So, Lets Discuss this "World Cup" Nonsense for a Second...

[PNWKingsFan]

Russia, Scandinavia, Europe and North America will be represented but it's not an international tournament because ... China and Africa?

If the World Cup is a race to determine who the best hockey nation is, what happens if "Team North America" wins? Do Canada and the US share the trophy? What if "Team Europe" wins?

 

[MXD]

Is the NHL even Top 5 if you include all Sports ? NBA , NFL , MLB and Premier League are guaranteed to be above it. I would guess Premiera Division , Bundesliga and Serie A could come pretty close to the NHL.

They are indeed 5th, and the gap between NBA and NHL is about equal to the gap between Liga and NHL.

But the thing is -- those are the numbers BEFORE the new Rogers deal. But also prior to CAD going South.

 

[sandysan]

The players also may have an opinion on the matter.

Plus if that's their idea of advertising their Stanley Cup product to us in the international audiences... I care mildly only because I know the players from the international international games. The Canadians seem to be less than extatic this year too, because of not having what to care for since the beginning of the playoffs.

The viewership for IIHF tourney on TSN was bigger than that of SC playoffs. Some alarm clocks should be ringing.

The players are under contract, if they leave DURING the season to play for their national teams, the term for that is breach which they wont do.

If the players demand the right to play they can strike or lump it. If they dont get released, how in the hell do players in a playoff stretch show their faces again in that locker room.

If the players dobt have it in their current contracts what they want aint worth poop.

 

[Gary Nylund]

In the word 'international' the important part is 'nation'.

And your point is?

If the World Cup is a race to determine who the best hockey nation is, what happens if "Team North America" wins? Do Canada and the US share the trophy? What if "Team Europe" wins?

And if that's not what the World Cup is?

 

[Lempo]

And your point is?

Representing one's country is kind of the thing in the whole shenanigans. "International" = between nations.

There is a reason why there are Team Finland and Team Sweden in the WC too, instead of there being Granlund in Team Swedish Names and Pääjärvi in Team Finnish Names.

 

[PNWKingsFan]

And if that's not what the World Cup is?

Then I'm at a steakhouse and you're trying to pitch... well, I'm not sure what, but it ain't steak.

Someone else had an analogy earlier that what we are talking about here is akin to adding "Conference all-star" teams to the playoffs, comprised of all the players that didn't make the playoffs officially in that conference. Who would go for that?

 

[Inkling]

If the World Cup is a race to determine who the best hockey nation is, what happens if "Team North America" wins? Do Canada and the US share the trophy? What if "Team Europe" wins?

I don't know but I think many Canadian hockey fans would be happy if Team North America won. Who doesn't want to cheer for the young guys and it would be a perfect novelty ending for a novelty tournament.

 

[Uncle Rotter]

What leagues? All European leagues do stop for the Olympics. The only league not wanting to participate anymore to the Olympics is the NHL. KHL, SEL, the Finnish liga, Czech, Slovaks, German, Swiss, etc etc do stop.

The Swiss league kept playing in 1994 when Switzerland didn't qualify. That's why Bykov and Khomutov didn't play for Russia.

 

[Drake1588]

This tournament is only superfluous because the NHL hasn't pulled out of Olympic participation yet.

When 1) the World Cup is the only best-on-best tournament anywhere, and 2) they get rid of Team North America and Team Europe and make it a genuine national teams invitational of, say, eight clubs, it will be a treat every four years - or however often they hold it (the Canada Cup was always held on an irregular basis too).

Right now, the odd youth/other structure to the add-on clubs is unfortunate. They won't repeat that error.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Representing one's country is kind of the thing in the whole shenanigans. "International" = between nations.

There is a reason why there are Team Finland and Team Sweden in the WC too, instead of there being Granlund in Team Swedish Names and Pääjärvi in Team Finnish Names.

There are nations taking part, did you not know this? OK let's say that it's not an international tournament if that makes you happy, what is it then, national?

