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

[JackSlater]

What I also like is those pre-tournament games and the training camp for all the teams, that makes it really much better than anything before.

The pre-tournament games are a good thing and an advantage that this tournament should have over the Olympics. The best of three final is better as well. Too bad the NHL was too stupid to simply copy the 1996 tournament format, which was better than anything that could possibly be done at the Olympics. This tournament does have some good ideas.

The way I see it, the better the teams and players the better the tournament. There has not been a more competitive best on best tournament in the history of the game. The Olympcis have a bunch of terrible teams and the previous World Cups have had a couple of average ones. This has none. Also all the top players are playing so that is great. I also like that the WC is held before the season so hopefully guys are fresh but not too rusty.

This isn't a best on best tournament. Best on best in this context implies international (best ______ vs. best _______) and this tournament misses that obvious criteria.

Also, if better players simply make better, more entertaining tournaments by default, someone should tell hockey fans to stop being idiots and abandon the WJC. The Spengler Cup is clearly the top Christmas time tournament now.

I thought the fans got what they wanted? A true best on best. It's the closest to a best on best they've ever had so why the complaints? I don't think Canada Cup or the World Cup before it qualified as a true international tournament.

The typical baseless whining about the past competitions not being best on best. They were for the most part (arguably Soviets didn't have their best in 1991 and 1976). If the tournament was contested between national teams (unlike this tournament) and those teams were able to select their best players (unlike this tournament) then it was a best on best tournament (unlike this tournament).

 

[Slimmy]

The typical baseless whining about the past competitions not being best on best. They were for the most part (arguably Soviets didn't have their best in 1991 and 1976). If the tournament was contested between national teams (unlike this tournament) and those teams were able to select their best players (unlike this tournament) then it was a best on best tournament (unlike this tournament).

You misunderstand. My complaint is not that the previous tourneys were not "best-on-best". My complaint is that that was the only criteria that fans like you in the past have stressed any concern about. So, now that we have the closest thing to a "best-on-best" the same people are up in arms about it. It's quite ironic.

 

[Theokritos]

The World Cup has actually progressed/evolved in a natural way. The selection of refs is exclusively from the NHL, the games are held in NHL team stadiums with NHL sized ice surface. The goal then naturally is to have teams which predominately consist of NHL players, which is why it is an invitational in the first place. Add team Europe and team NA u24 and you have the product which makes most sense from an NHL perspective.

People who only now started complaining, because they're team is getting a disadvantage from the latest additions of teams, or talk of principles really have no right to complain.

This tourney never held any principles, was never that interested in the integrity of the international game or a level playing field. It's entertainment and ultimately business. I actually like this product more than the previous one because it isn't really masquerading as a true international anymore.

"Have no right to complain" is a new one. Yes, we do have the right to complain.

As for the rest of your deliberations: The original purpose of the tournament back in the mid-1970s was to allow Canada (and by default also the USA) to be represented internationally by its strongest players which was not the case at the World Championship. Now for the first time Canada was free and able to pick NHL and WHA players as they saw fit. Ironically the first thing the new 2016 features do is to break with that very first principle of the tournament: due to the NA-U24 team Canada and the USA are not free to pick their roster at will anymore and thus the 2016 World Cup can't even be labeled a best-on-best tournament in technical terms.

The second principle the 2016 edition breaks with is the principle that proper international tournaments are played between national teams. We're not in disagreement about that of course since you claim that the tournament is not "masquerading as a true international anymore". The organizers themselves were forced to almost admit it by announcing no national anthems will be played – thanks to the mess the two supra-national gimmick teams create within the World Cup concept. And yet Bill Daly goes on the record as saying: "If the World Cup's a big deal, best-on-best tournament, why do we need to go to the Olympics?" Not masquerading anymore? I don't think so. The veil is just so thin and flimsy that even the more honest ones among those who support the World Cup can't deny the obvious.

