Mirinho
Registered User
- Jan 23, 2007
- 1,945
- 408
WC: Promotion from Division 1 to TOP Division as it is now is nonsense.
- Thread starter Mirinho
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Chimpradamus
Registered User
I reactively agree, two teams have to be scratched from an entertainment and quality standpoint. But for the promotion of growing hockey, it might actually be better to let the "blueberry teams" feel how it is to play against really strong teams, to make them have more perspective.
I don't know really. I can see both sides. As a spoiled A team fan I don't want to win against Italy 8-0, but on the other hand, I still remember when teams like Germany were blueberry teams. They're not any longer, you have to take them seriously. It's a very good experience for the players of the national teams and it can grow rings on the water we can't see yet, as to speak.
Maybe some kid in Britain, France or Italy is watching this tournament, thinks hockey looks awesome and becomes the next Kopitar or Zuccarello, when he saw NHL stars show how it's supposed to look when you're awesome at hockey? Maybe our whining can be worth it and I still feel bad sighing the guys playing for weak team, who have the time of their lives in their hockey career.
I agree with OP, but I still have to say "no" to both of us. Did you know the Netherlands actually had a quite good hockey team once upon a time? Or that the Czechs had to teach the Soviet Union how to play hockey?
And I STILL watch the game against the weaker teams, because I want to watch how the players and the team is progressing, it's a journey. It also gives the A teams a breather to try to grow some chemistry and find the right combinations.
I don't know really. I can see both sides. As a spoiled A team fan I don't want to win against Italy 8-0, but on the other hand, I still remember when teams like Germany were blueberry teams. They're not any longer, you have to take them seriously. It's a very good experience for the players of the national teams and it can grow rings on the water we can't see yet, as to speak.
Maybe some kid in Britain, France or Italy is watching this tournament, thinks hockey looks awesome and becomes the next Kopitar or Zuccarello, when he saw NHL stars show how it's supposed to look when you're awesome at hockey? Maybe our whining can be worth it and I still feel bad sighing the guys playing for weak team, who have the time of their lives in their hockey career.
I agree with OP, but I still have to say "no" to both of us. Did you know the Netherlands actually had a quite good hockey team once upon a time? Or that the Czechs had to teach the Soviet Union how to play hockey?
And I STILL watch the game against the weaker teams, because I want to watch how the players and the team is progressing, it's a journey. It also gives the A teams a breather to try to grow some chemistry and find the right combinations.
Last edited:
Mirinho
Registered User
- Jan 23, 2007
- 1,945
- 408
I don't wanna close top division. No way!! But you must defeat 2 worst teams (or atleast one) from top division if you wanna play there. If GB or Italy as winners of wch div. 1 will be better in mini tournament than Belarus or Kazakhstan I'wont say any single world.
Mirinho
Registered User
- Jan 23, 2007
- 1,945
- 408
I like matches versus DEN, GER, LAT, NOR, AUT, FRA ... And matches against them are far from blowouts. No need to reduce number of teams in top division. I was talking only about worst 2 teams.
ozo
Registered User
- Feb 24, 2010
- 4,521
- 570
I think this is an overreaction, we just have a freak year, where two promoted teams are much weaker than usually.
Chimpradamus
Registered User
Yeah, it sounds absolutely sensible and logical. A qualification round between the two worst group A teams and the two best group B teams during the winter before the next tournament. Maybe even best out of three, in a comfortable time table before the real tournament starts. Sounds reasonable. A bad tournament shouldn't lead to an automatic disqualification, but you still have to fight for your spot.
Maybe it makes it tough for the B teams to get a foot in the big show, but still, I kind of like the idea. Still, on the other hand, I can also see the other hand of the coin, I think it's awesome in a cozy way that players from Great Britain get to experience the big show and that British viewers are exposed to ice hockey. Even if they're crushed.
I agree with your proposal from a competitive standpoint, but can see the point from a promotion standpoint. Still, I have to kind of agree Great Britain isn't ready to play in the big show.
