2014 Memorial Cup Location

[RayzorIsDull]

I'm not so sure about London receiving the Mem Cup again within the next 9 years. This year was predictable but it will look even worse if they get it again. If a community based team like Niagara can get it for 2017, after they already move into their new arena it would be nice.

nmmm

 

[RayzorIsDull]

I'm not so sure about London receiving the Mem Cup again within the next 9 years. This year was predictable but it will look even worse if they get it again. If a community based team like Niagara can get it for 2017, after they already move into their new arena it would be nice.

Have to disagree if Branch even considers giving the Memorial Cup to a smaller market once or twice during a 3-6 year stretch it would go back to London to recoup any extra money not made by having it in a smaller market.

 

[NHL Fanatic]

Have to disagree if Branch even considers giving the Memorial Cup to a smaller market once or twice during a 3-6 year stretch it would go back to London to recoup any extra money not made by having it in a smaller market.

Ultimately the issue is within structure of the CHL -> you have to point at David Branch being the (CHL President) and (OHL commissioner). If it was a structure similar to the NHL, they wouldn't need David Branch as the CHL President as the Owners and GMs would overthrow him at the top.

 

[Sidekick]

They should just rotate the tournament through the big (neutral..if possible) centres in each league/region. And eliminate the 4th team. This way the entire "league" can play host.

Double round robin schedule, so teams can find their groove. And the top 2 teams play a best-of-3 final.

Fri - 1 vs. 2
Sat - 2 vs. 3
Sun - 1 vs. 3
Mon - 1 vs. 2
Tues - 2 vs. 3
Wed - 1 vs. 3
Thurs - off
Fri - Game 1
Sat - Game 2
Sun - Game 3 (if neccessary)

Hosting league is team 1 (they would only play 1 back-to-back, the other 2 teams would play 2).

Possible OHL arenas - Copps, ACC, Scotiabank, HSBC
Possible Q cities/arenas - Montreal, Quebec, Halifax, proposed TR arena
Possible W cities - Seattle, Portland, Victoria, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg.

 

[OHLFan8771]

They should just rotate the tournament through the big (neutral..if possible) centres in each league/region. And eliminate the 4th team. This way the entire "league" can play host.

Double round robin schedule, so teams can find their groove. And the top 2 teams play a best-of-3 final.

Fri - 1 vs. 2
Sat - 2 vs. 3
Sun - 1 vs. 3
Mon - 1 vs. 2
Tues - 2 vs. 3
Wed - 1 vs. 3
Thurs - off
Fri - Game 1
Sat - Game 2
Sun - Game 3 (if neccessary)

Hosting league is team 1 (they would only play 1 back-to-back, the other 2 teams would play 2).

Possible OHL arenas - Copps, ACC, Scotiabank, HSBC
Possible Q cities/arenas - Montreal, Quebec, Halifax, proposed TR arena
Possible W cities - Seattle, Portland, Victoria, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg.

I think the problem with that would be finding acceptable rinks that are open, the cost to have them if they are not the teams usual rink, and the travel cost. Also that adds to many games for the kids to play. They just got done playing almost every other day for four best of seven series.

 

[KingKadri]

They should just rotate the tournament through the big (neutral..if possible) centres in each league/region. And eliminate the 4th team. This way the entire "league" can play host.

Double round robin schedule, so teams can find their groove. And the top 2 teams play a best-of-3 final.

Fri - 1 vs. 2
Sat - 2 vs. 3
Sun - 1 vs. 3
Mon - 1 vs. 2
Tues - 2 vs. 3
Wed - 1 vs. 3
Thurs - off
Fri - Game 1
Sat - Game 2
Sun - Game 3 (if neccessary)

Hosting league is team 1 (they would only play 1 back-to-back, the other 2 teams would play 2).

Possible OHL arenas - Copps, ACC, Scotiabank, HSBC
Possible Q cities/arenas - Montreal, Quebec, Halifax, proposed TR arena
Possible W cities - Seattle, Portland, Victoria, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg.

