Does this tournament mean anything to Russia?

[Pouchkine]

Of course the Olympics means much more than a crap cash grab shit tournament.

 

[sandysan]

Of course the Olympics means much more than a crap cash grab **** tournament.

Yeah when any team at that tournament would obliterate any team at the Olympics.

If you are used to claiming supremacy from a best of the rest tournament enjoy these Olympics and the annual world championships.

 

[Albatros]

Yeah when any team at that tournament would obliterate any team at the Olympics.

If you are used to claiming supremacy from a best of the rest tournament enjoy these Olympics and the annual world championships.

The NHL All-Star Game must be the pinnacle of hockey for you.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

Does it mean anything? Pretty sure it means everything to Russia for these Olympics and their turmoil. Just wish it did for everyone else.

 

[mjlee]

Olympics usually means the best of the best. It clearly can't be the case without the NHL participating.

Is an Olympic gold Medal in Soccer more important than the World Cup?

So the Miracle on Ice in 1980 doesn't count since the NHL most definitely did not participate. Instead there was a ragtag bunch of college players who won the most legendary olympic gold ever, in any sport.

The olympics survived without the NHL for a long time. They'll survive even if NHL decides to stop participating. There's not a Swede who thinks the olympic gold from Lillehammar doesn't count or is devalued becuse of non-NHL participation. People tend to forget that the NHL didn't participate until 20 years ago, Nagano 1998. Olympic hockey doesn't live or die by the NHL.

The NHL oth desperately want a bigger global presence - see NHL games in Europe this and next year. They are especially focused on China knowing how lucrative the Chinese market is, and seeing what football (soccer) and the NBA have done there. Does anyone seriously think that Bettman and the owners will let the opportunity to showcase their players during the next olympics in China?

 

[Zine]

Yeah when any team at that tournament would obliterate any team at the Olympics.

If you are used to claiming supremacy from a best of the rest tournament enjoy these Olympics and the annual world championships.

Both the World Cup and these Olympics arent best on best. But at least the olympics is a proper international tourney without gimicks and has vast world exposure. Virtually nobody worldwide gave two craps about the NHLs World Cup. Totally insignificant.

 

[Pouchkine]

Most importantly even the players didn't give a damn about the gimmick cup. The Spengler Cup is better than that joke!

 

[JackSlater]

Which is precisely why I stopped caring about short-track speed skating after they banned Ahn from the games.

That's reasonable, though I do find it funny that he skates for Russia. Pretty much as funny (or sad) as Bloeman for Canada.

Of course, I cannot even speak in behalf of my family, let alone a whole continent, but my take is simple: of course I want to see the best possible in an international tournament,
but since I cannot have it, why should I care a lot less about the tournament?
It's still the sport I want to watch, with players that are doing everything they can to win and the entertainment that these matches bring is not in any way lower than when the superstars are there. If only, this situation brought more "parity", a concept that in NA seems very cherished since they even have rules that benefit teams that sucks.
The only reason to watch sport is for its entertainment value, I may not get to see McDavid skating around, but that does not prevent me from enjoying Germany beating Canada 4-3 in one of the most exciting matches of the last few olympic editions.

This has been explained many, many times, including in the post that you quoted. People want the best players there. They care if the best players are there. In Canada anyway, and among Americans who generally are aware of the level of players in the tournament. If the best players aren't there, then they are just playing for trinkets (in this case medals). Olympic medals do not have an intrinsic value - their value is derived being awarded to the best (or at least close enough) in a given discipline. Given that we know that the players who win the Olympic gold in hockey aren't the best in their discipline by any argument, the value goes away.

Edit: to use a better example, most Canadian hockey fans regard the Stanley Cup as the biggest prize for a hockey club to win. If the AHL and NHL switch trophies, with the NHL champion being awarded the Calder Cup and the AHL champion being awarded the Stanley Cup, would people be expected to still value the Stanley Cup to a high level? There would be novelty with the Stanley Cup, but the biggest prize by far for a hockey club to win would immediately become the Calder Cup. If the best players and teams stop competing for the Stanley Cup, then the Stanley Cup ceases to be a hugely significant trophy.

Regarding your last paragraph and enjoyment, by all means enjoy what you like. Many people in Canada enjoy the CFL despite it being an inferior level of football compared with the NFL. If the Super Bowl trophy was given to the CFL and the Grey Cup went to the NFL though, no reasonable person would declare the Super Bowl trophy the biggest football prize simply because of some intrinsic value. Anyway, there is a fairly obvious difference between entertainment and what my post discussed.