Last edited:
GB earned their way up here. Whether they showed they belonged (they certainly haven't today) is another matter but they fairly beat Slovenia, fellow promotee Italy and Hungary for the right to be here. Arbitrarily changing the rules on the fly because they got shellacked is a silly knee-jerk reaction. There will always be some elevator teams and it's a good thing there are some changes to the lineup of teams every year to see how other countries are developing in hockey. GB's loss to Denmark is hardly the most embarrassing the WCs have borne witness to in any case.
Mirinho
Registered User
- Jan 23, 2007
- 1,945
- 408
Yes they did and nobody of us is against it. This change I'm talking about must be declared to future by IIHF, from season XY it will be like this...
Last edited:
tony d
New poll series coming from me in June
I think they should do something like women/floorball format. Three 6-team groups, with top 12 teams in two of these groups and with teams 13-18 in the other group. All top 12 teams + top 4 teams from the lower group would then be seeded for 16-team play-offs. Last two teams would then play an extra relegation match. Losing teams in the 1st round would then play an extra qualification match for next year's participation in a top group, with losers playing in Group C next year.
Would mean there would be 2 less unimportant group stage matches replaced by an extra meaningful play-off match, while it would allow the tournament to have an extra stadium/country to host games and two extra teams. There would be 7 matches guaranteed for all 1-16 teams, with the whole tournament having 66 matches, 2 more than now. This year we would get:
Group A: Canada, USA, Finland, Germany, Slovakia, Denmark
Group B: Sweden, Russia, Czechia, Switzerland, Norway, Latvia
Group C: France, Austria, Great Britain, Italy, South Korea, Belarus
This would be in my opinion a much better tournament than we have this year with so many poor matches involving Italy and GB.
Would mean there would be 2 less unimportant group stage matches replaced by an extra meaningful play-off match, while it would allow the tournament to have an extra stadium/country to host games and two extra teams. There would be 7 matches guaranteed for all 1-16 teams, with the whole tournament having 66 matches, 2 more than now. This year we would get:
Group A: Canada, USA, Finland, Germany, Slovakia, Denmark
Group B: Sweden, Russia, Czechia, Switzerland, Norway, Latvia
Group C: France, Austria, Great Britain, Italy, South Korea, Belarus
This would be in my opinion a much better tournament than we have this year with so many poor matches involving Italy and GB.
Jumptheshark
Rebooting myself
This thread shows how elitist and out of touch many are with hockey in general.
The world championships is not just about what happens on the ice.
While those of you who do not pay attention to the world cup and off ice stuff.
Team GB is out in full force in Kosice. One of the best parts the games are how enthused the promoted teams fans are.
We have discussions about how to grow the game and by having teams get promoted to this tournament is one way
The French should not be in the tourney to using some of the logic in this thread. Same goes for Latvia. Should Norway or Austria be there two? Not real hockey powers.
There is more to the games than just what is on the ice. These games do more every year to grow the hockey game than the nhl does in ten years.
Maybe I am bias because I live in the UK. But how happy the fans are to be the tourney is a blast. They know they are not going to win. They are just happy to be playing.
But suggesting lower teams should not be in this tourney shows me how narrow minded some fans are and is the best example of why the nhl is trailing all other sports in growth globally.
You gotta give the little guys some sunshine sometimes
The world championships is not just about what happens on the ice.
While those of you who do not pay attention to the world cup and off ice stuff.
Team GB is out in full force in Kosice. One of the best parts the games are how enthused the promoted teams fans are.
We have discussions about how to grow the game and by having teams get promoted to this tournament is one way
The French should not be in the tourney to using some of the logic in this thread. Same goes for Latvia. Should Norway or Austria be there two? Not real hockey powers.
There is more to the games than just what is on the ice. These games do more every year to grow the hockey game than the nhl does in ten years.
Maybe I am bias because I live in the UK. But how happy the fans are to be the tourney is a blast. They know they are not going to win. They are just happy to be playing.
