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

[Jablkon]

As far as most talented/skilled teams goes it is the closest thing yet.

I read they might do a team north America vs team Europe tournament as well. That might be more best on best than this I guess.

World championships are nowhere close and even the Olympics aren't really best on best.

And then they can choose 22 best players in the world and we can stop compete once we finally realize which is the best team.

The best of best came from situation where best players werent available for tourney. Since then every tourney which allows all the players to play for their team is called BOB. But it is not part of the definition of int tourney and it does not certainly mean best of best hockey, which is complete misinterpretation and nonsense. You can not even guarantee smth. like best hockey.

International tourney is tourney between states, i.e. teams under national federations who represents this sport in each state. Anything else is just twisted interpretation. Other constructed teams belong to all star or other invitational/exhibition tournaments.

It could be nice tourney and quite an interesting addition to int. games, but common, you want int. hockey to rely upon smth like this? It is the private NHL thing, nothing more...It just targets audience who wants to watch it.

Btw, everybody speaks about BOB hockey which is complete nonsense IMO, as I tried to explain above. Even if I accept this theory, who said that FIN-SWE U 24 is not better than NA U 24 and should be there instead of them?

I dont mind who TE and NA U24 represent because, at first, there are no criteria to even allow them to be there, except rating and money....

 

[Gary Nylund]

If that happens, I will at least tip my hat to the player who does it. And no, I don't expect it to be All-Star game level. I just used it as an example of when players are playing for an imaginary team.

There are 6 national teams which at least will have no problem with giving everything they got. I expect the great hockey mostly from these teams.

I'm not saying the glitch teams will play just for laughs. I'm just not expecting them to have that over-the-top motivation. There is an NHL season coming very shortly after this tournament. At least I wouldn't risk my day job for an imaginary team. The IIHF WHC has one extremely good side in it: timing. The players who go there are on the brink of their offseason, so they can leave everything on ice without risking THAT much.

Fair enough. Your point of view is not unreasonable at all, still, I think none of us can be sure of what the difference in motivation/effort etc. will be between players on the national teams and players on the gimmick teams. I'm more optimistic then you in this regard and think once the players on the gimmick teams take to the ice, they'll be playing their butts off. Maybe if they lose a couple and are no longer in contention the effort level will drop but that's true of Team Canada also. But as I said, I get where you're coming from and perhaps you'll be proven right, it's a new format, unknown territory for all of us and as with many other aspects of this tournament, we'll just have to wait and see.

And if someone does block Weber, I'll tip my hat as well be it a player on a gimmick team or not.


My answers in red.

Canadian hockey fans cheer for Team Canada. It's not like there are many fans who would otherwise not watch at all but are tuning in because there's a team that is 50% Canadian.

Which has nothing to do with my original point.

Basketball has the Olympics and World Cup every four years. Soccer has the World Cup and regional events. Cricket and rugby have their own World Cups. The only thing that comes close to the NHL's idea is the West Indies team in cricket.

Just as I thought, there aren't many examples of similar events where this World Cup format would even be possible. My point stands - the Ryder Cup is a perfectly valid example of an event that assembles a team from many countries and it works, the players are hoping they are picked for the team, are very motivated when they play and fans love the format. This would seem to prove that the idea that players/fans would not be motivated playing for such multi-national teams is false. It doesn't mean that this format will work equally well in hockey, it just means that writing it off as something that has no hope of working well is overly cynical.

BTW - Olympics are irrelevant to this conversation, you do understand that national teams are the only teams allowed right?

Are you kidding?

Five nations (Brazil, Italy, Germany, Uruguay, Argentina) have won 17 of 20 World Cups and no African team has ever even made the semifinals, while only one Asian team has.

So clearly the FIFA World Cup desperately needs a Team Africa and a Team Asia at the very least.

Mexico and USA are the best of CONCACAF but never come close to the final (let alone the other minnows in the region). So we also need a Team CONCACAF.

Peru, Paraguay, Ecuador are also lacking so that's Team South America (minus Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and now Colombia and Chile, who are both quite good).

And then there are all the European teams that are good enough to qualify yet are too crappy to win: Czechs, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, Croatia, Greece, Russia, Switzerland, Bosnia, England.

So the World Cup obviously needs a Team rest-of-western Europe and a Team Eastern Europe as well.

