Better format for next World Cup

[Tuoppi]

I doubt Ralph wants to quit his job as Southampton chairman. NHL is a big thing but so is Premier league.

 

[garbageteam]

Looking at the dismal numbers and level of attention the finals had gotten I think there is no question the gimmick teams were an absolute farce. Europe performed great and their story was admirable - and I like many of the players on that team - but they were an absolute farce to the tournament. I'm positive Canada-Sweden would have garnered better numbers, even with the same scorelines.

If they don't want this to be another drudging failure, it's obvious where they should start.......... It's pretty embarrassing and shambolic that the NHL can frankenstein two teams of NHL-B-Allstars to beat up on traditional hockey powers aside from Canada (Team NA was so laughably better than team USA it's an utter joke)

 

[JackSlater]

Some random observations:

- I'm decidedly not a fan of the two gimmick teams, but the air was really let out of the tournament when NA U24 failed to qualify for the semi's. The excitement level started fairly high with the Canada/US exhibition games, peaked at NA U24/Sweden, then fell dramatically. The lack of "buzz" and excitement around the tournament during the playoff round was palpable, around the workplace, bars/restaurants, in the media...anecdotally speaking focus and attention for sports fan turned pretty rapidly to the Blue Jays' wild card run. This lack of buzz, and the empty seats at the ACC and poor turnout for fan events in Toronto became part of the story of this tournament.

- This problem was difficult to foresee, but could have been avoided if they had given a bye to the top team from each group and had the 2nd and 3rd ranked teams cross-over in a QF. The final games for some teams was rendered meaningless as they had no hope of qualifying and only one game mattered on the last of the round robin. You would want better momentum heading into the playoff round.

- The quality of play from the limited amount of action I saw was good, maybe not up to my personal expectations from previous Canada/World Cups and post-Nagano Olympics but certainly not bad. Canada seemed sloppy and somewhat complacent in the final, which is unfortunate.

- Ralph Krueger deserves an NHL coaching gig. Come to think of it, Columbus may be requesting resumes in a few months....

- If the NHL truly wants to host a best-on-best tournament in lieu of the Olympics, the gimmick teams need to go. Drop in the #7 and #8 ranked teams per the IIHF rankings (we all know who they are), and you're done. Allow the teams to name whoever the h*** they want to their rosters - KHLers, Russian wife beaters, 19-year old phenoms...don't limit it to NHLers. Don't put out the possibility of someone playing against their own country, it's not credible. I'd be all for a wider tournament field - 10, 12 teams - but acknowledge it would be tricky to qualify the bottom teams into the tournament unless they went with the straight IIHF rankings. The costs probably outweigh the benefits on that one.

- If the NHL is leery of a bunch of unknown Slovaks and Swiss dirtying up their fine tournament, drop them and go with a 6-team tournament with a round robin, plus semi-finals and finals.

- If the NHL really, really wants the eight teams involved to showcase NHL talent but also sees Switzerland and Slovakia as cannon fodder, then: 1) keep Team Europe (begrudgingly); and 2) keep Team NA U24, but give Team Canada and Team USA right of first refusal on any under-24 players. This is critical in my view. I personally wouldn't attach as much meaning to it as as the previous Canada/World Cups and post-Nagano Olympics, but it would be something I could enjoy and get into. I prefer my other two options above though. Call me a traditionalist.

- I've always been a fan of the best of three finals, but it didn't seem to work this time around. Obviously Canada was the heavy favourite and there was little doubt about the outcome if we're all honest about it, but that's no reason to scrap it. It's worked very well in the past, particularly in 1996. I'd say keep it.

- The exhibition game schedule could be reduced by one game to accommodate the additional QF games under my scenario.

- Hold the tournament in two relatively proximate cities - Calgary & Edmonton, Quebec & Montreal, Montreal & Ottawa, Toronto & Hamilton....Babcock was right when he said that all games should have been played at night, as the non-Canadian/US/NA U24 games happening during the day seemed like a bit of an afterthought.

Overall, I'm hoping the NHL learns from their mistakes this time around and fixes things up in time for 2020. The gimmick teams courted a lot of unnecessary controversy when they were announced, which was a tough way to kick things off for a tournament reboot. The safer play would have been to go with the simpler, traditional format that has worked well in the past.

This is all true. The World Cup has some advantages, and has been great in the past. Drop the gimmick teams, sounds like the NHL should also re-introduce quarterfinals, and there you go. That tournament is superior to the Olympic tournament. It doesn't happen with the gimmicks though.

 

[Orange Dragon]

- Hold the tournament in two relatively proximate cities - Calgary & Edmonton, Quebec & Montreal, Montreal & Ottawa, Toronto & Hamilton....Babcock was right when he said that all games should have been played at night, as the non-Canadian/US/NA U24 games happening during the day seemed like a bit of an afterthought.

