Daly: Hope to have World Cup of Hockey 2020

[Elvs]

Wow, did you miss the point! I didn't "complain" in any way because to complain I'd have to care.....I was trying to point out the Worlds are meaningless in NA (no one cares/they don't prove anything).

I was pointing out that pointing to the results in the Worlds (or group games in the Olympics) isn't really "proof" of much to the average NA hockey fan

YMMV

I apologize, my bad. I do think that World Championship holds at least some merit, but you are right that they don't to your typical fan living in North America. Because they will brush it off with their players not being motivated and that they are missing good players, this is what I thought you were doing. I've defenitely seen those posts before from fans from Canada and the U.S.

 

[Nino33]

They've won big games in the World Championship, but of course we will never come to common ground on what that means. It doesn't matter that Canada send some really good teams and Switzerland were missing some of their players too. Canada's guys were unmotivated...

I didn't speak about the players motivation/make some excuse like you're implying, not at all. I said it's not real meaningful here in NA (you don't have to agree with it, but you should stop saying it's other things...I don't care about results/player celebrations/etc; I can't remember the last time I watched the Worlds myself, maybe more than a decade...I did watch them and thought they were great in the 70s and early 80s)

And if they can reach the semifinal, that should be enough for them to participate.

I'm not sure what semifinal you're referring to...a Worlds I suspect.
IMO the average NA hockey fan thinks and feels that "best-on-best" is what's meaningful/what matters, nothing else really comes remotely close.

AND I in no way said Switzerland shouldn't participate ever in a best-on-best! Nothing of the sort! But for me they no don't get a guaranteed spot in a best-on-best tournament with few enough teams that a "everyone plays everyone round robin" can occur

I'm curious why the Czech Republic is not on your list of invites.

Ya gotta draw the line somewhere! HaHa
For me Russia, Sweden, Finland and Canada/the US are automatic invites.

After that, as long as it's a "everyone plays everyone round robin" I myself don't have any problem with any specific national team being invited for the 1-3 teams are added...Switzerland, Czech Republic, etc

For me it seems since I've been watching hockey (over 40 years) Russia, Sweden, Finland and Canada/the US have been the top five and I suspect they will be as long as I'm alive. I'm not sure of any "smaller hockey country" having ever won a best-on-best (has one ever been in a final in a best-on-best?)

Again, YMMV

Best Wishes

 

[Nino33]

I apologize, my bad. I do think that World Championship holds at least some merit, but you are right that they don't to your typical fan living in North America. Because they will brush it off with their players not being motivated and that they are missing good players, this is what I thought you were doing. I've defenitely seen those posts before from fans from Canada and the U.S.

For many years I had the fantasy of far fewer NHL teams/games and a real World every year, but alas...

I just wanted to post to also say I didn't see your post before my big post above was posted (because I'm "computer challenged" HaHa and it takes me forever to type something out and I do so in a vacuum)

I've defenitely seen those posts before from fans from Canada and the U.S.

Me too
EDIT - to clarify my view, I see Canada/US supporters express views I really disagree with for sure

Having said that, IMO there's probably a good amount of truth/reality in saying NA players aren't motivated anywhere near what they would be in a best-on-best (I'd say they're "important NHL regular season game" motivated) & that non best-on-best results have far less importance/don't prove anything (sometimes this really bothers people who think the Worlds are really important...it seems to me that frequently people that are anti-NHL have this view). As time passes I don't hear much "remembering" of the Worlds results (good or bad) for NA players/fans, but I do for best-on-best games and NHL playoff games

 

[Nino33]

I'm not sure of any "smaller hockey country" having ever won a best-on-best (has one ever been in a final in a best-on-best?)

Answering my own question...the Czech Republic with Hasek in 1998 but that was so Hasek reliant (i.e. no other goalie leads them to victory) & "ya gotta draw the line somewhere" and it's OK to have different views if I think about it to much I might question Finland HaHa but for me they've always been a part of best-on-bests and they're pretty good right now too

I really really liked team Czechoslovakia in the 70s (Dzurrila and Holecek were two of my favourite goalies)

 

[member 305909]

There is no good time to have a best on best tournament. September is bad but it is least worst.

February during the olympics was a nightmare for the NHL. The regular season schedule is extremely tight and on top of that the olympics forced a three week-break.

 

[holyprime]

The only way to have a respectable World Cup, is to have it in between the Olympics (OG, normal season, WC, normal season, OG, etc). Number of nations, modus, qualification etc can be easily sorted out if this fundamental question is out of the way.

Everything else is just an NHL preseason tournament with either the countries with enough NHL players (atm Canada, USA, Finland, Sweden, Russia, Czech Rep) and/or some gimmick teams (like "rest of europe"), because the season has already started in europe and i doubt the players are too keen to have the World Cup in June or July.

