I would rank South Americans the most sports nationalists. You'll get kids turning out for u20 world cups and u23 olympic rosters no matter what. Europeans tend to write these youth tournaments off, but they still like national sports competitions much more than North Americans. We are inherently insular in our outlook. We grew up on the NHL, MLB, NFL, NBA, CFL etc. So we are conditioned to follow club sports first and foremost and view international competition as an interesting side show.
How to get the WCOH to appeal to you?
- Thread starter WTFMAN99
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
I would rank South Americans the most sports nationalists. You'll get kids turning out for u20 world cups and u23 olympic rosters no matter what. Europeans tend to write these youth tournaments off, but they still like national sports competitions much more than North Americans. We are inherently insular in our outlook. We grew up on the NHL, MLB, NFL, NBA, CFL etc. So we are conditioned to follow club sports first and foremost and view international competition as an interesting side show.
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 19,793
- 15,446
I agree with that. It's something that definitely comes up a lot when the IIHF is the topic of discussion.
You can also see it in the American side when it comes to MLB and NBA players going to the wbc and World Cup. The enthusiasm is low as are the ratings
Hell even the USA Olympic basketball team was missing like 3 top players
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 19,793
- 15,446
Yeah, that's true. Part of it is that USA was never really challenged in a serious way in its biggest sports. Canada wasn't big on international hockey at all until 1972, and in Europe the popular sports tend to be popular in many countries.
A strangely Canadian example may be curling. Canadians value the Brier (Canadian championship) over the World Championship, even though you have to win the Brier to even get a shot at the World Championship. The Olympic gold medal is valued more though.
The American basketball team had a ton of players who pulled out. Off the top of my head - James, Paul, Curry, Leonard, Westbrook, Harden. I doubt you would ever see something like that from a European country, or if USA was legitimately challenged in basketball.
Go back and look one post as an example the poster said the world cup should be like the world cup of soccer with 30 teams.
If you can find the quote that's fine, but I have not seen anybody say there should be a 30 team World Cup.
We just so insular. Canada has one neighbor, the US two, although debatable you could count some of the Caribbean islands. For the longest time there was no real national competition to be had. So our grand parents and parents were raised on club sports. I remember the 2010 Olympic final I was the only person in my office rooting for the US! Everyone was rooting for Canada because "they probably care more." The first World Baseball classic my dad was rooting for Mexico over the US, because you know underdog stories are more fun. Same thing in Basketball when we lost in 2004, some of my friends thought it was cool that Argentina won because they never get to do that.
So it's not hard to understand why a good number of North American fans basically are treating international competition like an expanded all star game. Remember North America vs the World? We've already seen one suggestion for that. And it's not surprise that our European friends are looking on in abject horror wondering just where we lost our minds.
djf
Registered User
- Jun 9, 2012
- 125
- 1
Well, um, so you think a tournament played only in the middle of the night could be relevant to europeans? It won't ever. If you are fine with having the "world cup of north america" and a world cup only relevant in NA, then fine, I guess. Just like the "world series" of baseball that most of the world don't care about
And yes. I do actually like the 1 game, winner takes all approach better. This is the biggest hurdle to hockey I see when trying to introduce frie ds to hockey: "They play SEVEN games!?!?"
A best of three finals is off-putting to people who aren't hard core fans.
I'll watch and enjoy the games I can in the WCOH. But there are alot of things to improve if you want it to become relevant and not the McDonalds World Cup it is now
If they make qualification or invite more normal national teams next time I wouldn't limit or restrict their practise time just to specific number of trainings. If some team decide to start in july, let them be....especially in case there are more european players who are not used to small ice...
So rivalries and people rooting for their home town teams is okay in the NHL, but it is nationalism if Europeans root for their countries rather than for NHL teams or gimmicky World Cup teams the NHL invented?
I have much less understanding for the NHL model.
WTFMAN99
Registered User
- Jun 17, 2009
- 34,658
- 12,852
It's been interesting to watch the evolution of this thread since I originally posted it.
I'd still like to implement some of the changes I had in mind but the quality of the hockey has really exceeded my expectations and it's just exhibition games.