The IIHF "does" international tournaments, the nhl as a private league can make their own damn rules, and did (team leftover Europe and younf guns). What the nhl did was trade. On demand for best on best hockey but if you could not discern the. Difference, that's on you.

I like ham sandwiches. The world cup isn't a ham sandwich, should we blane the nhl or acknowledge what things ARE and not what we would like them to be?

Irrelevant to what I said. You seem to struggle to stick to a consistent point. Anyway, as to your new point, of course the NHL can make its rules. This time, it made incredibly stupid rules. I am acknowledging the World Cup for what it was - a joke tournament with horrible gimmicks. Very simple. There is no need to slide to some new, irrelevant point from this post or lie about how the NHL presented the tournament - the World Cup was a joke because of the idiotic gimmicks and format that the NHL imposed.

 

[stampedingviking]

I tend to think this Olympic gold doesn't carry the same gravitas as it did previously. I'm pretty sure more people cared about the World Cup result and that tournament was a joke

That being said, the Russians are a prideful people. They take any win they get, no matter how they get it -- disbarred for cheating, lower quality of competition, and they'll still care -- heck, can we even be sure that NHL's lack of participation wasn't Putin's plan from the beginning?

In any case, here's hoping for a German upset.

It's the Olympics and despite what many North Americans on here have posted, the rest of the world will treat this with the respect it deserves. An Olympic medal is an Olympic medal, regardless.

 

[shtorm2005]

It's an interesting narrative you are trying to create, even if we ignore the erroneous amateur claim, but it isn't accurate. Not to speak for Americans, but the issue for many Canadians is that these are far from the best players, for Canada and for everyone else. It isn't about whether there is more or less competition, in fact people are more invested when there is more competition provided that the best are there. It's the same reason that people in Canada generally don't care very much about the various times the Canadian amateur players won Olympic gold medals. It just made the Olympic tournament look a bit ridiculous that Canadian amateurs, far from the best players in the world, could go play and win the tournament. This is part of the reason that the tournament's value in general is lower in Canada, but that's a discussion for a different topic I suppose.

It's very simple from a North American perspective - people want to see the best in an international tournament. If it isn't the best, particularly if it is far from the best, people are going to care a lot less. People can twist and turn all they want but that is reality. The European perspective seems very strange to me. Perhaps people in Europe would still value the World Cup even if players from English, Spanish, Italian, German and French leagues were not allowed to participate, I don't really know. But that simply isn't the case in Canada or USA among most who are aware of the level of the tournament.

It was mentionned above that you have much less competition when NA teams composed strickly from NHL stars while others can't do that. The main issue is that canadians hockey watchers are very spoiled by their achievements in history of hockey. They got used to be favorites all the time, and when they're not, they lose quickly interest. Think about countries like Germany, what's their motivation year after year to participate in international championships where NA teams almost garanteed semifinals and above? Just to satisfy canadian desire to prove that (with all money invested in hockey) they're better? I think there is positive things when NHL doesn't participate in Olympics, it's like salary cap in the league. It adds more competition in the tournament, thus make it more exciting. It's okay if canadians don't want to watch olympic hockey without NHL stars, but don't try to diminish gold medal importance since it was earned through more competition than before.

 

[sandysan]

The NHL All-Star Game must be the pinnacle of hockey for you.

They don't try at the all star game.

That doesn't change the fact that the talent difference between the NHL and the next best league is IMMENSE.

If that bothers you, tough. The NHL is, by orders of magnitude the most talent laden and deepest depth league on the planet.

And it ain't gonna change any time soon.

 

[JackSlater]

It was mentionned above that you have much less competition when NA teams composed strickly from NHL stars while others can't do that. The main issue is that canadians hockey watchers are very spoiled by their achievements in history of hockey. They got used to be favorites all the time, and when they're not, they lose quickly interest. Think about countries like Germany, what's their motivation year after year to participate in international championships where NA teams almost garanteed semifinals and above? Just to satisfy canadian desire to prove that (with all money invested in hockey) they're better? I think there is positive things when NHL doesn't participate in Olympics, it's like salary cap in the league. It adds more competition in the tournament, thus make it more exciting. It's okay if canadians don't want to watch olympic hockey without NHL stars, but don't try to diminish gold medal importance since it was earned through more competition than before.

