Best on Best every year: Idea to get rid of the All-Star Game

[26Mats]

Idea to get rid of the All-Star Game. Repeat this cycle every 4 years:

1.
2026 - Olympics;

2.
2027 - World cup of hockey qualifiers (6 countries automatically qualify: Canada, U.S., Russia, Sweden, Finland, Czechia, and have regional championships,best 2 out of 3, or 3 out of 5, (North American cup (Canada vs. U.S.), North European Cup (Finland versus Sweden), Eastern European Cup (Russia versus Chech Republic), the rest have a tournament for the final 2 spots); Second tier Teams like Mexico, Italy, Germany, Japan etc.. can play each other, hopefully with Media attention in the U.S.

3.
2028 - World Cup of hockey;

4.
2029 - Two 6 Nations tournament to warm up for the Olympics, like this past 4 nations tournament - one for the 6 top teams in the world, another for the next 6 best teams in the world.

Click to read more...

 

[Viqsi]

As soon as you start needing players outside of the NHL you're going to need to get the IIHF involved and that complicates things considerably.

 

[Five Alarm Fire]

I like your line of thinking. I think you could still maintain the all-star game, but have it every 4 years to make it more elusive/intriguing.

 

[Gizmo Tkachuk]

All Star Games/Weeks are also big corporate and sponsorship gatherings where the NHL execs invite in a bunch of other billionaires and give each other reach-arounds.

Don't see it going away completely in the near future despite how much viewership drops and players are disinterested.

 

[waitin425]

Mexico?

 

[SEALBound]

If I'm an owner paying million to players, especially some of the elite talents that would be attending (think Edmonton, Colorado's owners), I'm not sure I would be too keen on a best-on-best tournament every year that is non-NHL-related, especially if they take as serious as they just did. Though I suspect the long pause between a best-on-best tournament is why we saw the effort so high.

But how many injuries came out of the tournament? I'd be...miffed...if I'm paying $10+mil a year to my star player and he goes down in a tournament game and ruins the chances at pursuing the cup. How would Edmonton had felt if McDavid had separated his shoulder?

I'd be okay with something different than the all star game and this 4 Nations thing was a surprising success so, thinking outside the box and doing something new would be fine.

 

[hangman005]

If I'm an owner paying million to players, especially some of the elite talents that would be attending (think Edmonton, Colorado's owners), I'm not sure I would be too keen on a best-on-best tournament every year that is non-NHL-related, especially if they take as serious as they just did. Though I suspect the long pause between a best-on-best tournament is why we saw the effort so high.

But how many injuries came out of the tournament? I'd be...miffed...if I'm paying $10+mil a year to my star player and he goes down in a tournament game and ruins the chances at pursuing the cup. How would Edmonton had felt if McDavid had separated his shoulder?

I'd be okay with something different than the all star game and this 4 Nations thing was a surprising success so, thinking outside the box and doing something new would be fine.

I kid, but haven't they done better this season without McDavid

 

[Gizmo Tkachuk]

If I'm an owner paying million to players, especially some of the elite talents that would be attending (think Edmonton, Colorado's owners), I'm not sure I would be too keen on a best-on-best tournament every year that is non-NHL-related, especially if they take as serious as they just did. Though I suspect the long pause between a best-on-best tournament is why we saw the effort so high.

But how many injuries came out of the tournament? I'd be...miffed...if I'm paying $10+mil a year to my star player and he goes down in a tournament game and ruins the chances at pursuing the cup. How would Edmonton had felt if McDavid had separated his shoulder?

I'd be okay with something different than the all star game and this 4 Nations thing was a surprising success so, thinking outside the box and doing something new would be fine.

Matthew Tkachuk might be out for a while as he was apparently limping after the game. Not like Florida is at risk of missing the playoffs, but it changes things for sure

 

[26Mats]

Mexico?

haha, I was thinking Mexico because there is a large Mexican population in the U.S.

I had heard of them participating in international tournaments, but I didn't realize they were only 42nd in the IIHF rankings...

But note that if you have a 5 game tournament over two weeks, you can have brackets with 32 teams playing in it - and those would be the 32 team next best teams after the 6 best. So that's 38 teams. Mexico used to be 37th in the world...

 

[Leafs87]

Depending on the severity of the Tkachuk injury it may make teams very reluctant to loan out their players to these tournaments. Especially on an annual basis

 

[Cas]

Russia is a non-starter. Include them and you lose the Finns, Swedes, Czechs, Germans, Latvians, etc.

 

[Phion Keneuf]

Russia is a non-starter. Include them and you lose the Finns, Swedes, Czechs, Germans, Latvians, etc.

