GDT: World Cup Of Hockey - Part II

[Winger for Hire]

Team North America was the greatest thing to happen to hockey since the 2 line pass was eliminated.

 

[Speaking Moistly]

Why do so many hockey fans seem to dislike this tournament? Are people that bothered by the two "novelty" teams, who ended up actually being two of the better teams?

The same folks who seem all gung-ho about the Olympics are constantly ******** on this tournament. I'm not really sure why. The level of hockey is the exact same.

I just didn't care that much about it and the timing was stupid.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Why do so many hockey fans seem to dislike this tournament? Are people that bothered by the two "novelty" teams, who ended up actually being two of the better teams?

The same folks who seem all gung-ho about the Olympics are constantly ******** on this tournament. I'm not really sure why. The level of hockey is the exact same.

There was always a sense of pride and history with the tourney when it was only national programs participating. The grab bag teams cheapened it even though they were quality teams.

You can say that the level of hockey is the exact same, so why don't we just throw all the best players in a big pool, have a draft, and let them play on 8 arbitrary teams? Because there's no investment and nobody would care about the result a few years down the line, that's why. Canada beating Team Europe has absolutely no historical significance even if beating a good thrown together team with a dubious unifying element is an accomplishment.

 

[MrBurghundy]

People don't like change, and since its new it doesn't really feel important to them. I'd imagine the the winter classics and all that are still fresh in NHL fans minds.

I hate that it happened so early in the year. It just didn't feel that important with it happening at the same time as training camps and preseason is going on. Plus more of a chance the players were rusty.

 

[Shady Machine]

1) It seems like an utterly forced, unnecessary, and redundant cash grab when we already have the World Championship yearly and Olympics every 4.

2) Interferes with pre-season and training camp.

3) Yes, the "novelty" teams. I don't care how good they were, it was a stupid, stupid concept.

On the flipside...

1.) Pretty entertaining hockey in September

2.) Why does a fan care about this? Do you think Crosby will have a lesser season because he missed 7 days of practice going against Barry Goers?

3.) Stupid concept aside, team NA provided highly, highly entertaining hockey and team Europe, who was supposed to totally blow, was a pretty cool story.

 

[Shady Machine]

There was always a sense of pride and history with the tourney when it was only national programs participating. The grab bag teams cheapened it even though they were quality teams.

You can say that the level of hockey is the exact same, so why don't we just throw all the best players in a big pool, have a draft, and let them play on 8 arbitrary teams? Because there's no investment and nobody would care about the result a few years down the line, that's why. Canada beating Team Europe has absolutely no historical significance even if beating a good thrown together team with a dubious unifying element is an accomplishment.

That's cool, except I watched a hodge podge team from Europe play as a team and play hard for each other. They really wanted to win. Same with team NA plus highly entertaining brand of hockey. Also, I didn't see Canada play less hard because they were playing a grab bag team. Marchand looked pretty damn pumped when he scored.

This was real to the players and they cared about winning. As a hockey fan, I care about an entertaining product. I'd say both sides won.

 

[Jacob]

I don't mind the hodge podge teams as but it should be less arbitrary. It's certainly better to have more competitive teams in the tournament and give guys from non-hockey superpowers a semi realistic chance to win. I'd just prefer to put teams together based more on geography or language/culture.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

There was always a sense of pride and history with the tourney when it was only national programs participating. The grab bag teams cheapened it even though they were quality teams.

You can say that the level of hockey is the exact same, so why don't we just throw all the best players in a big pool, have a draft, and let them play on 8 arbitrary teams? Because there's no investment and nobody would care about the result a few years down the line, that's why. Canada beating Team Europe has absolutely no historical significance even if beating a good thrown together team with a dubious unifying element is an accomplishment.

Would the interest really have been that much greater in the tournament if, say, Switzerland and Slovakia were there instead of Team Europe and North America, and got their ***** handed to them by the better teams instead?

 

[Voodoozz]

Crosby's World Cup highlights - https://youtu.be/EIK3xhlfmxE

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

That's cool, except I watched a hodge podge team from Europe play as a team and play hard for each other. They really wanted to win. Same with team NA plus highly entertaining brand of hockey. Also, I didn't see Canada play less hard because they were playing a grab bag team. Marchand looked pretty damn pumped when he scored.

