tobu
Registered User
Well back then you could hardly say all the world's best players played in NHL as there were very little European players playing in NHL before 80s and half of the world's best players were in the Soviet Union.
Is there a way to make IIHF World Championship being played after SC Playoffs?
- Thread starter Johnny Tomala
- Start date
-
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
Well back then you could hardly say all the world's best players played in NHL as there were very little European players playing in NHL before 80s and half of the world's best players were in the Soviet Union.
That probably causes some confusion here, as in Canada and I'm assuming the majority of European countries who play hockey, things start cooling off in September so it's the perfect time to start. Never mind just the top pro leagues, September is when people start playing hockey in general, whether it's beer league or bantam.
Either way though, I think the WC tournament is probably better off as it is. I mean people are bringing up soccer here, but do you really want an international best on best tournament every year? The tournament still gets access to over half the NHL, it's probably better off leaving it as it is and leaving the best on best touraments to the usual every 4 years... though of course that now needs to be resolved in hockey, but that's an entirely separate issue.
I was somewhat interested in how the NHL World Cup could become a legit international tournament last year, but I am past that and haven't followed this discussion anymore and am not up to date on what has been talked about. If this had not been posted in the IIHF subforum, I'd probably have missed it.
As for soccer and hockey, I don't think they are comparable, but not because of the number of major leagues. Those work together closely enough, where their interests align.
I think the main factor is that the NHL is a private business apart from IIHF and in competition with the other leagues (weak as it may be), whereas the European soccer leagues are bound to the national federations. They were founded under the umbrella of the very associations that make the money from the FIFA and UEFA tournaments. It's just all organized very differently.
I'd consider France a top league, yes. Maybe a bit of a newcomer, but certainly closer to Bundesliga, EPL, La Liga and Serie A than the tier below.
I never understood why the NHL season doesn't start a few weeks earlier. I mean that way you would ave a lot loss competition with the NBA. Both at the begining of the season as well as at the end.
Yes there is - Have the playoffs played earlier.
It makes no sense playing hockey well into june, usually on terribad ice.
It makes no sense playing hockey well into june, usually on terribad ice.
Yes, I understand. But were NHL'ers (pros) actually allowed to participate in the WC's before then?
Hockey is not soccer, to compare these makes no sense. There is no chance whatsoever of hockey ever becoming what you describe.
Leagues merging would be nonsensical and actually doom the development of many nations. Nations improve by having lots of their players play on a high level, not by having a few rich teams play in a league with drastically less spots for the home-grown talent while everyone else toils at a worse level than before. That doesn't even touch the issues that there are huge differences in terms of money between the countries.
Changing the format of the World Championship also doesn't help one bit, because these tournaments are what actually finances the IIHF and hockey itself.
Not sure if you realise it, but the IIHF is older than the NHL, and while the World Championship isn't quite as old as the NHL, it still goes back to 1930 in the yearly format and 1920 in terms of existing as a World Championship (at that time the Olympics acted as WC as well). This isn't some new thing people came up with way after the NHL got big, it is a tournament with a lot of history. It was also pushed back time and time again.
It's not like Canada and the USA weren't represented in it. In fact, there were multiple IIHF-presidents from both countries during the 40s, 50s and 60s.
Why exactly do you expect nations that have only a fraction of the player-pool of all the big hockey nations to somehow do better?
It doesn't matter one bit if a country is rich or has a large population. What matter is the access to hockey, and that is negligible in all the countries you mention. All of them only have a small area where winter-sports are common, all of them have far less players than either of the big nations, including those with rather small population. You cannot seriously expect them to do any better than they currently do, which is performing among the nations of their skill-level, plus playing against the top-nations with limited success.
You are aware that the NHL continued to push the season further and further into spring, right?
There is little room to move to, when the NHL goes from ending the season in March to now June.
In the 1920s and 30s the NHL ended in March. The 1940s and 50s saw the end move to the beginning of April and then mid April. By the mid 60s it starting to move into May, all this still in the original six era. By the late 70s it was already approach the end of May, before venturing into June in the 90s. When you have the Stanley Cup final end in four games, and you still don't finish before June 10th, then where exactly is the IIHF supposed to put its tournament?
The IIHF has done as much as it can to accomodate the NHL. If the NHL doesn't want to go any further, that's within its right, but you cannot blame the IIHF for that. It doesn't exist to screw over all hockey nations worldwide just so a handful of North Americans (the rest is either okay with it or doesn't care in any way) whine less about the tournament. It's weird really. Every year the same people complain about the same things, all while claiming how irrelevant the tournament is. Maybe these people think differently, but when I don't care about something, I won't keep talking about it again and again and again.
There never was any talk about it before 1969. Canada had sent "amateur" teams the entire time, but when they started to fall behind the top a bit, they applied to be able to use professional players that year. The IIHF decided to allow nine professional non-NHL players in 1970, but the IOC threatened that hockey could lose its Olympic status if the IIHF allowed professional players to compete in the tournament (well, official professionals, they were fine with, for example, the Soviet "amateurs" who officially held another job). This caused Canada to remove itself from all international competitions.
