Ideas and suggestions for a true World Cup

[habsrule4eva3089]

Problem is the nhl is becoming too americanized, they don't realize this is a global game and try to follow everything those other american leagues do, like the mlb and nba, two sports which are not global.

It's a completely different beast, if only someone in the nba can teach them what international management means, because the nhl is completely lost.

For goodness sakes, the khl might be laughed at , but they're about to expand into China. Can you imagine the potential there in the next 20-25 years if the Chinese start taking Hockey seriously. At least they're being proactive and helping the game grow.

 

[FiLe]

Problem is the nhl is becoming too americanized, they don't realize this is a global game and try to follow everything those other american leagues do, like the mlb and nba, two sports which are not global.

I think you mean the NFL, since basketball is quite global.

For goodness sakes, the khl might be laughed at , but they're about to expand into China. Can you imagine the potential there in the next 20-25 years if the Chinese start taking Hockey seriously.

That's... crapload of money.

 

[sandysan]

You do realize the World Championships is a much more large scale event then this nhl exhibition cash grab right?

There's only two tournaments in the World of Hockey that have significance, the Olympics and the Worlds and nothing will ever change that.

The 2015 Worlds had a cumulative TV audience of over 1 billion, a spectator crowd totaling 741,690

Do you realize how many countries in the World tune into the IIHF World Championships each spring? More so then Olympic Hockey which it in itself attracts hundreds of millions of viewers across the World for medal games.

Let's not even compare to nhl playoff games which are meaningless on a global scale.

This Canadian tournament is not known to anyone else other then 1 country. It's not an event, it's a cash grab and a waste of time.

you do realize that the wold championships are designed to run concurrently with the REAL hockey tournament so as to allow participation only of those whose teams didn't make the playoffs or who lost out in the first round ?

nobody cares about the WHC in north america because its viewed as a best of the rest tournament.

and the " attracting hundreds of millions" with almost exclusively NHL talent has done ZERO for the nhl. The idea that olympic hockey, and specifically olympic hockey fielding CHAFF is going to grow the game when olympic hockey with the worlds best players hasn't is kind of a stretch. It will be like any of the fringe olympic sports where people will, drunk on nationalism, pretend to care about a sport so long as there is a chance they might medal. Then the games end, they pat themselves on the back, scream their last " Rah RAH" and forget about that sport for another 4 years.

and I'm not sure how you can say that the WHC is going to be bigger, the world cup hasn't been contested yet. Instead of being on the nhl network ( or NBCSN) in the states, its going to be on the sports network that pretty much EVERY cable subscriber gets. As for the house, I've seen PLENTY of empty arena's in WHC games. You think that in a single location, in the worlds greatest hockey mad city that the ACC is gonna look like tumbleweeds might make an appearance when the worlds best hockey players are around, good luck with that.

I suspect that for games not involving US canada that the ACC is STILL more than half full which would be overflow in many of the places they have previously contested these games.

And if you want to call it a cash grab, be my guest. No skin off my nose. But if ( on the outside chance) that it succeeds and essentially plunges the dagger into the heart of NHL participation in the olympics, will you still hold the same position when the choice of seeing the best players on the planet means the World cup and the world cup only ? or will you keep imagining that the WHC has some special place as its contested by guys who drive cabs as second jobs ?

I want to see best on best, don't care if its under the shield or the 5 corrupt rings. if the owners and the pa can make more running their own show ( it would be hard to make less than they do at the olympics) then like mined people who want to see the best talent will come around. maybe not right away, maybe begrudgingly. but they will come around to see the draw, the best hockey talent on the planet.

 

[KriminellPipa]

so if all the european players got demoted to the ahl, your saying that people in europe would be interested in following them in that league ? I don't think so.

The draw of the NHL is that its, by leaps and bounds, the best hockey league on the planet. the talent, and specifically the depth of talent, IS the draw. I think that most fans couldn't care less if some guy from their hometown is tearing it up in some second or third rate league even if he's the best player to ever come out of that town.

if the notion that a private league is holding their own tournament offends you so, don't watch. you might get your wish and it will end up a dumpster fire. but if it succeeds it just means that the shift of power towards NA hockey, gets far more permanent.