What English fan wouldn't swell with pride at the sight of two of their players hoisting the World Cup next to a collection of Swedes, Danes, Swiss and Belgians? C'mon FIFA - embrace change!

Are you kidding? Without looking it up, I'll guess that your numbers mean 8 World Cup winners for the last 20 cups, how many hockey World Cups do you think would have to take place before we have 8 different winners. You've only helped prove my point - soccer is more competitive then hockey. And Africa ... seriously? This is a place to talk about hockey dude, Africa?!?!?

Embarrassing attempt at justifying your previous non-logic. Team Canada is in the WJC - the tournament has an age limit that requires that all players must be of a certain age. The team representing Canada represents Canada and plays within the rules of the tournament. There is no such rule in this tournament, just one team that has an arbitrary age limit, and two other teams that are impacted by it. I also want to know who exactly is represented by that team. Canadians of any age and Americans of any age already have a team - the tournament calls them "Team Canada" and "Team USA" respectively. Young Canadians and Americans are still Canadians and Americans. Is this team supposed to represent young Mexicans?

My question still remains - where is the nation "North America under 24"? If it doesn't exist, then that team is not a national team. Simple.

So you didn't explain whatever your point is, and your statement is also a non-answer to what I said. Just because the NHL picked six teams does not make them "good enough". You're using the end result as justification for itself, which adds nothing to whatever point you are trying to make. What exactly makes only six teams "good enough"?

There are positives to the tournament, that has already been admitted - training camp, best of three finals, probably some more things. The issues that have been brought up though cannot be rectified by letting things play out. It still won't be an international tournament, regardless of what happens during the tournament, and some teams will still have unbalanced restrictions placed upon them.

This is the same flawed logic that you already used. The end result doesn't prove that the result itself is valid. The NHL presents this as an international tournament by its own admission, so the NHL intends this to be a tournament for national teams. The fact that there are non-national teams indicates only that the NHL is either: 1. Lying 2. Run by complete idiots. Actually, I suppose that both choices are not mutually exclusive.

It is indeed a strawman as it mischaracterizes what has been said. As for positives, I honesty didn't notice them. I have seen it claimed that the talent level will be higher than that in an actual best on best tournament, which I agree with. Not sure if you said that. No idea what other positives there are outside of that and the training camps/best of three that I already mentioned.

This has already been explained to you. I can only speculate on why you seemingly cannot comprehend what is written for you, and re-emerge every few weeks to repeat the same idiotic points.

Your first point is idiotic and has been explained numerous times. The WJC is a tournament where all teams have an age restriction - hence the team is team Canada and can be seen to represent all people. This tournament has only one team with such a rule, and two others that are unfairly impacted by it.

Who is represented by team North America under 24? Canadians and Americans young and old already have "Team Canada" and "Team USA" in the tournament. What's left? Young Mexicans... being represented by Canadian and American players? Even the NHL knows how stupid this is, a non-national team in a supposedly international tournament, as indicated by its group structure and the removal of anthems.

No one said that North America isn't a place. Literally no one. It is, as even you admit, not a nation however. North America under 24 is not even that. In either case, it cannot be a national team. Thus, the tournament cannot even be called "international". That is the point that has been made to you repeatedly, and once again I can only speculate to myself on your inability to comprehend what is apparent reasonable people who can remember points for longer than a week or so.

I see no point in repeating myself again and again, you either don't understand or are pretending not to understand, either way, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. The NHL "designed" this tournament that has non-national teams in it, yet you keep insisting that it was "designed" for national teams ... if you can't even acknowledge the fallacy of this then I feel like

I'm guessing you have a source for this "fact"? Do you have any idea of how bad a team should be to have under a 0.5 percent chance of scoring a goal in 270 minutes of football. That's a sport that has about 2.5 goals per game. Such an atrocious team would never make it through World Cup qualifying.

And btw. a team not scoring a goal or winning doesn't mean that the bookmakers were "right" giving them preposterous odds. Somebody could have offered odds of 200 to 1 for the Sharks in the finals against the Penguins. Penguins winning the title doesn't mean that they would have been right. It would have been idiotic to offer such an easy arbitrage for anyone able to count to three.

I'm not sure where to find online odds that were posted 30 years ago but I can assure you, it is a fact that I remember quite well. And BTW, I never said the 200-1 odds were accurate or fair, I just said the odds were 200-1 so there's no reason for you to go on and on about what the odds should have been.

