WJC: World Junior Championship best international tournaments in hockey world?

[kabidjan18]

JackSlater has been spot on in every regard. Most of the points you have raised are ridiculous and/or irrelevant (just my opinion, anyway)

Sure, you're free to have an opinion. To make it mean something you could elaborate specifically why something is ridiculous or irrelevant.

 

[McCullogh]

WJC is acutally the only of the aformentioned tournaments I can honestly say I really look forward to be watching.

 

[Tmu84]

For me:

Shared #1: Olympics / WJC


World Cup. World cup could have been so better but this year it was a farce with Team Europe and Team North America. I do not care about such format.



World Championships / U18 ( U18 players too young, but still interesting)

Here in Finland WHC is the thing. I am of the minority who can't stand the current format. I would make some huge chances if it was up to me. Rename WHC to World Cup of Hockey. Organize it every 2nd or 4th year . It should be done like in FIFA Football. Not sure which month would be the best to organize it, perhaps end of June? In anyway we would have to get IIHF and NHL to cooperate together. Get the best NHL players to participate as well. Right now it's like there is zero cooperation and it's hurting the whole sport. It's such a shame it's NHL vs IIHF and both are operating their own tournaments with such obvious, but easily fixable flaws..

 

[PTmbp13]

Well just a little emarrassing FAIL that Danish and Swedish national anthems werent played. ******s in Bell centre. Hahaha unbelivable. They played canadas anthem only. What a crap load of ******* What are tjey up too?

 

[Rocko604]

I wouldn't say it's the best. The World Juniors go hand in hand with the Christmas season for Canadian hockey fans. it's become tradition which is why people get excited for it. TSN has done an excellent job at hyping the **** out of it, especially from the 2005 tournament onward.

Personally the Olympics will always be my favourite tournament, as long as there is NHL participation. I also find the World Championships to be very entertaining as well, even if it's not a best on best. The players that go certainly aren't plugs.

Couldn't have cared less about the World Cup as it got in the way of football starting.

 

[JackSlater]

Pittsburgh and Chicago are virtually border cities and your original argument was that when the tournament is placed in America it's put in border towns so in your theory especially Pittsburgh should have already won the bid if distance was the only concern. The distance from Grand Forks or Boston is just as bad. There's no reason to wonder why the tournament isn't in Tampa. The Dakota quote reinforces the concept behind limited selection, and seeing as you don't have privy to the details behind the municipal bids to the American federation, it's fairly presumptuous to make the argument. Boston to Toronto is a longer drive than from both Pittsburgh and even Chicago, and flight from either Pittsburgh or Chicago is much better than travel by air to Grand Forks. As you can see, the reason for a return to Buffalo is in the bid details, with factors ranging from infrastructure to manpower feasibility, not just distance to Canada. And, as you know, the bids are processed and judged by USA Hockey, not the greedy Rene Fasel and the IIHF.

You seem wildly ignorant to this topic if you think that the tournament being played in American border cities is some theory that I made. It's widely discussed by media and people on this forum because it is incredibly obvious. Once again though I doubt that you are serious given that you described Pittsburgh and Chicago as "virtually" border cities. I also can't tell if you are aware or not of how badly the tournament did economically in Boston, when they didn't put the tournament in a Canadian border city, but I'm sure you will just ignore that or claim baselessly that it supports your point. The tournament is in Buffalo because that's where the easiest money is, which is obvious to seemingly everyone.

You keep reinforcing my argument about timing. If it was held in the summer it wouldn't face the competition it does from running concurrently with the regular season. Hockey fans are dying for hockey by the end of summer, if they were really interested in money they might not run it against the NHL season. I'll also extend my argument on tournament formatting. Before the puck is dropped they cut off more than 30% value by changing from the round robin. Then they schedule at a time of the year where the Leafs and the Canadiens are playing regularly, as opposed to some time like the summer where there isn't the competition for audience. Does that make great sense to you?

Unfortunately for you, claiming that your argument is supported doesn't make it so. As I already said, the tournament heavily used for scouting "U18 and Ivan Hlinka) are played in the summer. The hockey that is is used to generate the most interest and make the most money is played in the winter. The timing of the tournament only adds to its popularity, and is a big reason for the disparity between the popularity of this event and the similar events that take place in the spring and summer. As for the round robin format, the IIHF always preferred that method but Hockey Canada, the largest and wealthiest federation, lobbied for change and the IIHF eventually gave in. Shocking that it wasn't at the behest of scouts, I know.

Here he's anticipating the interviewer's concern but not prefacing his own. He's obviously compartmentalized the aspects of consideration and he addresses what he presumes to be the interviewer's.

I don't know why you include this quote because it runs against your argument. Your argument isn't supplemented at all by the fact that they get world-wide TV money even when they don't host. In fact that would theoretically ease financial pressure and encourage movement elsewhere because the monetary incentive remains, it sets up the framework for future deals which still involve TV money but locational leniency. This is key because TV deals have replaced traditional tourism in the larger picture of sports as the largest revenue generator and that will give the IIHF more leverage as the tournament is marketed more and more on the screen.