As for the World Cup evolving/progressing in a natural way, let's not overlook that the original idea as publicly announced in the mid-1970s was to expand the field of participants from six to more nations over the course of time. That's Alan Eagleson outdoing Bettman & Daly in terms of vision and aspiration right there. And while it did take a lot of time, the field of participants finally was expanded to eight national teams in 1996 when the tournament became the "World Cup of Hockey". And now, 20 years later, we get a fake expansion with a supra-national European team that represents nothing and nobody and that effectively reduces to field of participating national teams from eight to six again.

OK. Why the hostility, did the World Cup piss on your cereal?

The why has been pointed out to you.

 

[FiLe]

OK. Why the hostility, did the World Cup piss on your cereal?

Why I dislike it should be pretty clear by now, it's been explained by myself and numerous others, most recently in this very thread.

Why I feel hostile towards it, instead of just ignoring it, is that the World Cup and its shoddy attempts to excuse itself insults my intelligence (as a die-hard international hockey fan, I sit smack dab in the middle of its main marketing segment), and I take offence at that.

 

[Slimmy]

"Have no right to complain" is a new one. Yes, we do have the right to complain.

As for the rest of your deliberations: The original purpose of the tournament back in the mid-1970s was to allow Canada (and by default also the USA) to be represented internationally by its strongest players which was not the case at the World Championship. Now for the first time Canada was free and able to pick NHL and WHA players as they saw fit. Ironically the first thing the new 2016 features do is to break with that very first principle of the tournament: due to the NA-U24 team Canada and the USA are not free to pick their roster at will anymore and thus the 2016 World Cup can't even be labeled a best-on-best tournament in technical terms.

This was common back then. Pros were not allowed in the Olympics either. It would not have been such a contested rule if the Soviets hadn't circumvented it. I understand the frustration from the NA fans and why they saw it as unfair but the intention of the IIHF was not to tilt the balance in anyones favour. The spirit of the tourney was to allow all nations to participate on equal terms. However, the rule is not relevant anymore.

As for the Canada Cup, It served a purpose and I admit that my critique of it in the past was not very nuanced.

 

[Gary Nylund]

I have absolutely no problem with the tournament, the teams and so on. Also the fact that it is held in Canada makes it even better as the atmosphere will undoubtedly be great. Some times tournaments are held in places where in most games the arena is dead. Went to a couple World Championship games in Finland, USA vs Germany was one I think, and it was almost dead silent :laugh

The way I see it, the better the teams and players the better the tournament. There has not been a more competitive best on best tournament in the history of the game. The Olympcis have a bunch of terrible teams and the previous World Cups have had a couple of average ones. This has none. Also all the top players are playing so that is great. I also like that the WC is held before the season so hopefully guys are fresh but not too rusty.

To be honest I was Super excited when the WC was announced and the details given. Like the way it is constructed. Two groups, no meaningless games, knockout games almost immidiately and finally not a final that is only one game. Did not really read what people had to say about it and stayed away from the forums at the beginning. So I was genuinely surprised when I found out that a bunch of people were whining and dissing the entire thing. Everybody is entitled to their opinion but damn we are all hockey fans, why not just enjoy what will be some high quality hockey.

Hoping it will be a great tournament. Not just for the entertainment but also because if the quality of hockey will be great, which it most likely will, some of the doubters will give in and accept that the WC was cool after all.

That's pretty much how I feel. I think it's quite possible that as the tournament progresses, fan interest will build as some great games are played (and the hockey should indeed be great). By the time the finals roll around, the people who have no interest at the moment will be fully engaged (except for those who are too "principled" to re-consider). By the time it's all over, possibly all this whining about what a dumb tournament this is will be long forgotten.

My team is in this, and I know I won't do more than check results on the morning, for the same reason. Principle. I watch international tournaments. I could watch this if it was honest about what it was instead of pretending to be international - it's pseudo-international at best. Whatever sensations of being entertained would be grossly overshadowed by the nagging feeling that someone is pulling a fast one on me and my intelligence is being insulted. (This is not to say I expect everyone should feel the same. If you can ignore that feeling and enjoy it for what it is, good for you.)

