WC: Promotion from Division 1 to TOP Division as it is now is nonsense.

[Elvs]

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.

That list was my own power rankings, based on how the rosters would look best-on-best, not based on results. Finland of course is a step above Switzerland but I think there's a distinct top 4 (again on paper, not based on results). Of course results matter and is what the groups should be based on. My own rankings is beside the point.

Based on the actual IIHF world ranking, the groups this year would look something like:

Group A
Canada
Germany
Norway
Great Britain

Group B
Sweden
Switzerland
Slovakia
Italy

Group C
Russia
Czech Republic
Latvia
Austria

Group D
United States
Finland
Denmark
France

 

[jonas2244]

The main reason for the "new" system with two groups is as far as I know that it's much easier for spectators to book tickets for games of their teams. With the old system you weren't always sure when your team played in the second round.

 

[FiLe]

That list was my own power rankings, based on how the rosters would look best-on-best, not based on results. Finland of course is a step above Switzerland but I think there's a distinct top 4 (again on paper, not based on results).

If so, you might wanna take a look at the kind of players Finland has in the big league today, and how the best 25 of them would look when lumped into a single team.

 

[slovakiasnextone]

I think the current format is much better than the 4 groups format from before.

It is much more fair to the teams that are playing for the 7-8th QF spot than the old one IMO. Also the whole point of it was to increase the attendance as in the old format fans didn't know in which games their team would play ahead of the tourney.

Blowouts have always been there and will always be there, even if you scratch the last two teams. Remember that time when Denmark blew out Slovakia 6:0 after just one third?

And it's refreshing to see a "new" team come up such as GB this year, instead of having the same teams up and down all over again. And as has been said by several people already this can only help to grow the game in those countries, not just on ice but off ice as well. It's not just the players, but the people behind the bench who might get valuable connections from the tourney. Maybe GB can get a few exhibition games out of this over the next few seasons against some of the 2nd tier nations who might not have decided to play GB if GB had not promoted to the top division out of this.

 

[member 305909]

It is not the bottom-teams which bother me about this tournament-format but the top-teams.

Namely, winning the group is basically meaningless. Finland will most likely win its group but in the QFs it will meet Russia, Sweden, Czechs or the Swiss. All them perfectly capable of sending the Finns packing early.

Another thing is the schedule. It is unfair that the SFs are played at different times on the previous day before the final giving one team considerably more time to prepare for the final.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

I love the current system, always nice to see new teams representing their nation, and sometimes even surprising. GB gave Germany all they could handle, was a very entertaining game.

Sure there will be a lot of blow outs, but every mismatch is also an opportunity for an upset.

 

[Elvs]

The main reason for the "new" system with two groups is as far as I know that it's much easier for spectators to book tickets for games of their teams. With the old system you weren't always sure when your team played in the second round.

This makes sense. Didn't think of it. I guess a four group system isn't likely to make a return anytime soon then.

I'd just remove two teams. With 14 teams, there will still be blowouts, but all 14 at least has the capacity to win games. I'm not sure Italy or Great Britain would even beat France or Austria once if they got ten tries at it...

The top seven countries are capable of winning any game. The tier after (Slovakia, Germany, Latvia and Denmark) are capable of upsets against the top 7, and the next tier (France, Austria, Norway, Belarus etc) are capable of winning games against Slovakia, Germany, Latvia and Denmark. We'll still see blowouts, but overall it'd be competitive enough.

 

[Lambo]

It is better to cut the WHC from 16 to 12 teams. Div 1 A with 10(2 Groups of 5)

 

[Lambo]

It is not the bottom-teams which bother me about this tournament-format but the top-teams.

Namely, winning the group is basically meaningless. Finland will most likely win its group but in the QFs it will meet Russia, Sweden, Czechs or the Swiss. All them perfectly capable of sending the Finns packing early.

Another thing is the schedule. It is unfair that the SFs are played at different times on the previous day before the final giving one team considerably more time to prepare for the final.

Not only the Finns! RUS,SWE,CZE,SUI could beat CAN and US too.

 

[Chimpradamus]

Keep it like it is. Even football is in a big expansion to include weaker teams and nations and that's the biggest sport in the world. You want to minimize the exposure compared to football? Keep the opportunity for weaker teams and let them, their fans and their nation experience elite hockey. Throw them in the deep end, they need something big to strive for. You need perspective combined with a struggle to grow. The A teams get more time to grow together as a team and the weaker nations also have a great experience, to just compete, watch and learn. In the 1960s, Finland was a blueberry nation. Once, the Soviet Union didn't even know how to play hockey. Every nation has been a beginner, even Canada.

Patience, Hockey San. Keep it like it is. Accept blowouts for the greater good of the sport. There will always be a story to tell. Imagine a World Hockey tournament with 32 quite competitive teams. We don't exactly get there by being elitist and protective of 100% elite hockey.

The more I think about it, it's a non-brainer. A sport always needs exposure, for a new enviroment to grow. Isn't that a big part of the point of its existence? Who cares if Great Britain for example is demolished? Their best players will have experienced what's it like to play against players who are at a level they want to be at. NHL players in droves. The top elite of the hockey world. "Alright lads, we have our work cut out for us now." Kind of. And British kids watching the whole thing have new heroes who aren't British.