Then I'm at a steakhouse and you're trying to pitch... well, I'm not sure what, but it ain't steak.

Someone else had an analogy earlier that what we are talking about here is akin to adding "Conference all-star" teams to the playoffs, comprised of all the players that didn't make the playoffs officially in that conference. Who would go for that?

Not sure what you're on about any more.

 

[BruinLVGA]

And if that's not what the World Cup is?

Exactly. That makes what the World Cup is, clear: a friendly, invitational, preseason tournament (with the kicker of no legitimacy either, courtesy of the gimmick teams).
Using an analogy, hockey at the Olympics is like figure skating at the Olympics, while the World Cup is Stars on Ice.

The Swiss league kept playing in 1994 when Switzerland didn't qualify. That's why Bykov and Khomutov didn't play for Russia.

Obviously, a league stops in case of international tournaments at nations level IF the nation where that league is, is playing in that international tournament... Otherwise what would be the point of stopping? The ONLY reason for stopping is having one's own national team participate.

As far as I remember, in 1994 the league didn't issue a ban (<- here it's instead the NHL saying no to the Olympics). It was left to each team to address the issue with their players.

 

[Lempo]

There are nations taking part, did you not know this? OK let's say that it's not an international tournament if that makes you happy, what is it then, national?

It all goes down how one wants to define 'international'. In team sports generally it's been understood to mean a national team against national team, as it was in the previous World Cup too.

This here is a some sort of abomination that has national teams and international gimmicks teams playing against each other. Sure you can say it's 'international' still, by defining the word in a bit other way. But in that case, if I were harsh I could say the international hockey league that is called the National Hockey League has had the brainrot gone terminal at this point regarding the questionable usage of terminology.

Now why don't we just throw the national teams away altogether and concentrate on building up teams with the onus on the even competitiveness? We could give the teams totally an unrelated name and logo and device some sort of drafting system to ensure the teams also stay kind of even and maybe a pay cap so that one team doesn't hog all the skillest ones by trading and... oh, wait.

Of course, it must be said: I consider myself somewhat a nationalist in the political sense. Many people subscribing to such views seem to be exceedingly worried of the international corporations generally being hell-bent on disrupting any national ethos that could be standing in the way of their profits (people proposing effective non-business oriented legislation and suchlike), and all in all would rather see people as consumers instead of citizens and have them pledging allegiance only to brands.

Now, I'm not looking to make such a case here about the NHL being such a sinister international corporation, I'm just saying such talk exists. If one talks about the fine sport that is ice-hockey and the finest sportsmen from every nation first and foremostly as "NHL's product", one is seriously rattling the cover of a can of worms.

That being said, I don't deny at all that the IOC and IIHF are bunch of corrupt naughtypersons. I got a plenty of merry from the Norwegians just throwing the IOC folks out of the country when they were demanding streets to be shut down for the traffic of their officials and all sorts of insanity when the Norwegians were bidding for Olympics.

 

[Gary Nylund]

It all goes down how one wants to define 'international'. In team sports generally it's been understood to mean a national team against national team, as it was in the previous World Cup too.

This here is a some sort of abomination that has national teams and international gimmicks teams playing against each other. Sure you can say it's 'international' still, by defining the word in a bit other way. But in that case, if I were harsh I could say the international hockey league that is called the National Hockey League has had the brainrot gone terminal at this point regarding the questionable usage of terminology.

Now why don't we just throw the national teams away altogether and concentrate on building up teams with the onus on the even competitiveness? We could give the teams totally an unrelated name and logo and device some sort of drafting system to ensure the teams also stay kind of even and maybe a pay cap so that one team doesn't hog all the skillest ones by trading and... oh, wait.

Of course, it must be said: I consider myself somewhat a nationalist in the political sense. Many people subscribing to such views seem to be exceedingly worried of the international corporations generally being hell-bent on disrupting any national ethos that could be standing in the way of their profits (people proposing effective non-business oriented legislation and suchlike), and all in all would rather see people as consumers instead of citizens and have them pledging allegiance only to brands.