I also have to vent a little about that "afraid their team is gonna lose" argument in general. It really feels like one of those you can't win no matter what you say. If you deny it, the one who made the question will just act all smug, and be like the real reason for disliking it was just uncovered.

And come here to waste your time telling us how you refuse to waste your time watching the games perhaps?

 

[JackSlater]

You misunderstand. My complaint is not that the previous tourneys were not "best-on-best". My complaint is that that was the only criteria that fans like you in the past have stressed any concern about. So, now that we have the closest thing to a "best-on-best" the same people are up in arms about it. It's quite ironic.

Not really. This isn't the closest thing to a best on best, since it isn't even an international tournament. I suppose I understand some "irony" about North Americans currently being the ones to complain about the tournament (along with Europeans). Theokritos pointed out quite well though how the situation is quite different from the past, when even the IIHF has admitted that the Canada Cup tournament helped usher in the era of one nation's best players playing another nation's best players.

 

[Slimmy]

I have absolutely no problem with the tournament, the teams and so on. Also the fact that it is held in Canada makes it even better as the atmosphere will undoubtedly be great. Some times tournaments are held in places where in most games the arena is dead. Went to a couple World Championship games in Finland, USA vs Germany was one I think, and it was almost dead silent :laugh

The way I see it, the better the teams and players the better the tournament. There has not been a more competitive best on best tournament in the history of the game. The Olympcis have a bunch of terrible teams and the previous World Cups have had a couple of average ones. This has none. Also all the top players are playing so that is great. I also like that the WC is held before the season so hopefully guys are fresh but not too rusty.

To be honest I was Super excited when the WC was announced and the details given. Like the way it is constructed. Two groups, no meaningless games, knockout games almost immidiately and finally not a final that is only one game. Did not really read what people had to say about it and stayed away from the forums at the beginning. So I was genuinely surprised when I found out that a bunch of people were whining and dissing the entire thing. Everybody is entitled to their opinion but damn we are all hockey fans, why not just enjoy what will be some high quality hockey.

Hoping it will be a great tournament. Not just for the entertainment but also because if the quality of hockey will be great, which it most likely will, some of the doubters will give in and accept that the WC was cool after all.

I can absolutely understand this sentiment. If what you value is entertainment and quality of hockey in equal amounts, this tourney is for you. I'm not in that camp but I can at least respect that there are those who find it attractive. I'll watch Sweden in the WHC no matter what crappy team they ice and I hope that the NHL will allow their players to go to the Olympics.

 

[Slimmy]

Not really. This isn't the closest thing to a best on best, since it isn't even an international tournament. I suppose I understand some "irony" about North Americans currently being the ones to complain about the tournament (along with Europeans).

I guess technically it is an international competition. It does involve nation states, although not exclusively. However, in my mind it never met the criteria of an international tournament where the spirit of such an event is inclusion, level playing field and sportsmanship.

I understand that fans of the NHL might scoff at the idea of having referees from Germany or even Sweden, for that matter.
Or allowing lesser hockey nations to participate, blowouts are an inconvenience for some as the entertainment value dropps.
Or allowing nations to freely compete for a spot in the tournament, since some teams might be there at the expense of a more talented team with a more attractive roster.
Or for the tournament to be held outside of the NA, it's mostly NHL players after all and the atmosphere is so much better in Canada.
And then there is the economic aspect and the funding of lesser hockey nations programs so that they can take steps to improve. That could be an inconvenience since they might one day upset the balance of power in the hockey world.

Theokritos pointed out quite well though how the situation is quite different from the past, when even the IIHF has admitted that the Canada Cup tournament helped usher in the era of one nation's best players playing another nation's best players.

I agree that the Canada Cup held a purpose and my critique in the past was misdirected.

 

[Gary Nylund]

I can absolutely understand this sentiment. If what you value is entertainment and quality of hockey in equal amounts, this tourney is for you. I'm not in that camp but I can at least respect that there are those who find it attractive. I'll watch Sweden in the WHC no matter what crappy team they ice and I hope that the NHL will allow their players to go to the Olympics.