You're free to think whatever you want. But I know for a fact that if the NHL didn't have any Finnish players, very few Finns would bother with the NHL. And if the rest of the countries in Europe are the same...

...

I'd say that what FiLe says also is applicable for Sweden. The focus and main intrests are the Swedish players. Of course their are hardcore fans who are more devoted to their team and the leauge, but they are a minority. If all the Swedes for some reason moved to KHL the attention in Sweden would drop rather dramaticly and be turned towards the KHL.

As for the topic. Seems to me like the purpose of the World Cup needs to be put on print. Is it to grow the game? Break new frontiers? Please the existing fans? Have a best-on-best tournament? Make money for the NHL? Make money for the IIHF?

For me it would be to:
1: Grow the game in more countries, such as Denmark, Latvia, Germany, Great Britain, as well as parts of the US etc. (This would in the (very) long run generate more money to the hockey com. as a whole.)
2: Have a best on best tournament.

 

[sandysan]

I'd say that what FiLe says also is applicable for Sweden. The focus and main intrests are the Swedish players. Of course their are hardcore fans who are more devoted to their team and the leauge, but they are a minority. If all the Swedes for some reason moved to KHL the attention in Sweden would drop rather dramaticly and be turned towards the KHL.

As for the topic. Seems to me like the purpose of the World Cup needs to be put on print. Is it to grow the game? Break new frontiers? Please the existing fans? Have a best-on-best tournament? Make money for the NHL? Make money for the IIHF?

For me it would be to:
1: Grow the game in more countries, such as Denmark, Latvia, Germany, Great Britain, as well as parts of the US etc. (This would in the (very) long run generate more money to the hockey com. as a whole.)
2: Have a best on best tournament.

#1 is nice but that's not the NHL's job. That's the IIHF's, the national federations( and possibly the IOC's) job and both have done a pretty poor job EVEN when they are gifted the world's best talent for free. That being said, if the NHL runs the tounament, then THEY get to decide how to promote the game. Right now the NHL CAN'T use olympic footage of its players without paying the IOC. After oshie had the penalty shot game in sochi and after the games were over, the best the NHL could do was TALK about it. if you want to grow the game have some way to have a transition between the hook ( the olympics) and the NHL

#2 is certainly the goal

and #3 would be to ensure that the people who are taking the risk in this endeavor are the ones who reap the rewards and that third parties who do essentially nothing other than hire the guy to run the zamboni, don't get fat by sitting on their behinds because they get to exploit athletic talent for FREE while THEY demand billions for the broadcast rights.

There is going to be a world cup because the PA and the owners looked at what the IOC was doing and decided, almost without reservation, "we can do that"

 

[JackSlater]

I'd say that what FiLe says also is applicable for Sweden. The focus and main intrests are the Swedish players. Of course their are hardcore fans who are more devoted to their team and the leauge, but they are a minority. If all the Swedes for some reason moved to KHL the attention in Sweden would drop rather dramaticly and be turned towards the KHL.

The nationalism of European fans is surprising to read when it's laid bare. It helps explain a lot of the projections that are made onto North American fans though.

 

[sandysan]

You obviously missed the bit where it was stated that they need to be the *best* Finns there are.

So any beer league wouldn't work. I doubt filling the AHL with them would be much help either. We already have our own league chock full of players on roughly the same level.

WHC is popular in Toronto?

Dear lord.

Well, they're at least more eloquent than some Canadians I have the honor of conversing with...

Probably far less prone to missing the point, too.

how do you determine who the best finns are if they are beating up on some weak sisters ?

Finland has a great hockey history, there are still certainly some of finlands best players who would not be good enough to make the nhl. In fact it would be hard to determine who they are because as I said, tearing it up in some third or fourth rate league means diddly.

Again I ask, if nationalism is behind your interest in hockey, why limit it to hockey ? why not just bask in the ever glowing light of ANYTHING your countrymen do of notice ? and if your tie to the greatest hockey league on the planet is based on how much some players look like you, talk like you and have the same experiences as you, then you arent a fan of hockey. Your a fan of your countrymen who HAPPEN to play hockey. and since the only way to maximize YOUR enjoyment would be to have an all finnish NHL, the nhl should not spend one freaking dime trying yo curry your favor and instead tell you, and your abject nationalism, to go pound sand.

that eloquent enough, eh ?

