World Cup: 2016 World Cup Part II: All fans and nations welcome

[ForumNamePending]

Ya, no doubt Rugby is a much better comparison. I've said before that if Rugby can organize a WC that is a big deal (relative to the size of the sport itself) there is no reason why hockey shouldn't be able to as well. IMHO hockey's big international tournament being something other than the Olympics is preferable.

I think the point is when it comes to international tournaments, regardless of the sport, even one as widely popular and played as soccer, the number of nations who can realistically leave with the big trophy is pretty limited. Despite this most sports don't seem to have a problem making some room for the minnows.

This is the NHL's mess. It isn't international hockey.

Is what I mean is no one at this time seems to be willing or able to deliver a international tournament that is "perfect". The IIHF's WC and the NHL's WCup both have serious flaws.

 

[Paxton Fettel]

It's going to be quite an interesting experiment. I'm also very excited about the exhibition games and those back to back games between can/usa, rus/cze and swe/fin. These are the 3 natural rivalries I like to watch.

If it was up to me, the World Cup, as an experiment, would be a 6-nation tournament played as follows :
- 3 qualifying pairs, best of 3 games : can/usa, cze/rus, fin/swe.
- 3-team round robin, 2 games against each opponent, top 2 make it to the final.
- final, best of 3.

Possible outcome :

Qualifying round
Day 1 :
Can 3, USA 1
Rus 4, Cze 2
Swe 2, Fin 1

Day 2 :
USA 5, Can 4
Cze 1, Rus 0
Swe 4, Fin 2 - Swe wins 2-0

Day 3 :
Can 4, USA 0 - Can wins 2-1
Rus 3, Cze 1 - Rus wins 2-1

Final qualifying round :
Can 6, Rus 4
Rus 4, Swe 1
Swe 2, Can 1
Can 3, Swe 0
Swe 3, Rus 2
Can 2, Rus 0

Standings :
1. Can 3-1
2. Swe 2-2
3. Rus 1-3

Final :
Can 2, Swe 1 OT
Can 5, Swe 2 - Can wins 2-0

 

[PNWKingsFan]

Ya, no doubt Rugby is a much better comparison. I've said before that if Rugby can organize a WC that is a big deal (relative to the size of the sport itself) there is no reason why hockey shouldn't be able to as well. IMHO hockey's big international tournament being something other than the Olympics is preferable.

I think the point is when it comes to international tournaments, regardless of the sport, even one as widely popular and played as soccer, the number of nations who can realistically leave with the big trophy is pretty limited. Despite this most sports don't seem to have a problem making some room for the minnows.

Is what I mean is no one at this time seems to be willing or able to deliver a international tournament that is "perfect". The IIHF's WC and the NHL's WCup both have serious flaws.

I think a lot of it is that hockey has generally suffered from more infighting among people who want a piece of the international pie. The NHL doesn't get along with the other leagues who don't get along much with the IIHF who don't like the IOC. FIFA and the IRB haven't had nearly the same number of problems with the different federations in soccer and rugby, respectively, by comparison.

I suspect that a lot of it has to do with the iron curtain separating the top nations and largely delaying a single agreed-upon international competition until the early 90's. That really hurt the sport internationally. And now you have a pretty small amount of top-level international culture built up.

The NHL is betting that NA fans as a whole won't care too much about the format of this not really being a "true" international competition. And honestly, they might have a case. It's a shame, because moves like what the league is trying to do threaten what international play is already there and widen the cultural gap between EU and NA hockey.

 

[Jablkon]

I work for the NYC dept. Of education . Most likely one of the worst organized organization in the United states. But if you stuck a camera and a microphone in my face I would say it was great. I need my job because my family comes first. This is exactly what Krecji did.

European players are ussually not that diplomatic in their home media. And no, he meant it seriously.....

 

[Jablkon]

This is a good list of positives and explains why I think it would be just fine if the NHL ignored the Olympics, and had a World Cup instead (with only national teams of course).