Fair enough. I know you're not alone thinking this way and I respect your stance. You're the one who will likely miss out on some amazing hockey being played but that doesn't seem to bother you at all and that's fine. It is an interesting phenomenon that interest in the WHC is much higher in Europe than in NA and in NA, we care (in general) more about the quality of hockey then in what the tournament is titled. Not much point in arguing about it I suppose, everyone's entitled to their point of view.

It seems that your main gripe is that it's not a true international tournament because of the gimmick teams - understandable. Also, it's not a true best-on-best (again because of the gimmick teams stealing away some players from the "National" teams") - again, understandable.

From my point of view, I would prefer if there were only National teams but I figure meh, the 6 National teams will be pretty close (and in some cases identical) to what they would be anyway so - it's pretty close to ideal. Not ideal, but pretty close. Same goes for best-on-best - this technically isn't best-on-best but it's awful close so once again I figure meh, pretty close to ideal. So to me, if the ideal tournament would be a 10 out of 10, this will be maybe 8 out of 10 or so. And the WHC is still at best a 4 or 5.

I forgot one more gripe, the title. How dare they call it a "World Cup". For me, I couldn't care less, call it the Toyota Classic and I'd still watch.

I guess technically it is an international competition. It does involve nation states, although not exclusively. However, in my mind it never met the criteria of an international tournament where the spirit of such an event is inclusion, level playing field and sportsmanship.

I understand that fans of the NHL might scoff at the idea of having referees from Germany or even Sweden, for that matter.
Or allowing lesser hockey nations to participate, blowouts are an inconvenience for some as the entertainment value dropps.
Or allowing nations to freely compete for a spot in the tournament, since some teams might be there at the expense of a more talented team with a more attractive roster.
Or for the tournament to be held outside of the NA, it's mostly NHL players after all and the atmosphere is so much better in Canada.
And then there is the economic aspect and the funding of lesser hockey nations programs so that they can take steps to improve. That could be an inconvenience since they might one day upset the balance of power in the hockey world.


I agree that the Canada Cup held a purpose and my critique in the past was misdirected.

Some good points here. I especially cringe when I think of some of the Euro refereeing I've seen in the past.

 

[FiLe]

And come here to waste your time telling us how you refuse to waste your time watching the games perhaps?

If there's a thread dedicated to the topic of "active protesters who don't watch", maybe then I will.

If there isn't, I see no point going off the rails on a thread not meant for it.

 

[Seanaconda]

Well no it doesn't, because two countries are being denied all of their best players.

It's not so much an issue for Canada (which might have selected McDavid as a 13th forward), but team USA is severely damaged by the idiotic U-24 team.

doubt it. Not with how torts and Co picked the team. They left off kessel they want old grinders.

 

[Seanaconda]

I know I won't. It's a matter of principle.



Considering "my" team wouldn't even be in the World Cup anyway and now thanks to "Team Europe" they get a couple of players in there, why would I be scared? However, I'd much prefer not to see any of "my" players in that mockery of an international tournament. You don't have to agree with that stance, but you can at least accept that this is indeed a question of principle for some, not just a pretext.

Principle over what ? That whatever player that is from your country might have a chance to win?

They should of just changed the name of the tournament. Kept it being called the canada cup instead of world cup.

But if it is great hockey it's your loss for not watching it I spose.

 

[Gary Nylund]

doubt it. Not with how torts and Co picked the team. They left off kessel they want old grinders.

You know that's an excellent point to remember when USA gets eliminated and people start saying but ... but ... but ... look at all the guys we weren't allow to select because they were under 23 ...

Blame the guys who picked the team and left Kessel off. There isn't a USA player under 23 that has the potential impact of Kessel. I am still shaking my head over him not being picked.

 

[jj cale]

You know that's an excellent point to remember when USA gets eliminated and people start saying but ... but ... but ... look at all the guys we weren't allow to select because they were under 23 ...

