World Cup: Is international hockey dead (or too boring to resuscitate)?

[Seanaconda]

More strategy in a longer series too. Makes it interesting if usa actually made it to the finals they would probably take the first loss happily while trying to beat the eff out of canada and beat them up enough to win the next 2.

 

[Confucius]

You didn't answer my question. Are you really OK with a best-of-1 semi-final in the World Cup of hockey? If the answer is yes, how can that be, when luck can play such a big role in a single game?

I personally wouldn't mind watching best-of-7 playoffs in international tournaments. However I do think that the employers of the players taking part might find a bit too time-consuming.

If you want to get a tournament winner the present way is great. If you want to find the best team a series would be best.

I used to think winning a tournament meant more than that but I was mistaken. All it means is you performed best at that tournament.

I was mistaken I admit it, I understand now and I do prefer one off games to decide a tournament.

There is no need for a series to decide a tournament.

 

[BruinLVGA]

I did say so, several times in several threads that I did not care whether the olympics were single game elimination. Go look for yourself.

I have no knowledge of what a gimmick is? really? so deciding a basketball game on free throws is not a gimmick? you really believe that? because there is no difference in that then a shootout to decide a game in hockey. Whats next? why not put out a wooden board with a 3 holes in it and place it where the net is and get the players to try put it through the holes, accuracy is a skill used in hockey correct?

Are you o.k with that as not being a gimmick and being used to decide the gold medal winner in hockey?

seriously man, holy ****

and there is plenty of sports that use multiple game series to decide champions so it is just as legitimate as a single game elimination, is it our problem you cannot handle losing so much that you have to legislate single game elimination as law? talk about cowardly, if you are the best team you can win one game or a series, you too scared for that? too bad!! get better is all I can advise.

You keep topping yourself each post, it's breathtaking.

Now I am supposed to keep a tally of your statements in other threads?

JJ... Listen to this: penalty shots - or the same thing but with a different name - are in a TON of other sports. You are up there in Canada and - wild guess - are only interested in hockey. Because of that you are blissfully unaware of that. Fine. Please look it up though. Please also look up how many folks are up in arms re hockey (or any other sport) about penalty shots. You will find that pretty much everyone accepts penalty shots as part of the sport because... It actually IS.

You seem upset about this, other fans - like me - and players / personnel decide instead to deal with it. I suggest you do the same.
I will let the "wooden board with 3 holes and its acceptability" slide, because that's just insanity. Seeing that the 3-hole wooden board rule doesn't exist, we will tackle that IF we get to that bridge. As of now it's obviously only in your fantasy and therefore it has no bearing with hockey.

Name 1 international team sport at nations level that has a multiple games final between two teams (not multiple teams representing one nation) in any major tournament. Go ahead.
I don't have a problem handling anything, however it doesn't sound like you can say the same. You are starting to sound a bit hysterical here. Calm down. The reality is that here, those who "legislated" anything, are those who made this tournament into a best of 3... So much for "cowardice" from those who are at a disadvantage for that...

 

[randomhockeyfan]

Well since they played like **** that tournament and ended up 6th or 8th or something like that it is highly doubtful.

So if Canada sucks are best of threes fine then? I bet you it would be with these fans.

their argument against series to decide a tournament winner is pathetic and anyone being honest will admit that.

No, even if team Europe miraculously won the World cup I wouldn't be fine with the best of three format. Best of three just doesn't fit with international tournaments. Stanley cup is a whole different story but imo a one game final format is the most exciting way to decide the winner in short tournaments. I don't think anyone gave a **** about the first game of the finals in this World cup and it could be seen from the half-empty arena.

 

[Seanaconda]

Now I am supposed to keep a tally of your statements in other threads?

JJ... Listen to this: penalty shots - or the same thing but with a different name - are in a TON of other sports. You are up there in Canada and - wild guess - are only interested in hockey. Because of that you are blissfully unaware of that. Fine. Please look it up though. Please also look up how many folks are up in arms re hockey (or any other sport) about penalty shots. You will find that pretty much everyone accepts penalty shots as part of the sport because... It actually IS.

You seem upset about this, other fans - like me - and players / personnel decide instead to deal with it. I suggest you do the same.
I will let the "wooden board with 3 holes and its acceptability" slide, because that's just insanity. Seeing that the 3-hole wooden board rule doesn't exist, we will tackle that IF we get to that bridge. As of now it's obviously only in your fantasy and therefore it has no bearing with hockey.

Name 1 international team sport at nations level that has a multiple games final between two teams. Go ahead.
I don't have a problem handling anything, however it doesn't sound like you can say the same. You are starting to sound a bit hysterical here. Calm down. The reality is that here, those who "legislated" anything, are those who made this tournament into a best of 3... So much for "cowardice" from those who are at a disadvantage for that...