This really is nonsense, to the point where I struggle to believe that people actually believe what they are saying. The players in the tournament are not near the best in their sport, wih maybe a handful of exceptions. It isn't a competition of the best or even of the close to the best, it is a competition of just who was leftover. It is incredibly obvious why this diminishes whatever importance there is in any given tournament. There is "more competition" because the best players cannot compete, no other reason. If the teams being close in ability is what decides how "important" something is then I can go watch 5 year olds play hockey at the local rink. The teams are horrible and the players aren't good, but the games are competitive so I guess somehow it is important. Imagine applying this to other sports. Jamaica can't use its 10 best sprinters at the next summer Olympics, USA can't use its best 7 sprinters, Canada can't use its 3 best sprinters and so on. Sure all of the sprinters will be far from the best, but at least everyone will suck, the gold means just as much as racing Usain Bolt.

Honestly so many of the opinions in here are absurd. All Olympic medals are valuable, as long as we conveniently ignore the sports where that is not true. Ignorant, casual fans won't know that the best players aren't there so due to their ignorance everyone should pretend it's just as important. Having everyone not use the best players somehow makes it more competitive because everyone is handicapped, though to varying degrees. If people are being honest in putting forward these asinine opinions then I have to give massive credit to the IOC because the propaganda surrounding the Olympics is far stronger in some parts of the world than I ever imagined.

 

[stampedingviking]

This really is nonsense, to the point where I struggle to believe that people actually believe what they are saying. The players in the tournament are not near the best in their sport, wih maybe a handful of exceptions. It isn't a competition of the best or even of the close to the best, it is a competition of just who was leftover. It is incredibly obvious why this diminishes whatever importance there is in any given tournament. There is "more competition" because the best players cannot compete, no other reason. If the teams being close in ability is what decides how "important" something is then I can go watch 5 year olds play hockey at the local rink. The teams are horrible and the players aren't good, but the games are competitive so I guess somehow it is important. Imagine applying this to other sports. Jamaica can't use its 10 best sprinters at the next summer Olympics, USA can't use its best 7 sprinters, Canada can't use its 3 best sprinters and so on. Sure all of the sprinters will be far from the best, but at least everyone will suck, the gold means just as much as racing Usain Bolt.

Honestly so many of the opinions in here are absurd. All Olympic medals are valuable, as long as we conveniently ignore the sports where that is not true. Ignorant, casual fans won't know that the best players aren't there so due to their ignorance everyone should pretend it's just as important. Having everyone not use the best players somehow makes it more competitive because everyone is handicapped, though to varying degrees. If people are being honest in putting forward these asinine opinions then I have to give massive credit to the IOC because the propaganda surrounding the Olympics is far stronger in some parts of the world than I ever imagined.

So what you're saying is that any Olympic medals before 1998 were devalued because the NHL players weren't involved?

What an asinine opinion, although I have to give credit to the NHL for brainwashing some North Americans into believing that only NHL players matter.

 

[Snippit]

World Cup of Hockey 2016 >>>>>>> Olympics 2018 in importance, quality and entertainment value

And I didn't even like the World Cup

 

[Albatros]

They don't try at the all star game.

That doesn't change the fact that the talent difference between the NHL and the next best league is IMMENSE.

If that bothers you, tough. The NHL is, by orders of magnitude the most talent laden and deepest depth league on the planet.

And it ain't gonna change any time soon.

No, I don't care. Internationally they're completely meaningless regardless of their deepest depths. Pittsburgh winning Nashville means nothing to me, an Olympic gold is a whole different story.

 

[JackSlater]

So what you're saying is that any Olympic medals before 1998 were devalued because the NHL players weren't involved?

What an asinine opinion, although I have to give credit to the NHL for brainwashing some North Americans into believing that only NHL players matter.

Devalued relative to what? The Olympic tournaments before 1998 obviously have less value than the Olympic tournaments from 1998-2014. The previous five tournaments are the only tournaments with pretty much all of the world's best players. Relative to 2018 some of the tournaments before 1998 are clearly more valuable though. In 1976 for instance you had at least some of the world's best players and at least two world class teams in USSR and Czechoslovakia. That's certainly more impressive than what 2018 offers.

Your attempt to paint this as blind praise of the NHL fails. I hated the 2016 World Cup despite it being nearly all NHL players. The problem with this tournament is very obvious - the best players in the world aren't there. That isn't some kind of NHL propaganda, it's merely a fact. If the best players all leave the NHL next season but still aren't at the 2022 tournament then the issue remains even with the NHL rendered irrelevant.

 

[shtorm2005]

It isn't a competition of the best or even of the close to the best, it is a competition of just who was leftover.

