Better concept for the World Cup

[JackSlater]

and this my friends, is why secretly, all sports teams love scalpers. Because there are 3000 tickets for USA-Europe that were sold at face value that are now listed as low as $15. People trying offload like 10% of the venue and who know how many have already sold.

You missed the memo that this tournament will be judged on the NHL's profits. Since the tickets were already sold, it doesn't matter that demand is relatively low. The NHL already made its money. Successful tournament.

 

[gwh]

This guy doesn't understand how ticket sales work. Love when someone thinks they are countering my point, but actually strengthen my position. Amazing how that works.

This guy doesnt understand that the stands will look like the last NA-CZ game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLz7ZDzE8pE

The fill rate was about 10% in lower bowl in Toronto. You have to wait half the game for panorama shot though...

 

[mattihp]

This guy doesnt understand that the stands will look like the last NA-CZ game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLz7ZDzE8pE

The fill rate was about 10% in lower bowl in Toronto. You have to wait half the game for panorama shot though...

Wow. And this game still has McDavid..

 

[gwh]

Wow. And this game still has McDavid..

And the main Finnish newspaper on USA-Europe game: "The game was not a large success with the spectators, the hall was less than half full"

Joke tourney, can't even fill the barn for one of the home teams.

Edit: Found the spectator numbers. Attendance 18,959 at Air Canada Centre

Now that s a blatant lie if there ever was one.
http://www.nhl.com/scores/htmlreports/20162017/GS060101.HTM

 

[Xokkeu]

And the main Finnish newspaper on USA-Europe game: "The game was not a large success with the spectators, the hall was less than half full"

Joke tourney, can't even fill the barn for one of the home teams.

Edit: Found the spectator numbers. Attendance 18,959 at Air Canada Centre

Now that s a blatant lie if there ever was one.
http://www.nhl.com/scores/htmlreports/20162017/GS060101.HTM

How many tickets sold most likely.

 

[mjlee]

Is Canada being this dominant and slaughtering the other teams really a good thing for the WC? It already has good/great viewership and media coverage in Canada. But if the US go out in the group stage (which is a real possibility) a lot of interest will vane in the US which is the market the WC presumably targets. The European/Russian fans are obviously not the focus for the WC as they do not add to NHL revenue so that means Canada will roll over all the other teams, lessening the interest of non-Canadian fans. But the Canadian market has limited growth potential since it's already almost tapped out. Worst case scenario, it turns into the WJC which is A Very Big Thing in Canada while other countries care much, much less. And the WJC is a true national tournament moving between Canada and Europe.

It does make you wonder about the idea of placing future WC outside NA/Canada. It won't work and the teams will play in front of half empty buildings and presumably the revenue will suffer greatly. You also run into the same problem with time zones as when the Olympics are in Sochi, Torino etc. I doubt that non-american/canadian sponsors will be interested in buying adspace in Europe nor broadcast right. So the only solution is to have it permanently in Canada, with some games played in the US which negates the entire concept of a World Cup Which is fine, just call it, I don't know, the NHL Cup, the North America cup, or even the Canada Cup, or something like that. Just be honest about the tournament.

Granted the Kiddies will probably be gone if they hold it again, but you run into the same problems with the Leftovers as this time. I know that there is talk about a qualification round next time, but this will have to be played during the NHL season, ergo the teams you want to have because of their NHL stars/players will not be qualify, because said players will not be on the national team, hence weakening them. And the qualified teams will be a disaster since they will consist mainly of players from domestic leagues that have already begun their season and will definitely not want to accomodate the NHL.

Relying on one country to provide the bulk of the interest, even if it's Canada is dangerous. In a short tournament like this, it's not impossible for Canada to lose. Which would be a disaster for the WC.

 

[Xokkeu]

Is Canada being this dominant and slaughtering the other teams really a good thing for the WC? It already has good/great viewership and media coverage in Canada. But if the US go out in the group stage (which is a real possibility) a lot of interest will vane in the US which is the market the WC presumably targets. The European/Russian fans are obviously not the focus for the WC as they do not add to NHL revenue so that means Canada will roll over all the other teams, lessening the interest of non-Canadian fans. But the Canadian market has limited growth potential since it's already almost tapped out. Worst case scenario, it turns into the WJC which is A Very Big Thing in Canada while other countries care much, much less. And the WJC is a true national tournament moving between Canada and Europe.

