Puck Daddy: Team Europe World Cup players frustrated with format

[roto]

One issue is the terminology. In English it's usually talked about international tournaments, which is quite vague term. International tournament can have national teams or non-national teams as long as it's international. In Finnish these tournaments (like Olympics, WHC) are called using word 'maajoukkueturnaus', which means 'national team tournament'. In Swedish there's also word 'landslagturnering' which means the same. In that sense World Cup is not a real maajoukkueturnaus or landslagturnering.

It's clear the NHL's purpose is to arrange an international tournament to showcase best NHL talent for NA audience. NHL has right to do it, but this tournament should not be mixed with tournaments with national teams.

This HFBoards discussion, like many others, has shown that many North American see these tournaments differently than Europeans. It seems to be that for many North Americans the most important thing in these tournaments is to see the best talent. For most Europeans a national team tournament is primarily about national teams of different countries playing against each other. Individual talent or players are secondary to the primary purpose. That's why we are able to enjoy of WHC too: it's not about missing players, but it's about those teams (and players) which are in.

High talent level does not guarantee a high quality tournament. Numerous WHCs have had better and more entertaining hockey than Sochi Olympics. I don't understand the constant whining about 'best-on-best' anyway. If I want to see the best talent I can watch NHL and notice that even best players can play badly and games can be snoozefests.

 

[JackSlater]

Are you a hockey fan or an NHL exective?

If you're a fan then the credibility and fareness of the event should mean something to you.

But instead all I'm hearing are reasons why you think enough people in Toronto will be dumb enough to pay for it, thus its a great format.

I asked a while ago why anyone who isn't financially connected to the NHL would care about the finances of this tournament... other than just blindly following what the NHL wants them to say/think. Still waiting on an answer. I guess the Olympic tournaments are failures as best on best tournaments when they don't sell their seats out?

 

[Hardyvan123]

Are you a hockey fan or an NHL exective?

You got me, I'm Brian Burke obviously.

If you're a fan then the credibility and fareness of the event should mean something to you.

Credible how? To the opponents standards?

Fair how? Once again to your criteria, I'm guessing?

But instead all I'm hearing are reasons why you think enough people in Toronto will be dumb enough to pay for it, thus its a great format.

Hey if you think having the Slovaks and Swiss is a better business model present the case and it's weak isn't it?

 

[xxxx]

I asked a while ago why anyone who isn't financially connected to the NHL would care about the finances of this tournament... other than just blindly following what the NHL wants them to say/think. Still waiting on an answer. I guess the Olympic tournaments are failures as best on best tournaments when they don't sell their seats out?

I am not financially connected obviously in any way to them, and I don't care what money they earn. But why it's supposed to be a bad thing?

One thing needs to be said, is, are they really doing those two teams for money? Does anyone have a proof they get SIGNIFICANTLY more money because of it? When half of those posters here think there will be empty arenas and low TV ratings, one would think they will rather lose money AND get angry fans in this scenario.
I just want to know who has the real argument for that the amount of money would be significantly different with or without those teams.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Wouldn't Sweden, Finland and Russia also be better able to compete against Canada, if you put them all together? Why should Finland play in this tournament, when the roster is absolute garbage compared to Canada?

You are asking the questions, perhaps you have an answer here?

since it's an NHL tournament and alll 4 of those countries can easily ice a full team, why would you compare it to the Slovaks and Swiss who can't?

 

[Hardyvan123]

It's parallel reasoning. Using the same logic in a different example. Putting a random non-national team into an "international" tournament in order to increase the talent level, all while taking away some players from their actual national teams. Essentially the same thing as what the NHL is doing. It's pretty simple to grasp.

so things are essentially the same when you want to take a shot at someone that doesn't share your view but yet you are silent on the difference of why any team might not have it's best players, injuries,not wanting to go ect... from an earlier discussion in this thread?

Okay gotcha.