Blame the guys who picked the team and left Kessel off. There isn't a USA player under 23 that has the potential impact of Kessel. I am still shaking my head over him not being picked.

I would say Gaudreau does, I think he is already a better player then Phil.

I watch them play and Johnny appears to have more tricks in his bag then phil does.

Gaudreau is the biggest loss for the U.S from this under 23 team, he's a game breaking talent and they are going to miss him.

 

[snipes]

If this was the official stance, there'd be far less discord among those who like the tourney and those who think it's the worst idea since letting the white man vote.

But it's not the official stance. The NHL is actively trying to pull wool over people's eyes, pretending it's a serious "international" tournament with no asterisks. And there are people who're buying into this sentiment.

Having fun, both those in the rink and those outside it, keeping yourself entertained... there's nothing wrong with that. But for the love of god, you people wearing suits and you people buying into the suits' sentiments - don't spew nonsense about this being a "serious" tournament, when it's basically a Spengler Cup on steroids.

Nobody criticizes the Spengler Cup because it never tries or claims to be more than it is.

Yeah, well it doesn't really matter how the NHL markets it. The historical record will be reflected as it should. This tournament will not officially qualify as a best-on-best international tournament.

These tournaments qualify as best-on-best: 1972 Summit Series, Canada Cups, 1996 and 2004 World Cup, and Olympics starting in 1998 and onwards.

Team Europe and Team North America are comprised of players from multiple Hockey Federations. Best-on-best by definition requires full access be granted to each Hockey Federation to select from their players. Team USA in particular are denied access to their players. Thus, the 2016 World Cup cannot meet the necessary conditions to qualify as a best-on-best tournament.

Here are some other differences from typical international competition. There are no medals. There is no prize for finishing 2nd or 3rd. The 2016 World Cup is a winner take all tournament with a 3 game playoff for the Championship. It will be played on an ice surface that NHL players are used to. I think the 2010 Olympics were far more exciting because of the smaller ice surface and faster pace compared to the style played on the wider European rinks.

The IIHF WHC doesn't count as best-on-best. The best players are still playing in the NHL playoffs, by definition the World Hockey Championship doesn't qualify either and I still enjoy it.

I'm a hockey fan for life, hockey transcends borders. This tournament is likely the best assembly of talent on teams #1-8 that we've ever seen. We could see some very special memories at this tournament, even if it has an asterisk attached to the historical record.

 

[Don Corleone]

I just don't get how does the World Cup not qualify as a best on best tournament? It has all the top nations. Slovakia, Switzerland or whoever are not top nations. If the argument is that the U23 team doesn't give access to all players then that is a fairly weak argument. There is not a single player that Canada would have picked to their team from the U23, McDavid is the only possibility but I very much doubt he would have made it. Team USA most likely would have taken Gaudreau. Saad and Gostisbehere could have made it. Thats about it. So its not a best on best because the US didnt get to pick 3 players? They might have left them out regardless. Or maybe the reason is that there are the 2 bonus teams but even then they only make it even more of a best on best tournament as much more talented players get to play. If those teams would be replaced by two other national teams the tournament would have less talent. Maybe its because some of you don't consider this a official international tournament. That is perfectly fine but it stil that does not change the fact that the best are indeed playing against the best.

 

[JackSlater]

These tournaments qualify as best-on-best: 1972 Summit Series, Canada Cups, 1996 and 2004 World Cup, and Olympics starting in 1998 and onwards.

The Summit Series only had two teams. Doesn't really match with actual best on best tournaments (it wasn't a tournament), or at least not much more than the Challenge Cup and Rendezvous 87.

I just don't get how does the World Cup not qualify as a best on best tournament? It has all the top nations. Slovakia, Switzerland or whoever are not top nations. If the argument is that the U23 team doesn't give access to all players then that is a fairly weak argument. There is not a single player that Canada would have picked to their team from the U23, McDavid is the only possibility but I very much doubt he would have made it. Team USA most likely would have taken Gaudreau. Saad and Gostisbehere could have made it. Thats about it. So its not a best on best because the US didnt get to pick 3 players? They might have left them out regardless. Or maybe the reason is that there are the 2 bonus teams but even then they only make it even more of a best on best tournament as much more talented players get to play. If those teams would be replaced by two other national teams the tournament would have less talent. Maybe its because some of you don't consider this a official international tournament. That is perfectly fine but it stil that does not change the fact that the best are indeed playing against the best.

