WJC: Bring back the bye to semifinals for the group winners!

[J17 Vs Proclamation]

[/B]


Nonsense. The old system was Every-Bit As Fair...Every team started out on an equal footing, & the team that Won the Pool...wait for it...EARNED the bye to the semis ON MERIT!

That isn't how competition should work. You're the best early on, so let us give you a massive reward that gives you an even better edge!!

Wow, what a great idea!!!!

The only reward from winning should be the fact that you're still in the competition. Seedings benefit those who dominant the group stages, and thus, on average, get easier opponents the next round. How is that not advantageous?

Giving a bye removes an elimination game and makes you fresher. How is that the point of an international competition?

If Sweden loses to Finland, then it's their own fault.

Finland lost to Slovakia. They may be the better team on paper, and they have dominated that particularl game, but the only thing that matters, the score line ... says Slovakia won. Slovakia deserved to win, because they scored more. Finland deserve to be the 4th seed. Why Swedes are complaining ...

wah wah wah i want my team to have an easier route, it's unfair!!!!

 

[J17 Vs Proclamation]

No shoulda coulda woulda there, just a fact.

The only fact is that Slovakia won.

 

[Slimmy]

That isn't how competition should work. You're the best early on, so let us give you a massive reward that gives you an even better edge!!

Wow, what a great idea!!!!

The only reward from winning should be the fact that you're still in the competition. Seedings benefit those who dominant the group stages, and thus, on average, get easier opponents the next round. How is that not advantageous?

Giving a bye removes an elimination game and makes you fresher. How is that the point of an international competition?

If Sweden loses to Finland, then it's their own fault.

Finland lost to Slovakia. They may be the better team on paper, and they have dominated that particularl game, but the only thing that matters, the score line ... says Slovakia won. Slovakia deserved to win, because they scored more. Finland deserve to be the 4th seed. Why Swedes are complaining ...

wah wah wah i want my team to have an easier route, it's unfair!!!!

My only objection is that there could potentially be round robin games of poor quality and teams not playing to the best of their abilities. We've seen this before and you can't really blame a team for trying to get the easier QF opponent.

 

[Kamzik]

No shoulda coulda woulda there, just a fact.

I do not accept your fact. Slovakia's all time record versus Finland at the WJC was 4-7-1, now it is 5-7-1, or quite even. The goaltender is a player just like any other, ours happened to be better than theirs. But Slovakia certainly should not apologize to Finland that their goaltender was better on this day.

I did not see domination. Finland had many shots without anyone "paying the price" in front of the Slovak net. Most of their shots were quite harmless. Slovakia's penalty killing was and has been very good this tournament. The Finnish forwards were unable to deal with Radovan Bondra's size and strength on the PK.

Also, it could be argued Slovakia had the best forward on the ice that game, Martin Reway.

Dominate Schmoninate. You get one chance. As the rapper Eminem once said You only get one shot, do not miss your chance to blow, this opportunity comes once in a lifetime yo.

 

[J17 Vs Proclamation]

My only objection is that there could potentially be round robin games of poor quality and teams not playing to the best of their abilities. We've seen this before and you can't really blame a team for trying to get the easier QF opponent.

The only point of contention i would have is that it always seems one side of the pool is harder than the other. I don't think that is anything other than coincidence however. The groups can be so close and so unpredictable that trying to play god and geta specific match up is risky and difficult. Makes more sense just to try and win (on many levels).

At the end of the day, it is a short tournament. Winning your group shouldn't mean you play less games, it should mean, on average, you play a weaker opponent in the next round. A bye is grossly unfair and helps the strongest become even stronger.

Should we give Barcelona or Madrid byes because they dominate their groups?

It's just those invested with the big boys believing they are entitled.

 

[bigtimehockeyfan999*]

Sweden won the group B. But is it any favour of that??? We is in the thoughest bracket in the elemination games.

I think it should be a favour to win the group. But is it???

I think canadians feels good about this but shouldn't the other group winner get any favour too??

I want the bye to semifinals back. Or maybe the winners should get the opportunity to choose opponent in QF.