I think it's an overstatement to say the tournament is "ruined", I'll reserve judgement until they played the blessed thing but that's just me, I understand people are upset.

It would be fine for you because you will have "behind your house". But as somebody pointed here correctly, this tourney just making bigger cultural gap between NA and European fans. So we will have our WHC and you will have your WC and soon or later both sides will look for some tourney which would put things together and not doing exactly opposite.

I dont know whether IOC or NHL caused failure of OG but it is definetely bad for hockey despite OGs disadvantages, respectively WC advantages which JackSlater posted here. I reckon both IOC and NHL are satisfied that reasons are blury and thus we dont know who to blame for it.....funny

 

[Gary Nylund]

Your friend probably bet on Canada winning the World Cup at 200 to 1, and 30 years later it's turned into a bet about a single goal in your head.

No. Not sure why this bothers you so much but I suggest you try to get over it somehow. I've tried to have a reasonable discussion with you but I now officially give up. Bye.

Ya, soccer is a whole lot deeper and competitive than hockey, but at the end of the day the sport is still dominated by a relatively small handful of nations.

Just to add to what you posted earlier.... Since the Olympic hockey went "best vs best" nations from outside the "big-6" have made the semifinals twice. In that same period of time nations from Asia, Africa and CONCACAF have combined to make the WC semifinals only once... Despite this nations from those 3 regions make up ~40% of the WC's field, and yet somehow soccer's WC remains a huge success.

The whole "having teams with no chance of leaving with the trophy is pointless" argument is weird to me for the simple fact that I'm having trouble thinking of sporting tournament/league that limits itself to only teams with a "realistic" chance of winning. Before the start of every NHL season you can run down the list of teams and pick out of bunch that have no chance of winning the SC. Despite this fact most people seem to be okay with these teams still participating. I mean the Leafs nor the Senators are winning the Stanley Cup this season, yet I don't see too many people suggesting, for the purpose of improving competitive balance, combining the rosters and forming the Ontario Maple Sens.

At this point I find a World Cup that is limited to 6 a nation (+2 gimmick teams) invitational every bit as meh as a World Championship where teams don't have access to many of their best players. International hockey is a mess.

Soccer is deeper and more competitive, agree completely. One of those hockey teams was Belarus, can't remember the other one.

I just looked it up, the last 5 World Cups had 12 different teams in the semis. But yeah you're right, the "big" teams were always in the finals. I don't know soccer that well but I'd guess that those teams that lost in the semis like Croatia, Turkey and (especially) Portugal had a much better chance to get to the finals though than Belarus did in hockey. I also think that the nature of hockey is such that it's easier for a huge upset to occur in any one given game than it is in soccer.

I think a lot of it is that hockey has generally suffered from more infighting among people who want a piece of the international pie. The NHL doesn't get along with the other leagues who don't get along much with the IIHF who don't like the IOC. FIFA and the IRB haven't had nearly the same number of problems with the different federations in soccer and rugby, respectively, by comparison.

I suspect that a lot of it has to do with the iron curtain separating the top nations and largely delaying a single agreed-upon international competition until the early 90's. That really hurt the sport internationally. And now you have a pretty small amount of top-level international culture built up.

The NHL is betting that NA fans as a whole won't care too much about the format of this not really being a "true" international competition. And honestly, they might have a case. It's a shame, because moves like what the league is trying to do threaten what international play is already there and widen the cultural gap between EU and NA hockey.

Some interesting thoughts there, thanks for sharing.

It would be fine for you because you will have "behind your house". But as somebody pointed here correctly, this tourney just making bigger cultural gap between NA and European fans. So we will have our WHC and you will have your WC and soon or later both sides will look for some tourney which would put things together and not doing exactly opposite.

