How can the World Championship improve as an event?

[ulvvf]

In fact, usually over 80% of all NHL players are eliminated from the Stanley Cup by the time the WHC starts. Closer to 90% are available by the cut-off date. The reason many NA NHL players aren't there is that their Federations don't push them or give them incentive to play. The claims of injury are a joke for the most part - if they were so badly injured, how did they manage to keep playing in the NHL? NA sports fans, especially in the USA, are fully oblivious to the WHC, and the NHL is intent on keeping it that way. Their participation is below token, only enough to give the IIHF cover for endorsing the events that the NHL cares about, like the Olympics (at least from 1998 to 2014) and the alleged World Cup.

Kanada and Russia usually puts up with something similiar to their olympic team.

Maybe you are right, but I think there other reasons as well. For one thing, NHL is still going, and it is every year and it is a long tournament. If they would put up a short WHC every second year when NHL have finnish, then I think most would be there.

I do not understad why IIHF never try do something like this? Instead we get jokes like world cup? At least try...

 

[Yakushev72]

Kanada and Russia usually puts up with something similiar to their olympic team.

Maybe you are right, but I think there other reasons as well. For one thing, NHL is still going, and it is every year and it is a long tournament. If they would put up a short WHC every second year when NHL have finnish, then I think most would be there.

I do not understad why IIHF never try do something like this? Instead we get jokes like world cup? At least try...

What I am saying is that 90% of all NHL players have been eliminated from Stanley Cup competition and have the option of coming to the World Championships - some of them choose the option of staying home and not going. It isn't a problem or defect of the tournament, instead the players just choose not to accept the invitation to play. Scheduling the tournament for the middle of June or early July would receive even less reception.

 

[Canuckistani]

What I am saying is that 90% of all NHL players have been eliminated from Stanley Cup competition and have the option of coming to the World Championships - some of them choose the option of staying home and not going. It isn't a problem or defect of the tournament, instead the players just choose not to accept the invitation to play. Scheduling the tournament for the middle of June or early July would receive even less reception.

I'm afraid there's very little that can be done to entice North American stars to show up at the WHC in greater numbers.

The WHC simply isn't as important a part of hockey culture here the way it is in Europe, due to both the NHL playoffs getting all the attention and the fact that it's only been held in NA once (2008).

Plus the fact that it's held annually gives it far less importance to players than the Olympics of Canada/World Cup, which took place every four years or so. If anything the WHC is seen by players as a tryout for the main team at best-on-best events; a time to get experience on the international stage.

Canada's interest probably peaked in 2005 (lockout year) and 2008 (hosting), when our roster was as close to "best" as it's ever been at the event. Other years often feature strong teams, but usually only a handful of A-squad players; sometimes none (like 2014).

In the US the attention paid is even worse, to the point where its not even on the nation's sporting radar.

 

[daver]

I'm afraid there's very little that can be done to entice North American stars to show up at the WHC in greater numbers.

The WHC simply isn't as important a part of hockey culture here the way it is in Europe, due to both the NHL playoffs getting all the attention and the fact that it's only been held in NA once (2008).

Plus the fact that it's held annually gives it far less importance to players than the Olympics of Canada/World Cup, which took place every four years or so. If anything the WHC is seen by players as a tryout for the main team at best-on-best events; a time to get experience on the international stage.

Canada's interest probably peaked in 2005 (lockout year) and 2008 (hosting), when our roster was as close to "best" as it's ever been at the event. Other years often feature strong teams, but usually only a handful of A-squad players; sometimes none (like 2014).

In the US the attention paid is even worse, to the point where its not even on the nation's sporting radar.

This should be in the OP. No need for the endless ****ing on the WHC's or the NHL.

IMO, it is not in the interest of the IIHF to try to cater to NA players and the NA market. The event does fine without it.

 

[iDangleDangle]

1) Make it biennial. Holding the tourney annually is a detriment to it's prestige. I didn't watch a single game last year, and that's eventhough Finland advanced to finals. Which brings me to:

1b) Do not have a WCH on an olympic year​

2) Make it a real best-on-best tourney by changing the timing. Hard to execute, but would be a huge positive. It's not a world championship when you've got "second rate" teams playing for the gold

 

[ulvvf]

What I am saying is that 90% of all NHL players have been eliminated from Stanley Cup competition and have the option of coming to the World Championships - some of them choose the option of staying home and not going. It isn't a problem or defect of the tournament, instead the players just choose not to accept the invitation to play. Scheduling the tournament for the middle of June or early July would receive even less reception.