I did a quick search and found this old article (link below) that contains this quote:

WILSON I think it was 300–1 against us scoring a goal.

Who knows, maybe some bookmakers had it at 300-1, it's not uncommon for different book to have different betting lines. I'm quite sure though of the 200-1 line, you can guffaw all you like but yes, like it or not it is a fact.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/soccer/worl...emembering-canadas-lone-world-cup-appearance/

 

[JackSlater]

Which is why is your post dumb, since I can't see Canada U20 neither. Whether this tournament is or isn't U20 or U24 for everyone has nothing to do with "I can't circle NAU24", so don't even try it.

There must be some cognitive issue here that is difficult to break through. This has already been explained to you numerous times, even on the previous page of this thread. You could simply quote and reply to those posts... but somehow I doubt that you will. North America under 24 is not a nation, which is why you can't find it on a map. It isn't even a physical place. The Canadian WJC team is team Canada within the parameters of the WJC tournament. This frankenstein team is not impacted by the rules of the tournament - it's simply North America under 24.

I will put this in the very simplest terms for you, which seems to be absolutely necessary in your case, so that you can understand it:

North America under 24 is not a nation. Therefore the team "representing" it is by definition not a national team.

I see no point in repeating myself again and again, you either don't understand or are pretending not to understand, either way, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. The NHL "designed" this tournament that has non-national teams in it, yet you keep insisting that it was "designed" for national teams ... if you can't even acknowledge the fallacy of this then I feel like

The NHL, through Bettman and Daly, calls this tournament an international tournament. That is not my opinion, that is a fact.

https://www.nhl.com/news/world-cup-of-hockey-set-to-return-in-2016/c-750156

""A two-week, best-on-best international tournament that promises to be one of the best competitions in hockey history," NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman said in describing the vision for the World Cup."

The NHL calls this tournament an international best on best tournament. By simple definition that isn't true. Claims about what the tournament is based on what the NHL wants or attempted to do are irrelevant. World Cup tournaments are intended to be international events, just like the NHL seemingly intended here. There are still only the two options I laid out earlier: 1. The NHL lied 2. The NHL is stupid enough to not even understand what "international" means. I lean toward number one, but from reading the discussion regarding this topic I'm beginning to realize that there are people who fall into the second group (not you in this instance).

 

[xxxx]

International tourney is tourney between states, i.e. teams under national federations who represents this sport in each state. Anything else is just twisted interpretation. Other constructed teams belong to all star or other invitational/exhibition tournaments.

Perhaps you are somehow right and it's meant to be between nations. Still, I think such an event like this will be spectacular and could offer some of the best we've ever seen, which one would think should be quite important to any fan.

If the tournament wasn't labeled as "international", would that be ok?

It could be nice tourney and quite an interesting addition to int. games, but common, you want int. hockey to rely upon smth like this?

The NHL said they would want the next World Cup with national teams only, and with qualification, yet no one seems to notice, or believe, but that's rather their problem. Also, there is nothing certain about the olympics neither, even if it looks bad at this point, but with Sochi it was quite similar.

It is the private NHL thing, nothing more...It just targets audience who wants to watch it.

It targets hockey audince. Whether you watch it or not is up to you.

Also, was the 2004 World Cup a private NHL thing, in the same negative meaning as it is now for you? Or were you ok with that? I'm just saying that if it was pretty much ok in 2004, you use something originally unsignificant to now make it look like something more significant because it fits the situation.

 

[Canuckistani]

My point stands - the Ryder Cup is a perfectly valid example of an event that assembles a team from many countries and it works

It works because very few countries have a team worth of top quality golf talent that could compete. This isn't the case with hockey where we have a very clear top-eight.

We have decades of national team play which fans and players love. So what exactly is the bloody need for suddenly having players thrown into Frankenstein teams? Because golf does it?

BTW - Olympics are irrelevant to this conversation, you do understand that national teams are the only teams allowed right?

It is not irrelevant because the NHL has said that a successful world cup would be a factor in the NHL pulling out of the olympics. That will leave us with no best-on-best tournament.

Are you kidding? Without looking it up, I'll guess that your numbers mean 8 World Cup winners for the last 20 cups, how many hockey World Cups do you think would have to take place before we have 8 different winners. You've only helped prove my point - soccer is more competitive then hockey. And Africa ... seriously? This is a place to talk about hockey dude, Africa?!?!?

