Olympics vs World Cup

[ForumNamePending]

Canadian dude attending WJC/World Cup game with his face painted red and white, wearing Canadian sweater/jersey, and waving Canadian flag = the acceptable amount of "nationalism".

Swedish dude attending World Championship game with his face painted blue and yellow, wearing Swedish sweater/jersey, and waving Swedish flag = rapid "nationalism".

This thread is heading in a very stupid and incoherent direction...

 

[Peiskos]

A long tradition don't justify playing it with B-grade players. World Championships was de facto a European Championship until the 70's. Until late 80's/early 90's it stop being a something the Soviets won. Now it is just a dull thing. The same thing could be said of the Olympics without the NHL:ers.

Why would I want to watch US and Canada. I would like to see the Big Six face each other. The main thing is that best-on-best hockey comes back.

The reality is that many Europeans secretly don't want to see best vs best hockey because they know what the end result will be. While I am sure there are plenty that do want to see best vs best hockey there is certainly a large chunk who want no part of it because in many respects its just an opportunity for Canada to dominate the world and for many people witnessing that time and time again breeds hatred and contempt for Canadian hockey. We see this time and time again with passive aggressive commentary against Canadian hockey may it be on here or on highlight videos on youtube.

There have been 14 best vs best tournaments in the history of hockey, Canada was won a staggering 10 of them, that's a ridiculous 71% clip. No other country has ever won more than 1 best vs best tournament.

1. 1972 Summit Series - Canada (1)
2. 1976 CC - Canada (2)
3. 1981 CC - USSR (1)
4. 1984 CC - Canada (3)
5. 1987 CC - Canada (4)
6. 1991 CC - Canada (5)
7. 1996 WCOH - USA (1)
8. 1998 OG - Czech Republic (1)
9. 2002 OG - Canada (6)
10. 2004 WCOH - Canada (7)
11. 2006 OG - Sweden (1)
12. 2010 OG - Canada (8)
13. 2014 OG - Canada (9)
14. 2016 WCOH - Canada (10)

As clearly seen in black and white, Canada has utterly dominated best vs best hockey since the 1970's or in other words nearly half a century.

Its no wonder why there are a cohort of people who would rather see the IIHF WC than a best vs best tournament, the IIHF WC gives other countries a greater chance to win gold because as history clearly shows, when Canada sends its best its essentially unstoppable.

 

[Nino33]

Canadian dude attending WJC/World Cup game with his face painted red and white, wearing Canadian sweater/jersey, and waving Canadian flag = the acceptable amount of "nationalism".

Swedish dude attending World Championship game with his face painted blue and yellow, wearing Swedish sweater/jersey, and waving Swedish flag = rapid "nationalism".

This thread is heading in a very stupid and incoherent direction...

Nothing you mentioned is even remotely problematic for me, so you're nowhere near talking about what I'm referring to; also, the word I used was rabid not rapid (I used it to differentiate between what I'm talking about and your strawman argument)

Some posters on this site bash NA/the NHL every chance they can and promote propaganda regarding their home nation's/continent's hockey league/players as if they're being paid to do so & basically everything connects to politics/nationalism/etc for them (i.e the focus is on nationalism/propoganda not hockey) - that's what I was referring to


I'm totally fine if some can't understand/don't agree with me; nobody is going to please everybody, it's OK to have different views

I've expressed mine now, I'll move on


P.S. FYI I don't/didn't watch any of the tournaments you mentioned (I did like the Worlds and the Canada Cups in the 70s/80s though)

 

[JETZZZ]

The reality is that many Europeans secretly don't want to see best vs best hockey because they know what the end result will be. While I am sure there are plenty that do want to see best vs best hockey there is certainly a large chunk who want no part of it because in many respects its just an opportunity for Canada to dominate the world and for many people witnessing that time and time again breeds hatred and contempt for Canadian hockey. We see this time and time again with passive aggressive commentary against Canadian hockey may it be on here or on highlight videos on youtube.