I like parts of this idea. A final that isn't just one game would be a much better format.

 

[KingKadri]

Guelph owner already said it's a big city, big market event and they don't stand much of a chance.

If all this is true about London why wasn't it true about Windsor going into 2011? When other owners start saying it's a big money, big city event I don't think it's just sour grapes it's based on what has happened most recently. The ball is in Branch's court to prove otherwise.

2017-Ottawa, new arena renos done, 50th year of Ottawa 67s hockey, 10000 seat arena

2020-London, did a great job in 2005 and probably 2014 and will probably have a good team

2023-Kitchener, it's been 13 years since they last hosted the cup and they have recently done renovations

2026-Niagara got a new arena back in 2014-2015 nice chance to show it off

2029-London did a great job in 2005, 2014, and 2020

2032-Ottawa-Did a great job in 2017, 65th year of Ottawa 67s hockey, big arena

Sounds great!! Where do I get tickets?

 

[Sidekick]

I think the problem with that would be finding acceptable rinks that are open, the cost to have them if they are not the teams usual rink, and the travel cost. Also that adds to many games for the kids to play. They just got done playing almost every other day for four best of seven series.

I guess. Right now, Memorial Cup teams play 3-6 games. This changes it to 4-7. Not that big of a difference. Still in line with the Royal Bank Cup (which is 4-6). Add in a couple more off days then (between the first and second round robin, and between games 1 and 2 of the final)

Plus, remember by holding it all at one rink, its not like the teams have to travel between games.

Also, they wouldn't always have to use neutral rinks. Bigger rinks already used by the league could be used for the tournament, the point is just to eliminate the "freebie" team.

But, all that being said. I see your point. What about this.

Fri - Team A vs. Team B
Sat - Team B vs. Team C
Sun - Team A vs. Team C

Tues - Semi Final (2 vs. 3)

Thurs - Game 1
Sat - Game 2
Sun - Game 3 (if neccessary)

This changes the proposed double round-robin to a single, but adds in a semi-final game. This still attempts to minimize the importance of any one game (and allows teams to work through the jet-leg), but still makes the round robin important (as the winner goes directly to the final). Total games 3-6.

 

[Snippit]

I guess. Right now, Memorial Cup teams play 3-6 games. This changes it to 4-7. Not that big of a difference. Still in line with the Royal Bank Cup (which is 4-6). Add in a couple more off days then (between the first and second round robin, and between games 1 and 2 of the final)

Plus, remember by holding it all at one rink, its not like the teams have to travel between games.

Also, they wouldn't always have to use neutral rinks. Bigger rinks already used by the league could be used for the tournament, the point is just to eliminate the "freebie" team.

But, all that being said. I see your point. What about this.

Fri - Team A vs. Team B
Sat - Team B vs. Team C
Sun - Team A vs. Team C

Tues - Semi Final (2 vs. 3)

Thurs - Game 1
Sat - Game 2
Sun - Game 3 (if neccessary)

This changes the proposed double round-robin to a single, but adds in a semi-final game. This still attempts to minimize the importance of any one game (and allows teams to work through the jet-leg), but still makes the round robin important (as the winner goes directly to the final). Total games 3-6.

Problem is... if you lose the first game in the round robin, the second one is meaningless. (unless it's a 3-way tie, but I don't like the thought of sending a team to the finals solely on a tiebreaker).

 

[CharlieGirl]

I'm fairly certain London bid in '08 and '11 as well. Why was it not awarded to them then?

I have no idea (outside of massive ego) why London would put in a bid in 2008. Did they seriously think they'd be awarded it two times in a row? I know it's London, but that's more than friggen' arrogance.

I have no doubt London will do a fantastic job hosting the Memorial Cup. I just don't like that this tournament has gone the way of the World Juniors - at least in the OHL. The same rules don't apply in the W or Q - they have smaller markets hosting and they do a fantastic job - the entire community is involved. In the OHL, the message has been sent, loud and clear, and the league has lost something special in doing so.