Africa was brought up in the context of soccer, not hockey, which I thought was painfully obvious

My point, which apparently sailed over your head, is that soccer is remarkably noncompetitive given that it's the most popular sport (by far) in the world.

Outside of a handful of countries in Europe and South America, no one has a realistic chance of winning the World Cup. So using your logic, FIFA needs to make some non-national teams in order to give other regions and countries a chance. That's why they obviously need a Team Africa, Team Asia, Team Eastern Europe, Team rest-of-Western Europe, Team CONCACAF, and Team rest-of-South-America.

If it's something that players and fans will eventually get used to and even celebrate (like your go-to example, the Ryder Cup) then why not give it a go?

But you wouldn't want to give that a chance with soccer because it's patently absurd, despite the apparent "need" to level the playing field.

 

[Gary Nylund]

The NHL, through Bettman and Daly, calls this tournament an international tournament. That is not my opinion, that is a fact.

https://www.nhl.com/news/world-cup-of-hockey-set-to-return-in-2016/c-750156

""A two-week, best-on-best international tournament that promises to be one of the best competitions in hockey history," NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman said in describing the vision for the World Cup."

The NHL calls this tournament an international best on best tournament. By simple definition that isn't true. Claims about what the tournament is based on what the NHL wants or attempted to do are irrelevant. World Cup tournaments are intended to be international events, just like the NHL seemingly intended here. There are still only the two options I laid out earlier: 1. The NHL lied 2. The NHL is stupid enough to not even understand what "international" means. I lean toward number one, but from reading the discussion regarding this topic I'm beginning to realize that there are people who fall into the second group (not you in this instance).

Fine, you can say the NHL is wrong to call this an international tournament. A bit of a nitpick IMO but technically you're right. If you want to call the NHL stupid because of this "mislabelling", that's fine too. That doesn't mean this tournament was "designed for national teams" though (this seems beyond dispute as there are teams that aren't national), it just means the NHL is wrong to label it "international".

Can we agree we're both right and just debating semantics here and move on?



Ill say it again, if it was up to me, I'd just have national teams (probably 6 teams) and leave it at that. Before dismissing the tournament as a total joke and waste of time as many seem to be doing, I'll wait and see how it plays out and I do think it won't be as bad as some are saying. I would only add that some people seem to be insulted that this is just a money grab etc. and the format is stupid etc., here's the thing, of course it's a money grab - grabbing money is what business is all about like it or not. But they didn't just pull this format out of the air, they consulted with many people including players before deciding on this format so they obviously got a fair amount of positive feedback which suggests that the idea is not as hopelessly stupid as some posters seem to think and there are some positive aspects to this format. Maybe this format isn't pleasing to many fans but it's pretty obvious that they are at least trying to please the fans (and players), after all, without the players buying in and the fans enjoying it, they won't be "grabbing" as much money as they would like to now would they.

IMO, they got it wrong, but it's also not quite the disaster some are saying. A mistake was made, they probably realize it already and the mistake will be rectified for the next World Cup. The only way this won't happen is if the format turns out to be a smashing success with both the players and the fans and if that happens, then there is no problem anyway, at least not one that I can see.

Enjoy the tournament guys, even if it's not the format you (or I) would like, it should still be great hockey and IMO anyone who considers themselves a hockey fan should at least be happy about that as we don't get the chance to see this kind of thing very often. Or if you want to not watch and boycott etc., hey knock yourself out, as far as I'm concerned it's your loss and you not watching will have no impact on my enjoying this tournament. As a fan I wouldn't miss this but if you want to make some moral stand or whatever, I can certainly respect that (even if I disagree with the premise).

 

[Jablkon]

Perhaps you are somehow right and it's meant to be between nations. Still, I think such an event like this will be spectacular and could offer some of the best we've ever seen, which one would think should be quite important to any fan.

To be perfectly honest, this tourney already draws attention among hockey enthusiasts and players in CZ. All the czech players looks excited and hockey federations took it very seriously. This could be due to our position and media predictions. Hockey fans definetely know about it, however it does not attract masses here, neither WC04 did. I have to add, it is hard to imagine it won!t be spectacular hockey if even weaker teams play over their maxim which at least czech team is planning to do (reality can be different though).