But suggesting lower teams should not be in this tourney shows me how narrow minded some fans are and is the best example of why the nhl is trailing all other sports in growth globally.
You gotta give the little guys some sunshine sometimes
Chimpradamus
Registered User
Yes, that's absolutely the argument for having things like they are. The fans and the players being exposed to playing the big boys cannot be understated, to experience how top hockey is performed. It's just a great experience. And as I've said, Slovenia have Anze Kopitar, Norway raised Zuccarello, Denmark Eller and Andersen, etc. That's elite players growing out of small hockey nations, that have grown with the experience. Who knows what kind of British, Italian or French kid that watched this tournament, fell in love watching the big stars creating magic and then grew up with a dream to become a superstar, to then make the sport explode in attention among the public in his country, to make a wave effect.
And then we're not mentioning the motivation for lesser nation players to just feel how it is to play against world class hockey players. This is the part NHL absolutely doesn't understand, because it's not a sports league, it's an entertainment business.
Anyone remember the roar in the stadium when Trinidad & Tobago scored their first World Cup goal, ever, against England or something (I'm not correct about the teams, I think football is crap nowadays)? Stuff like that matter to their fans. I think I have to lean on it's fine for A teams to crush lesser nations, because they need to experience what it's like to play elite hockey, while their fans are just as happy if they at least score a goal or two.
I mean, Sweden got demolished by the Soviet team 13-1 or something during the 80's. Should Sweden just be scratched? Naw, things turned out pretty well hanging on. And tons of people still watched them lose to the end. Then they won gold in 1987 and things just exploded.
Watch how Swiss hockey has expanded, I'm really impressed by their improvements, from being a B-team to becoming a team you have to respect.
Last edited:
MeHateHe
Registered User
- Dec 24, 2006
- 2,851
- 3,278
Like clockwork, when there are lopsided games at world championships or WJCs, someone starts up about the promotion/relegation process. It's a bit tiring. There are blowouts in pretty much every sport's world championship, just like how at every sport's world championship there are really only a small handful of teams that have any chance at winning.
To begin with, having a promotion/relegation tournament at some other point during the year would be enormously problematic, as it would require clubs to release players. As we've seen in Olympic qualifying, this means that countries whose best players (difference-makers) are in North America, that doesn't happen, so teams that might otherwise be competitive wind up at a disadvantage. Countries that have one or two strong NHLers (like Slovenia or Austria) are out of luck.
Having an additional qualifying tournament renders the Div 1A championship essentially meaningless if there's no promotion, especially if that team's best players are unable to play in that qualifying tournament. Moreover, the suite of tournaments the IIHF hosts is designed to foster promotion and growth of the sport. You can't look at the elite tournament as a standalone; yes, at the end of the it crowns a world championship, but the seven or eight tournaments also provide stepping stones for hockey nations at all levels of their development of the sport. Countries like Denmark and France have had good long runs in the elite division, while others have had brief stays. Getting into the elite tournament is an opportunity that some countries have used to grow the sport, and cutting off that opportunity would not help the sport.
Focusing on a few blowouts that happen every year in every sport makes the mistaken assumption that the only thing that matters in these tournaments is who comes out on top at the end of the elite division. There are a lot of other considerations. There's lots to criticize the IIHF for, but this isn't one.
To begin with, having a promotion/relegation tournament at some other point during the year would be enormously problematic, as it would require clubs to release players. As we've seen in Olympic qualifying, this means that countries whose best players (difference-makers) are in North America, that doesn't happen, so teams that might otherwise be competitive wind up at a disadvantage. Countries that have one or two strong NHLers (like Slovenia or Austria) are out of luck.