I'd still like to implement some of the changes I had in mind but the quality of the hockey has really exceeded my expectations and it's just exhibition games.
Team Europe has been pretty much as bad as the naysayers thought. Much better to have a motivated Swiss or Slovak team. Team North America is fun even if it cheapens the tournament.
Well, um, so you think a tournament played only in the middle of the night could be relevant to europeans? It won't ever. If you are fine with having the "world cup of north america" and a world cup only relevant in NA, then fine, I guess. Just like the "world series" of baseball that most of the world don't care about
And yes. I do actually like the 1 game, winner takes all approach better. This is the biggest hurdle to hockey I see when trying to introduce frie ds to hockey: "They play SEVEN games!?!?"
A best of three finals is off-putting to people who aren't hard core fans.
I'll watch and enjoy the games I can in the WCOH. But there are alot of things to improve if you want it to become relevant and not the McDonalds World Cup it is now
Ummmm most normal fans can handle a 7 game series in the nhl for the playoffs.
And it gets rid of the lucky gamse chance a little bit. More likely the better team will win.
Plus adds some strategy to the series.
I haven't watched a minute of this farce live and don't intend to. At best it's gimmicky and superfluous; at worst it's a thinly-veiled money grab that's an insult to hockey fans everywhere. I hope the World Cup fails spectacularly and dies an ignoble death following this travesty.
Beyond the format, beyond the jerseys, beyond the ticket prices, the reason this event is ridiculous is very simple: someone somewhere decided the best way to improve hockey was to play more games that don't mean anything.
But, I have to ask- why? What's the goal here? It doesn't boost the image of the NHL. It doesn't give us anything we didn't already see in the spring. It's pointless and stupid.
Play one senior "best-on-best" tournament a year- that is, keep it the World Championships and the World Championships only. Better yet, bump it into late summer so that players still have the summer to rest and recuperate. You'll make the quality of that tournament better while also improving the number of attendees; no longer will they have to make the idiotic decision to choose between it or the World Cup.
Really, the sport would be just fine having one best-on-best tournament every two years, with it alternating between a biannual WHC and the Olympics. Anything more than that is excessive and just not worth the time or money funneled into these tournaments by the league and by the fans.
Beyond the format, beyond the jerseys, beyond the ticket prices, the reason this event is ridiculous is very simple: someone somewhere decided the best way to improve hockey was to play more games that don't mean anything.
But, I have to ask- why? What's the goal here? It doesn't boost the image of the NHL. It doesn't give us anything we didn't already see in the spring. It's pointless and stupid.
Play one senior "best-on-best" tournament a year- that is, keep it the World Championships and the World Championships only. Better yet, bump it into late summer so that players still have the summer to rest and recuperate. You'll make the quality of that tournament better while also improving the number of attendees; no longer will they have to make the idiotic decision to choose between it or the World Cup.
Really, the sport would be just fine having one best-on-best tournament every two years, with it alternating between a biannual WHC and the Olympics. Anything more than that is excessive and just not worth the time or money funneled into these tournaments by the league and by the fans.
Kids from Slovakia, Switzerland etc grow up dreaming of playing for their national team, not for Team Europe. How can this be so hard for people to understand?
As a Swedish kid, the WC tournaments in 2003 and 2004 is ultimately what drove me to starting to pay closer attention to the NHL. Sweden lost to Canada in the finals both those years, but those were great games. Especially the one were Anson Carter eventually scored in overtime.
Sundin, Forsberg, Axelsson, Zetterberg, Renberg, Tarnstrom, Tjarnqvist, Norstrom, Pahlsson etc coming back from the NHL and putting on the Swedish jersey made the WC a treat to watch. 2003 was also the rise of Mikael Tellqvist, who out of nowhere played the best hockey of his life.
And if you look back at all those players born in the 70's, they never dreamed of playing the NHL. They didn't know all that much about the league. Their dream was to play for Tre Kronor, and that's what drove them to become as good as they became.