 

[OHLArenaGuide]

x-posted from the NOOF.

I am coming around to the idea of London hosting again, or at least, I think I understand the method to the OHL's madness. Branch has always said dating back over a decade that strength of team is the most important factor. Ever since the Dukes of Hamilton debacle in 1990, the OHL has always awarded the Memorial Cup to the best team on paper. The Petes, Knights and Rangers went in the front door. The Greyhounds and Majors were league runners-up. Only Guelph and Ottawa failed to live up to expectations, and no one could have predicted either - Ottawa was the best team on paper in 1999 (the year of upsets) and Guelph had a great team on paper that never gelled.

I have some numbers to show everyone: Memorial Cup hosts by league since 1990, their regular season winning percentage, and their playoff finish.

OHL
93 SSM 614 Runners-Up (won right to host via Super Series)
96 PET 598 Champs
99 OTT 757 2nd Rd
02 GUE 596 2nd Rd
05 LDN 882 Champs
08 KIT 809 Champs
11 MIS 794 Runners-Up
.764 avg winning pct., 3/7 champions, 2/7 league runners-up, 2/7 back door hosts.

QMJHL
91 host was Beauport who did not play due to poor showing
94 LAV 688 Runners-Up
97 HUL 707 Champs
00 HFX 611 2nd Rd
03 QUE 625 2nd Rd
06 MON 776 Runners-Up
09 RIM 654 Semis
12 SHA 713 2nd Rd
.682 avg winning pct., 1/7 champions, 2/7 league runners-up, 4/7 back door hosts.

WHL
92 SEA 493 Semis
95 KAM 764 Champs
98 SPO 653 Semis
01 REG 590 1st Rd
04 KEL 681 Semis
07 VAN 694 Runners-Up
10 BRA 722 Semis
13 SSK 653 1st Rd
.656 avg winning pct., 1/8 champions, 1/8 league runners-up, 6/8 back door hosts.

I personally still think Barrie should have gotten it. Fairness and spreading the wealth around should have been more important factors. But for the past 20 years, the OHL has been consistent with its intentions. The best returning team gets to host so the league isn't embarrassed again by a Dukes situation. This year, their hands were tied by returning Barrie and Windsor teams that should be poor. If one of next year's good young teams with a nice arena (Kingston? Sarnia?) had bid, I'd bet any money they would have been awarded the hosting rights.

 

[Knights77]

I have no idea (outside of massive ego) why London would put in a bid in 2008. Did they seriously think they'd be awarded it two times in a row? I know it's London, but that's more than friggen' arrogance.

I have no doubt London will do a fantastic job hosting the Memorial Cup. I just don't like that this tournament has gone the way of the World Juniors - at least in the OHL. The same rules don't apply in the W or Q - they have smaller markets hosting and they do a fantastic job - the entire community is involved. In the OHL, the message has been sent, loud and clear, and the league has lost something special in doing so.

lmao...ego, arrogance! hahahaha! A team wants to be successful and works hard to do so. Wants to compete at the top level all the time regardless of timing etc.
So because London does this, and doesn't subscribe to the hippy love 'everyone gets a turn' this is why they are arrogant and have a massive ego. Love it.
We are the center of the hockey world...because you make us out to be.

 

[Knights77]

x-posted from the NOOF.

But for the past 20 years, the OHL has been consistent with its intentions. The best returning team gets to host so the league isn't embarrassed again by a Dukes situation. This year, their hands were tied by returning Barrie and Windsor teams that should be poor. If one of next year's good young teams with a nice arena (Kingston? Sarnia?) had bid, I'd bet any money they would have been awarded the hosting rights.