You explained both of the reasons in your post already. Canada and USA cannot pick from their whole group of players, while other nations can. Imbalanced, and renders Canada and USA not national teams but O24 teams. I also strongly suspect that your speculations on who Hockey Canada and USA would have picked are wrong, as Hockey Canada is in love with McDavid and in addition to the American named you mentioned, USA's GM literally asked the NHL for permission to take Eichel.

The other reason is that best on est in a hockey context naturally means that the tournament is being contested between nations. If your only criteria is literally "the best are plying against the best" then you must consider the whole NHL "best on best" hockey, which is a rather unique position to take.

 

[Gary Nylund]

I would say Gaudreau does, I think he is already a better player then Phil.

I watch them play and Johnny appears to have more tricks in his bag then phil does.

Gaudreau is the biggest loss for the U.S from this under 23 team, he's a game breaking talent and they are going to miss him.

You're right, you could certainly argue that Gaudreau>Kessel, I'm probably just looking for any excuse to LOL at team USA for not picking Phil and considering they were dumb enough (IMO at least) to do that, it's not certain they would have selected Gaudreau. Feel sorry for USA fans.

I just don't get how does the World Cup not qualify as a best on best tournament? It has all the top nations. Slovakia, Switzerland or whoever are not top nations. If the argument is that the U23 team doesn't give access to all players then that is a fairly weak argument. There is not a single player that Canada would have picked to their team from the U23, McDavid is the only possibility but I very much doubt he would have made it. Team USA most likely would have taken Gaudreau. Saad and Gostisbehere could have made it. Thats about it. So its not a best on best because the US didnt get to pick 3 players? They might have left them out regardless. Or maybe the reason is that there are the 2 bonus teams but even then they only make it even more of a best on best tournament as much more talented players get to play. If those teams would be replaced by two other national teams the tournament would have less talent. Maybe its because some of you don't consider this a official international tournament. That is perfectly fine but it stil that does not change the fact that the best are indeed playing against the best.

That's about the size of it. The way I see it, the people who really really don't like the fact that this tournament is taking place are looking for any reason to tear it down so they will yell loudly that it's not a best on best and technically, they're right. You're also right - the difference is so small, basically you could say that this 99% best on best. People like me who don't have a problem with this tournament taking place and are just looking forward to some excellent hockey being played say OK so it's technically not best on best, whatever, should be awesome hockey, when do the games start?

 

[Theokritos]

The way I see it, the people who really really don't like the fact that this tournament is taking place are looking for any reason to tear it down

Which one is the cause and which one is the effect?

 

[FiLe]

What is best-on-best? Well, there is a very simple binary logic puzzle that should answer that...

1. Finland vs. Sweden (both with all their best players available). Is this a game in a best-on-best event?
-YES it is: It's a matchup between two nations with their best players.
-NO it isn't: Well... no, it really is.

2. Finland vs. Team Europe. Is this a game in a best-on-best event?
-YES it is: It still features teams that both have top players in it.
-NO it isn't: Both teams are not national teams.

3. Team Europe vs. Team North America. Is this a game in a best-on-best event?
-YES it is: It still features teams that both have top players in it.
-NO it isn't: Both teams are not national teams.

4. Team Europe vs. Pittsburgh Penguins. Is this a game in a best-on-best event?
-YES it is: It still features teams that both have top players in it.
-NO it isn't: Both teams are not national teams.

5. Pittsburgh Penguins vs. San Jose Sharks. Is this a game in a best-on-best event?
-YES it is: It still features teams that both have top players in it.
-NO it isn't: Both teams are not national teams.