There have been 14 best vs best tournaments in the history of hockey, Canada was won a staggering 10 of them, that's a ridiculous 71% clip. No other country has ever won more than 1 best vs best tournament.

1. 1972 Summit Series - Canada (1)
2. 1976 CC - Canada (2)
3. 1981 CC - USSR (1)
4. 1984 CC - Canada (3)
5. 1987 CC - Canada (4)
6. 1991 CC - Canada (5)
7. 1996 WCOH - USA (1)
8. 1998 OG - Czech Republic (1)
9. 2002 OG - Canada (6)
10. 2004 WCOH - Canada (7)
11. 2006 OG - Sweden (1)
12. 2010 OG - Canada (8)
13. 2014 OG - Canada (9)
14. 2016 WCOH - Canada (10)

As clearly seen in black and white, Canada has utterly dominated best vs best hockey since the 1970's or in other words nearly half a century.

Its no wonder why there are a cohort of people who would rather see the IIHF WC than a best vs best tournament, the IIHF WC gives other countries a greater chance to win gold because as history clearly shows, when Canada sends its best its essentially unstoppable.

Not sure Id count 72 as best-on-best. It was only 2 nations and Canada couldn't use pros in the WHA.
2016 wasnt exactly best-on-best either. Americans were robbed of a lot of their best in 2016 and Canada didn't even have access to McDavid. Team Europe and NA23U really made it a comparing apples n oranges thing.

 

[Peiskos]

Not sure Id count 72 as best-on-best. It was only 2 nations and Canada couldn't use pros in the WHA.
2016 wasnt exactly best-on-best either. Americans were robbed of a lot of their best in 2016 and Canada didn't even have access to McDavid. Team Europe and NA23U really made it a comparing apples n oranges thing.

Even if you want to omit those two tournaments, Canada has still won 8 of the 12 best vs best tournaments to ever take place. Which means my point still remains.

 

[ForumNamePending]

The reality is that many Europeans secretly don't want to see best vs best hockey because they know what the end result will be. While I am sure there are plenty that do want to see best vs best hockey there is certainly a large chunk who want no part of it because in many respects its just an opportunity for Canada to dominate the world and for many people witnessing that time and time again breeds hatred and contempt for Canadian hockey. We see this time and time again with passive aggressive commentary against Canadian hockey may it be on here or on highlight videos on youtube.

This sounds a bit paranoid... I mean if you're going down the rabbit hole of reading youtube comments...

Seriously though...

If people had a such a huge problem with one team dominating, the World Championships would have died decades ago. For the first 60-70 years the tournament was dominated by first Canada and then the USSR. Despite this fact, during that time, folks in places like Sweden and Czeckoslovakia grew to like the tournament just fine.

I think just about everyone likes/wants to see "best vs best" tournaments. The arguments come from things like the format (eg when, where, number of teams, what teams, etc) and who should run/control it.

Nothing you mentioned is even remotely problematic for me, so you're nowhere near talking about what I'm referring to; also, the word I used was rabid not rapid (I used it to differentiate between what I'm talking about and your strawman argument)

Some posters on this site bash NA/the NHL every chance they can and promote propaganda regarding their home nation's/continent's hockey league/players as if they're being paid to do so & basically everything connects to politics/nationalism/etc for them (i.e the focus is on nationalism/propoganda not hockey) - that's what I was referring to

I'm totally fine if some can't understand/don't agree with me; nobody is going to please everybody, it's OK to have different views

I've expressed mine now, I'll move on

Ya, I mean if the "World Championships are plagued by rabid nationalism" arguement is being based on dumb **** being posted by a few posters on a message board (with thousands of memebers), then ya... Agreed on dropping it and moving on.

 

[Nino33]

Ya, I mean if the "World Championships are plagued by rabid nationalism" arguement is being based on dumb **** being posted by a few posters on a message board (with thousands of memebers), then ya... Agreed on dropping it and moving on.