 

[KriminellPipa]

#1 is nice but that's not the NHL's job. That's the IIHF's, the national federations( and possibly the IOC's) job and both have done a pretty poor job EVEN when they are gifted the world's best talent for free. That being said, if the NHL runs the tounament, then THEY get to decide how to promote the game. Right now the NHL CAN'T use olympic footage of its players without paying the IOC. After oshie had the penalty shot game in sochi and after the games were over, the best the NHL could do was TALK about it. if you want to grow the game have some way to have a transition between the hook ( the olympics) and the NHL

#2 is certainly the goal

and #3 would be to ensure that the people who are taking the risk in this endeavor are the ones who reap the rewards and that third parties who do essentially nothing other than hire the guy to run the zamboni, don't get fat by sitting on their behinds because they get to exploit athletic talent for FREE while THEY demand billions for the broadcast rights.

There is going to be a world cup because the PA and the owners looked at what the IOC was doing and decided, almost without reservation, "we can do that"

Well, I wasn't realy talking about the event next summer. I was talking of the threads topic "a true world cup". I don't think it necessarily should be organized by the NHL. But as you stated in #3: it would require compensation for their corporation of some sort though, if it was organized by others. As the gain in the long run, say within 40 years or so might not be that much of a motivation for the franchise owners to participate.

The clash between the (old?) european way and the american way of organizing sports is quite apparent as I see it. The european clubs, owned by its members, driven mainly by the urge to win; against the american franchise owners with the urge to win as well as the goal to maximize profit.

 

[KriminellPipa]

The nationalism of European fans is surprising to read when it's laid bare. It helps explain a lot of the projections that are made onto North American fans though.

Nice, since I'm a teacher it feels very satisfying to hear that I've taught someone... something =) might have been the first time in 15 years

 

[JackSlater]

Nice, since I'm a teacher it feels very satisfying to hear that I've taught someone... something =) might have been the first time in 15 years

It's something that comes across indirectly, but it is odd to see it stated that most fans in a country would follow a league just to see how the players from their nation are doing. It's a bit different than the typical view in North America. Similar to MLS vs the top leagues in Europe, where most fans prefer to watch the best players on TV rather than locally based players.

 

[patnyrnyg]

Problem is the nhl is becoming too americanized, they don't realize this is a global game and try to follow everything those other american leagues do, like the mlb and nba, two sports which are not global.

It's a completely different beast, if only someone in the nba can teach them what international management means, because the nhl is completely lost.

For goodness sakes, the khl might be laughed at , but they're about to expand into China. Can you imagine the potential there in the next 20-25 years if the Chinese start taking Hockey seriously. At least they're being proactive and helping the game grow.

Should the NHL expand to China? Where does the NHL do business? NFL is a $10Billion a year league. Thinking they are doing something right.

Still haven't heard you make any suggestions for a TRUE WORLD CUP, like YOUR thread title states.

 

[patnyrnyg]

and #3 would be to ensure that the people who are taking the risk in this endeavor are the ones who reap the rewards and that third parties who do essentially nothing other than hire the guy to run the zamboni, don't get fat by sitting on their behinds because they get to exploit athletic talent for FREE while THEY demand billions for the broadcast rights.

There is going to be a world cup because the PA and the owners looked at what the IOC was doing and decided, almost without reservation, "we can do that"

Exactly.

IIHF/IOC: Give us all your players and we will let them play in our tournaments for free.

NHL: How about we don't, and instead we hold our own International tournament and reap the benefits.

IIHF/IOC: But, WE are the Olympics and World Championships. WE are the governing body.

NHL: Great, that and a metrocard gets you a ride on the subway.


I honestly do not get why so many people care about WHO is holding the tournament. If the top countries have most of their best players (Would be very difficult for all countries to have ALL their best players, for example in 96 US did not have Roenick), then that is all I need for it to be a true International Championship. Hence why I think the World Championships are a joke. Olympic tournament right now is the true Championship. If the NHL decides to stop sending players, so be it, but give us another best-on-best.