This really should be the beginning and the end of the discussions but it isn't. Enter in equality, embarassment from the Dukes years back, money etc and you have arguments for all cases.
Look, if fairness was the driving factor then the process would look nothing like the way it is now. Right? It would be rotational. It would take out many of the discretion factors.
But it isn't. It is cut throat bid for the rights, put your best foot forward, show me what you got on the ice, and how much money you are going to make for the league so we can keep running the show.
I personally agree with quality of team as the main deciding factor. And for all you haters out there, if you honestly think that London doesn't project to return the best team then you don't know your hockey.
(Rayzor this is for you - the fact is, you have to project when gauging the best returning team as you have illustrated in a previous post that yes lots could change...Knights could lose guys to the A and the N and throw in an injury and then you have a lesser team. I think factored into this is how much do you have in the cupboards too....so come deadline time you can unload and make your team even stronger).

 

[CharlieGirl]

lmao...ego, arrogance! hahahaha! A team wants to be successful and works hard to do so. Wants to compete at the top level all the time regardless of timing etc.
So because London does this, and doesn't subscribe to the hippy love 'everyone gets a turn' this is why they are arrogant and have a massive ego. Love it.
We are the center of the hockey world...because you make us out to be.

Point. Missed. By a long shot.

No one on earth is debating that London has been successful in the last 10 years and ices a competitive team. That has NOTHING to do with my post. I'd love to know the reasoning for bidding in 2008. No team in any league has hosted twice in a row since 1986 (and only two teams in history have hosted back-to-back). Back then, it was a small tournament that didn't attract the big money and focus.

On the issue of team strength, there is little doubt that London looks to return a very good team next year (NHL dependent). If that has been the biggest factor in the decision, how can anyone say Windsor shouldn't have been selected in 2011? (For the record, I understood and supported the choice of an eastern conference team in 2011 after three straight mid-west hosts).

 

[Knights77]

Point. Missed. By a long shot.

No one on earth is debating that London has been successful in the last 10 years and ices a competitive team. That has NOTHING to do with my post. I'd love to know the reasoning for bidding in 2008. No team in any league has hosted twice in a row since 1986 (and only two teams in history have hosted back-to-back). Back then, it was a small tournament that didn't attract the big money and focus.

On the issue of team strength, there is little doubt that London looks to return a very good team next year (NHL dependent). If that has been the biggest factor in the decision, how can anyone say Windsor shouldn't have been selected in 2011? (For the record, I understood and supported the choice of an eastern conference team in 2011 after three straight mid-west hosts).

Ok now this is well written and I can agree with.
Paragraph 1 - why must it be because of arrogance and ego? There can be a first time for everything right? Secondly, it sort of works this way in the job world too but if you don't put your hat in the ring consistently, you may not be seen as a serious candidate when the time pops up that you really really want it.
Paragraph 2 - couldn't agree more. Windsor got hosed. It should have been them....must have been other factors that detracted too much from strength of roster. I don't know. I for one, was not a fan of Mississauga being a host. Pity should never factor in.

 

[aresknights]

I have no idea (outside of massive ego) why London would put in a bid in 2008. Did they seriously think they'd be awarded it two times in a row? I know it's London, but that's more than friggen' arrogance.

I have no doubt London will do a fantastic job hosting the Memorial Cup. I just don't like that this tournament has gone the way of the World Juniors - at least in the OHL. The same rules don't apply in the W or Q - they have smaller markets hosting and they do a fantastic job - the entire community is involved. In the OHL, the message has been sent, loud and clear, and the league has lost something special in doing so.

I think they applied for couple reasons outside the arrogance angle. They knew they wouldnt get it but...
Maybe they wanted to show a willingness to get involved, to show the committee the league, it's current and future players they'll always try and be #1 even if realistically the odds were heavily heavily against them. A, well always fight for the prize type attitude. ( Guelph do you see value in thatt type thinking?)

