How can the World Championship improve as an event?

[BladesofSTEELwFIRE]

I've been strongly in favor of that for a long time as it would improve the product but less games means less money for everybody so that's never going to happen.

A 60 game NHL season will never happen because NHL teams are heavily dependent on ticket sales. IF the NHL had a TV contract like the NFL with BILLIONS of dollars they'd be more open to it but unfortunately hockey is not THAT popular.

 

[Ryker]

An American city should host a Division I or Division II tournament. It would be nice to see different teams for a change and I'm sure American fans would show up as long as it's a good hockey town.

Please tell me you're kidding. Why would you even consider hosting those tournaments in a country that doesn't participate in it, and of all places one of the homes of NHL, the league that doesn't want to cut short their season so that all players would be available for the WHC? Countries that actually do play in those events often plan ahead for years wanting to host the tournament, and then you'd give it to the US, far from everyone involved, so that the fans have an extremely troublesome time getting to see any of the games. This really is a terrible idea, and if you think American fans would show up at the end of NHL season or at the beginning of the playoffs in greater numbers than the current turnouts, you're deluding yourself. Even without other hockey to compete with, you wouldn't see great numbers. You'd basically be taking away the home support and sold out games, and replacing them with small numbers in a country that doesn't give a crap about the games.

 

[BladesofSTEELwFIRE]

Please tell me you're kidding. Why would you even consider hosting those tournaments in a country that doesn't participate in it? Countries that actually often plan ahead for years wanting to host the tournament, and then you'd give it to the US, far from everyone involved, so that the fans have an extremely troublesome time getting to see any of the games. This really is a terrible idea, and if you think American fans would show up at the end of NHL season or at the beginning of the playoffs in greater numbers than the current turnouts, you're deluding yourself. Even without other hockey to compete with, you wouldn't see great numbers. You'd basically be taking away the home support and sold out games, and replacing them with small numbers in a country that doesn't give a crap about the games.

Ok I see what you mean but I just meant it would be cool to see something different here in the USA. Now that you mention the proximity of the teams involved they would never host it here. I just meant a few places in the USA have great facilities to host it and die hard hockey fans.

 

[Urbanskog]

An American city should host a Division I or Division II tournament. It would be nice to see different teams for a change and I'm sure American fans would show up as long as it's a good hockey town.

Maybe in the scenario of the USA being relegated.

 

[BladesofSTEELwFIRE]

Maybe in the scenario of the USA being relegated.

LOL..won't ever happen.

 

[Urbanskog]

LOL..won't ever happen.

In 2010 they had to participate in the relegation round due to losing all their matches in the preliminary round.

 

[BladesofSTEELwFIRE]

In 2010 they had to participate in the relegation round due to losing all their matches in the preliminary round.

But not division II. I meant it would be cool to see how some of the lesser known hockey nations play.

 

[QnebO]

+Every two years
+ Hybrid rink
+ Start it 2 weeks later
+ star NHL two weeks earlier
+ Use NHL refs only

Thats about it boys... would be tons of better than any other idea ever!

 

[Brady Skjei]

The WHC is more necessary for lower-level teams in countries where hockey is still growing and developing. I'm talking Divisions I-III and the lower half of the Championship division. They're actually able to get their best players to play on an international stage each year and sometimes we really do see improvements in these nation's programs.

Fans in countries like the big 6, Slovakia, and Switzerland aren't able to see their nations field their best teams for this tournament each year, so they want to see best-on-best more often.

Have a 16-team, best-on-best tournament every 2 years. Get many countries involved with qualifying tournaments and what not like FIFA does with the World Cup. Have the WHC's every year so the lesser nations can build up for these tournaments by playing international games. But for IIHF ranking, have the WHC's count for less (I have to say though, as an American, I'm biased in thinking that best-on-best should count for more as my country doesn't particularly do all that well when it's not best-on-best)

TL;DR: Keep the WHC to develop hockey around the world, include more nations in more frequent best-on-best tournaments.

 

[BladesofSTEELwFIRE]

It would be nice if they broadcast more games on TV. Even on PPV if there is no other option.

 

[IIHFjerseycollector]

But not division II. I meant it would be cool to see how some of the lesser known hockey nations play.

there are usually live streams posted all over the place for the div I II and sometimes even the div III tournaments . Rarely will you see anything lower than div IB broadcast on tv . Living in North America, your best and likely only chance is watching a stream on the internet.

 

[BladesofSTEELwFIRE]

there are usually live streams posted all over the place for the div I II and sometimes even the div III tournaments . Rarely will you see anything lower than div IB broadcast on tv . Living in North America, your best and likely only chance is watching a stream on the internet.

Cool. I want to check out some Division 1 games next time.

 

[Urbanskog]

Cool. I want to check out some Division 1 games next time.

The next year's Division IA tournament in Donetsk might be an exotic experience.

 

[BladesofSTEELwFIRE]

The next year's Division IA tournament in Donetsk might be an exotic experience.

Why do you say that?