With Günther Sabetzki coming in as IIHF-president in 1976, they changed the rules, allowing countries to field all players available. The tournament was pushed back as well, to allow NHL-players that weren't in the playoffs to compete. The IIHF also officially endorsed the Canada Cup. There was still a disagreement with the IOC though, which was only lifted later on.
Is there any particular reason why the WHC can't start just one week later on May 12th so that Round 2 is fully settled and dusted? It's just weird that the tournament starts and teams don't fill out their rosters waiting a few games later for - sometimes pretty important - additions to the squad. Some players are left hanging as to whether they will be the 13th forward/7th dman for a few games too.
You're not going to get anybody after Round 3 anyway (well, except AO as aforementioned), and there are only four teams left to choose from, so that doesn't matter.
Outside of drastic scheduling changes that don't make sense, I'm not sure what harm starting one week would do, but it would add a lot more stability to the roster in the first few games. Plus, there will only be four teams remaining in the Playoffs, so less competition and more hockey coverage can be allocated to this.
You're not going to get anybody after Round 3 anyway (well, except AO as aforementioned), and there are only four teams left to choose from, so that doesn't matter.
Outside of drastic scheduling changes that don't make sense, I'm not sure what harm starting one week would do, but it would add a lot more stability to the roster in the first few games. Plus, there will only be four teams remaining in the Playoffs, so less competition and more hockey coverage can be allocated to this.
Then, accept what is now the status quo and don't complain if the NHL doesn't want to cater to the IIHF for the benefit of growing the game in Europe.
I know they are older than the NHL, and I don't really care. Not sure what the ages of the organizations have to do with anything. If they have such a history, they should have worked with the NHL a long time ago. Can't expect the US and Canada to care about the history of a tournament where some countries were able to use their best players and the North American squads had to send some random amateurs and "non-nhl pros" due to the political situations.
Then, where is this so called growth going to occur in the whole "grow the game" mantra? Where is the untapped potential talent that is going to benefit by "growing the game"? Is your idea of growing the game is to improve teams that play in the d1, d2, d3 championships? If that is the case, then the whole thing is a waste of time for me to discuss. Really do not care if Armenia, South Korea, or Turkey have hockey teams. I'm sorry if I sound rude or harsh, but it just doesn't really interest me and really do not see how the IIHF WC will help. If it is something else, please enlighten me. Again, just don't understand this whole "grow the game" claim. Is the idea to get more countries playing? Is the idea to get more countries able to compete with the big dogs? Is the goal to get more countries worked into the rotation of doormats that get promoted to the World Championships for a year or 2 only to get slaughtered by the better teams and hope they do not get relegated?
Doesn't seem like it is North Americans whining about the tournament. It is the Europeans whining about the NHL not catering to the IIHF so this tournament could be a best on best.
Yes, the NHL ended in March in the 30s. They extended the schedule, the market was there for it. Why is that a problem? Again, the NHLers were not allowed to play in the WC's, blame the IOC from back then.
Last edited:
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 19,790
- 15,437
I would definitely say that. In 1930 when they first held the tournament, all of the best players were in the NHL. Same thing 20 years later in 1950. By the mid-late 1960s we finally start seeing some of the top players not in the NHL. If I was organizing a tournament and calling it a world championship though, I wouldn't schedule it at a time when literally none of the best players are available.
Allowed by whom? I think that the IIHF allowed them in theory, but they certainly didn't in practice considering that they scheduled the tournament when the players were still working. Expecting the league to release the players from their teams while the season is ongoing to play is clearly not reasonable.
Yes, I am aware. The IIHF has done well in recent years to accommodate the NHL. The damage was already done though, as I said before. I am not suggesting that the IIHF hold the tournament after the Stanley Cup playoffs have concluded.
Its a small sample size but even in last 15 years you can see some improvement having tiny impact on NHL (Denmark, France) or on european leagues (Slovenia). I am not sure what is behind idea of growing the game either, you also definetely dont improve D1,2 ect teams. But what is certain is, that players get better by int. competition.So in terms of quality it brings talent (here I have same opinion as you have in terms of schedule. I would rather see some new faces signing NhL contracts after WHC than 10x Palat in row)
In my opinion that system also shelter hockey roots. You like playing hockey, you built team, you want to compete on int. level, you built int. team. Thats how it all starts in every sport. As for growing the game, outside IIHf investments you can not do much more than to get to first division and organize tourney. It definetely helps imo but still you have to have fan potential and private money. I know its irrelevant to NHL but IIHF has to do all this stuff if only because of its essence. When floorball, hockey ball, soccer, athletic associations do the same, you can not just leave the territory. I am not speaking about meditarien Africa but for example Asia.
Intensity of SC POS is insane, once the POs ends players are both physically and mentally tired, bruised, carrying injuries and in need of rest. Half of them are basically cripples. Waiting on the end of playoffs only to see them decline ? Makes no sence, just keep it as it is.