If you want to make the World Cup relevant in Europe you either schedule games at hours friendly to them or rotate tournament between NA and Europe.

 

[JackSlater]

If you want to make the World Cup relevant in Europe you either schedule games at hours friendly to them or rotate tournament between NA and Europe.

Ideally the tournament would just rotate between being held in North America and being held in Europe. That seems very unlikely though.

 

[Xokkeu]

I think the NHL will hold at least the next one in Canada, but eventually they'd like to host in Europe to give it legitimacy there.

 

[Confucius]

Ideally the tournament would just rotate between being held in North America and being held in Europe. That seems very unlikely though.

Europe wouldn't draw flies for this type of tournament. NHL would be bleeding more money than just going to the Olympics.

 

[JackSlater]

Europe wouldn't draw flies for this type of tournament. NHL would be bleeding more money than just going to the Olympics.

That's why I doubt that the NHL will go there any time soon. As a fan though, that isn't my concern. Even holding it in the United States would be turning away millions at the gate, I suspect.

 

[Confucius]

That's why I doubt that the NHL will go there any time soon. As a fan though, that isn't my concern. Even holding it in the United States would be turning away millions at the gate, I suspect.

I saw somewhere, Daly or Bettman said they are going to have a bidding process for the next World Cup. That should be interesting.

 

[Preisst*]

I don't know why Canadians find international hockey so boring. They seem to be the only ones.

I know I like hockey with a lot of physical play. Body checks galore. This Money Cup sorely lacked in this area.

 

[Crayton]

What would be the best method for the NHL to stage a qualifying tournament? Obviously taking the IIHF rankings or World Championship results would be one way; but what if the NHL wanted to 'own' the "European Cup" as well?

The qualifier would likely have to be at the same time, September, the year prior, 2019. Holding it in the summer just cuts into the off-season too much. Hold it IN Europe, obviously. How many teams, venues?

The other "plus" of holding it the year before allows the NHL time to cobble together a "Team Europe" if they did want to resurrect that beast.

Do you stage a US-Canada Superseries to whet appetites for those teams too?

Also, drop "World" from the title if the gimmick teams are in.

 

[hammerwielder]

Get rid of the damn gimmick teams. I've been beating that drum here since that stupid format was announced and the ridiculous final matchup bore that out in spades. I got great seats for the final for $40 because of that idiotic decision by the suits. It made a mockery of international hockey and its storied history.

If it's strong teams they're after, make it a six-team tournament based on the world rankings. That leaves the minnows out of it entirely. Then a full round-robin so everybody has to play everyone else at least once. Top four make the semis with the traditional best of three final.

I just realized that this was the original Canada Cup format. It's still the best and shouldn't have been messed with.

That way the NHL would have a superior level of competition to that in the Olympics. The latter tournament is in my view ruined by having too many weak teams, too many groups, quarter-finals that all too often knock out one of the top teams (Russia, the Czechs and Slovakia were all knocked out in Sochi in the quarters or in the case of Slovakia even before the quarters), and gold medal game participants that may have faced only two of the top six teams. Canada won Sochi without having to play Russia, the Czechs or Slovakia. Meanwhile Canada got to cruise through the tournament by beating the likes of Norway, Austria and Latvia (the latter only by a third-period goal). To win the gold, we only had to beat the US and Sweden.

 

[Tuoppi]

I personally like to watch the underdogs the Norways, Latvias and Denmarks and hoping they do well.

 

[DNA]

I just realized that this was the original Canada Cup format. It's still the best and shouldn't have been messed with..

Except there were no semis in '76. I agree, 6 teams, 5 round-robin games, and EITHER semis & a 1-game final, OR just a best-of-3 final between the top 2, would have been the answer for this tournament.

Of course the real answer would have been maintaining the Canada Cup every 4 years, with it's original trophy that other nations craved, and building on its solid structure and legacy.

Can't believe I long for the days of Alan Eagleson... but that's what a guy like Gary Bettman does to guys like me.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Bolded part is probably true, but in order to get into Team Europe the player would have to be a pretty good player and play in the NHL. Therefore he would already be fairly well known among anyone that could possibly be interested in that player being selected to Team Europe and thus helped out as much in getting people interested in hockey as possible. I have a hard time believing that anyone in for example France who doesn't already follow Bellemare in the NHL would get excited about hockey because he was selected to Team Europe. Same goes for Slovenia and Kopitar.

Yeah you're probably right. I guess I got excited at the thought of an Estonian playing on Team Europe and in my excitement forgot about the road he'd have to travel to get there.

Some random observations:

- I'm decidedly not a fan of the two gimmick teams, but the air was really let out of the tournament when NA U24 failed to qualify for the semi's. The excitement level started fairly high with the Canada/US exhibition games, peaked at NA U24/Sweden, then fell dramatically. The lack of "buzz" and excitement around the tournament during the playoff round was palpable, around the workplace, bars/restaurants, in the media...anecdotally speaking focus and attention for sports fan turned pretty rapidly to the Blue Jays' wild card run. This lack of buzz, and the empty seats at the ACC and poor turnout for fan events in Toronto became part of the story of this tournament.

