WC: What can the IIHF do to fix the World Championships of Hockey?

[Lerik]

Russia only has a strong team this year because most of their "A" players were knocked out of the playoffs early and could come play. This would be diff if say Pitt and Washington were playing for the Eastern Conference title. It still comes down to the fact that if this tourny is held while the NHL playoffs are going on, some players after a long season and playoffs do not want to play any more hockey.

Its only players from four NHL-teams missing. The top teams cant ice all the top players all the time, but every top team can get a good A-team every time. Both Sweden, Czech.Republic and Canada have the potential this year to match Russia but most of the top players from this 3 great nations have decided not to go. Its a players problem and not a SC problem.

 

[DoyleG]

What does the IIHF need to do?
Nothing.

What do the crybabies who bash the WHC need to do?
**** and stop acting like children.

 

[DoyleG]

Again, why call out Canada? Do we not send competent teams that on paper at least is usually tops in the tournament? This team was a dud, but in the five years before that we've finished 2-4-1-2-2. Sure we don't send the best team possible, but we certainly send good teams.

Canada needs to stop using the "Olympic Year" as an excuse for sending such poor teams.

 

[mattihp]

Wait what. It's a fine tournament already. All it needs is better reffing.

 

[Pear Juice]

It'd be more interesting if the tournament didn't allow NHL players at all. Either you want all teams to have their strongest team (Olympics) or you want some other kind of limitation (U20s). I say make the WHC a tournament where the best players in Europe compete for their nations. Almost all available players in Europe are interested in going to the WHC, so team parity would likely increase. Also, it would, like the U20s, be a great showcase for the NHL clubs and the NA audience. Sure the Canadian and US team will be very inferior compared to the way it is now, but as several Canadians state, there is no real interest in the WHC over seas anyhow.

Ultimately I would want the WHC to be as the Olympics, of course, with the best players competing. But seeing as the NHL hardly wants to send their precious stars to the Olympics anymore, I doubt that's ever going to happen. So that's my 2 pence, make it a European Championship.

 

[ts11]

The only reasons there are upsets at the WC is because countries who do have large contingents of NHL players aren't sending their best players. Your argument makes it sound like you are glad that the big countries are sending inferior teams because it means that the lesser hockey nations have a chance. That's a weird positive to me. It's artificial leveling of the playing field and it's the reason North America and the majority of it's players simply don't care about the tournament.

For the record, I never really cared about the WC until I read that stupid article by Szymon Szemberg. If I were a GM or owner of an NHL team I would be so pissed off. They are kind enough to let players that they sink millions, upon millions of dollars into, risking injury mind you, to participate in a tournament that everyone knows is meaningless. A yearly best on best tournament is simply unrealistic and would probably cost the NHL dearly.

If Euro fans are happy with the tournament the way it is, then why are they complaining about players from the NHL not fully participating?

I think it's great that Europe gets a tournament to excite the fan base but don't pretend it's an important tournament on the hockey landscape as a whole. Enjoy it for what it is or make changes to make it relevant.

First of neither Germany or Switzerland had their best team in place either. Still they could hold of the big ones in some games.

Second, which makes my first point kind ob obsolete, for me it doesn't matter if there's a Crosby on the WC or "just" a Stamkos or Burque. It's still good hockey, and as someone else mentioned, what matters is the name on front of the jersey, not on the back.

Third, what is your definition of the hockey landscape as a whole? Only the big leagues? Mainly NA? Well, I'd include the small nations and small European leagues in a term like this. And for them this tourney is important and relevant. If there's a will to devleop hockey as a sport you have to include the small nations in your thoughts, otherwise, to take your words, "enjoy it for what it is".

Overall I think the WC is doing fine. The IIHF is earning money, there will be more than 500.000 visitors again and the gap between the nations got smaller (not only sepaking about the big 7, where the gap closed a little tad, but especially about how many small nations can ice more competitive teams nowadays and don't look out of plce anymore => Norway, Denmark, Latvia...)

Could it garner more interest from NA and so earn more money? Yup. Should they desperately fix someting that isn't broke? I don't think so. Maybe tweak it in some parts, but if you make big chances there's a chance that you mess with the litte that hockey achieved over the last years.
I mean, a Slovenian hockey star? Danish, German, Swiss NHL regulares? Switzerland dissapointed because they "only" got to the quarters? Just compare this with the early 1990s, it has changed a lot.

 

[Tomas W]

It'd be more interesting if the tournament didn't allow NHL players at all. Either you want all teams to have their strongest team (Olympics) or you want some other kind of limitation (U20s). I say make the WHC a tournament where the best players in Europe compete for their nations. Almost all available players in Europe are interested in going to the WHC, so team parity would likely increase. Also, it would, like the U20s, be a great showcase for the NHL clubs and the NA audience. Sure the Canadian and US team will be very inferior compared to the way it is now, but as several Canadians state, there is no real interest in the WHC over seas anyhow.

Ultimately I would want the WHC to be as the Olympics, of course, with the best players competing. But seeing as the NHL hardly wants to send their precious stars to the Olympics anymore, I doubt that's ever going to happen. So that's my 2 pence, make it a European Championship.

I highly doubt that an european championship will draw as much audience. Hence it will never happen. the IIHF members would loose too much money.

 

[ts11]

Most really aren't.

Not an attack, serious question, how do you figure?

My impression is, that the European hockey fans are ok with the tourney, there is stable interest and always a good atmosphere. We'll have > 500.000 visitors agains, I don't see dark clouds over the WC.
The dissapointing TV interest in Germany has more to do with the sad state of hockey in Germany and not with the WC.

 

[Tomas W]

Again, why call out Canada? Do we not send competent teams that on paper at least is usually tops in the tournament? This team was a dud, but in the five years before that we've finished 2-4-1-2-2. Sure we don't send the best team possible, but we certainly send good teams.

Yes, its a bigger problem for team USA. And again its not only Canada that is missing players. Sweden had 27 players that turned down invitations and the Czechs 25. Yet we have a Sweden vs Czech in one of the semis.

 

[Salzig]

They just need less games. Just play the premilinary round, the first two teams advance to the quaterfinals. I think the qualification round makes no sense at all. If you have four gropus, and the first two teams advance you have exactly eight teams to play the quaterfinals.

 

[Uncle Rotter]

They just need less games. Just play the premilinary round, the first two teams advance to the quaterfinals. I think the qualification round makes no sense at all. If you have four gropus, and the first two teams advance you have exactly eight teams to play the quaterfinals.

More meaningful games, & fewer incentives for "tactial losses". But to the IIHF, fewer games=less $

 

[FinnswissX]

They just need less games. Just play the premilinary round, the first two teams advance to the quaterfinals. I think the qualification round makes no sense at all. If you have four gropus, and the first two teams advance you have exactly eight teams to play the quaterfinals.

Are you aware of that with this format Germany hadn't qualified for the quarterfinal, the same for Denmark!

 

[Uncle Rotter]

Are you aware of that with this format Germany hadn't qualified for the quarterfinal, the same for Denmark!

Germany would have this year, they were 2nd in their group. With a format of top 2 in each group, teams would simply play to qualify rather than playing for a more desirable QF matchup (as they do in the 2nd round)

 

[TheHMan]

Just a thought, but what if the World Championships were held right before training camp opened for many of these NHL teams?

I bet the majority of players are screaming for a break after a long season and maybe a round or two of the playoffs. However, if they waited till after the playoffs were over, past the draft and Free Agency period, then maybe players could look at it almost like an option to get warmed up for the season.

They'd get their rest after a season, they could have a few weeks to do some of their training routine, and then head off to the Worlds to get back into playing shape, and then head off to training camp and preseason stuff for their NHL clubs.

As an added benefit, if the NHL wants to do this whole starting the NHL season in Europe, they could probably draw more interest in the tournament and the NHL games as well, and they could probably send over the rest of the participating clubs and hold their training camps there.

 

[EbencoyE]

If the NHL is going to treat the tournament as a developmental tournament then why not become one?

This is just pure North American bias. Why would Europeans (IIHF) do something just on account of how North Americans (NHL) view something?

They already have the WJC for North Americans, so I fail to see why they would get rid of their big European tournament just because two countries would rather watch kids play?

 

[EbencoyE]

This whole issue is basically just Americans and Canadians being upset that their C-teams did poorly so they want everyone to be forced to send their F-teams

 

[FinnswissX]

Germany would have this year, they were 2nd in their group. With a format of top 2 in each group, teams would simply play to qualify rather than playing for a more desirable QF matchup (as they do in the 2nd round)

No, they finished the preliminary round as 3rd in their group behind Russia and Finland, so they hadn't qualified for quarterfinal.

 

[Uncle Rotter]

No, they finished the preliminary round as 3rd in their group behind Russia and Finland, so they hadn't qualified for quarterfinal.