It`s a competition of best available like always. NHL players belongs to NHL, not to their countries. Best players you're referring to, you simply don't have. If it's fun to watch 10-1 games for you, it's not for everyone. Actually, same thing is happening now when Russia is banned in Olympics and Canada is harvesting a lot of medals. Aren't they less valuable then? Why Canadians are watching this then? Isn't double face attitude? Yes there is a reason why best Russian athletes are absent, but there is also reason for NHL players.

Millionaires on the ice show isn't always fun to watch and miracle on the ice is a great example for this. Average athletes can be also pretty exciting to watch when they fight with heart for their countries. Again, can you answer me if salary cap made NHL better?

 

[sandysan]

It`s a competition of best available like always. NHL players belongs to NHL, not to their countries. Best players you're referring to, you simply don't have. If it's fun to watch 10-1 games for you, it's not for everyone. Actually, same thing is happening now when Russia is banned in Olympics and Canada is harvesting a lot of medals. Aren't they less valuable then? Why Canadians are watching this then? Isn't double face attitude? Yes there is a reason why best Russian athletes are absent, but there is also reason for NHL players.

Millionaires on the ice show isn't always fun to watch and miracle on the ice is a great example for this. Average athletes can be also pretty exciting to watch when they fight with heart for their countries. Again, can you answer me if salary cap made NHL better?

The cap is collectively bargained. So whether it is good, or bad is none of my damn business. But it does promote cost certainty AND it ensures that there is parity in the league and not a collection of haves and have nots.

For someone who likes the " anyone can win" arguing against the cap seems silly. If watching a bunch of school teachers beat some accountants and a cabbie is entertaining because you literally have no idea of who will win and talent is second to uncertainty, then. Enjoy the craptastic beer league that is the spengler cup and the world shampionships.

The purpose of competition is competition. It's not which system has the most uncertainty. Random number generators are NOT entertaining. The purpose of sport it to define, under a commoin set of rules, which team is better. If teams are. Not allowed to ice their best players what does it mean? If becomes a "tournament of steves. If germany's steves are better than the Swiss steves, ggod for them but let's not pretend that anyone should care which country has the best collection of players named Steve ( even if it IS under the corrupt 5 rings)

 

[Jon Riley]

This has been explained many, many times, including in the post that you quoted. People want the best players there. They care if the best players are there. In Canada anyway, and among Americans who generally are aware of the level of players in the tournament.

In Europe as well, at least when it comes to people that know hockey. I am not saying anything different here.

If the best players aren't there, then they are just playing for trinkets (in this case medals). Olympic medals do not have an intrinsic value - their value is derived being awarded to the best (or at least close enough) in a given discipline. Given that we know that the players who win the Olympic gold in hockey aren't the best in their discipline by any argument, the value goes away.

Here I disagree. I believe that olympic medals have an intrinsic value, even though maybe not as high as someone here believes, but high nevertheless.
To me, and again this is just my opinion, the value mostly is what the players put into it.
What is the "value" of a competition for you? I do not think it's a universal definition. What is the purpose of international competition?

no reasonable person would declare the Super Bowl trophy the biggest football prize simply because of some intrinsic value. Anyway, there is a fairly obvious difference between entertainment and what my post discussed.

And I do not do that either. Except for the fact that I barely know what the superbowl is, but that is another story.

The main difference between my opinion and yours, if I understood properly, is that for you, if it.s not best on best, it has no value.
For me, it may still very well have it, whatever a value is. And this even if we completely forget that the olympics have a tradition and a prestige that for a lot of people has no equal.

 

[SirKillalot]

A bigger failure than 1998? How can you logically come to that conclusion?

Czech Republic being a much better team than Germany compared to Canada's team in 98 and Canada's team in 18.

 

[Xokkeu]

What time in North America was the Sochi game at?

4:30 local so if my time zones are correct 8:30 am eastern

 

[Ingvar]

As a Russian, I would feel satisfaction and relief if we won gold. Satisfaction because golds are rare for us this Olympics where some of our best competitors were excluded for BS reasons and relief because I'm tired of us losing when we bring superior rosters. Maybe I would be happier if it was a best-on-best tournament but I'll take what I can.

What I find hypocritical is that people complain about quality of competition but there is a 90 page thread where people discuss women's hockey final. If you forget for a second that players on the ice have boobs you'll see that the quality of competition is worse than in U18 tournaments and most of people here don't bother to watch them. I guess inferior hockey on Olympic stage is good enough when your team is top-2 in the tournament.

