2016 World Cup?

[Rocko604]

10 teams, 2 groups of 5, one based in North America, the other in Europe.

Once the group games have been played, the two group winners get a bye and are ranked #1 and 2 respectively. The rest of the teams are re-seeded, 3 vs 6, 4 vs 5 in quarterfinal games. This way there can be some crossover from the group stage. Winners move on to play 1 and 2 based on their seeding. First tiebreaker is goal differential.

Only problem with this format though is the playoff round will have to be played in North America as the re-seeding will have teams crossover from their groups. Where as in 2004, I believe two quarterfinal games were played in Europe.

 

[johnny_rudeboy]

8 teams, 2 groups, no elimination from the group. QF, SF then a final.

Games are played in Canada in Montreal and in the USA in Pittsburgh.

Group Canada includes.
Canada
Russia
Switzerland
Czech republik

Group USA includes
USA
Sweden
Finland
Slovakia

Each country play 2 friendly games with their best players on home ice before the tournament starts to get the buzz going. But this tournament will be played on NHL sized rinks in NA but at times that will suit the European audience. Make it work.

 

[Rocko604]

8 teams, 2 groups, no elimination from the group. QF, SF then a final.

Games are played in Canada in Montreal and in the USA in Pittsburgh.

Group Canada includes.
Canada
Russia
Switzerland
Czech republik

Group USA includes
USA
Sweden
Finland
Slovakia

Each country play 2 friendly games with their best players on home ice before the tournament starts to get the buzz going. But this tournament will be played on NHL sized rinks in NA but at times that will suit the European audience. Make it work.

Hate to say it, but the NHL does not care one bit about the European audience. Games will be played at 8pm ET, maybe at 3pm ET if on a weekend.

 

[v-man]

To me 3 is tournaments is too much. It's too concentrated. Let's say 2016 WC, 2018 Olympics, where the heck does the World Championship fit in? Maybe 2016 WC, 2017 World Chamipionship, 2018 Olympics, 2019 World Championship, 2020 WC, 2021 World Championship, 2022 Olympics, etc.

The thing is the World Cup is not an officially sanctioned tournament, it's purely a money maker for the NHL/NHLPA. What happens there has no affect on international rankings, and as such, it wouldn't make sense to forgo World Championships in those years. The only way to change that would be for the World Cup to expand to 16 teams and become an officially sanctioned IIHF event, but do you think the NHL owners would be willing to part with a sizable chunk of the revenue? I doubt it.

 

[Rocko604]

The thing is the World Cup is not an officially sanctioned tournament, it's purely a money maker for the NHL/NHLPA. What happens there has no affect on international rankings, and as such, it wouldn't make sense to forgo World Championships in those years. The only way to change that would be for the World Cup to expand to 16 teams and become an officially sanctioned IIHF event, but do you think the NHL owners would be willing to part with a sizable chunk of the revenue? I doubt it.

The Women's World Championship is not played in Olympic years, so why can't the men? If there is a World Cup, I'd like to see the NHL partner up with the IIHF and have the World Championship moved to September in World Cup years, but call it the World Cup. That way, you get a 16 team best on best tournament, and the NHL makes money.

 

[Stats01]

The thing is the World Cup is not an officially sanctioned tournament, it's purely a money maker for the NHL/NHLPA. What happens there has no affect on international rankings, and as such, it wouldn't make sense to forgo World Championships in those years. The only way to change that would be for the World Cup to expand to 16 teams and become an officially sanctioned IIHF event, but do you think the NHL owners would be willing to part with a sizable chunk of the revenue? I doubt it.

To be quite honest, who gives a **** if the tournament is sanctioned by the ****ing IIHF. I am so sick of all the politics. If Canada wins the 2014 Olympics, 2016 World Cup who do you think is the best country in the world? Canada! But according to the IIHF the tournament wouldn't count..yeah of course it wouldn't..it's totally B.S and I don't understand why people worry so much about what rankings the damn IIHF have.

When you're ranking system values the Olympics and the World Championships the same you know it's flawed.

Sorry went on a rant there. The NHL and IIHF should just get in a room, get a deal done and get all this crap figured out.

 

[jekoh]

Two such made up polyglot teams? At least here in Europe that would probably interest absolutely nobody.

lol @ NA being "polyglot"

 

[v-man]

To be quite honest, who gives a **** if the tournament is sanctioned by the ****ing IIHF. I am so sick of all the politics. If Canada wins the 2014 Olympics, 2016 World Cup who do you think is the best country in the world? Canada! But according to the IIHF the tournament wouldn't count..yeah of course it wouldn't..it's totally B.S and I don't understand why people worry so much about what rankings the damn IIHF have.

When you're ranking system values the Olympics and the World Championships the same you know it's flawed.

