Toggle sidebar

Is a 2-out-of-3 really even a desired Finals format at this point?

  • 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
The undesirable consequence of the best-of-three finals is that it makes an upset highly unlikely. It is only good for Canada.
 
Ivanko said:
The undesirable consequence of the best-of-three finals is that it makes an upset highly unlikely.
Click to expand...

Why is that a bad thing? You're supposed to earn a championship. Ideally every elimination series would be a best-of-seven, but obviously there's no time for that.
 
This tournament shouldn't have had a semifinal/final. Just make it a one conference round robin and the top two plays a one game championship. It's an exhibition series and the most interesting team didn't even qualify for the semis despite winning two of three games.

It's been fun to watch but the tournament itself is stupid.

Looking forward to two Canada blowouts. Yippee.
 
I can't believe when some posters are against a best of 3 because Canada has an even better chance of winning it then a single game elimination.

Is that what you guys have been reduced to?

If you can't win a best of 3 then you aren't the best team and time to get back to the drawing board and get better.

I've heard it all now.........."thou shalt have no best of 3 series in international tournaments because that way we can never beat Canada"

Some of the fans on this place are something else, total losers.
 
I was very excited for a best of 3 against USA or Russsia for the fact it could get heated up and chippy. Now I'm meh... more hockey to watch is good I guess.
 
Lari said:
Why is that a bad thing? You're supposed to earn a championship. Ideally every elimination series would be a best-of-seven, but obviously there's no time for that.
Click to expand...

For me personally, the beauty of international hockey is that anything can happen. A David can slay a Goliath. Those are the best stories for me. I am not sure David would beat Goliath in a best of three. The best team winning everything is quite boring, unless you are a fan of that team.
 
jj cale said:
I can't believe when some posters are against a best of 3 because Canada has an even better chance of winning it then a single game elimination.

Is that what you guys have been reduced to?

If you can't win a best of 3 then you aren't the best team and time to get back to the drawing board and get better.

I've heard it all now.........."thou shalt have no best of 3 series in international tournaments because that way we can never beat Canada"

Some of the fans on this place are something else, total losers.
Click to expand...

That is false logic. You can also say, if you cannot win the best of one you aren't the best. Best of 1, best of 3, best of 5, best of 7 - it is all arbitrary. If 3 is better than 1, than 5 is better than 3, etc. Why don't we make it best of 47? If you don't win best of 47 you are not the best.

And what is wrong with the worse team having a good day, getting a few lucky bounces and winning the cup? It's a much cooler story than a dominant team dominating. Everyone expects that, there is nothing exciting about it.
 
Lari said:
I thought it was so we can see what country has the best hockey players?
Click to expand...

We all know Canada has the best hockey players. That's why it would be exciting for everyone else, if they wouldn't win it all. Unpredictability is what makes competitions fun.
 
2 of 3 would only be great for one matchup.

Team North America vs Team Canada

That's the final that EVERYONE wants.

It's the only final that would be remotely close.
 
Ivanko said:
For me personally, the beauty of international hockey is that anything can happen. A David can slay a Goliath. Those are the best stories for me. I am not sure David would beat Goliath in a best of three. The best team winning everything is quite boring, unless you are a fan of that team.
Click to expand...

Agreed. This current format makes it hugely unlikely for anyone else than Canada to win and makes it less interesting. Compared to 2004 when Finland could've easily won.
 
Ivanko said:
That is false logic. You can also say, if you cannot win the best of one you aren't the best. Best of 1, best of 3, best of 5, best of 7 - it is all arbitrary. If 3 is better than 1, than 5 is better than 3, etc. Why don't we make it best of 47? If you don't win best of 47 you are not the best.

And what is wrong with the worse team having a good day, getting a few lucky bounces and winning the cup? It's a much cooler story than a dominant team dominating. Everyone expects that, there is nothing exciting about it.
Click to expand...

It is not false logic.

If you are the best team you can win in any amount of games in a series.

The amount of games should make no difference if you are the best team.

Please.


Teams have to handicap tournaments now to compete? cmon.

If Canada was playing the U.S in basketball I would not care whether it was a one game or best of 3 series because if we are good enough to beat them then we are good enough to beat them, period.


It is pathetic loser talk, simple as that.

What next? Canada can only take defensemen off A.H.L teams?

I cannot some believe European fans have been reduced to this, it makes them look so sad, pitiful almost.
 
jj cale said:
It is not false logic.

If you are the best team you can win in any amount of games in a series.

The amount of games should make no difference if you are the best team.
Click to expand...

Why do we need 2 games then? 1 game should be enough to decide the best team, no?

In any case, we seem to be talking on different levels here, normatively. For me the question "who is the best team?" is unimportant. It's just entertainment, nothing terrible will happen, if the best team doesn't win it all, no one will die because of it, no wars will be started (hopefully), no great injustice will be done to anyone. The underdog winning provides better entertainment (for me) than the dominant team dominating, and that is more important to me than who the best team is. The Miracle on Ice is a much better story than Canada winning 2004 World Cup. The Miracle on Ice would not have happened, if the Olympics had a best-of-three finals.