The NHL can't eat the cake (arbitrary participation in Olympics) and have it too (their own World Cup with players from around the world).

 

[Big Phil]

I'd prefer the old Canada Cup format where everyone plays everyone in the round robin, anything else is less than ideal from the start (6 teams seems right to me).

I can go back to that. Nothing wrong with that format. Every plays each other once, then 4 teams go onto the semis.

2016 had exciting games and was entertaining. Team NA was probably the most entertaining team but I agree that they should not have been there. It is totally wrong that Canada and in this case mostly USA didn't have access to all their best players. But overall the strength in 2016 was bigger than 2004 and several games was fun.

Which games? No, honestly. The best game I saw that at least had a tad of a rivalry and wanting to beat each other was the semifinal Canada/Russia game. Russia even had a brief, brief lead at one point. But Canada vs. the European castaways in the final? Come on. I don't think we even saw a body check. I was honestly more happy that Marchand scored at the end of the 2nd game just because then I knew the tournament was over.

Think about it, of all the Team Canada goals in our history no one ever talks about that one. Ever. Why is that? It was a last minute goal and the winner of the tournament. Why don't we ever talk about that one? It is because we can't even identify our opponents from that game and people generally pretend that tournament never happened, which is sad, but accurate.

What was exciting about Team North American young guns? Was I supposed to cheer for them? As a Canadian I wasn't even sure if they were on my side. So to me it was just a wash, I just ignored them. If I want to watch clips of old All-Star games I can do that. Let's hope the NHL learned from their mistake and go back to the usual format.

 

[Jahara]

Swedens victory against Russia was memorable and the game against NA was fascinating. The SF against Europe was dramatic too. In fact most of the games with NA was very good, even tough the concept with them was wrong.
And I am not sure if it was more body checks in the 2014 Olympics. So overall this format was better than in 2004 but worse than the Canada Cup format.

 

[patnyrnyg]

I'd prefer the old Canada Cup format where everyone plays everyone in the round robin, anything else is less than ideal from the start (6 teams seems right to me).

I agree, but that is a losing battle for which to hope. They are too afraid of the meaningless games. If they had 8 teams, they do not want teams at the bottom playing each other when they are eliminated. Easy solution is for everyone to move on to the knock-out, but then what is the point of having such a long round-robin? 7 games just for seeding?

Olympic big ice hockey is incredibly boring hockey to many (2014 was definitely boring hockey to me).



The lower ranked teams play a style of hockey that contributes to the boring hockey, and so some want as few as possible & the idea that teams might not even play each other once sucks (for example, 2014 in Russia and Russia/Canada don't even play a game against each other!); teams not playing everyone once in the round robin also makes it easier for lower teams to advance (fewer games to have to come up with the upset).

I agree. Thought Dmen had a MUCH harder time keeping plays alive at the blue line, and it was too easy for defending teams to chip the puck out without a fear of icing.

 

[patnyrnyg]

I'd prefer the old Canada Cup format where everyone plays everyone in the round robin, anything else is less than ideal from the start (6 teams seems right to me).

I agree, but that is a losing battle for which to hope. They are too afraid of the meaningless games. If they had 8 teams, they do not want teams at the bottom playing each other when they are eliminated. Easy solution is for everyone to move on to the knock-out, but then what is the point of having such a long round-robin? 7 games just for seeding?

Olympic big ice hockey is incredibly boring hockey to many (2014 was definitely boring hockey to me).



The lower ranked teams play a style of hockey that contributes to the boring hockey, and so some want as few as possible & the idea that teams might not even play each other once sucks (for example, 2014 in Russia and Russia/Canada don't even play a game against each other!); teams not playing everyone once in the round robin also makes it easier for lower teams to advance (fewer games to have to come up with the upset).

I agree. Thought Dmen had a MUCH harder time keeping plays alive at the blue line, and it was too easy for defending teams to chip the puck out without a fear of icing.

 

[Nino33]

I agree, but that is a losing battle for which to hope. They are too afraid of the meaningless games. If they had 8 teams, they do not want teams at the bottom playing each other when they are eliminated. Easy solution is for everyone to move on to the knock-out, but then what is the point of having such a long round-robin? 7 games just for seeding?

I think the question isn't the one you're asking, but rather why have the 7th and 8th place teams involved? That's why the 6 team Canada Cup format was by far the best one IMO

And only 4 teams make the playoffs, so round robin games are not just for seeding
[ Maybe 3 might be an idea? give the first place team a bye to the final? ]

Other reasons to have such a round robin: everyone playing everyone means you can't win without ever having played someone (the current system makes best-on-best competition among the hockey powers even rarer) & it's obviously a better/fairer system than the alternatives IMO & I'd rather have guaranteed games between all of the hockey powers than have to involve 7th/8th place teams and lose "everyone plays everyone once" as a result

The key to me is everyone plays everyone in the round robin, and if dropping the 7th or 8th best teams is what is required that's just fine...to me this is obviously the best solution, but I do doubt it'll happen

 

[Ingvar]

Making a proper World Cup/Canada Cup is pretty easy but I doubt the NHL would do it.