Sorry went on a rant there. The NHL and IIHF should just get in a room, get a deal done and get all this crap figured out.

The IIHF has wanted to hammer things out for years, the NHL is the one unwilling to compromise. They seem to forget that it's only because of IIHF player transfers than they can continue to be the unquestionably best hockey league in the world. And whether you like it or not, international tournaments, rankings and their participants are based on events run by their governing bodies. For some reason though a few hockey fans seem to think that an NHL exhibition tournament should have more clout. In any other major sport in the world such an opinion would be nothing short of laughable.

But like I said earlier, moving the start of the NHL season up a month to align with the rest of the hockey world would fix everything and make every World Championship a potential best on best tournament. So far, I've yet to hear a single good argument from the NHL as to why this couldn't and shouldn't be done.

 

[Hammer Time]

Crazy idea: NHL ditches the All-Star Game (which no one seems to care for) with a mid-season international tournament. A Canada-USA match can be hosted in different NHL arenas every year. So instead of having West vs. East, Team Chara vs. Team Alfie, or NA vs. Europe, you have actual national "A" teams on the ice against each other. Revenues will be split between NHL, NHLPA, HC, and USA Hockey at some rate that will negotiate. At the same time, a tournament in Europe involving the top teams, with revenues shared between NHL owners and European hockey federations. Perhaps it could count as the 5th Euro Hockey Tour event?

Maybe after that gets boring, different combinations of teams can be used ... for instance, USA tours Europe to play a series of friendlies, with Russia coming to North America to play Canada a la 1979 Challenge Cup, etc.

That way, you have NHL/NHLPA getting their money, players get to represent their countries and fans get to watch their national teams every year, and we don't need to have hockey tournaments in the middle of the summer when players often decline. However, since there isn't an actual World Cup involving all the hockey powers, the Olympics will still have that "special" feeling, just like the World Cup still has special significance even though there is so much more international play in soccer.

 

[the4thlinegrinder]

It would be cool to have a best on best with North American ice every 4 years and one with European ice every 4 (assuming the World Cup final is played in NA).

 

[nutbar]

I don't know how well this would fly but any chance they let the smaller countries team up; ie a Slovenia/Norway squad?

How about a Czech-slovene-slovakia?

 

[Theokritos]

Mixed teams from "smaller countries" is the worst idea ever. That's so far from reality, no-one is going to go for that, not a single country. Would the Toronto Maple Leafs team up with the Montreal Canadiens to have a joint team? Unthinkable and it's even more unrealistic with countries who are proud of their identity and sovereignty.

 

[Jacksonbobson]

8 teams isn't enough. This Olympics has proved that the lower teams have things to offer hockey tournaments. Watching Slovenia win its first Olympic hockey game, was such a treat.

 

[Wolf357]

Yes I know this would never happen....but it would be fun to speculate a world cup with 18 teams including.
Team Atlantic Canada
Team Quebec
Team Ontario
Team Western Canada (Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and the territories)
Team British Columbia
Team North East U.S.A
Team Midwest USA
Team West Coast USA
Team USA...All other States

 

[Shrimper]

One day I hope to see Great Britain at one of this events, either World Championship, Olympics or World Cup.

 

[OttawaRoughRiderFan*]

I disagree... I think its disappointing to have a best-on-best international competition only once every 4 years because it doesn't feel like there's enough time for the teams to gel and be playing at their best. I feel like if you took an above-average NHL team completely intact and put them head to head against any of the teams in the Olympics in the quarterfinals, the NHL team would probably win. And that's not what we want to see-- we want to see these teams be playing their best.

Would be great if there was a World Cup in the summer olympics years, and then maybe in the non WC/Olympics years they could have a few international exhibition games in the pre-season as well. I also wouldn't mind if we saw the All Star game be replaced with a Canada vs USA game.

Once every 2 years is too much for me. Look at the WC. It comes once a year and no one cares. Once every 4 years seems right.

 

[Brewster]

Canada
USA
Sweden
Russia
Slovakia
Czech Republic
Switzerland
Finland

8 Teams is perfect, every single nation has a chance to win. When you start throwing in clubs like Latvia and Norway the competition is diluted.

 

[King King]

16 teams based on current IIHF rankings (not sure if this has been updated post-Sochi yet).

Sweden
Finland
Canada
Russia
Czech Republic
USA
Switzerland
Slovakia
---
Norway
Latvia
Germany
France
Denmark
Slovenia
Belarus
Austria

I don't know if the exposure of this tournament would have a quantifiable effect on growing the game. I do like watching those teams, but I feel like 16 would be too many teams, and 8 would provide a more intense and competitive tournament.

Personally I'd love to see the World Cup become a more regular and prestigious event.

 

[Pominville Knows]

Just curious, does Garth Snow comment like he did if JT gets hurt in a NHL run WC?