I knew I was always talking about posters here on the site and never speaking about entire nations of people; I knew who I was talking to [that's why I said to Jussi "I have seen many Europeans/Russians express the viewpoint you're attributing to North Americans (many say they only care about their own leagues/international competition, they hate the NHL, they only follow players from their own country, etc) - you're projecting"]

You're implying I shouldn't respond to a poster, but you responded to me? I'm not sure why your response on this site was OK but mine somehow wasn't (and your response was based on your incorrect understanding, nothing I did)

You were mistaken to think that I was speaking about entire countries/continents (or even the hockey fans of entire nations/continents), I clearly wasn't

 

[Hanji]

The reality is that many Europeans secretly don't want to see best vs best hockey because they know what the end result will be. While I am sure there are plenty that do want to see best vs best hockey there is certainly a large chunk who want no part of it because in many respects its just an opportunity for Canada to dominate the world and for many people witnessing that time and time again breeds hatred and contempt for Canadian hockey. We see this time and time again with passive aggressive commentary against Canadian hockey may it be on here or on highlight videos on youtube.

There have been 14 best vs best tournaments in the history of hockey, Canada was won a staggering 10 of them, that's a ridiculous 71% clip. No other country has ever won more than 1 best vs best tournament.

1. 1972 Summit Series - Canada (1)
2. 1976 CC - Canada (2)
3. 1981 CC - USSR (1)
4. 1984 CC - Canada (3)
5. 1987 CC - Canada (4)
6. 1991 CC - Canada (5)
7. 1996 WCOH - USA (1)
8. 1998 OG - Czech Republic (1)
9. 2002 OG - Canada (6)
10. 2004 WCOH - Canada (7)
11. 2006 OG - Sweden (1)
12. 2010 OG - Canada (8)
13. 2014 OG - Canada (9)
14. 2016 WCOH - Canada (10)

As clearly seen in black and white, Canada has utterly dominated best vs best hockey since the 1970's or in other words nearly half a century.

Its no wonder why there are a cohort of people who would rather see the IIHF WC than a best vs best tournament, the IIHF WC gives other countries a greater chance to win gold because as history clearly shows, when Canada sends its best its essentially unstoppable.

Canada has historically been the best, but your result are quite slanted.

1. How is the Summit Series a global best v best? Only 2 teams participated.
2. The Soviets sent nearly a B team to both the 1976 and 1991 CC tournaments. Would you consider the results legitimate if Canada did the same?
3. If you consider the 2018 World Cup, with non-national teams, legitimate; why doesn't the 1979 USSR vs NHL Super Series, or Rendez-vous '87 count?

 

[Nino33]

The only joke about the 2018 Olympic hockey tournament was Team Finland's play and coaching. It still got more worldwide coverage than the 2016 Joke Cup.

Pretty dismissive of the best hockey players in the world (i.e. those that play in NA in the NHL)
Also, your bias shows in you not recognizing there were huge problems with both tournaments

I think you're doing a great disservice to the whole idea of sports by saying it diminishes the value of competition if the best are not playing. That is the equivalent of saying the SC finals don't count because team X isn't playing there. Do you really not understand that people might actually want to see athletes competing for an Olympic Gold, no matter their names, no matter the sport? If I was an athlete, I'd slap you silly for undervaluing the nature of sports.

Do you have the same view regarding football/soccer and the Olympics? That's a lot of people you'll have to slap

It's a good thing that kind of thinking isn't popular, otherwise the concept of sport would be dead.

If you check the 2018 ratings the view you're referring to (the importance of best-on-best) is the view of the masses in NA, so the view isn't unpopular
It's also the view of the masses worldwide when it comes to football/soccer and the Olympics compared to the World Cup (the Olympics don't matter because the best players aren't there)

World Championships and Olympics have a far longer history and tradition.

Come on just admit it, you'd rather watch US and Canada play 50 games against each other and wouldn't care if nobody outside of Canada watched a single game.