1. Hold it every 4 years in June. That way it goes into time slot after the WC but before the Olympics. Start NHL season earlier in this year to finish Stanley cup before/ in the beginning of June.
2. Invite host nation + top-6 IIHF ranking teams excluding host nation + qualifier team. Hold the qualifiers a year before, fix the order after Olympic year WC.
3. Move tournament across the Atlantic at least every other time. Choose host in Europe after Winter Olympics - this way you get a good indication whether host nation will have a competitive roster which allows to draw money from and promote game to new audiences. E.g. Germany would be a good host option for 2020 Cup.
4. Split revenue directly to teams proportional to player participation. Make NHL portion a part of HRR. This way 1) majority of money will go to the NHL but other leagues will have an incentive to participate 2) NHL teams will get compensated in accordance to the risk of losing their star player 3) other NHL teams get their compensation for earlier season start through revenue sharing 4) all NHL players get their compensation for earlier season start through 50-50 split
5. Give revenue from the WC to the team that holds the player contract the year after WC. If a player doesn’t get signed a whole year after the WC then his revenue share goes directly to him. That way you have an incentive for players without contract to participate in the WC and for the teams to sign them even if they suffer an injury.

This way you get a steady scalable solution that grows the game worldwide and still makes the NHL money. That means it’s too good to come true and we’ll be stuck with the shitty WC we have right now.

 

[patnyrnyg]

I think the question isn't the one you're asking, but rather why have the 7th and 8th place teams involved? That's why the 6 team Canada Cup format was by far the best one IMO

And only 4 teams make the playoffs, so round robin games are not just for seeding
[ Maybe 3 might be an idea? give the first place team a bye to the final? ]

Other reasons to have such a round robin: everyone playing everyone means you can't win without ever having played someone (the current system makes best-on-best competition among the hockey powers even rarer) & it's obviously a better/fairer system than the alternatives IMO & I'd rather have guaranteed games between all of the hockey powers than have to involve 7th/8th place teams and lose "everyone plays everyone once" as a result

The key to me is everyone plays everyone in the round robin, and if dropping the 7th or 8th best teams is what is required that's just fine...to me this is obviously the best solution, but I do doubt it'll happen

They are not going to shrink the tournament. They would want to grow the tournament. Do you think the soccer world cup would be what it is if it was only the top-6 or 8 teams?

As far as the round-robin, could always do what they did in the Olympics pre-1992. 2 pools for a round robin. Top-2 or 3 in each pool move on to play the qualifiers of the other pool and you carry your points over. Will you still play everyone? No, but you are still playing the top teams. If Russia or Canada have a disastrous first pool and one doesn't move on, then so be it.

 

[Nino33]

They are not going to shrink the tournament. They would want to grow the tournament. Do you think the soccer world cup would be what it is if it was only the top-6 or 8 teams?

I'd be fine with 6-8 teams in the soccer world cup; I remember watching players like Pele, Cruyff and Maradona when there were far fewer teams then now.....I think those players and the game made the world cup what it is (and adding additional teams over the years has diluted the quality/value, not increased it)

As far as the round-robin, could always do what they did in the Olympics pre-1992. 2 pools for a round robin. Top-2 or 3 in each pool move on to play the qualifiers of the other pool and you carry your points over. Will you still play everyone? No, but you are still playing the top teams. If Russia or Canada have a disastrous first pool and one doesn't move on, then so be it.

For me, no thanks/doesn't help at all

 

[patnyrnyg]

How does it not help? Let's say you have pool A with Canada, US, Czechs, Germany, Switzerland. Canada, US, Sweden move on. In pool B, you have Sweden, Finland, Slovakia, Russia, Norway. Russia goes 0-3-1 (tying Norway). If Canada goes on and wins, why should it matter that they didn't play Russia? Russia was terrible this go-round.

 

[Nino33]

How does it not help? Let's say you have pool A with Canada, US, Czechs, Germany, Switzerland. Canada, US, Sweden move on. In pool B, you have Sweden, Finland, Slovakia, Russia, Norway. Russia goes 0-3-1 (tying Norway). If Canada goes on and wins, why should it matter that they didn't play Russia? Russia was terrible this go-round.

Because a 6 team, 5 game round robin, 4 or 3 teams in playoffs system is much better.
Your suggestion has teams not playing everyone & involves (IMO) extra/unnecessary teams (the opposite of my intentions).



