ShaneDoan
Registered User
- May 5, 2005
- 237
- 0
Anything scheduled for 2008 would have been announced by now.When it will be? 2008? or 2012 or later..?
We need a 2008 IIHF World Cup !!!
Contuining the tournament only helps make the US's victory over Canada in the 1996 edition that muuch greater!
Pretty much every olympic sport uses the Olympics as its showcase tournament, football being an exception to the rule.Other than Basketball, there is no other major team sport that use the Olympics as its showcase tournament (Soccer, Baseball, Rugby, Cricket...).
Pretty much every olympic sport uses the Olympics as its showcase tournament, football being an exception to the rule.
I could be wrong...But I think the World Cup is also fairly popular among Euro fans in the Big 7 Hockey Nations...After all, it doesn't come very often ( again unlike the WC which really shouldn't be played in OG years ...imo ) ...Likewise, the World Cup is truly a best vs. best competition ( or at least very very close to it ) which makes it pretty special...I watched every 2004 World Cup game I could & thoroughly enjoyed every damn one...GREAT HOCKEY !!! Hope we see it ressurected ...maybe after 2010...
That doesn't change the fact that the rule is for a sport that has been an olympic sport forever, like ice hockey, to use the olympics as the showcase event. I can think of boxing and football as exceptions, there are probably a couple of others, but that's it.I was refering to the major professional sports, and by showcase I meant it being the most important tournament in that sport. Basketball and hockey are basically the only ones.
That was my point, and to a lesser extend the same is true for hockey. In this respect handball and volleyball are much bigger sports than hockey. Outside four or five countries, the Olympics are the only time most people actually get to see hockey, that's why you need the olympics.The Olympics are a funny thing, because probably 75 - 80% of the events are in sports that only draw interest when they are being played at the Olympics. Take Speed Skating for example.
Yeah, that's why North America wants them every time.I know everyone likes to think of the Olympics as this big global event, but it really is a much bigger deal to Europeans than the rest of the world.
Tennis is another one that comes to mind. But as far as your "rule" goes. The real rule has been that the Olympics are for amatuers. There is a good chance that the NHL and NBA will not participate much longer, and the Olympics will stop being the "showcase" tournament for those sports.That doesn't change the fact that the rule is for a sport that has been an olympic sport forever, like ice hockey, to use the olympics as the showcase event. I can think of boxing and football as exceptions, there are probably a couple of others, but that's it.
Outside four or five countries, the Olympics are the only time most people actually get to see hockey, that's why you need the olympics.
Pros were in the Olympics from the start but regardless, even if the NHL and NBA don't take part any longer, the players at the olympics will still be professional players.The real rule has been that the Olympics are for amatuers. There is a good chance that the NHL and NBA will not participate much longer, and the Olympics will stop being the "showcase" tournament for those sports.
The last sentence sums it up, it was great for the Canadians, not for people in other countries. I understand Canadians would rather not have six countries placing above them at the Olympics but surely people in the other six countries have a different point of view.Why do hockey fans care if other people see the game? Hockey will always be a fringe sport, and we should be fine with that. There is such a misconception out there that we must grow the sport. Who cares, from a fans perspective it is great how it is now. For Canadians fans it was great 40 years ago even though we were the only ones playing.
Pros were in the Olympics from the start but regardless, even if the NHL and NBA don't take part any longer, the players at the olympics will still be professional players.
The last sentence sums it up, it was great for the Canadians, not for people in other countries. I understand Canadians would rather not have six countries placing above them at the Olympics but surely people in the other six countries have a different point of view.
You don't want to grow the game ? Fine, it's not like anyone was expecting anything from you anyway, but apparently this opinion is not shared by those in charge.
Why do hockey fans care if other people see the game? Hockey will always be a fringe sport, and we should be fine with that. There is such a misconception out there that we must grow the sport. Who cares, from a fans perspective it is great how it is now. For Canadians fans it was great 40 years ago even though we were the only ones playing.
Of coarse you will always find places that want to host the Olympics, that is mostly about $$$$. Most of the Olympic sports are not popular globally, they are there from when the games originated, in Europe.
That's the main point for me.You grow the game because the same 8-10 countries near the top gets boring after a while. New geographical rivals challenge eachother to improve their programs. If Denmark rises, Norway will want to as well, and maybe at some point Sweden and Finland will finally have new challenges to look forward to. Ask a Swede, they'll tell you Finland vs. Sweden does get boring after a while.