I have faith in my team. It's not about that. But I want rules that make the top team's to want win not thinking it's better to lose.

What's your thoughts

100% agree. This is ********....I would be so pissed as an American right now...or a swede. excellent round robins...have to play Russia and the defending champ fins.....crazy.

 

[PanniniClaus]

100% agree. This is ********....I would be so pissed as an American right now...or a swede. excellent round robins...have to play Russia and the defending champ fins.....crazy.

The US would be playing the Russians in the old format too - not sure what you are on about.

 

[Uno Bench]

I know what you said - you said that every game, every point and every goal should matter which is not how tournament play typically is when you have playoffs or brackets.

Your desire to have every game and every point count lends itself to the full round robin format. The bracket format will always have flaws but the bye system ruined the tourney. It gave an unfair advantage to the top teams and basically rendered the elimination games meaningless save for the final. The emphasis was put on the round robin portion, which seems like a silly way to run a tourney that is a showcase for the worlds best under 20's. It killed the sharp end of the tourney rather than enhance it.

I am Canadian by the way and no team has seen a bigger benefit of the bye than Canada. The tourney is bigger than having a short sighted view of a person's own country or circumstance.

It would appear you are a fan of the Swedes and a little sore about getting the Finns.

You still refuse to read what I wrote (correctly), yet you're responding to it(?).. And I couldn't care less if you are Canadian or from Azerbadjan

 

[Slimmy]

The only point of contention i would have is that it always seems one side of the pool is harder than the other. I don't think that is anything other than coincidence however. The groups can be so close and so unpredictable that trying to play god and geta specific match up is risky and difficult. Makes more sense just to try and win (on many levels).

At the end of the day, it is a short tournament. Winning your group shouldn't mean you play less games, it should mean, on average, you play a weaker opponent in the next round. A bye is grossly unfair and helps the strongest become even stronger.

Should we give Barcelona or Madrid byes because they dominate their groups?

It's just those invested with the big boys believing they are entitled.

I agree. I don't like the bye-ins. But playing poorly shouldn't be rewarded or encouraged. I think the current system does just that.
EDIT: Obviously, reaching the medal round gives you a much better chance at medaling. However, if your mentality is only gold matters, then sure. You should be able to defeat any opponent on any given day.

 

[Scotty B]

The bye system was too cruel. Sending the 7th place team to fight for relegation. In the old format, Finland, Germany, Switzerland and Denmark would now battle to stay up. Imagine erasing Denmark's accomplishments. And what would it serve having Finland battle for relegation.

Not to nitpick, but it would serve Finland right for their woeful pp + lack of scoring punch...Plus, under that old format, Denmark would have started relegation round with 2 points in the bank...to Swiss 1 and Germany's Nada...

Granted, the Cinderella story would be missing...BIG TIME!

 

[J17 Vs Proclamation]

I agree. I don't like the bye-ins. But playing poorly shouldn't be rewarded or encouraged. I think the current system does just that.

I don't think any teams are implementing a play poorly strategy. In a short tournament, that is catrostrophic if you're actually trying to win the event/medal. It sets a precedent and isn't the mentality that good teams have.

I can't see a single team in this tournament who tried to manipulate their seeding in the next round by playing poorly at specific times.

 

[PanniniClaus]

You still refuse to read what I wrote (correctly), yet you're responding to it(?).. And I couldn't care less if you are Canadian or from Azerbadjan

I am looking forward to reading your book when you decide to write it. Put lots of pictures in it for me.

 

[slovakiasnextone]

yet it has been much better than the Slovaks lol, as the SVK-FIN game showed despite the result. Those who watched the game know Finland pretty much dominated it.

Finland dominated the game in terms of controlling the puck for sure. However they scored less goals and therefore managed to lose and deserved to finish 4th. And Finland has been pretty bad in terms of scoring goals all preliminary round, technically even worse than Slovakia, who at least managed to score 5 goals against the Germans.

Denmark got similarly dominated by both the Czechs and the Swiss in their respective games, yet they walked away with points from both games.

You seem to suggest that the team who dominates a game in terms of puck posession and shots is automaically a better team who deserves better results.

