WC: Making a better World Championship?

[Uncle Rotter]

Wrong.

11th to 13th 5 of the last 10 years.

You are correct

 

[RandV]

20 people was a bit extreme of you. I think 1000 is more of a fair and square number, but this is something we might have to struggle with.

Another solution could be by having the WC in 2 or 4 countries. One or two countries in each host country, which would make it easier selling tickets.

That's sort of what I was wondering, the idea looks okay on paper but what about the logistics? The host would be required to schedule X more games in their arena's, but the number of desirable tickets remain the same.

You give an answer here to host it in two countries, but is that really feasible?

 

[Exarz]

That's sort of what I was wondering, the idea looks okay on paper but what about the logistics? The host would be required to schedule X more games in their arena's, but the number of desirable tickets remain the same.

You give an answer here to host it in two countries, but is that really feasible?

I believe it is!

With the current group system, we have two groups of eight teams, with a total of 28 games within each group. If I've calculated it correctly, there will be a total of 10 games in each group of five teams, so having two groups in one arena would work.

Having two groups in one arena will also make it able to have it in one country (as this year in Belarus) playing in two different arenas!

 

[tony d]

Yeah, increasing team sizes wouldn't help things as the bottom tier nations that would be brought in suffer from lack of depth and would get beat pretty badly by the Canada's, Russia's and Swedens. What I'd do is reduce the size of the tournament to 12 teams, have 2 6 team pools, competition would be better that way.

 

[Exarz]

Yeah, increasing team sizes wouldn't help things as the bottom tier nations that would be brought in suffer from lack of depth and would get beat pretty badly by the Canada's, Russia's and Swedens. What I'd do is reduce the size of the tournament to 12 teams, have 2 6 team pools, competition would be better that way.

Would it be better having nations like Denmark and Germany getting relegated every second year?

As I said it would basically mean adding all the four relegation teams and the best two D1A teams. I don't believe they would get beat pretty badly by the top 5, but they would lose with 4-5 goals.

 

[Urbanskog]

Yeah, increasing team sizes wouldn't help things as the bottom tier nations that would be brought in suffer from lack of depth and would get beat pretty badly by the Canada's, Russia's and Swedens. What I'd do is reduce the size of the tournament to 12 teams, have 2 6 team pools, competition would be better that way.

I don't think that they'd get beaten that badly.

Last year Austria lost 5-3 against the USA and managed to win Latvia and Slovakia. Slovenia, on the other hand, didn't lose against Canada until the overtime and it's not like the matches they played against Sweden or the Czech Republic were slaughters on ice.

 

[Sanderson]

Yeah, increasing team sizes wouldn't help things as the bottom tier nations that would be brought in suffer from lack of depth and would get beat pretty badly by the Canada's, Russia's and Swedens. What I'd do is reduce the size of the tournament to 12 teams, have 2 6 team pools, competition would be better that way.

I don't see why competion would be better that way. There are a selected few top-nations, they will be there regardless if there are 12 or 16 teams. What follows behind those top-teams is a whole bunch of teams that are almost on one level. Pretty much every year a different smaller nation surprises, while those who surprised in the years before fall back into the mix. There is a constant up and down in the way the eight to ten teams which follow the big 7 perform, ranging from competing with the big nations to getting relegated, sometimes even in two consecutive years.

Changing the tournament to just 12 teams won't improve the play one bit. For a smaller tournament to improve the level of play, there would need to be a clear difference between the nations 8-12 and 13+. The opposite is the case. Pretty much every nation from 8 to 18 can beat every other one, and running hot or cold is what makes the difference.

These teams are way to inconsistant to clearly define who could keep up the best with the big nations. Reducing the tournament to 12 teams doesn't take away the four weakest teams, it takes away four out of a bunch of almost equal teams. The teams 8 to 12 won't perform any better just because you took away the teams 13 to 16.

 

[Namejs]

Changing the tournament to just 12 teams won't improve the play one bit. For a smaller tournament to improve the level of play, there would need to be a clear difference between the nations 8-12 and 13+. The opposite is the case. Pretty much every nation from 8 to 18 can beat every other one, and running hot or cold is what makes the difference.