I dont know whether IOC or NHL caused failure of OG but it is definetely bad for hockey despite OGs disadvantages, respectively WC advantages which JackSlater posted here. I reckon both IOC and NHL are satisfied that reasons are blury and thus we dont know who to blame for it.....funny

I do think the World Cup would better than the Olympics if it was done right. Perhaps the ideal solution would be to have the World Cup rotate between Europe and Canada, then everyone could have it in "their house". Of course with the NHL being a NA league that will never happen so ... if it was up to me, I would choose the Olympics over the World Cup. It's my sense of fairness that would make me do this - my preference for the World Cup over the OG is minor compared to Euro fans preference for the OG over the World Cup and I just want everyone to be happy.

 

[ForumNamePending]

Soccer is deeper and more competitive, agree completely. One of those hockey teams was Belarus, can't remember the other one.

Slovakia in '10.

I just looked it up, the last 5 World Cups had 12 different teams in the semis. But yeah you're right, the "big" teams were always in the finals. I don't know soccer that well but I'd guess that those teams that lost in the semis like Croatia, Turkey and (especially) Portugal had a much better chance to get to the finals though than Belarus did in hockey.

But only 1 of those 20 semifinalists was from Asia, Africa or CONCACAF. You can actually go back at least half a century (13 tournaments) and those three regions still only combine for one top-4 finish, and only eight top-8 finishes. Despite this no one argues those regions should be represented by all-star teams instead of individual nations.

I also think that the nature of hockey is such that it's easier for a huge upset to occur in any one given game than it is in soccer.

I dunno, maybe. Hockey is prone to "lucky bounce" goals and goalies stealing games, but on the other hand soccer is lower scoring, so I guess one could argue the margin for error is much smaller.

 

[PNWKingsFan]

I do think the World Cup would better than the Olympics if it was done right. Perhaps the ideal solution would be to have the World Cup rotate between Europe and Canada, then everyone could have it in "their house". Of course with the NHL being a NA league that will never happen so ... if it was up to me, I would choose the Olympics over the World Cup. It's my sense of fairness that would make me do this - my preference for the World Cup over the OG is minor compared to Euro fans preference for the OG over the World Cup and I just want everyone to be happy.

I agree with your first statement here, at the very least. I think being dependent on the OG is an issue for international hockey, as much as I love the event. But having an international world championship that can effectively eclipse it would be better for the game as a whole.

But to actually make that happen and do it right, at a minimum, you'd need a tournament that:

1. occurs every two or four years, consistently
2. doesn't occur during any major hockey season
3. has buy in from national teams and the IIHF, such that all countries can send their best players
4. has buy in from the leagues, such that they aren't inclined to object to sending any of their players
5. features actual national teams - no made up all-star teams
6. is open to all countries, either through formal qualification games or by using the results of regional tourmants + playoffs
7. has an open hosting arrangement, rather than being set on a certain continent/country

We've had options that hit some of these checkboxes, but nothing that really hits all of them. And there are big structural barriers to getting there.

I dunno, maybe. Hockey is prone to "lucky bounce" goals and goalies stealing games, but on the other hand soccer is lower scoring, so I guess one could argue the margin for error is much smaller.

I would say that soccer itself has a strong element of luck but it's more in the area of goals not happening. Take one pretty big upset: Senegal over France in 2002. France hit the post something like 4 times in that game, while dominating possession. If even one of those 4 had been a few inches closer to the center, the outlook of that game would have been totally different. Defensive teams know how to maximize their chances, of course, but that doesn't mean that they don't rely a little bit on luck.

By comparison, in hockey it's much easier to tie "skill/domination" metrics like possession to the actual outcome of games. That suggests that, on balance, luck is less a factor in hockey.

 

[PNWKingsFan]

sorry, hit quote, not edit

 

[xxxx]

Slovakia in '10.

Slovakia 6 years ago was part of TOP7. Their roster was quite strong, given players like Hossa, Demitra, Gaborik, Chara, Visnovsky, or Halak were in their primes. Not mentioning other solid or not bad players, like Handzus, Kopecky, Svatos, Meszaros, Jurcina, Satan, Stumpel, Zednik, or even Palffy. Slovakia was a legitimate medal contender with the teams like Finland or Czech republic. They were definitely in top seven at the time.