I would think the 1B tournament in Holland would be more exotic!

 

[saskganesh]

Why do you say that?

Something to do with the Civil War.

 

[baronsforever]

the IIHF itself provides streams for many of their lower tier tournaments since they all have to be videotaped for potential disciplinary hearings.

 

[BladesofSTEELwFIRE]

Something to do with the Civil War.

With all the crap going on in Donetsk they need to move it elsewhere! Especially after the downed jetliner and 300 innocents killed!

 

[End on a Hinote]

Host it when the NHL isn't playing.

But even then, players will claim to be too tired/injured to play. In order for the worlds to be more successful outside Europe they would need:

1. The tournament to be held in the summer
2. NHLers out of the Olympic
3. Hold it once every 4 years
4. Nix the World Cup completely

In other words, it will never happen.

 

[BladesofSTEELwFIRE]

They finally held it in Canada a few years ago. Now the U.S. needs to host it!

 

[xxxx]

You see every year a solid amount of refused invitations from players of all countries, not just Canada or the US, from Sweden, Finland, Czech republic, Slovakia, and sometimes, even from Russia. I tend to the opinion that the WHC is a good tournament for European players, it's good for hockey. But, it's not best-on-best, the teams' power depends on results in the NHL and the players are not as serious about it as about WC or Olympics.

You take players that are available and wanna play / are invited (you would never have to think this way at World Cup or olympics) - some countries has a lot of them (Russia), some not as many (Czechs, Finland), and some just don't care (Canada, USA) - and play. And when you win, you are a world champion. In my humble personal opinion, you are not. You can say, that your team is the best team in the world when you win the olympics or the World Cup, but not the WHC.

It's good when countries like Russia, Sweden, the Czechs, or Canada win such a tournament, while beating the other top teams. But when your team has a near-olympic level squad, and you beat the other teams that have NOT a near-olympic level squad, and have players that belongs into C, D teams in theory, what does such a win really mean? That your country is suddenly somehow better that the one you just beat? In other words, has Russia, or any other nation, a right to say that they are somehow superior to Canada, or to any other nation, when they beat that team in a tournament like this?


So, if a team wins such a "world championship", good for them. But now it's like an AHL championship with a few NHL stars. I'm saying that only because of some fanatics that claim the WHC is a very meaningfull tournament. Yes, it is meaningfull, somehow. I quite like watching it, but when I hear that Russia's gold medals from that tournament actually mean a lot and can influence (4 WHC golds = 1 olympic medal or even gold), an opinion on how good actually any country is, then it should be said that making an argument like 'this country is better OVERALL, than that country, because it has more success at the whc' is really crazy. If someone think that Canada have to win more WHC's to be a real #1 - We don't have to. It's ridiculous. In my opinion, the tournaments that are important for making an argument that 'my country is better at hockey than yours', are World Cup, Olympics, the World Juniors, and maybe, maybe U-18 Championships and Ivan Hlinka Memorial, but mainly the first three.

 

[roto]

You see every year a solid amount of refused invitations from players of all countries, not just Canada or the US, from Sweden, Finland, Czech republic, Slovakia, and sometimes, even from Russia. I tend to the opinion that the WHC is a good tournament for European players, it's good for hockey. But, it's not best-on-best, the teams' power depends on results in the NHL and the players are not as serious about it as about WC or Olympics.

You take players that are available and wanna play / are invited (you would never have to think this way at World Cup or olympics) - some countries has a lot of them (Russia), some not as many (Czechs, Finland), and some just don't care (Canada, USA) - and play. And when you win, you are a world champion. In my humble personal opinion, you are not. You can say, that your team is the best team in the world when you win the olympics or the World Cup, but not the WHC.

It's good when countries like Russia, Sweden, the Czechs, or Canada win such a tournament, while beating the other top teams. But when your team has a near-olympic level squad, and you beat the other teams that have NOT a near-olympic level squad, and have players that belongs into C, D teams in theory, what does such a win really mean? That your country is suddenly somehow better that the one you just beat?In other words, has Russia, or any other nation, a right to say that they are somehow superior to Canada, or to any other nation, when they beat that team in a tournament like this?

So, if a team wins such a "world championship", good for them. But now it's like an AHL championship with a few NHL stars. I'm saying that only because of some fanatics that claim the WHC is a very meaningfull tournament. Yes, it is meaningfull, somehow. I quite like watching it, but when I hear that Russia's gold medals from that tournament actually mean a lot and can influence (4 WHC golds = 1 olympic medal or even gold), an opinion on how good actually any country is, then it should be said that making an argument like 'this country is better OVERALL, than that country, because it has more success at the whc' is really crazy. If someone think that Canada have to win more WHC's to be a real #1 - We don't have to. It's ridiculous. In my opinion, the tournaments that are important for making an argument that 'my country is better at hockey than yours', are World Cup, Olympics, the World Juniors, and maybe, maybe U-18 Championships and Ivan Hlinka Memorial, but mainly the first three.

I'm sorry but your post is full of very weak arguments.