If the tournament wasn't labeled as "international", would that be ok?
I dont even have an issue with "international". Strictly saying it is not correct, but why not. My concerns starts from point where this should be only one BOB tourney. It deserves full criticism from that point in my opinion.


The NHL said they would want the next World Cup with national teams only, and with qualification, yet no one seems to notice, or believe, but that's rather their problem. Also, there is nothing certain about the olympics neither, even if it looks bad at this point, but with Sochi it was quite similar.

This is related to my last point below


It targets hockey audince. Whether you watch it or not is up to you.

Also, was the 2004 World Cup a private NHL thing, in the same negative meaning as it is now for you? Or were you ok with that? I'm just saying that if it was pretty much ok in 2004, you use something originally unsignificant to now make it look like something more significant because it fits the situation.

04 was nice because it looks like smth. different between OGs. Still you have this bitter taste that, even if part of it was held in Europe, it is a tourney wich they dont exactly know how to establish it on int. scene. It was like mix of everything,tourney all over the world. Till 91 it was clear - this is our canadian variation to best tourney. Take it if you want.

Problem is that later hockey came with smth better - i.e. BOB OGs and since that time NHL obviously struggle with World cup, because, apart form other aspect, its even hard to beat OG spirit.OG is basically tourney which everybody, maybe except some NA small ice die hard fans, like. This will probably not be the case of World cup ever.

This leads me to audience. Even if they organize OG in South Korea I will still have a feeling that it is more accesible for me than WC in Toronto (not for real reason, but it is probably the same feeling what NA fans have about WHC). this can hardly change because if they want to make big income from that, it is practically impossible to organize it in Europe with present pricing.

And I am back in that circle. OG seem like big compromise for everybody. Its not ideal but fans on both sides were satisfied. What I see right now is NHL's histerical attempt to bring smth better than OGs, which is, in my opinion, impossible (organization, ammenities will be definetely better, but you know what I am talking about). And this brings those U24 teams etc. They would look much better if they realize this fact and try to seriously think what to do with that tourney, not just test it on people. If you right, next WC will have different concept which means that its a third diff. concept in last three tourneys. It would be very bad sign in business and I dont know why such big business org. as an NHL pretends that everything is OK. Frankly NHL deserves more criticism in terms of they doing that they actually get. general less interest of NA fans in int. scene and apathy of european fans might have some role in it imo.

 

[Canuckistani]

IMO, they got it wrong, but it's also not quite the disaster some are saying.

What will ultimately decide if its a disaster or not is whether the NHL pulls out of the Olympics.

If they agree to play in 2020, 2022, etc then I couldn't care less what they do with their own event.

 

[Gary Nylund]

It works because very few countries have a team worth of top quality golf talent that could compete. This isn't the case with hockey where we have a very clear top-eight.

We have decades of national team play which fans and players love. So what exactly is the bloody need for suddenly having players thrown into Frankenstein teams? Because golf does it?

I never said there is a "bloody need" for it, I've said multiple times I'd prefer it if there were no gimmick teams. Did you somehow miss this? All I said is that there is a precedent for players from multiple nations being combined into one team and the format being a huge success, nothing more and nothing less. Please do your best to understand this as I'm done explaining this over and over again.

It is not irrelevant because the NHL has said that a successful world cup would be a factor in the NHL pulling out of the olympics. That will leave us with no best-on-best tournament.

You originally mentioned the Olympics in a completely different context, my reply was in that context, not sure why you're changing the subject now but you are becoming hard to follow.

Africa was brought up in the context of soccer, not hockey, which I thought was painfully obvious

My point, which apparently sailed over your head, is that soccer is remarkably noncompetitive given that it's the most popular sport (by far) in the world.

Outside of a handful of countries in Europe and South America, no one has a realistic chance of winning the World Cup. So using your logic, FIFA needs to make some non-national teams in order to give other regions and countries a chance. That's why they obviously need a Team Africa, Team Asia, Team Eastern Europe, Team rest-of-Western Europe, Team CONCACAF, and Team rest-of-South-America.

If it's something that players and fans will eventually get used to and even celebrate (like your go-to example, the Ryder Cup) then why not give it a go?

But you wouldn't want to give that a chance with soccer because it's patently absurd, despite the apparent "need" to level the playing field.

Now you've drifted very far away, not even going to try to follow you way out there.

What will ultimately decide if its a disaster or not is whether the NHL pulls out of the Olympics.

If they agree to play in 2020, 2022, etc then I couldn't care less what they do with their own event.