Last edited:
Past Considerations
Registered User
Good question, because unlike the other sports cricket is more comparable to hockey. So could be rugby. Both are still bigger than hockey, but the widespread popularity is similarly restricted to few countries.
It is rare to hear that from soccer or basketball fans since it is hard to expand those sports anymore into new countries (anyone can name one non-microstate that doesn't have a national team in either?). A lot of hockey fans probably suffer from "inferiority complex" (including North Americans, but in context of how NHL is the smallest of the major US leagues), so it is certainly not comparable to basketball or soccer. Football and baseball are different in a way that there's never been real international competition, so nobody even expects it.
All of those and they're interconnected. IIHF certainly helps because part of the money they make gets channelled to the national federations and goes to local development. I don't _personally_ care if hockey is played in some distant country, but in overall context I care how popular my favourite sport is. If you claim you don't care, then look at this from NA perspective only. It could grow a lot, or it could drop to being the 5th biggest US league. Irrelevant? Probably not.
I think you're a bit discreting how much hockey _has_ grown in certain countries. Stop talking about Italy or some completly unheard and unlikely hockey country in Middle East. Look at Denmark and Norway as good examples. They where nowhere a decade or two ago, but now are regulars at this level and able to produce top line players for NHL (even if means leaving the domestic league at an early age). They won't be top countries anytime soon, but the problem with hockey is exactly how big the gap is between the top countries and the rest. However, this probably has little to do with the Olympics or NHL participation. The annual tournament currently being held is much more important so that the small countries can see where they are every year and the randomness in terms of available NHL players can even help.
Last edited:
tigervixxxen
Optimism=Delusional
I'm tired of all this pining for players to show up after they are ousted from the second round of the playoffs. They are beat up and mentally drained but yet it's their duty to go support their country when they might be able to give 100% and bump someone out who has been training and playing with the team the whole time. Just no, it doesn't benefit anyone.
needle
Registered User
- Apr 30, 2012
- 544
- 112
My analogy is not related to the timing, but to the relevance of each party. The implication that the MLS could dictate to FIFA is pure absurdity. The same applies to the IIHF dictating to the NHL. And just for the record, I wish it were the case because I love international sports. But money talks. And the the IIHF doesn't have a seat at the table in that discussion.
its too much change for too many powerful people..wont change.
but i like the world championships
but i like the world championships
BruinLVGA
Just got me a Beretta 92XI Squalo!
It's not a matter of "dictating" anything. The matter is that hockey at club level (NHL, KHL, SEL, NLA, etc etc) should at least not interfere with international hockey at nations level. In soccer, MLS, irregardless of how important a soccer league it is, does not interfere. In hockey, the NHL does (see the Olympics / WCOH fiasco). It doesn't look good on the sport itself when the most important club league acts essentially like a road block to international competitions (OG, WC), especially when they see no problem at having their own "international" competition in early September (they show they can be flexible, but only for their own benefit).
To be fair, it would be ****ing dumb to try.
American sports leagues are all profit-driven private businesses and if the MLS was the most influential soccer league in the world (or even remotely important, lbr) it would probably be as obstinate as the NHL is. They have no loyalty to international competition. It's a different system. I am honestly over expecting things from them.
BruinLVGA
Just got me a Beretta 92XI Squalo!
To be fair, it would be ****ing dumb to try.
Guaranteed.
To be fair, it would be ****ing dumb to try.
Getting OT but you know when you stop and look at the numbers if the US market was solely committed to the sport of 'soccer' like the rest of Europe was then the MLS probably could pull that off.
Looking at the revenues, even just converting the NFL or MLB alone could be enough to do it:
Sure, if the US making was solely committed to any sport, they'd instantly be the biggest market in it.
I didn't know the MLS was behind the 2. Bundesliga in revenue tbh. That's surprising actually.
LEON DRAISAITL SAYS HELLO...
...and Olaf Kolzig...
... and other good players like Goc, Grubauer, Holzer, Greiss, Rieder, Kuhnhackl, Sturm etc
And lets take current examples of players from new risers on the ice hockey scene:
Roman Josi
Nico Hischier
Nino Niederreiter
Sven Bärtschi
Mark Streit
Yannick Weber
Kevin Fiala
Franz Nielsen
Mikkel Bödker
Lars Eller
Oscar Björkstrand
Nikolai Ehlers
Jannik Hansen
Anze Kopitar
Bellemere
Roussell
Mats Zuccarello
There is even kids now from even more obscure places (from a hockey perspective) that are decent prospects
Daniel Sprong Netherlands
Wouter Peeters Belgium
David Levin Israel
Nathan Walker Australia
The second bolded part is just wow, I wrote a long message about this but had to stop myself since it almost became a long essay in principle of microeconomics. Do you really think its bettman who came up with this idea of growing a market? or that its not done with success in other sports? (look at Manchester Uniteds revenue last 15 years since going on a tour to Asia every year)
Latest posts
-
Post-Game Talk: Habs shut out the Canes at the Bell Centre
- Latest: Boss Man Hughes
-
-
-