You grow the game because the sport is just so much more interesting when it's international.
Hockey will always be a fringe sport (especially ice hockey), but that doesn't mean it can't be more popular than it already is.
You grow the game because the bigger is gets the better the talent pool is for the NHL to draw players from. That only makes the on ice product better.
You grow the game because having a Yao Ming of hockey gives your league a place in the biggest emerging market in the world. And if it gives hockey a foothold, maybe the Asian Hockey League takes off and starts producing NHL talent 10-25 years from now. It also doesn't hurt that Charles Wang's picking up most of the bill for the Chinese program though.
You grow the game because the same 8-10 countries near the top gets boring after a while. New geographical rivals challenge eachother to improve their programs. If Denmark rises, Norway will want to as well, and maybe at some point Sweden and Finland will finally have new challenges to look forward to. Ask a Swede, they'll tell you Finland vs. Sweden does get boring after a while.
You grow the game because the sport is just so much more interesting when it's international.
Right now on the tip of Argentina kids play ice hockey on the frozen ponds of Ushuaia, and while the NHL is far out of reach for them now, with support from the IIHF and NHL (e.g. building an ice rink) maybe one day one of their own kids will make it. And in my opinion at least.. the NHL and the sport will be better off for it.
Ask a Swede, they'll tell you Finland vs. Sweden does get boring after a while.
Actually, no, there would be less games between the so-called big 7.The NHL would be better if it had less teams, and the Olympics would be better if they only allowed 7 or 8 teams. It would mean there would be more head to head games of the talented teams
Actually, no, there would be less games between the so-called big 7.
And you wouldn't be able to watch Belarus upset Sweden. People love giantkilling, this is the kind of games you watch again years after it happened. I don't think anyone is going to watch the can-cze game of 2006 again.
When I was a kid growing up watching the Oilers win all those cups I thought the product on the ice was unbelievable. Yet you put that team on the ice today and they'd probably get smoked 10 - 0. What you don't realize is that the talent level, and the product on the ice is all relative. What people want to see are the best in the sport competeing. You can not tell me that the current NHL product is more entertaining than it was 20 years ago.
What makes absolutely no sense is when people want to see more talent, so they increase the number of teams in a league or tournament so they can grow the sport and find more talent. Yet all they are really doing is watering down and reducing the talent level of the hockey they are watching, which defeats the original purpose.
The NHL would be better if it had less teams, and the Olympics would be better if they only allowed 7 or 8 teams. It would mean there would be more head to head games of the talented teams and we would see better hockey. I'm not bored with watching any of the Big 7 play each other.
If others like what they see and get good enough to compete, then great invite them into the party too.
The Sweden - Finland rivalry is one of the greatest in hockey. It is like the Leafs -Canadiens of the old days. I have never heard a Swede or a Finn say they are bored with those games. Look at their TV numbers from the last Olympics.
Finland was ruled by Sweden for a long time. There is a lot of history there, and there is no team each other would rather beat than their neighbour across the Golf of Bothnia.
And from a purely nationalistic viewpoint.
It's so much better winning over a good danish (or norwegian) team, than a bad one.
And the sweden-finland games, however glorious, are getting a bit old.
I think both of the eastern parts (Sweden and Finland) would like, and quite frankly gain, from our western brothers kicking into gear.
We're not that different, except that danish is, well danish.
And quite frankly, Norway has an issue when Denmark is better at a winter sport. Please get upset, and get better.
The IIHF needs drop the annual World Championship's, once a year is too often. Perhaps they could hold a European Championship tournament instead every year. They should make the Olympics the under 20 tournament for that year, and the IIHF should hold a proper World Cup every four years. There is not enough time in the two week Olympic break to play a decent tournament. Other than Basketball, there is no other major team sport that use the Olympics as its showcase tournament (Soccer, Baseball, Rugby, Cricket...).
My comment that, 'You grow the game because the bigger it gets the better the talent pool is for the NHL to draw players from', can be seen in a player like Anze Kopitar. Without the growth of hockey the NHL would have been deprived of a player with his exciting level of skill. And while the NHL still might be less entertaining than it was 20 years ago, it definatly is more entertaining with Kopitar rather than without. And the same will definatly be said if Denmark's Lars Eller pans out..