Ah, so your assumptions about what the person means are more significant than what the person actually said. I see. The quotes, which were found in maybe 30 seconds and are only a small sample of many similar quotes, simply demonstrate how significant money is in where those tournaments were played. The IIHF only started going to Canada so often after a deal was struck whereby the IIHF got more money when the tournament was held in Canada. Everyone other than seemingly you can see this. It has next to nothing to do with scouts, but a lot to do with money.

You also never rescinded your use of the term "cash grab" which is a topicality. My two arguments were that A. it's not a cash grab, and B. scouting is a primary consideration. You've been trying at the second but you haven't bothered to address the first other than saying it was the case and you were ok with it. Encyclopedia defines "cash grab" or "money grab" as "an undignified or unprincipled acquisition of a large sum of money with little effort". You haven't given a single reason why any of this is undignified or unprincipled, as opposed to merely stating business facts and deal details. You might as well concede this one because you'll either need to find business malpractice and swindling or prove that the definition of "cash grab" entails all decisions pertaining to a business. To make things interesting I've placed burden of proof on myself as well in arguing that scouting compatibility is a superseding factor for the other half.

No, I will keep referring to it as a cash grab as the IIHF is doing what is easiest, but not necessarily what is best for competitive fairness, in order to increase the amount of money that it takes in. The organization is within its rights to do that so I don't see a big problem there. Your second point about scouting being a primary consideration is simply ridiculous. It's a factor in the tournament, but not even close to as significant as money is. I'm waiting for you to show even the remotest evidence that scouting is a huge factor for the IIHF. It's incredibly easy to find the IIHF fretting over money, but quite difficult to find anything about the IIHF caring about scouting.

Yes, so three months ago they had him in camp and deemed he wasn't ready. So we'll just entirely forgo the monitoring process yes because players don't improve over a season? It's not the firsts time they've seen him, but there's something called monitoring, and in my experience scouts tend to spend a pretty penny to do it.

Yes, and now that they've signed Joseph we can move him to the phase which Dubois is at as far as evaluation for preparedness for further investment. Next.

If they're eligible then they're not attached, I don't see how that does anything but bring up another facet of my point which was the initial point about publicity, in this case draft publicity. There will be more scouts in Toronto and Montreal than in Gothenburg this weekend for example, far more.

Once again I highly doubt that you're being serious given these posts. This stream of discussion within the thread began only because of how ridiculous your original claims about the tournament - essentially that money was not a big factor but scouting was - are. These players can just as easily be monitored in the junior or professional leagues in which they play. In some cases, like with released NHL or European professionals, the level of competition that the players face in the WJC is lower than what they are accustomed to. A player like Dubois was a third overall pick. He's going to have every chance to be a significant contributor to Columbus soon based on his draft position, and whatever he does at the WJC isn't going to affect that very much. Joseph is already signed by Tampa Bay and will get a shot to make the team as soon as next year. His performance in that camp and during this whole season will decide his fate next year, not how he performed in a handful of games at the WJC.

This honestly seems like a big waste of time though. You've taken a frankly bizarre stance, and then (disingenuously?) claim that evidence to the contrary supports you while providing no evidence of your own. If you cannot see that money is a huge consideration for the WJC, but somehow think that scouting is, then I doubt that actual evidence or even common sense are going to convince you.

 

[Atas2000]

World Junior Championship best international tournaments in hockey world?

WC - not all best
OG - boring
WcuP- boring and gimmicks
WJC -

Not even close.

 

[Pouchkine]

World Juniors are like the U20 World Cup in soccer but without the 15-20 best junior players...like Laine Matthews McDavid etc...

So Olympics Worlds and way further World Juniors...

 

[kabidjan18]

You seem wildly ignorant to this topic if you think that the tournament being played in American border cities is some theory that I made. It's widely discussed by media and people on this forum because it is incredibly obvious. Once again though I doubt that you are serious given that you described Pittsburgh and Chicago as "virtually" border cities. I also can't tell if you are aware or not of how badly the tournament did economically in Boston, when they didn't put the tournament in a Canadian border city, but I'm sure you will just ignore that or claim baselessly that it supports your point. The tournament is in Buffalo because that's where the easiest money is, which is obvious to seemingly everyone.

The fact that I said it was "your theory" doesn't imply I think you made the theory. The fact that it's been placed in cities like Grand Forks and Boston which are relative proximity to your bid cities shows that they are within the range of considered cities. Your range of what you think is a border city is irrelevant. The selections by the IIHF in the past already preface and define what a border city is, and that is inclusive of the cities you peddle.

Unfortunately for you, claiming that your argument is supported doesn't make it so. As I already said, the tournament heavily used for scouting "U18 and Ivan Hlinka) are played in the summer. The hockey that is is used to generate the most interest and make the most money is played in the winter. The timing of the tournament only adds to its popularity, and is a big reason for the disparity between the popularity of this event and the similar events that take place in the spring and summer. As for the round robin format, the IIHF always preferred that method but Hockey Canada, the largest and wealthiest federation, lobbied for change and the IIHF eventually gave in. Shocking that it wasn't at the behest of scouts, I know.