This was real to the players and they cared about winning. As a hockey fan, I care about an entertaining product. I'd say both sides won.

I'm not arguing against the quality of the teams or how hard they worked. I'm talking about the legitimacy of a nominally international tournament that involves 2 teams that were arbitrarily thrown together.

No other world class event would do that. Can you imagine how tainted the Olympics would be if they did something similar?

"Well, there are some loser countries who really don't have a chance, so we're going to just bunch them together under a different label and add Team America U-24."

Would the interest really have been that much greater in the tournament if, say, Switzerland and Slovakia were there instead of Team Europe and North America, and got their ***** handed to them by the better teams instead?

Yep. For the reasons outlined above.

They took a recognized best-on-best tourney and cheapened it with a couple novelty acts.

 

[trader997]

Why do so many hockey fans seem to dislike this tournament? Are people that bothered by the two "novelty" teams, who ended up actually being two of the better teams?

The same folks who seem all gung-ho about the Olympics are constantly ******** on this tournament. I'm not really sure why. The level of hockey is the exact same.

Some fans say that the tournament is a total joke and boring because of these 2 teams (NA and Europe) and everyone is pointing fingers at the people assembling this tournament. In reality, all the strong hockey countries like Russia, USA and Sweden should be pointing fingers at themselves for not growing their hockey nation to the same level as Canada did in the last 10 years. Sad to say but nobody can match Canada's talent at the moment and that's the real reason why for some fans this tournament was boring. I'm glad they created a better team with having team Europe in there instead of throwing in bottom teams like Slovakia, Germany, Swiss, Norway and having to play meaningful games against them. It was far more entertaining in the end.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

I'm not arguing against the quality of the teams or how hard they worked. I'm talking about the legitimacy of a nominally international tournament that involves 2 teams that were arbitrarily thrown together.

No other world class event would do that. Can you imagine how tainted the Olympics would be if they did something similar?

You mean like how England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales competes under the Great Britain banner, instead of being allowed to compete as separate countries? Or how they put together an "Olympic refugee" team, a collection of athletes from different countries?

Obviously the circumstances of the above are different than what Bettman and Co. did for the World Cup, but the end result are if any of those athletes won a medal, they wouldn't be doing so competing for a specific country.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

You mean like how England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales competes under the Great Britain banner, instead of being allowed to compete as separate countries? Or how they put together an "Olympic refugee" team, a collection of athletes from different countries?

Obviously the circumstances of the above are different than what Bettman and Co. did for the World Cup, but the end result are if any of those athletes won a medal, they wouldn't be doing so competing for a specific country.

I think circumstances account for an awful big part of the difference here.

 

[canadianguy77]

Some fans say that the tournament is a total joke and boring because of these 2 teams (NA and Europe) and everyone is pointing fingers at the people assembling this tournament. In reality, all the strong hockey countries like Russia, USA and Sweden should be pointing fingers at themselves for not growing their hockey nation to the same level as Canada did in the last 10 years. Sad to say but nobody can match Canada's talent at the moment and that's the real reason why for some fans this tournament was boring. I'm glad they created a better team with having team Europe in there instead of throwing in bottom teams like Slovakia, Germany, Swiss, Norway and having to play meaningful games against them. It was far more entertaining in the end.

The result was sort of expected because of the cohort who won the WJC's from 05-09. Something very special was taking place in minor hockey in Canada sometime before and through the '05 win. I don't know that we'll ever see anything like that again, and I don't think that the other countries can really be faulted.

 

[cygnus47]

I'm not arguing against the quality of the teams or how hard they worked. I'm talking about the legitimacy of a nominally international tournament that involves 2 teams that were arbitrarily thrown together.

No other world class event would do that. Can you imagine how tainted the Olympics would be if they did something similar?

"Well, there are some loser countries who really don't have a chance, so we're going to just bunch them together under a different label and add Team America U-24."



Yep. For the reasons outlined above.

They took a recognized best-on-best tourney and cheapened it with a couple novelty acts.

I agree in principle but I'm also in two minds. Team Europe and NA may have been weird, but NA was the best part about the whole tournament and Team Europe came 2nd. Without those teams, it would have just been a boring tournament that Canada dominated.