Would you be in favour of the Stanley Cup champs from the 2016 playoffs being dropped into this tournament? If not, why?

Wwhy would I care?

If the NHL wanted to have a tournament in the SC cities home town it's their league right?

Heck the NHL used to have the reigning SC champ be on of the all star teams and changed that tradition right?

Somehow the people defending this nonsense don't see how it is the same thing as combining two random, crappy NHL teams for the playoffs.

Well for one the tournament in question is a one off (for now) outside of regular team play and the answer to why they don't do this is obvious right?

The NHL is made up of 30 different and separate entities and the board of governors would never approve such a change to league play.

 

[JackSlater]

Hey if you think having the Slovaks and Swiss is a better business model present the case and it's weak isn't it?

You missed the point again... but at least you are incredibly consistent in that regard. The point he was making is that it is idiotic to use finances to justify a format - they are completely different things. Whether this tournament makes more or less money with the gimmick teams is irrelevant when you are discussing the format. Only an NHL shill would care about the finances of the tournament.

I am not financially connected obviously in any way to them, and I don't care what money they earn. But why it's supposed to be a bad thing?

One thing needs to be said, is, are they really doing those two teams for money? Does anyone have a proof they get SIGNIFICANTLY more money because of it? When half of those posters here think there will be empty arenas and low TV ratings, one would think they will rather lose money AND get angry fans in this scenario.
I just want to know who has the real argument for that the amount of money would be significantly different with or without those teams.

It's not a bad thing, it's an irrelevant thing. We are fans, not NHL owners. Finances in no way excuse producing a horrible format.

As for the second part, the NHL (mostly though Daly) has already said that they are intending to show as much NHL talent as possible. Will this idiotic format make them more money? Probably not in any significant way - Canadians will watch because it's hockey, the rest of the world won't turn in in large numbers. Ticket sales will be good because it's in Toronto. Those things are true with gimmicks or not. They are also completely irrelevant when discussing the format.

so things are essentially the same when you want to take a shot at someone that doesn't share your view but yet you are silent on the difference of why any team might not have it's best players, injuries,not wanting to go ect... from an earlier discussion in this thread?

Okay gotcha.

So you're not going to answer, fair enough. If you want to direct me to whatever point you think you're making, fair enough. You've been consistent in your ability to make irrelevant and poorly thought out points thus far, so I'm confident this one is the same.

Wwhy would I care?

If the NHL wanted to have a tournament in the SC cities home town it's their league right?

Heck the NHL used to have the reigning SC champ be on of the all star teams and changed that tradition right?

You might care because it would be idiotic, but I guess you are consistent again. You are right that you NHL could do it... that is significant;y different from saying that they should do it. I am amazed by how willing some fans are to defend the NHL at all costs, especially just by copying what the NHL has told them to think. Even though the NHL is doing something stupid, people should just accept it because the NHL has the right to do it. I'm glad people in history didn't carry such an attitude for the most part.

No one questions that the NHL has the right to do this - we question whether it is the correct thing to do. Most people tend to form opinions on what happens instead of just waiting for the entity in charge to tell them what to blindly accept.

Why you mention the old all star format is a mystery to me, since it has been explained to you numerous times that the issue isn't changing "tradition" but instead making an idiotic change.

Well for one the tournament in question is a one off (for now) outside of regular team play and the answer to why they don't do this is obvious right?

The NHL is made up of 30 different and separate entities and the board of governors would never approve such a change to league play.

This is too funny. You realize that nations are also different and separate entities, yes? Combining separate entities like national teams is thus like combining separate NHL teams. Simple enough.

 

[Reindl87]

Well certainly the organizers could have escaped 90% of the criticism if they had made this a 10 team tournament that includes Switzerland and Slovakia.

So Canada, USA, Sweden,Finnland, Czech Republique, Switerzland, Slovakia, Russia + Team North America +Team Europe

Still a gimmick tournament obviously but the public reaction would have been a lot better i guess.

 

[JackSlater]

Well certainly the organizers could have escaped 90% of the criticism if they had made this a 10 team tournament that includes Switzerland and Slovakia.

So Canada, USA, Sweden,Finnland, Czech Republique, Switerzland, Slovakia, Russia + Team North America +Team Europe

Still a gimmick tournament obviously but the public reaction would have been a lot better i guess.

I believe most people are more displeased about the inclusion of gimmick teams than about the exclusion of Slovakia and Switzerland. In North America anyway.

 

[1Gold Standard]

Well certainly the organizers could have escaped 90% of the criticism if they had made this a 10 team tournament that includes Switzerland and Slovakia.

So Canada, USA, Sweden,Finnland, Czech Republique, Switerzland, Slovakia, Russia + Team North America +Team Europe

Still a gimmick tournament obviously but the public reaction would have been a lot better i guess.

No, there should never be gimmicky teams EVER. Not EVER EVER EVER.

What the NHL should have done, if they wanted to pass off this lame excuse for no qualifiers...(like there's ever been qualifiers for any Canada/World Cup.)

Ok, the Top 8 ranked countries upon the completion of the IIHF WHC May 2015 get invites to the dance.. incl.#7 Switzerland and #8 Slovakia.

There's a plan to add an addition 2 real National teams for the 2020 World Cup which will be determined by qualifiers...because apparently qualifiers are important to certain fan bases... so, let's do qualifiers.

and the 2020 World Cup has been awarded to ............... (insert European capital.)

 

[FiLe]

If the reason for including the gimmicks was that there weren't more than six countries with enough NHLers, the obvious solution would have been to make this a six-team tournament then.

And instead of having two groups of four, have a single group of six.


In the current format, the tournament will be 16-17 games long (6+6 group stage games, 2 semifinals, a best-of-three final). In a single group of six where everyone plays against each team once, you'll have 15 games. From there, you can take the top-two seeds for the final showdown. If you make that a three-parter, you arrive at 17-18 games total.

Now, a simple question to all Canadians... which one would you rather watch: Canada vs. Team Europe Leftovers, or Canada vs. Russia, Sweden and Finland each?

 

[xxxx]

If the reason for including the gimmicks was that there weren't more than six countries with enough NHLers, the obvious solution would have been to make this a six-team tournament then.

And instead of having two groups of four, have a single group of six.

you're right here, and I once suggested this format, not a bad idea.

Now, a simple question to all Canadians... which one would you rather watch: Canada vs. Team Europe Leftovers, or Canada vs. Russia, Sweden and Finland each?

Fair enough. I would definitely watch rather Russia and Sweden, no question.

 

[cutchemist42]

Yeah, there's a guy on Canadian radio that every time the subject comes up (and hes asked Fehr and Bettman about it and they danced around the question) always brings up the 6 team idea. If you couldnt do qualis, but decided the amount of NHLers on Slovakia/Switzerland was adequate, just do a 6 team/one-pool tourney. Think it would have been great to see that round robin of more games.

I also still think that Canadians are more welcoming of international tournaments, and understand that not every team is of equal ability, yet we still support games between lesser countries well at WJHCs. Im still not convinced Team Leftovers/U24s produces more ticket sales or viewing numbers. Im even more sure that Slovakia/Switzerland actually produce more competitive games than the young guns team.

In the end, the cutoff of "not enough NHLers" is pretty arbitrary. I mean, what proportion did a country need to have before they were automatically invited?

 

[xxxx]

I know, but it's still interesting concept imo...I have always wondered what if those countries' best players had a team, what damage could they do in an international stage against other super-powers. Don't say that you have never thought about this. Now we have a chance to watch that, that's why I am also excited. It's interesting. The same goes to the YoungGunz team. It's interesting and exciting. I have no problem with that if the players take that seriously. I would have a problem with that if this should replace the olympics forever, but I don't believe that's the case.

from last week's article...http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/39977/rumblings-nhl-meets-to-discuss-olympic-participation

Finally after a long wait, the NHL's first Olympic meeting has taken place.