From your narrow point of view perhaps, you don't speak for everyone though. If the players play their butts off and we see some great hockey on the same level as previous Canada/World Cups and Olympics, I'll consider it a success (and so will many others). If you need to wait for what will perhaps be a long period of time to see if the NHL goes to the Olympics before deciding after the fact whether the World Cup was a success or not, hey good for you but it really makes no sense to me whatsoever.

It's also quite possible that it has already been decided whether or not the NHL will go to the next Olympics and how the World Cup plays out will have no impact on this whatsoever. There are many possible variations, nobody here can possibly know for sure what the NHL is thinking or what they have planned.

 

[cutchemist42]

People are really trying to compare the Ryder Cup this?? Jeez....

I think it says a lot that baseball would easily have done this for the WBC yet didnt and kept NTs intact despite being bad. South Africa has been allowed to play in 2 WBCs....

 

[stars33]

From your narrow point of view perhaps, you don't speak for everyone though. If the players play their butts off and we see some great hockey on the same level as previous Canada/World Cups and Olympics, I'll consider it a success (and so will many others). If you need to wait for what will perhaps be a long period of time to see if the NHL goes to the Olympics before deciding after the fact whether the World Cup was a success or not, hey good for you but it really makes no sense to me whatsoever.

It's also quite possible that it has already been decided whether or not the NHL will go to the next Olympics and how the World Cup plays out will have no impact on this whatsoever. There are many possible variations, nobody here can possibly know for sure what the NHL is thinking or what they have planned.

If all that matter was how hard the players tried than forget national teams and let's make 8 all star teams and the winner gets 100 million dollars.
The point everyone is trying to make is the fake teams do not represent a group of people. This fact alone ruins the importance of the tournament.

 

[xxxx]

04 was nice because it looks like smth. different between OGs. Still you have this bitter taste that, even if part of it was held in Europe, it is a tourney wich they dont exactly know how to establish it on int. scene. It was like mix of everything,tourney all over the world. Till 91 it was clear - this is our canadian variation to best tourney. Take it if you want.

Problem is that later hockey came with smth better - i.e. BOB OGs and since that time NHL obviously struggle with World cup, because, apart form other aspect, its even hard to beat OG spirit.OG is basically tourney which everybody, maybe except some NA small ice die hard fans, like. This will probably not be the case of World cup ever.

This leads me to audience. Even if they organize OG in South Korea I will still have a feeling that it is more accesible for me than WC in Toronto (not for real reason, but it is probably the same feeling what NA fans have about WHC). this can hardly change because if they want to make big income from that, it is practically impossible to organize it in Europe with present pricing.

And I am back in that circle. OG seem like big compromise for everybody. Its not ideal but fans on both sides were satisfied. What I see right now is NHL's histerical attempt to bring smth better than OGs, which is, in my opinion, impossible (organization, ammenities will be definetely better, but you know what I am talking about). And this brings those U24 teams etc. They would look much better if they realize this fact and try to seriously think what to do with that tourney, not just test it on people. If you right, next WC will have different concept which means that its a third diff. concept in last three tourneys. It would be very bad sign in business and I dont know why such big business org. as an NHL pretends that everything is OK. Frankly NHL deserves more criticism in terms of they doing that they actually get. general less interest of NA fans in int. scene and apathy of european fans might have some role in it imo.

I dont even have an issue with "international". Strictly saying it is not correct, but why not. My concerns starts from point where this should be only one BOB tourney. It deserves full criticism from that point in my opinion.

Fair enough.

 

[xxxx]

If all that matter was how hard the players tried than forget national teams and let's make 8 all star teams and the winner gets 100 million dollars.
The point everyone is trying to make is the fake teams do not represent a group of people. This fact alone ruins the importance of the tournament.

Yes, this is being repeaten again and again, yet it is not true whatsoever. Why? Team Europe consists of players from certain countries, so if they don't represent the whole Europe, they certainly represent at least the countries they are from. Even the players on that team have said so. Their federations will also split the prize if this team wins. Team North America U24 represents the whole North America, even if it's just U24 players.

 

[FiLe]

Team Europe consists of players from certain countries, so if they don't represent the whole Europe, they certainly represent at least the countries they are from.

Yet you argue that the players in a random all-star team would not do this.