You may feel differently, but calling other people losers because they do not share your personal preferences makes you look very childish or perhaps even child-like.
 
Ivanko said:
Why do we need 2 games then? 1 game should be enough to decide the best team, no?

In any case, we seem to be talking on different levels here, normatively. For me the question "who is the best team?" is unimportant. It's just entertainment, nothing terrible will happen, if the best team doesn't win it all, no one will die because of it, no wars will be started (hopefully), no great injustice will be done to anyone. The underdog winning provides better entertainment (for me) than the dominant team dominating, and that is more important to me than who the best team is. The Miracle on Ice is a much better story than Canada winning 2004 World Cup. The Miracle on Ice would not have happened, if the Olympics had a best-of-three finals.

You may feel differently, but calling other people losers because they do not share your personal preferences makes you look very childish or perhaps even child-like.
Click to expand...


It can be but it does not have to be.What rule is there to say it has to be single game elimination? They use series in sports to determine winners all the time. You mean to tell me it should only always be a single game elimination because it always gives an inferior team a better chance to win?

As I said last post, cmon!!


I don't mind your attitude of not caring about a sporting contest deciding the best team as long as we are all entertained but whether you like it or not that is what sports at high levels is about and always will be......determining the best.

It does not make me childish in the least to call out people who want to perpetually make a tournament a certain way because they think it increases their chances against a favorite for what they are...........fans that cannot deal with losing.

Their teams job is to get better so as to be prepared to win any series style, period.

That is what would make them truly the best.

I cannot believe I am even having to have this conversation with anybody. Worse yet, I cannot believe it was even suggested as a Canadian advantage.

When the other nations get better they won't mind if it is single game or best of 3 or best of 7. Get busy on the job gentlemen.
 
The NHL did some stupid things in this tournament with the two gimmick teams and sort of trivializing the matches they play in. But they did do one thing right, they brought back the best two-of-three final. Some of the best hockey of all-time happened in this series.

1976 Canada blows out the Czechs 6-0 in Game 1 but Game 2 was a classic overtime match.

1984 was a bit of an anti-climatic final. Canada vs. Sweden. I don't think Canada was ever in danger of losing.

1991 had a pretty good Game 2.

But the real great series were 1987 and 1996. I really didn't want either of them to end. Such great hockey. By Game 3 it was so clear the two teams hated each other with a blind passion. And they had the one thing that brings out the best hockey for the fan to watch.................hatred.
 
Big Phil said:
The NHL did some stupid things in this tournament with the two gimmick teams and sort of trivializing the matches they play in. But they did do one thing right, they brought back the best two-of-three final. Some of the best hockey of all-time happened in this series.

1976 Canada blows out the Czechs 6-0 in Game 1 but Game 2 was a classic overtime match.

1984 was a bit of an anti-climatic final. Canada vs. Sweden. I don't think Canada was ever in danger of losing.

1991 had a pretty good Game 2.

But the real great series were 1987 and 1996. I really didn't want either of them to end. Such great hockey. By Game 3 it was so clear the two teams hated each other with a blind passion. And they had the one thing that brings out the best hockey for the fan to watch.................hatred.
Click to expand...


Hear!! hear!!

You know, That loss in 96 was incredibly hard to take and if it had been going by what some of these posters here are demanding due to Canadas recent dominance(single elimination) Canada would have won that series.

But we did not win, it was a best of 3 and the U.S won the next 2 games and proved they were the better team.

Should I cry foul about that and whine that if only it had been a single game elimination as it always should be Canada would have won?

No, I suck it up, reflect on what a great series it was and then burn with awaiting vengeance for the next time we could play those guys so this time we could beat them and show them who is boss.


What else should you do? To go whining about the amount of games played in a series because it lessens your inferior teams chances of being crowned champion is just silly.

It is a shortcut and losers mentality, a sore loser at that.
 
I hate Olympic hockey because of a 1 game final and than the stupid shootout if tied after a 5 minute overtime. The best thing that was done in this tournament was make the finals a best 2 out of 3 finals.No fluke is going to win it.Winner will have to earn it.
 
1996 was a great series that Canadian lost and we still enjoyed the series and accepted the defeat with gracious. Best of 3 is a best format that we can all enjoy the best hockey even if there was blowout in past Canada Cup/World Cup. Even if there's blowout, there'll always be another second chance like 1976 Canada Cup final. Had Czechoslovakia won the game 2 by OT goal, then game 3 will be never know game since it didn't happen. It could be one of those: a blowout win for Canada or a close game that could have gone either way. So 2 out of 3 is best format for a short tournament like this.
 
I like the three-game finals. One-and-dones can be harsh and aren't always indicative, while multi-game series can lead to exciting, entertaining and passionate affairs.

However, if this series goes to three games, I'm going to think the finals was rigged so the NHL/players could get an extra game's worth of revenue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom