World Cup Boycott

[moon*]

No you can't judge the impact of missing players because tournaments are decided by playing the games, not by what we think the players will do based on how we judge their theoretical impact.

Using your logic, there's no point in playing the world cup at all. Just look at the rosters and hand out the medals based on your judgement.

(MOD)

(MOD)


I can judge anything I want, including the impact of missing players. Especially when it comes to my opinion. I said I am not concerned about the missing because I don't see it as changing the outcome. If you see it differently good for you.

And considering that I am the one looking forward to watching this sporting event seems to indicate that sports are pretty great for me. The fact I will get a ton of enjoyment watching this sporting event shows that in fact sports probably are exactly my thing because I can enjoy watching them and not spend so much time whinning about them like others feel the need to.

 

[Canuckistani]

(MOD)

I can judge anything I want, including the impact of missing players. Especially when it comes to my opinion. I said I am not concerned about the missing because I don't see it as changing the outcome. If you see it differently good for you.

(MOD)
No I understood you perfectly well, nor did I object to you presenting your view.

I'm simply questioning you as to why you think you're able to predetermine the impact of any given player and why there's any point to having the event if you claim to have this power. Clearly Canada has the best roster so just give them the world cup flower vase and be done with it.

And when the USA is being stripped of multiple 30-goal scorers then that's no small thing. Yet you're convinced it'll have no impact at all even as USA team management asked the NHL to make an exception.

 

[moon*]

No I understood you perfectly well, nor did I object to you presenting your view.

I'm simply questioning you as to why you think you're able to predetermine the impact of any given player and why there's any point to having the event if you claim to have this power. Clearly Canada has the best roster so just give them the world cup flower vase and be done with it.

And when the USA is being stripped of multiple 30-goal scorers then that's no small thing. Yet you're convinced it'll have no impact at all even as the USA team management asked the NHL to make an exception.

Have I once said anything was set in stone?

I said it was my opinion. We play the games because predictions are made all the time by people and sometimes they are right and sometimes they are wrong.

I said for me personally it doesn't bother me that the US potentially doesn't have those guys because I don't see them having on an impact on the roster. In fact I would say the moronic defensive roster choices would have a bigger impact. Not having Kessel would have a bigger impact as well.

 

[Canuckistani]

Have I once said anything was set in stone?

I said it was my opinion. We play the games because predictions are made all the time by people and sometimes they are right and sometimes they are wrong.

I said for me personally it doesn't bother me that the US potentially doesn't have those guys because I don't see them having on an impact on the roster. In fact I would say the moronic defensive roster choices would have a bigger impact. Not having Kessel would have a bigger impact as well.

You're OK with two teams being sabotaged by a stupid player-availability rule because you figure it just won't make a difference anyway.

This is why the NHL feels it is a good idea to turn the world cup into the biggest fiasco in the history of international hockey, while likely withdrawing from the Olympics. Because they figure there are enough fans out there who can't tell the difference between the NHL all star game and a best-on-best international event.

 

[moon*]

You're OK with two teams being sabotaged by a stupid player-availability rule because you figure it just won't make a difference anyway.

This is why the NHL feels it is a good idea to turn the world cup into the biggest fiasco in the history of international hockey, while likely withdrawing from the Olympics. Because they figure there are enough fans out there who can't tell the difference between the NHL all star game and a best-on-best international event.

Again its a fun tournament. I am watching it to be entertained. I don't feel two teams are being sabotaged. In fact I would say Canada is the overwhelming favorite despite this "disadvantage."

If they withdrawl from the Olympics then going forward I might change my mind, but as of right now we two years ago had the Olympics and now have a tournament that involves the best players in the World that looks like it will have good quality entertaining games.

I can easily tell the difference between and all star game and international event. The fact that you think you can classify this as an all star before seeing 1 minute of how the players approach the game says more about you than fans who want to watch it.

Explain how this tournament can be even close to the "biggest fiasco in international hockey history"? They haven't even played a game yet.

The set-up and players alone already make it more interest and likely lightyears better than the many WHC they have had. So highly unlikely it is even close to being a fiasco at all, let alone the biggest in international hockey.

 

[JackSlater]

How is it not best on best?

Which of the top players are not going to be there?

If this is not the best against the best I am not sure what tournament is.

I completely believe that you are unaware of what best on best tournaments are. This isn't best on best because 25% of the teams are not free to choose their best players, and another 25% aren't even national teams. 50% of the teams are not "best" anything. Simple to understand, though that doesn't stop an unfortunate few from missing it completely.

 

[xxxx]

Team Europe and Team North America are icing the best they can potentially ice.

 

[JackSlater]

Team Europe and Team North America are icing the best they can potentially ice.

This has already been explained to you - they do not qualify for a best on best tournament since they are not national teams. Best on best has the obvious implication of national teams, otherwise we would call the NHL or the All Star game best on best. If you want to comment on something, please try not to ignore what has already been told to you repeatedly.

Besides that, "Team Europe" is not icing its best players since it cannot select Russians/Swedes/Finns/Czechs. "Team North America" isn't at its best since it can't pick players over the age of 23, which any reasonable person recognizes is completely idiotic since no other team in the tournament is bounded by an upper age limit.

 

[Billy6]

I'm really interested in seeing how the the players play in this tournament. And what I mean by that is are the players going to go all out? I doubt it. This tournament means nothing. I get the national pride thing to a certain extent but would you risk serious injury in a joke of a tournament like this? I wonder if this is going to be a slightly more serious all star game.

 

[Habaneros]

I'm really interested in seeing how the the players play in this tournament. And what I mean by that is are the players going to go all out? I doubt it. This tournament means nothing. I get the national pride thing to a certain extent but would you risk serious injury in a joke of a tournament like this? I wonder if this is going to be a slightly more serious all star game.

Hard to believe no one(150 players) will not get injured in this thing.....Like Tavares back in the Olympics in 2014..

Be lots of crying when a few stars get hurt and can't play for there NHL teams for 3 to 6 months due to an exhibition tourney...lol

 

[Jumptheshark]

over here in Europe this is getting zero media attention

 

[Tuff Gong]

Are you seriously trying to say we should care about a tournament more because it is run by the pathethic IIHF over the very successful, very intelligent and well run NHL?

As an organization the NHL runs circles around the IIHF. In terms of growing and developing hockey the NHL is light years better and more important than the IIHF.

The IIHF is a corrupt, inept and pathetic little operation that couldn't organize [MOD] if you spotted them a million bucks.

In a perfect world the IIHF doesn't exist and hockey is run by people who know what they are doing and actually know about the sport, Canadians.

I think I found Gary Bettman....

 

[Jumptheshark]

Posted by Hap View Post
Are you seriously trying to say we should care about a tournament more because it is run by the pathethic IIHF over the very successful, very intelligent and well run NHL?

As an organization the NHL runs circles around the IIHF. In terms of growing and developing hockey the NHL is light years better and more important than the IIHF.

The IIHF is a corrupt, inept and pathetic little operation that couldn't organize [MOD] if you spotted them a million bucks.

In a perfect world the IIHF doesn't exist and hockey is run by people who know what they are doing and actually know about the sport, Canadians

you got to be joking [mod]

the moment the NHL created Team Europe and the under 24 teams they proved they were ten times worse then the IIHF

this whole this is an ego trip for the NHL

the IIHF offered to move the 2016 worlds to september this year--but the NHL wanted to go on their ego trip

 

[Urbanskog]

you got to be joking [mod]

the moment the NHL created Team Europe and the under 24 teams they proved they were ten times worse then the IIHF

this whole this is an ego trip for the NHL

the IIHF offered to move the 2016 worlds to september this year--but the NHL wanted to go on their ego trip

Really?

 

[xxxx]

This has already been explained to you - they do not qualify for a best on best tournament since they are not national teams. Best on best has the obvious implication of national teams, otherwise we would call the NHL or the All Star game best on best. If you want to comment on something, please try not to ignore what has already been told to you repeatedly.

Besides that, "Team Europe" is not icing its best players since it cannot select Russians/Swedes/Finns/Czechs. "Team North America" isn't at its best since it can't pick players over the age of 23, which any reasonable person recognizes is completely idiotic since no other team in the tournament is bounded by an upper age limit.