The fact that you write this way shows your bias; also your dismissive nature of the importance of the best players (i.e. the NHL) and promotion of international play as more important than the NHL (which you do LOTS - you've 63,000 posts!) + your strawman arguments (like comparing a team in the best league not making the final with basically every top player worldwide missing the Olympics!) shows your bias


The Olympics in football/soccer are meaningless because the best players aren't there! And soccer/football is much bigger than hockey! When this is considered, and your posting style that denies the importance of the best players (and other examples of your choosing nationalism over logic/reason) it comes across as bias to more than just me

 

[Jahara]

The reality is that many Europeans secretly don't want to see best vs best hockey because they know what the end result will be. While I am sure there are plenty that do want to see best vs best hockey there is certainly a large chunk who want no part of it because in many respects its just an opportunity for Canada to dominate the world and for many people witnessing that time and time again breeds hatred and contempt for Canadian hockey. We see this time and time again with passive aggressive commentary against Canadian hockey may it be on here or on highlight videos on youtube.

There have been 14 best vs best tournaments in the history of hockey, Canada was won a staggering 10 of them, that's a ridiculous 71% clip. No other country has ever won more than 1 best vs best tournament.

1. 1972 Summit Series - Canada (1)
2. 1976 CC - Canada (2)
3. 1981 CC - USSR (1)
4. 1984 CC - Canada (3)
5. 1987 CC - Canada (4)
6. 1991 CC - Canada (5)
7. 1996 WCOH - USA (1)
8. 1998 OG - Czech Republic (1)
9. 2002 OG - Canada (6)
10. 2004 WCOH - Canada (7)
11. 2006 OG - Sweden (1)
12. 2010 OG - Canada (8)
13. 2014 OG - Canada (9)
14. 2016 WCOH - Canada (10)

As clearly seen in black and white, Canada has utterly dominated best vs best hockey since the 1970's or in other words nearly half a century.

Its no wonder why there are a cohort of people who would rather see the IIHF WC than a best vs best tournament, the IIHF WC gives other countries a greater chance to win gold because as history clearly shows, when Canada sends its best its essentially unstoppable.

The peculiar thing is that the whole hockey world seems to have been so used to nonsense tournaments like the World Championship and won't even question how irrelevant they are.

I would of course much rather follow a World Cup with "gimmick teams" over another nonsense tournament like the World Championship where the outcome mostly is depending on which NHL:ers that is participating.

Otherwise I am a bit sceptical on your theory that Europeans don't wan't to see best vs best-hockey. In Sweden (and probably Finland too) they find it easier to watch the World Championship over the World Cup because of the tradition. Games from Canada Cup could be played in the middle of the night sometimes and wasn't even broadcasted on TV back in the days.

 

[Lepardi]

The reality is that many Europeans secretly don't want to see best vs best hockey because they know what the end result will be.

Nobody knows what the end result will be. Europeans don't know it and you don't know it. Canada has about a 50-percent chance of winning the tournament. That's not even close to USA's superiority in basketball.

 

[TheGoldenJet]

96 World Cup was legit. The recent one was a gimmick tournament with zero legitimacy... sort of like the last Olympics.

 

[BennsGonnaGetYou]

96 World Cup was legit. The recent one was a gimmick tournament with zero legitimacy... sort of like the last Olympics.

I agree, 2004 World Cup was also legit.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Calling someone a "World Cup" doesn't make it a World Cup. It's an NHL tournament.

 

[holyprime]

I hope this doesn't sound too offensive, but i really don't understand that kind of reasoning.

The Olympics in football/soccer are meaningless because the best players aren't there! And soccer/football is much bigger than hockey! When this is considered, and your posting style that denies the importance of the best players (and other examples of your choosing nationalism over logic/reason) it comes across as bias to more than just me

Except for the reason that the football tournaments at the Olympics are meaningless is FIFA actively sabotaging it in favour of it's world cup (so much for "the good of the game"), after the idiotic "amateur" rule was finally dropped: No player that played in WC for UEFA and CONMEBOL (the then by far strongest two confederations) allowed, right after the rule that made it a joke-tournament (soviet "amateurs" won all the time, just like in hockey) was abandoned. It never had a chance to become relevant (top nations failed to qualify bc others could field a superior lineup with that rule in place). Just to compare, this would be the IIHF joining the NHL in trying to make the Olympics irrelevant for the last ~30+ years (and FIFA has a lot more pull than IIHF/NHL combined): They wanted to bury it, and so they did.

