Do you like the current WJCH format?

[alko]

Wouldnt be better to play in one group all vs all? And then semifinals and medal games.

Click to read more...

 

[JackSlater]

I like it as it is. Having one big group and then semi-finals and medal games would increase the number of games played by around two thirds. It would take too long and a lot of potential hosts would drop out do to the strain of hosting so many games.

 

[MaxV]

I like the current format.

The only small change I would consider is to determine groups based on the results of multiple previous tournaments (3 sounds like a good number) not just the single previous tournament.

It's not a huge issue since top teams still usually advance to playoffs, but it does create unbalanced groups at times.

 

[TheBeastCoast]

I like the current format.

The only small change I would consider is to determine groups based on the results of multiple previous tournaments (3 sounds like a good number) not just the single previous tournament.

It's not a huge issue since top teams still usually advance to playoffs, but it does create unbalanced groups at times.

I like that idea actually. Would also at some point like to see the tournament expand by 2 teams but not until it makes sense(dont need to bring 2 new teams to get steamrolled).

 

[BigRangy]

I love it but I wish the winner of the u20 d1a tournament that was just played (i.e. Austria) would be immediately promoted upwards instead of having to wait a year and then having their best players age out before they get sent up to the top division. Teams that promote should have a chance to defend with the team that got them there. I think it would lead to more competitive games for the bottom team, since then they've had the benefit of playing (and winning) as a team just shortly before.

 

[Statsy]

I love it but I wish the winner of the u20 d1a tournament that was just played (i.e. Austria) would be immediately promoted upwards instead of having to wait a year and then having their best players age out before they get sent up to the top division. Teams that promote should have a chance to defend with the team that got them there. I think it would lead to more competitive games for the bottom team, since then they've had the benefit of playing (and winning) as a team just shortly before.

I agree with this. Gord Miller has been pushing this idea for a few years.

The other change I would make is to go back to just putting three teams from each group into the playoff round. That really ramps up the urgency of the preliminary round.

 

[Pasha71]

The only change I want is no more than one game at a time. That way, NHL Network can show all games live.

 

[tony d]

I like it the way it is now. A group format then playoffs makes for some good hockey.

 

[Canada4Gold]

I liked the old format better(1-3 in the playoffs, 1 gets a bye). Made 1st more important, and 3rd way more important. Minus the 5th place game that they never should have been playing. Obviously the higher the finish the better usually, but the top 4 making the QF makes The group stage less important

I also like the suggested promoted team plays immediately. I doubt they'd want to demote 2 teams to enact that, but if they ever expand to 12 would be a good time to do that.

 

[sting101]

Hitting rule is ghastly. Has ruined it for me

 

[gotyournose]

The only change I want is no more than one game at a time. That way, NHL Network can show all games live.

Well that might be a bit tough considering the different venues that show games at the same time. Must be tough living in the US with only having one TV channel that shows game, TSN was smart to have 5 channels.

Back to OP question, the format is fine the way it is.

 

[MeHateHe]

I agree with this. Gord Miller has been pushing this idea for a few years.

The other change I would make is to go back to just putting three teams from each group into the playoff round. That really ramps up the urgency of the preliminary round.

A couple points:
How would it be to have a team that has played five games in seven days, likely sustaining injuries in the process, should then go into the elite pool a couple weeks later?
How would clubs feel about losing some of their players for a full month?
The current promotion/relegation system in juniors works in that it allows countries who have programs that develop their players to progress. Countries that get lucky with a couple of good players here and there will bounce back and forth.

 

[Jacksonbobson]

i'd add two teams to the top division

 

[Statsy]

A couple points:
How would it be to have a team that has played five games in seven days, likely sustaining injuries in the process, should then go into the elite pool a couple weeks later?
How would clubs feel about losing some of their players for a full month?
The current promotion/relegation system in juniors works in that it allows countries who have programs that develop their players to progress. Countries that get lucky with a couple of good players here and there will bounce back and forth.

Countries are already bouncing back and forth. As for saying how tough it would be to go into the elite pool a few weeks later, the answer is that it would be a lot easier than trying to do it the next year with all your top players having graduated. These countries aren’t able to put a great lineup together on a yearly basis, but rather need to wait for one particularly strong birth year to become competitive. Your only point that actually has merit is that of the club teams missing out on key players for too long.

In the end, allowing a more solid lineup (that has already established chemistry) to compete at the top level would make for a better event with more parity, and would also further the development of these burgeoning hockey programs as they would be much more successful.

 

[MeHateHe]

Countries are already bouncing back and forth. As for saying how tough it would be to go into the elite pool a few weeks later, the answer is that it would be a lot easier than trying to do it the next year with all your top players having graduated. These countries aren’t able to put a great lineup together on a yearly basis, but rather need to wait for one particularly strong birth year to become competitive. Your only point that actually has merit is that of the club teams missing out on key players for too long.

And, related, that federations would have to pay to keep these teams together for the better part of five weeks. I can’t imagine a federation like Slovenia, given how few players they have in their overall system, being willing to fork out that extra cash for a U-20 tournament.

In the end, allowing a more solid lineup (that has already established chemistry) to compete at the top level would make for a better event with more parity, and would also further the development of these burgeoning hockey programs as they would be much more successful.

Again, the only way they stay in the top group is if they develop their whole program, rather than rely on one solid year or a couple of very good players.

The difficulty is that posters in this thread are talking about making the tournament better, when the IIHF’s mandate for U-18 and U-20 tournaments is also about developing the game, especially outside of the elite 8 countries. When the Kazakhs were getting thumped in Victoria last year, all those kids could talk about was how glad they were there, and that’s the kind of thing they can take back home with them; having a play-in tournament like Gord Miller is always talking about would limit that opportunity.

