KHL and the World Cup (Mod warning post 355)

[daver]

Legitimacy is mostly about principle, yes. Not sure why you think principles are not a valid concern.

As for the consquences of not having an international body govern the tournament, I think they have been discussed at length in this thread, from biased refereeing to revenue sharing or lack thereof, not to mention tournament location, rules and various other issues.

Tournament rules should not depend on where the players decide to play their club hockey.

Bending the rules so you can make "financial sense" undermines the tournament's legitimacy. It's mind-boggling that many NA fail to see that.

You are still talking principles instead of practicalities.

Prove to me it makes more sense to have IIHF ice and rules when the majority of players play most or all of their hockey on NHL ice. Isn't that more fair?

If it cannot be held in Europe and make money, why hold it there? The same principle applies to the WHC's. Most likely there is not enough interest to hold in NA more than it has been. It's mind-boggling that you cannot see that the IIHF doesn't have financial priorities also.

Biased refereeing? Hasn't this been put to bed yet by the 5 Olympics with nary an incident?

 

[aphyro]

You are still talking principles instead of practicalities.

Prove to me it makes more sense to have IIHF ice and rules when the majority of players play most or all of their hockey on NHL ice. Isn't that more fair?

If it cannot be held in Europe and make money, why hold it there? The same principle applies to the WHC's. Most likely there is not enough interest to hold in NA more than it has been. It's mind-boggling that you cannot see that the IIHF doesn't have financial priorities also.

Biased refereeing? Hasn't this been put to bed yet by the 5 Olympics with nary an incident?

And what about all Europeen players in the NHL that have grown up with the Europeen standard ice?

 

[jekoh]

You are still talking principles instead of practicalities.

And what's wrong with that?

 

[daver]

And what's wrong with that?

It doesn't allow for practical discussion.

 

[kp61c]

You are still talking principles instead of practicalities.

Prove to me it makes more sense to have IIHF ice and rules when the majority of players play most or all of their hockey on NHL ice. Isn't that more fair?

If it cannot be held in Europe and make money, why hold it there? The same principle applies to the WHC's. Most likely there is not enough interest to hold in NA more than it has been. It's mind-boggling that you cannot see that the IIHF doesn't have financial priorities also.

Biased refereeing? Hasn't this been put to bed yet by the 5 Olympics with nary an incident?

but the iihf doesn't demand all best players for the whc, hell, the most of those available can ignore it to their heart's content. why the khl, for example, must put its season on hold and obligingly meet all demands from the nhl? that makes no sense

 

[daver]

And what about all Europeen players in the NHL that have grown up with the Europeen standard ice?

They would be able to play comfortably on both surfaces. NA players would be at a disadvantage on big ice while KHL and other Euro league-only players would be at a disadvantage on NHL ice.

The number of NA players participating in a World Cup > the number of KHL/Euro league players (even moreso when looking at the top players i.e. Malkin, OV etc..)

So what ice surface makes more sense?

 

[daver]

but the iihf doesn't demand all best players for the whc, hell, the most of those available can ignore it to their heart's content. why the khl, for example, must to put its season on hold and obligingly meet all demands from the nhl? that makes no sense

I think there should be some revenue sharing to the KHL.

 

[Macman]

but the iihf doesn't demand all best players for the whc, hell, the most of those available can ignore it to their heart's content. why the khl, for example, must to put its season on hold and obligingly meet all demands from the nhl? that makes no sense

No, it doesn't make sense so I have to think there's been talks between and the NHL and all countries. Would anyone announce a World Cup without knowing whether or not anyone will show up? I hope they're not that stupid.

Scheduling never seemed to be a problem with the old Canada Cup/World Cup so I'm not sure why it would be now.

 

[Kalzu]

just like you play all year long ONLY ON big-ice and then suddenly you are forced to play some meaningless two-week tournament for american crowd on small ice?

Depends on which league you play in.

NHL players need to adapt to big ice.

European leagues' players need to adapt to small ice.

Two rulebooks and rink sizes isn't ideal but as long there are two, it'd only be fair to have best-on-best events with both rules.

 

[aphyro]

They would be able to play comfortably on both surfaces. NA players would be at a disadvantage on big ice while KHL and other Euro league-only players would be at a disadvantage on NHL ice.

The number of NA players participating in a World Cup > the number of KHL/Euro league players (even moreso when looking at the top players i.e. Malkin, OV etc..)

So what ice surface makes more sense?

ehm no? ofc the NA players will have an advantage against the europeen nhl players even on the nhl ice don't you think so? if you have played your whole life on a small rink and then go and play on a big rink for a couple of years what rink do you think suits you best?

 

[jekoh]

It doesn't allow for practical discussion.

Dude, there are already 10 pages of practical "discussion", if we can call it that. There's no point in bickering any further.

I think there should be some revenue sharing to the KHL.

Seems there are a lot of things that "should" happen but don't.

And the reason for that is the lack of an international body governing the competition. That's why your distinction between discussions on principles and discussions on practicalities is absurd as there is an obvious and direct link between the two.

 

[Theokritos]

I would like to know what is the problem for some people. I get the point that it could be - and ideally should be - played once in Europe, once in NA. But is the tournament irrelevant because it would be played in Canada again?

Not irrelevant, at least in my eyes, but not as relevant as it could and should be. Just think about it: if the Olympics were held outside of North America all of the time, in far away time zones, how many hockey fans in NA would follow it as closely as they have actually done since 1998, and how would that not affect the relevance of the tournament in north american eyes?

 

[kp61c]

I think there should be some revenue sharing to the KHL.

yeah, btw, i can't see how we can equate some international federation to the nhl in their role as organizer. where one is neutral to all participants and in the other case two special teams have a special treatment.
you make some concessions, flush this ridiculous the best vs the best notion down the toilet and we are good to go

 

[Macman]

yeah, btw, i can't see how we can equate some international federation to the nhl in their role as organizer. where one is neutral to all participants and in the other case two special teams have a special treatment.
you make some concessions, flush this ridiculous the best vs the best notion down the toilet we are good to go

What special treatment?

 

[jekoh]

Not irrelevant, at least in my eyes, but not as relevant as it could and should be. Just think about it: if the Olympics were held outside of North America all of the time, in far away time zones, how many hockey fans in NA would follow it as closely as they have actually done since 1998, and how would that not affect the relevance of the tournament in north american eyes?

And what if the Olympics were organized by the KHL?

I'm sure it would make no difference whatsoever to NA fans, right?

 

[kp61c]

What special treatment?

refs, venues, rules, the size of ice rinks, all factors that affect the win work in their favor

 

[sandysan]

Because, like them or not, they're the highest-level international board for hockey.

With quality reffing commensurate with this highest level.

 

[Macman]

refs, venues, rules, ice rinks, all factors that affects the win work in their favor

As opposed to the worlds and Olympics? If having to play in North America is so unfair to Europeans, doesn't it follow that the reverse is also true? I suspect not.

NHL refs are unfair, yet the IOC uses them in all their meaningful games. NHL rules are so different and unfair, yet the IOC uses NHL refs to enforce IIHL rules. Small ice is unfair, yet the majority of Europeans who would play at the World Cup make their living on it.

This is all so ridiculous, as is the whining about the World Cup being a cash grab. I had no idea tickets to the Olympics and worlds are free!

 

[jekoh]

NHL refs are unfair, yet the IOC uses them in all their meaningful games. NHL rules are so different and unfair, yet the IOC uses NHL refs to enforce IIHL rules.

The IOC uses NHL refs because the NHL insist NHL refs are used. That says absolutely nothing about their fairness or lack thereof.

This is all so ridiculous, as is the whining about the World Cup being a cash grab. I had no idea tickets to the Olympics and worlds are free!

You obviously didn't read the "Minsk: WHC Attendance record" thread then

 

[Rekin]

I don't think anyone has a problem with an American referee officiating a Canada vs. Sweden match, however when a Canadian referee is doing the same it indeed is quite questionable. In Europe the referees are always neutral at least as for their origin.

 

[xxxx]

but the iihf doesn't demand all best players for the whc, hell, the most of those available can ignore it to their heart's content. why the khl, for example, must put its season on hold and obligingly meet all demands from the nhl? that makes no sense

I don't wanna argue or something like that, but isn't this the exact same thing with NHL and WHC? I mean, some people posted here that NHL should move their calendar to allow players at WHC. This is exactly the same with KHL and World Cup. On the other hand, World Cup would be only every four years, WHC is being played every year.

 

[xxxx]

And what if the Olympics were organized by the KHL?

I'm sure it would make no difference whatsoever to NA fans, right?

And what if I was a tomato.

 

[Canuckistani]

And what if the Olympics were organized by the KHL?

I'm sure it would make no difference whatsoever to NA fans, right?

I personally wouldn't care so long as the best players turn up.

 

[xxxx]

refs, venues, rules, the size of ice rinks, all factors that affect the win work in their favor

Refs work in the best hockey favour. If you play hockey on big ice, it will be a disadvantage to NA teams, is that more fair to you? In this case, there is no perfect choice probably, because either european teams have an advantage when playing on big ice, or it's NA teams that have that advantage. I prefere NHL ice, because there are playing 80% of all the players that would be participating at World Cup, but that is a ****** reason to you I guess. Rules are same for everyone, all the european players playing the NHL are very well used to it, how the rules work in favour for Canada is beyond me. Well. What do I know.

 

[xxxx]

As opposed to the worlds and Olympics? If having to play in North America is so unfair to Europeans, doesn't it follow that the reverse is also true? I suspect not.

NHL refs are unfair, yet the IOC uses them in all their meaningful games. NHL rules are so different and unfair, yet the IOC uses NHL refs to enforce IIHL rules. Small ice is unfair, yet the majority of Europeans who would play at the World Cup make their living on it.

This is all so ridiculous, as is the whining about the World Cup being a cash grab. I had no idea tickets to the Olympics and worlds are free!

Haha, I agree. Let them whining. Fortunately, they won't change anything. I won't discuss this over and over again. When Canada wins the next World Cup, they won't care, we will. Have a nice day.