Olympics: Bettman hints NHL won't play in 2018 and 2022

[Canuckistani]

There isn't any reason to go back to non-NHL Olympics. Just have both tournaments.

This would be ideal.

A big part of what drives European hostility to the World Cup is the notion that it'll replace the Olympics, hense they constantly point out that the WC will never equal the Olympics in terms of prestige.

This is obviously true - the WC won't equal the Olympics - but that isn't a reason why there can't be both.

I loved it back when there was SLC 2002, World Cup 2004 and Turino 2006. It was just like how soccer alternates every two years between the FIFA World Cup and UEFA Euros. No reason why hockey can't do the same.

At any rate the World Cup is easily more meaningful than the B-squads of the World Championship.

You ruined it. I wanted to see what claim would follow. Some players skipped Canada/World Cups, just like some have opted out of the Olympics (some of the players you listed were injured). Basically nothing happened to any of them.

That we KNOW OF. Who knows what the NHL secret police said or did to those poor players behind the scenes.

 

[Canuckistani]

That isn't going to happen. Going to be one or the other. If they stay in the Olympics, I don't see them bothering with a World Cup.

Perhaps, but it need not be that way.

The first World Cup in 1996 was followed by the first NHL Olympics in Nagano only two years later.

The two-year schedule was then resumed with 2002, 2004 and 2006. It seemed to work fine.

No one regards the Euro soccer championships as being equal to the FIFA World Cup, but its easily the second most important international tournament in the world (with Copa America and the Olympics lagging well behind).

If the hockey powers play their cards right, and use some common sense, we could have the same with best-on-best events every two years with the Olympics and World Cup.

 

[Eisdork]

I have the feeling this is mostly a Canadian vs Sweden/Finland discussion. So let me throw this in here as a German: I would prefer watching an NHL-sanctioned, invitation only, World Cup with NHL players and NHL referees over the same old annual WHC.

 

[Eisdork]

Also, the most important thing hockey needs in the non traditional markets is: media coverage. An international tournament with NHL players will definitely get some.
Unfortunately the Olympic tournament usually gets lost in between the coverage of all the other sports. At least here in Germany.

 

[JackSlater]

That isn't going to happen. Going to be one or the other. If they stay in the Olympics, I don't see them bothering with a World Cup.

I don't see much to support this so definitively. They have already played the World Cup once during the NHL Olympic era. If the NHL pulls out of the Olympics then they will have to give something back to the players in negotiations, and I'm skeptical that the federations will go along with the World Cup so easily if the NHL isn't willing to commit to the Olympics.

 

[alce*]

So once again, the bureaucracy is the main point (even if they are demonstrably corrupt!). Organizing body first, participants second.

I give up.

The revision regarding the first World Cup (when many of the top teams in the world couldn't be bother to participate) is funny too.

Yep. Its kind of funny, because it's probably hard to understand for Canadians, but World Cup wasn't created as commercial tournament, it was created as sport tournament to find out which nation team is the best. It haven't generated much/any profit at that time, so it's only natural that some of the teams just couldn't afford to travel to South America from Europe.

As far as artificial interest goes, I don't really see how interest impacts the tournament. I watch tournaments to see the games and results, not to check the viewership statistics from around the world. Different values I suppose.

Then there is absolutely no problem for you.

I agree that the opinions of fans in Europe (or elsewhere) are irrelevant. My issue is with large generalizations that the tournament is worthless.

I see there strange contradiction in the sentences. If something irrelevant for you, you probably shouldn't have any issues with it.

You (or even all fans Europe) not caring about a tournament doesn't make it worthless.

Of course it does. There is no such thing as innate value. Everything in this life is valuable only as much as someone value it. So if Europeans don't care for tournament then it's worthless ... for Europeans.
Please, I've repeated several times already that I don't deny that this tournament have value for Canadians, but you should probably agree that not all that you highly value should have same or even any value for us.

 

[patnyrnyg]

Perhaps, but it need not be that way.

The first World Cup in 1996 was followed by the first NHL Olympics in Nagano only two years later.

The two-year schedule was then resumed with 2002, 2004 and 2006. It seemed to work fine.

No one regards the Euro soccer championships as being equal to the FIFA World Cup, but its easily the second most important international tournament in the world (with Copa America and the Olympics lagging well behind).

If the hockey powers play their cards right, and use some common sense, we could have the same with best-on-best events every two years with the Olympics and World Cup.

When the World Cup was set-up in 96, it wasn't a foregone conclusion that the NHL'ers would be going to the Olympics. In 2004 the World Cup seemed more like a tune-up for the 06 Olympics. Plus, everyone knew it was the last time would we see NHLers for a while.

Could it work, having a World Cup followed by Olympics 2 years later? Of course, just do not think it will. If they have both, it will be viewed as the Olympics is the real tournament and the World Cup is more of a glorified audition. Over time, you would see more of the better players sit out the World Cup.

If they want to model soccer, World Cup in 2016, and do a Euro Cup in 2018, World Cup in 2020, Euro Cup in 2022.

 

[patnyrnyg]

Also, the most important thing hockey needs in the non traditional markets is: media coverage. An international tournament with NHL players will definitely get some.
Unfortunately the Olympic tournament usually gets lost in between the coverage of all the other sports. At least here in Germany.

Is it the other events or is it because Germany has absolutely no chance at a medal that causes the hockey to get lost in the coverage?

 

[Eisdork]

Is it the other events or is it because Germany has absolutely no chance at a medal that causes the hockey to get lost in the coverage?

I guess it's both. Germany is one of the most successful winter sports countries, but we suck at hockey.

Even though we have the third best attended hockey league after the NHL and NLA, last season's epic DEL playoffs got little media coverage. i remember the Sunday sports section of the main German newspaper had 23 pages soccer, 2 pages Formula 1, 1 page boxing, half a page tennis and then there was this small side column with other sports including two lines for the previous days semifinal game.
However, I was surprised they dedicated a whole page to Draisaitl a couple of weeks ago

So yeah, I would guess a World Cup with German participation (sorry Switzerland) would bring at least some extra media attention to hockey.

 

[Canuckistani]

If they have both, it will be viewed as the Olympics is the real tournament and the World Cup is more of a glorified audition. Over time, you would see more of the better players sit out the World Cup.

The best don't sit out the UEFA Euro competition despite it being less high-profile than the World Cup and I suspect most will show up to the WC of hockey as well. They did in 96 and 04.

If they want to model soccer, World Cup in 2016, and do a Euro Cup in 2018, World Cup in 2020, Euro Cup in 2022.

If Euro Cup = Olympics then I agree.

Not sure if a Euro hockey tournament would be particularly viable considering there are only eight half-decent hockey nations to begin with.

 

[Urbanskog]

Also, the most important thing hockey needs in the non traditional markets is: media coverage. An international tournament with NHL players will definitely get some.
Unfortunately the Olympic tournament usually gets lost in between the coverage of all the other sports. At least here in Germany.

Then again, this was the first time in history that Germany failed to qualify for the Olympic tournament which would explain the lesser buzz around it in media.

Regarding the World Cup, the thing is, it only has eight teams and if we pick the top eight countries - Germany certainly has no business there. However, Bettman with the dollar signs in his eyes probably figures that Germany has far bigger population than Switzerland and thus Germany possibly gets the eighth place.

 

[Urbanskog]

Not sure if a Euro hockey tournament would be particularly viable considering there are only eight half-decent hockey nations to begin with.

I can't understand this mentality. The UEFA Euro has countries like Ireland, Poland and Denmark participating, yet it's clear that neither of those teams would end up winning. Why should the hockey tournament only have countries like Sweden, Finland and Russia participating?

 

[xxxx]

Of course it does. There is no such thing as innate value. Everything in this life is valuable only as much as someone value it. So if Europeans don't care for tournament then it's worthless ... for Europeans.
Please, I've repeated several times already that I don't deny that this tournament have value for Canadians, but you should probably agree that not all that you highly value should have same or even any value for us.

Of course that for the ones who don't care it is truly worthless, what an absolutely crazy logic, huh. I'm very well aware that not all people care or value the tournament. But as I said before, according to my friend that lives in the Czech republic, it seems that actually most of the real hockey fans in the country care about the tournament and don't think by any means that it's worthless. Which has been my point. I can't even count how many times you, or somebody else, have said that majority of europeans think it's worthless.

for example:

Originally Posted by alce View Post
But for vast majority of Europeans it was, is and always will be just another commercial tournament. We have and had plenty of those in other sports and they never considered as more prestigious than Olympics/worlds/European championships.

It is clear that I've denied that. If majority of the real Czech and even Slovak fans seems to care about the tournament, how can you say that the tournament is worthless for majority of Europe? We both know that you were just wrong.

 

[xxxx]

Then again, this was the first time in history that Germany failed to qualify for the Olympic tournament which would explain the lesser buzz around it in media.

Regarding the World Cup, the thing is, it only has eight teams and if we pick the top eight countries - Germany certainly has no business there. However, Bettman with the dollar signs in his eyes probably figures that Germany has far bigger population than Switzerland and thus Germany possibly gets the eighth place.