You literally just pulled arguments out of your behind right there and you expect to be taken seriously. First of all you make the absolutely ridiculous claim that the U18 is held "in the summer" when it is held in April. Summer is defined by Merriam Webster as "the months of June, July, and August or as reckoned astronomically extending from the June solstice to the September equinox", April has never been one of those, so that's moot first next point. There is no evidence to prove that running the tournament in the winter against NHL competition is more profitable than running it against nothing in the summer, if anything the timing of the WCOH would demonstrate otherwise. Your only argument to that is "it does, and that's why they do it." As for the round robin format, it was switched at the expansion to ten teams but regardless of who the initial resolution was channeled through you're really pulling crap out of your behind to say that you know the specific motive behind which the resolution to cut 30% profits upfront was passed. HockeyCanada is a comprehensive organization that can lobby at the behest of any interest it deems defendable. You merely saying "hockeycanada! hocheycanada!" doesn't mean crap because you're completely unaware of the parties of interest and what they want out of a shorter, less lucrative tournament.

Ah, so your assumptions about what the person means are more significant than what the person actually said. I see. The quotes, which were found in maybe 30 seconds and are only a small sample of many similar quotes, simply demonstrate how significant money is in where those tournaments were played. The IIHF only started going to Canada so often after a deal was struck whereby the IIHF got more money when the tournament was held in Canada. Everyone other than seemingly you can see this. It has next to nothing to do with scouts, but a lot to do with money.

Ok, only a small sample then find the ones that fit your narrative, not these that don't fit your narrative. You seem so incensed by business dealings, deals are signed and can be bid at any point by any federation and the IIHF has many deals with many federations. You don't know the figures behind them, and as your quote pointed out you don't know how the figures compare in the global age of television and online marketing. You think somehow that because a president mentions finances then oh his concern must primarily be money and even bordering on cash grab language and these quotes are amazing. That's ridiculous, in his quote he even refers to it off of hand and the second quote explicitly defines itself as regardless of location in the modern tech world. The problem with your later request for evidence is that yours is circumstantial at best, "he talks about money so it must be the primary concern, they sign typical monetary deals so money must be the prime concern" even as my point only uses circumstantial evidence "he forgoes the attainment of money therefore it is superseded by another factor." You can't rail on me for having nothing better than circumstantial evidence and not have any direct evidence yourself. Your evidence being quotes does not mean they directly support your point or address your argument.

No, I will keep referring to it as a cash grab as the IIHF is doing what is easiest, but not necessarily what is best for competitive fairness, in order to increase the amount of money that it takes in. The organization is within its rights to do that so I don't see a big problem there. Your second point about scouting being a primary consideration is simply ridiculous. It's a factor in the tournament, but not even close to as significant as money is. I'm waiting for you to show even the remotest evidence that scouting is a huge factor for the IIHF. It's incredibly easy to find the IIHF fretting over money, but quite difficult to find anything about the IIHF caring about scouting.

When you try to argue a topicality you need a definition of your own that incorporates competitive fairness, then actually I think the harder part would be to prove that the way it is set up impedes competitive fairness given the poor record hosts bear in this tournament or any other IIHF sanctioned tournament. This was actually my original point so I'm going to hit this a little harder than others. People love to throw around the word "cash grab", it's a quick and easy way to slander a product or a business decision without any evidence because there are ignorant people like you who think "well it only makes sense, money makes the world go round, no evidence needed here." When you call something a cash grab you are implying that money as gained in an undignified or unprincipled manner. Even if you go the competitive fairness route you are accusing them of nothing short of actually fixing the tournament by rendering location, which is A. ridiculous given that the tournament has been won by the host a mere 20% of the time and B. the benefits of hosting are so intangible in nature where competitive fairness concerned that your accusation is ground and baseless from the moment it is put forth. Even if they did, as you think, award location to highest bidder as in the Olympics or the World Cup there is no evidence to support that this has impeded competitive fairness in either this event or events prior in the IIHF tree of events. Even if competitive fairness were blatantly downplayed in a tangible way you would have to prove that the product promised in principle was a free and fair competition between the best youth of different nation states for the pride of nation states in which there are other inhibiting factors that would bear greater influence to these free and fair "representative" competitions. When you argue competitive fairness the burden of proof is on you to prove obstructionism, which neither you nor any poster here has bothered to do despite making loud and rabid claims of an ongoing cash grab. Then there's the idea of ease and relative ease. Part of both your informal and my formal definition of a cash grab was ease, but while there is relative ease attained the actual product is not produced with objective ease, but rather work meriting the funds brought in. You could try to argue both competitive fairness is obstructed, and that absolute ease was involved in the production of the product, or you can face the obvious. You, with a bunch of other enthusiastically derisive posters slandered the tournament as a cash grab with zero basis to prove that anything was done within the jurisdiction of the term "cash grab" and now you're forced to defend a topicality you couldn't begin to defend.

Once again I highly doubt that you're being serious given these posts. This stream of discussion within the thread began only because of how ridiculous your original claims about the tournament - essentially that money was not a big factor but scouting was - are. These players can just as easily be monitored in the junior or professional leagues in which they play. In some cases, like with released NHL or European professionals, the level of competition that the players face in the WJC is lower than what they are accustomed to. A player like Dubois was a third overall pick. He's going to have every chance to be a significant contributor to Columbus soon based on his draft position, and whatever he does at the WJC isn't going to affect that very much. Joseph is already signed by Tampa Bay and will get a shot to make the team as soon as next year. His performance in that camp and during this whole season will decide his fate next year, not how he performed in a handful of games at the WJC.

