How to get the WCOH to appeal to you?

[Doctor No]

Yeah if you only look at it as an exhibition. If it were marketed as like "xbox coming to live TV" then I think we'd be happier but the notion that this fantasy hockey tournament could replace the Olympics is worrisome.

That's fair.

And to be honest (given the title of the thread), I'm not particularly interested in the event this year.

 

[Canuckistani]

I'm arguing that in the grand scheme of things, this isn't a big deal. It's supposed to be a fun exhibition.

Not according to the organizers it isn't.

Bettman and Day insist that this is the highest-level tournament there is, and that in the grand scheme of things it might well replace the Olympics.

In other words, hockey's only "best-on-best" event will involve players being made to take on their own country. If that scenario is unimaginable for soccer then it should be for hockey.

I mean do we want hockey to be a serious sport or not?

 

[Claypool]

It's in the NHL's best interest for this tournament to replace the Olympics. There will obviously be growing pains, but I applaud them for at least trying something new with the "gimmick" teams. I'm keeping an open mind about it and will enjoy the hockey for what it is. At least every game should be fun to watch. No pushover teams.

 

[Bumpus]

I'm certain I'm in the minority here, but ...

This tourney does not appeal to me because:
1) None of the teams are wearing a Penguin on their sweater.
2) Football is back.

*shrugs*

 

[Epsilon]

Then remove the name international, or don't view it as one. Does the name change the entertainment value?

To a large degree, yes.

A good chunk of the entertainment value in sports is derived from the stakes, i.e. the feeling that something is on the line. It's why a playoff game where your team is locked into a tight battle with their opponent can feel enthralling even though to a casual observer with no stake in the result the result it could be mind-numbingly boring. Whereas the All-Star Game can feature a ton of talent and a bunch of scoring, but many don't find it entertaining because there is absolutely nothing emotionally important at stake.

A big part of international sports competitions is the bragging rights involved with beating the other nations. Using a hybrid exhibition/gimmick format ruins a lot of that.

 

[isles31]

It's Hockey. It already appeals to me.

This was what I was going to post. I have something to come here and discuss that isn't basically nonsensical speculation or rumor for the first time in over two months

 

[Make]

Sigh... This could be such a great tournament if we had eight of the best national teams competing instead of those foolish all star teams. International hockey looks great on small ice with NHL players.

 

[Frank the Tank]

To a large degree, yes.

A good chunk of the entertainment value in sports is derived from the stakes, i.e. the feeling that something is on the line. It's why a playoff game where your team is locked into a tight battle with their opponent can feel enthralling even though to a casual observer with no stake in the result the result it could be mind-numbingly boring. Whereas the All-Star Game can feature a ton of talent and a bunch of scoring, but many don't find it entertaining because there is absolutely nothing emotionally important at stake.

A big part of international sports competitions is the bragging rights involved with beating the other nations. Using a hybrid exhibition/gimmick format ruins a lot of that.

I agree with what you are saying, but as the interviews from players accumulate, one gets the sense that they care about playing and winning this tournament. It will be interesting to observe if the player's strong intensity translates into the fans caring as much as they do.

 

[Gary Nylund]

I agree with what you are saying, but as the interviews from players accumulate, one gets the sense that they care about playing and winning this tournament. It will be interesting to observe if the player's strong intensity translates into the fans caring as much as they do.

There is no question in my mind the players care.

One thing that would make this tournament more appealing if there was less whining about it in this forum. The whiners should be limited to posting the same thing 100 times or something like that and then they should **** and leave the rest of us in peace. JMHO.

 

[Shrimper]

I'll probably catch up and watch some of the World Cup but I feel like the NHL could have made this a proper World Cup and had two other nations rather than the gimmick teams. It needs to be bigger to be a World Cup too. How can you call it a World Cup when only two continents are present? Or even able to be present. I'm obviously not saying that they should just invite South Africa but it needs to be more open. Have 16 teams with a group in each city/arena. The top 12 nations qualify with 4 qualification spots. Top two in each group qualify for QF's.

Qualification should be open to all. I also just generally feel that the NHL doesn't care about it's European audience.

 

[Canuckistani]

There is no question in my mind the players care.

One thing that would make this tournament more appealing if there was less whining about it in this forum. The whiners should be limited to posting the same thing 100 times or something like that and then they should **** and leave the rest of us in peace. JMHO.

