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

[Conspiracy Theorist]

My only complaint is that this tournament might be too short and one bad game at the start can cost you the whole tournament.

 

[Theokritos]

Not sure what you're asking here, sorry.

You suggested the arguments brought up against the tournament are only brought up because some people "are looking for any reason to tear" the tournament down. My question is: Why do you think those people are against the World Cup in the first place if not for the reasons they have brought up here?

I think the arguments are what WC rejection is based on, not the other way round.

 

[Gary Nylund]

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.

I really doubt we'll see the gimmick teams next time around. They'll probably just pick the best 6 or 8 national teams, they don't need a qualifying tournament to do that.

You suggested the arguments brought up against the tournament are only brought up because some people "are looking for any reason to tear" the tournament down. My question is: Why do you think those people are against the World Cup in the first place if not for the reasons they have brought up here?

I think the arguments are what WC rejection is based on, not the other way round.

Maybe I expressed myself poorly. I think what I really meant to say was that some people just hate the fact that this tournament is happening and for that reason, they make a really big deal out of things that aren't that big a deal (at least in my opinion). "It's not best on best" is one example. To me, it's technically best on best but it's so close to it that it's not a big deal. Another example is that it's not "a true international tournament" because of the gimmick teams. Again, while technically true (depending on how you define international), the overall quality of hockey might be even better than it would if there were 8 national teams so for some, this format might be even better.

I would prefer no gimmick teams, just 6 or 8 national teams but as it is, it could still be a really amazing tournament and as long as the hockey is great, that's 99% of what's important to me. JMHO.

 

[Theokritos]

I think what I really meant to say was that some people just hate the fact that this tournament is happening and for that reason, they make a really big deal out of things that aren't that big a deal (at least in my opinion).

See, that's what I meant. You're getting cause and effect mixed up:

According to you:

1) Some people just hate the fact that this tournament is happening...
⇒ Hatred of the tournament is the primary factor, the cause of 2)

2) ...and for that reason, they make a big deal out of things that aren't a big deal
⇒ The arguments are just secondary factors, the effect of 1)

That leaves us with the unanswered question of what the cause for the hatred of the tournament is. What you fail to consider is that the issues that aren't a big deal in your opinion could be a big deal in the eyes of others. People don't bring up secondary issues because they hate the tournament, they hate the tournament because of the very issues you consider negligible since they happen to consider them essential.

Sorry if my post comes across a bit schoomasterly, I couldn't figure out any other way to word it to make my point clearer than before. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, no question, but let's not act as if the opponents of the World Cup hate it just because and their arguments are just pretense.

 

[FiLe]

I really doubt we'll see the gimmick teams next time around. They'll probably just pick the best 6 or 8 national teams, they don't need a qualifying tournament to do that.

This simply emphasizes the question as to why they had to include them this time. There was absolutely nothing stopping them from taking seeds #7-8 for the 2016 edition, as qualifiers are not indeed needed, yet they chose to go with two gimmicks instead.

I know it makes sense from the economic perspective (helps them cut costs), but from the fan perspective it's nothing but counter productive. Now you have a vocal group of fans roasting them about it at every opportunity. However, how many of those who don't really mind the inclusion of the gimmicks would have done the same had there been two true NTs instead?

 

[JackSlater]

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.

I said this in the other thread, but here are the players that Canada would have missed out on in actual best on best tournaments had such a rule been in effect:

1976 Canada Cup - Potvin, Gainey, Gare, McDonald

Canada loses its second best defenceman (and arguably second best player in the tournament) in Potvin, along with depth forwards. The forwards would be easy enough to replace, but Potvin would be a huge loss. Canada probably still wins the tournament on the strength of probably its most talented roster ever, but losing Potvin would hurt.