You write a lot of words but don't make many points here. I already addressed why monitoring a preference for monitoring at a more sophisticated stage would exist, you just restated that the less sophisticated stage could still be monitored. I already mentioned that in certain scenarios as a club may see fit a player in a european professional league may forgo, and there are many examples of this even this tournament. You baselessly assume in theory that because of PLD's draft position he will get a chance "soon" but never preface how they would know when "soon" had arrived other than your previous supposition which I had addressed and then you dropped for a round because it was a better argument. With Joseph's case you vastly underestimate the number of options that a club can choose in investment in a player. To you this, and seemingly many other things, is binary in nature, he gets a shot at making the team or he doesn't. In real life that isn't at all the case. NHL teams engage in many transactions even more the original promotion to a team in order to place players in different settings such as the AHL when they are ready, and things like call-ups to and from the NHL, AHL or CHL are extremely common. You've built a strawman and have knocked him down. I've never tried to argue or even imply your binary train of through. Monitoring, preparations and investment takes on many stages and I've never argued otherwise.

This honestly seems like a big waste of time though. You've taken a frankly bizarre stance, and then (disingenuously?) claim that evidence to the contrary supports you while providing no evidence of your own. If you cannot see that money is a huge consideration for the WJC, but somehow think that scouting is, then I doubt that actual evidence or even common sense are going to convince you.

Perhaps this isn't in your book of "common sense" but dropping a topicality (even as the neg) and thereby conceding half my argument would in any sanctioned setting cost you the entire competitive deliberation. You're arrogant because you think you're right, and perhaps you are, but from the initial point your continued appeal to common sense is ludicrous. Nothing is right that cannot be proven and if I'm to be expected to produce more than circumstantial evidence then so would you and then your quotes from Fasel about money or the mere signing of big money deals would all be circumstantial. On topicality, you're going to have a hard time touching that one. On the money vs. scouting aspect you have one quote that has potential to not be circumstantial but the others have no potential and your other arguments (redundant as they are) don't either so if we are just going to trade circumstantial evidence on this second half of the original discussion then yeah, you're wasting your time.

 

[Pouchkine]

1= It's Juniors
2= It's not even the best Juniors
3= End of discussion

 

[JackSlater]

The fact that I said it was "your theory" doesn't imply I think you made the theory. The fact that it's been placed in cities like Grand Forks and Boston which are relative proximity to your bid cities shows that they are within the range of considered cities. Your range of what you think is a border city is irrelevant. The selections by the IIHF in the past already preface and define what a border city is, and that is inclusive of the cities you peddle.

This really is ridiculous. The distance from Grand Forks to a major Canadian population centre is roughly 2.5 hours. Your fictional border cities (Boston, Pittsburgh, Chicago) are much further away from the Canadian border and certainly from any major Canadian population centre, not to mention the inconvenient Tampa example that you choose to dismiss.

You literally just pulled arguments out of your behind right there and you expect to be taken seriously. First of all you make the absolutely ridiculous claim that the U18 is held "in the summer" when it is held in April. Summer is defined by Merriam Webster as "the months of June, July, and August or as reckoned astronomically extending from the June solstice to the September equinox", April has never been one of those, so that's moot first next point. There is no evidence to prove that running the tournament in the winter against NHL competition is more profitable than running it against nothing in the summer, if anything the timing of the WCOH would demonstrate otherwise. Your only argument to that is "it does, and that's why they do it." As for the round robin format, it was switched at the expansion to ten teams but regardless of who the initial resolution was channeled through you're really pulling crap out of your behind to say that you know the specific motive behind which the resolution to cut 30% profits upfront was passed. HockeyCanada is a comprehensive organization that can lobby at the behest of any interest it deems defendable. You merely saying "hockeycanada! hocheycanada!" doesn't mean crap because you're completely unaware of the parties of interest and what they want out of a shorter, less lucrative tournament.

Yes, anyone with common sense will take the argument quite seriously given that it's common knowledge to everyone other than seemingly kabidjan18 that money is a far bigger factor in where the WJC takes place than scouting. The semantics of summer vs spring with regard to the two tournaments that take place at different times (I believe I called it spring in an earlier post, but irrelevant) don't hide how baseless your argument is. The WJC, when played in Canada, makes nearly as much profit (over 20 million recently) as the idiotic NHL World Cup event did in the summer (roughly 30 million), despite the latter having the supposedly attractive summer marketplace and nearly all of the world's best hockey players. That Hockey Canada, the strongest federation financially by far, caused the IIHF to change its format also further demonstrates the affect that money has, unless you plan to claim that Hockey Canada changed things for the purposes... appeasing scouts. An opinion which seemingly you alone hold.

Ok, only a small sample then find the ones that fit your narrative, not these that don't fit your narrative. You seem so incensed by business dealings, deals are signed and can be bid at any point by any federation and the IIHF has many deals with many federations. You don't know the figures behind them, and as your quote pointed out you don't know how the figures compare in the global age of television and online marketing. You think somehow that because a president mentions finances then oh his concern must primarily be money and even bordering on cash grab language and these quotes are amazing. That's ridiculous, in his quote he even refers to it off of hand and the second quote explicitly defines itself as regardless of location in the modern tech world. The problem with your later request for evidence is that yours is circumstantial at best, "he talks about money so it must be the primary concern, they sign typical monetary deals so money must be the prime concern" even as my point only uses circumstantial evidence "he forgoes the attainment of money therefore it is superseded by another factor." You can't rail on me for having nothing better than circumstantial evidence and not have any direct evidence yourself. Your evidence being quotes does not mean they directly support your point or address your argument.