Now, I'm not looking to make such a case here about the NHL being such a sinister international corporation, I'm just saying such talk exists. If one talks about the fine sport that is ice-hockey and the finest sportsmen from every nation first and foremostly as "NHL's product", one is seriously rattling the cover of a can of worms.

That being said, I don't deny at all that the IOC and IIHF are bunch of corrupt naughtypersons. I got a plenty of merry from the Norwegians just throwing the IOC folks out of the country when they were demanding streets to be shut down for the traffic of their officials and all sorts of insanity when the Norwegians were bidding for Olympics.

Fair enough. For me, I don't care what label people want to hang on it, national, international, abomination or whatever else. If it's exciting hockey, I'll be happy and I expect it will be. Maybe they should have called it something instead of the World Cup, not that big a deal to me. Baseball has the World Series, that's not international either obviously but most people are used to the name by now.

I don't like the gimmick teams either but we'll see, maybe it won't be as bad as people fear and I think people are overstating things in that regard. It looks like the NHL won't be at the next Olympics and that might mean another World Cup in another 4 years. Will people upset at the gimmick teams be happy if those teams are gone for the next one and instead we have Switzerland or whoever else taking part?

I'd like NHL players at the Olympics but people looking to blame someone should look at the IOC first, utter stupidity to not pay expenses as they did before. The NHL owners are first and foremost businessmen, second they are persons with egos, telling them to go screw is again, utter stupidity.

As to the rest, nations corporations etc. ... that's an interesting subject that I have had interesting discussions on but I think I'll leave it at that for now as it might be getting too far off topic.

 

[PNWKingsFan]

Fair enough. For me, I don't care what label people want to hang on it, national, international, abomination or whatever else. If it's exciting hockey, I'll be happy and I expect it will be. Maybe they should have called it something instead of the World Cup, not that big a deal to me. Baseball has the World Series, that's not international either obviously but most people are used to the name by now.

I don't like the gimmick teams either but we'll see, maybe it won't be as bad as people fear and I think people are overstating things in that regard. It looks like the NHL won't be at the next Olympics and that might mean another World Cup in another 4 years. Will people upset at the gimmick teams be happy if those teams are gone for the next one and instead we have Switzerland or whoever else taking part?

I'd like NHL players at the Olympics but people looking to blame someone should look at the IOC first, utter stupidity to not pay expenses as they did before. The NHL owners are first and foremost businessmen, second they are persons with egos, telling them to go screw is again, utter stupidity.

As to the rest, nations corporations etc. ... that's an interesting subject that I have had interesting discussions on but I think I'll leave it at that for now as it might be getting too far off topic.

The bolded piece here is probably the chief disagreement between those that are in favor and opposed to this competition. I think the idea of a "World Cup" being something besides all of the hockey nations battling for supremacy to be a bit of a farce. Could this format produce some exciting hockey? Possibly. But people don't watch the playoffs just for exciting hockey either. People would find the idea of a "Western Conference Leftovers" squaring off against Dallas in the first round this year to be pretty comical, even if that team were theoretically higher quality than just Minnesota.

The IOC is obviously not a perfect business partner, but I think taking a drastic action like going it alone with your own international tournament is not a great solution. The NHL isn't well-versed in putting on something that appeals to all of NA, Europe or even Asia. They know NA exclusively, and it shows. And this tournament is pretty clearly aimed exclusively at a quick buck from NA fans, trying to make up for whatever extra eyeballs they would get from Olympic coverage (otherwise, why would they want to do it at all?)

Plus it also means that clubs and players from leagues like the KHL are less incentivized to participate. Why help out one of your direct rivals? Hence the one or two token KHLers you see in this tournament, even on teams like Russia.

And lastly... having such an NA centric tournament also fractures the hockey world a bit more than it already is. There's already the sense that Europeans and North Americans have different hockey watching habits. I don't think another "international tournament" that's NA-centric is going to help that.