 

[sandysan]

Well, I wasn't realy talking about the event next summer. I was talking of the threads topic "a true world cup". I don't think it necessarily should be organized by the NHL. But as you stated in #3: it would require compensation for their corporation of some sort though, if it was organized by others. As the gain in the long run, say within 40 years or so might not be that much of a motivation for the franchise owners to participate.

The clash between the (old?) european way and the american way of organizing sports is quite apparent as I see it. The european clubs, owned by its members, driven mainly by the urge to win; against the american franchise owners with the urge to win as well as the goal to maximize profit.

A recurrent tournament with the planet's best players IS a true world cup be it under the rings or the shield.

What you seem to be suggesting I that if the IIHF is excluded then the tournament is somehow illigitimate. Its not. The iihf does run the wc's and no one advocates making that shampionship a true world championship.

The draw is not whose umbrella the best players play under, its that the best players play.

And as a private company with pull, I fully understand the nhl's reticence to take on the burden of promoting the game everywhere when their return is zilch.

 

[KriminellPipa]

[/MEDIA][/MEDIA][/MEDIA][/MEDIA]

It's something that comes across indirectly, but it is odd to see it stated that most fans in a country would follow a league just to see how the players from their nation are doing. It's a bit different than the typical view in North America. Similar to MLS vs the top leagues in Europe, where most fans prefer to watch the best players on TV rather than locally based players.

The explanation is not necessarily due to nationalism, it is possibly more because of the market. There are too few hardcore Philly-fans in Sweden for the newspapers and such to focus only on them for example. Swedes how ever, well they are more than the Philly-fans at least. I'd be surprised if Swedish players playing in Sweden got more attention in the Canadian news if all the best Canadian players was playing on this side of the pond?

It might be about to change though; because of the internet, streaming and the oppertunity to watch games later on as well as keeping up with the news etc.

 

[KriminellPipa]

Exactly.

IIHF/IOC: Give us all your players and we will let them play in our tournaments for free.

NHL: How about we don't, and instead we hold our own International tournament and reap the benefits.

IIHF/IOC: But, WE are the Olympics and World Championships. WE are the governing body.

NHL: Great, that and a metrocard gets you a ride on the subway.


I honestly do not get why so many people care about WHO is holding the tournament. If the top countries have most of their best players (Would be very difficult for all countries to have ALL their best players, for example in 96 US did not have Roenick), then that is all I need for it to be a true International Championship. Hence why I think the World Championships are a joke. Olympic tournament right now is the true Championship. If the NHL decides to stop sending players, so be it, but give us another best-on-best.

As I see it, the reason to why Europeans might defend IIHF and the IOC in questions like this, are due to the clash of the european way of organizing sports and the american way.

In Europe, or at least in Sweden (I think it is similar in the rest of Europe as well, UK might be the exception?) sports are organized by clubs, owned by the members, where the majority rule sets the agenda during annual general meetings. The clubs are in turn organized by the national federations, where the majority rule sets the agenda during annual general meetings. Usually the clubs from the top divisions have more votes than the clubs from lower tiers, or veto or something simliar. The National federations are in turn governed by the International federations, but on the other hand the International federations has, well you guessed right, annual general meetings, attended by representatives from the National federations, or since there are a crap load of countries in Europe, elections are held for an Executive committee, where the majority rule sets the agenda... It is my understanding and please correct me of I am wrong, that this goes for more or less all sports in Europe?

IMO this might the reason to why Europeans think that the IIHF should organize the World Cup, since it is in away, a matter of democracy, or at least it is an explanation to why the IIHF is seen as the governing body and the one supposed to organize tournaments such as a World Cup.

 

[sandysan]

As I see it, the reason to why Europeans might defend IIHF and the IOC in questions like this, are due to the clash of the european way of organizing sports and the american way.