 

[ForumNamePending]

Slovakia 6 years ago was part of TOP7. Their roster was quite strong, given players like Hossa, Demitra, Gaborik, Chara, Visnovsky, or Halak were in their primes. Not mentioning other solid or not bad players, like Handzus, Kopecky, Svatos, Meszaros, Jurcina, Satan, Stumpel, Zednik, or even Palffy. Slovakia was a legitimate medal contender with the teams like Finland or Czech republic. They were definitely in top seven at the time.

Barely half the Slovak roster were NHL players... If the NHL was running that tournament they wouldn't have even gotten an invite.

 

[xxxx]

Barely half the Slovak roster were NHL players... If the NHL was running that tournament they wouldn't have even gotten an invite.

which has nothing to do with my point.

 

[Gary Nylund]

My answers in red:

Slovakia in '10.

But only 1 of those 20 semifinalists was from Asia, Africa or CONCACAF. You can actually go back at least half a century (13 tournaments) and those three regions still only combine for one top-4 finish, and only eight top-8 finishes. Despite this no one argues those regions should be represented by all-star teams instead of individual nations.

I don't believe anyone is arguing that for hockey either. For this World Cup, I'm not sure if anyone likes it, it's just various degrees of dislike.

I dunno, maybe. Hockey is prone to "lucky bounce" goals and goalies stealing games, but on the other hand soccer is lower scoring, so I guess one could argue the margin for error is much smaller.

I dunno either and I haven't researched it, I just feel like if you take say the 10th best soccer nation in the world, and have them play say the top 3 teams 10 times each, the games would be somewhat competitive overall and the underdog would win a few here and there. The 10th best hockey nation, well they might fluke out a win if the goalie gets hot but overall, the games would be very one-sided, not competitive at all and the entertainment value would be nil.

I agree with your first statement here, at the very least. I think being dependent on the OG is an issue for international hockey, as much as I love the event. But having an international world championship that can effectively eclipse it would be better for the game as a whole.

But to actually make that happen and do it right, at a minimum, you'd need a tournament that:

1. occurs every two or four years, consistently
2. doesn't occur during any major hockey season
3. has buy in from national teams and the IIHF, such that all countries can send their best players
4. has buy in from the leagues, such that they aren't inclined to object to sending any of their players
5. features actual national teams - no made up all-star teams
6. is open to all countries, either through formal qualification games or by using the results of regional tourmants + playoffs
7. has an open hosting arrangement, rather than being set on a certain continent/country

We've had options that hit some of these checkboxes, but nothing that really hits all of them. And there are big structural barriers to getting there.

Yes there are to the point where I doubt it will ever happen. The best we can hope for IMO is something where the best players play, and that happens regularly. I'm not a huge fan of the OG myself but would settle for that of course. The best would be a World Cup IMO and if that happened regularly and became a tradition again then perhaps European fans would come around as well. The NHL is a NA league but has a ton of European players, perhaps it could be 3 way rotation, once in Canada, once in the US and once in Europe. How would Euro fans feel about that? I'm just thinking out loud but it seems fair to me at first blush.

I would say that soccer itself has a strong element of luck but it's more in the area of goals not happening. Take one pretty big upset: Senegal over France in 2002. France hit the post something like 4 times in that game, while dominating possession. If even one of those 4 had been a few inches closer to the center, the outlook of that game would have been totally different. Defensive teams know how to maximize their chances, of course, but that doesn't mean that they don't rely a little bit on luck.

By comparison, in hockey it's much easier to tie "skill/domination" metrics like possession to the actual outcome of games. That suggests that, on balance, luck is less a factor in hockey.

Hmm, I'll have to give that some thought. There's the goalie factor in hockey which is so huge and makes predicting the outcome of any one game difficult, I suppose it's not fair to call that "luck" though, maybe it's more accurate to say that there's more variance in hockey? Having a 7 game series like in the NHL playoffs solves that problem but in these tournaments, it's a huge factor. I'd say off the top of my head that the odds of Belarus beating Sweden pre-game was around 10-1, change that to a 7 game series and it would be more like 100-1.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Slovakia 6 years ago was part of TOP7. Their roster was quite strong, given players like Hossa, Demitra, Gaborik, Chara, Visnovsky, or Halak were in their primes. Not mentioning other solid or not bad players, like Handzus, Kopecky, Svatos, Meszaros, Jurcina, Satan, Stumpel, Zednik, or even Palffy. Slovakia was a legitimate medal contender with the teams like Finland or Czech republic. They were definitely in top seven at the time.

Yes that's a good point IMO. That's a decent team, certainly >>>>>>> the Belarus team that beat Sweden.

 

[ForumNamePending]

which has nothing to do with my point.

But it has everything to do with my point.

My answers in red:

I dunno either and I haven't researched it, I just feel like if you take say the 10th best soccer nation in the world, and have them play say the top 3 teams 10 times each, the games would be somewhat competitive overall and the underdog would win a few here and there. The 10th best hockey nation, well they might fluke out a win if the goalie gets hot but overall, the games would be very one-sided, not competitive at all and the entertainment value would be nil.

Yes, we all agree soccer is much deeper than hockey, and that's why soccer can have a 32 team WCup without things getting silly. I don't think too many people are advocating for a 32 team hockey WCup.

 

[Gary Nylund]

But it has everything to do with my point.

Yes, we all agree soccer is much deeper than hockey, and that's why soccer can have a 32 team WCup without things getting silly. I don't think too many people are advocating for a 32 team hockey WCup.

Well, almost all of us agree anyway. Maybe all except the one poster who supported his theory that soccer and hockey are equally competitive and supported his argument by comparing the odds of the worst teams winning completely ignoring that the WCup has 32 teams.

I have though (briefly) about what a 32 teams hockey WCup would look like. What can I say but yikes!

 

[xxxx]

But it has everything to do with my point.

Slovakia in 2010 was a much better team than Slovakia now, and therefore I highly doubt they wouldn't invite them at that time, as I said, they were in TOP7. Now, they are not, which is making the decision that much easier for the NHL.

 

[JackSlater]

Slovakia in 2010 was a much better team than Slovakia now, and therefore I highly doubt they wouldn't invite them at that time, as I said, they were in TOP7. Now, they are not, which is making the decision that much easier for the NHL.

Who is in the top 7 now? Why is that seventh team not invited? To justify the NHL's moronic decision?

 

[Lepardi]

Maybe all except the one poster who supported his theory that soccer and hockey are equally competitive

Nice strawman there. If I told you that the 8th best team in my local beer league has at least as good a chance of winning that league as the 32nd best team has in the World Cup of football (maybe one in 5,000), by your logic that would mean I'm claiming our local beer league is as competitive as the World Cup of football. Can you really not see how completely flawed that logic is? My favorite team here in Finland is one of the worst teams in the Finnish Elite League (that currently consists of 15 teams). Their chances of winning the championship next spring are about as good as Toronto's chances of winning the Stanley Cup next June. This obviously doesn't mean that the FEL is as competitive as the NHL.

I think that football as a global sport is obviously way more competitive than hockey, which is a tiny sport in the global perspective. That's the great thing about hockey. When there's not much competition, even a small country like Finland can regularly fight for medals and feel like we've achieved something. And a relatively small country like Canada can dominate and claim ownership of a sport. But it's also a fact that Australia's, Japan's, Iran's and South Korea's chances of winning the World Cup of football aren't any better than Slovakia's or Switzerland's chances of winning in hockey. So if Switzerland and Slovakia aren't fit to take part in WCOH because they can't win it, then by that logic Australia, Japan, Iran and South Korea should have no place in the World Cup of football either. They were all there in Brazil 2014 however, but I didn't see many people complaining that it ruined the tournament.

And even if you think Japan and South Korea aren't fit to take part in the World Cup cause they aren't competitive enough, it's obviously better to leave them out altogether than to fabricate a "Team Asia" featuring players from all over the continent. Just like it would be way better to leave Mark Streit and Marian Hossa out of the World Cup than to make them play for a gimmick team whose success has no relevance whatsoever. Thank God people in FIFA are very unlikely to ever bring these gimmick teams into the World Cup.

The 10th best hockey nation, well they might fluke out a win if the goalie gets hot but overall, the games would be very one-sided, not competitive at all and the entertainment value would be nil.

Have you ever watched the World Cup of football? They have matches like Brazil vs. Cameroon, France vs. Honduras and Argentina vs. Iran. Those games are awfully lop-sided. That's still no reason to put the players from Cameroon, Honduras and Iran in the same team with players from other countries or to replace them with teams like "Team South America U24" and "Team European Leftovers", cause national teams playing against all-star teams makes no sense. The "Team European Leftovers" would be nice in the sense that it might give us Finns a chance to see one of our countrymen play in the World Cup for once. But why would we want to see that, when we know it would just be a meaningless consolation prize.

 

[Jablkon]

Nice strawman there. If I told you that the 8th best team in my local beer league has at least as good a chance of winning that league as the 32nd best team has in the World Cup of football (maybe one in 5,000), by your logic that would mean I'm claiming our local beer league is as competitive as the World Cup of football. Can you really not see how completely flawed that logic is? My favorite team here in Finland is one of the worst teams in the Finnish Elite League (that currently consists of 15 teams). Their chances of winning the championship next spring are about as good as Toronto's chances of winning the Stanley Cup next June. This obviously doesn't mean that the FEL is as competitive as the NHL.

I think that football as a global sport is obviously way more competitive than hockey, which is a tiny sport in the global perspective. That's the great thing about hockey. When there's not much competition, even a small country like Finland can regularly fight for medals and feel like we've achieved something. And a relatively small country like Canada can dominate and claim ownership of a sport. But it's also a fact that Australia's, Japan's, Iran's and South Korea's chances of winning the World Cup of football aren't any better than Slovakia's or Switzerland's chances of winning in hockey. So if Switzerland and Slovakia aren't fit to take part in WCOH because they can't win it, then by that logic Australia, Japan, Iran and South Korea should have no place in the World Cup of football either. They were all there in Brazil 2014 however, but I didn't see many people complaining that it ruined the tournament.

And even if you think Japan and South Korea aren't fit to take part in the World Cup cause they aren't competitive enough, it's obviously better to leave them out altogether than to fabricate a "Team Asia" featuring players from all over the continent. Just like it would be way better to leave Mark Streit and Marian Hossa out of the World Cup than to make them play for a gimmick team whose success has no relevance whatsoever. Thank God people in FIFA are very unlikely to ever bring these gimmick teams into the World Cup.



Have you ever watched the World Cup of football? They have matches like Brazil vs. Cameroon, France vs. Honduras and Argentina vs. Iran. Those games are awfully lop-sided. That's still no reason to put the players from Cameroon, Honduras and Iran in the same team with players from other countries or to replace them with teams like "Team South America U24" and "Team European Leftovers", cause national teams playing against all-star teams makes no sense. The "Team European Leftovers" would be nice in the sense that it might give us Finns a chance to see one of our countrymen play in the World Cup for once. But why would we want to see that, when we know it would just be a meaningless consolation prize.

Thats completely wrong logic. There is a big competition in hockey. WHC has several divisions. For some reasons other teams are not able to get to the top level. And its just not about teams from destinations like Mexico. This is also valid for Germany where worst DEL teams have same or higher budget as top czech teams, and for example for Netherland which is ice skating country, but for some reason hockey is not popular there. Finnland certainly does not belong to top level because of small competition but because it took them 20 years of hard work to reach that level.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Who is in the top 7 now? Why is that seventh team not invited? To justify the NHL's moronic decision?

