Olympics vs World Cup

[Nino33]

If you think Olympic football is meaningless, you might want to check out the reactions of the Brazilian players and fans after a scrub called Neymar secured them the gold medal in 2016:

Still meaningless in a conversation about best-on-best

And I'm not surprised an Olympic channel on YouTube players celebrating a victory...you can actually see people of all ages/talents celebrating victories on YouTube (and real life), doesn't make the victory meaningful in a conversation about best-on-best worldwide

Those South Americans seem to be pretty enthusiastic about a meaningless gold medal, but maybe they just don't understand football quite as well as North American hockey fans.

I think the fans in Brazil know the World Cup is what really matters (and maybe they're celebrating a lame Olympic victory so much because they're no longer the soccer power they once were HaHa); the bronze medal teams (the teams Germany/Brazil beat to make the final) were ranked 64th and 87th in the world at the time! FIFA Rankings - Teams - Soccerway


I don't think in NA that such an international victory would ever be significantly celebrated for a sport that we were considered elite at (a tournament with almost virtually all the best players missing & competition that's many dozens of rankings lower) - but I'm sure the players winning would be happy/celebrate...that's all your example proves, people celebrate when they win things

 

[Lepardi]

And as I said before, I prefer a Team Europe over a team like Germany every day a week.

Would you also prefer a Team Ontario over a Team Finland? Ontario certainly would have more talent.

 

[Nino33]

It's a more prestigious tournament than the WCH which has been hosted with 8 and 12-year intervals. As I said, if they have some consistency, it may one day be a legitimate World Cup of Hockey.

I've watched 7 Canada/Worlds Cups that were best-on-best (I don't count the 2016 WC) and only 5 Olympics that were best-on-best.....I guess if the Olympics gets some consistency having best-on-best they may be legitimate too

And your promoting the "triple gold" HaHa there is no gold for the Stanley Cup! If an organization can't tell the difference between a medal and a cup they should probably stop trying to organize anything

 

[Nino33]

Would you also prefer a Team Ontario over a Team Finland? Ontario certainly would have more talent.

That would break up an elite team/country (with a strong chance of winning), while Team Europe was filled with players that wouldn't even have played in a decent tournament without a Team Europe existing (and none of their individual countries were ever going to win the tournament)


The "decent tournament" is my commenting on the excess of teams the Olympics/Worlds has (I think 6 teams is perfect & 12 to 16 is way to many)

 

[Lepardi]

That would break up an elite team (with a strong chance of winning), while Team Europe was filled with players that wouldn't even have played in a decent tournament without a Team Europe existing (and none of their individual countries were ever going to win the tournament)

Leicester was never going to win the Premier League in 2016, Donald Trump was never going to win the U.S. presidency, and USA was never going to win the Olympic hockey tournament in 1980.

Maybe USA and Canada should have formed a combined team in the 1980 Olympics to be able to compete with the superior Soviets.

 

[Nino33]

Leicester was never going to win the Premier League in 2016, Donald Trump was never going to win the U.S. presidency, and USA was never going to win the Olympic hockey tournament in 1980.

Maybe USA and Canada should have formed a combined team in the 1980 Olympics to be able to compete with the superior Soviets.

A level 3 league team didn't win the Premier League, a candidate who never won a single primary didn't win the US election, and a division 2/3 team didn't win the 1980 Olympics

There's no need to include everybody in a best-on-best tournament

 

[Lepardi]

A level 3 league team didn't win the Premier League, a candidate who never won a single primary didn't win the US election, and a division 2/3 team didn't win the 1980 Olympics

There's no need to include everybody in a best-on-best tournament

Leicester were 5,000 to 1 to win the Premier League before the season started. Their chances of winning it were way slimmer than Switzerland's or Slovakia's chances of winning a World Cup of ice hockey.

Sounds like you don't understand how the Premier League works. They don't have the salary cap North American leagues use. That's why Vegas making it to the SCF was nothing compared to what Leicester was able to achieve against infinitely richer teams like Man City and Chelsea.

I absolutely agree with you on the fact that there's no need to include everybody in a best-on-best tournament. Anze Kopitar doesn't belong there, just like Jari Litmanen didn't. Luckily the football authorities of the world are wise enough not to make up pointless gimmick teams to allow guys like George Weah and Litmanen to play in the World Cup. Either you're there representing your country or you're not there at all.

 

[Jahara]

Would you also prefer a Team Ontario over a Team Finland? Ontario certainly would have more talent.

No, I wouldn't. Canadiens should play with Canada. The best thing would be a World Cup with 6 teams. But if it is played with 8 teams I don't want a team like Germany there.