Absolute nonsense. 8 to 18, really?

Italy (#18) can beat any team? Their record is 0-2-0-17 (2 OTW and 17 losses) during the last 10 years.

It's an elevator team that only plays in the Elite division, because they get to play there after making the top2 in DivI against teams that include Korea or Great Britain.

They have no business being in the Elite division.

There is a distinction between Slovakia/Norway/Latvia/Denmark/Germany AND France/Belarus/Kazakhstan/Slovenia/Austria.

Look up their head-to-head record. More importantly: look up their head-to-head record against the Big 7.

 

[Jussi]

I believe it is!

With the current group system, we have two groups of eight teams, with a total of 28 games within each group. If I've calculated it correctly, there will be a total of 10 games in each group of five teams, so having two groups in one arena would work.

Having two groups in one arena will also make it able to have it in one country (as this year in Belarus) playing in two different arenas!

Kalervo Kummola pretty much said that the past two tournaments split by Finland and Sweden won't be happening again. It'll be in one country from now on.

 

[Jussi]

Do not forget that the ticket prices were really high...

I think they will be reduced for this year so I guess there will be better attendance. Plus, Belarus is close to a lot of countries.

Ticket prices are much lower this time now that Kal€rvo Kummola isn't setting the prices.

 

[Exarz]

Kalervo Kummola pretty much said that the past two tournaments split by Finland and Sweden won't be happening again. It'll be in one country from now on.

That's too bad actually..

It would still be realistic though. Two groups could share the same venue, and it would still be less games played than with the current group system!

 

[Sanderson]

Absolute nonsense. 8 to 18, really?

Italy (#18) can beat any team? Their record is 0-2-0-17 (2 OTW and 17 losses) during the last 10 years.

It's an elevator team that only plays in the Elite division, because they get to play there after making the top2 in DivI against teams that include Korea or Great Britain.

They have no business being in the Elite division.

There is a distinction between Slovakia/Norway/Latvia/Denmark/Germany AND France/Belarus/Kazakhstan/Slovenia/Austria.

Look up their head-to-head record. More importantly: look up their head-to-head record against the Big 7.

8 to 18 was not supposed to be taken literally...

And no, there is no huge difference between many of those teams. I didn't even mention Slovakia, as they are part of the top 7.

In 2013, Italy beat Denmark, Denmark beat Latvia, Latvia beat Germany, Germany beat Denmark, and Norway fared the best among those teams. Meanwhile Belarus had close losses against Finland and Switzerland, while they were beaten by France, who also beat Switzerland.
In 2014, Belarus lost close ones against the Swedes and Czechs, while losing against Denmark and Norway. France kept it close against the big ones, even beat Russia, lost in overtime to Germany and were beaten by Latvia. Latvia in turn also beat Slovakia and had a close one against Finland, while losing against Germany and even Austria.
In the Olympic qualification, Austria qualified instead of Germany, and while Germany beat them in overtime, it was Italy that beat Germany in ot as well. Denmark lost against both Belarus and Slovenia, with the latter taking the spot in the Olympics. Latvia had a close win over Kazakhstan while losing against France in ot. Kazakhstan also beat France.
In the Olympics itself, Slovenia beat Slovakia, Austria beat Norway, and Latvia didn't get a single point early on, only to take out Switzerland to make it to the quarterfinals.

All these nations do not have ths strength to compete with the big 7 consistantly, nor are they capable of beating countries who are comparable to them on a consistant basis either.

Sure, Belarus only finished 14th in the last three years, but they also had the second best record of these nations in the three years prior to that. And that is exactly what I'm talking about. These nations run hot and cold all the time. Some may fare better on average over a long tournament, but theyare not capable of controlling their immediate opponents, and they lose a whole lot of games against teams they should beat if they were clearly better than them.

 

[Jussi]

That's too bad actually..

It would still be realistic though. Two groups could share the same venue, and it would still be less games played than with the current group system!