 

[mjlee]

There seems to be a divide between NA and the rest of the world fans. Here in Europe we (and yes sorry for generalizing) in international competitions cheer primarily for the jersey not the person wearing it. Erik Karlsson can't play? Oh too bad, but I'm here to watch Sweden not Erik Karlsson.

What I would argue is underestimated is the much lesser impact of NHL on hockey fans in Europe - hence why european fans tend not to care much about the Stanley Cup - again with exceptions of course. Unless you're a serious fanatic and have a lifestyle that allows you to sit up through most of the night, you may, at most, catch a game or two a week if that and watch 'best on best'. Otoh, I can go to my local rink and watch my team play a hockey that is actually not as good as the one being played right now. Yes, we all know that the best players in the world play in the NHL. Unfortunately they get drafted as teenagers like prize dogs and disappear across the pond according to the decisions of their new owners. And we never get to see them play in Europe unless it's an international tournament or when he's old and wants to ease into retirement. So we're used to not seeing the best players from our country and their personal presence is subordinate to the national team.

Having NA fans (and in particular Canadian) repeatedly rubbing our noses in the dirt about how bush league and bad european based players that wear the maple leaf these games are, can be frustrating. Instead of complaining and moaning about that elusive 'best on best' show some damned pride and support for the jersey they wear. No they're not Sidney Crosby or Drew Doughty or Connor MacDavid or John Tavares. They're the players selected to represent Canada. Maybe show some pride in your own country at least, if you can't in the players that represent it.

 

[Xokkeu]

There seems to be a divide between NA and the rest of the world fans. Here in Europe we (and yes sorry for generalizing) in international competitions cheer primarily for the jersey not the person wearing it. Erik Karlsson can't play? Oh too bad, but I'm here to watch Sweden not Erik Karlsson.

What I would argue is underestimated is the much lesser impact of NHL on hockey fans in Europe - hence why european fans tend not to care much about the Stanley Cup - again with exceptions of course. Unless you're a serious fanatic and have a lifestyle that allows you to sit up through most of the night, you may, at most, catch a game or two a week if that and watch 'best on best'. Otoh, I can go to my local rink and watch my team play a hockey that is actually not as good as the one being played right now. Yes, we all know that the best players in the world play in the NHL. Unfortunately they get drafted as teenagers like prize dogs and disappear across the pond according to the decisions of their new owners. And we never get to see them play in Europe unless it's an international tournament or when he's old and wants to ease into retirement. So we're used to not seeing the best players from our country and their personal presence is subordinate to the national team.

Having NA fans (and in particular Canadian) repeatedly rubbing our noses in the dirt about how bush league and bad european based players that wear the maple leaf these games are, can be frustrating. Instead of complaining and moaning about that elusive 'best on best' show some damned pride and support for the jersey they wear. No they're not Sidney Crosby or Drew Doughty or Connor MacDavid or John Tavares. They're the players selected to represent Canada. Maybe show some pride in your own country at least, if you can't in the players that represent it.

Americans just don’t really care about national teams. They’ll get excited on the off chance the US soccer team wins a World Cup game but that’s more for the underdog story as Americans love underdog stories. Which is why the Olympics resonate so well because nobody knows anybody. Casual fans will get behind team USA with NHL players like they get behind Mikaela Shiffrin. Once every four years. Had the US team made the gold medal game I can guarantee you the ratings would be huge. Outside of hardcore hockey fans nobody cares or really even knows who is playing.

Canadians on the other hand are much more nationalistic when it comes to sports. Lots of internal divisions in the country get smoothed over by the maple leaf jerseys. Honestly I think the Canadian animosity towards this tournament has to do a lot more with people being angry that they don’t get that collective moment of mass hysteria because the current team sucks and Canadians don’t get to celebrate something they are really good at. Producing hockey players.

 

[PlietscherDassel]

It’s a very North American thing to say you don’t care about something if you are afraid of losing or if you already have lost. The funny thing is, if Canada or the US would have won it would have been the greatest story ever and they would rub it into everybody’s face for decades. It’s what they do and why they make it so difficult for the rest of the world to root for them. Which is unfortunate, because Canada and the US have many exceptional athletes.
By the way I’m not saying everyone in Canada and the US is that way. Even here some people have been objective and great about this tournament. However, there is this stereotype about North Americans and every major sports event there are many people that are very eager to verify the it.

Every nation participating would have cared about winning the gold medal. Especially Canada.
And it should always be about the sport and the jersey, not the names of individual players.