Really, I'd rather the NHL buck up and work with the IIHF to tweak the WHC to better suit the league. Move it around to accommodate NHL player schedules better, find some way to host it in NA every once in a while, stuff like that. Lord knows that NHL players are valuable to a tournament like that, so the NHL would have leverage.

Even if the NHL goes ahead and nixes the gimmick teams, adds qualification etc. it only really fixes a piece of what's wrong with the idea. There's still going to be all of the other issues with the tourney, and I don't see them being fixed any time soon.

 

[Lempo]

I don't like the gimmick teams either but we'll see, maybe it won't be as bad as people fear and I think people are overstating things in that regard. It looks like the NHL won't be at the next Olympics and that might mean another World Cup in another 4 years. Will people upset at the gimmick teams be happy if those teams are gone for the next one and instead we have Switzerland or whoever else taking part?

I'd like NHL players at the Olympics but people looking to blame someone should look at the IOC first, utter stupidity to not pay expenses as they did before. The NHL owners are first and foremost businessmen, second they are persons with egos, telling them to go screw is again, utter stupidity.

Or then it's all negotiating tactics from both sides. They seem to have made the problem to be now about the participation costs, instead of the former unspecified hiccups they had. Our own Kummola of IOC seems to be hopeful of a solution that allows the NHL players continued participation in a recent news article, one that sees IOC paying for it. It would seem to allow everyone a graceful retreat from the showdown.

One thing raising an ire in us the international audience is that going to this way NHL would effectively be making out national leagues a layer of their own farm league system without even the payback of allowing us to see our best sons to don on the national jerseys in a non-NHL mandated environment every now and then (that's not played at 2 am).

There's a league-wide NHL clause as is in the FEL that has occasionally burned the teams when an important player under a FEL team contract has ditched for the dollar league. This spring we've seen a FEL team go bankrupt and thrown out of the league and another, very traditional one almost not getting a license due to economic issues. Meanwhile Tappara and Kärpät could make it with their marketing angle of Laine vs. Pulju playoffs on the heels of the WJCs. It's not too far-fetched to say the continued existence of the international hockey of inter-nation kind of is a question of survival for the sport.

When competing with their rival national leagues, NHL would do good to remember the benefit of the international pool of players they have compared to some of the more strictly American sports and play ball to an extent to keep it viable in the future too. That may mean to catering a bit for the possibly emerging hockey nations. Everyone loved seeing Team Switzerland pull above their weight recently and there is something symbiotic to be seen in having Matthews grow in their NLA now.

 

[Gary Nylund]

The bolded piece here is probably the chief disagreement between those that are in favor and opposed to this competition. I think the idea of a "World Cup" being something besides all of the hockey nations battling for supremacy to be a bit of a farce. Could this format produce some exciting hockey? Possibly. But people don't watch the playoffs just for exciting hockey either. People would find the idea of a "Western Conference Leftovers" squaring off against Dallas in the first round this year to be pretty comical, even if that team were theoretically higher quality than just Minnesota.

The IOC is obviously not a perfect business partner, but I think taking a drastic action like going it alone with your own international tournament is not a great solution. The NHL isn't well-versed in putting on something that appeals to all of NA, Europe or even Asia. They know NA exclusively, and it shows. And this tournament is pretty clearly aimed exclusively at a quick buck from NA fans, trying to make up for whatever extra eyeballs they would get from Olympic coverage (otherwise, why would they want to do it at all?)

Plus it also means that clubs and players from leagues like the KHL are less incentivized to participate. Why help out one of your direct rivals? Hence the one or two token KHLers you see in this tournament, even on teams like Russia.

And lastly... having such an NA centric tournament also fractures the hockey world a bit more than it already is. There's already the sense that Europeans and North Americans have different hockey watching habits. I don't think another "international tournament" that's NA-centric is going to help that.

Really, I'd rather the NHL buck up and work with the IIHF to tweak the WHC to better suit the league. Move it around to accommodate NHL player schedules better, find some way to host it in NA every once in a while, stuff like that. Lord knows that NHL players are valuable to a tournament like that, so the NHL would have leverage.

Even if the NHL goes ahead and nixes the gimmick teams, adds qualification etc. it only really fixes a piece of what's wrong with the idea. There's still going to be all of the other issues with the tourney, and I don't see them being fixed any time soon.

I understand and appreciate your concerns but I don't see any good solution coming soon. As far as other leagues making their players available, the NHL probably doesn't care because they have most of the best players anyway. I don't see NHL working something out with the WHC and I doubt the players would be thrilled either because the NHL season is just too long, it's asking too much for the star players to add the WHC to their schedule year after year after year. The Olympics is one thing, that's once every 4 years so that's 4 times more doable. The WHC also just isn't that big a thing in NA and it never has been, not in hockey, not in track and field or anything else. No use in complaining about it, it's just the way it is and I'm sure there are a ton of players who would be excited about playing in the Olympics who have little interest in playing in the WHC.

It's unfortunate the IOC has refused to pay costs, if they hadn't made such an arrogant move, the NHL might still be going and everyone would be happy. Again, to those who are unhappy, the IOC is the villain here IMO.


My answers in bold:

Or then it's all negotiating tactics from both sides. They seem to have made the problem to be now about the participation costs, instead of the former unspecified hiccups they had. Our own Kummola of IOC seems to be hopeful of a solution that allows the NHL players continued participation in a recent news article, one that sees IOC paying for it. It would seem to allow everyone a graceful retreat from the showdown.

I will keep my fingers crossed, would be fantastic!

One thing raising an ire in us the international audience is that going to this way NHL would effectively be making out national leagues a layer of their own farm league system without even the payback of allowing us to see our best sons to don on the national jerseys in a non-NHL mandated environment every now and then (that's not played at 2 am).

Totally understandable.

There's a league-wide NHL clause as is in the FEL that has occasionally burned the teams when an important player under a FEL team contract has ditched for the dollar league. This spring we've seen a FEL team go bankrupt and thrown out of the league and another, very traditional one almost not getting a license due to economic issues. Meanwhile Tappara and Kärpät could make it with their marketing angle of Laine vs. Pulju playoffs on the heels of the WJCs. It's not too far-fetched to say the continued existence of the international hockey of inter-nation kind of is a question of survival for the sport.

Probably overstating it a bit as the NHL would survive with only NA players.

When competing with their rival national leagues, NHL would do good to remember the benefit of the international pool of players they have compared to some of the more strictly American sports and play ball to an extent to keep it viable in the future too. That may mean to catering a bit for the possibly emerging hockey nations. Everyone loved seeing Team Switzerland pull above their weight recently and there is something symbiotic to be seen in having Matthews grow in their NLA now.

I agree. I don't know what the NHL should do exactly but they should be thinking hard about it IMO. The WHC just isn't a viable answer IMO, regular Olympic participation seems to me to be the best solution, let's hope a compromise will be reached like you were hinting at earlier. While I understand the NHL has a business to run and their goal is to make money, not to please fans in Europe or wherever else I do sympathize with fans in places such as Finland who lose their heroes to the NHL etc. And I do think the NHL may be a bit short-sighted at times and it would be in their interest (in addition to being morally right) to give at least some consideration to fans in countries who lose their best players to the NHL. I can also understand however them not wanting to bend over when the IOC tells them to.

 

[Lempo]

This is Kummola of IIHF on today's Finnish HS. Apparently NHL has shown strong interest on being there in for Beijing 2022, which necessitates their participation in 2018. Expects a solution to be found once folks sit into the same table.

http://www.hs.fi/m/urheilu/a1464658836488

 

[PatriceBergeronFan]

Will fans even watch this?

 

[Moops]

This tournament is only superfluous because the NHL hasn't pulled out of Olympic participation yet.