I watched tennis in the Borg/McEnroe era and recall along with the majors (Australian, French, Wimbledon, US) there was "the Masters" held at year end with far fewer players involved ("the best of the best" and not qualifiers/unseeded/lower ranked players)

I'd prefer a hockey best-on-best with the top teams being the focus (like the Maters in tennis), rather than the focus being it being as big/inclusive as possible.

 

[RED ARMY EAST]

If it is an 8 team tournament:
Top 6: Canada,USA,Russia,SWE,Fin,Czech.
You could determine the last two teams from the World Championship results or have a qualification round from the 4 teams with the best results from the World's.(outside of the top 6 nations), top 2 advance to World Cup tournament??

 

[elmaco]

Just mimic the Olympics, please.

 

[member 305909]

The schedule is important; an 8-team tournament with two groups of four +play-offs is quicker to carry out than a 6-team tournament with a single round-robin group+play-offs.

 

[Nino33]

The schedule is important; an 8-team tournament with two groups of four +play-offs is quicker to carry out than a 6-team tournament with a single round-robin group+play-offs.

Yeah, it is one more game (5 round robin + semis + final instead of 3 round robin + quarters + semis + finals)



EDIT - actually, I just checked and it'd be the same as the Olympics (the Olympics have 3 round robin + qualification playoffs + quarters + semis + finals)

So an 8-team tournament with two groups of four + play-offs = the same number of games as a 6-team tournament with a single round-robin group + play-offs (since such a playoffs in a a 6-team tournament wouldn't have qualification/quarterfinal playoff games)

 

[Peiskos]

I can see people’s issue with the WCOH when it comes to the gimmick teams but if they simply did away with those teams what is the issue with it?

I can understand some people putting an asterisk beside the 2016 tournament but even that was pretty representative of a best vs best far greater than anything seen at the IIHF WC every summer...the 2016 WCOH featured the very best possible teams from Sweden, Finland, Russia and Czech Republic so fans from these countries shouldn’t really complain tbh.

I was never a fan of the gimmick teams myself so if they just allow regular national teams nobody should have an issue with it. I also think it should be a bi-national thing again with games in various cities, have it in Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Boston, NY, Philadelphia for example.

At least try to make it seem more international rather than just 1 city.

 

[Elvs]

I can see people’s issue with the WCOH when it comes to the gimmick teams but if they simply did away with those teams what is the issue with it?

I can understand some people putting an asterisk beside the 2016 tournament but even that was pretty representative of a best vs best far greater than anything seen at the IIHF WC every summer...the 2016 WCOH featured the very best possible teams from Sweden, Finland, Russia and Czech Republic so fans from these countries shouldn’t really complain tbh.

I was never a fan of the gimmick teams myself so if they just allow regular national teams nobody should have an issue with it. I also think it should be a bi-national thing again with games in various cities, have it in Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Boston, NY, Philadelphia for example.

At least try to make it seem more international rather than just 1 city.

Maybe we care about fans from other countries too, and want a better atmospherics around the tournament overall? Maybe we want our national teams to compete against other national teams instead of gimmicks? And maybe when when our national teams are playing against Canada and USA, we want them to have the same prerequisites as us, meaning not having a couple of their best players stolen by another team?

I guess if Bettman wanted to move all the Canadian teams to the U.S. except the Maple Leafs, I guess fans from Toronto shouldn't complain... Apparently everyone should be so egocentric they should not care what's going on with anything other than their own favourite team ...

If Canadians and Americans can't fully enjoy the tournament because not all their best players are available too them, and if fans of the smaller European hockey nations feel their toes are being stepped on, it also makes the tournament less enjoyable for me as a Swede.

 

[member 305909]

If the tournament is held in more than one city then at least on the same side of the continent. For example Vancouver/Calgary, Toronto/Montreal, NYC/Boston, LA/Phoenix etc.

I think the tournament should always be in North-America. It just somehow "belongs" there.

 

[JackSlater]

The Hockey News has an article about this. Daly reiterating that they don't want to hold the tournament is there is labour uncertainty, so that likely kills this edition of the tournament off. Most importantly though, he says that they are leaning toward using eight national teams instead of creating gimmick teams again.

The threat of another lockout could get in the way of 2020 World Cup of Hockey - TheHockeyNews

 

[AmericanDream]

The Hockey News has an article about this. Daly reiterating that they don't want to hold the tournament is there is labour uncertainty, so that likely kills this edition of the tournament off. Most importantly though, he says that they are leaning toward using eight national teams instead of creating gimmick teams again.

The threat of another lockout could get in the way of 2020 World Cup of Hockey - TheHockeyNews

thanks for "leaning" to common f***ing sense....

 

[Big Phil]

If this does happen, and I hope it does, it will be refreshing to know that they will go back to the normal format. No more gimmicks. And for those clowns that like the gimmick teams, ponder this, Auston Matthews and Connor McDavid would STILL be on the gimmick teams with the 2016 format.