Aha. So quotes that are easily found and can be supported by various others with minimal searching aren't significant. I assume that you have some evidence that scouting is somehow a primary concern for WJC location? Even some of these insignificant quotes? Surely it must be out there somewhere, since IIHF concerns about money are so easily proven even though it pales in comparison to the issue you deem more significant... appealing to scouts. Can't wait to see your first piece of evidence.

When you try to argue a topicality you need a definition of your own that incorporates competitive fairness, then actually I think the harder part would be to prove that the way it is set up impedes competitive fairness given the poor record hosts bear in this tournament or any other IIHF sanctioned tournament. This was actually my original point so I'm going to hit this a little harder than others. People love to throw around the word "cash grab", it's a quick and easy way to slander a product or a business decision without any evidence because there are ignorant people like you who think "well it only makes sense, money makes the world go round, no evidence needed here." When you call something a cash grab you are implying that money as gained in an undignified or unprincipled manner. Even if you go the competitive fairness route you are accusing them of nothing short of actually fixing the tournament by rendering location, which is A. ridiculous given that the tournament has been won by the host a mere 20% of the time and B. the benefits of hosting are so intangible in nature where competitive fairness concerned that your accusation is ground and baseless from the moment it is put forth. Even if they did, as you think, award location to highest bidder as in the Olympics or the World Cup there is no evidence to support that this has impeded competitive fairness in either this event or events prior in the IIHF tree of events. Even if competitive fairness were blatantly downplayed in a tangible way you would have to prove that the product promised in principle was a free and fair competition between the best youth of different nation states for the pride of nation states in which there are other inhibiting factors that would bear greater influence to these free and fair "representative" competitions. When you argue competitive fairness the burden of proof is on you to prove obstructionism, which neither you nor any poster here has bothered to do despite making loud and rabid claims of an ongoing cash grab. Then there's the idea of ease and relative ease. Part of both your informal and my formal definition of a cash grab was ease, but while there is relative ease attained the actual product is not produced with objective ease, but rather work meriting the funds brought in. You could try to argue both competitive fairness is obstructed, and that absolute ease was involved in the production of the product, or you can face the obvious. You, with a bunch of other enthusiastically derisive posters slandered the tournament as a cash grab with zero basis to prove that anything was done within the jurisdiction of the term "cash grab" and now you're forced to defend a topicality you couldn't begin to defend.

Once again, this all started due to your limited understanding of the economics of the tournament and your ridiculous belief that the tournament is designed to appeal to scouts more than it is to make money. There is plenty of evidence for that stance, and thus far none has been provided to support your stance. You also seem to be inventing a stance and applying it to me, since I don't have a problem with what the IIHF does. Its decisions are motivated largely by money, which is fine. It is taking the easy path to more money instead of a path that allows for a more balanced hosting schedule, but as I already said that isn't a problem. You're selecting the wrong target to build your straw man regarding competitive balance as I do not feel overly strongly on the issue and have posted against those who complain about the situation being very unfair in the past.

You write a lot of words but don't make many points here. I already addressed why monitoring a preference for monitoring at a more sophisticated stage would exist, you just restated that the less sophisticated stage could still be monitored. I already mentioned that in certain scenarios as a club may see fit a player in a european professional league may forgo, and there are many examples of this even this tournament. You baselessly assume in theory that because of PLD's draft position he will get a chance "soon" but never preface how they would know when "soon" had arrived other than your previous supposition which I had addressed and then you dropped for a round because it was a better argument. With Joseph's case you vastly underestimate the number of options that a club can choose in investment in a player. To you this, and seemingly many other things, is binary in nature, he gets a shot at making the team or he doesn't. In real life that isn't at all the case. NHL teams engage in many transactions even more the original promotion to a team in order to place players in different settings such as the AHL when they are ready, and things like call-ups to and from the NHL, AHL or CHL are extremely common. You've built a strawman and have knocked him down. I've never tried to argue or even imply your binary train of through. Monitoring, preparations and investment takes on many stages and I've never argued otherwise.

A lot of words here, but not anything particularly useful. Yes, the team can scout their own players at this event, just as they can in any setting. If the goal was simply to allow for as much scouting as possible, the event would presumably take place after the various hockey seasons had ended so that players could play a full season in addition to the 4-7 WJC games. If you truly believe that Dubois' or any other highly rated player's chances of making it in the NHL or any other professional league are going to be significantly affected by the 4-7 WJC games they play, then once again this is a waste of time. The scouting theory makes sense for undrafted players or even players from smaller European nations, but most players from the top teams or even the high end players from the smaller nations are already well known quantities by the time they are 18 and 19.