1981 Canada Cup - Gretzky, Bourque, Hartsburg, Linseman, Reinhart

1984 Canada Cup - Gretzky, Bourque, Anderson, Coffey, Messier, Sutter, Fuhr, Yzerman

1987 Canada Cup - Mario Lemieux, Dineen, Hextall, Claude Lemieux, Tocchet

1991 Canada Cup - Dejardins, Fleury, Lindros, Shanahan

1996 World Cup - Lindros, Niedermayer, Jovanovski

1998 Olympics - Pronger

2002 Olympics - Brewer, Gagne

2004 World Cup - Heatley

2006 Olympics - Nash, Bouwmeester

2010 Olympics - Crosby, Doughty, Toews

2014 Olympics - Tavares, Duchene

At the very least three best on best tournaments (1984, 1987, 2010) very likely have their results changed if this rule was always in effect. Even for those who say that McDavid would only be 13th forward on Canada (which may well be true) consider the role that Toews played in 2010. Toews started off in that ole, rose through the roster an ended up as Canada's top forward. Before the tournament no one thought he as a big factor, but Canada likely loses without him. USA of course is losing more than Canada is.

On a side note, the 1984 Young Gunz would have probably been favourites against team Canada O24.

 

[Gary Nylund]

See, that's what I meant. You're getting cause and effect mixed up:

According to you:

1) Some people just hate the fact that this tournament is happening...
⇒ Hatred of the tournament is the primary factor, the cause of 2)

2) ...and for that reason, they make a big deal out of things that aren't a big deal
⇒ The arguments are just secondary factors, the effect of 1)

That leaves us with the unanswered question of what the cause for the hatred of the tournament is. What you fail to consider is that the issues that aren't a big deal in your opinion could be a big deal in the eyes of others. People don't bring up secondary issues because they hate the tournament, they hate the tournament because of the very issues you consider negligible since they happen to consider them essential.

Sorry if my post comes across a bit schoomasterly, I couldn't figure out any other way to word it to make my point clearer than before. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, no question, but let's not act as if the opponents of the World Cup hate it just because and their arguments are just pretense.

I'm not "failing to consider", quite the opposite in fact. I'm pointing this out and stating my opinion which is that these issues aren't that big (at least not as far as their effect on the quality of hockey goes).

I'm not saying this applies to you necessarily but there are some people for whom the quality of hockey doesn't seem to be an issue, for them, the tournament is simply not worth watching and they're even encouraging others to boycott it because reasons such as:

- they don't like the fact that it's called the World Cup (how dare they)
- the gimmick teams (which I don't like either but hardly means it won't be worth watching)
- the teams aren't truly national
- etc.

All I'm saying is that while I don't like the gimmick teams either, I don't think that means the tournament has no value to hockey fans at all. If the quality of hockey is fantastic, isn't that still worth something? Maybe even worth a lot? It is to me, I'll be watching and I hope it's awesome!

This simply emphasizes the question as to why they had to include them this time. There was absolutely nothing stopping them from taking seeds #7-8 for the 2016 edition, as qualifiers are not indeed needed, yet they chose to go with two gimmicks instead.

It was just a bad decision IMO. These things happen, who knows what their thinking was.

I know it makes sense from the economic perspective (helps them cut costs), but from the fan perspective it's nothing but counter productive. Now you have a vocal group of fans roasting them about it at every opportunity. However, how many of those who don't really mind the inclusion of the gimmicks would have done the same had there been two true NTs instead?

That's a good question. I've noticed some people who won't be satisfied with anything less than all the best NHL players at the Olympics or the WHC but how big their numbers are I really don't know.

 

[JackSlater]

This simply emphasizes the question as to why they had to include them this time. There was absolutely nothing stopping them from taking seeds #7-8 for the 2016 edition, as qualifiers are not indeed needed, yet they chose to go with two gimmicks instead.

It boggles my mind that anyone regurgitates the NHL's garbage excuse. That the NHL needed to use gimmick teams because there wasn't enough time to hold a qualifying tournament for the last two spots is like me ******** on your bathroom floor and saying that I had to because I didn't have enough time to clean the toilet before I used it.

There was never a qualifying tournament before. Why did this edition require one?

Why would the decision only arbitrarily apply to the 7th and 8th seeds?

Why could the tournament not have six teams if this was a problem?

 

[Gary Nylund]

Tt boggles my mind that anyone regurgitates the NHL's garbage excuse. That the NHL needed to use gimmick teams because there wasn't enough time to hold a qualifying tournament for the last two spots is like me ******** on your bathroom floor and saying that I had to because I didn't have enough time to clean the toilet before I used it.