You can't compare the hockey world with the football world considering the size of the sports. Setups like Croatia reaching a World Cup final or Greece winning the Euros is much more likely in a low scoring sport like football where more countries can compete.

Canada Cup with 6 teams in a round-robin was a fine format (and a fine name) and the change to World Cup was actually a negative one, except for the idea of playing in Europe.

 

[holyprime]

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

I mean the actual cost of entertainment, i pay 8 sfr (stands, but usually more, im getting old) to watch a NLA game live (plus travel if i'd go by car (very rare)), where watching an NHL game on TV is about 5$ (or you buy a package so it gets cheaper the more you watch). So, the "inferior" "product" is more appealing despite being more expensive.

I know there are many people watching the AHL, im actually astonished every year that the NLA has a higher avg attendance than them, as a place like New York alone has more inhabitants than our entire country. Which is my point: I don't understand this obfuscation with "i only watch the best", as if the game otherwise would be terribly boring or the WHC irrelevant because not all of the best are playing in it. It feels sometimes a bit like a refusal to watch, because one could discover that there really isn't such a big gap in the level of play between the SC and the WHC after the group stage.

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

Yes that is certainly the main difference, mostly in organisation (privately owned including the working agreement (CBA) vs run by federations and the application of general working laws and international laws/predecents (like bosman ruling)) and sports culture. No one else can refuse to participate in the Olympics unless their federations generally agree to it (like that abomination that is FIFA), or even the friendlies, because at a certain point "we" all agreed to those rules. And it (mostly) works, for example look at Rugby vs American Football, there is no doubt at all what's more popular worldwide and that the international competition helps that tremendously. The WHC is not perfect but has become an annual fixture outside of NA and certainly helped the popularity of hockey more than the SC, outside of North America.

We hockey fans (opposed to NHL fans) have the dilemma that this sport is the only one (maybe basketball, but the NBA is a lot less international in playerbase and the US just humiliates everyone when they actually show up) that is dictated by the "US (or NA)-modell". It really sucks, because if this were not the case, we would have all enjoyed an Olympic tournament with the best players actually playing in it. The WHC could be more than "just the WHC", as all the leagues could work out a schedule with the unicornelephant out of the room. We actually could have a real WCoH, a best-on-best WCoH even (because there is many a defensman in the NLA that is better than a Luca Sbisa, who would play instead of them), because, again, all the leagues could work out a schedule and it doesn't have to be a preaseasonal invitational that happens while every other league on the planet already started the regular season.

It just would be better, for everyone (maybe not for the owners, which is the obvious problem). But then you get some people with "i only watch best-on-best" while it's one single (privately owned) league, the one they are praising for its "best-on-best", that is sabotaging "best-on-best" on an international level wherever it can. It's infuriating to no end, because if you experience how it could work in almost any other sport you follow, you really can't understand them, and makes you want to scream that "this is why we can't have nice things".

But enough ranting (that's what i was afraid of in my last post), i'm sitting in my office eventough i'm finished since half an hour, which is just silly

 

[Nino33]

Leicester were 5,000 to 1 to win the Premier League before the season started. Their chances of winning it were way slimmer than Switzerland's or Slovakia's chances of winning a World Cup of ice hockey.

Sounds like you don't understand how the Premier League works. They don't have the salary cap North American leagues use. That's why Vegas making it to the SCF was nothing compared to what Leicester was able to achieve against infinitely richer teams like Man City and Chelsea.

Betting odds means nothing to me; I don't gamble/don't care how gamblers perceive they can make money (and don't think it's really relevant)

I'm saying hockey best-on-best shouldn't even bother to include the lesser teams.
I think all other hockey tournaments/leagues worldwide are a good thing (but lacking relevance in a discussion about best-on-best hockey tournaments)

I'd like to see a 6 team round robin where everyone plays everyone , and a playoffs that not everyone makes (like the original Canada Cup; so much better than the way the IIHF/IOC does things)

There's no need for groups/group games and everyone makes the playoffs system is ridiculous! If a team isn't top 6 I don't see why they'd be involved

I absolutely agree with you on the fact that there's no need to include everybody in a best-on-best tournament.

Wow, that's a surprise to me!

 

[Urbanskog]

If a team isn't top 6 I don't see why they'd be involved

Yes, imagine the horror of some German becoming a hockey fan through cheering for their national team in an international tournament.

 

[Nino33]

I mean the actual cost of entertainment, i pay 8 sfr (stands, but usually more, im getting old) to watch a NLA game live (plus travel if i'd go by car (very rare)), where watching an NHL game on TV is about 5$ (or you buy a package so it gets cheaper the more you watch). So, the "inferior" "product" is more appealing despite being more expensive.