Golf ? All of those are 3 or 4 rounds oh team. So ryders cup. Done

 

[BruinLVGA]

Golf ? All of those are 3 or 4 rounds oh team. So ryders cup. Done

Ah well, grown men in plaid pants or something similar surely settle this. Soccer, basketball, hockey, volleyball, rugby, handball, etc etc move along. Make sense.

 

[jj cale]

Now I am supposed to keep a tally of your statements in other threads?

JJ... Listen to this: penalty shots - or the same thing but with a different name - are in a TON of other sports. You are up there in Canada and - wild guess - are only interested in hockey. Because of that you are blissfully unaware of that. Fine. Please look it up though. Please also look up how many folks are up in arms re hockey (or any other sport) about penalty shots. You will find that pretty much everyone accepts penalty shots as part of the sport because... It actually IS.

You seem upset about this, other fans - like me - and players / personnel decide instead to deal with it. I suggest you do the same.
I will let the "wooden board with 3 holes and its acceptability" slide, because that's just insanity. Seeing that the 3-hole wooden board rule doesn't exist, we will tackle that IF we get to that bridge. As of now it's obviously only in your fantasy and therefore it has no bearing with hockey.

Name 1 international team sport at nations level that has a multiple games final between two teams (not multiple teams representing one nation) in any major tournament. Go ahead.
I don't have a problem handling anything, however it doesn't sound like you can say the same. You are starting to sound a bit hysterical here. Calm down. The reality is that here, those who "legislated" anything, are those who made this tournament into a best of 3... So much for "cowardice" from those who are at a disadvantage for that...

Yeah o.k man.

You say you shouldnt have to keep tally of my posts but make statements about me that can be proven untrue. I guess if you are going to do things like that maybe you should be keeping tally then right? That is on you not me.




Goodbye and good riddance.

 

[Seanaconda]

Ah well, grown men in plaid pants or something similar surely settle this. Soccer, basketball, hockey, volleyball, rugby, handball, etc etc move along. Make sense.

Basketball and baseball should have tourneys that have multi game finals. But usa is so dominant at both but if they had better competition they would probably have one for each.

Gridiron football should have one game .

association football has a thousand tourneys so it doesn't need it. But idk why you would be against a tourney with a best of a couple ?

Have only ever played handball in highschool but that seems like a sport that a multi game final would work.

 

[Lepardi]

If you want to get a tournament winner the present way is great. If you want to find the best team a series would be best.

That is very true. If we really want to find the best national team in ice hockey, it wouldn't be a bad idea to make the top-6 nations play a 30-game regular season, where every team plays each other three times at home and three times away. The top-4 would then advance to the best-of-7 semi-finals, after which there would a best-of-7 final. The winner of this international extragavanza would have to play 44 games max to earn the crown of the best hockey nation in the world.

Somebody should try to sell this idea to Bettman and see how it goes. I don't think the owners of NHL teams would mind, cause it would be great to see which nation REALLY owns hockey.

 

[Seanaconda]

That is very true. If we really want to find the best national team in ice hockey, it wouldn't be a bad idea to make the top-6 nations play a 30-game regular season, where every team plays each other three times at home and three times away. The top-4 would then advance to the best-of-7 semi-finals, after which there would a best-of-7 final. The winner of this international extragavanza would have to play 44 games max to earn the crown of the best hockey nation in the world.

Somebody should try to sell this idea to Bettman and see how it goes. I don't think the owners of NHL teams would mind, cause it would be great to see which nation REALLY owns hockey.

If the countries were closer and there were more of them that were good that would actually be pretty entertaining. But anyways way to take a 3 game series to a 44 game extreme.

Basketball hockey and baseball all have giant seasons and multi game playoffs because that's the only way to see who is the best. So they should all have multi game finals in my opinion. We have the Olympics
WHC and WC let's not make all 3 the same.

 

[Confucius]

That is very true. If we really want to find the best national team in ice hockey, it wouldn't be a bad idea to make the top-6 nations play a 30-game regular season, where every team plays each other three times at home and three times away. The top-4 would then advance to the best-of-7 semi-finals, after which there would a best-of-7 final. The winner of this international extragavanza would have to play 44 games max to earn the crown of the best hockey nation in the world.

Somebody should try to sell this idea to Bettman and see how it goes. I don't think the owners of NHL teams would mind, cause it would be great to see which nation REALLY owns hockey.

We know that would fail....
So yeah having one off tournaments is great. Look at the totals after 5 years we get a picture who's the best.

 

[Lepardi]

their argument against series to decide a tournament winner is pathetic and anyone being honest will admit that.

I personally don't have any problem with a best-of-3 final. However it was kind of sad that the ticket prices and general interest plummeted when people found out that in the finals Canada would be playing a made-up team that's not really representing anybody. I'm pretty sure there would have been a lot more enthusiasm in Toronto, had Canada been playing Russia, USA or even Sweden in the finals instead of a gimmick.

 

[snipes]

I personally don't have any problem with a best-of-3 final. However it was kind of sad that the ticket prices and general interest plummeted when people found out that in the finals Canada would be playing a made-up team that's not really representing anybody. I'm pretty sure there would have been a lot more enthusiasm in Toronto, had Canada been playing Russia, USA or even Sweden in the finals instead of a gimmick.

On the other hand, pretty much guarantees nation v nation going forward I would think.

 

[Confucius]

I personally don't have any problem with a best-of-3 final. However it was kind of sad that the ticket prices and general interest plummeted when people found out that in the finals Canada would be playing a made-up team that's not really representing anybody. I'm pretty sure there would have been a lot more enthusiasm in Toronto, had Canada been playing Russia, USA or even Sweden in the finals instead of a gimmick.

You may be correct who knows, Torontonians obviously didn't care that the opposition was 2nd best at this tournament.

 

[Lepardi]

Basketball hockey and baseball all have giant seasons and multi game playoffs because that's the only way to see who is the best..

They don't play 82/162 games in the regular season in NHL, NBA and MLB "because that's the only way to see who is the best". They do it because you can make a lot of money that way.

 

[Lepardi]

You may be correct who knows, Torontonians obviously didn't care that the opposition was 2nd best at this tournament.

So now you're saying that a single playoff game proves that Europe was better than Sweden?

 

[Confucius]

So now you're saying that a single playoff game proves that Europe was better than Sweden?

In this tournament. Yes

 

[Lepardi]

You may be correct who knows

I saw the ticket prices on StubHub and in front of the arena before Canada's games against USA, Russia and Europe. It's pretty telling that tickets to the finals cost way less than tickets to a round-robin game or a semi-final. Many Torontonians obviously understood that Germany+Austria+Slovakia+Slovenia+Switzerland+Denmark+Norway+France doesn't actually exist.

 

[Seanaconda]

I personally don't have any problem with a best-of-3 final. However it was kind of sad that the ticket prices and general interest plummeted when people found out that in the finals Canada would be playing a made-up team that's not really representing anybody. I'm pretty sure there would have been a lot more enthusiasm in Toronto, had Canada been playing Russia, USA or even Sweden in the finals instead of a gimmick.

Nah if north America made the finals it would of sold the most and it's a gimmick. Most talked about and exciting team.

 

[Confucius]

I saw the ticket prices on StubHub and in front of the arena before Canada's games against USA, Russia and Europe. It's pretty telling that tickets to the finals cost way less than tickets to a round-robin game or a semi-final.

Brutally cheap, fans paid 40 bucks for 1st row upper deck but could move down into lower bowl lots of unused seats.

 

[Seanaconda]

They don't play 82/162 games in the regular season in NHL, NBA and MLB "because that's the only way to see who is the best". They do it because you can make a lot of money that way.

Mhmm okayyyy baseball kinda cheaps out on the playoffs even. But isn't sample size a thing we like to talk about here ? Sure it's for profit but larger sample size means more evidence for who is better.

Or should we just have a 30 game season and call it done.

 

[Lepardi]

Mhmm okayyyy baseball kinda cheaps out on the playoffs even. But isn't sample size a thing we like to talk about here ? Sure it's for profit but larger sample size means more evidence for who is better.

Or should we just have a 30 game season and call it done.

If the objective really was only to "find the best team", it would be logical especially in the NBA to shorten the regular season (maybe to something like 60 games) and make the playoff series best-of-9 or best-of-11. But that would be bad for business.

A game 8 between Cavaliers and Warrios would have told us lot more about who the best team is than the dozens and dozens of games those teams played in the regular season.

 

[jj cale]

I personally don't have any problem with a best-of-3 final. However it was kind of sad that the ticket prices and general interest plummeted when people found out that in the finals Canada would be playing a made-up team that's not really representing anybody. I'm pretty sure there would have been a lot more enthusiasm in Toronto, had Canada been playing Russia, USA or even Sweden in the finals instead of a gimmick.

Yeah it was sad to be sure.

a final with anyone of the other countries and even the NA team would have been much better and gone down much better with the fans.

 

[Confucius]

If the objective really was only to "find the best team", it would be logical to shorten the regular season (maybe to something like 60 games) and make the playoff series best-of-9 or best-of-11. But that would be bad for business.

No it would be better to have a 90 game season and no playoffs. Never understood why there wasn't more prestige in winning the regular season.

Playoffs are the money maker. Unfortunately the regular season is treated almost as lightly as preseason games now. Teams all playing for the playoffs.

 

[Lepardi]

No it would be better to have a 90 game season and no playoffs.

In a 30-team league that doesn't add up. If you want to decide the champion by regular season results, every team must play each other an equal number of times both at home and away. In the 20-team Premier league for instance, this makes it a 38-game season.

If the champion of the NHL was to be decided without playoffs, in a 30-team league that means that the season would have to be 58 or 116 games long for it to be fair. In a 58-game season all the teams would get to play each other once at home and once away. You can't have teams playing more against teams who are geographically close to them, if the standings will determine who wins the championship.