Yes you are right, 90% should be enough for the top nations, and there are a lot of stars that do not play in the olympics because if injuries.

I think it is very much in the head, that it lose prestige in the players eyes when it is played at the same time as NHL is playing.

In olympics and world cup (I seriously hope that no player will play for this joke tournament) they usually show up. Why? It is hardly because of pressure, I think it is because this tournaments do not play while NHL is playing and it is not so often, and it is also a lot shorter tournament. If you know that everyone is else is coming then you come as well, if you think most other will skip it you skip it as well

I talk about having the WHC a few weeks later, so why make it so dramatic? Why would that matter so much? Especially if they do not arrange it every year and make it into a short tournament? But sure, have it sometime else, but not put when NHL is playing. They could have it in august or September when the world cup would have been played.

Why insist on having it in the end of NHL playoff? Why not try something new?

Another idea is if they really want to keep world championship as it is, they could arrange a second tournament.

 

[roto]

1) Make it biennial. Holding the tourney annually is a detriment to it's prestige. I didn't watch a single game last year, and that's eventhough Finland advanced to finals. Which brings me to:

Many people of the suggest that WHC will be more popular if it's not held every year. I have strong suspicions. Nine games of team Finland got 925k-1.7M (avg) TV spectators in Finland. In Sochi Olympics the top numbers were also ~1.7M.

It's hard to believe that having WHC only every two or four years would make it more popular. If I don't care about some sport or tournament, what does it matter if it's held every year or not? Crosby hasn't been in WHC since 2006. Why would he be more interested about it if it was held every two years if he hasn't been there during last 8 years anyway.

It wouldn't make any difference with NA audience either. If they don't care (or even know), they don't care even it it was held every 10 years.

 

[Exarz]

It wouldn't be more popular having it like every four years.

In Europe, we usually watch our national teams play, not just go to the WHC to watch hockey. That's why there are such low attendances on the other games except when the home nation plays.

Just look at the Olympics, it's held every four years and the latest one in Sochi had an average attendance of just above 8000.

 

[Lepardi]

In fact, usually over 80% of all NHL players are eliminated from the Stanley Cup by the time the WHC starts. Closer to 90% are available by the cut-off date. The reason many NA NHL players aren't there is that their Federations don't push them or give them incentive to play. The claims of injury are a joke for the most part - if they were so badly injured, how did they manage to keep playing in the NHL? NA sports fans, especially in the USA, are fully oblivious to the WHC, and the NHL is intent on keeping it that way. Their participation is below token, only enough to give the IIHF cover for endorsing the events that the NHL cares about, like the Olympics (at least from 1998 to 2014) and the alleged World Cup.

Usually 22 NHL teams have finished their season by the time the WHC starts. That equals 73.3 percent, not over 80 percent.

 

[Dotaz]

players are not instruments of the state to be ordered where and when to suit up....and as much as I would like to see a greater commitment and willingness among the players to participate, imposing sanctions on players for not participating is draconian.

You want to motivate professional athletes? Have the IIHF, tournament sponsors and tournament broadcasters award significant monetary prizes for medals. The IIHF is making is buck, lining their pockets on the backs of free labour. cut off a chunk of that for the players. I wouldn't think any less of any player for accepting an invite to play because at the end of it there may be a hefty financial reward.

Has to be really everything about money?? I like to see playing for particular nation as lat resort of non selfish show up where you kind of pay back for fact you were raised in particular country

 

[1Gold Standard]

Has to be really everything about money?? I like to see playing for particular nation as lat resort of non selfish show up where you kind of pay back for fact you were raised in particular country

Nice and idealistic. But what is the first thing Ovechkin did after winning the WHC last spring, Dear Mr. Putin, a Mercedes please and 23 more Luxury automobiles for each of my friends. Everybody wants to be compensated and nobody is in for strictly altruistic reasons.