Ok, I'm just saying because of this definition:

"Best-on-best" is a term describing a competition that involves the most elite level of players possible. Usually it refers to an international men's tourname

now I know that US and Canada are certainly not the absolute BEST, true. Maybe you are right in this that, as a tournament, it isn't the absoulte best-on-best. But it's really, really close.

I'm just saying that Team Europe and NAU24 are getting the best players they can, there are restrictions, but that was given. They are not missing McDavid or Eichel or MacKinnon or Hossa or Kopitar because this or that. In this sense, they have the best.

 

[FiLe]

Ok, I'm just saying because of this definition:

Best-on-best" is a term describing a competition that involves the most elite level of players possible. Usually it refers to an international men's tournament

Says "international" right there, see? And if you look at the definition of "international" in sports context, I'm pretty sure it comes up as "between national teams". So if international is part of best-on-best's definition, then this is NOT best-on-best.

If it is, pray tell, which countries' NTs are the YoungGunz and Leftovers again?

 

[mattihp]

Hard to believe no one(150 players) will not get injured in this thing.....Like Tavares back in the Olympics in 2014..

Be lots of crying when a few stars get hurt and can't play for there NHL teams for 3 to 6 months due to an exhibition tourney...lol

I don't think that any team other than leftovers will be out there throwing their body around...

 

[JackSlater]

Ok, I'm just saying because of this definition:

now I know that US and Canada are certainly not the absolute BEST, true. Maybe you are right in this that, as a tournament, it isn't the absoulte best-on-best. But it's really, really close.

I'm just saying that Team Europe and NAU24 are getting the best players they can, there are restrictions, but that was given. They are not missing McDavid or Eichel or MacKinnon or Hossa or Kopitar because this or that. In this sense, they have the best.

Pretty funny that even your definition of "best on best" includes "international". Ignoring that though - do you consider the 2013 WJC a best on best tournament? Every team had access to all of their best players under the constraints of the tournament after all.

 

[xxxx]

Best-on-best" is a term describing a competition that involves the most elite level of players possible. Usually it refers to an international men's tournament

Says "international" right there, see? And if you look at the definition of "international" in context, I'm pretty sure it comes up as "between national teams". So if international is part of best-on-best's definition, then this is NOT best-on-best.

If it is, pray tell, which countries' NTs are the YoungGunz and Leftovers again?

Pretty funny that even your definition of "best on best" includes "international". Ignoring that though - do you consider the 2013 WJC a best on best tournament? Every team had access to all of their best players under the constraints of the tournament after all.

It's funny how FiLe bolded the word "international", but didn't give a thought about the word "usually", quite the same for you.

As you can see, it's not just my definition, and the definition includes the key word usually, which means it's not restricted to just that. If I wanna buy some fruit, I usually go there. What it means, that I go just and only there? No.

Btw, I said earlier in the past that I consider this tournament to be international, even though I recognize it's different type of an international tournament.

2013 probably was a best-on-best tournament.



I get your definition though. You have a point, but how's that some universal, absolute definition? It's not given. Or then, who says it's given?
I agree that the ABSOLUTE best-on-best is only something like the Olympics, or the previous World Cup in 2004, that is true.


Also, I don't think I would argue so hard if some people didn't bash the tournament and say stuff like 'the tournament doesn't matter' 'it's an all-star game' 'it has no meaning', etc. I wouldn't say a word to you and others if you at least admitted that it's gonna be a great and serious tournament, even if you thought it was not best on best, even if you thought it was not international, I wouldn't care and would respect that much more. I, to this point, can't really understand how someone is able to call himself a hockey fan, and decide he won't watch this tournament. The irony when someone called my nickname a joke and that I should change it to "NHL Hockey Fan". I would say that rather that person should change it to "International Hockey Fan Only".

 

[Back in Black]

Not that anything is being organized by any means, but any other fans like me just not going to watch because of the stupid North America/Europe idea?

If your not watching it, your not a fan of the game! I’m calling you on this, otherwise you wouldn’t be on a Hockey Forum.

 

[Xokkeu]

If your not watching it, your not a fan of the game! I’m calling you on this, otherwise you wouldn’t be on a Hockey Forum.

