Toggle sidebar

How can the World Championship improve as an event?

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
Big way to improve it...save whatever integrity it has and move it outside of an Olympic year..it's honestly meaningless when you have it a few months after the Olympic tournament. And have it every 2-3 years, not every single year. The Olympics are the best because it's not overdone, there's anticipation, a build-up. The WHC has no umfff about it. It's held every year around the same time, around the same countries. It's very bla

Move the tournament around, move it to Asia, or North America..it's always either in Russia, Finland, Sweden, Czech Republic, outside of a few times where it's been held in Latvia and now Belarus. It needs more exposure outside of those main 4.

It's called the world championship not "the big Euro 4 tournament"
 
Last edited:
teris said:
The IIHF governs 28 tournaments, most of which have no chance of making a profit. They need to make their money somehow.
Click to expand...

This, its a catch-22 sitaution.

Like, when we talk about "improve", in what way and from whom's POV?

As I understood it, the WCH's was huge in Finland. I actually get decent attention in several "B-tier" nations (in relation to what hockey gets in those countries had there not been a WCHs).

The WCH's got like ZERO interest in so many cathegories here in Sweden this year. Below zero. To only have it every other year would certainly help us. But is that an improvement the IIHF or game of hockey needs?

The alternative is to run it as a half-serious event, in lack of better words, every year. I did find this year's version of it pretty darn boring (very few interesting players from my POV, we have seen the mega star russians together so much recently, so that wasn't that big of a deal, McKinnon of course played, but I don't know, he is a bit of a one man show (not in a negative way) and we have all seen a lot of him lately, he was a bit tired too etc etc etc).
 
teris said:
The IIHF governs 28 tournaments, most of which have no chance of making a profit. They need to make their money somehow.
Click to expand...

Ya I don't care...The main tournament sponsors and broadcasters don't have to take out of the IIHF's pocket, but if they want something worthy other than just a B level or C level tournament (Olympic years) they should kick into the winner's fund. perhaps that would stem the rash of player rejections... and personally I have no issue with professional players making a buck while wearing their NY jersey... if that's what it takes, then so be it.
 
Ola said:
This, its a catch-22 sitaution.

Like, when we talk about "improve", in what way and from whom's POV?

As I understood it, the WCH's was huge in Finland. I actually get decent attention in several "B-tier" nations (in relation to what hockey gets in those countries had there not been a WCHs).

The WCH's got like ZERO interest in so many cathegories here in Sweden this year. Below zero. To only have it every other year would certainly help us. But is that an improvement the IIHF or game of hockey needs?

The alternative is to run it as a half-serious event, in lack of better words, every year. I did find this year's version of it pretty darn boring (very few interesting players from my POV, we have seen the mega star russians together so much recently, so that wasn't that big of a deal, McKinnon of course played, but I don't know, he is a bit of a one man show (not in a negative way) and we have all seen a lot of him lately, he was a bit tired too etc etc etc).
Click to expand...

The rosters for Sweden and Canada were embarrassing. I'm sorry but with all due respect to Russia winning it..it wasn't even close to what Sweden and Canada could possibly bring to a best on best tournament. Something has to be done to get players to come over for sure. Cause I just don't see this tournament as any kind of measuring stick as a fan. Like watching Reimer and Scrivens in net, Jason Garrison on D no thanks.

It's like Brazil or Spain sending their C teams out to play TFC or Montreal Impact in a friendly soccer match. Sure the game will be built up as BRAZIL! SPAIN! against Montreal..but really it's their reserves an back-up players playing the game. This tournament got nearly zero attention from me. I kept tabs on scores but I didn't watch a single second of a game. (Work had a lot to do with it too)
 
Mr Writer said:
Ya I don't care...The main tournament sponsors and broadcasters don't have to take out of the IIHF's pocket, but if they want something worthy other than just a B level or C level tournament (Olympic years) they should kick into the winner's fund. perhaps that would stem the rash of player rejections... and personally I have no issue with professional players making a buck while wearing their NY jersey... if that's what it takes, then so be it.
Click to expand...