Are you familiar with the ignore feature?

 

[JackSlater]

There is no question in my mind the players care.

One thing that would make this tournament more appealing if there was less whining about it in this forum. The whiners should be limited to posting the same thing 100 times or something like that and then they should **** and leave the rest of us in peace. JMHO.

To be fair, if I was left with no recourse other than to feebly invent strawmen to knock down in order to try defend my poorly thought out points, I would hope that people would stop consistently pointing out my errors as well. It's too bad that this happens to be a discussion forum I guess.

Not according to the organizers it isn't.

Bettman and Day insist that this is the highest-level tournament there is, and that in the grand scheme of things it might well replace the Olympics.

In other words, hockey's only "best-on-best" event will involve players being made to take on their own country. If that scenario is unimaginable for soccer then it should be for hockey.

I mean do we want hockey to be a serious sport or not?

The NHL's intentions are pretty clear. For all the claims to the contrary, NHL.com even posted a story admitting that the gimmick teams are there to increase the number of NHLers participating and that there has been no decision as to whether the gimmicks are a one time thing.

As for soccer... hockey doesn't need to be emulating that sport or its organization.

 

[Claypool]

I'll probably catch up and watch some of the World Cup but I feel like the NHL could have made this a proper World Cup and had two other nations rather than the gimmick teams. It needs to be bigger to be a World Cup too. How can you call it a World Cup when only two continents are present? Or even able to be present. I'm obviously not saying that they should just invite South Africa but it needs to be more open. Have 16 teams with a group in each city/arena. The top 12 nations qualify with 4 qualification spots. Top two in each group qualify for QF's.

Qualification should be open to all. I also just generally feel that the NHL doesn't care about it's European audience.

It's the first time they're really trying something like this in over a decade. This tournament will evolve over the coming years. If the feedback about the gimmick teams isn't good then they'll drop them. At least see how it goes first before really bashing it. One thing is certain: the hockey will be really fun to watch. That's all I care about.

 

[Filatov2Kovalev2Bonk]

Winning team's members get an additional two points in the standings. That's pretty much the only way.

 

[Shrimper]

It's the first time they're really trying something like this in over a decade. This tournament will evolve over the coming years. If the feedback about the gimmick teams isn't good then they'll drop them. At least see how it goes first before really bashing it. One thing is certain: the hockey will be really fun to watch. That's all I care about.

True, it is the first time they have tried it in a decade. But, if you look at it that way they've gone backwards. In 2004 it had 8 actual teams, no gimmicks. If they wanted to get an audience, a Global one at that, then they should started with more teams. It just feels half assed and I still feel that in general, the European market is not looked at and they don't try.

 

[Xokkeu]

To be fair, if I was left with no recourse other than to feebly invent strawmen to knock down in order to try defend my poorly thought out points, I would hope that people would stop consistently pointing out my errors as well. It's too bad that this happens to be a discussion forum I guess.



The NHL's intentions are pretty clear. For all the claims to the contrary, NHL.com even posted a story admitting that the gimmick teams are there to increase the number of NHLers participating and that there has been no decision as to whether the gimmicks are a one time thing.

As for soccer... hockey doesn't need to be emulating that sport or its organization.

Every country that wants to be in the World Cup should have a chance. That's worth emulating. If Burundi wants to field a team they should get a qualifier

 

[JackSlater]

Every country that wants to be in the World Cup should have a chance. That's worth emulating. If Burundi wants to field a team they should get a qualifier

I understand where that comes from, and there is a way to have it without the impracticality that endless qualifiers entails: top eight/six/twelve/whatever teams by IIHF ranking. Every nation would then be allowed to compete for a spot in the tournament through the IIHF's tournaments at various levels. In fact, this was the old method for the Canada Cup.

 

[Xokkeu]

I understand where that comes from, and there is a way to have it without the impracticality that endless qualifiers entails: top eight/six/twelve/whatever teams by IIHF ranking. Every nation would then be allowed to compete for a spot in the tournament through the IIHF's tournaments at various levels. In fact, this was the old method for the Canada Cup.

Some thing like MLBs World Cup.

Have a qualifying tournament a year or two before. Any totally terrible team that wants to show can. They play single elimination or double whatever. South Korea China etc. only team from that wins and goes to a real qualifying tournament with hockey nations like Belarus, Latvia etc

NHL has at least give lip service to the idea of a qualifying tournament.