There was never a qualifying tournament before. Why did this edition require one?

Why would the decision only arbitrarily apply to the 7th and 8th seeds?

Why could the tournament not have six teams if this was a problem?

I haven't been following all that closely - did the NHL actually say that? If so then

I would bet quite a bit that if and when they have a World Cup without gimmick teams be it 6 or 8 teams or whatever there won't be any qualifying tournament.

BTW, thx for the post about the players who wouldn't have been available for Team Canada etc., that was very interesting.

 

[Theokritos]

I'm not "failing to consider", quite the opposite in fact. I'm pointing this out and stating my opinion which is that these issues aren't that big (at least not as far as their effect on the quality of hockey goes).

And yet you suggest that

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

and that

some people just hate the fact that this tournament is happening and for that reason, they make a really big deal out of things that aren't that big a deal (at least in my opinion).

You're of course entitled to think of these issues as peanuts, but you don't seem to acknowledge that some people genuinely consider them major issues of decisive character. "Genuinely consider" as opposed to "they just hate the tournament for whatever reason and subsequently make a big deal out of small flaws".

I'm not saying this applies to you necessarily but there are some people for whom the quality of hockey doesn't seem to be an issue, for them, the tournament is simply not worth watching and they're even encouraging others to boycott it because reasons such as:

- they don't like the fact that it's called the World Cup (how dare they)
- the gimmick teams (which I don't like either but hardly means it won't be worth watching)
- the teams aren't truly national
- etc.

This definitely and fully applies to me.

 

[Gary Nylund]

And yet you suggest that

and that

You're of course entitled to think of these issues as peanuts, but you don't seem to acknowledge that some people genuinely consider them major issues of decisive character. "Genuinely consider" as opposed to "they just hate the tournament for whatever reason and subsequently make a big deal out of small flaws".

This definitely and fully applies to me.

I've acknowledged it several times, I just think some people are making waaaaaaay too much of these "issues". I'm not sure how much more clear I can be on this point. I just think that these issues are not so important that they render the quality of hockey irrelevant. This is a hockey tournament for crissakes, how is the quality of hockey not relevant?

That's what I mean when I say some people are making a big deal out of "small flaws" - it's not that the issues aren't valid or relevant or whatever, it's just that the quality of hockey is also very important and when that doesn't matter at all to you, it's my strong opinion that you have your priorities are messed up.

If repeat - This is a hockey tournament for crissakes, how is the quality of hockey not relevant?

 

[Theokritos]

That's what I mean when I say some people are making a big deal out of "small flaws" - it's not that the issues aren't valid or relevant or whatever, it's just that the quality of hockey is also very important and when that doesn't matter at all to you, it's my strong opinion that you have your priorities are messed up.

It's understood that's your opinion. It's just that you made it sound like some people hate the tournament regardless of any of the reasons brought forward by them, so that these reasons are something they pretty much make up just to throw as much dirt as they can.

 

[Gary Nylund]

It's understood that's your opinion. It's just that you made it sound like some people hate the tournament regardless of any of the reasons brought forward by them, so that these reasons are something they pretty much make up just to throw as much dirt as they can.

I understand the problems some people have with this tournament and in many cases, I agree with them. I just think that when people say that it's not worth watching and they're encouraging others to boycott etc., that's a huge over-reaction. It's should still be a great tournament despite it's obvious flaws and there should be some great hockey played. Like I said, if people don't watch, fine, it doesn't bother me at all as they're the ones missing out. I also think that as the tournament goes on, fan interest will go up and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if some of the more ardent haters tuned in at some point.

 

[FiLe]

I understand the problems some people have with this tournament and in many cases, I agree with them. I just think that when people say that it's not worth watching and they're encouraging others to boycott etc., that's a huge over-reaction.

Look, the point is to not make this happen again - to have a genuine NT tournament the next time they organize the World Cup. And the best way to affect that decision is to affect their income. Don't watch, don't give them better ratings, don't buy their tickets, don't buy pay TV packages, and so on... Yes, we may be too little to really make a visible dent, but at least we've tried.

But if we simply run our mouths and then tune in and watch anyway, do you think all the complaining will make any kind of difference from the suits' POV?