And if not? Then it will be a prove that it's not about just the dollars in his eyes? Yes, but you won't admit it, right.

 

[xxxx]

I can't understand this mentality. The UEFA Euro has countries like Ireland, Poland and Denmark participating, yet it's clear that neither of those teams would end up winning. Why should the hockey tournament only have countries like Sweden, Finland and Russia participating?

Euro Cup, lol.... first, if you want NHL players in it, you need to make a deal with the NHL. So it's automatically World Cup and not Euro cup. Second, if you want a tournament without NHLers you already have the IIHF cup. lol.

 

[Urbanskog]

And if not? Then it will be a prove that it's not about just the dollars in his eyes? Yes, but you won't admit it, right.

Nothing will change the fact that this tournament is designed to be a cash grab for the NHL. And because it's designed to be a cash grab, inviting Germany instead of Switzerland would make sense.

Euro Cup, lol.... first, if you want NHL players in it, you need to make a deal with the NHL. So it's automatically World Cup and not Euro cup. Second, if you want a tournament without NHLers you already have the IIHF cup. lol.

It wasn't my proposal. But saying that countries like Latvia, Belarus, Germany and Norway aren't even half-decent is just arrogant.

 

[Canuckistani]

I can't understand this mentality. The UEFA Euro has countries like Ireland, Poland and Denmark participating, yet it's clear that neither of those teams would end up winning. Why should the hockey tournament only have countries like Sweden, Finland and Russia participating?

Denmark won the Euro in 1992 and Greece somehow won in 2004. It's not all that uncommon for unheralded teams to do well in major soccer tournaments.

In hockey its much more rare (Belarus in 2002) but even so I'd still be cool with "minnows" taking part in a given event.

A 10 or 12-team world cup would be ideal imo.

 

[JackSlater]

I give up.

Yep. Its kind of funny, because it's probably hard to understand for Canadians, but World Cup wasn't created as commercial tournament, it was created as sport tournament to find out which nation team is the best. It haven't generated much/any profit at that time, so it's only natural that some of the teams just couldn't afford to travel to South America from Europe.

Not that it really matters, but some of the best nations didn't participate in the inaugural World Cup because they weren't interested, not because of finances. It took time to build interest. As far as the goals of the tournament, it's incredibly naive to think that something like the Olympic tournament isn't put on for money. The actions of the IOC repeatedly demonstrate otherwise. Honestly, that's perfectly fine though. I don't care about why the tournament is created - I care about the players involved and the games that happen. The World Cup will have the world's best players playing in full strength national teams - something I value much more than knowing that the IOC profits instead of the NHL.

I see there strange contradiction in the sentences. If something irrelevant for you, you probably shouldn't have any issues with it.

Clumsy sentence yes. The opinions of fans regarding the value of the tournament don't impact its value. If the continent of Europe doesn't care about the World Cup, it doesn't make the tournament worthless as you have said numerous times. North America doesn't care about the cricket World Cup, and yet that doesn't make it worthless.

Of course it does. There is no such thing as innate value. Everything in this life is valuable only as much as someone value it. So if Europeans don't care for tournament then it's worthless ... for Europeans.

Yes... for Europeans. Most of your statements have been sweeping about the nature of the tournament as opposed to just the opinions of various Europeans. I don't really care about the opinions of fans in Europe, North America or anywhere else when assessing the value or validity of a tournament, but this is a disagreement that isn't going to be resolved in this space.

 

[Urbanskog]

Denmark won the Euro in 1992 and Greece somehow won in 2004. It's not all that uncommon for unheralded teams to do well in major soccer tournaments.

In hockey its much more rare (Belarus in 2002) but even so I'd still be cool with "minnows" taking part in a given event.

A 10 or 12-team world cup would be ideal imo.

Yeah, Denmark won it 22 years ago. Quite a bit has changed since.

Anyhow, Switzerland made it to the WCH final last year, France advanced to the quarterfinals in Minsk this year and Slovenia did the same in Sochi.

 

[alce*]

......

I have already said that I see absolutely no sense to argue with man who denies his own words and you had already agreed that there no point to continue our discussion. Lets keep it that way. Thanks.

 

[xxxx]

I heard that the system would be two groups with 4 teams, then QF's, SF's, and the finals as a best-of-three series, that would be great IMO.

 

[xxxx]

So, again:

First you'd taken opinion of several Chechs fans and expand it on the majority of Chechs fans(it's first generalization), second you've expand your opinion on rest of the Europe again using opinion of those several Chechs fans(it's second). And yes I've did generalization which I've never denied and that was based on my own observation of what Russian fans think and what other European fans write.