My daughter took me to a WHL over the holidays, and beer costs more than your ticket (our tickets were about $21 Swiss Francs each)

 

[Nino33]

Yes, imagine the horror of some German becoming a hockey fan through cheering for their national team in an international tournament.

Do you have an actual point you're advocating that relates?

Why stop at Germany then?
What are you going to say to the person who believes they should include a team below whatever your cut off is?

Is your ideal tournament 50 teams? IIHF - World Ranking



The Worlds and other international tournaments allow people to become a hockey fan through cheering for their national team in an international tournament...why is that not good enough to you?

I'd be fine with having no NHLers at the Olympics myself (and have a "real" World Cup, hopefully set up like I described) - teams like Germany could work their way up to the elite tournament (I'm literally advocating excluding lesser teams from a single tournament! and it's somehow a big problem, makes no sense to me)

 

[Nino33]

for example look at Rugby vs American Football, there is no doubt at all what's more popular worldwide and that the international competition helps that tremendously.

I like some things that the masses like, and some they don't...regardless, I do accept that revenue (paying for what you like) and live attendance (watching what you like) are typical standards, and comparing leagues the NFL is at the top worldwide in these two categories by a large margin

For revenue looking at leagues worldwide, the NFL is at the top and then MLB and the NBA are next, and then at less than half the NFL is the EPL in 4th place List of professional sports leagues by revenue - Wikipedia

By average attendance per game the NFL is again at the top by a significant amount (second place is Bundesliga with 34% less than the NFL) List of sports attendance figures - Wikipedia

And all this without any international play


P.S. I say this not as an NFL fan (haven't watched in decades)

 

[Jahara]

Yes, imagine the horror of some German becoming a hockey fan through cheering for their national team in an international tournament.

Germany always have the chance when playing in the Olympics or the World Championship.

Olympics should be played with NHL:ers and 12 teams. Inbetween World Cup should take place every fourth year but only with 6 or 7 teams. I can't understand why this is so difficult to fix.

 

[JETZZZ]

Germany always have the chance when playing in the Olympics or the World Championship.

Olympics should be played with NHL:ers and 12 teams. Inbetween World Cup should take place every fourth year but only with 6 or 7 teams. I can't understand why this is so difficult to fix.

NHL players want to go to the Olympics, NHL owners dont care for it and can use it as a bargaining chip.
NHL owners prefer a World Cup, NHL players prefer the Olympics, will probably shut down future World Cups because they arent going to the Olympics.

 

[Zine]

Betting odds means nothing to me; I don't gamble/don't care how gamblers perceive they can make money (and don't think it's really relevant)

I'm saying hockey best-on-best shouldn't even bother to include the lesser teams.
I think all other hockey tournaments/leagues worldwide are a good thing (but lacking relevance in a discussion about best-on-best hockey tournaments)

I'd like to see a 6 team round robin where everyone plays everyone , and a playoffs that not everyone makes (like the original Canada Cup; so much better than the way the IIHF/IOC does things)

There's no need for groups/group games and everyone makes the playoffs system is ridiculous! If a team isn't top 6 I don't see why they'd be involved



Wow, that's a surprise to me!

By that rationale, why should 6 teams participate? Why is 6 the arbitrary cut-off? It’s not like the Czechs have a significant chance of winning, it’s probably slightly more than Switzerland.
Carry that further, we could eliminate Finland. Hell, a best v best with only USA, Russia, Canada and Sweden would suffice, right?
The entire notion is ad hoc.

 

[sandysan]

If you look at the Team Canada roster in that tournament, I don't think it's far-fetched to say they had more talent in their roster than any of the remaining four teams in the Stanley Cup playoffs:

Canada at eliteprospects.com

team canada isn't restricted by the cap.

 

[sandysan]

NHL players want to go to the Olympics, NHL owners dont care for it and can use it as a bargaining chip.
NHL owners prefer a World Cup, NHL players prefer the Olympics, will probably shut down future World Cups because they arent going to the Olympics.

but not so much as to extend the CBA in order to do so. Because SOME players have said they would like to go, does not mean this view is widely held among the PA. Some players even threaterned to breach, but when it came to that point, they didnt.

in a world where people can do whatever they want and never have to give up anything to do so, sure the players want the olympics. but that imaginary world is just that, imaginary. When the PA was asked to give a little to get a little, they said no. a resounding no.

And for them to say YES, the players who DO go will have to convince the players that dont, that the don't players should make concessions such that the do players ( who invariable are much better off financially) can do what THEY want.

that is a hard sell.

 

[Nino33]

By that rationale, why should 6 teams participate? Why is 6 the arbitrary cut-off? It’s not like the Czechs have a significant chance of winning, it’s probably slightly more than Switzerland.
Carry that further, we could eliminate Finland.

