that a team like Germany, who along with Denmark, sometimes Belarus, are the ultimate elevator teams and may be more likely to stick at the top level where (especially in the case of Germany), they really belong.

Belarus hasn't been promoted to the elite for 5-6 years already... i think Denmark, Norway, Latvia are more like elevator teams, considering Latvia will play in WJC for the 3d time in 4 years...
And I wouldn't say Germany really belongs to the elite. Seeing how they had problems with Norway and Belarus this year, if Latvia, say, stays up they'll have hard time next year (we lose only PelÅ¡s and Koļesņikovs, but gain more experienced Girgensons + 94s + Bukarts)

 

[DenGC]

I like the new format. As mentioned by others, it really makes the various divisions much more competitive. I know its hard for some people to grasp that there are more to hockey, than the top-division or top 7 for that matter. Its about the growth of the game.

Germany, Latvia, Belarus, Denmark and Norway will be the elevator teams for years to come due to the relative small sample-sizes of players available. However, if you start excluding them entirely due to the occasional loop-sided results, their recent progress will come to an end.

If anything should be done I would allow the promoted team to select 3 overagers (+1 year) and they won't be so wounerable, to injuries to their star players or the low quality of talent that particular year.

 

[Bank]

I like the new construction...

On the one hand you have a smaller exchange of teams at the WJC. On the other hand you have made the Div. 1 more competetive with the 1A and 1B-thing. The reason you wanna be in the A-group is that you wanna get challenged. Now you get that in a light version even in the Div. 1. That way the difference between the two is less and the years i Div. 1 are not wasted. That's seems nice to me

 

[PanniniClaus]

It's a fantastic change, strengthening every level. The teams and fans will benefit everywhere.

Thankfully the IIHF is correcting a wrong made a few years ago.

 

[stv11]

I think one team is enough, relegating two teams was harsh on Germany, Latvia, Norway and the like who usually went down right after going up. Now it's possible for those teams to have a long term presence in the top pool. But if the tournament ever expands to 12 teams, I think relegating two would be the way to go.

About the structure change, I agree with everyone saying it's for the better, more competitive games can only benefit the teams involved.

 

[zorz]

I think some people a bit misunderstood me. I was not questioning the structure change. That's great. What I said is that now when Div.IA is more equal (because of the structure change), there isn't that big need to keep these teams we are talking about necessarily up. It would be more logical (IMO) to give more teams from that better Div.IA chance to go up and see what happens.

On the other hand, before the structure change (when Div.I was more lopsided), only 1 team relegating would make more sense.

 

[zorz]

I think one team is enough, relegating two teams was harsh on Germany, Latvia, Norway and the like who usually went down right after going up. Now it's possible for those teams to have a long term presence in the top pool. But if the tournament ever expands to 12 teams, I think relegating two would be the way to go.
About the structure change, I agree with everyone saying it's for the better, more competitive games can only benefit the teams involved.

Are they really considering such expansion or it's just your suggestion?

 

[stv11]

It's not considered, at least as far as I know. I would have strongly suggested it when two teams were relegated every year, but with the new format I'm fine with the way it is, though I think 12 teams with 8 going to the playoffs would be a better format.