6. Finland vs. Pittsburgh Penguins. Is this a game in a best-on-best event?
-YES it is: It still features teams that both have top players in it.
-NO it isn't: Both teams are not national teams.


If you answer "YES" to question 2, you can't answer "NO" to any of the questions 3-6. Similarly, if you answer "NO" to question 2, you can't answer "YES" to questions 3-6.

Ergo if the World Cup is best on best, the NHL is too. But if the NHL is not best on best, then the World Cup is not either.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Which one is the cause and which one is the effect?

Not sure what you're asking here, sorry.

 

[Canuckistani]

I just don't get how does the World Cup not qualify as a best on best tournament? It has all the top nations. Slovakia, Switzerland or whoever are not top nations.

Slovakia made the Olympic semifinal in 2010 and went to the WHC final in 2012, while Switzerland took Canada to a shootout in Vancouver and went to the WHC final in 2013. They're not on par with Canada or Russia but they deserve to be in the top-8.

If the argument is that the U23 team doesn't give access to all players then that is a fairly weak argument. There is not a single player that Canada would have picked to their team from the U23, McDavid is the only possibility but I very much doubt he would have made it.

It's only by pure luck that Canada isn't being completely screwed over by Bettman's lunacy this time.

The same rules in 2010 would have denied Canada Drew Doughty (best D-man), Jonathan Joews (top points scorer) and Sidney Crosby (winning goal in the final). The same rules in 1987 would have meant no Mario Lemieux, while in 1984 it would have denied Canada Wayne Gretzky, Ray Bourque, Paul Coffey, Mark Messier and Glen Anderson among others.

Team USA most likely would have taken Gaudreau. Saad and Gostisbehere could have made it. Thats about it. So its not a best on best because the US didnt get to pick 3 players?

Those three players include their #2 guy in points (Gaudreau) and their #3 in goals (Saad). That's no small loss.

Face it, it's a disgraceful handicap being arbitrarily applied to two teams. The NHL could have at least given Canada and USA the first pick of their U-24s and then let the joke team pick from those left over.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Slovakia made the Olympic semifinal in 2010 and went to the WHC final in 2012, while Switzerland took Canada to a shootout in Vancouver and went to the WHC final in 2013. They're not on par with Canada or Russia but they deserve to be in the top-8.

It's only by pure luck that Canada isn't being completely screwed over by Bettman's lunacy this time.

The same rules in 2010 would have denied Canada Drew Doughty (best D-man), Jonathan Joews (top points scorer) and Sidney Crosby (winning goal in the final). The same rules in 1987 would have meant no Mario Lemieux, while in 1984 it would have denied Canada Wayne Gretzky, Ray Bourque, Paul Coffey, Mark Messier and Glen Anderson among others.


And Jack Eichel (who the US asked the NHL to make available).

Those three players include their #2 guy in points (Gaudreau) and their #3 in goals (Saad). That's no small loss.

Face it, it's a disgraceful handicap being arbitrarily applied to two teams. The NHL could have at least given Canada and USA the first pick of their U-24s and then let the joke team pick from those left over.

Yikes! Nicely done, drives home the point that the U24 gimmick team is a really dumb idea. I think the vast majority of people agree with this and also believe that this mistake won't be repeated in the future. Hopefully the next World Cup will have 8 national teams!

 

[Canuckistani]

Yikes! Nicely done, drives home the point that the U24 gimmick team is a really dumb idea. I think the vast majority of people agree with this and also believe that this mistake won't be repeated in the future. Hopefully the next World Cup will have 8 national teams!

While we have no idea how McDavid might have performed for Canada at this event (at the WHC he scored the gold medal winner vs a Finland team that included 10 of their World Cup picks), we know exactly what kind of damage the U-24 rule would have done to past Canadian teams.

And I don't see an end to the gimmick insanity in 2020 since there is no way the NHL is going to pay for a qualifying tournament so that more non-NHLers can compete next time.

The best hope we have is that the U-24 and Europe teams get absolutely shelled so that Bettman's excuse for including them ("competitive hockey") isn't allowed to ruin another tournament.