It does make you wonder about the idea of placing future WC outside NA/Canada. It won't work and the teams will play in front of half empty buildings and presumably the revenue will suffer greatly. You also run into the same problem with time zones as when the Olympics are in Sochi, Torino etc. I doubt that non-american/canadian sponsors will be interested in buying adspace in Europe nor broadcast right. So the only solution is to have it permanently in Canada, with some games played in the US which negates the entire concept of a World Cup Which is fine, just call it, I don't know, the NHL Cup, the North America cup, or even the Canada Cup, or something like that. Just be honest about the tournament.

Granted the Kiddies will probably be gone if they hold it again, but you run into the same problems with the Leftovers as this time. I know that there is talk about a qualification round next time, but this will have to be played during the NHL season, ergo the teams you want to have because of their NHL stars/players will not be qualify, because said players will not be on the national team, hence weakening them. And the qualified teams will be a disaster since they will consist mainly of players from domestic leagues that have already begun their season and will definitely not want to accomodate the NHL.

A hockey tournament in September is never going to be big in the states. The NHL was stupid to think that team USA could take losing their young talent but even dumber is going against college football, the NFL and baseball stretch run.

 

[mjlee]

A hockey tournament in September is never going to be big in the states. The NHL was stupid to think that team USA could take losing their young talent but even dumber is going against college football, the NFL and baseball stretch run.

Oh I agree, but that leaves only Canada with major sponsor/broadcast/fan interest and source of revenue. When the viewing numbers for the WC in the US when/after the US team crashes out are revealed, I doubt that the NHL will be able to sell broadcast and ad rights for the same price as this time around. Sponsors are not dumb. And if there are already WC (non-Canadian) games not selling out in the Mecca of hockey, Canada then you have major problems. The optics of games not filling their seats is a pretty terrible one for the NHL and will further lower the value of broadcast and sponsor rights.

This is not the Olympics where, despite the sparce attendance, the source of revenue is world wide (same with the FIFA WC) and thus will not lower the value. And the Olympics again move around the world, generating worldwide excitement. Creating that kind of interest in only 1 (Canada) and 1/2 (the US) countries will hurt the WC significantly.

 

[NyQuil]

As much as it pains me to say as a Canadian who always wants gold, the best thing for the World Cup would have been for Finland to win it in 2004.

Finland is a hockey mad country that needs that "best on best" championship to establish a record of success.

They represent the best candidate to cultivate European credibility in the tournament.

Unfortunately, the gimmick teams represent a step backward in overall credibility even if the quality of the hockey is good.

Still, as long as Canada continues to win, it'll largely continue to be seen as the Canada Cup and not a true "World" Cup.

 

[XokkeyGuy]

Still, as long as Canada continues to win, it'll largely continue to be seen as the Canada Cup and not a true "World" Cup.

Yeah, that's the sad reality. I can accept Canada as the only hockey power right now because of their 2 recent olympic victories and the 2 WC's, which proves them to be good at all stages. However, replace those olympics (think that USA and Sweden won those 2 instead) and the canadiens takes home this World Cup, I wouldn´t really "accept" them as the current best team because of this tournaments biased past (and perhaps present, we find out).
Canada are always hosting it, always small rink, NA-refs and NHL decides everything and on top of that - Canada pretty much always wins this tournament.
Even though I want to accept Canada as a winner, those factors are so decisive that I can not. Had another team won this tournament, a european (not team europe since its a NHL-project anyway) then I would think that it's actually maybe not that strongly biased.
This whole tournament feels to me as the Death Match - no, not as extreme, but the thought of "this isn´t even meant to be won by anyone else" circles through your mind all the time.

 

[teravaineSAROS]

Agreed. As a Finn I'd have absolutely no allegiance towards a team consisting of random Euro players and 2-3 Finns. Why in the hell should I care about a team like that? That idea's not interesting in the least, it's garbage, just like this version of the World Cup.

Right?? If I want to watch a team with 2-3 Finns i'll watch a team like Minnesota

 

[NyQuil]

Canada are always hosting it, always small rink, NA-refs and NHL decides everything and on top of that - Canada pretty much always wins this tournament.
Even though I want to accept Canada as a winner, those factors are so decisive that I can not. Had another team won this tournament, a european (not team europe since its a NHL-project anyway) then I would think that it's actually maybe not that strongly biased.