Please, don't bother to reply to me, as I see no point of arguing with a man who denies his own words.

I said that it's an opinion of my friend, not mine, so no, I didn't take my opinion and expand it. HE said to me that it's the way it is - that in HIS opinion, people in Czech rep (not Europe). care about the tournament, understand?

This is my first post on this:

I don't believe this, and I tell you why. According to my Czech friend, there certainly is some amount of people (as well as in Slovakia) highly interested in the tournament. The semi-final game between Canada and the Czechs is remembered, for many people who are really interested in hockey, as one of the best hockey in the Czech history. He said it was something special to watch their best players with Jagr, etc. play against Lemieux and other stars in Toronto. According to him, some people even think that the Canada/World Cup was a better hockey than at any olympics.

Where did you get any generalization from me?

This is next part of that post:

I think it's quite healthy to assume that if such people exist in that country, they might exist even in Finland, Sweden, Russia, so don't make us believe that opinion of a few posters here is shared by the majority of hockey fans around the whole europe.

Where is the generalization? You are really reaching. Not only that. You are obviously totally liying.

 

[alce*]

Not that it really matters, but some of the best nations didn't participate in the inaugural World Cup because they weren't interested, not because of finances. It took time to build interest.

Yes. Like England. And yes it doesn't matter, because it doesn't contradict my point in any way. It was very important for all participating countries, and not for some third party.

As far as the goals of the tournament, it's incredibly naive to think that something like the Olympic tournament isn't put on for money.

Because it isn't. I mean yes now it's very profitable tournament and main goal is probably profit. But it wasn't the main goal of it's creation and it wasn't even true for several of first decades of its existing. Olympics have both sport and money, CC is just money.

If the continent of Europe doesn't care about the World Cup, it doesn't make the tournament worthless as you have said numerous times. North America doesn't care about the cricket World Cup, and yet that doesn't make it worthless.

I have nothing to add to my previous post. You can reread it if you want to get my point. And yes both of tournaments are worthless. First for Europeans, second for anyone who isn't member of British Commonwealth.

Yes... for Europeans. Most of your statements have been sweeping about the nature of the tournament as opposed to just the opinions of various Europeans.

Opinion of European is based on nature of the tournament.

I don't really care about the opinions of fans in Europe, North America or anywhere else when assessing the value or validity of a tournament.

Funny, but it's exactly what I've tried to explain to you for several posts. Your value of tournament shouldn't be equal to the values of others. They say: "trash for one man is treasure for another."

 

[TheTwelfth]

Why not? Why wouldn't Swedish NHL'ers want to play? Why wouldn't the Finns, Czechs, etc?

It is the federation it is hanging on, as well as other leagues. No European team except Sweden can even field a team without using players outside of the NHL. If the Swedish federation is not on board with the NHL, they will not send a team.

Swedish NHLers cannot (and I am quite certain, will not) form their own team without the Federation's consent.

 

[JackSlater]

Yes. Like England. And yes it doesn't matter, because it doesn't contradict my point in any way. It was very important for all participating countries, and not for some third party.

England, among the other powers who declined to participate. Your assumption that it was "very important" for all of the participating countries is nice, but countries flat out refusing to attend goes against the great demand for a World Cup that you described. It's a tangential point (why the World Cup was created) and poorly constructed.

Because it isn't. I mean yes now it's very profitable tournament and main goal is probably profit. But it wasn't the main goal of it's creation and it wasn't even true for several of first decades of its existing. Olympics have both sport and money, CC is just money.

Ah, so the goal at the creation of the tournament is important instead of the actual games, or even what the goal is now. It's becoming so specific. It's also laughable to suggest that one is sport and the other tournament isn't, when they are both literally sports tournaments. When they play hockey - that makes it "sport".

I have nothing to add to my previous post. You can reread it if you want to get my point. And yes both of tournaments are worthless. First for Europeans, second for anyone who isn't member of British Commonwealth.

Your point is still foolish, I know since I've read it enough times. It's becoming that a tournament is worthless unless Europeans say otherwise. The sport and competition don't matter, just the feelings of Europeans. Splendid.

Opinion of European is based on nature of the tournament.

Yes, and remains irrelevant to the actual tournament itself. A tournament is composed of games, not European opinions.

Funny, but it's exactly what I've tried to explain to you for several posts. Your value of tournament shouldn't be equal to the values of others. They say: "trash for one man is treasure for another."

That's all well and good. There is a difference between stating that Europeans consider something to be one way, and actually declaring that it is definitively that way. It's a pretty simple concept.