Perhaps this isn't in your book of "common sense" but dropping a topicality (even as the neg) and thereby conceding half my argument would in any sanctioned setting cost you the entire competitive deliberation. You're arrogant because you think you're right, and perhaps you are, but from the initial point your continued appeal to common sense is ludicrous. Nothing is right that cannot be proven and if I'm to be expected to produce more than circumstantial evidence then so would you and then your quotes from Fasel about money or the mere signing of big money deals would all be circumstantial. On topicality, you're going to have a hard time touching that one. On the money vs. scouting aspect you have one quote that has potential to not be circumstantial but the others have no potential and your other arguments (redundant as they are) don't either so if we are just going to trade circumstantial evidence on this second half of the original discussion then yeah, you're wasting your time.

I'm wasting my time because you have taken a stance that the vast majority of fans immediately dismiss due to common sense, then ignore evidence (or claim baselessly that it supports your own position) without presenting any evidence to support your position. Your main points seem to be about semantics (which month is in which season, which city ~6 hours from Canada is a border city and so on) as opposed to actually proving that decisions are made on a scouting basis as opposed to a monetary basis.

I will make a poll to assess what people think about this topic, since we both are deviating far from the intended topic here. I am fully aware that poll results prove little more than nothing, but it will at least remove some of this clutter I hope.

 

[kabidjan18]

This really is ridiculous. The distance from Grand Forks to a major Canadian population centre is roughly 2.5 hours. Your fictional border cities (Boston, Pittsburgh, Chicago) are much further away from the Canadian border and certainly from any major Canadian population centre, not to mention the inconvenient Tampa example that you choose to dismiss.

It isn't ridiculous. Boston has been chosen by the IIHF before as a tournament location and thus is part of the IIHF definition of border cities. Grand Forks is only 2.5 hours away by car but by plane it's virtually inaccessible and Winnipeg is about a fourth the size of Toronto. Tampa is obvious, the fare to fly scouts to Tampa would be a pain in the behind, and the city doesn't have the manpower infrastructure to host as efficiently as a city with hockey tradition.

Yes, anyone with common sense will take the argument quite seriously given that it's common knowledge to everyone other than seemingly kabidjan18 that money is a far bigger factor in where the WJC takes place than scouting. The semantics of summer vs spring with regard to the two tournaments that take place at different times (I believe I called it spring in an earlier post, but irrelevant) don't hide how baseless your argument is. The WJC, when played in Canada, makes nearly as much profit (over 20 million recently) as the idiotic NHL World Cup event did in the summer (roughly 30 million), despite the latter having the supposedly attractive summer marketplace and nearly all of the world's best hockey players. That Hockey Canada, the strongest federation financially by far, caused the IIHF to change its format also further demonstrates the affect that money has, unless you plan to claim that Hockey Canada changed things for the purposes... appeasing scouts. An opinion which seemingly you alone hold.

http://business.financialpost.com/news/gary-bettmans-challenge
Revenue from the WCOH as projected by the NHL was 110 million, and even pitfalls in the revenue gap there could be explained by a variety of other factors such as the relative lack of tradition, poor formatting, poor marketing, TV network choices etc. You continue to appeal to this concept of common sense. There was a time when it was common sense that everything the church said was true because the church was always good and it was common sense that the world was flat. You're going to have to produce direct evidence, not just appeals to common sense. Again you have zero evidence, or even theories, for which parties and interests cause Hockey Canada to propose a format that decreases value 30% upfront. You don't know the interested parties and why they are interested. You literally just know the federation in whose jurisdiction the most scouts are located asked for the value decrease and also happens to be the richest proposed it. Even if my suppositions are only circumstantial, yours are as well and are worse because you attempt to sell them as direct.

Aha. So quotes that are easily found and can be supported by various others with minimal searching aren't significant. I assume that you have some evidence that scouting is somehow a primary concern for WJC location? Even some of these insignificant quotes? Surely it must be out there somewhere, since IIHF concerns about money are so easily proven even though it pales in comparison to the issue you deem more significant... appealing to scouts. Can't wait to see your first piece of evidence.

They're not significant because they're not direct evidence. You've never once brought a piece of evidence that wasn't circumstantial. "He mentions money, therefore money must be his primary concern" is a circumstantial argument. I've made circumstantial arguments as well citing the compatibility of scouting schedules with the event. Can't wait to see your first piece of direct evidence.

Once again, this all started due to your limited understanding of the economics of the tournament and your ridiculous belief that the tournament is designed to appeal to scouts more than it is to make money. There is plenty of evidence for that stance, and thus far none has been provided to support your stance. You also seem to be inventing a stance and applying it to me, since I don't have a problem with what the IIHF does. Its decisions are motivated largely by money, which is fine. It is taking the easy path to more money instead of a path that allows for a more balanced hosting schedule, but as I already said that isn't a problem. You're selecting the wrong target to build your straw man regarding competitive balance as I do not feel overly strongly on the issue and have posted against those who complain about the situation being very unfair in the past.

There's no straw man in my argument. You literally only inserted the word because I put it on your mind by calling out your strawman argument. The first words in my original post were that this tournament wasn't a cash grab. You then said it was, multiple times. Now you're trying to back off that a little, you're rescinding your cash grab language and replacing it with commentary on their decision and perhaps how it could be easier. I've seen you take a more aloof stance in the past, try to not necessarily paint it as a cash grab. However, in this case you did call it a cash grab multiple times. Then to justify that you at least attempted to point out competitive balance but that went nowhere. A strawman isn't when someone points out something you said contrary to what they said was wrong and then dismantles your following explanation. There has to be a clear misappropriation of the argument. You also dropped the topicality itself here of that it was or wasn't a cash grab so I'll take that thank you.