 

[Gary Nylund]

Look, the point is to not make this happen again - to have a genuine NT tournament the next time they organize the World Cup. And the best way to affect that decision is to affect their income. Don't watch, don't give them better ratings, don't buy their tickets, don't buy pay TV packages, and so on... Yes, we may be too little to really make a visible dent, but at least we've tried.

But if we simply run our mouths and then tune in and watch anyway, do you think all the complaining will make any kind of difference from the suits' POV?

Fair enough. I don't think this boycott will have any effect in that way and that next time there won't be any gimmick teams anyway but I respect you taking a stand if that's what you want to do. You'll miss some good hockey though.

 

[JackSlater]

If repeat - This is a hockey tournament for crissakes, how is the quality of hockey not relevant?

The quality of hockey is indeed relevant to the entertainment value. It isn't relevant to questions like "is this a best on best tournament" or even "is this an international tournament" though?

Fair enough. I don't think this boycott will have any effect in that way and that next time there won't be any gimmick teams anyway but I respect you taking a stand if that's what you want to do. You'll miss some good hockey though.

What boycott? Some people are not going to watch. There is no organized effort to boycott the tournament. Anyone who thinks that a handful of people tuning in or not will affect the tournament at all is also clearly wrong. The average, casual fan will decide how popular the tournament is, not random posters on this website.

 

[FiLe]

Anyone who thinks that a handful of people tuning in or not will affect the tournament at all is also clearly wrong. The average, casual fan will decide how popular the tournament is, not random posters on this website.

Yeah. I sure figure my one-man protest likely won't do any good. I said as much. It's more principle than anything.

 

[JackSlater]

Yeah. I sure figure my one-man protest likely won't do any good. I said as much. It's more principle than anything.

I don't think that anyone who isn't watching thinks that they are having any impact. From what I've seen, some people seem to think that people who are not watching are delusional in that way though.

 

[xxxx]

I've acknowledged it several times, I just think some people are making waaaaaaay too much of these "issues". I'm not sure how much more clear I can be on this point. I just think that these issues are not so important that they render the quality of irrelevant. This is a tournament for crissakes, how is the quality of not relevant?

That's what I mean when I say some people are making a big deal out of "small flaws" - it's not that the issues aren't valid or relevant or whatever, it's just that the quality of is also very important and when that doesn't matter at all to you, it's my strong opinion that you have your priorities are messed up.

If repeat - This is a tournament for crissakes, how is the quality of not relevant?

Absolutely agreed. quality is absolutely important. To anyone saying "this is not a serious tournament", this is a matter of opinion, and I am polite here. What amazes me the most is not only that quality of seems to be irrelevant for some, but that whether players itself think and prepare for the tournament as like it is a serious tournament, doesn't matter either. The dumbest of all arguments is that "their opinion about it is dishonest". Yeah, let's be delusional and paranoid now. Have anyone ever thought about it that they could really, really feel excited and thrilled for the tournament? That they actually really, really care? Seems that no, some people here pretty much ruled that out, which is behing completely dishonest about reality, but to each to his own.

 

[Theokritos]

Have anyone ever thought about it that they could really, really feel excited and thrilled for the tournament? That they actually really, really care? Seems that no, some people here pretty much ruled that out, which is behing completely dishonest about reality, but to each to his own.

I'm not going to say they won't take it seriously, but don't tell me you think they take it as seriously as they would take a proper international tournament without gimmick teams. Ask Connor McDavid whether he would rather play for Team Canada or Team North-America Under 24. Ask yourself if it would mean more to you to play for your country or for a supra-national team of random countries.

Or in the words of two players of "Team rest of Europe":

Anže Kopitar: "Just the thought of being part of a World Cup would be a very fun experience."

A "very fun experience", sure. But not more.

Mark Streit: "It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. I’m not a big fan of it, not at all. I think it’s a nations tournament and you want to play for your country and you take pride in it every Olympics and every World Cup."

 

[Seanaconda]

If the nhl keeps going to the Olympics I have no problems keeping the gimmick teams. Instead of just having Olympics 2.


If they pull out of the Olympics change it to the Olympic format.

If they keep going to the Olympics
To make north Americans happy just change theirs so team north America has no age limit but picks after team canada and the states so they can't say they didn't have the option to pick their best possible teams.

And for as many people not excited for the gimmick teams I see lots that are most interested by them. So idk different folks different strokes.

 

[snipes]

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.

Fair point, I think you're right the 1972 Summit Series was only between two teams (exhibition games between Canada v Sweden notwithstanding). Two teams is more of a series rather than a best-on-best tournament.

I don't think that anyone who isn't watching thinks that they are having any impact. From what I've seen, some people seem to think that people who are not watching are delusional in that way though.

Perhaps there is a lack of understanding from both sides. Many people who are "boycotting" the event seem to think people who want to watch are being fooled or are somehow having the wool pulled over their eyes. We know it's gimmicky.

I've got lots of respect for guys like you, Mr Writer, and FiLe to name a few who don't want to watch (I can't recall if you are on the bandwagon fully or not, pardon my ignorance if you are planning to watch). I think you guys are missing out on what could be the best assembly of talent at a single tournament. The criticisms against this tournament are valid and I agree with them. They still don't convince me that it makes this tournament unwatchable. I think it will be very exciting hockey.

Maybe since we've reached consensus around here that the 2016 World Cup of Hockey will have an asterisk attached to the historical record, it can make this tournament more enjoyable to watch for some.

 

[Gaps]

I won't watch this tournament and will keep on voicing my opinion against it because I want my conscience to be clear once the NHL decides to pull out of the Olympics, and because Gary Bettman seems to believe he has the right to redefine international hockey. It's about principle and taking a stand for what I believe in.

 

[xxxx]

I'm not going to say they won't take it seriously, but don't tell me you think they take it as seriously as they would take a proper international tournament without gimmick teams. Ask Connor McDavid whether he would rather play for Team Canada or Team North-America Under 24. Ask yourself if it would mean more to you to play for your country or for a supra-national team of random countries.

Or in the words of two players of "Team rest of Europe":



A "very fun experience", sure. But not more.

People see what they want to see. I personally believe there is no point arguing with people with opinions like yours. No matter what, you will believe they are not taking it really seriously, so I won't really bother. I mean, is it worthy to show you an interview with Crosby where you can CLEARLY tell what his opinion about the tournament is? I don't think so. You will make up your own mind, even if you can tell he's honest, but who am I, you know better than me when he's honest and when he's not. I also don't know what you want the players to say about the tournament, other than they've been saying. When they say "it's gonna be fun" you say "only fun, nothing more?" and when they actullay say more, like Sid or countless other players (even from teams NA and Europe) you say that they're actually not feeling that way, right? if this is not a proof that you see what you want, I don't know what is.


People seem to not understand the attitude professional players have. Of course McDavid would rather play for Canada if given the choice, but that doesn't mean that when he wears team NA jersey that he won't be playing as hard and that he isn't excited.. The same for Kopitar. That's just a thing people don't understand. The players play because of the game, not just only because they want to represent their country and that is the only goal in their careers, as it seems from posts like yours. They want to play the game because it's fun, because they love it and they want to be winners. I have no doubts that all the 184 players at this tournament will be motivated as much as in any other top game. Feel free to disagree. But you will be proven wrong immediately when the first pre-tournament games happen.

And then... honest question - have you ever heard players saying "it's going to be a fun experience" about the olympics?

 

[Theokritos]

No matter what, you will believe they are not taking it really seriously, so I won't really bother.

I believe they will take it seriously. Just not as seriously as they would take a proper international.

You will make up your own mind, even if you can tell he's honest, but who am I, you know better than me when he's honest and when he's not.

For the record, I never said anything about any player not being honest. Perhaps other people did, but I didn't.

The players play because of the game, not just only because they want to represent their country and that is the only goal in their careers, as it seems from posts like yours.

I didn't say it's the only goal in their careers.

I have no doubts that all the 184 players at this tournament will be motivated as much as in any other top game.

Including Mark Streit who has publicly bad-mouthed the whole thing? Well yes, I guess we're going to disagree.

And then... honest question - have you ever heard players saying "it's going to be a fun experience" about the olympics?

No, I haven't. Instead I have heard them saying things like the Olympics are the "holy grail" of hockey and the like.