But, it's not the way it works. Finland themselves have been on the other end when they got dominated by other teams and yet won quite in various international competition too.

 

[Slimmy]

I don't think any teams are implementing a play poorly strategy. In a short tournament, that is catrostrophic if you're actually trying to win the event/medal. It sets a precedent and isn't the mentality that good teams have.

I can't see a single team in this tournament who tried to manipulate their seeding in the next round by playing poorly at specific times.

It happened in the 2006 OG's:

Allegations have surfaced of Sweden throwing a game against Slovakia so the Swedes would face Switzerland instead of Russia, Canada or the Czech Republic. Shortly before the game, Sweden coach Bengt-Åke Gustafsson was reported to have publicly contemplated tanking in order to avoid those teams, saying about Canada and the Czechs, "One is cholera, the other the plague."[4] During the game itself, one reportedly suspect sequence came when Sweden had an extended five-on-three powerplay with five NHL stars on the ice—Peter Forsberg, Mats Sundin, Daniel Alfredsson, Nicklas Lidström and Fredrik Modin—and failed to put a shot on net.[4] As part of a subsequent interview about the championship over five years later, Forsberg was interpreted to insinuate that Sweden lost their preliminary round game against Slovakia on purpose, so as to draw Switzerland as their quarterfinal opponent, rather than Canada or Russia. Swedish forward Henrik Sedin, who played alongside Forsberg on the 2006 team denied the notion while adding that Forsberg's comments in the interview were misconstrued

 

[Marchy63]

Finland won the gold LAST year, that does not mean that they are the best team this year. If Finland had finished in 4th last year would anyone say that having to play them in QF this year would be unfair to the team that finished in 1st in their group this year? NO! And saying a team that wins their group should automatically get to the SF and play for a medal when they only played half the teams in the tournament doesn't make any sense either, because what happens if the best teams all end up in one group since the grouping is determined by the results of last year.

If every team played each other and the top 2 teams were given a bye to semi finals, I think people would be more accepting of that because those 2 teams proved to be the best of the bunch. But winning your group shouldn't mean that you automatically get to play for medal when half the teams never got the chance to beat you. Every year a team that did well the year before struggles the following year due to player availability and not every country has the amount of players to compete at the same level as other countries. This is why you see some years when Finland, Czech, Slovakia, Sweden, Canada, Russia or US finish in the bottom of their group.


Why should a team that didn't have to play Canada, USA, Slovakia, Finland or Germany get to play in the semi finals because they beat Russia, Czech, Denmark & Swiss? Same can be said about the other group. Just because you won your group doesn't mean you can bi-pass the other group and straight into medal round, you still need to prove you can get past the other group as well and winning your group gives you an advantage by playing against the team that finished in 4th in the group. Win your group, get the better game in the QF, finish lower in the group get the harder QF. What option do think teams are going to choose?

 

[helgo]

I agree. I don't like the bye-ins. But playing poorly shouldn't be rewarded or encouraged. I think the current system does just that.

How exacty are you rewared by playing poorly? That your team morale is low, that you get to play against with the best form in tourney? This whole discussion is basically because of few deviations, when some underdogs overachieved and some favourites played not to their standard, it is not the norm. Most of the time, you'll get most favourable opponent when you're first, this time you (maybe) didn't, well that is sport, just deal with it.

 

[Lollipop]

Finland won the gold LAST year, that does not mean that they are the best team this year. If Finland had finished in 4th last year would anyone say that having to play them in QF this year would be unfair to the team that finished in 1st in their group this year? NO! And saying a team that wins their group should automatically get to the SF and play for a medal when they only played half the teams in the tournament doesn't make any sense either, because what happens if the best teams all end up in one group since the grouping is determined by the results of last year.

If every team played each other and the top 2 teams were given a bye to semi finals, I think people would be more accepting of that because those 2 teams proved to be the best of the bunch. But winning your group shouldn't mean that you automatically get to play for medal when half the teams never got the chance to beat you. Every year a team that did well the year before struggles the following year due to player availability and not every country has the amount of players to compete at the same level as other countries. This is why you see some years when Finland, Czech, Slovakia, Sweden, Canada, Russia or US finish in the bottom of their group.