I cannot count how many Swedish kids who held Soviet hockey players as small idols, because they were so extremely proficient and looked so damn cool on TV doing it. "Hattrick? Meh, just another day at the office." Not even a smile when they scored, because they looked like they expected it.

I didn't even play hockey in my youth, but I watched the Soviet hockey team crushing everyone and it still left a deep impression in me as an athlete to excel, with style, in another sport. And I did, because I watched the Soviet Union play amazing hockey. Guess what, I didn't smile either when I scored. I expected it. And I trained very hard to be able to expect it.

 

[JHB]

As the cup is laid out now, the group stage is basically meaningless for the top 8 nations. You play against teams like Great Britian, Italy, Norway, Austria etc and it's pretty much set in stone which teams makes the playoffs before the tournament begins.

How about they cut it down to 8 teams instead. 2 groups of 4 teams each. Everyone plays everyone once in group stage (3 games), then quarter finals to finals will be two games instead of one, a day apart.

Would this make the tournament more interesting? I believe so.

Canada
USA
Sweden
Finland
Russia
Czech Republic
Switzerland
Slovakia or Germany

The worst two teams of the tournament plays qualifiers against the best 2 from Group 2 on who will join Group 1 next year.

 

[Lambo]

As the cup is laid out now, the group stage is basically meaningless for the top 8 nations. You play against teams like Great Britian, Italy, Norway, Austria etc and it's pretty much set in stone which teams makes the playoffs before the tournament begins.

How about they cut it down to 8 teams instead. 2 groups of 4 teams each. Everyone plays everyone once in group stage (3 games), then quarter finals to finals will be two games instead of one, a day apart.

Would this make the tournament more interesting? I believe so.

Canada
USA
Sweden
Finland
Russia
Czech Republic
Switzerland
Slovakia or Germany

The worst two teams of the tournament plays qualifiers against the best 2 from Group 2 on who will join Group 1 next year.

Yes this is a good idea!

 

[AmericanDream]

I like it as is. I love to see different nations play this game that I would never see at a World Cup or Olympics. Most of the fringe teams that make it have awesome fans and players so damn grateful for the chance to skate against top players...they worked their ass off to have this shot as well, and though I understand what the OP is saying, I just do not see that big of an issue with it to be honest. It rotates each and every year, so it is not like a team can't climb back in the following year or two.

 

[AmericanDream]

As the cup is laid out now, the group stage is basically meaningless for the top 8 nations. You play against teams like Great Britian, Italy, Norway, Austria etc and it's pretty much set in stone which teams makes the playoffs before the tournament begins.

How about they cut it down to 8 teams instead. 2 groups of 4 teams each. Everyone plays everyone once in group stage (3 games), then quarter finals to finals will be two games instead of one, a day apart.

Would this make the tournament more interesting? I believe so.

Canada
USA
Sweden
Finland
Russia
Czech Republic
Switzerland
Slovakia or Germany

The worst two teams of the tournament plays qualifiers against the best 2 from Group 2 on who will join Group 1 next year.

that is the World Cup- or was the World Cup - if they plan on doing another one minus the stupid gimmick teams, this is exactly how it was set up in 96 and 04.

 

[Elvs]

As the cup is laid out now, the group stage is basically meaningless for the top 8 nations. You play against teams like Great Britian, Italy, Norway, Austria etc and it's pretty much set in stone which teams makes the playoffs before the tournament begins.

How about they cut it down to 8 teams instead. 2 groups of 4 teams each. Everyone plays everyone once in group stage (3 games), then quarter finals to finals will be two games instead of one, a day apart.

Would this make the tournament more interesting? I believe so.

Canada
USA
Sweden
Finland
Russia
Czech Republic
Switzerland
Slovakia or Germany

The worst two teams of the tournament plays qualifiers against the best 2 from Group 2 on who will join Group 1 next year.

Bad idea, there's 11 competitive countries and hockey so minimium amount of teams should be twelve.

 

[Urbanskog]

As the cup is laid out now, the group stage is basically meaningless for the top 8 nations. You play against teams like Great Britian, Italy, Norway, Austria etc and it's pretty much set in stone which teams makes the playoffs before the tournament begins.

Did you watch yesterday's Germany - Slovakia game or do you even know what happened in it? It's absurd to say that the quarterfinals are "set in stone" for the top 8 countries, especially when there isn't even consensus on which team is the eighth best team in the world. Even Switzerland can't take quarterfinals for granted as just in the last ten years they missed out in 2016, 2014, 2012, 2011 and 2009. The top 6 can more or less cruise through the group stage to quarterfinals although the US ended up in the relegation round in 2010 and at least Finland has been very close to missing out a couple of times.

 

[Faterson]

The 4-group system was atrocious, I absolutely hated it. The current system is nice, clean, and logical.

Yup, 16 teams is perhaps too many. 14, 12, or even 10 teams might be good alternatives.

With 10 teams, the old format from the 1980s could be re-introduced: no play-offs, with simply a round-robin, each of the 10 teams playing 9 games, and that's it. That's even cleaner.

Play-offs are an American obsession, but they aren't strictly necessary to determine the champion, in my opinion. The English football Premier League has no play-offs, and European hockey leagues didn't have it, in the past, either.

 

[kthomasf]

The old four group system was awful, and I was so happy when they changed it. It was even terrible as teams lost their result against the team that did not advance.

I also like 16 teams, as it allows the mid-tier teams like Switzerland, Germany, Latvia, Slovakia, and I guess you can include Norway and Denmark to consistently play top teams. If the WC was not 16 teams where would some of these teams be? Germany has shown great progress recently, and if they make the QF this year, that will be 3/4 years they have. Slovakia used to be way ahead of those other teams, but the last fifteen years has allowed them to catch up.

The issue at the bottom will never fully go away, but has been exacerbated by the decline of Belarus primarily. Belarus used to be in that mid-tier, but have fully fallen off that wagon lately. This has forced teams like France and Austria, who normally would be in a relagation fight up. The other change that had helped teams like Great Britain and South Korea come up is the switch in how Division 1 works. It used to be two divisions with one promoted from each. This typically meant a higher gap in talent from top to bottom. The teams that were recently relegated, typically had large talent gaps on at least 2-3 teams in the 6 team groups, and could, regardless of unity/cohesion, win those games easily. It would usually come down to a one game showdown with another team, which was usually scheduled last. Now with it being the next best six in one group, and two being promoted from there, it is very close and there is little room for error. So teams like South Korea, who, especially prior to the olympics, had a significant amount of time to gel, were able to take advantage.

I think there is merit in having the promoted teams play the relegated teams, but at the senior men's level this is less of a concern. At the u-20 and u-18 levels, the promoted teams and relegated teams for the next year, should playoff, as roster turnover is significantly higher.

 

[HungryFrank]

To add it to the previous arguments, as far as I know, lot of national hockey federations are struggling financially. For example, I even heard Germany (country with a strong economy) needed WC to fill some holes. Therefore they need more countries involved, more games played so that fans can come and watch their team play against Canada.

 

[kalle wirsch]

I remember there were times in 70's and 80's were germany and others were blown out from the USSR and CSSR on regular bases and germany was in the A group with only 8 teams.This things happen all the time and with Belarus and Kasachstan there will be two much stronger teams in group A next year

 

[Namejs]

I remember there were times in 70's and 80's were germany and others were blown out from the USSR and CSSR on regular bases and germany was in the A group with only 8 teams.This things happen all the time and with Belarus and Kasachstan there will be two much stronger teams in group A next year

This is a good point.

GB and Italy being here is a massive fluke. Italy is even missing some of their leading players. Kazakhstan, Belarus and on most days Slovenia and probably even Hungary would put up a better fight.

There aren't just 14 semi-competitive teams in the world. It's more like 16-17 at the very least. But since 2 of them get demoted, you don't always have 16 competitive teams in the Elite tier next year. You get the idea?

Slovenia made the play-offs in Sochi.

I watched the DIA tournament a few weeks ago. Kazakhstan is investing a huge amount of money into the sport and even though their success is mostly built on import players, their roster is actually a lot better than you might imagine. They can ice 3 KHL forward lines, they have one of the best KHL defencemen in Dietz and a real good Swedish goalie. They are much better than Italy v2019. Heck, they could even beat any mid-tier country. I would put them just behind Latvia and Denmark and somewhere along Norway in the power rankings if they were here right now. 12th best team in the world with all those foreigners playing for them.

Belarus is also clearly a tier above GB and Italy. They are relatively successful at the junior level, playing in the 10-team Elite tier more often than not. Unless they f*** something up, which they excel at, they should get back into the mix of mid tier hockey nations in a few years time.

So what's actually happening is that we have MORE competitive teams than in the past.

And then you have Korea, which is making things more interesting in D1A. And China, which is also investing loads of money and will rise in the rankings over the next 5 years.

You can cut the number of teams in the Elite tier, but it would be a lot better if there was a way of making sure that the best D1a teams actually are the ones getting promoted. And that would make more sense.

So if we're cutting teams, 14 isn't the right number.

 

[alko]

Now it is perfect. Also with the numbers. And with promotion etc. You cant make it better now.

 

[Namejs]

Now it is perfect. Also with the numbers. And with promotion etc. You cant make it better now.

A relegation play-out with just 1 team going down every year could work so that truly the worst team goes down and truly the best team comes up. In a couple of years all the best teams would be in the Elite tier, and you would never have a situation at your hands when the 2 worst teams in the Elite tier could get stomped on 5-0 by the best D1a team. Which is the case now.

 

[kalle wirsch]

Maybe a playoff game between the last 2 teams of every group and only 1 team promoted from Division 1.

 

[ozo]

How do people even imagine logistics of these relegation/promotion playoffs? When would these games take place? 1B winner waits until Elite figures two worst teams out and then have this mini tournament in late May? Does it happen before next tournament (or during club season itself in winter?) when we could see wildly different rosters for both teams?