He actually said the fan feedback is a primary reason one country is best. So few people shared your opinion.

 

[Urbanskog]

Kalervo Kummola pretty much said that the past two tournaments split by Finland and Sweden won't be happening again. It'll be in one country from now on.

The 2017 tournament will be hosted between France and Germany though. Of course, that's just one tournament.

 

[Jussi]

The 2017 tournament will be hosted between France and Germany though. Of course, that's just one tournament.

Forgot about that one. Paris and Köln hosting. I think there was some wheelin' and deelin' involved with that one, wanting to make sure Germany is in the top WC group again (can't have them relegated).

 

[ES]

I think the sharing works better for smaller hockey nations, in which there is not too much interest outside their own team.

 

[613Leafer]

You wanna make the WCs more exciting? Make it like the World Cup of soccer, only do it once every 4 years. Keep doing the WJC every year because its a showcase of the future talent and theres so much turnover year-to-year.

 

[Chara-3]

You wanna make the WCs more exciting? Make it like the World Cup of soccer, only do it once every 4 years. Keep doing the WJC every year because its a showcase of the future talent and theres so much turnover year-to-year.

This. Not gonna happen though. IIHF needs money from tv revenue and ticket sales.

 

[Jussi]

This. Not gonna happen though. IIHF needs money from tv revenue and ticket sales.

Federations need the money as they get most of the revenue, IIHF uses their share to fund lower divisions tournaments and hockey development.

 

[Namejs]

8 to 18 was not supposed to be taken literally...

And no, there is no huge difference between many of those teams. I didn't even mention Slovakia, as they are part of the top 7.

In 2013, Italy beat Denmark, Denmark beat Latvia, Latvia beat Germany, Germany beat Denmark, and Norway fared the best among those teams. Meanwhile Belarus had close losses against Finland and Switzerland, while they were beaten by France, who also beat Switzerland.
In 2014, Belarus lost close ones against the Swedes and Czechs, while losing against Denmark and Norway. France kept it close against the big ones, even beat Russia, lost in overtime to Germany and were beaten by Latvia. Latvia in turn also beat Slovakia and had a close one against Finland, while losing against Germany and even Austria.
In the Olympic qualification, Austria qualified instead of Germany, and while Germany beat them in overtime, it was Italy that beat Germany in ot as well. Denmark lost against both Belarus and Slovenia, with the latter taking the spot in the Olympics. Latvia had a close win over Kazakhstan while losing against France in ot. Kazakhstan also beat France.
In the Olympics itself, Slovenia beat Slovakia, Austria beat Norway, and Latvia didn't get a single point early on, only to take out Switzerland to make it to the quarterfinals.

All these nations do not have ths strength to compete with the big 7 consistantly, nor are they capable of beating countries who are comparable to them on a consistant basis either.

Sure, Belarus only finished 14th in the last three years, but they also had the second best record of these nations in the three years prior to that. And that is exactly what I'm talking about. These nations run hot and cold all the time. Some may fare better on average over a long tournament, but theyare not capable of controlling their immediate opponents, and they lose a whole lot of games against teams they should beat if they were clearly better than them.

So if some team beat another team a single time, it means that there's no distinction in terms of how good they are?

So Latvia and Sweden, Finland or Russia are pretty much as good as each other, right?

Do I hear a "no, Latvia is weaker"? But we defeated Finland and Sweden and Russia and pretty much everyone else in the Big 7 at some point in the past.

Your 'logic' collapses in on itself.

Look up the head to head record between these teams.

Just one example:
This is the Latvian record since the Salt Lake Olympics vs. all the bottom-ranked teams playing in Sochi 2014:
vs. Austria: 5-0-1 (+12 GD)
vs. Slovenia: 4-0-1 (+6 GD)
vs. Norway: 3-0-2 (+4 GD)
vs. Slovakia: 1-1-2 (-7 GD)
vs. Switzerland: 1-1-4 (-7 GD)
Total: 14-2-10 (+8 GD)

Slovenian record:
vs. Austria 1-0-3 (-3 GD)
vs. Norway 0-0-1 (-2 GD)
vs. Latvia 1-0-4 (-6 GD)
vs. Slovakia 0-1-2 (-7 GD)
vs. Switzerland 0-0-1 (-6 GD)
Total: 2-1-10 (-24 GD)

Look up and compare other countries from the 8-18 range and see for yourself.

There's a distinction to be made between teams like Slovakia/Switzerland/ Germany/Norway/Latvia/Denmark and Slovenia/Italy/Austria or Kazakhstan. France and Belarus are between these 2 groups more or less.

Some teams are trending up (Switzerland), some trending down (Slovakia) and some changes take place within a decade, but overall there are about 3 different tiers of teams in the #1 to #18 range.

Teams at the very end of that range are 100% elevator teams.

 

[Exarz]

You wanna make the WCs more exciting? Make it like the World Cup of soccer, only do it once every 4 years. Keep doing the WJC every year because its a showcase of the future talent and theres so much turnover year-to-year.

That would be a dream!

Having a qualification for ≈ the 20 best nations on the world ranking, where the two best from each group are directly qualified, and the third placed teams play a "playoff round" head to head, where the winner also gets a spot!

It could be a success, since all the federations would get 4-5 home games, but it would require the NHL to release their players to let their players play 4-5 games a year (based on a two year qualification) to make it a fair qualification. Just look at Denmark - they have 7 NHL-players, and they would've probably managed to reach the Olympics if they were available for the qualification.

It also requires the NHL to let their players play the World Championship, otherwise the whole thing would be irrelevant, and we can just continue with the proposal I made, or the current one.

To solve it for the lower nations: there could be a pre-qualification for the last spots in the "real" qualification to the WC.

All of this is just a dream thought, and it will probably not happen in the next 10-15 years. I'm doubtful the NHL would let their players go to this.

 

[Urbanskog]

That would be a dream!

Having a qualification for ≈ the 20 best nations on the world ranking, where the two best from each group are directly qualified, and the third placed teams play a "playoff round" head to head, where the winner also gets a spot!

It could be a success, since all the federations would get 4-5 home games, but it would require the NHL to release their players to let their players play 4-5 games a year (based on a two year qualification) to make it a fair qualification. Just look at Denmark - they have 7 NHL-players, and they would've probably managed to reach the Olympics if they were available for the qualification.

It also requires the NHL to let their players play the World Championship, otherwise the whole thing would be irrelevant, and we can just continue with the proposal I made, or the current one.

To solve it for the lower nations: there could be a pre-qualification for the last spots in the "real" qualification to the WC.

All of this is just a dream thought, and it will probably not happen in the next 10-15 years. I'm doubtful the NHL would let their players go to this.

Definitely not. It's the NHL we're talking about.

 

[Exarz]

Definitely not. It's the NHL we're talking about.

It most certainly is! We have to stick with this

 

[Alessandro Seren Rosso]

You wanna make the WCs more exciting? Make it like the World Cup of soccer, only do it once every 4 years.

Can't be realistically done. Football has much more teams playing, and many more competitive teams. Then you have European Championship after 2 years, and you have very long qualification tournaments. National teams in football play pretty often, actually. Can this become the same with hockey? Hardly.

 

[zamo86*]

The 2017 tournament will be hosted between France and Germany though. Of course, that's just one tournament.

I think this will be one of the best tournaments, which will likely set a new record for the avarage attendance at the WC's (the current one is 10,289 per game from 1985 WC which was hosted by Czechoslovakia).

The current format of 16 teams in two groups of eight (top four qualifies to QF and the bottom team in each group gets relegated) is probably the best way to go. If more countries want a shot at the top level than they just have to get better. I think countries like Japan, Hungary and Ukraine will soon get their chances. Maybe not tomorrow but in a few years for sure. Who knows, maybe in a decade Ukraine and Kazakhstan could be on a similar level than Latvia and Belarus (all four are pouring money into ice hockey and are KHL nations).