 

[Gary Nylund]

04 was nice because it looks like smth. different between OGs. Still you have this bitter taste that, even if part of it was held in Europe, it is a tourney wich they dont exactly know how to establish it on int. scene. It was like mix of everything,tourney all over the world. Till 91 it was clear - this is our canadian variation to best tourney. Take it if you want.

Problem is that later hockey came with smth better - i.e. BOB OGs and since that time NHL obviously struggle with World cup, because, apart form other aspect, its even hard to beat OG spirit.OG is basically tourney which everybody, maybe except some NA small ice die hard fans, like. This will probably not be the case of World cup ever.

This leads me to audience. Even if they organize OG in South Korea I will still have a feeling that it is more accesible for me than WC in Toronto (not for real reason, but it is probably the same feeling what NA fans have about WHC). this can hardly change because if they want to make big income from that, it is practically impossible to organize it in Europe with present pricing.

And I am back in that circle. OG seem like big compromise for everybody. Its not ideal but fans on both sides were satisfied. What I see right now is NHL's histerical attempt to bring smth better than OGs, which is, in my opinion, impossible (organization, ammenities will be definetely better, but you know what I am talking about). And this brings those U24 teams etc. They would look much better if they realize this fact and try to seriously think what to do with that tourney, not just test it on people. If you right, next WC will have different concept which means that its a third diff. concept in last three tourneys. It would be very bad sign in business and I dont know why such big business org. as an NHL pretends that everything is OK. Frankly NHL deserves more criticism in terms of they doing that they actually get. general less interest of NA fans in int. scene and apathy of european fans might have some role in it imo.

I think you're absolutely right, the OG is what would make the most people happy. If they were able to make the final a 3 game series it would be almost perfect, that's one thing the WC has over the OG IMO but I digress ...

I'm guessing the NHL is planning on not going to the next OG (and hope I'm wrong) but the reason for this is unclear. My guess is that the IOC's decision not to cover the costs is the reason. Not that the money itself is the issue, it's the ego's involved both on the IOC committee and among the NHL owners. The IOC basically started a pissing contest which was an ill-considered and arrogant move on their part. NHL players are such a huge draw, it seems obvious the OG needs the NHL more than the NHL needs the OG so hopefully the IOC will (wisely) re-consider and the situation can still be salvaged. My point is that everyone seems to want to hold the NHL responsible for busting their dreams but it's likely that the IOC is the real villain here.

 

[stars33]

Yes, this is being repeaten again and again, yet it is not true whatsoever. Why? Team Europe consists of players from certain countries, so if they don't represent the whole Europe, they certainly represent at least the countries they are from. Even the players on that team have said so. Their federations will also split the prize if this team wins. Team North America U24 represents the whole North America, even if it's just U24 players.

You still do not get it. People have to have emotional connection to what the team represents. Not one I know feels emotional attachment to north america. They do feel an emotional attachment to there city, state, college or nation.

 

[Spartachat]

I think people under 24 with a dual US and Canadian citizenship would have an emotional attachment to the young gun squad. Now they don't have to pick between Team USA and Team Canada.

 

[JackSlater]

04 was nice because it looks like smth. different between OGs. Still you have this bitter taste that, even if part of it was held in Europe, it is a tourney wich they dont exactly know how to establish it on int. scene. It was like mix of everything,tourney all over the world. Till 91 it was clear - this is our canadian variation to best tourney. Take it if you want.

Problem is that later hockey came with smth better - i.e. BOB OGs and since that time NHL obviously struggle with World cup, because, apart form other aspect, its even hard to beat OG spirit.OG is basically tourney which everybody, maybe except some NA small ice die hard fans, like. This will probably not be the case of World cup ever.

This leads me to audience. Even if they organize OG in South Korea I will still have a feeling that it is more accesible for me than WC in Toronto (not for real reason, but it is probably the same feeling what NA fans have about WHC). this can hardly change because if they want to make big income from that, it is practically impossible to organize it in Europe with present pricing.

And I am back in that circle. OG seem like big compromise for everybody. Its not ideal but fans on both sides were satisfied. What I see right now is NHL's histerical attempt to bring smth better than OGs, which is, in my opinion, impossible (organization, ammenities will be definetely better, but you know what I am talking about). And this brings those U24 teams etc. They would look much better if they realize this fact and try to seriously think what to do with that tourney, not just test it on people. If you right, next WC will have different concept which means that its a third diff. concept in last three tourneys. It would be very bad sign in business and I dont know why such big business org. as an NHL pretends that everything is OK. Frankly NHL deserves more criticism in terms of they doing that they actually get. general less interest of NA fans in int. scene and apathy of european fans might have some role in it imo.