 

[Mr Leth]

Personally I don't have any real solution, just complains!
First of all it's international hockey in September and while I get why you guys in N.A. are pumped for that, I'm not...
We always have hockey in September.
Our domestic league is already underway when this tourney starts and quite frankly I don't know any hockey fan who puts the national team above their club team.
This might seem hypocritical since the olympics are usually happening mid-season but...
And this a big but, the olympics are recognized by our leagues, they're taking a break for it.
The ideal international tourney takes place when there's no other hockey, that's why the IIHF Worlds is so popular in Europe despite the fact it's not best on best.
There's no club team hockey at that point, that season has ended.
And this is the real problem to which there is no real solution.
You can't really hold an international tourney at any time where it fits all.
So I don't know...guess you can have this one, I'm not even sure if I'm gonna watch any of it.
Perhaps if there's a slot opening up in regular hockey schedule?

 

[HydroF]

It already appeals to me, I don't have any real complaints. I like the addition of team NA and Europe a lot, I thought that was a fantastic move.

Its kicking off hockey season with a major tournament in September. Not having to wait for October for quality hockey is a major +. As for the addition of team NA and Europe, I don't particularly get hyped up on national pride for sporting tournaments. I just care about the quality of the game. So we get rid of team NA and Europe what do we have? You really want to see a slightly buffed up already ridiculous team Canada go against team Germany or Slovakia? Won't the current team Canada vs team NA be far more entertaining? That's what matters to me. We have topics on HF all the time basically creating fantasy super teams, the NHL did a fine job blending the super team concept with national team basis, and ensuring entertaining hockey in every match up. In the olympics for over 30 years the only teams to medal have been US, Canada, Russia / Soviet Union, Finland, Sweden, and Czech Republic / Czecholslovakia. All those countries are represented here (minus Slovakia sort of). I agree with putting the priority on keeping the quality of play high and highlighting more stars in the tournament rather than adding uncompetitive teams with unknown players just for the sake of keeping the national thing going.

The only scenario that I would prefer would be take the top 8 coaches in Jack Adams voting, randomize the order and let them draft their teams. Get rid of the whole national team thing and go pure super team with it. Or take top 2 coaches from NHL, KHL, SHL, FEL, or something like that.

Edit - For fans of european teams not being represented, I certainly understand if you want to see your team have a shot and at least have some representation.

 

[gretskidoo]

Make it a real sports tournament and not some WWE-esque garbage.

 

[bob27]

If they just dropped the gimmick teams I'd treat it like a proper tournament. Now it feels more like glorified all-star marketing event. I wouldn't necessarily mind that either though, if they went all in with that concept and dropped all the veneer of international hockey. On the other hand, I fear that the players would care even less about playing in it (as was evident from Team Europe).

 

[Auston Marlander]

To a large degree, yes.

A good chunk of the entertainment value in sports is derived from the stakes, i.e. the feeling that something is on the line. It's why a playoff game where your team is locked into a tight battle with their opponent can feel enthralling even though to a casual observer with no stake in the result the result it could be mind-numbingly boring. Whereas the All-Star Game can feature a ton of talent and a bunch of scoring, but many don't find it entertaining because there is absolutely nothing emotionally important at stake.

A big part of international sports competitions is the bragging rights involved with beating the other nations. Using a hybrid exhibition/gimmick format ruins a lot of that.

Not for me. I enjoy great hockey played by great players.

 

[JackSlater]

If they just dropped the gimmick teams I'd treat it like a proper tournament. Now it feels more like glorified all-star marketing event. I wouldn't necessarily mind that either though, if they went all in with that concept and dropped all the veneer of international hockey. On the other hand, I fear that the players would care even less about playing in it (as was evident from Team Europe).

I agree, and there are plenty of positives to the tournament in general. Dropping the pretense of international or best on best hockey would fix some of the problems. The NHL seems to want an all star exhibition for its players and a serious international tournament, but you can't have both at the same time.

 

[Goose]

They will never make me care about a world tournament outside of the Olympics.

It's stupid greed to make their own tournament and try to wiggle out of the Olympics.

Grow the game. Give players and fans what they really want - send the the best players to the Olympics and have them play for gold.