No, 6 teams work...what's your amount?

It's not arbitrary or random IMO (and I'm fine with whomever is the top 6, doesn't have to be the Czechs or Switzerland...doesn't have to be any specific 6 countries)

Carry that further, we could eliminate Finland.

Why exclude Finland? Why not Russia?

Take a look at Russian best-on-best results in the last 10+ years...in the Olympic quarterfinals in 2014 on home ice and they lose...to Finland! In 2010 Russia again didn't get past the quarterfinals, and in 2006 Russia made it to the semis but lost to...Finland!

In the last 3 Olympic best-on-best tournaments Canada, Sweden, Finland, the US and the Czech Republic have all won a medal & it's Russia that hasn't!

Nowadays I think the Swedes, Americans and Finns are all a bigger threat to Canada best-on-best than Russia (I really enjoyed when Russia was a real threat decades ago)

 

[Zine]

No, 6 teams work...what's your amount?

It's not arbitrary or random IMO (and I'm fine with whomever is the top 6, doesn't have to be the Czechs or Switzerland...doesn't have to be any specific 6 countries)





Why exclude Finland? Why not Russia?

Take a look at Russian best-on-best results in the last 10+ years...in the Olympic quarterfinals in 2014 on home ice and they lose...to Finland! In 2010 Russia again didn't get past the quarterfinals, and in 2006 Russia made it to the semis but lost to...Finland!

In the last 3 Olympic best-on-best tournaments Canada, Sweden, Finland, the US and the Czech Republic have all won a medal & it's Russia that hasn't!

Nowadays I think the Swedes, Americans and Finns are all a bigger threat to Canada best-on-best than Russia (I really enjoyed when Russia was a real threat decades ago)

Fine, replace Russia with Finland, it doesn't nullify my point.

My point is that 6 is an entirely arbitrary number, and one that must include a Czech Republic, Switzerland, or Slovakia (teams with a minuscule chance of winning). Including these teams is contrary to your assertion that lesser teams don't belong. As such, why not have a 4 team tournament? It would work better from an elimination standpoint.

You ask of my opinion? Per your standard, if we're including lesser teams, I think an 'elimination style' format of 8 and 16 teams is the ideal format.

 

[Nino33]

My point is that 6 is an entirely arbitrary number, and one that must include a Czech Republic, Switzerland, or Slovakia (teams with a minuscule chance of winning). Including these teams is contrary to your assertion that lesser teams don't belong. As such, why not have a 4 team tournament? It would work better from an elimination standpoint.

You clearly don't even understand what arbitrary means; the first 5 best-on-best hockey tournaments ever held were all 6 team tournaments (maybe you don't know much about hockey history)

All your arguments are based on you saying I'm saying things I've actually never said (and again, you clearly don't understand what arbitrary means)

 

[Big Phil]

Olympics. Only thing really fun about the WC was watching Team NA.

That was the worst part of the entire tournament. I'm Canadian.............do I cheer for them? Or not? Or shall we all be just one giant country together? Look, I am glad Canada won in 2016, but there was nearly a monumental egg on face moment when the under 24 team nearly played Canada in an elimination game. Can someone with a shred of common sense please explain to me how that game would have been intense or exciting to have players from their own country competing against each other?

2016 was such a joke, and the worst part is it smeared in the face of a legendary tournament dating back to 1976. Alan Eagleson was a crook, but he never managed to screw up a simple hockey tournament.

 

[Jahara]

By that rationale, why should 6 teams participate? Why is 6 the arbitrary cut-off? It’s not like the Czechs have a significant chance of winning, it’s probably slightly more than Switzerland.
Carry that further, we could eliminate Finland. Hell, a best v best with only USA, Russia, Canada and Sweden would suffice, right?
The entire notion is ad hoc.

6 teams should participate because of several reasons. It is the big 6, it is tradition, they are the 6 best teams, it makes a good structure with 5 games for each team and therefore makes it a good indicator on the best team.

In my eyes the World Cup in 2004 was something of a joke considering that EVERY team made it to the playoffs and making the group stage not worth much. But of course, we had good old Germany instead of the "gimmick teams" and that seems to have made a big difference in many peoples eyes. You are right when criticising Team NA but Team Europe was a interesting idea.

 

[member 305909]

Six is the ideal, or rather maximum, number of teams in a group in a tournament.

The main criticism of the tournament-format of the IIHF-worlds is that the groups of eight are too big; either takes too long to play them or the schedule is too tight. There are also top Manu meaningless games.

I would reform the IIHF-worlds by expanding to 18 teams and put them in three groups of six and eight teams making it to the play-offs.