No, I think he was talking about the 1st round. 4 groups of 4 each, with the top 2 in each making the QF

 

[ts11]

No, they finished the preliminary round as 3rd in their group behind Russia and Finland, so they hadn't qualified for quarterfinal.

That was the qualification round, in the preliminary round Germany was in the group with USA, Finland and Denmark, not with Russia.

Per IIHF.com:
1. Finland
2. Germany
3. Denmark

 

[FinnswissX]

No, I think he was talking about the 1st round. 4 groups of 4 each, with the top 2 in each making the QF

Sorry, yes he was right. Germany finished preliminary round as 2nd with 5 points because they won against Denmark.

 

[FinnswissX]

That was the qualification round, in the preliminary round Germany was in the group with USA, Finland and Denmark, not with Russia.

Per IIHF.com:
1. Finland
2. Germany
3. Denmark

Sorry, yes you are right, I confused it with the qualification round.

 

[Bojovnik]

Just because you North Americans don't like it doesn't mean it needs changing

It's an IIHF tournament, and it makes sense to do it when the IIHF endorsed leagues finished.

Any other suggestion is stupid.

I love the WHC, as many other Europeans do, and I don't want it to pander to the NHL. The NHL should have no more of a say than the other leagues, ESPECIALLY as it isnt IIHF endorsed

 

[Salzig]

More meaningful games, & fewer incentives for "tactial losses". But to the IIHF, fewer games=less $

Yes and no. I agree that they probably have less income because some games are missing but if they have fewer games, the quaterfinals and other games would have more spectators. Moreover you don't need to schedule the relegation round at 12:15 p. m. I was at these games and boy - the arena was nearly empty. They gave many tickets to schools... (which is obviously a great thing to get young people into hockey but it's not a solution to the problem).

Games like Denmark - Belarus had like 1,000 specators (official number: ~ 3,000). I don't think that the IIHF would lose too much money if these games are let out. But on the other hand there are games in the preliminary round with a high attendance. (i. e. Russian and German games).

Are you aware of that with this format Germany hadn't qualified for the quarterfinal, the same for Denmark!

If they had finnished 3rd (or 4th) they would have had no right to play in the quaterfinals. The eight best teams should play in the quaterfinals - so you have to finnish 1st or 2nd in your group to belong to these top eight nations.

 

[SP]

Just a thought, but what if the World Championships were held right before training camp opened for many of these NHL teams?

I think that's something they should consider too.

PROS
- Most of the nagging injuries that players need to nurse at the end of a long season would be healed. Many players that had surgery at the end of the year would be ready to go too.
- Obviously, all players would able to be selected.
- I think NHL GMs would support it, as many of their players would warm up and start playing hockey earlier.

CONS
- Potentially a lower quality of hockey, since most of the players will be stone cold after spending a few months off. Would the overall increase in talent make up for it?
- Lower viewership? Personally, I'd be much more interested in watching the WC if it was in August/September rather than during the playoffs, but I certainly don't speak for European fans.

 

[FinnswissX]

If they had finnished 3rd (or 4th) they would have had no right to play in the quaterfinals. The eight best teams should play in the quaterfinals - so you have to finnish 1st or 2nd in your group to belong to these top eight nations.

I thouhgt a little bit about yr suggestion to play yr format. But in my opinion it would be very unfair against teams like Denmark for example. Look with which teams this year the different groups were composed.

Group A: Russia, Belarus, Slovakia, Kazakhstan
Group B: Canada, Switzerland, Latvia, Italy
Group C: Sweden, Czech Republic, Norway, France
Group D: Finland, USA, Germany, Denmark

Denmark had two top 8 teams in their group after the IIHF ranking even 2 top 6 teams, USA and Finland. Nobody could know before the beginning of the tournament that USA would play relegation.

Slovakia played in their group only against 1 top 6 team, Russia according to the IIHF ranking. The other 2 teams are ranked number 9 and 18 in the IIHF ranking. And Germany is also ranked higher than a team like Kazakhstan. Now with your format for Slovakia it had been much easier to qualify for the quarterfinal with these teams in the group than for Denmark with Finland, USA and Germany in their group.

The same you can say about Switzerland, they played against Latvia and Italy in their group, the only top team on the paper before the beginning of the tournament was Canada. To qualify against teams like Latvia and Italy is normally much easier than against teams like Sweden and Czech Republic for Norway for example.

If you look now how Slovakia played against Denmark in the qualification round I'm not the opinion that Slovakia deserved more the quarterfinal than Denmark. I think the qualification round is needed because Slovakia for example was this year not at all the better team than Denmark.