When 1) the World Cup is the only best-on-best tournament anywhere, and 2) they get rid of Team North America and Team Europe and make it a genuine national teams invitational of, say, eight clubs, it will be a treat every four years - or however often they hold it (the Canada Cup was always held on an irregular basis too).

Right now, the odd youth/other structure to the add-on clubs is unfortunate. They won't repeat that error.

Honestly, why not expand to 16 teams? The 9-16 teams will be full of non-NHLers, so it would be no skin off of the League's nose.

 

[Gary Nylund]

This is Kummola of IIHF on today's Finnish HS. Apparently NHL has shown strong interest on being there in for Beijing 2022, which necessitates their participation in 2018. Expects a solution to be found once folks sit into the same table.

http://www.hs.fi/m/urheilu/a1464658836488

That sounds encouraging, thanks for sharing. I can maybe read this too on the weekend if I get drunk enough (I'm Estonian ).

 

[TeamRenzo]

Will fans even watch this?

Yes, I will. The fact that people have decided not to watch before the games have even started is beyond me. If it sucks, then dont watch but hockey fans should give it a shot.

 

[patnyrnyg]

This tournament is only superfluous because the NHL hasn't pulled out of Olympic participation yet.

When 1) the World Cup is the only best-on-best tournament anywhere, and 2) they get rid of Team North America and Team Europe and make it a genuine national teams invitational of, say, eight clubs, it will be a treat every four years - or however often they hold it (the Canada Cup was always held on an irregular basis too).

Right now, the odd youth/other structure to the add-on clubs is unfortunate. They won't repeat that error.

Agreed. People on this site just need to complain. On saturday, I saw some friends from HS I haven't seen in over 10 years. We were talking about sports, and hockey, one guy brought up the World Cup. I said I didn't like the young guns team or this team euro leftovers. I was the only person out of 8 who felt that way. The other 7 all liked it.

 

[patnyrnyg]

Fair enough. For me, I don't care what label people want to hang on it, national, international, abomination or whatever else. If it's exciting hockey, I'll be happy and I expect it will be. Maybe they should have called it something instead of the World Cup, not that big a deal to me. Baseball has the World Series, that's not international either obviously but most people are used to the name by now.

I don't like the gimmick teams either but we'll see, maybe it won't be as bad as people fear and I think people are overstating things in that regard. It looks like the NHL won't be at the next Olympics and that might mean another World Cup in another 4 years. Will people upset at the gimmick teams be happy if those teams are gone for the next one and instead we have Switzerland or whoever else taking part?

I'd like NHL players at the Olympics but people looking to blame someone should look at the IOC first, utter stupidity to not pay expenses as they did before. The NHL owners are first and foremost businessmen, second they are persons with egos, telling them to go screw is again, utter stupidity.

As to the rest, nations corporations etc. ... that's an interesting subject that I have had interesting discussions on but I think I'll leave it at that for now as it might be getting too far off topic.

When I first heard what they were doing, I thought they should just call it the "NHL International Tournament." Name the trophy the "Gretzky-Tretiak Cup" or whatever.

The bolded piece here is probably the chief disagreement between those that are in favor and opposed to this competition. I think the idea of a "World Cup" being something besides all of the hockey nations battling for supremacy to be a bit of a farce. Could this format produce some exciting hockey? Possibly. But people don't watch the playoffs just for exciting hockey either. People would find the idea of a "Western Conference Leftovers" squaring off against Dallas in the first round this year to be pretty comical, even if that team were theoretically higher quality than just Minnesota.

The IOC is obviously not a perfect business partner, but I think taking a drastic action like going it alone with your own international tournament is not a great solution. The NHL isn't well-versed in putting on something that appeals to all of NA, Europe or even Asia. They know NA exclusively, and it shows. And this tournament is pretty clearly aimed exclusively at a quick buck from NA fans, trying to make up for whatever extra eyeballs they would get from Olympic coverage (otherwise, why would they want to do it at all?)

Plus it also means that clubs and players from leagues like the KHL are less incentivized to participate. Why help out one of your direct rivals? Hence the one or two token KHLers you see in this tournament, even on teams like Russia.