 

[Jussi]

Nice and idealistic. But what is the first thing Ovechkin did after winning the WHC last spring, Dear Mr. Putin, a Mercedes please and 23 more Luxury automobiles for each of my friends. Everybody wants to be compensated and nobody is in for strictly altruistic reasons.

National federations already award bonuses for medals.

 

[QnebO]

Nice and idealistic. But what is the first thing Ovechkin did after winning the WHC last spring, Dear Mr. Putin, a Mercedes please and 23 more Luxury automobiles for each of my friends. Everybody wants to be compensated and nobody is in for strictly altruistic reasons.

I'd say most players are in for nationalistic reasons in NT games. But it's not like they won't ask for money when ever they feel its realistic to get some.

 

[1Gold Standard]

National federations already award bonuses for medals.

So? I don't see the big deal if TV broadcasters and sponsors put up a load of cash to entice big names to show up at this thing. I'd be more interested in seeing that then then some AHL level talent showing up for the love of the game... oh ya and some bling bling from his federation in the off chance he wins a gold medal.

 

[1Gold Standard]

I'd say most players are in for nationalistic reasons in NT games. But it's not like they won't ask for money when ever they feel its realistic to get some.

My idea is more for a broadcaster like TSN, they do have a stake in the tournament and are trying to sell it to advertisers. put some cash in the pot for Team Canada, play in the GMG collect 5 mill. win the GMG collect 10 million. If that's what motivates them to show up and play to win, then so be it. I really don't care.

 

[Lepardi]

Like I said, though, that's not simple, as we all know the best players in the world tend to be in the NHL playoffs when the WC's roll around. It's not just Canada and the US either either. Look at Russia, for instance. Malkin, Ovechkin, Datsyuk, Tarasenko and Markov will all likely be busy with the NHL playoffs. For Sweden, Lundqvist, the Sedins, Backstrom, Zetterberg, Eriksson likely won't be available. Last year's WC scoring leader was Viktor Tikhonov, for pete's sake. There's just not enough star power.

Are you trying to say that it's likely that Malkin, Ovechkin, Datsyuk, Markov, Lundqvist and Eriksson will all be busy with the NHL playoffs when the WHC starts? Cause that means that Pittsburgh, Montreal, Washington, Detroit, Boston and the Rangers would all have to go to the Eastern conference semi-finals. Even if we assume that those teams are able to beat the Lightning and the Islanders in a playoff series, I still can't see how six teams could advance into the second round of the playoffs in the East.

 

[Yakushev72]

I don't think any changes are needed to make the tournament better. Holding it less often would do nothing to make it more interesting to those who don't want to be there in the first place. I honestly don't care if Canada and the USA send a team to the WHC or not.

 

[Jussi]

By not having all-star teams in it.

 

[BlueBratislava]

I think about these things when WC come across my mind:

1. Play every two years, make the cycle in such a way that the tournament doesn't take place in the olympic season.

2. Reduce the number of teams to 12. Seriously nobody cares about games like Italy-Kazakhstan.

3. Make each country host the event as mandatory and the organizers would rotate in a 12-year cycle so everything is fair and equal. If the organizer gets relegated, take the tournament away from them and offer it to somebody else. There is enough time in 2 years to work out the plan B.

4. Play in late August/early September so all the teams have the best possible line-up and players can't say they are tired from NHL playoffs.

5. Do not allow 2 countries to share hosting a tournament.

Any opinions on these points?

 

[Yakushev72]

I think about these things when WC come across my mind:

1. Play every two years, make the cycle in such a way that the tournament doesn't take place in the olympic season.

2. Reduce the number of teams to 12. Seriously nobody cares about games like Italy-Kazakhstan.

3. Make each country host the event as mandatory and the organizers would rotate in a 12-year cycle so everything is fair and equal. If the organizer gets relegated, take the tournament away from them and offer it to somebody else. There is enough time in 2 years to work out the plan B.

4. Play in late August/early September so all the teams have the best possible line-up and players can't say they are tired from NHL playoffs.

5. Do not allow 2 countries to share hosting a tournament.

Any opinions on these points?

There is no direct connection between these changes and making the tournament better. If the countries who don't support the tournament wanted these kinds of changes, they would have happened already. The tournament is already rotated much more often and with a much wider range of host countries than the World Cup or the WJC, which holds most its tournaments in Canada or in American cities on the border with Canada. It is what it is, but there are no compelling reasons to change what exists now.