- This problem was difficult to foresee, but could have been avoided if they had given a bye to the top team from each group and had the 2nd and 3rd ranked teams cross-over in a QF. The final games for some teams was rendered meaningless as they had no hope of qualifying and only one game mattered on the last of the round robin. You would want better momentum heading into the playoff round.

- The quality of play from the limited amount of action I saw was good, maybe not up to my personal expectations from previous Canada/World Cups and post-Nagano Olympics but certainly not bad. Canada seemed sloppy and somewhat complacent in the final, which is unfortunate.

- Ralph Krueger deserves an NHL coaching gig. Come to think of it, Columbus may be requesting resumes in a few months....

- If the NHL truly wants to host a best-on-best tournament in lieu of the Olympics, the gimmick teams need to go. Drop in the #7 and #8 ranked teams per the IIHF rankings (we all know who they are), and you're done. Allow the teams to name whoever the h*** they want to their rosters - KHLers, Russian wife beaters, 19-year old phenoms...don't limit it to NHLers. Don't put out the possibility of someone playing against their own country, it's not credible. I'd be all for a wider tournament field - 10, 12 teams - but acknowledge it would be tricky to qualify the bottom teams into the tournament unless they went with the straight IIHF rankings. The costs probably outweigh the benefits on that one.

- If the NHL is leery of a bunch of unknown Slovaks and Swiss dirtying up their fine tournament, drop them and go with a 6-team tournament with a round robin, plus semi-finals and finals.

- If the NHL really, really wants the eight teams involved to showcase NHL talent but also sees Switzerland and Slovakia as cannon fodder, then: 1) keep Team Europe (begrudgingly); and 2) keep Team NA U24, but give Team Canada and Team USA right of first refusal on any under-24 players. This is critical in my view. I personally wouldn't attach as much meaning to it as as the previous Canada/World Cups and post-Nagano Olympics, but it would be something I could enjoy and get into. I prefer my other two options above though. Call me a traditionalist.

- I've always been a fan of the best of three finals, but it didn't seem to work this time around. Obviously Canada was the heavy favourite and there was little doubt about the outcome if we're all honest about it, but that's no reason to scrap it. It's worked very well in the past, particularly in 1996. I'd say keep it.

- The exhibition game schedule could be reduced by one game to accommodate the additional QF games under my scenario.

- Hold the tournament in two relatively proximate cities - Calgary & Edmonton, Quebec & Montreal, Montreal & Ottawa, Toronto & Hamilton....Babcock was right when he said that all games should have been played at night, as the non-Canadian/US/NA U24 games happening during the day seemed like a bit of an afterthought.

Overall, I'm hoping the NHL learns from their mistakes this time around and fixes things up in time for 2020. The gimmick teams courted a lot of unnecessary controversy when they were announced, which was a tough way to kick things off for a tournament reboot. The safer play would have been to go with the simpler, traditional format that has worked well in the past.

I doubt the NHL will ever allow players suspended from the NHL to play in a tournament organized by the NHL but everything else I agree with, really nice post. I think they will indeed get it right the next time. We all make mistakes but no reason to think the NHL is dumb enough to f..k it up twice in a row.

 

[DNA]

We all make mistakes but no reason to think the NHL is dumb enough to f..k it up twice in a row.

 

[jfc64]

Maybe "B"-teams could raise the question of best hockey nation further. And up the ante as well. USA would not want to lose to a canadian b-team etc. With the format below you could keep the interest of best national team as well as getting a look at as many quality players as possible.

Two groups: One where the best team in the "second division", the "Montreal" standings advances to the "Toronto" division next World Cup and the worst team in "Toronto" is demoted to "Montreal" in four years! We are not done yet! The first and second team in "Montreal" get's to play the second and first team in "Toronto" in the QUARTERFINALS! (8 teams) Not the same country! The two last teams in "Montreal" play for their lives in one final game!

Group "Toronto"

Canada A
Sweden A
Russia A
Czechia
U.S.A A
Finland


Group "Montreal"

Canada B
Sweden B
Russia B
U.S.A. B
Slovakia
Switzerland

Last team in "Group Montreal" is demoted and replaced by a nation who earned it somehow.


Possible match-up in quarterfinals:

Canada A - U.S.A. B
U.S.A A - Canada B
Sweden A - Finland
Russia A - Czechia

Canada A - Russia A
Canada B - Sweden A

Canada A - Sweden A


And in 2024:

"Toronto"

Canada A
Sweden A
Russia A
Canada B
U.S.A A
Czechia

"Montreal"

Finland
U.S.A. B
Sweden B
Russia B
Switzerland
??