Then so be it. You don’t like them, beat them on the ice. 4 Nations was refereed very well, and should be the case moving forward.

Hockey is hockey. The players aren’t politicians. Regardless of their views, leave politics to politics and hockey to hockey.

 

[waitin425]

Depending on the severity of the Tkachuk injury it may make teams very reluctant to loan out their players to these tournaments. Especially on an annual basis

The NHL and the NHLPA will no doubt have discussions. If the World Cup is an NHL driven event every 4 years....I don't see how they won't go for it....especially if the league gets the kickbacks and the revenue from this and it is distributed appropriately. If the IOC, IIHF and NHL can just get along I think the Olympics will be fine every 4 years. But that is the tough one. The NHL owners will want value for the non-NHL event.

 

[26Mats]

Russia is a non-starter. Include them and you lose the Finns, Swedes, Czechs, Germans, Latvians, etc.

once the political situation is resolved...

If I'm an owner paying million to players, especially some of the elite talents that would be attending (think Edmonton, Colorado's owners), I'm not sure I would be too keen on a best-on-best tournament every year that is non-NHL-related, especially if they take as serious as they just did. Though I suspect the long pause between a best-on-best tournament is why we saw the effort so high.

But how many injuries came out of the tournament? I'd be...miffed...if I'm paying $10+mil a year to my star player and he goes down in a tournament game and ruins the chances at pursuing the cup. How would Edmonton had felt if McDavid had separated his shoulder?

I'd be okay with something different than the all star game and this 4 Nations thing was a surprising success so, thinking outside the box and doing something new would be fine.

Players play 82 games a year plus the playoffs. I don't think 3 to 5 extra games is that significant.

Also, at the end of the day if it's all about dollars and cents, I would think a proper analysis would show that growing the game internationally, and in the U.S. and Europe, through these kinds of tournaments, would drastically increase owner revenue within 5 to 10 years. Plus they would probably get a portion of ticket sales for the events.

 

[Nemesis Prime]

Get rid of it entirely and just continue the season so it's not running into June.

 

[Cas]

once the political situation is resolved.

Not happening any time soon - as in decades, minimum.

Then so be it. You don’t like them, beat them on the ice. 4 Nations was refereed very well, and should be the case moving forward.

Hockey is hockey. The players aren’t politicians. Regardless of their views, leave politics to politics and hockey to hockey.

International sports are politics. Always have been, always will be.

European players will not get on the ice with players wearing the Russian flag - period.

Leave international hockey to the IIHF.

 

[Bruins4Lifer]

We won't need any national, best-on-best hockey in '27 and '29. IMO, once we get through the '26 OLY, '28 WC, '30 OLY stretch, every 2 years might even seem too frequent for a best-on-best tournament.

The Four Nations was incredible because we, the fans, and the players were dying for it and we'd gone like 10 years since seeing that type of hockey.

 

[kerrabria]

All-Star weekend isn't for you and I. It's a business thing for the NHL, and kids like it. I'm fine to keep a cycle of ASG every two years, an internal, NHL Four Nations tournament every four years, and then organize a World Cup during the Olympic years. The IOC is a disgrace, the Olympics themselves are a joke, and the NHL holds all the power.

 

[Voight]

All-Star weekend isn't for you and I. It's a business thing for the NHL, and kids like it. I'm fine to keep a cycle of ASG every two years, an internal, NHL Four Nations tournament every four years, and then organize a World Cup during the Olympic years. The IOC is a disgrace, the Olympics themselves are a joke, and the NHL holds all the power.

While the bolded may be true, players want to be in the Olympics and thats not going to change no matter how many "other" tournaments the NHL makes.

 

[kerrabria]

Not happening any time soon - as in decades, minimum.

International sports are politics. Always have been, always will be.

European players will not get on the ice with players wearing the Russian flag - period.

Leave international hockey to the IIHF.

You're projecting your own deranged politics onto players. A peace deal will be reached in the coming months.
Four years from now, no player will refuse to represent his country in a best-on-best tournament because they're unhappy with the borders drawn around the f***ing Donbass

 

[SEALBound]

once the political situation is resolved...


Players play 82 games a year plus the playoffs. I don't think 3 to 5 extra games is that significant.

Also, at the end of the day if it's all about dollars and cents, I would think a proper analysis would show that growing the game internationally, and in the U.S. and Europe, through these kinds of tournaments, would drastically increase owner revenue within 5 to 10 years. Plus they would probably get a portion of ticket sales for the events.