 

[Hockeygod66]

man what a year for Sid. from the Mike Johnston era Sid to roaring back to making it top 3 in points following with an epic Stanley cup win and Conn smythe, now with a cherry on top, winning the MVP trophy on best on best tournament.

The guy has won literally everywhere he has played. It boggles the mind how some idiots still think that one trick pony Ovechkin is better than Sid...

We're so lucky to have this guy...../mancrush

Pretty sure that numbers grow's less by the day. Maybe down to just caps fan and those who call Crosby.. crysbaby

 

[Hockeygod66]

Toews is a great player but overall, he is not on Sids level. Period, end of story. One thing I really noticed was the difference in strength on with the puck down low. Crosby is like jagr, almost impossible to push of the puck. I swear I saw one play were an opponents dman lifted his leg, blew a fart at Toews and knocked him over. But seriously, get over it Hawks fans. Toews is a great player, an asset to any team, but he is not on Sids level. As for Sid, he is awesome, but he isn't on Mario or Gretzkys level of greatness.

Agree, he's next level awesome though. It's pretty amazing how lucky penguin fans have been. Truly to have had both Lemieux and Crosby as lifelong players. Not even mentioning Jagr and Malkin you have to be grateful. You won't see a franchise get luckier than that in your lifetime.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

I think circumstances account for an awful big part of the difference here.

Why, though? It still results in athletes representing a group rather than a specific country. Why does that not affect your enjoyment of the Olympics the way having non-countries represented at the World Cup affects your enjoyment of it? Besides which, you asked if people can imagine if the Olympics did something like that. Well, regardless of the *why*, they *do* do something like that. And have been doing it for decades.

It's not even like the "big boys" aren't represented at the World Cup. The usual power houses that are expected to win the tournament were all present: Canada, USA, Russia, Sweden, Finland, and Czech. All they did was make the tournament more competitive by replacing the bottom two teams (who likely had no chance at winning or even being contenders anyway) with two better ones.

If it's a hang up over the "historical significance" part, that goes back to my question above about athletes from a group or group of countries potentially winning medals at Olympics not seeming to be an issue.

 

[ColePens]

I know the cool thing is to call this tourney a sham and whine about Gary, but I actually enjoyed the tournament. I went in with no expectations and didn't really want anyone to win other than NA. I thought NA/EU were awesome additions for the tourney.

Altogether, I really enjoyed it. I thought it was nice to wet the appetite of hockey. Much better than ****** preseason games against possible goons trying to wreck a star to make a team.

 

[Shockmaster]

It's quite amusing going over to the World Cup thread on the Flyers board and seeing the saltiness over Giroux being benched most of the tournament. I think they're still stuck in 2012 in regards to Giroux.

 

[Bart9349]

From a fan's point of view, there were some entertaining moments. Overtime with team NA and Sweden was as good as it gets:



I'm sure someone made lots of money.

Unfortunately, despite ESPN's coverage, the series did nothing to promote hockey in the States.

Are the injuries worth the risk? Let's ask Murray, Gaborik, Ekblad, and others.

Also, let's change the name to the Canada Cup from the World Cup of Hockey. Unless more games are played in the US (or even overseas) and unless the refs are little more consistent, the tournament is merely a big ego stroke.

 

[billybudd]

You mean like how England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales competes under the Great Britain banner, instead of being allowed to compete as separate countries?

Scotland, England and Wales are not states as recognized by international law. The UK is. Allowing a Scottish team independent of the UK would be like having a US team and a Hawaiian team...or a Spanish team and a Mallorcan team, which would open the door to a large number of other non-state regions wanting to send teams to the Olympics--doubling or tripling participation (Russia, alone, might end up sending 5)--which is really not necessary.

Line has to be drawn somewhere and the IOC drew the line at internationally recognized independent sovereignties, which Wales, Scotland and England are not.

Ireland has had an Olympic team for 100 years.

I think WC's point is that Norway, Slovakia and Slovenia have **** all to do with one another, but are thrown in one big "miscellaneous" pile. That's definitely not the case with England, Wales and Scotland.

 

[Jacob]

Just split Europe (outside of Russia, Finland & Sweden) in half. Germanic & French speakers on one team, Slavic speakers on the other.

 

[SHOOTANDSCORE]

Poor Ovie

 

[mpp9]

Ovy knows Sid's better.