You're free to think of me whatever you want.

But I self identify as a fan of International Hockey.

 

[Xokkeu]

It's funny how FiLe bolded the word "international", but didn't give a thought about the word "usually", quite the same for you.

As you can see, it's not just my definition, and the definition includes the key word usually, which means it's not restricted to just that. If I wanna buy some fruit, I usually go there. What it means, that I go just and only there? No.

Btw, I said earlier in the past that I consider this tournament to be international, even though I recognize it's different type of an international tournament.

2013 probably was a best-on-best tournament.



I get your definition though. You have a point, but how's that some universal, absolute definition? It's not given. Or then, who says it's given?
I agree that the ABSOLUTE best-on-best is only something like the Olympics, or the previous World Cup in 2004, that is true.


Also, I don't think I would argue so hard if some people didn't bash the tournament and say stuff like 'the tournament doesn't matter' 'it's an all-star game' 'it has no meaning', etc. I wouldn't say a word to you and others if you at least admitted that it's gonna be a great and serious tournament, even if you thought it was not best on best, even if you thought it was not international, I wouldn't care and would respect that much more. I, to this point, can't really understand how someone is able to call himself a hockey fan, and decide he won't watch this tournament. The irony when someone called my nickname a joke and that I should change it to "NHL Hockey Fan". I would say that rather that person should change it to "International Hockey Fan Only".

Do you watch the IIHF Worlds, Spengler Cup, Finnish, Swiss, Swedish leagues, KHL?

 

[Urbanskog]

Also, I don't think I would argue so hard if some people didn't bash the tournament and say stuff like 'the tournament doesn't matter' 'it's an all-star game' 'it has no meaning', etc. I wouldn't say a word to you and others if you at least admitted that it's gonna be a great and serious tournament, even if you thought it was not best on best, even if you thought it was not international, I wouldn't care and would respect that much more. I, to this point, can't really understand how someone is able to call himself a hockey fan, and decide he won't watch this tournament. The irony when someone called my nickname a joke and that I should change it to "NHL Hockey Fan". I would say that rather that person should change it to "International Hockey Fan Only".

I don't understand how someone is able to call himself a hockey fan and decide to watch this tournament.

 

[Hanji]

This tournament blows. The NHL should be ashamed of itself. That being said, I'm still watching. I won't be emotionally invested though.

 

[JackSlater]

It's funny how FiLe bolded the word "international", but didn't give a thought about the word "usually", quite the same for you.

As you can see, it's not just my definition, and the definition includes the key word usually, which means it's not restricted to just that. If I wanna buy some fruit, I usually go there. What it means, that I go just and only there? No.

Btw, I said earlier in the past that I consider this tournament to be international, even though I recognize it's different type of an international tournament.

2013 probably was a best-on-best tournament.

I get your definition though. You have a point, but how's that some universal, absolute definition? It's not given. Or then, who says it's given?
I agree that the ABSOLUTE best-on-best is only something like the Olympics, or the previous World Cup in 2004, that is true.

Also, I don't think I would argue so hard if some people didn't bash the tournament and say stuff like 'the tournament doesn't matter' 'it's an all-star game' 'it has no meaning', etc. I wouldn't say a word to you and others if you at least admitted that it's gonna be a great and serious tournament, even if you thought it was not best on best, even if you thought it was not international, I wouldn't care and would respect that much more. I, to this point, can't really understand how someone is able to call himself a hockey fan, and decide he won't watch this tournament. The irony when someone called my nickname a joke and that I should change it to "NHL Hockey Fan". I would say that rather that person should change it to "International Hockey Fan Only".

I saw the word "usually", and as I said the funny thing is that even the example that you mentioned used "international" in it. I wouldn't say that it's a good definition, given that in hockey terms best on best has always meant international, just funny. Then again, if you somehow consider the 2013 WJC best on best, given that no one 20 or older could play in it, then there is no reasoning with you.

I won't watch because I refuse to support something that is so clearly wrong. The NHL messed up a previously great tournament, and is even on record as saying that if this tournament is a success then it loses more interest in going to the Olympics. Supporting it even in a small way would only reinforce the NHL's idiocy in doing things that I don't like.