Is it still a farce, a joke?

Garth Snow is a farce, the guy is an amateur just like was in net.

 

[v-man]

Canada
USA
Sweden
Russia
Slovakia
Czech Republic
Switzerland
Finland

8 Teams is perfect, every single nation has a chance to win. When you start throwing in clubs like Latvia and Norway the competition is diluted.

Really? Latvia seemed to do a hell of a lot better than that Slovakian squad you got on your list. No one scored more goals against both gold medal finalists than the Latvians, and unlike the Slovaks and their 7-1 trouncing from the US and loss to lowly Slovenia, Latvia was a contender in every single game.

 

[coolboarder]

I have had a thought on two formats that they could use. I would like to see the qualifying tournament being used except for the top 5 teams in the world automatically in the tournament. I would like them to use 2004 World Cup format where they let each country host a home game rather than one nation hosting like soccer does.

The World Cup needs time so they could play their games in late August/September and give players enough time to recover from the jet-lag so a month worth of tournament instead of 2 weeks tournament.

Both format: two groups, or 8 teams with two groups. One format consists of Canada and USA paired together in one group and another format where Canada and USA are separated in another group.

If they want to have each nation hosting a home game, then they could do the following:

8 nations, 4 teams group, 3 home and 3 away. Canada and the USA could visit two European countries play two away games and one game in USA and the European team could play 2 away games in North America. This way, this help to raise the profile of the game in Europe to be on a notice where the biggest and the most high-profiled team visiting the Europe and let the European fans a chance to see their own favorite NHL stars in person once every 4 years on a World Cup stage.

Another format they could separate the Canadian and the USA and the North American travels to the Europe to play 3 away games in a row then have the home game for 3 games in a row.

The schedule could look like this if this is 2004 WC. If we group the North American together.

August 28th, Canada at Slovakia, USA at Russia
August 30th, Canada at Russia, USA at Slovakia
September 1st, Slovakia at Russia
September 2nd, Russia at Slovakia
September 5th, USA at Canada
September 6th, Canada at USA
September 8th, Russia at USA, Slovakia at Canada
September 10th, Russia at Canada, Slovakia at USA

The teams will be given a 6-day rest to travel back to the North America. No Exhibition games.

Top team in each group host a home-game in the semi-final playoff against the runner-up in a cross-over but that game must be 5-6 days between the final game of the round robin to allow for the travel with rest and recover and another 6 days for the final to be hosted for the winner take all finals. So the maximum total games could be 8 games, just like Summit Series, 8 games. Bottom two of each group are eliminated.

This type of format will let the fans of hockey to see a team play in their own nation for three games and raise the profile of the game of hockey in their own nation. The fans would get to see the effect of the small ice surface. 2004 WC was played in the small ice and it doesn't seem to hurt the quality of the game.

We have the technology and ability to travel forth and back much better than it was a decade ago.

 

[Wolf357]

16 teams based on current IIHF rankings (not sure if this has been updated post-Sochi yet).

Sweden
Finland
Canada
Russia
Czech Republic
USA
Switzerland
Slovakia
---
Norway
Latvia
Germany
France
Denmark
Slovenia
Belarus
Austria

I don't know if the exposure of this tournament would have a quantifiable effect on growing the game. I do like watching those teams, but I feel like 16 would be too many teams, and 8 would provide a more intense and competitive tournament.

Personally I'd love to see the World Cup become a more regular and prestigious event.

What happened to Kazakhstan? They seemed to be a growning hockey country and was in the mix a few years ago. Hard to believe France, Denmark, And Austria is ahead of them in IIHF rankings.

 

[source]

16 teams.

Pot 1: USA, Russia, Canada, Sweden
Pot 2: Finland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Switzerland
Pot 3: Latvia, Slovenia, Norway, Austria
Pot 4: Germany, Denmark, Italy, Belarus

Did I leave any decent Pot 4 caliber nations out?

Italy isn't the top16 team it once was. Replace with France.

 

[Hoser]

The IIHF has wanted to hammer things out for years, the NHL is the one unwilling to compromise. They seem to forget that it's only because of IIHF player transfers than they can continue to be the unquestionably best hockey league in the world.

A laughable assertion.

And whether you like it or not, international tournaments, rankings and their participants are based on events run by their governing bodies. For some reason though a few hockey fans seem to think that an NHL exhibition tournament should have more clout. In any other major sport in the world such an opinion would be nothing short of laughable.

The NHL makes more money than every other hockey league in the world, combined. That's why they have more clout. The NHL holds de facto power over all hockey in North America.

 

[modofan]

8 teams, no round robin.

QF's decided in advanced based on ranking (and perhaps lottery).

Best out of three games all the way to the final.

Worst case: 9 games per team. Perhaps best out of 5 in the final?