 

[JackSlater]

I'm not sure that changing the timing would change much for American or Canadian players. Most of them are very focused on their training (as European players are too) and likely be unwilling to interrupt a big portion of their training once it begins for a tournament that has little relevance in their country. For the first 50+ years of the tournament's existence the IIHF basically antagonized Canada and prevented it from fairly competing in a supposed World Championship, and then eventually makes some alterations that partially resolve the issue. It's not surprising that the tournament has a very low reputation in North America, and changing the timing or the amount of times it is played will probably do little to chance that. I don't know how changing the timing will affect European players.

 

[Theokritos]

For the first 50+ years of the tournament's existence the IIHF basically antagonized Canada and prevented it from fairly competing in a supposed World Championship

To be fair, it wasn't much of an issue during the first 30 years when Canada's third string was good enough to win time and time again. It's not as if the Canadians were dying to send their NHLers to the World Championship or the NHL was looking forward to the opportunity in the early days. They didn't really care, and with good reason: the rest of the world was still too far behind Canada. Then the Soviets started to dominate from 1963 on and the issue became pressing. The second half of the 1960s is the period when the opportunity to make the World Championship reputable in North America was missed, but I don't think there is reason to blame the IIHF for what was before that.

 

[Lepardi]

For the first 50+ years of the tournament's existence the IIHF basically antagonized Canada and prevented it from fairly competing in a supposed World Championship, and then eventually makes some alterations that partially resolve the issue.

NHL has also made alterations that partially resolve the issue by expanding the league. Were there still 21 NHL teams as in the 1980s, Team Canada's roster wouldn't be nearly as strong in the WHC.

 

[JackSlater]

To be fair, it wasn't much of an issue during the first 30 years when Canada's third string was good enough to win time and time again. It's not as if the Canadians were dying to send their NHLers to the World Championship or the NHL was looking forward to the opportunity in the early days. They didn't really care, and with good reason: the rest of the world was still too far behind Canada. Then the Soviets started to dominate from 1963 on and the issue became pressing. The second half of the 1960s is the period when the opportunity to make the World Championship reputable in North America was missed, but I don't think there is reason to blame the IIHF for what was before that.

I spoke about perceptions about the World Championships in Canada (and to a lesser extent USA) and not the relationship between the IIHF and the NHL. The IIHF was content to let inferior players participate in their so named World Championship for decades, and I don't think that Canadians beating up on subpar competition in the early decades did the reputation of the tournament any favours. Essentially no one in Canada cares about the IIHF World Championship victories of the various amateurs who participated - it actually takes away from the credibility of the tournament, since Canada could dominate without anything approaching its best. Then when the tournament could have been actually worth something, the IIHF did its best to prevent the best Canadian (and American) players from actually participating in an event they claimed was a world championship. Since around 1976 they've gone a long way to improve the relationship, but a half century of banning the best players from pretty much one country are going to leave a bad taste in mouths.

NHL has also made alterations that partially resolve the issue by expanding the league. Were there still 21 NHL teams as in the 1980s, Team Canada's roster wouldn't be nearly as strong in the WHC.

OK... and? Should the NHL have acted against its own best interest in order to give its fans something they didn't even particularly want? That's basically what they are currently doing with the World Cup, now that I think about it...

 

[Theokritos]

I spoke about perceptions about the World Championships in Canada (and to a lesser extent USA) and not the relationship between the IIHF and the NHL.

For the first 50+ years of the tournament's existence the IIHF basically antagonized Canada and prevented it from fairly competing in a supposed World Championship is what you said, right?

The IIHF was content to let inferior players participate in their so named World Championship for decades, and I don't think that Canadians beating up on subpar competition in the early decades did the reputation of the tournament any favours. Essentially no one in Canada cares about the IIHF World Championship victories of the various amateurs who participated - it actually takes away from the credibility of the tournament, since Canada could dominate without anything approaching its best.

How is the IIHF to blame here exactly? Had they allowed Canada "fair representation" in the early days, the beating up on subpar competition would have been even worse and the reputation of the tournament would have suffered even more, wouldn't it?