In Europe, or at least in Sweden (I think it is similar in the rest of Europe as well, UK might be the exception?) sports are organized by clubs, owned by the members, where the majority rule sets the agenda during annual general meetings. The clubs are in turn organized by the national federations, where the majority rule sets the agenda during annual general meetings. Usually the clubs from the top divisions have more votes than the clubs from lower tiers, or veto or something simliar. The National federations are in turn governed by the International federations, but on the other hand the International federations has, well you guessed right, annual general meetings, attended by representatives from the National federations, or since there are a crap load of countries in Europe, elections are held for an Executive committee, where the majority rule sets the agenda... It is my understanding and please correct me of I am wrong, that this goes for more or less all sports in Europe?

IMO this might the reason to why Europeans think that the IIHF should organize the World Cup, since it is in away, a matter of democracy, or at least it is an explanation to why the IIHF is seen as the governing body and the one supposed to organize tournaments such as a World Cup.

I think the flipside of it is not a love for the iihf but a hatred for a private league that, in the pursuit of the most competitive league, "steals" their homegrown local boys.

Yes the soccer model ( with all I inherent graft) is popular in europe and elsewhere because the game is played everywhere. But this notion of "democracy" should have its limits, no? Otherwise a bunch of nations with zero hockey history and less infrastructure could decide how hockey is playef going forward. I am sure that there are rinks in australia. I am sure that the people who built these rinks love hockey and endured much hardship to do so. I am equally convinced that a pure democracy where one nation = one vote would mean the death of international hockey.

I actually do beleive that canada SHOULD have a bigger say than australia south africa and columbia

 

[FiLe]

how do you determine who the best finns are if they are beating up on some weak sisters ?

Those who succeed in international play would be deemed the best, most likely.

Again I ask, if nationalism is behind your interest in hockey, why limit it to hockey ? why not just bask in the ever glowing light of ANYTHING your countrymen do of notice ? and if your tie to the greatest hockey league on the planet is based on how much some players look like you, talk like you and have the same experiences as you, then you arent a fan of hockey. Your a fan of your countrymen who HAPPEN to play hockey. and since the only way to maximize YOUR enjoyment would be to have an all finnish NHL, the nhl should not spend one freaking dime trying yo curry your favor and instead tell you, and your abject nationalism, to go pound sand.

To be passionate about a sport, a key component is being able to relate. It's generally a mixture of liking the sport itself and finding some component one can project oneself onto. It's not necessarily limited to people, though. For example, the fans of most NHL franchises don't necessarily relate to any given player, but most of them DO relate to the area said franchise is playing in. Maybe they don't live there anymore, but they're from said city/general area, or have family or friends there.

Europeans may find that a little more difficult. So a far more natural point to relate is ones own countrymen.

An example: If you walk into a bar in St. Paul, you can always kill some time with a random Joe by yapping about the Wild and how they've been doing.
But ask about them in a bar in Helsinki and all you'll get is tumbleweed.
However, if you wonder about how Koivu's been playing lately, everybody will have an opinion. Far easier to strike up a chat like that.

that eloquent enough, eh ?

Better. I still find it a little sad though that I had to explain something that should've been covered in high school's psychology classes.

 

[KriminellPipa]

I think the flipside of it is not a love for the iihf but a hatred for a private league that, in the pursuit of the most competitive league, "steals" their homegrown local boys.

Yes the soccer model ( with all I inherent graft) is popular in europe and elsewhere because the game is played everywhere. But this notion of "democracy" should have its limits, no? Otherwise a bunch of nations with zero hockey history and less infrastructure could decide how hockey is playef going forward. I am sure that there are rinks in australia. I am sure that the people who built these rinks love hockey and endured much hardship to do so. I am equally convinced that a pure democracy where one nation = one vote would mean the death of international hockey.

I actually do beleive that canada SHOULD have a bigger say than australia south africa and columbia

Without being certain I think that the teams in the IIHF top tier have more to say than those in the lower tiers.

This grassroot-model has its flaws. For example you have to live with ads on jerseys since there are no owners with money to spend. On the other hand, german fans could preserve the stands and thus keep the good atmosphere in Bundesliga.

 

[ForumNamePending]

Well this thread is certainly veering off in a weird direction.

Are people seriously suggestion that a significant amount of interest a specific country takes in a given league, competition, tournament, etc. being driven by the involvement and success of talent from that country is a form of "nationalism" unique to Europe or European hockey fans?

We don't see this dynamic with Canada and the NHL, but that's because it's the local league and since the dawn of time Canada has always been the dominate force. With just about anything else though?... Ya, we see it all the time.

I'm saying THIS tournament can grow and it is worth the NHL's time to grow this tournament, not sure why the NHL needs to be concerned about growing THE GAME in Bangladesh, China, or South America.

Well when it comes to growth I don't think too many people have suggested the Indian subcontinent or South America as places to focus on, but in this thread you have suggested that Europe isn't even worth the NHL's trouble. I would think if the NHL wants this thing to grow and have a profile similar to WCups we see in other sports (and maybe they don't ) Europe would be a pretty important market for them. I don't know how you can suggest the tournament can grow and at the same time say Europe isn't important. At this point in time they really don't even seem all that concerned with making a dent in the US. Like I said earlier, unless you simple mean squeezing more out of Canada, how exactly are you expecting this to grow?

 

[sandysan]

Well this thread is certainly veering off in a weird direction.

Are people seriously suggestion that a significant amount of interest a specific country takes in a given league, competition, tournament, etc. being driven by the involvement and success of talent from that country is a form of "nationalism" unique to Europe or European hockey fans?

We don't see this dynamic with Canada and the NHL, but that's because it's the local league and since the dawn of time Canada has always been the dominate force. With just about anything else though?... Ya, we see it all the time.



Well when it comes to growth I don't think too many people have suggested the Indian subcontinent or South America as places to focus on, but in this thread you have suggested that Europe isn't even worth the NHL's trouble. I would think if the NHL wants this thing to grow and have a profile similar to WCups we see in other sports (and maybe they don't ) Europe would be a pretty important market for them. I don't know how you can suggest the tournament can grow and at the same time say Europe isn't important. At this point in time they really don't even seem all that concerned with making a dent in the US. Like I said earlier, unless you simple mean squeezing more out of Canada, how exactly are you expecting this to grow?

if the notion is, that european fans will watch whatever league their best homegrown players are in, why does the NHL " need" europe ? They already have the best talent, and if the eyes will follow the talent why do they need to make concessions to europeans who want nothing but a recreation of fifa and the soccer model ?

As for nationalism, I'm GLAD the nhl lacks it. I appreciate all that has been done by those who have put on the maple leaf at international tournaments, but as for the NHL I couldn't care less who wears the CH so long as they are good. I'm from the same small town as a nhl all star and I HATE that guy as a player ( I've never met him, he could be lovely). The captain of the habs has been american, and a FINN and the notion that we should care less about the habs because they fail to represent their fans the way we would like lumps us in with the same crazies who worry about whether the habs coach speaks perfect french or not. Thanks but no thanks.

If you are only watching hockey to see certain players based on what's in their passports, then I have no problem saying that your fandom of the game is 100% coincidental. And to suggest that these types of people should get more say in how the game goes forward is a bad idea on so many levels.

 

[patnyrnyg]

As I see it, the reason to why Europeans might defend IIHF and the IOC in questions like this, are due to the clash of the european way of organizing sports and the american way.

In Europe, or at least in Sweden (I think it is similar in the rest of Europe as well, UK might be the exception?) sports are organized by clubs, owned by the members, where the majority rule sets the agenda during annual general meetings. The clubs are in turn organized by the national federations, where the majority rule sets the agenda during annual general meetings. Usually the clubs from the top divisions have more votes than the clubs from lower tiers, or veto or something simliar. The National federations are in turn governed by the International federations, but on the other hand the International federations has, well you guessed right, annual general meetings, attended by representatives from the National federations, or since there are a crap load of countries in Europe, elections are held for an Executive committee, where the majority rule sets the agenda... It is my understanding and please correct me of I am wrong, that this goes for more or less all sports in Europe?

IMO this might the reason to why Europeans think that the IIHF should organize the World Cup, since it is in away, a matter of democracy, or at least it is an explanation to why the IIHF is seen as the governing body and the one supposed to organize tournaments such as a World Cup.

Whose to say the European model is the correct model?

The ultimate goal is to get a best-on-best International Tournament, correct? Will never happen with the World Championships. NHL is not going to start their season earlier in order to have the Stanley Cup done by the time the WC's are ready to start and the IIHF is not going to push the tournament back to late June/Early July. Even if they did, I still do not think you will ever have all the best players from Canada or the US playing, due to injuries, fatigue. Only answer would be late August/Early September. However, is it necessary to have it every year? Could easily become overkill. I know Soccer has other tournaments in the summer, but the pinnacle is the World Cup, and I think part of what makes it special is that if you lose, you have to wait 4 years for another shot. A lot can happen to a national team in 4 years.

Next option is the Olympics. I am fine either way whether the NHL continues to shut down and send players or if they decide to pull-out. Despite what anyone on here wants to believe, they started going because of the exposure the Olympics would bring. The idea that people who aren't NHL fans would watch, and then continue to watch once the NHL started again. Hasn't happened, yet people keep harping on this about why they should continue to participate in the Olympics. In 5 attempts, they have not seen spikes in ratings, ticket sales, merchandise sales, as a result of Olympic participation. Someone made the point earlier and I agree that if it was the US winning 3 Golds instead of Canada, it might have done something for the NHL, but should Canada have let the US win the 2 gold medal games and the semis last year and then Sweden lay down to help the NHL? Yeah, that is what we all want to see. Before someone argues about a draft pick from China, sorry, that is not enough of a benefit for the NHL to justify lining the pockets of the IOC.

Other option is summer olympics, but I don't think anyone is to keen on that idea.

I know the Olympics has always been the pinnacle for Europeans, but if you really think the NHL is worried about that, then I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. If you are going to argue it may prevent some Europeans from coming to the NHL, then so be it. Their loss. If the Olympics is more important to them, then they have every right to stay in Europe. Does that lessen the talent pool in the NHL? I guess so, but not by much. Did the NHL suffer because Forsberg decided to stay in Sweden an extra year to play in the Olympics? No. Did the NHL get exponentially better when Forsberg came over? No. Most of the best Europeans will still continue to play in the NHL during their prime in order to make the huge money and play at the highest level.

Despite what people on here want to believe, the NHL is clearly doing something right. In 1994, the highest payroll in the league was the Penguins at $15.1MM. Yes, they had a lockout thinking salaries were too high. Then, 10 years later, another lock-out to control salaries and teams were capped at just under $40MM, then another lock-out to make the cap based on a percentage of the revenues. Now, salary cap is almost double that $39MM original cap. Have any European leagues ever experienced that kind of growth?

 

[FiLe]

Whose to say the European model is the correct model?

One argument might be that in most international competitions, the amount of European teams is way greater than North American ones. Even in an eight-team tournament it's a 6-2 split. And the ratio goes even higher if you add more teams.

 

[KriminellPipa]

Whose to say the European model is the correct model?

The ultimate goal is to get a best-on-best International Tournament, correct? Will never happen with the World Championships. NHL is not going to start their season earlier in order to have the Stanley Cup done by the time the WC's are ready to start and the IIHF is not going to push the tournament back to late June/Early July. Even if they did, I still do not think you will ever have all the best players from Canada or the US playing, due to injuries, fatigue. Only answer would be late August/Early September. However, is it necessary to have it every year? Could easily become overkill. I know Soccer has other tournaments in the summer, but the pinnacle is the World Cup, and I think part of what makes it special is that if you lose, you have to wait 4 years for another shot. A lot can happen to a national team in 4 years.

Next option is the Olympics. I am fine either way whether the NHL continues to shut down and send players or if they decide to pull-out. Despite what anyone on here wants to believe, they started going because of the exposure the Olympics would bring. The idea that people who aren't NHL fans would watch, and then continue to watch once the NHL started again. Hasn't happened, yet people keep harping on this about why they should continue to participate in the Olympics. In 5 attempts, they have not seen spikes in ratings, ticket sales, merchandise sales, as a result of Olympic participation. Someone made the point earlier and I agree that if it was the US winning 3 Golds instead of Canada, it might have done something for the NHL, but should Canada have let the US win the 2 gold medal games and the semis last year and then Sweden lay down to help the NHL? Yeah, that is what we all want to see. Before someone argues about a draft pick from China, sorry, that is not enough of a benefit for the NHL to justify lining the pockets of the IOC.