Fact 1: WHC, Olympics or WC don't tell which team is best in the world. They tell only which team was best in that particular tournament.

Fact 2: WHC, Olympics or WC don't tell which country is the best. How can anyone even claim that a mini-tournament of few games every four years proves which country is best? That's ridiculous.

Tournament is just a tournament and team consists of players in the team, not players who have declined. Having best players doesn't change that fact. If Canada is eliminated in WHC QF, it means that the team participating is eliminated, not the fans, not the hockey nation, not Hockey Canada, not players declined etc.

Many Canadians seem to try to think that a tournament has to prove which country is best, but that's impossible. The nations are not playing there but just one team per country. The tournament is about the players in the tournament not outside. It's really weird that many people focus so much on players not in tournament, even though they're not playing. It doesn't seem to be too big problem for Europeans. We can enjoy of tournaments without having need to prove something: one team wins and better luck for other teams next year - no need to make far-fetched conclusions.

If Finland had won in Sochi, would any hockey fan in Finland used it as an argument that Finland is better hockey country than Canada. I doubt it, because the Olympic tournament (let alone WHC) doesn't prove anything like that.

Maybe you True Hockey Fan could elaborate a bit why so many Canadians feel that they need to use the tournament results to prove that Canada is the greatest. We all know that Canada is the top hockey country anyway. Is it some insecurity thing because you need to prove that even though you have the deepest pool of elite players, they can win also on ice and not just on paper?

 

[xxxx]

I'm sorry but your post is full of very weak arguments.

Fact 1: WHC, Olympics or WC don't tell which team is best in the world. They tell only which team was best in that particular tournament.

Fact? You can say this about every tournament ever played, from street hockey tournaments played by kids, to minor tournaments, to tournaments like World Cup. But World Cup and Olympics, unlike WHC, are played with the best players possible. That's a big difference. The winner is the best national team in the world.

Fact 2: WHC, Olympics or WC don't tell which country is the best. How can anyone even claim that a mini-tournament of few games every four years proves which country is best? That's ridiculous.

That's a fact, congratulations, but I didn't say and don't mean anything like that. Of course there are a lot of things that can be taken into consideration. You can't judge a country on results from one tournament only, I def agree, but, it seems pretty natural to me that you should give more importance to the tournaments like WC/Olympics than to U-18 tournaments for example.

If Finland had won in Sochi, would any hockey fan in Finland used it as an argument that Finland is better hockey country than Canada. I doubt it, because the Olympic tournament (let alone WHC) doesn't prove anything like that.

I think that you could find people who would claim it, and you would definitely find them here if we changed Finland for Russia.

Anyway, I agree with you on this one, one tournament is not the only thing you should take into the consideration about world #1 country.

Tournament is just a tournament and team consists of players in the team, not players who have declined. Having best players doesn't change that fact. If Canada is eliminated in WHC QF, it means that the team participating is eliminated, not the fans, not the hockey nation, not Hockey Canada, not players declined etc.

Many Canadians seem to try to think that a tournament has to prove which country is best, but that's impossible. The nations are not playing there but just one team per country. The tournament is about the players in the tournament not outside. It's really weird that many people focus so much on players not in tournament, even though they're not playing. It doesn't seem to be too big problem for Europeans. We can enjoy of tournaments without having need to prove something: one team wins and better luck for other teams next year - no need to make far-fetched conclusions.

As I said, I kinda agree with you here. But my point was that WHC is not a tournament you should include - or give some huge importance to - when discussing what country is better overall. Here's one of the reasons why - (and I think my previous post included the reasons too and was about that, and not about winning one tournament makes your ocuntry #1 without any other things in duscission. But, btw, when Canada won 4 out of the last 5 best-on-best tournaments, it says something):

I'll give you a question: In soccer, If Spain sended their C team to a tournament, and than France, with a near-top roster would win it, because some other teams also sended teams like Spawin, some slightly better, some slightly worse, would it be fair to give ANY importance to that tournament and making this as an argument AGAINST Spain, or FOR France, in global discussion about best soccer nation? Would it, really?

 

[JETZZZ]

Id like it if they would start after the NHL playoffs have ended...but that wont happen.
I also would like to see them take a year off for Olympic years...but that wont happen.
I would love it if they would perhaps play a best of three for each elimination round instead of just one game...now that will NEVER happen.

 

[BladesofSTEELwFIRE]

Id like it if they would start after the NHL playoffs have ended...but that wont happen.
I also would like to see them take a year off for Olympic years...but that wont happen.
I would love it if they would perhaps play a best of three for each elimination round instead of just one game...now that will NEVER happen.

That's a great idea. Why wouldn't they want to do it? They have the potential to get 3 TIMES as much revenue!

 

[Jonimaus]

That's a great idea. Why wouldn't they want to do it? They have the potential to get 3 TIMES as much revenue!

People don't care enough. Not sure which countries you'd have people attending so many games for such an unimportant tournament. You'd have a hard time getting people interested for the olympics with such a format.