It happened very quietly two weeks ago between the NHL, NHL Players’ Association and IIHF, confirmed NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly on Tuesday.

......


certainly no surprise that Beijing 2022 was brought up in the discussion because at this point I don’t think you can separate the next two Winter Olympics in the big picture. Either the NHL and NHLPA will invest big in Asia for close to a decade, or they won't. But it’s not going to be one or the other. And the possibilities in the Chinese market are the real key potential.

 

[Gaps]

I know, but it's still interesting concept imo...I have always wondered what if those countries' best players had a team, what damage could they do in an international stage against other super-powers. Don't say that you have never thought about this. Now we have a chance to watch that, that's why I am also excited. It's interesting. The same goes to the YoungGunz team. It's interesting and exciting. I have no problem with that if the players take that seriously. I would have a problem with that if this should replace the olympics forever, but I don't believe that's the case.

Why on earth would I think about something like that? I never have wondered about it and I never will, because I don't care how artificial pseudo-national teams would fare. And if for some reason I did care, I'd buy NHL16 and try it out. Because that's where these "interesting" teams belong: in your PlayStation.

 

[cutchemist42]

I know, but it's still interesting concept imo...I have always wondered what if those countries' best players had a team, what damage could they do in an international stage against other super-powers. Don't say that you have never thought about this. Now we have a chance to watch that, that's why I am also excited. It's interesting. The same goes to the YoungGunz team. It's interesting and exciting. I have no problem with that if the players take that seriously. I would have a problem with that if this should replace the olympics forever, but I don't believe that's the case.

from last week's article...http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/39977/rumblings-nhl-meets-to-discuss-olympic-participation

You're really stretching this if you think people have wondered about a rest-of-Europe team and young gunz......

The only real speculation teams that EVER gets discussed here is basically Canada 2/East/West/Ontario/Quebec.

 

[Canuckistani]

Fair how? Once again to your criteria, I'm guessing?

Fair as in denying Canada and USA the ability to select their best available players due to some asinine age limit while the other four national teams face no such restrictions.

That's pretty damn unfair by any standard I would think.

Can you think of a single other event in sports history where some teams faced eligibility restrictions that the rest of the field did not?

Hey if you think having the Slovaks and Swiss is a better business model present the case and it's weak isn't it?

Again with the concern for the event's "business model." Are you a fan or an investor?

Slovakia and Switzerland would mean the event was a real best-on-best international competition (as the NHL claims) and not a shameless cash grab.

 

[Canuckistani]

Wwhy would I care?

If the NHL wanted to have a tournament in the SC cities home town it's their league right?

No one is saying the NHL has no right to do what they want in their own tournament. They have a right to ice Team Transgender or Team Left-Handed if they want to.

The question is whether its a good idea for the sport and for the event's credibility.

 

[Canuckistani]

And instead of having two groups of four, have a single group of six.

In the current format, the tournament will be 16-17 games long (6+6 group stage games, 2 semifinals, a best-of-three final). In a single group of six where everyone plays against each team once, you'll have 15 games. From there, you can take the top-two seeds for the final showdown. If you make that a three-parter, you arrive at 17-18 games total.

Now, a simple question to all Canadians... which one would you rather watch: Canada vs. Team Europe Leftovers, or Canada vs. Russia, Sweden and Finland each?

Exactly.

If the NHL absolutely had to exclude Slovakia and Switzerland then a return to the old Canada Cup format (top six in one pool) should have been the obvious choice.

Instead we'll miss seeing Canada play Russia or Sweden so that we could all enjoy Canada vs the Leftovers. Oh joy.

 

[FiLe]

Fair as in denying Canada and USA the ability to select their best available players due to some asinine age limit while the other four national teams face no such restrictions.