Why should a team that didn't have to play Canada, USA, Slovakia, Finland or Germany get to play in the semi finals because they beat Russia, Czech, Denmark & Swiss? Same can be said about the other group. Just because you won your group doesn't mean you can bi-pass the other group and straight into medal round, you still need to prove you can get past the other group as well and winning your group gives you an advantage by playing against the team that finished in 4th in the group. Win your group, get the better game in the QF, finish lower in the group get the harder QF. What option do think teams are going to choose?

The problem is Canada has free pass to final. But Sweden, the other group winner, needs to play against worst possible oppnents. Right now it feels Canada has a bye to final with the opponents they have. How is that fair??? Should the WJC be decided with luck???

 

[ATBLeafsTyler]

Last years Round Robin standings

Canada
USA
Czech Republic
Slovakia

Sweden
Finland
Russia
Switzerland

2013 results for 4 team relegation round

1st place Finland vs. Latvia, Germany, Slovakia: 5-1, 8-0, 11-4

2nd place Slovakia vs. Germany, Latvia: 2-1, 5-3

3rd place Germany vs. Latvia: 5-2

Conclusion: The new format keeps teams that likely do not deserve to be in the relegation round out which increases the quality of hockey and avoids blowouts for teams like Finland vs others in the relegation round.

When it comes to the relegation round, it improves quality having a best-of-three and definitely gives a chance for the better team to actually stay in the top round.

I feel this thread was only created just because Lolli is a Swede and he is scared of what can happen. There were no complaints last year when Sweden played Slovakia in the quarters. Finland had a bad round robin, it can happen. If the Swedes DO play to their best, they should beat Finland.

If you really want to make this tournament better, you make each of the QF, SF and Final a best of three AT THE LEAST. This eats up too much time though so it would likely never happen.

As for Denmark making the QF, that's what can happen as the game grows or a team has some good prospects that year. Let's be honest, if Ehlers makes the NHL and does not play next year or even if he does, with Bjorkstrand not eligible, They will likely be fighting for relegation again.

 

[Stanley Foobrick]

The problem is Canada has free pass to final. But Sweden, the other group winner, needs to play against worst possible oppnents. Right now it feels Canada has a bye to final with the opponents they have. How is that fair??? Should the WJC be decided with luck???

Absolutely not. In fact since these are one game knock out rounds if there is a lucky bounce that leads to a goal, the ref should blow the whistle, deny the goal, and drop the puck at center ice. Wouldn't want luck to play a part in this you know.

 

[Slimmy]

How exacty are you rewared by playing poorly? That your team morale is low, that you get to play against with the best form in tourney? This whole discussion is basically because of few deviations, when some underdogs overachieved and some favourites played not to their standard, it is not the norm. Most of the time, you'll get most favourable opponent when you're first, this time you (maybe) didn't, well that is sport, just deal with it.

Well, again, Sweden did precisely what I described in the 2006 Olympics. They played poorly in the game against Slovakia and was rewarded with Switzerland in the QF's. Just so happens they won gold that year.

And why settle with a flawed system when it can be improved upon?
You want the best teams in the medal rounds. It's as simple as that.

 

[Scotty B]

The problem is Canada has free pass to final. But Sweden, the other group winner, needs to play against worst possible oppnents. Right now it feels Canada has a bye to final with the opponents they have. How is that fair??? Should the WJC be decided with luck???

Hmmm...Our Boyz won their group, they beat Suomi fairly easily, who you Swedes seem so worried about facing in QF's, they also beat the Yanks convincingly, the same Yanks who Tres Kronor may meet in semis. We'll likely meet Czechs in semis, who beat Russia convincingly, that's far from a gimme.

Our Boyz have fairly earned everything they've gotten thus far, outscoring the opposition by a whopping 21-4 margin...Ergo No LUCK ( other than ordinary puck luck, which tends to even out ) was involved

 

[Marchy63]

The problem is Canada has free pass to final. But Sweden, the other group winner, needs to play against worst possible oppnents. Right now it feels Canada has a bye to final with the opponents they have. How is that fair??? Should the WJC be decided with luck???