Other option is summer olympics, but I don't think anyone is to keen on that idea.

I know the Olympics has always been the pinnacle for Europeans, but if you really think the NHL is worried about that, then I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. If you are going to argue it may prevent some Europeans from coming to the NHL, then so be it. Their loss. If the Olympics is more important to them, then they have every right to stay in Europe. Does that lessen the talent pool in the NHL? I guess so, but not by much. Did the NHL suffer because Forsberg decided to stay in Sweden an extra year to play in the Olympics? No. Did the NHL get exponentially better when Forsberg came over? No. Most of the best Europeans will still continue to play in the NHL during their prime in order to make the huge money and play at the highest level.

Despite what people on here want to believe, the NHL is clearly doing something right. In 1994, the highest payroll in the league was the Penguins at $15.1MM. Yes, they had a lockout thinking salaries were too high. Then, 10 years later, another lock-out to control salaries and teams were capped at just under $40MM, then another lock-out to make the cap based on a percentage of the revenues. Now, salary cap is almost double that $39MM original cap. Have any European leagues ever experienced that kind of growth?

Well, I did not say that it was the correct model. The only thing I tried to do was to explain why Europeans may see the IIHF as the rightful organizer of a World Cup, as UEFA is regarded as the rightful organizer of the Football European Cup, or the World Rugby as the rightful organizer of the Rugby World Cup. Hence the opinion that an international tournament with a thought of becoming THE world cup should be the governed by the given sports international governing body.

The Premier League has maybe seen the same kind of growth since the 90s. On the other hand the PL is more run as an american league, except that it isn't a closed league. But the ownership is kind of similar. The PL might be regressing a little bit at the moment though.

You are free to have an opinion about Forsberg not making the NHL better. He was mainly given the Calder for being total sheit...

 

[sandysan]

Well, I did not say that it was the correct model. The only thing I tried to do was to explain why Europeans may see the IIHF as the rightful organizer of a World Cup, as UEFA is regarded as the rightful organizer of the Football European Cup, or the World Rugby as the rightful organizer of the Rugby World Cup. Hence the opinion that an international tournament with a thought of becoming THE world cup should be the governed by the given sports international governing body.

The Premier League has maybe seen the same kind of growth since the 90s. On the other hand the PL is more run as an american league, except that it isn't a closed league. But the ownership is kind of similar. The PL might be regressing a little bit at the moment though.

You are free to have an opinion about Forsberg not making the NHL better. He was mainly given the Calder for being total sheit...

and its just coicidental that in the examples you mention, the international body has the most stroke over some league

That's NEVER been that way for hockey. The IIHF has NEVER been and more importantly NEVER WILL BE more powerful than the nhl. If this offends you its something you are going to have to live with.

Hockey is one of the few leagues ( including coincdentally the NFL, NBA and MLB) where the LEAGUES are the big dog. If in europe you want to give the power to federations, that's your perogative but to suggest that the NHL should yeild its signifcance to the iihf to appease people and for no other reason, is crazy

and I loved forsberg in the league, and saku koivu. Would have have liked it more if saku koivu was from nepean ontario ? No. I was attracted to his talents and what he brings to the league, not what his passport looks like. unlike , apparently, in europe where WHERE someone is born is the prime draw.

 

[KriminellPipa]

and its just coicidental that in the examples you mention, the international body has the most stroke over some league

That's NEVER been that way for hockey. The IIHF has NEVER been and more importantly NEVER WILL BE more powerful than the nhl. If this offends you its something you are going to have to live with.

Hockey is one of the few leagues ( including coincdentally the NFL, NBA and MLB) where the LEAGUES are the big dog. If in europe you want to give the power to federations, that's your perogative but to suggest that the NHL should yeild its signifcance to the iihf to appease people and for no other reason, is crazy

I am not offended a single bit.

Yes. But how many of those leagues are international sports with huge world championships gathering thousands up on thousands of fans from all over the world? The World series does not count

Serious question: How does Basketball do? FIBA vs. NBA? How are the international tournament organized? Cause if they are succesful it might be something to take a look at since Basketball is a far more spread sport than ice hockey.