The World Cup has advantages over the Olympics, which is part of why the NHL's ineptitude in running the tournament is frustrating. The World Cup takes place at a time when there is a good chance that players aren't injured, allows for exhibition games and longer training camps, does not have to take place various times in countries where people couldn't care less about hockey, and it can have a best of three final. Those are all positives. Unfortunately the NHL decided to ruin its own tournament in this instance.

Yes, this is being repeaten again and again, yet it is not true whatsoever. Why? Team Europe consists of players from certain countries, so if they don't represent the whole Europe, they certainly represent at least the countries they are from. Even the players on that team have said so. Their federations will also split the prize if this team wins. Team North America U24 represents the whole North America, even if it's just U24 players.

Awesome, I didn't realize that every single NHL team represents Canada since they have players from there. Who would have thought that the criteria for representing your country simply meant existing and playing the sport, regardless of the team you play for? What an exciting opportunity for players to represent their own countrymen, even as they play against their own country's national team. Brilliant.

 

[xxxx]

I think people under 24 with a dual US and Canadian citizenship would have an emotional attachment to the young gun squad. Now they don't have to pick between Team USA and Team Canada.

Of course if this is the way of thinking than I get why people have problems with my statement

Every american and canadian is technically a north-american too, so. Whether some people somehow consider themselves as such for them to feel interested in Team North America as "their" team, I don't know, but that was never my point. My point is that the Team North America U24 represents North America. The same way Team Canada U20 represents Canada, and not canadian citizens U-20 And as far as I know, canadians and americans are north americans too, as well as people from Finland or Sweden are europeans (don't we call them EUROPEAN fans? ) HA! I don't know how many people will feel some attachment to Team NA, but I would say many will, according to posts in other sub-forums about World Cup, where you can find many people from NA who will cheer for this team right after their national team, but again, that's not my point. My point is they are north-americans, whether they feel emotional about it or not, maybe some do lol.

 

[Gary Nylund]

The World Cup has advantages over the Olympics, which is part of why the NHL's ineptitude in running the tournament is frustrating. The World Cup takes place at a time when there is a good chance that players aren't injured, allows for exhibition games and longer training camps, does not have to take place various times in countries where people couldn't care less about hockey, and it can have a best of three final. Those are all positives. Unfortunately the NHL decided to ruin its own tournament in this instance.

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.

 

[JackSlater]

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.

I've defended past editions of the Canada/World Cup from baseless complaints before. There are definite benefits to a tournament free from the scheduling and geographic constraints of the Olympics. The NHL made this tournament a farce in this instance though. If the tournament goes back to being an actual best on best tournament, I will likely to back to defending it again.

 

[Canuckistani]

All I said is that there is a precedent for players from multiple nations being combined into one team and the format being a huge success, nothing more and nothing less.

And I'm saying that a team game like hockey cannot be compared to a game of individuals like golf. Team sports don't do it and for good reason.

Now you've drifted very far away, not even going to try to follow you way out there.

I simply followed you out here:

Soccer has a ton of competitive teams so there is obviously no reason to even consider these "gimmick" teams, can we agree on that much at least?

There are relatively few top-notch soccer nations and so there's tons of room for gimmick teams if we follow the NHLs World Cup logic.

There are many possible variations, nobody here can possibly know for sure what the NHL is thinking or what they have planned.

What we know so far is what the NHL has said and Daly is on record as saying he hopes the World Cup will replace the Olympics.

Hense my worry that this gimmick nonsense will replace real best in best competition. The day the NHL commits to the Olympics is the day this World Cup idiocy ceases to matter to me.

 

[Curufinwe]

And I'm saying that a team game like hockey cannot be compared to a game of individuals like golf. Team sports don't do it and for good reason.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Indies_cricket_team

 

[Canuckistani]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Indies_cricket_team

I mentioned them in a previous post.

A small cluster of islands is somewhat of an exception.

 

[Canuckistani]

Team Europe consists of players from certain countries, so if they don't represent the whole Europe, they certainly represent at least the countries they are from.

Ask Slovak and Swiss hockey fans if they feel represented by this team.