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

[thestudent]

TLDR: It is entirely possible to grow a minor sport into a major sport within a decade. Look at switzerland in icehockey.

This is complete nonsense in a small country like Finland. Talent is extremely rare and we don't have enough people to go around, let alone with the talent to rise to the top levels in more than a handful of sports.

What's next ? Bring Cricket to Finland ?

 

[Namejs]

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?

Maybe I missed something, but the idea was to reduce the teams going up and down to 1. There's no tournament, just an additional play-out game between the last team of Group A and Group B. And it takes place right away, just like in WJC. It could be a single game or a best of 3.

 

[Namejs]

This is complete nonsense in a small country like Finland. Talent is extremely rare and we don't have enough people to go around, let alone with the talent to rise to the top levels in more than a handful of sports.

What's next ? Bring Cricket to Finland ?

And it's completely ludicrous to imply that hockey wasn't a thing in Switzerland 20 years ago. It has gradually improved over decades.

 

[kalle wirsch]

Maybe I missed something, but the idea was to reduce the teams going up and down to 1. There's no tournament, just an additional play-out game between the last team of Group A and Group B. And it takes place right away, just like in WJC. It could be a single game or a best of 3.

That was my idea

 

[Albatros]

I can't see what good reducing the number of promoted and relegated teams could do. How is it better to keep Belarus or Kazakhstan desperately in instead of giving Team GB the opportunity once in a while?

 

[unknownbrother]

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.

That's total BS. We beat Slovenia, Hungary and Italy to get to this tournament. Closing it off to only one team is terrible if you want the sport to grow in smaller hockey nations. A play off would be even worse because more often than not the bottom Elite team would beat the top D1A team and stay in the Elite.

It's fine as it is. Countries like Germany, France and Denmark have improved and eventually so will GB. If we beat France on Monday I think we're going to be here for a few years and all you closed league elitists can cry about it.

 

[The Cannon of Tesoma]

Happy with current system. Happy for every team able to make it the top.

Not so happy for apparent elitism some people harbor in their hearts. For growing the sports it is necessary "new" teams have a path to be able to challenge more established countries, and if that leads to 10-0 style score sheets, its just the prize of development.

History is full of very ugly results from teams that have now among the top hockey nations of the world.

I'm happy for GB, excellent rise to the top flight, but it seems going to be hard to keep it that way.

 

[Elvs]

That's total BS. We beat Slovenia, Hungary and Italy to get to this tournament. Closing it off to only one team is terrible if you want the sport to grow in smaller hockey nations. A play off would be even worse because more often than not the bottom Elite team would beat the top D1A team and stay in the Elite.

It's fine as it is. Countries like Germany, France and Denmark have improved and eventually so will GB. If we beat France on Monday I think we're going to be here for a few years and all you closed league elitists can cry about it.

You do realise if you reduce the number of teams Latvia won't have an Italy to dominate. Latvia will likely get relegated if it's reduced to 14.

Latvia will likely not be relegated at all. They are quite clearly the 10th or 11th strongest hockey nation in the world, defenitely stronger than France, Norway, Austria, Belarus, Kazakhstan etc.

If it's reduced to 14 teams, you can bank on all of Canada, Russia, Sweden, USA, Finland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Switzerland, Germany, Latvia and Denmark to take 11 of the spots almost every time. Let France, Norway, Austria, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Slovenia etc compete for the last three spots. GBR will likely be in the mix as well in a few years.

The WC is every year, so we'll still see all of them in the top division from time to time. The only thing happening by reducing it to 14 teams is that a team like Italy has no chance of earning promotion until they do something to improve their hockey. Italy has been playing countless times at this level during my lifetime, and I can't recall them winning a single game.

It's not elitest thinking. We'll still see the likes of France up here, and while they still get blown out often, they have the capacity to pull off upsets. Italy can't win against anybody. They likely wouldn't beat the likes of Latvia or Denmark once even if they played them twenty times. When that's the case you simply don't belong.

 

[unknownbrother]

Latvia will likely not be relegated at all. They are quite clearly the 10th or 11th strongest hockey nation in the world, defenitely stronger than France, Norway, Austria, Belarus, Kazakhstan etc.

If it's reduced to 14 teams, you can bank on all of Canada, Russia, Sweden, USA, Finland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Switzerland, Germany, Latvia and Denmark to take 11 of the spots almost every time. Let France, Norway, Austria, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Slovenia etc compete for the last three spots. GBR will likely be in the mix as well in a few years.

The WC is every year, so we'll still see all of them in the top division from time to time. The only thing happening by reducing it to 14 teams is that a team like Italy has no chance of earning promotion until they do something to improve their hockey. Italy has been playing countless times at this level during my lifetime, and I can't recall them winning a single game.

It's not elitest thinking. We'll still see the likes of France up here, and while they still get blown out often, they have the capacity to pull off upsets. Italy can't win against anybody. They likely wouldn't beat the likes of Latvia or Denmark once even if they played them twenty times. When that's the case you simply don't belong.

Why is everyone obsessed with these three countries? They aren't in the tournament this year. Especially now Slovenia has struggled in D1A for two years in a row. They shouldn't be finishing 5th and 4th if they're as good as people here think they are.

If we stay up this year it'll be great for hockey in GB and for the tournament because like Germany we are a big country that can put money into our programme to sustain a place in the top group.

 

[Namejs]

Happy with current system. Happy for every team able to make it the top.

Not so happy for apparent elitism some people harbor in their hearts. For growing the sports it is necessary "new" teams have a path to be able to challenge more established countries, and if that leads to 10-0 style score sheets, its just the prize of development.

History is full of very ugly results from teams that have now among the top hockey nations of the world.

I'm happy for GB, excellent rise to the top flight, but it seems going to be hard to keep it that way.

There's no elitism. It's about making sure the best teams can play in the Elite tier. It doesn't make sense to me that Kazakhstan has to play Lithuania, while Italy has a GD of 0:30 and faced nearly 70 shots against Latvia.

It's not elitism, it just doesn't seem very fair to me.

And since D1a tournaments usually took place earlier in April, a lot of leading players from Europe, the KHL or the NHL aren't even available. I think that was the case with Kazakhstan 2 years ago.

 

[Albatros]

It doesn't make sense to me that Kazakhstan has to play Lithuania

They got to host the tournament, something that isn't about to happen at any higher level. Besides their 3:1 victory against Lithuania was about as modest as you could hope between the best and worst teams in a tournament.

 

[Elvs]

Why is everyone obsessed with these three countries? They aren't in the tournament this year. Especially now Slovenia has struggled in D1A for two years in a row. They shouldn't be finishing 5th and 4th if they're as good as people here think they are.

If we stay up this year it'll be great for hockey in GB and for the tournament because like Germany we are a big country that can put money into our programme to sustain a place in the top group.

We're not talking about the tournament THIS YEAR. We ar talking about this tournament in general, and Belarus and Kazakhstan have surely been better than Italy whenever they've been up. Slovenia of course is a step behind, but they are mentioned simply because they have Anze Kopitar. If Slovenia went up against GBR or Italy in a 7 game series, with all their best players, I'd comfortably put my money on Slovenia to win. They had no Anze Kopitar or Jan Mursak in the championship last year. This year they've had no Mursak either and no Jan Urbas. Other players have missed the championships too.

Even with 14 teams, GBR, if they continue to develop like they have been doing, will find themselves at the top level regardless.

 

[Nexon]

If we beat France on Monday I think we're going to be here for a few years and all you closed league elitists can cry about it.

I’m not elitist, but I’m calm I won’t cry after that match, I hope it will be a match at least.

 

[Vinther]

And since D1a tournaments usually took place earlier in April, a lot of leading players from Europe, the KHL or the NHL aren't even available. I think that was the case with Kazakhstan 2 years ago.

I don't think they missed that much from the KHL at least. The local American and the Canadian both scored 5 goals in the 5 games. So the main supplier of KHL players for Kazakhstan Barys Astana was not playing during the tournament

 

[Nexon]

Is it just me or I dont see them blown almost never at all, except best countries. They lose often, yeah, but they never get blown away by countries outside big 6, Italy does, GB does, Slovenia and other countries do. Also France can definitely compete with Belarus, Latvia and Denmark if they dont miss half of their best players.

 

[Nexon]

If we stay up this year it'll be great for hockey in GB and for the tournament because like Germany we are a big country that can put money into our programme to sustain a place in the top group.

You make it sound way easier than it in reality is, even if you somehow found thousands of young kids willing to play hockey, it would take at least 10 years to develop their talent.

 

[Namejs]

They got to host the tournament, something that isn't about to happen at any higher level. Besides their 3:1 victory against Lithuania was about as modest as you could hope between the best and worst teams in a tournament.

We only beat Italy 3:0 too. Our announcers were poking fun at the Italians falling down, not connecting any of their passes, not being able to enter the zone. That score doesn't mean anything, the difference in quality is obvious.

If you want to argue for expansion to 18 or more teams - that's a valid argument. What I'm saying is that the best teams should be playing at the top tier without having to play a tier lower just to showcase some more exotic country at the top tier.

What sort of media coverage GB and Italy are getting? Switzerland, Latvia, Denmark all entered the top tier guns blazing. We nearly defeated Canada in our rookie year in 1997, we were up 3-1 and the game ended 3-3. They were competitive. That's what garnered national media coverage. Not just being there as placeholders.

 

[Albatros]

If they're good enough they won't, Kazakhstan clearly isn't good enough to stay up continuously and while I'm fine with exploring alternative formats I wouldn't do anything just to protect the status of Kazakhstan and Belarus against the likes of Italy and Great Britain. It's also an issue that applies to every level, just the same Poland is struggling to stay up in Division I and has to play with Estonia and the Netherlands from time to time.

 

[Namejs]

If they're good enough they won't, Kazakhstan clearly isn't good enough to stay up continuously and while I'm fine with exploring alternative formats I wouldn't do anything just to protect the status of Kazakhstan and Belarus against the likes of Italy and Great Britain. It's also an issue that applies to every level, just the same Poland is struggling to stay up in Division I and has to play with Estonia and the Netherlands from time to time.

Oh, I have a special relationship with Belarus and Kazakhstan. I absolutely detest their approach to developing hockey and I would love if they stayed in Division 2 or 3 for the foreseeable future until they get rid of their imports.

I was just trying to be objective here. They are clearly better than Team GB, especially Kazakhstan. Kazakhstanis didn't have Dietz, Boyd, St-Pierre, Bochenski, Maklyukov, Shevchenko, that's an entire top line and a top D pairing right there. They would dominate Italy and GB.

 

[Albatros]

Still they lost 3:0 to Italy, with a team including Karlsson, Dallman, and seven Russian imports. As I see it they deserved to stay down due to their performance.

 

[thestudent]

And it's completely ludicrous to imply that hockey wasn't a thing in Switzerland 20 years ago. It has gradually improved over decades.

They still have a ways to go.

 

[Hexy]

Latvia will likely not be relegated at all. They are quite clearly the 10th or 11th strongest hockey nation in the world, defenitely stronger than France, Norway, Austria, Belarus, Kazakhstan etc.

If it's reduced to 14 teams, you can bank on all of Canada, Russia, Sweden, USA, Finland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Switzerland, Germany, Latvia and Denmark to take 11 of the spots almost every time. Let France, Norway, Austria, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Slovenia etc compete for the last three spots. GBR will likely be in the mix as well in a few years.

The WC is every year, so we'll still see all of them in the top division from time to time. The only thing happening by reducing it to 14 teams is that a team like Italy has no chance of earning promotion until they do something to improve their hockey. Italy has been playing countless times at this level during my lifetime, and I can't recall them winning a single game.

It's not elitest thinking. We'll still see the likes of France up here, and while they still get blown out often, they have the capacity to pull off upsets. Italy can't win against anybody. They likely wouldn't beat the likes of Latvia or Denmark once even if they played them twenty times. When that's the case you simply don't belong.

Italy at WC 2017:
Slovakia - Italy 3-2 OT (shots on goal 32-19)
Italy - Russia 1-10 (shots on goal 15-36)
Italy - Latvia 1-2 (shots on goal 21-24)
USA - Italy 3-0 (shots on goal 32-9)
Italy - Sweden 1-8 (shots on goal 15-45)
Germany - Italy 4-1 (shots on goal 37-18)
Danemark - Italy 2-0 (shots on goal 38-16)


Italy didn't win any games 2 years ago, but they we're darn close a couple of times. Far more competitive than this year, and far from someone who "can't win against anybody" as you put it.

This year they have a very similar team, but they just don't seem to click. They constantly mismanage the puck and turn it over, fail to complete simple passes, lose coverage of the opponent in the D-zone more often then not, and they just can't seem to score. The players don't have any self confidence right now.

They'll be relegated (rightfully) and get some time to figure out what the hell went wrong this year. But they'll be back, don't you worry about that.

 

[JHB]

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.

I actually like this idea even more. If you wanted to add a few games you could have the top 4 (or even top 2) play one more game against each other after the first 9 games are done. And you keep the points that you got during the first 9 games.

 

[Faterson]

If you wanted to add a few games you could have the top 4 (or even top 2) play one more game against each other after the first 9 games are done. And you keep the points that you got during the first 9 games.

I think that's how it actually used to be in the World Championships before the play-offs were introduced, in the late 1980s or thereabouts.

 

[ForumNamePending]

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)?

I guess the answer to this is it's both.

This year's tournament, up to this point, has been terribly uncompetitive. The way things have been trending in recent WCs has to be concerning to the IIHF.