London tourism has been very active the last 10
Yrs trying to help secure big events to the JLC/Bud Gardens. Every time you go thru the process you learn something new. Another wrinkle to add, an area you can improve on for future bids. It's a practice sorta thing if that makes sense. And having been so active in bidding they've gotten better improving future opportunities for hockey AND other events. And keeping themselves on the radar as players for big events
Last, maybe their just generous and wanted to throw the bid fee the leagues in hopes that it would trickle down to smaller market teams, on ice officials development, or whatever. Ok the last point just for fun

 

[OHLArenaGuide]

No one on earth is debating that London has been successful in the last 10 years and ices a competitive team. That has NOTHING to do with my post. I'd love to know the reasoning for bidding in 2008. No team in any league has hosted twice in a row since 1986 (and only two teams in history have hosted back-to-back).

The New Westminster Bruins were awarded the tournament hosting in 1986 and bowed out at the last minute. Portland stepped in as emergency hosts. No one would object to that if that happened here - if Saskatoon had bowed out at the last minute and this year's tourney was moved to Brandon, no one would care, because you do things differently in an emergency.

 

[Knights77]

I think they applied for couple reasons outside the arrogance angle. They knew they wouldnt get it but...
Maybe they wanted to show a willingness to get involved, to show the committee the league, it's current and future players they'll always try and be #1 even if realistically the odds were heavily heavily against them. A, well always fight for the prize type attitude. ( Guelph do you see value in thatt type thinking?)

London tourism has been very active the last 10
Yrs trying to help secure big events to the JLC/Bud Gardens. Every time you go thru the process you learn something new. Another wrinkle to add, an area you can improve on for future bids. It's a practice sorta thing if that makes sense. And having been so active in bidding they've gotten better improving future opportunities for hockey AND other events. And keeping themselves on the radar as players for big events
Last, maybe their just generous and wanted to throw the bid fee the leagues in hopes that it would trickle down to smaller market teams, on ice officials development, or whatever. Ok the last point just for fun

Geez, see my last post. You and I are on the exact same page eh

 

[Torts]

I still think Kingston would have gotten a lot of consideration if they bid, wonder why they didn't.

Solid facility, good young team, lots of team history. Gilmour as coach adds another sideshow or storyline.

Just mind boggles me

 

[Knights77]

I still think Kingston would have gotten a lot of consideration if they bid, wonder why they didn't.

Solid facility, good young team, lots of team history. Gilmour as coach adds another sideshow or storyline.

Just mind boggles me

Now this I buy. Great point and surprised more people didn't voice this. I was impressed by Kingston this year and think they will ice a very competitive team next year. I have never been to their rink but it is on my list to go to. (heard great things). Facility, guaranteed money and strenght of roster....all would score well. Add in some of the intangibles such as Eastern conference team etc.

 

[Friendly Fan]

I still think Kingston would have gotten a lot of consideration if they bid, wonder why they didn't.

Solid facility, good young team, lots of team history. Gilmour as coach adds another sideshow or storyline.

Just mind boggles me

Kingston will have a great team in 2014-2015, and not a serious contender this year. I love their team and coach, and especially the young talent, but are still 2 years away.

Barrie, Brampton, Sudbury should all finish ahead of Kingston next year.

 

[SimonKnightsman]

Mem Cup preview show on Sportsnet....

Tonight at 11.30 pm
Tomorrow at 1 pm

All times eastern....if you have all sportsnet channels its on other times as well .

 

[youngblood10]

Todd Gill is the coach in Kingston, Gilmour is the GM.

 

[ckg927]

Hmmn. I bet that Hunter wasn't supposed to mention that. Hopefully Branch gets asked about this, because it does appear very shady.

He never will, because no sports journalist has the balls to do it without getting his access to the league cut off.

 

[ckg927]

Exactly there's no reason for other teams to bid in the future. As long as London bids they will get the Memorial Cup.

This should be the LAST MemCup the Knights host. For a LONG time. And I DO mean long. (This is not a knock on the team the Knights have, nor the fan support London gives the Knights.)