I think you might underestimate the cash flow of deep playoff runs. Single playoff run to the SCF > steady increased growth over 5-10 years.

Now, no doubt the steady growth helps but when you're looking at the team as a year-to-year business, that windfall of cash matters.

 

[qc14]

Year 1: All-Star
Year 2: World Cup
Year 3: All-Star
Year 4: Olympics

Repeat

This is something that soccer has already figured out with their cadence for the World Cup and Euros/Copa America. No need to complicate things. I also think that over-saturating with internationals will cause them to lose their shine a bit, and that having a bit of distance between All-Stars will bring some of the excitement back.

 

[tarheelhockey]

As soon as you start needing players outside of the NHL you're going to need to get the IIHF involved and that complicates things considerably.

This is a legit concern.

It’s time for the IIHF and NHL to start working together more closely. With the Olympic issues sorted out and the NHL starting to run its own tournaments again, IIHF is creeping toward irrelevance. Their insistence on holding the annual WC against the NHL playoffs is just silly and self-harming. This isn’t the 80s where there are separate spheres of influence… NHL is now fully internationalized and for the foreseeable future it will “own” the top tier of international competition. Both sides need each other to make the system work top-to-bottom as it should. It’s not like the NHL wants to run tournaments in Mexico, that will always be IIHF’s role. But there is a lot of upside to partnering and creating a “big tent” atmosphere for global hockey with the best NHL talent representing their various countries.

Reminds me of the late 90s when minor league hockey was in the process of consolidating into a unified system under the NHL. There was a window of time when the IHL could have put aside its pride and negotiated an agreement to operate in partnership with the NHL and AHL, providing a place for veteran players to finish their careers in a non-developmental atmosphere. They missed that window, the IHL no longer exists, and aging pros end up exiled in Siberia instead of building an NHL market Orlando. All because some execs felt the need to squabble over crumbs of minor league revenue.

All Star Games/Weeks are also big corporate and sponsorship gatherings where the NHL execs invite in a bunch of other billionaires and give each other reach-arounds.

Don't see it going away completely in the near future despite how much viewership drops and players are disinterested.

I agree, but why wouldn’t this translate? What was once an ASG held over a weekend in one city becomes an international event held in two cities. It allows for a lot more ticket revenue due to a higher number of events, a bigger headline for the host city (let’s be honest the ASG is a non-event outside of hockey circles) and the “city takeover” aspect is even more pronounced. And even for the corporations, an international tourney is a much stronger sponsorship magnet than an ASG.

Personally, I’d much much rather my home town host a World Cup/4N than an ASG.

Depending on the severity of the Tkachuk injury it may make teams very reluctant to loan out their players to these tournaments. Especially on an annual basis

At the end of the day, it’s an NHL event and therefore their job to participate. It’ll be a CBA issue but I could foresee something like splitting off the revenue from these events into a separate pool to be shared by the owners and participating players. That would give the players a financial incentive to play, and much like the ASG anyone who dodges that obligation could be penalized on top of missing out on that paycheck.

Of course there would still be scenarios where owners get upset about injuries, but that just comes down to recognizing that they’ve committed to international competition being part of their product with all the risks that entails. There’s more than just the Stanley Cup to be competed for.

 

[1989]

Year 1: All-Star
Year 2: World Cup
Year 3: All-Star
Year 4: Olympics

Repeat

This is something that soccer has already figured out with their cadence for the World Cup and Euros/Copa America. No need to complicate things. I also think that over-saturating with internationals will cause them to lose their shine a bit, and that having a bit of distance between All-Stars will bring some of the excitement back.

I think I mostly see it this way as well. You will always oversaturate the market if there is too much of the same idea behind the product.

That being said, I would actually change the order of this and elaborate further, to coincide with the Olympics which is the premier event and which helps teams decide their Olympic rosters.

1. All-Stars Traditional (Conference or Division team games)
2. Calder All-Stars (Players with less than 5 seasons' experience to showcase new faces)
3. World Cup / X Nations
4. Olympics / World Cup (if they pull out of Olympics again)

In an 8-year cycle, I think this would be the best setup. Some combination of tradition, new stuff for the kids, and then they start building up to Olympic/internation BoB competition.

The first two years lets fans, especially kids, get to do the whole fan interaction setup with photos and signatures and make those personal hero memories and then see those players compete in BoB tournaments.

By the time the two All-Stars years are done, people are ready for the BoB stuff. When the BoB has been decided, they can turn it down a notch or two until the next competitions are up, and then the incoming All-Stars years lets those fans have those interactions again.

 

[kingsholygrail]

Just ditch the ASG or go back to West vs East.