A lot of words here, but not anything particularly useful. Yes, the team can scout their own players at this event, just as they can in any setting. If the goal was simply to allow for as much scouting as possible, the event would presumably take place after the various hockey seasons had ended so that players could play a full season in addition to the 4-7 WJC games. If you truly believe that Dubois' or any other highly rated player's chances of making it in the NHL or any other professional league are going to be significantly affected by the 4-7 WJC games they play, then once again this is a waste of time. The scouting theory makes sense for undrafted players or even players from smaller European nations, but most players from the top teams or even the high end players from the smaller nations are already well known quantities by the time they are 18 and 19.

Why the hell would they do that? That makes no sense even in your context. Is Dubois ready for an NHL callup? Where is better to evaluate that the Q or the WJC? Is Joseph ready for an AHL assignment, where better to evaluate that? If they waited until the end of the season they might as well wait until camp, but I'm sure you're aware that NHL teams do many transactions with players and draft picks in the middle of the season as they see fit. A player who can prove he is AHL or NHL ready now has no point in waiting until after the season to be given a green light.

I'm wasting my time because you have taken a stance that the vast majority of fans immediately dismiss due to common sense, then ignore evidence (or claim baselessly that it supports your own position) without presenting any evidence to support your position. Your main points seem to be about semantics (which month is in which season, which city ~6 hours from Canada is a border city and so on) as opposed to actually proving that decisions are made on a scouting basis as opposed to a monetary basis.

I will make a poll to assess what people think about this topic, since we both are deviating far from the intended topic here. I am fully aware that poll results prove little more than nothing, but it will at least remove some of this clutter I hope.

You can make a poll and it would measure public opinion or what you call "common sense", but if common sense is indefensible then it is incorrect, ask any philosopher. I haven't ignored evidence, I've bothered to read what you provide as evidence. In your silliness you find a quote with the word "money" or "finance" in it and post it as evidence. I actually bother to read it and see if it is for your point, circumstantially for your point, or against your point. I actually laid out my arguments about the decisions made on a scouting basis long ago, you never addressed them other than calling them theory. Yours is merely a theory too by the same definition even if others like you tend to accept it without question.

You are right though, we should continue in another place.

 

[JackSlater]

It isn't ridiculous. Boston has been chosen by the IIHF before as a tournament location and thus is part of the IIHF definition of border cities. Grand Forks is only 2.5 hours away by car but by plane it's virtually inaccessible and Winnipeg is about a fourth the size of Toronto. Tampa is obvious, the fare to fly scouts to Tampa would be a pain in the behind, and the city doesn't have the manpower infrastructure to host as efficiently as a city with hockey tradition.

The IIHF gave a definition of border cities? Where is that definition? The IIHF also held the tournament in Anchorage Alaska... is that also a border city? I have to give you credit though, I did laugh at the idea that Tampa was not selected because of the cost of flying scouts there. It's funny first that professional teams would care about the few thousand dollars that would be needed to accommodate the scouts, and second that the IIHF would care about costs that don't affect it at all.

http://business.financialpost.com/news/gary-bettmans-challenge
Revenue from the WCOH as projected by the NHL was 110 million, and even pitfalls in the revenue gap there could be explained by a variety of other factors such as the relative lack of tradition, poor formatting, poor marketing, TV network choices etc. You continue to appeal to this concept of common sense. There was a time when it was common sense that everything the church said was true because the church was always good and it was common sense that the world was flat. You're going to have to produce direct evidence, not just appeals to common sense. Again you have zero evidence, or even theories, for which parties and interests cause Hockey Canada to propose a format that decreases value 30% upfront. You don't know the interested parties and why they are interested. You literally just know the federation in whose jurisdiction the most scouts are located asked for the value decrease and also happens to be the richest proposed it. Even if my suppositions are only circumstantial, yours are as well and are worse because you attempt to sell them as direct.

What does Bettman's fantasy projection have to do with anything? Last I read the tournament actually pulled in a profit of 40 million (http://www.thehockeynews.com/news/article/turns-out-world-cup-wasn-t-a-massive-cash-cow-for-the-nhl-or-players)admittedly more than the 30 that I said, which is surprisingly close to the profits reported when the WJC is held in Canada, given the huge talent disparity on display. I bring this up mostly because I hated the NHL's World Cup though. Hockey Canada's goals at the time are also essentially common knowledge - they asked for a format change because they believed that it gave them more time to form a cohesive, competitive team. The IIHF gave in and gave Hockey Canada what it wanted, and I highly doubt it was because of the all powerful scouts who live in and around Canada.

They're not significant because they're not direct evidence. You've never once brought a piece of evidence that wasn't circumstantial. "He mentions money, therefore money must be his primary concern" is a circumstantial argument. I've made circumstantial arguments as well citing the compatibility of scouting schedules with the event. Can't wait to see your first piece of direct evidence.