And lastly... having such an NA centric tournament also fractures the hockey world a bit more than it already is. There's already the sense that Europeans and North Americans have different hockey watching habits. I don't think another "international tournament" that's NA-centric is going to help that.

Really, I'd rather the NHL buck up and work with the IIHF to tweak the WHC to better suit the league. Move it around to accommodate NHL player schedules better, find some way to host it in NA every once in a while, stuff like that. Lord knows that NHL players are valuable to a tournament like that, so the NHL would have leverage.

Even if the NHL goes ahead and nixes the gimmick teams, adds qualification etc. it only really fixes a piece of what's wrong with the idea. There's still going to be all of the other issues with the tourney, and I don't see them being fixed any time soon.

I purposely avoided this thread for a week or so. Seems like it is the same argument going around in circles. I see 3 camps here, maybe 2 with one having two sub-divisions.

Camp 1 is those who love the World Championships and think it should be the IIHF running it. They like that countries outside of the big-6 can be competitive, and like that fans come to watch their teams and it doesn't matter who wins or loses. They like to cite the World Championships as a "celebration" of the game. They don't like that the NHL won't get inline with the IIHF and IOC because all the other leagues in Europe are doing so, so why shouldn't they?

Camp 2 are people who do not care who runs the tournament. They just want the best players playing for their countries. They are not overly concerned with "qualifying" for the lower ranked countries. So long as the big-6 are in, and it is their best players, then drop the puck and let's go. They are not concerned about how many people in Africa, Sri Lanka, Hungary, or Mexico watch.

Camp 3 (and you could call camp 2 and 3 the same camp but maybe one is blue and the other is red in the camp color war) just wants the entertainment value. Call the tournament whatever you want. Make the teams whatever you want. Hold the games wherever you want. Just make sure you have the best players in the world and the games are entertaining.

I've said many times I thought this format was a temporary idea and will evolve into a best on best in 2020 with the NHL pulling out of the Olympics. I think the IOC not picking up insurance is a convenient excuse. I also think the decision was made after the 2010 games to pull out, but they went to Sochi when the Russian players started saying they were going with or without the NHL. They realized it would be bad PR to not go to Russia after being on NA soil in 2002 and 2010. And, the hope that maybe this could be leveraged to get a transfer deal with Russia. Now? They have no reason. Olympic participation has not helped the NHL in any significant manner and contrary to popular belief, that was their motivation in 1998. Allowing those who only watch hockey in the Olympics to see the NHL players. Then, it would translate into them gaining interest in their local teams. The NY'er who didn't watch would see Richter and Leetch playing for the US. Or the guy in Phoenix seeing Roenick and Tkachuck playing for the US and so forth. Or, just watching the game played at that level and realizing they had a local team. It just never worked like they had hoped.

 

[Ezekial]

Will fans even watch this?

Depends on what side of the debate you're on. If you think this tournament is a sham and going to suck, no fans will watch it. If you're in the any hockey in which great teams play each other is great hockey camp, then yes, people will watch.

But, we won't know until the tournament actually happens. I think people will watch, especially as the tournament goes on.

 

[Lempo]

My answers in bold:

Probably overstating it a bit as the NHL would survive with only NA players.

Oh yes, I has talking from my domestic point of view. And the sport would obviously continue existing even here in some form, but marketing -> salaries -> competetive players -> marketing would be quite a death spiral wreaking havoc among the FEL teams.

Regarding NA, I'd like to believe that the exotique brought by the skillful Russians & co it at least a thing in NHL's competition against NBA and suchlike, and the occasions when the national jerseys are dressed on by the same players only helps to tap into the international rivalry to both side's benefit. A merely bi-national hockey league would mayhap be missing an edge or something on the American markets. It needs a bit Kovalchuk.

Good luck for the weekendy experiments on magic potions to understand the language of reindeers. May I suggest you to try some Jagrmeister; there's some kind of elk on the label at least.