Me, I’d rather expand the tournament to 12 teams and have two teams go up and down, although I suspect adding another three days onto the tournament would be an unpopular idea among the CHL owners, and therefore Hockey Canada.

 

[sekundomer]

I find current format as ideal in most of its aspects.
10 teams because tournament length but also that holiday term (26 - 5).
4 teams to playoffs because play-off is attractive while relegation group isn't (attendance numbers) Relegation series is relatively ideal solution.
U20 results is more predictable (between uneven teams) so chance to upset from bottom of the table isn't so high. Plus for bottom team (eg CZE) is always better play "bonus game" in playoffs than try to avoid relegation in some group...

In the past I speculated and tried to find better format too, but now I really think that current way is ideal, more or less.

 

[Statsy]

And, related, that federations would have to pay to keep these teams together for the better part of five weeks. I can’t imagine a federation like Slovenia, given how few players they have in their overall system, being willing to fork out that extra cash for a U-20 tournament.


Again, the only way they stay in the top group is if they develop their whole program, rather than rely on one solid year or a couple of very good players.

The difficulty is that posters in this thread are talking about making the tournament better, when the IIHF’s mandate for U-18 and U-20 tournaments is also about developing the game, especially outside of the elite 8 countries. When the Kazakhs were getting thumped in Victoria last year, all those kids could talk about was how glad they were there, and that’s the kind of thing they can take back home with them; having a play-in tournament like Gord Miller is always talking about would limit that opportunity.

Me, I’d rather expand the tournament to 12 teams and have two teams go up and down, although I suspect adding another three days onto the tournament would be an unpopular idea among the CHL owners, and therefore Hockey Canada.

Are you aware that they used to have two teams go up and down and that they specifically ended that practice because if a problem you already complained about; bouncing back and forth.

I’m not saying there aren’t drawbacks, though complaining that a federation isn’t willing to pay for a team that just won a championship (which they probably just earned money from the IIHF for doing) to move up and play in the elite group seems like a poor argument. Promotion is the whole purpose of playing Div 1. It seems like there are a lot more advantages to moving them up right away then there are drawbacks.

 

[MeHateHe]

Are you aware that they used to have two teams go up and down and that they specifically ended that practice because if a problem you already complained about; bouncing back and forth.
.

The two-up, two-down format was a failure because they had the 12 teams ranked from 11-22 in two six-team tournaments, mixed, so that it wasn’t a tournament with teams 11-16 and another with teams 17-22. So you could theoretically have had the two best teams in one tournament with only one with a chance of promotion. A natural progression would be more effective.

I’m not saying there aren’t drawbacks, though complaining that a federation isn’t willing to pay for a team that just won a championship (which they probably just earned money from the IIHF for doing) to move up and play in the elite group seems like a poor argument. Promotion is the whole purpose of playing Div 1. It seems like there are a lot more advantages to moving them up right away then there are drawbacks.

The drawbacks, especially cost of maintaining one team for a long time and the need to keep players away from their club for a full month, are nearly insurmountable. Again, I think we Canadians forget how little importance most European federations place on the U-20 tournament, so convincing them of any perceived advantages to a tournament they won’t win and don’t value will be a tough sell.

In any case, I am repeating myself so if you want to respond, don’t take it personally if I stop engaging. Off to Prague in the morning! Sadly, not to watch any hockey...

 

[Statsy]

No, I’m good. We see it a bit differently, that’s all. Nothing wrong with different viewpoints. Good luck with your trip!

 

[Pasha71]

Well that might be a bit tough considering the different venues that show games at the same time. Must be tough living in the US with only having one TV channel that shows game, TSN was smart to have 5 channels.

Back to OP question, the format is fine the way it is.

I do agree my wish is rather Amerocentric.

 

[member 305909]

I would remove relegation. Instead the bottom teams would have to play some qualification to get to the next tournament.

Namely, you are unlikely to be able to represent your country in more than two tournaments before you are overaged. Too bad if your team has been relegated just that year.

After all, some years ago also Finland was close to getting relegated.

 

[Cardiac Jerks]

i'd add two teams to the top division

The bottom teams are already getting steamrolled. Why add teams even worse than they are? What would this accomplish?

 

[SympathyForTheDevils]

Countries are already bouncing back and forth. As for saying how tough it would be to go into the elite pool a few weeks later, the answer is that it would be a lot easier than trying to do it the next year with all your top players having graduated. These countries aren’t able to put a great lineup together on a yearly basis, but rather need to wait for one particularly strong birth year to become competitive. Your only point that actually has merit is that of the club teams missing out on key players for too long.

In the end, allowing a more solid lineup (that has already established chemistry) to compete at the top level would make for a better event with more parity, and would also further the development of these burgeoning hockey programs as they would be much more successful.

You're not wrong about ageing out being a problem, but for that to work, they likely would have to push the Div1A tourney back to earlier in the year. Else, having a participating team announced just a few weeks before the tourney would likely be a logistical hassle.

The other potential drawback I see is that you might get the same 1-2 elevator teams playing both tourneys each year. Which would be both draining for the players and federation of those teams, and frustrating for the other Div1A teams that would never get the chance at participating in the elite tourney.

 

[NekcuP]

Yes and no. 8 of 10 teams go straight to the quarterfinals has their + and -.
The groupwinners should just kick the ass of the 4th placed teams. But we see changes, like last year.
Some year you play shitty and end up as 4th, in that case your probably very happy that you get a spot, next year you win the group easy with 12pts but still lose the quarterfinal against a team who got like 2-3pts, and you are very upset.

The relegation system is in my opinion a good way to decide that.

 

[Statsy]

There's a big plus to the 1 vs 4 quarterfinal that hasn't been mentioned. It means an extra game to watch for us WJC addicts!