That's pretty damn unfair by any standard I would think.

Can you think of a single other event in sports history where some teams faced eligibility restrictions that the rest of the field did not?

To demonstrate this point: Finland can pick Aleksander Barkov if they so desire (and they will). Sweden can pick Filip Forsberg if they so desire (and they will).

Canada can't pick Connor McDavid or Nathan MacKinnon and USA can't pick Jack Eichel or Seth Jones if they so desired. Could be they wouldn't get picked anyway, but that's beside the point. One set of countries can take whoever they want. Another set can only take those players who have crossed certain age threshold.

Some fans may not care, because said countries have enough depth to field decent teams regardless. But for those who do care, it's a very legit reason to get positively fuming.

 

[Canuckistani]

To demonstrate this point: Finland can pick Aleksander Barkov if they so desire (and they will). Sweden can pick Filip Forsberg if they so desire (and they will).

Canada can't pick Connor McDavid or Nathan MacKinnon and USA can't pick Jack Eichel or Seth Jones if they so desired. Could be they wouldn't get picked anyway, but that's beside the point. One set of countries can take whoever they want. Another set can only take those players who have crossed certain age threshold.

To demonstrate the point further, had the same U-24 rules applied in 2010, Canada would have been without Crosby (gold medal winning goal), Toews (MVP) and Doughty (best D-man). We'd be looking at a completely different result.

Perhaps the NHL thinks it can get away with this nonsense now because Canada's depth is so phenomenal at the moment and likely won't miss Ekblad or MacKinnon, but either way its a grossly unfair handicap. And Team USA will have a much harder time plugging the holes they'll be left with.

 

[JackSlater]

To demonstrate the point further, had the same U-24 rules applied in 2010, Canada would have been without Crosby (gold medal winning goal), Toews (MVP) and Doughty (best D-man). We'd be looking at a completely different result.

Perhaps the NHL thinks it can get away with this nonsense now because Canada's depth is so phenomenal at the moment and likely won't miss Ekblad or MacKinnon, but either way its a grossly unfair handicap. And Team USA will have a much harder time plugging the holes they'll be left with.

You don't think the world would have waited with bated breath to see Mario Lemieux lead his YoungGunz against Gretzky and Canada at the 1987 Canada Cup? I bet the tickets sold would have been tremendous!

 

[usahockey22flyers]

The more we discuss the actual logistics of this tournament, the more I resent it. Sad really.

Cheers to FiLe had some absolute great posts in this thread

 

[Hardyvan123]

No one is saying the NHL has no right to do what they want in their own tournament. They have a right to ice Team Transgender or Team Left-Handed if they want to.

The question is whether its a good idea for the sport and for the event's credibility.

Sure be silly now and insult TG and left handed people eh?

that being said it's the NHL's tournament they are going to do what they want and the simple fact is that Team Europe and U23 NA are going to be more competitive and bring more interest (ie money) to the NHL in this NHL tournament.

They aren't catering to the people on this thread that don't agree with them.

 

[Hardyvan123]

To demonstrate this point: Finland can pick Aleksander Barkov if they so desire (and they will). Sweden can pick Filip Forsberg if they so desire (and they will).

Canada can't pick Connor McDavid or Nathan MacKinnon and USA can't pick Jack Eichel or Seth Jones if they so desired. Could be they wouldn't get picked anyway, but that's beside the point. One set of countries can take whoever they want. Another set can only take those players who have crossed certain age threshold.

Some fans may not care, because said countries have enough depth to field decent teams regardless. But for those who do care, it's a very legit reason to get positively fuming.

So are you saying that Canada is the underdog in the tournament now?

Maybe Sweden can actually have a chance to beat them as they couldn't compete against Canada in the Olympics which made for an extremely boring game.

Funny I don't see anyone from the USA team complaining about the lack of guys to choose from either, it's a freaking exhibition tournament not the Olympics right?

Some context would be nice here.