I just looked up the IIHF rankings (for the first time ever I believe, link below) and found it interesting that the gap between the 6th team Czech Rebublic) and the 7th team (Switzerland) is 300 points. That is the largest gap between any two teams in the top 50 (the next biggest gap is between and United Arab Emirates 47th and Ireland 48th) and is also bigger then the gap between 1st and 6th. This is likely part of the reason the NHL decided on these gimmick teams and perhaps if there wasn't such a big gap this never would have happened.

Disclaimer: I don't like the gimmick teams and am not trying to justify them, just thinking about how this happened.

http://www.iihf.com/home-of-hockey/championships/world-ranking/mens-world-ranking/2016-ranking/

 

[Jablkon]

I just looked up the IIHF rankings (for the first time ever I believe, link below) and found it interesting that the gap between the 6th team Czech Rebublic) and the 7th team (Switzerland) is 300 points. That is the largest gap between any two teams in the top 50 (the next biggest gap is between and United Arab Emirates 47th and Ireland 48th) and is also bigger then the gap between 1st and 6th. This is likely part of the reason the NHL decided on these gimmick teams and perhaps if there wasn't such a big gap this never would have happened.

Disclaimer: I don't like the gimmick teams and am not trying to justify them, just thinking about how this happened.

http://www.iihf.com/home-of-hockey/championships/world-ranking/mens-world-ranking/2016-ranking/

That is specific of hockey. Even teams like South Korea, Cameroon, Nigeria were able to make big mark in soccer world cup once a while. However thats not the case of hockey. By soccer logic, Latvia, Switzerland or Slovakia should be able to get to semis at least twice in 10 years...Culture, weather and genetic might have some role in it imo.

 

[Gary Nylund]

That is specific of hockey. Even teams like South Korea, Cameroon, Nigeria were able to make big mark in soccer world cup once a while. However thats not the case of hockey. By soccer logic, Latvia, Switzerland or Slovakia should be able to get to semis at least twice in 10 years...Culture, weather and genetic might have some role in it imo.

Another is probably that hockey participation is much more expensive for a kid than soccer. I remember reading somewhere that in Canada, soccer was the #1 participation sport for children. If hockey is behind soccer even in Canada ...

Hockey, unlike soccer, also has the image of being a violent sport (and it is violent to some degree). I know for a fact some parents who wouldn't let their kids play for that reason.

 

[Zine]

Slovakia in 2010 was a much better team than Slovakia now, and therefore I highly doubt they wouldn't invite them at that time, as I said, they were in TOP7. Now, they are not, which is making the decision that much easier for the NHL.

But this World Cup is not about level of play.....it's about showcasing as much NHL talent as possible.

Nearly half of Slovakia's 2010 roster was non-NHLers. Considering as such, I highly doubt that team would have been invited to this World Cup.

 

[Gary Nylund]

But this World Cup is not about level of play.....it's about showcasing as much NHL talent as possible.

Nearly half of Slovakia's 2010 roster was non-NHLers. Considering as such, I highly doubt that team would have been invited to this World Cup.

You can correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I know, the World Cup isn't restricted to only NHL players.

Like it or not, the NHL is a business. The last thing they want is to risk having games with lots of empty seats so competitiveness is a big issue, probably much bigger than how many NHL players are on each team. The average fan just wants to see good hockey and they don't care if some players aren't from the NHL, if anything, having non NHL players would add an X factor that would make it more interesting (at least it would be for me). And most of the players will be NHL players anyway so ...

But if you have games that don't look to be competitive, that's another thing. It may be hard to sell tickets to a game between say the Czech Republic and Slovakia for example.

Once again, I do not like the gimmick teams. I can understand the line of thought that led to this happening though.