Having an additional qualifying tournament renders the Div 1A championship essentially meaningless if there's no promotion, especially if that team's best players are unable to play in that qualifying tournament. Moreover, the suite of tournaments the IIHF hosts is designed to foster promotion and growth of the sport. You can't look at the elite tournament as a standalone; yes, at the end of the it crowns a world championship, but the seven or eight tournaments also provide stepping stones for hockey nations at all levels of their development of the sport. Countries like Denmark and France have had good long runs in the elite division, while others have had brief stays. Getting into the elite tournament is an opportunity that some countries have used to grow the sport, and cutting off that opportunity would not help the sport.
Focusing on a few blowouts that happen every year in every sport makes the mistaken assumption that the only thing that matters in these tournaments is who comes out on top at the end of the elite division. There are a lot of other considerations. There's lots to criticize the IIHF for, but this isn't one.
Commong thing, people lumping nations like Latvia together with nations like Italy and Great Britain. Latvia outshot Italy 65-15 today, they play in totally different ball parks.
Canada
Russia
Sweden
USA
Finland
Czech Republic
Switzerland
Slovakia
Germany
Denmark
Latvia
Norway
France
Austria
Belarus
Kazakstan
Slovenia
Italy
Great Britain
Hungary
This is more or less what the tiers looks like. Latvia is well above the likes of Italy and GBR. Even France is well above both.
14 teams is perfect. Canada, Russia, Sweden, USA, Finland, Czech Republic, Switzerland, Slovakia, Germany, Denmark and Latvia would make for 11 of the teams most of the time. Norway, France, Austria, Belarus and Kazakstan battling for the last three spots, and once every now and then you might still see Italy or GBR surprise and make the top division.
If they incist on keeping 16 nations in the tournament, I think they should at least go back to the 4 group system that was used before. The top 3 teams in each group make it to the next stage. That way we wouldn't have to watch Italy and GBR play in all these games. They would only play three games, lose them, and then play games against weaker opponents for survival. I also think they should only relegate one team and promote one team every year.
For those not familiar with the 4 group system that was used before, this is how it works (example below is not using current IIHF rankings, but my own power rankings above):
Group A
Canada
Slovakia
Germany
---------------
Kazakhstan
Group B
Russia
Switzerland
Denmark
---------------
Belarus
Group C
Sweden
Czech Republic
Latvia
---------------
Austria
Group D
USA
Finland
Norway
---------------
France
So this is how it works...
Example:
1. Canada, Slovakia and Germany make it onto the 2nd group stage. There they will form a new group of six teams together with USA, Finland, and Norway (the three best from group D).
2. All six teams in this new formed group have the points with them from the intital group stage. Except for those earned against Kazakhstan and France, those points and goal differentials are scratched.
3. Teams don't play eachother twice. Canada, Slovaka and Germany don't face eachother again in this new group stage, but only USA, Finland and Norway.
4. The four group losers face off against eachother trying to survive at the top level.
All in all, this results in less blowout games. In the example above, Canada never has to play France and USA never has to play Kazakhstan. The teams that makes it out of the intial group stage play six games before the quarterfinals, instead of seven like it is now. The other benefit is that the weakest nations get to play more games against teams closer to their own level.
Group A
Canada
Slovakia
Germany
---------------
Kazakhstan
Group B
Russia
Switzerland
Denmark
---------------
Belarus
Group C
Sweden
Czech Republic
Latvia
---------------
Austria
Group D
USA
Finland
Norway
---------------
France
So this is how it works...
Example:
1. Canada, Slovakia and Germany make it onto the 2nd group stage. There they will form a new group of six teams together with USA, Finland, and Norway (the three best from group D).
2. All six teams in this new formed group have the points with them from the intital group stage. Except for those earned against Kazakhstan and France, those points and goal differentials are scratched.
3. Teams don't play eachother twice. Canada, Slovaka and Germany don't face eachother again in this new group stage, but only USA, Finland and Norway.
4. The four group losers face off against eachother trying to survive at the top level.
All in all, this results in less blowout games. In the example above, Canada never has to play France and USA never has to play Kazakhstan. The teams that makes it out of the intial group stage play six games before the quarterfinals, instead of seven like it is now. The other benefit is that the weakest nations get to play more games against teams closer to their own level.
I can imagine that part of the issue the last few years have been that the Division 1 A now is more competitive and the teams there are closer to each other. Perhaps a positive result of the change going from having the 1 A and 1 B in the old split: 17, 20, 21, 24, 25, 28 and 18, 19, 22, 23, 26, 27 compared with todays 17-22 and 23-28 (based on last years results). So we have seen Hungary 2016, South Korea 2018 and now GB 2019 joining the highest level, instead of the usual 4 teams. And it is not easy when your team isn't used to it
In a long period you had the same top 14 always up ( yes Germany was saved by hosting once and Belarus went down last year). You also had almost always the same 4 teams going up and down: Austria, Italy, Kazakhstan and Slovenia. So the lowest team of the top 14 would often have hard matches to avoid relegation and sometimes when a few more players joined, magic happened and the caught a better team on a bad day they could hope for a quarter final spot. At the same time the 4 elevator team at least had the experience to play at this level. So in that way 16 teams in the top level seems to be fairly close to perfect, since you will have the teams from 10-14 in the years they strike lightning and have a good performance. I would imagine that it would be easier for Hungary, south Korea and GB the next time they qualify, although they most likely still will. Basically it is now more likely that an upset happen in the 1 A division, and when a surprise team qualify for the top division a loop sided match is more likely
In a long period you had the same top 14 always up ( yes Germany was saved by hosting once and Belarus went down last year). You also had almost always the same 4 teams going up and down: Austria, Italy, Kazakhstan and Slovenia. So the lowest team of the top 14 would often have hard matches to avoid relegation and sometimes when a few more players joined, magic happened and the caught a better team on a bad day they could hope for a quarter final spot. At the same time the 4 elevator team at least had the experience to play at this level. So in that way 16 teams in the top level seems to be fairly close to perfect, since you will have the teams from 10-14 in the years they strike lightning and have a good performance. I would imagine that it would be easier for Hungary, south Korea and GB the next time they qualify, although they most likely still will. Basically it is now more likely that an upset happen in the 1 A division, and when a surprise team qualify for the top division a loop sided match is more likely
Not that this has anything to do with the thread but it's really spectacular to see Finland lumped together with Switzerland and the Czech Republic here. There is absolutely no reason to think that Russia (or the US) is any better than Finland and there indeed is nothing to support that assessment, certainly not results of international competition, at least.
It could be a good way to reduce the number of blowouts, but this system has two huge shortcomings in my opinion:
First, when the promoted teams are weak, the group are very unbalanced. If this system was used this year, the groups with Italy and GB would be way easier than those with Austria and France.
Second, the results of the teams that don't qualify aren't carried over to the 2nd round, which means that number of points a team has in the 2nd round can change depending on the result of a game they are not involved in. If you check 2011, the last time this system was used, the Denmark-Latvia game decided whether Finland would start the 2nd round with 2 or 3 points. Same with the Belarus-France game and Switzerland.
In the end it could create some unfair situations and, IMHO, avoiding a few blowouts is not worth it.
gwh
Registered User
- Mar 4, 2013
- 3,688
- 622
In basketball Finland made the Eurochamps in the 2000s, that was huge boost for the junior squads. So many kids that teams had to start B-teams.
Finland made the worldchamps a decade later (2014) and lost 80 points to USA. Huge media event, despite losing all the games. Again loads of kids started in the juniors.
2017 Markkanen started in the NBA and is featured in the Finnish national broadcasting company news every week. National team is expected to make the Eurobasket every year and 50-50 expected to make the worldchamps.
TLDR: It is entirely possible to grow a minor sport into a major sport within a decade. Look at switzerland in icehockey.
16 teams is too many; there is not enough competition for so many teams. However, 16 teams are here to stay. Fewer teams would mean fewer matches and less money for IIHF.