Again, Canada traditionally has always had to compete internationally with European (IIHF) refs, on large rinks and on European soil.

The reason for the Canada Cup was to allow North American teams to play a style they are used to in front of their own fans.

With the NHL becoming so much more diverse as far as nationalities of players go, it no longer really serves that purpose.

I think they are still trying to figure out if the World Cup has an identity. The gimmick teams don't help, but I'm pleasantly surprised by the quality and intensity of the hockey.

If it were up to me, I'd reserve it for the top 6 or 8 teams and change the format up a bit - allowing for a short series in the playoffs or final (like they did back in 1996), so that it would be distinct from the Olympics and World Championships.

The US winning was a milestone in their hockey history - as many current US NHLers will bring up.

Having other teams win it is ultimately beneficial in the long run.

But I don't want Canada to roll over and let it happen either.

This whole tournament feels to me as the Death Match no, not as extreme, but the thought of "this isn´t even meant to be won by anyone else" circles through your mind all the time.

You can imagine how Canadians felt when the WCs and Olympics were being dominated by the Soviet Union's "amateur" teams.

They didn't have any credibility as tournaments on this side of the ocean until Nagano in 1998.

 

[XokkeyGuy]

You can imagine how Canadians felt when the WCs and Olympics were being dominated by the Soviet Union's "amateur" teams.

What has that to do with the comparison of the death match? The fact that cccp had their best players isn´t the same thing as having your home ice, rink size and refs - especially that last point makes it irrelevant what kind of players you put on ice, which we have seen in Canada Cups. You speak of Europe as if it's some sort of alliance, Russia has no gain from any other country's refs (like german, czech, swedish, finnish etc. and the other way around) while Canada demand to play a whole tournament and olympic final with freakin home country refs. That type of behaviour will nevet legitimize their victories outside NA. The only reason why I feel Canada was deserved the last olympic gold even though there were canadien refs was the fact that they won so cleary, but in reality Sweden had no chance to win it had it been a tight game. Same thing with the Canada Cups.

 

[NyQuil]

What has that to do with the comparison of the death match? The fact that cccp had their best players isn´t the same thing as having your home ice, rink size and refs - especially that last point makes it irrelevant what kind of players you put on ice, which we have seen in Canada Cups.

Are you aware that until the World Championships were played in Canada in 2008, that they had NEVER been held in North America since 1962 (Colorado, USA) and
that Canada had NEVER EVER hosted the World Championships in its entire history since 1920?

When was Canada ever going to have its own home ice and rink size?

What about IIHF rules? Our junior hockey leagues do not play under those rules.

We had entire generations of players who were unfamiliar with how the game was played under IIHF/European refs and rules.

The World Championships were set up for European teams to succeed over North American teams.

The Canada Cup/World Cup was an opportunity to flip the advantages from European teams to the North American ones.

You speak of Europe as if it's some sort of alliance, Russia has no gain from any other country's refs (like german, czech, swedish, finnish etc.) while Canada demand to play a whole tournament and olympic final with freakin home country refs. That type of behaviour will nevet legitimize their victories outside NA.

Actually they demanded to play with professional NHL referees. Not all NHL referees are Canadian.

North America is not an alliance either.

The only reason why I feel Canada was deserved the last olympic gold even though there were canadien refs was the fact that they won so cleary, but in reality Sweden had no chance to win it had it been a tight game. Same thing with the Canada Cups.

Personally, I don't believe that NHL referees are biased but I understand that many Europeans believe this.

The quality of IIHF refereeing is so poor that it's a shame that using professional officials actually introduces a perception of bias when the alternative is an amateur level of officiating.

 

[JackSlater]

Yeah, that's the sad reality. I can accept Canada as the only hockey power right now because of their 2 recent olympic victories and the 2 WC's, which proves them to be good at all stages. However, replace those olympics (think that USA and Sweden won those 2 instead) and the canadiens takes home this World Cup, I wouldn´t really "accept" them as the current best team because of this tournaments biased past (and perhaps present, we find out).
Canada are always hosting it, always small rink, NA-refs and NHL decides everything and on top of that - Canada pretty much always wins this tournament.
Even though I want to accept Canada as a winner, those factors are so decisive that I can not. Had another team won this tournament, a european (not team europe since its a NHL-project anyway) then I would think that it's actually maybe not that strongly biased.
This whole tournament feels to me as the Death Match - no, not as extreme, but the thought of "this isn´t even meant to be won by anyone else" circles through your mind all the time.