If the best-on-best argument were true, the NLA wouldn't be the second most attented hockey league on the planet. I mean it's allright and quality of play is on the rise since i can remember, but shouldn't we all watch KHL or maybe SHL, and, if there's a afternoon weekend game available, the NHL, instead? What's wrong with us choosing the inferior product, even paying more money (live vs on TV) for that?
Heck, talking about football, there are thousands to millions of people watching 2nd grade leagues or even complete amateurs every weekend. It's one of the essences of sport, you come together because of the love for the game (and in these cases, maybe also Bratwurst and beer ), not only when some corporation tells you how nice it is on their high horse. Some here even say that the WHC is irrelevant.. i mean sure, whatever floats their boat, but i'd rather enjoy myself and watch some good hockey (right now, it's the "best-on-bestest" you get with the NHL blocking the Olympics).

I'd go even further and claim that marketing a tournament on "best-on-best" can actually be counterproductive if you are too arrogant/ignorant about it (like the last WCoH; No olympics because f you but watch your countries best players in our best-on-best instead!11).

 

[Nino33]

I hope this doesn't sound too offensive, but i really don't understand that kind of reasoning.

No it doesn't, as I don't extrapolate the same opinions you do from the shared facts

I didn't support/watch the 2016 WC so bashing it doesn't make any difference to me, I don't compare lower leagues of regular competition with worldwide elite competition, and I don't see a big difference among the business/politics on all sides involved

The act of offering opinion on "why" something is the way it is doesn't change the fact that it is that way; my point was based on the lack of popularity of Olympic soccer and how the best players aren't there, and the attempts at explaining why (including Jussi's posts that were deleted by mods) don't change my view at all (the key point is the best players aren't there, not why they're not there - the masses don't watch because it's not best-on-best and they watch when it is best-on-best...if people weren't watching because of the kinds of things you're talking about the IOC/FIFA would never have the masses watch anything! The masses watch the World Cup and not the Olympics because it's best-on-best not because they think FIFA is anything good/positive)


For those that promote/love the Olympics regardless of who's playing (and for those who love lower level sports of all kinds) - what's stopping you from enjoying what you say you enjoy? Why does it matter if the NHL/best players are involved if it's the Olympics that matter regardless of competition?

It's one of the essences of sport, you come together because of the love for the game (and in these cases, maybe also Bratwurst and beer ), not only when some corporation tells you how nice it is on their high horse.

Acting like the Olympics matter without NHLers is just choosing one corporation over another

I'd go even further and claim that marketing a tournament on "best-on-best" can actually be counterproductive if you are too arrogant/ignorant about it (like the last WCoH; No olympics because f you but watch your countries best players in our best-on-best instead!11).

I think the issue is between the NHL/NHLPA and involves their CBA...I think the importance of international hockey to the NHL/NHLPA is massively overrated (I don't think the vast majority of NHL players care)

The NHL didn't say "f you" they said yes to the Olympics if the players extended the current CBA...the players said no; I think the players did this 100% for CBA issues related to their NHL careers

Does anyone really think the players have issues worthy of missing the Olympics over? Using your explanation method it seems to me the players said "f you, watch what you want, we care about how much money we can make in the NHL and not maintaining the tradition (since 1998) of NHLers in the Olympics)

It makes no sense to me that NHLers chose not to go in 2018 so they can go in the future? They're not hurting in any way that makes me think it was worth it for them to refuse...but they did

 

[sandysan]

Canadian dude attending WJC/World Cup game with his face painted red and white, wearing Canadian sweater/jersey, and waving Canadian flag = the acceptable amount of "nationalism".

Swedish dude attending World Championship game with his face painted blue and yellow, wearing Swedish sweater/jersey, and waving Swedish flag = rapid "nationalism".

This thread is heading in a very stupid and incoherent direction...

the hypothetical canadian guy isnt going to paint his face to watch his accountant get third line minutes.

either the level of play matters or it doesnt. if it doesnt, go wave flags in midnight beer leagues.

 

[sandysan]

It's really absurd to see some NHL fan boys so concerned about the fact that the Olympics stop the NHL season for a couple of weeks once in four years.

yeah a private league that gains absolutely nothing should drink the IOC koolaid and start licking boots like some " non NHL fans boys".
you want to see the best X in the world preform ?
open your wallet.
no?
enjoy a bunch of has beens and never weres to you complete contentment.

 

[sandysan]

What's more absurd is North Americans complaining about the Worlds always being held in Europe despite several times being told by Europeans that neither US nor Canada want to host it.

perhaps because for discriminating fans inthese markets who can either watch the shampionships OR watch the stanley cup playoffs, that's not much of a choice. who chooses hamburger over steak ?

if you are used to watching third rate leagues, I guess the shampionships are a step up. people in north america are not accustomed to watching third, or second, rate leagues,

 

[Nino33]

If the best-on-best argument were true, the NLA wouldn't be the second most attented hockey league on the planet. I mean it's allright and quality of play is on the rise since i can remember, but shouldn't we all watch KHL or maybe SHL, and, if there's a afternoon weekend game available, the NHL, instead? What's wrong with us choosing the inferior product, even paying more money (live vs on TV) for that?

There's nothing wrong with it/glad you're enjoying it!

I'm not sure what you mean by saying "more money" is being paid...looking at recent available figures the KHL teams are bringing in twice what NLA teams are (the NHL is bringing in about 9 times more) ; I'm using average "per team" to compare, not comparing total league revenue List of professional sports leagues by revenue - Wikipedia

The NLA seems similar in team revenue to the SHL (with the NLA bringing in a bit more), and well below the KHL...but perhaps things are different currently



FYI - based on average attendance lower level hockey leagues are popular in North America too.....last year 8 teams in the AHL averaged over 7,000 fans AHL 2017-18 team attendance at hockeydb.com + there's also 2 teams in the ECHL who did so & 5 more teams in Major Junior who did so too

The NLA had 2 teams average over 7,000 fans & most of the NLA teams have similar attendance to AHL or Major Junior teams Swiss-A 2016-17 team attendance at hockeydb.com

My point again, just to be clear, is lower level hockey (or inferior product as you put it) is popular in NA too




Regarding non-elite international competition being treated as a "big deal" it's not a NA thing to do so for the most popular sports (NFL/NBA/MLB/NHL) - the only league of these top 4 that has their league affected/interrupted by international competition is the NHL

The top sports leagues in NA don't have multiple international breaks/tournaments every year, year after year and decade after decade (like hockey or football/soccer in Europe/Russia); it's very different in NA

 

[ForumNamePending]

the hypothetical canadian guy isnt going to paint his face to watch his accountant get third line minutes.

either the level of play matters or it doesnt. if it doesnt, go wave flags in midnight beer leagues.

Huh... "Canadian guy" certainly doesn't have a problem painting his face for the WJC, and most of the players in that tournament aren't destined to have an NHL career of any note. In fact, most will never skate a shift in the league (some might even become accountants after their junior career finishes). As for level of play goes, the WC (for all its obvious flaws) features hockey played at a higher level than any junior tournament ever will. Besides, if someone wants to "go wave flags" for their favourite beer league team who are you to decide what is and isn't worthy of that person's interest and attention?

As far as accountants getting third line minutes goes... A WC team for Canada usually features almost nothing but (decent to great) NHLers. So I know they definitely don't need a side gig as an accountant, and I also don't think a dude making six figures in some Euro league needs a second job either. I would've assumed you were just ignorant about this, but I know we have actually gone over this point before in previous threads, so since it appears you're really just interesting in rehashing your same tired talking points I really don't see much point in having this conversation.

 

[sandysan]

Huh... "Canadian guy" certainly doesn't have a problem painting his face for the WJC, and most of the players in that tournament aren't destined to have an NHL career of any note. In fact, most will never skate a shift in the league (some might even become accountants after their junior career finishes). As for level of play goes, the WC (for all its obvious flaws) features hockey played at a higher level than any junior tournament ever will. Besides, if someone wants to "go wave flags" for their favourite beer league team who are you to decide what is and isn't worthy of that person's interest and attention?

As far as accountants getting third line minutes goes... A WC team for Canada usually features almost nothing but (decent to great) NHLers. So I know they definitely don't need a side gig as an accountant, and I also don't think a dude making six figures in some Euro league needs a second job either. I would've assumed you were just ignorant about this, but I know we have actually gone over this point before in previous threads, so since it appears you're really just interesting in rehashing your same tired talking points I really don't see much point in having this conversation.

world juniors is STILL a best on best with an age restriction. the fact that they wont all make the show, is true but many will.

yes if the shampionship team played a WJC team they would win, again quite the feather in the cap. But the shampionships do not have an age restriction.

yes the WC team often has a high number of NHL players, those whose teams didnt make the playoffs or those whose spots were held in case their team lost in the first round of the SCP. But if you look at any of those teams and put them up against a team with no availability restrictions ( formerly the olympics, now the world cup) they would get steamrolled.

lets look at the olympics this time, tell me WHO played on team canada ? Name one player. on a scale of 1-10 for talent, where would this player rank? For the shampionships there are lots of NHL players who are offered spots who would NEVER be even considered if availability was not an issue.

As for who am I to decide ? I never said you could not. In fact I said wave them to your hearts content. What I said is, either the talent matters or it doesnt. if you think it doesnt it must be great because you could watch anything and get excited.

 

[BennsGonnaGetYou]

Calling someone a "World Cup" doesn't make it a World Cup. It's an NHL tournament.

That doesn't disqualify it from being a World Cup, players outside of the NHL participates.

 

[sandysan]

Calling someone a "World Cup" doesn't make it a World Cup. It's an NHL tournament.

but calling the best of the rest tournament the " world championships" is hunky dory ?

but yest the world cup of hockey is a private invitational tournament run jointly by the NHL and the PA.

 

[ForumNamePending]

world juniors is STILL a best on best with an age restriction. the fact that they wont all make the show, is true but many will.

yes if the shampionship team played a WJC team they would win, again quite the feather in the cap. But the shampionships do not have an age restriction.

yes the WC team often has a high number of NHL players, those whose teams didnt make the playoffs or those whose spots were held in case their team lost in the first round of the SCP. But if you look at any of those teams and put them up against a team with no availability restrictions ( formerly the olympics, now the world cup) they would get steamrolled.

lets look at the olympics this time, tell me WHO played on team canada ? Name one player. on a scale of 1-10 for talent, where would this player rank? For the shampionships there are lots of NHL players who are offered spots who would NEVER be even considered if availability was not an issue.

As for who am I to decide ? I never said you could not. In fact I said wave them to your hearts content. What I said is, either the talent matters or it doesnt. if you think it doesnt it must be great because you could watch anything and get excited.

Me: I don't see much of a point in having this conversation if you are just going to rehash your typical talking points.
You: Types out stump speech.

But a couple of things...

1) Not sure why you are asking me about the Olympics. I haven't defended the last Olympics, or the Olympics in general, in this thread. In fact, the only time I mentioned the Olympics in this thread was when I basically said the sport is better served ditching them and trying to do its own thing.

2) If the things you value most are level of play and talent on the ice I don't see how someone can prefer the WJC over the WC. I totally get preferring the WJC over the WC, but it would have to be for reasons other than level of play and talent on the ice, because as you admit, "shampionship" teams are going to beat WJC teams. I mean a half dozen years from you'll be dismissing most of the players who played in this year's WJC as "third line accountants".