There's no straw man in my argument. You literally only inserted the word because I put it on your mind by calling out your strawman argument. The first words in my original post were that this tournament wasn't a cash grab. You then said it was, multiple times. Now you're trying to back off that a little, you're rescinding your cash grab language and replacing it with commentary on their decision and perhaps how it could be easier. I've seen you take a more aloof stance in the past, try to not necessarily paint it as a cash grab. However, in this case you did call it a cash grab multiple times. Then to justify that you at least attempted to point out competitive balance but that went nowhere. A strawman isn't when someone points out something you said contrary to what they said was wrong and then dismantles your following explanation. There has to be a clear misappropriation of the argument. You also dropped the topicality itself here of that it was or wasn't a cash grab so I'll take that thank you.

The whole paragraph that I quoted at that part was the strawman, since you seemingly have no idea why I said what I said and then restated it in a way that made it easier for you to reply. I am still waiting for your single shred of evidence that scouting dictates what happens at the world junior, given that we do have evidence that financial considerations play a role in the IIHF's World Junior considerations. For instance:

http://www.thehockeynews.com/news/article/iihf-says-toronto-could-be-sole-wjc-host-in-2017

Why would the IIHF care about attendance in Montreal if scouting is the primary consideration? it is quite easy for scouts to reach Montreal. It almost seems as if... the IIHF cares about the profitability of the tournament. How novel.

As for cash grab, I don't quite understand your offence at the term, especially since my issue was your ridiculous statement that economic considerations mattered little with regard to the WJC while scouting considerations did. If a cash grab is considered to be something done in order to generate some quick and easy money, then the repeated hosting of this tournament in Canada and Canadian border cities is indeed a cash grab.

Why the hell would they do that? That makes no sense even in your context. Is Dubois ready for an NHL callup? Where is better to evaluate that the Q or the WJC? Is Joseph ready for an AHL assignment, where better to evaluate that? If they waited until the end of the season they might as well wait until camp, but I'm sure you're aware that NHL teams do many transactions with players and draft picks in the middle of the season as they see fit. A player who can prove he is AHL or NHL ready now has no point in waiting until after the season to be given a green light.

Dubois is not eligible for an NHL call up until next year and Joseph is not eligible to play in the AHL this year, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. They could have the two greatest WJC performances in history and they would go right back to junior once the tournament is over, as per the NHL-CHL agreement.

You can make a poll and it would measure public opinion or what you call "common sense", but if common sense is indefensible then it is incorrect, ask any philosopher. I haven't ignored evidence, I've bothered to read what you provide as evidence. In your silliness you find a quote with the word "money" or "finance" in it and post it as evidence. I actually bother to read it and see if it is for your point, circumstantially for your point, or against your point. I actually laid out my arguments about the decisions made on a scouting basis long ago, you never addressed them other than calling them theory. Yours is merely a theory too by the same definition even if others like you tend to accept it without question.

Oh I agree that common knowledge is not always correct and I certainly agree that poll results are basically meaningless, as I already said. It was made mostly for fun. I want to see if anyone attempts to make the same argument that you do, because I've never seen it before.

You are right though, we should continue in another place.

Yes, I didn't see the addition to your post before posting regretfully. I concede that and won't reply on this topic again in this thread.

 

[NoShowWilly]

As a fan of a poor team recently, i've really enjoyed the World Championships. Canada doesn't normally send it's best and it tends to be a really well balanced tournament.

 

[kabidjan18]

Yes, I didn't see the addition to your post before posting regretfully. I concede that and won't reply on this topic again in this thread.

Yeah, to save time I'll concede everything but the topicality (cash grab labeling) because I think that was a stance you didn't really want to defend and couldn't defend, you can cheer haha

 

[Rabid Ranger]

I'm astonished that anyone can claim the chief motivator behind where an event like the WJCs scheduled isn't money. How can one not see that?

 

[kabidjan18]

I'm astonished that anyone can claim the chief motivator behind where an event like the WJCs scheduled isn't money. How can one not see that?

JackSlater agrees with you

You can catch up by reading the books we've been writing to each other

 

[Rabid Ranger]

JackSlater agrees with you

You can catch up by reading the books we've been writing to each other

I read through it and it seems like you are talking in circles. What do you think the chief motivator for location placement for the WJCs is?

 

[kabidjan18]

I read through it and it seems like you are talking in circles. What do you think the chief motivator for location placement for the WJCs is?

Don't particularly want to go back down this road haha. You'll find that on the last page, he rebutted it and I rebutted his argument and that led to this page.

 

[KBobs]

Sure, you're free to have an opinion. To make it mean something you could elaborate specifically why something is ridiculous or irrelevant.

Since I stated that JackSlater was right at every step of the way, it would be redundant to elaborate. If I differed slightly from what has been posted, I would explain in detail as to why. But I don't -- so I won't.

Great banter in this thread, however.

 

[xxxx]

Each tournament has something.

World Juniors is a great tournament.

 

[Romang67]

It's certainly my favorite tournament. It used to be the Olympics, but then TC realized that they could stack up with great defensive players, and have been able to just suffocate even the best teams.

 

[Canadian Finn]

#1 - Olympics
#2 - WJC



,
,
,
,
,
,
,

#99 - World Cup of Hockey

 

[I am not exposed]

I find it to be the most exciting tournament.

 

[novisor]

WJC is the best. The only thing that can compete is the Olympics. WJC is a Christmas tradition, and some of the most exciting hockey going. I love when the tournament is in Europe so you can watch games at odd times, always fun and different.