How many kids in Slovakia and Switzerland do you think are up in the middle of the night to cheer for "Team Europe"? Slovakias WC gold in 2002, their WC silver in 2012, their WHJC bronze in 2015 and Switzerlands WC silver in 2013, and their upsets over big nations in big tournaments... Those are the things that are going to make kids start playing ice hockey.
And the more ice hockey players, the better the competition will be, and thus making the NHL a better product in the end. Why can't people put these things together? I guess some like to think that the NHL would still be as good without its 20-25% Europeans.
As a Swedish kid, the WC tournaments in 2003 and 2004 is ultimately what drove me to starting to pay closer attention to the NHL. Sweden lost to Canada in the finals both those years, but those were great games. Especially the one were Anson Carter eventually scored in overtime.
Sundin, Forsberg, Axelsson, Zetterberg, Renberg, Tarnstrom, Tjarnqvist, Norstrom, Pahlsson etc coming back from the NHL and putting on the Swedish jersey made the WC a treat to watch. 2003 was also the rise of Mikael Tellqvist, who out of nowhere played the best hockey of his life.
And if you look back at all those players born in the 70's, they never dreamed of playing the NHL. They didn't know all that much about the league. Their dream was to play for Tre Kronor, and that's what drove them to become as good as they became.
How many kids in Slovakia and Switzerland do you think are up in the middle of the night to cheer for "Team Europe"? Slovakias WC gold in 2002, their WC silver in 2012, their WHJC bronze in 2015 and Switzerlands WC silver in 2013, and their upsets over big nations in big tournaments... Those are the things that are going to make kids start playing ice hockey.
And the more ice hockey players, the better the competition will be, and thus making the NHL a better product in the end. Why can't people put these things together? I guess some like to think that the NHL would still be as good without its 20-25% Europeans.
Last edited:
Watching the US soccer team in the World Cup as a kid, as bad as we were, still got me to start actually watching European soccer leagues. Back in the 1990s it was nearly impossible to find games on TV, but I found a way to watch Premier league replays and would record champions league games on VCR while I was at school. I doubt I would have bothered if there was no US team on to cheer for.
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 19,793
- 15,446
I'm not taking a shot at Europeans. Nationalism is meant to occur during international hockey. My surprise is at the lack of nationalism in North America.
There's one major differance here. A premier league game here for someone living in New York starts what, at noon? Or 9 AM for someone living in Los Angeles. Or if you are following Italian or Spanish soccer, you even get them an hour later.
The NHL isn't really showcased to kids in Europe very well because the games are played in the middle of the night. To watch the New York Islanders you'd have to get up at 1 AM or if you wanna watch the Canucks it's 4 AM.
The weekends make it easier. But as a school kid, you are likely to spend most friday and saturday nights with friends. Are your friends also interested in watching the NHL? You just won the lottery.
I was 16 and lived at home when the Ducks won the Stanley Cup in 2007. As my parents were sleeping, I'd watch every game of the finals with very low volume, on a small tv in my room. After that? Wake up, time for school!
AfroThunder396
[citation needed]
Don't have it overlap with NHL training camp. I want the NHL to start. You had the whole summer to do this. The last thing I need is my team's star player getting injured a week before the season starts.
Do Make Say Think
& Yet & Yet
- Jun 26, 2007
- 51,629
- 10,517
The issue is insurance, not profit.
Do try to familiarize yourself with the issues being discussed.
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 19,793
- 15,446
The issue is this tournament (take a peak at the thread title), which was announced as a potential replacement for the Olympic participation one year before the insurance issue came about. The insurance issue is real, but this tournament was a threat to NHL Olympic participation, according to the NHL itself, a year before that issue existed. Still interested in how I am an IOC apologist though, hoping you can provide further details on that front.
I just basically gave up watching North American sports when I lived in Europe. Other than weekend sports like football and baseball that were played during the day in North America and at night over there.
Ben White
Registered User
- Dec 28, 2015
- 4,686
- 1,698
Past Considerations
Registered User
This is probably the closest comparison. Would these microcountries be in competitions as single contries if this team did not exist? If not, then that's a major difference. And there is at least some historical meaning and common culture.
...which is also weird, as if they were celebrating colonial history.