If there is a minor change I would make I would place every year both promoted teams in the same group so that at least one of them avoids relegation. So, there would be more change.
Somebody noted that in the 2010s there have been 13 teams in the 16-team tournament who have been there every year. That is very little change.
If there is a minor change I would make I would place every year both promoted teams in the same group so that at least one of them avoids relegation. So, there would be more change.
Somebody noted that in the 2010s there have been 13 teams in the 16-team tournament who have been there every year. That is very little change.
I don't think you have to change the format just because over the past couple of years some surprising results in division 1 have resulted in some over matched teams earning the right to play in the top division.
With that said, I was thinking it seems like blowouts have become more common the past 2 or 3 years, so I looked into it, and sure enough that is the case. So it might be worth keeping an eye on the overall top-to-bottom competitiveness of the tournament, and if the trend continues over the next few years, maybe some changes to the format or number of teams will be warranted.
Year -- >=5 -- =<2 -- SO
--------------------------
2012 --- 9 --- 29 --- 16
2013 --- 5 --- 37 --- 9
2014 --- 6 --- 34 --- 8
2015 --- 8 --- 35 --- 11
2016 --- 6 --- 24 --- 13
2017 --- 11 --- 29 --- 12
2018 --- 16 -- 24 --- 21
2019 --- 8 --- 8 --- 8 (Through 24 of 56 games)
The above table shows the year (going back to when the current format was adopted), prelim round games decided by 5 or more goals, prelim round games decided by 2 or less goals, and prelim round games with shutouts.
EDIT: Looking at the table, I didn't realize, up until 2 or 3 years ago, blowouts were that rare and close games were that common.
EDIT II: It would be interesting to dive deeper to see where the blowouts are coming from. Have there been more blowouts (and less close games) because the "big 6" is just more frequently rolling over everyone, including the stronger 2nd tier nations, or is it because the relegation fodder teams are now not just getting crushed by the "big six", but also by the stronger 2nd tier teams (eg Denmark 9 GB 0)?
With that said, I was thinking it seems like blowouts have become more common the past 2 or 3 years, so I looked into it, and sure enough that is the case. So it might be worth keeping an eye on the overall top-to-bottom competitiveness of the tournament, and if the trend continues over the next few years, maybe some changes to the format or number of teams will be warranted.
Year -- >=5 -- =<2 -- SO
--------------------------
2012 --- 9 --- 29 --- 16
2013 --- 5 --- 37 --- 9
2014 --- 6 --- 34 --- 8
2015 --- 8 --- 35 --- 11
2016 --- 6 --- 24 --- 13
2017 --- 11 --- 29 --- 12
2018 --- 16 -- 24 --- 21
2019 --- 8 --- 8 --- 8 (Through 24 of 56 games)
The above table shows the year (going back to when the current format was adopted), prelim round games decided by 5 or more goals, prelim round games decided by 2 or less goals, and prelim round games with shutouts.
EDIT: Looking at the table, I didn't realize, up until 2 or 3 years ago, blowouts were that rare and close games were that common.
EDIT II: It would be interesting to dive deeper to see where the blowouts are coming from. Have there been more blowouts (and less close games) because the "big 6" is just more frequently rolling over everyone, including the stronger 2nd tier nations, or is it because the relegation fodder teams are now not just getting crushed by the "big six", but also by the stronger 2nd tier teams (eg Denmark 9 GB 0)?
Last edited:
PanniniClaus
Registered User
- Oct 12, 2006
- 12,604
- 5,946
I have seen many different formats since I started watching the Worlds in the 90's and this is my favorite. Leave it.
There is here the most of the people that don't know nothing about the icehockey in Switzerland.
Switzerland won medals in EC or WC already in '30 and '40 years and icehockey was always a Sport n.2 ( or perhaps on par ) behind soccer and very popular sport.
In the '80 and '90 years the icehockey was always very important in Switzerland, a very followed sport but not very professional from the technickal point of vieuw.That's why Switzerland in those times was in the Group B.