Yeah and Canada has already played and beaten Finland. Sweden has already played and beaten Denmark. The fourth place teams in both groups are playing the top teams in the other group. If either Canada or Sweden is beaten by the fourth place team in the other group than they didn't deserve to be in the semi-finals. All the quater-final game does is put the teams that finished 1-4 up against each other and rewards the teams that finished higher in the standings.

Do you think that Finland looked at the other group and said "Man if we play Sweden we will have the best chance to advance to the semi-finals"? No team would say they wanted to play the number one team in the other group because it lowers your chances of winning. No one is saying that Canada has a harder game than Sweden, but like I said unless you polay every team in the tournament, there will be a team that plays an opponent that is easier than another team.

With the bye system a team could win the gold medal and never have to polay against a team in the group at because if they win their group and second and third place teams win their quarter final games they will play one of those teams. And then say the team they didn't wins their semi-final game they would essentially only play teams in their group. This way at least they will have to play a team in the other group and it increases the chances of having a finals with teams from both groups.

So again unless every team plays each other in the round robin and you determine your seating based on that, you will always have a team that will have to face a tougher team in the quarter finals. Also because the grouping is based on the previous years finishes and because each team is so different from one year to the next, saying that Sweden has it so tough because they have to play the defending Gold medallist is completely irrelevent as this Finland team may not be nearly as good as last years team.

 

[Slimmy]

Hmmm...Our Boyz won their group, they beat Suomi fairly easily, who you Swedes seem so worried about facing in QF's, they also beat the Yanks convincingly, the same Yanks who Tres Kronor may meet in semis. We'll likely meet Czechs in semis, who beat Russia convincingly, that's far from a gimme.

Our Boyz have fairly earned everything they've gotten thus far, outscoring the opposition by a whopping 21-4 margin...Ergo No LUCK ( other than ordinary puck luck, which tends to even out ) was involved

Russia was completely disinterested in the game against the Czech Republic, the same team Sweden beat convincingly. The Russian team is the only team from group B that I wouldn't want to face in the QF's. So, all things considered, facing Finland isn't the worst outcome. However, Finland usually get their scoring going in the later stages and with that goalie tandem, I'm not overly confident. They always seem to be able to get a 100% out of their team against Sweden.
Canada is the team to beat this tourney. That's fairly obvious at this point. They've earned an easier path to the finals and it's on home ground.

 

[Marchy63]

We've also seen what happens when a team that finished at the top plays a team that everyone expects them to beat (Remember Belarus beating Sweden in the Olympics). The last Olympics Latvia was close to upsetting the eventual Gold Medal winning Canada. Upsets can happen in a single elimination tournament and nothing is guaranteed.

 

[helgo]

Well, again, Sweden did precisely what I described in the 2006 Olympics. They played poorly in the game against Slovakia and was rewarded with Switzerland in the QF's. Just so happens they won gold that year.

And why settle with a flawed system when it can be improved upon?
You want the best teams in the medal rounds. It's as simple as that.

And again, it's one instance where being worse was actually better and it is almost ten years old. How many tournaments were played since then? If you keep bringing this one situation, it just shows, how rare it actually is.
The system isn't flawed. If there's actually a "flaw" then it lies in sport itself, because it just so happens, that not everything goes as expected and sometimes, a good team on paper just doesn't perform as well as he should be.
Oh and I didn't find a single solution which I would actually call an improvement in this thread. Advancing right to the semifinals just gives the group winners unnecessarily big advantage - I mean they're already one of the best teams and they even get a chance to rest, while they get to play tired opponent who is probably weaker - that just make the competition even more uneven. Lottery is simply stupid, because it just makes the round robin stage absolutely meaningles and the idea with choosing your opponent is even more ridiculous and has so many logical holes (which group winner will pick first? If the group winner from one group chooses the group winner from the other group, while the other group winner wants to play with someone else, will they throw a coin or someting? and so on...) that I don't even want to call it plausible and I didn't see any other idea ...