It's up to the national federations to pay medal/performance bonuses for the players. The hosting federations always get the most of the revenue.
 
Jussi said:
It's up to the national federations to pay medal/performance bonuses for the players. The hosting federations always get the most of the revenue.
Click to expand...

it doesn't have to be at the sole discretion of the individual federations on prize money...the sponsors and the broadcasters have a stake in the tournament as well, they should kick into the fund for a winner's bounty. might help...of course the tournament is what it is...I have no faith that it will ever become anything more than a afternoon warm up prelude to that evenings' NHL hockey game. At least from a N. American perspective.
 
Last edited:
Mr Writer said:
it doesn't have to be at the sole discretion of the individual federations on prize money...the sponsors and the broadcasters have a steak in the tournament as well, they should kick into the fund for a winner's bounty. might help...of course the tournament is what it is...I have no faith that it will ever become anything more than a afternoon warm up prelude to that evenings' NHL hockey game. At least from a N. American perspective.
Click to expand...
If you're talking about top players, those who already make millions, what difference a bit bigger prize money makes? Unless you're talking about unrealistic amounts of prize money.

Here the prize money in the Olympics (for olympic medals generally, not just for hockey players) was some (tens of) thousands. For past two Olympics the players have formed funds and sent them to charities anyway.
 
I enjoy the World Championships but I admit that it loses a lot of its luster when it is held during an Olympic year.
 
Stats01 said:
Move the tournament around, move it to Asia, or North America..it's always either in Russia, Finland, Sweden, Czech Republic, outside of a few times where it's been held in Latvia and now Belarus. It needs more exposure outside of those main 4.

It's called the world championship not "the big Euro 4 tournament"
Click to expand...

What exactly makes you think it's always held in the same four nations?

Since 1970, Sweden and Finland have hosted the tournament six times each (counting the shared tournaments as one each). Czech Republic hosted it six times if you count the 2015 tournament. Russia has hosted it six times if you count 2016.

In the same time, Switzerland has hosted it four times, same for Austria, Germany will have six with 2017. Canada, Poland, Italy, Norway, Latvia and Belarus have hosted once, Slovakia hosted once, plus a shared tournament as part of Czechoslovakia, France and Denmark will host one in the near future.

You also have to take into account, that until 1991 the tounament only consisted of eight nations, so the choices for the host where rather slim, especially with two nations refusing to host it at all. The four nations you mention hosted the tournament three times each during that time. Now those who host it often do so every 7-9 years, hardly all the time.
 
Teams play 7 games each in the group stage with 16 teams. Why not increase the teams to 24 and have four groups of 6 teams. Top two in each group go through to the quarters. Go from there. Each team plays 5 games. Currently 28 games in each group (So 56 in total) with new format would be a total of I think 60 games in that stage.

Or if you want, four groups of four. Top 2 from each group.
 
Shrimper said:
Teams play 7 games each in the group stage with 16 teams. Why not increase the teams to 24 and have four groups of 6 teams. Top two in each group go through to the quarters. Go from there. Each team plays 5 games. Currently 28 games in each group (So 56 in total) with new format would be a total of I think 60 games in that stage.

Or if you want, four groups of four. Top 2 from each group.
Click to expand...

Because the difference between the good nations and the bad is too great.
 
I'm fine with it every year, but it should definitely be moved back until a couple of weeks after the Cup Finals are over so all the teams can have all their players (that wish to play).

And, of course, it makes no sense to hold the tourney in an Olympic year.
 
DMR said:
I'm fine with it every year, but it should definitely be moved back until a couple of weeks after the Cup Finals are over so all the teams can have all their players(that wish to play) .

And, of course, it makes no sense to hold the tourney in an Olympic year.
Click to expand...

No player based in Europe wants to play hockey in June.
 
It's never going to have mainstream appeal with NA players/audiences-regardless of the time of year or location. You might get a bit more buy in if it was held in Canada in August-but that's debateable. Unfortunately, as an event it wields more influence (national ranking, Olympic qualification, etc.) then it's real world impact deserves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom