How would you like to see best-on-best hockey come back?

[Name Nameless]

What would you personally like to see happen the most ( Not what is most realistic...I don't think any are at this point)

1) NHL starts season in September, not October. Season now ends around May 15th at the very latest. IIHF moves World Championship back to June 1st, becomes best-on-best.

2) NHLPA/IIHF/someone somewhere somehow convinces NHL to continue taking Olympic breaks in February, Olympic hockey becomes best-on-best again.

3) NHL convinces IOC to move men's ice hockey to summer Olympics, best-on-best ice hockey in August.

4) NHL's WCoH returns to previous formats with no gimmick teams, just national teams and is held in September every 4 years, whether a lockout is expected or not.

5) IIHF takes over running the WCoH, somehow gets all the top leagues, national federations on board to have a tournament every 4 years in February. Like FIFA world cup, but for hockey...except for all that corruption stuff, hopefully.

6) other idea?

1) Not competing WC against SC is an excellent idea. I like the fact it's WC every year. It should stay that way, but then certain nations should send their best team.

2) It's only Olympics every fourth year. So many issues with the Olympics, but yeah, of course you should send a team that could win, when you have the possibility to do so.

3) Hockey was in the summer Olympics. Summer Olympics is even worse than winter Olympics. Summer olympics is so megalomaniac, putting hockey back in there: Do you want to drown?

4) WCoH _is_ a massive gimmick from my point of view in Europe at least. Why do you do this, just to show the world you don't like the other organizations? But you might be on to something. It may be the problem is it's not to _many_ national games, it's to _few_.

5) What, the IIHF has a tournament. The WC. But let's compare to soccer. The big thing with soccer is: there are massive qualifications rolling around up to that events. I don't know if people are aware of this in the USA, but the national qualifications pulls men out of their teams every month, around the season. The leagues stops play for a few days, and the biggest stars go to the national teams. Even if it is world championship only every fourth year, it's in peoples head. All the time. Perhaps USA would have been a bigger soccer-market if it had been harder for you to qualify. Also, it's the continental championships, the European Championship is considered just as prestigious as the World Championship, and it has the same rolling qualifications. I don't think you understand how much this makes football (as in Assosiation Football) own the water-cooler talk. With the EC every fourth year, and qualifications all the time, it is a massive event every second year. With rolling qualifications it is way, way more "important national-team games" in soccer than in hockey. Very much more. And everybody expects the leagues to let their players go, and everybody expects the biggest stars to yearn for it as the highest honour.

The lack of the qualification-rounds makes hockey lose limelight. The fact it is every year instead of every second year (as in WC and EC combined) only partially makes up for this.

Invite-only tournaments are just a gimmick. The reason why soccer is so massive, is because more nations wants to be in the championships proper than they can take, and the qualification-rounds are rolling around forever with league-tables presented onscreen in the media all the time. In fact, the qualification tables are like the regular season, and the real championships like playoffs (even if they also have a group-stage and play-off round...)

By not adjusting the NHL to the one big tournament, you lose the possibility of getting limelight. Imagine what good runs in the IIHF-championships could have done for US hockey if you actually sent teams close to your real strength.

 

[Xokkeu]

Perhaps USA would have been a bigger soccer-market if it had been harder for you to qualify.

Can’t tell if this is an epic backhand of a troll or just naive.

 

[Past Considerations]

Summer games would be the best option for a best on best tournament, but playing on ice in summer would just be kind of weird.

The mismatch of ice hockey and sun is less of a problem than the fact that ice hockey would go from one of the top* disciplines in Winter Olympics to a minor discipline in the Summer Olympics, which already has multiple other much bigger team sports. I can't see why IIHF would ever agree to this. It doesn't make any sense for them.

* not in absolute popularity (not even close: alpine skiing and skating are the top sports), but as the only team/ball sport in the Winter Olympics, it gets preferential scheduling, gold medal game is always one of the last events etc.

 

[Past Considerations]

5) What, the IIHF has a tournament. The WC. But let's compare to soccer. The big thing with soccer is: there are massive qualifications rolling around up to that events. I don't know if people are aware of this in the USA, but the national qualifications pulls men out of their teams every month, around the season. The leagues stops play for a few days, and the biggest stars go to the national teams. Even if it is world championship only every fourth year, it's in peoples head. All the time. Perhaps USA would have been a bigger soccer-market if it had been harder for you to qualify. Also, it's the continental championships, the European Championship is considered just as prestigious as the World Championship, and it has the same rolling qualifications. I don't think you understand how much this makes football (as in Assosiation Football) own the water-cooler talk. With the EC every fourth year, and qualifications all the time, it is a massive event every second year. With rolling qualifications it is way, way more "important national-team games" in soccer than in hockey. Very much more. And everybody expects the leagues to let their players go, and everybody expects the biggest stars to yearn for it as the highest honour.

In a perfect world... But hockey world isn't perfect and hence the comparison to soccer is pointless. Unlike in soccer, financially and politically most powerful body is a league and not a governing body. In soccer, there's this FIFA agreement that league clubs need to release their players for national teams. In hockey regular qualification games are not needed, since there simply aren't enough good teams.

 

[lwvs84]

The mismatch of ice hockey and sun is less of a problem than the fact that ice hockey would go from one of the top* disciplines in Winter Olympics to a minor discipline in the Summer Olympics, which already has multiple other much bigger team sports. I can't see why IIHF would ever agree to this. It doesn't make any sense for them.

* not in absolute popularity (not even close: alpine skiing and skating are the top sports), but as the only team/ball sport in the Winter Olympics, it gets preferential scheduling, gold medal game is always one of the last events etc.

Yeah, I didn't even think of that. I'm not saying it's a good move, just that it might be the best way of getting a best on best from the NHL standpoint. Hockey should stay in the winter games though

 

[Atas2000]

The NHL disbanded. Gary Bettman in jail. Olympics with all the best players every 4 years. World Championships woth all the best players every year.

 

[TorstenFrings]

Perhaps USA would have been a bigger soccer-market if it had been harder for you to qualify.

Let them beat this level first before you make it harder.

 

[Edenjung]

I like how they are handling it in football .
The olympic tournament is for the young players and those who want to become a starter in the main national team.
for small countries you could make exeptions for using players that play in the KHl or Liiga. But teams like canada, Sweden, US and Russia should be using their minor league players and players from european leagues. I like it when the under dog has a chance to achive something and not only the big players. It's not handball, where you can buy yourself a team of mazedonian, french and croatian players and win (looking at you quatar).
And the World cup is the real deal, with every team using their best players. how that is handeld should decide others.
that would be awesome.

 

[Tomas W]

Voted for no #2, but a more serious take on a WC again would be ok. One NA Group and one Euro Group, Semis and Finals then in NA. Not sure how many teams I want, perhaps 8? I would want some kind of possiblity to qualify. Maybe CAN, USA, RUS, CZE, FIN, SWE could have a free ticket and then the two last places is decided by the IIHF ranking (like for instance SUI and SLO).

 

[Ezekial]

3

Or 4/5 but not during the NHL season.

I get that everyone wants to hate the World Cup but if it was 8 nations, best on best, it would be great.

 

[DaJackal]

#2 hands down.

 

[Zero Pucks Given]

I'd go with 2 along with either 1 or 4.

1) I get that having a best-on-best tournament every year would be a bit too much for a lot of people and especially for the players who would crack their national teams more often than not, but think of it this way: if it had been scheduled that way already, a Team Canada with Crosby and McDavid might've still happened this year.

4) I'd hold the WCoH every odd year immediately following an Olympic tournament (ex: 2018 Olympics, 2019 World Cup, 2022 Olympics, 2023 World Cup, etc.). NA would host the tournament every 8 years, same thing with Europe.

 

[SmellOfVictory]

Ideally one of the Olympic options. As corrupt as the IOC may be, the Olympics are what people typically associate with "best on best", so I'd like to see that for hockey. Wouldn't mind it in the summer Olympics at all. WHC would be a second choice (and I'd love it if the NHL moved their schedule back a bit regardless). The NHL's "World Cup" can take a flying leap, though.

 

[Jahara]

My suggestion is to play the Olympics with NHL players as it used to be every fourth year. Then you have the World Cup played every fourth year as well. Some might even say it is too much but i can't understand that since the players plays 80 games a season plus the playoffs. Just look at the footballers in a more physically demanding sport (in fatigue terms) and the best players could do the World Cup every fourth year and the Euros/Copa America/etc every second year.

The Olympics and the World Cup should be a good complementary tournament for each other. The Olympics would continue with 12 teams but I prefer them playing in 2 groups instead of 3 (just like 2006). It gives a better edge to the group stage when the teams can't relax and knowing they will reach the knockout round anyway. 2 groups will also make the big teams play each other more times. The 2010 and 2014 Olympics group stage had a feeling of exhibition games and that is something to avoid.

With the Olympics played on big ice with international rules the World Cup ought to make some changes. I am aware that a many people were critics of the "gimmick teams" in 2016 but seriously, was anyone out there missing Germany and Slovakia filling out two places without any chance of advancing? I didn't like the North American team since it weakened USA and took some of it's players. NA may have been the most entertaining team but other teams can't be weakened like that. Team Europe otherwise was something interesting to test and far from the disaster many said. Just look at the Ryder Cup that have done something similar for decades. As I said before, did anyone'd prefer a dull German team?

The changing of format from Canada Cup where every team gets to play each other for a 2 group thing was a far bigger miss than giving Team Europe a chance. When we finally get the teams gathered, they should play meet on the ice. This is why the World Cup should shrink from 8 teams to 6 teams as it was. A group stage should have the right edge where every game means more than just play 3 games and reaching the quarter finals anyway. With a 6 team tournament (or maybe a 7 team with Team Europe) a table will be better proof on wich teams played best hockey. The 4 best teams reaches the semis and the best 2 teams plays a final i best of 3.

Too many people seem a bit stuck with the idea that World Cup must be played with 8 teams when it in fact is missing two quality sides outside the Big Six. That is why I wan't to scrap the current format and the minnow nations will have their chance to shine during the Olympics. World Cup could then continue being an invitational tournament with the best teams in hockey played with NHL rules on a small surface. The World Championship could ideally play every odd year since it it just a tournament I make to much of.

Tournaments in hockey best-on-best is the must fun thing about hockey for a viewer like me who don't have the time or interest in following a NHL or SHL team for half dull regular season of 82/52 games. My suggestion of playing a World Cup in 2020 and a Olympic tournament in 2022 with NHL:ers and so on seem quite basic and not impossible to do. Right?