Canada's winning percentage in Canada/World Cups: 5/7 = 71%.

Canada's winning percentage in Olympics with NHL participation: 3/5 = 60%.

Given that hockey has been more competitive in the last 20 years, those percentages are surprisingly similar. It's almost like Canada usually wins when it can bring its best players, regardless of who puts on the tournament.

 

[ForumNamePending]

As much as it pains me to say as a Canadian who always wants gold, the best thing for the World Cup would have been for Finland to win it in 2004.

Finland is a hockey mad country that needs that "best on best" championship to establish a record of success.

They represent the best candidate to cultivate European credibility in the tournament.

Unfortunately, the gimmick teams represent a step backward in overall credibility even if the quality of the hockey is good.

Still, as long as Canada continues to win, it'll largely continue to be seen as the Canada Cup and not a true "World" Cup.

I dunno... Winning always helps, and a European country winning wouldn't hurt when it comes to raising the tournament's profile in that given country, but I don't think Canada's dominance has been the major obstacle when it comes to this thing gaining significant traction in Europe. When you think about it, European sports fans seem a lot more comfortable with a competition being dominated by a select few. It's us here in NA that seem to be much more hung up on things like parity and coming up with rules and regulations that help ensure trophies don't always end up going to the same place.

I think a much bigger reason is how the tournament has been organized/run...

-Limited to a small group of nations with no (defined) qualifying.
-Always (at least the later stages) held in the same country thousands of miles and several time zones away.
-Never been organized on a consistent bases.

The tournament is lacking many of the traits that Europeans (and others) would associate with World Cups/Championships... And it certainly hasn't been trending in a direction that would make it more World Cup-ish.

I thought the "re-branding" in '96 was a nice ambitious step forward, and if the NHL and PA spent the last 20 years building off of that, they could very well have something that was a pretty big deal anywhere hockey has achieved some level of relevance.

Anyway, I think if the tournament is held again in '20 (and given it's history I'm not convinced it will be) it will be in a format pretty similar to this one. With the way ticket prices have imploded though I'm not sure if they host it all in a single city again.

 

[NyQuil]

I thought the "re-branding" in '96 was a nice ambitious step forward, and if the NHL and PA spent the last 20 years building off of that, they could very well have something that was a pretty big deal anywhere hockey has achieved some level of relevance.

Agreed that it was the right idea.

They blew it though.

The idea of "hosting" it in Europe in 2004 (one of the two divisions anyway) backfired because the playoffs were held in North America anyway, and now you had teams having to travel to play the games that mattered.

Ultimately it depends on whether the mandate was to create a respectable international tournament or make a bunch of money, I think it's pretty clear what the motive is.

Anyway, I think if the tournament is held again in '20 (and given it's history I'm not convinced it will be) it will be in a format pretty similar to this one. With the way ticket prices have imploded though I'm not sure if they host it all in a single city again.

I'm pretty sure they'll mess with the format again as they seem to have done repeatedly over the last few tourneys.

I'm not really sure what the future of the tournament is, and you may well be right that the lack of structure is impeding the building of any kind of credibility.

I dunno... Winning always helps, and a European country winning wouldn't hurt when it comes to raising the tournament's profile in that given country, but I don't think Canada's dominance has been the major obstacle when it comes to this thing gaining significant traction in Europe.

As Finland is the lone holdout among the major hockey nations not to have won a "best on best" tournament, I think you'd be surprised how vociferous their support would have been had they won it.

 

[Tuoppi]

The problem is they made these gimmick teams too good. Maybe they should have let the swiss and the slovaks have their own teams and rest of Europe would have a team and let Canada and US pick players first before team NA. They could work as a curiosity not as a serious title contender.

 

[Tuoppi]

In international play you just have to live with having some easier games. USA would face tougher competition in basketball if there were USA b and USA c but they are not even considering it (in fact USA plays with team b or c in the world cup).

 

[Rantsi]

Am I the only one who thinks it would be better if 3 teams qualified from a group instead of 2? The 1st-ranked teams would earn a direct trip to the semifinals, while the 2nd and 3rd-ranked teams would have to play quarterfinals.

Now it's possible that USA and Czech Republic will play a meaningless game. If 3 teams qualified, they would fight for the last playoff spot.