relegated Teams

[Faterson]

Davis Cup is more prestigious than the hockey World Championships, I'm afraid. Fed Cup, maybe not so much, but the point is that 8 teams seems to be enough for the top tier. I'd go with 10.

 

[ozo]

Davis Cup is more prestigious than the hockey World Championships, I'm afraid.

Again entirely depends on the popularity of the sport in the country. As a Latvian I can tell you Davis cup doesn't even register as a sporting event here.

 

[Faterson]

I meant global popularity, and surely (though regrettably), tennis is more popular than ice hockey worldwide. Never mind the tennis analogy – there's the World Hockey Juniors analogy with fewer teams, or senior World Championships themselves a few decades ago, also with fewer teams, and they worked fine (pure round-robin, no play-offs).

 

[Urbanskog]

16 countries is too many. I'd like to see 10 or 8, like in the U20 and U18 Worlds tourneys, or the tennis Davis Cup. Those events work fine with only 8-10 nations in the top group. Except I'd go for a full round-robin in the hockey Worlds; the U20 & U18 tourneys' format is too brief for senior play. Playing against the top hockey countries should be a privilege, not a given. Maybe then players from "lesser" countries would value the opportunity to play at the top-level Worlds more, if that opportunity wasn't guaranteed to occur every year. At the same time, the "B" level Worlds tourney would have a much higher level, and the competition for the 2 spots in the top group would be even more exciting than it is now. The second-tier Davis Cup has some excellent teams in it every year, each vying for the chance to play against the finest in the top 8 next year.

Luckily you aren't in charge. Seriously, which sport has a championship tournament that only includes teams that all have a shot at winning gold? Certainly not soccer, handball, cricket, volleyball, basketball, futsal, baseball or rugby. I don't understand why hockey should be any different in this aspect.

Never mind the tennis analogy – there's the World Hockey Juniors analogy with fewer teams, or senior World Championships themselves a few decades ago, also with fewer teams, and they worked fine (pure round-robin, no play-offs).

You know why that is? Because when you only have a selected age group you can draw players from, the differences in depth are more evident.

 

[Faterson]

Hehe, happy to meet the mastermind behind it all who knows exactly why all those championships in various sports and age categories are set up just the way they are.

There are too many underdogs at the Worlds now, for my taste; like 50/50, compared to top teams. There should only be a couple of the best underdogs every year, I believe.

 

[Arthur]

Hehe, happy to meet the mastermind behind it all who knows exactly why all those championships in various sports and age categories are set up just the way they are.

There are too many underdogs at the Worlds now, for my taste; like 50/50, compared to top teams. There should only be a couple of the best underdogs every year, I believe.

Wouldn't that be splendid.. Slovakia couldn't lose to Norway no more and all loses against the top teams would be justified

 

[Faterson]

Hmmm, not sure what you mean. In my ideal World Championships model, there would be the world's top 10 teams playing the full round-robin (that's 45 games, 9 games per team). The best 8 teams would advance to the play-offs (in an extra play-off week compared to the current format – no reason to end the hockey season in mid-May; next-to-last week in May is OK). The bottom 2 teams would be relegated every year. In other words: if you fail to make the play-offs, off you go to B category! Over the past decade, Slovakia failed to reach the play-offs many times, so they'd be relegated that many times, and I'd be OK with that. If you can't make the play-offs, you should make space for other 2 hopefuls/underdog teams so that they can give it a try next year.

 

[Arthur]

Hmmm, not sure what you mean. In my ideal World Championships model, there would be the world's top 10 teams playing the full round-robin (that's 45 games, 9 games per team). The best 8 teams would advance to the play-offs (in an extra play-off week compared to the current format – no reason to end the hockey season in mid-May; next-to-last week in May is OK). The bottom 2 teams would be relegated every year. In other words: if you fail to make the play-offs, off you go to B category! Over the past decade, Slovakia failed to reach the play-offs many times, so they'd be relegated that many times, and I'd be OK with that. If you can't make the play-offs, you should make space for other 2 hopefuls/underdog teams so that they can give it a try next year.

I think the current system works well enough at the moment. It's not as if top teams skate circles around the weaker teams on one skate. Despite what the result would tell you, that is not the case. Cuting down the amount of teams would greatly degenerate the smaller hockey nations in terms of showing off its players to scouts, managers and fans alike. Not to mention, the interest in hockey. Furthermore, i think there have been greater amount of upsets than ever in the recent years so it's not as if the current system has made the championship weak.

I mean, i can see where you are coming from. Smaller amount of countries would mean higher competitiveness and slight increase of the quality of rosters each of the countries are sending out. But still, i just don't see any of this as a viable option.

 

[Faterson]

I think the current system works well enough at the moment.

Yes, I agree, and I also believe it's unrealistic for the number of teams to go down. Just don't go back to those awful 4-team mini-groups and intermediate groups and whatnot... that was annoying like hell. On the other hand, I understand the complaint made by the Canadian poster, though not his extreme position of "only top 6 nations, and that's it". We've seen what havoc that notion has wreaked with the formerly respectable Canada/World Cup, turned into Bettman's Mickey Mouse all-star Cup in September 2016. I just think top 10 teams would be a nice compromise solution between the current, perhaps too wide field, and the "top 6 only" extremism... but it's not gonna happen.

 

[ThrashersfanSVK]

I think the current system works well enough at the moment. It's not as if top teams skate circles around the weaker teams on one skate. Despite what the result would tell you, that is not the case. Cuting down the amount of teams would greatly degenerate the smaller hockey nations in terms of showing off its players to scouts, managers and fans alike. Not to mention, the interest in hockey. Furthermore, i think there have been greater amount of upsets than ever in the recent years so it's not as if the current system has made the championship weak..

This. Ice hockey doesn't have qualification for world championship like almost every sport, so cutting down a number of teams would directly create inability of weaker teams to play against top teams.

In football you can play against top teams in qualification round, in handball as well, in voleyball, too, but in ice hockey – World Championship is virtually the only way for e.g. Denmark to play against Czech Republic or Russia (not counting pre-championship games which also started just three years ago under Euro Ice Hockey Challenge format). I believe that everybody from this board would like to see hockey gets more world-wide, to see more countries being considered medal contender but if you avoid weaker teams to play against top teams at the only tournament they can play each other, you will never reach this goal.

 

[HajdukSplit]

If Denmark win tomorrow then that pretty much relegates Slovenia

Germany look safe after their win over Latvia. Latvia are bottom but they play both Austria and France and should be able to get points from both games

 

[slovakiasnextone]

Yes, I agree, and I also believe it's unrealistic for the number of teams to go down. Just don't go back to those awful 4-team mini-groups and intermediate groups and whatnot... that was annoying like hell. On the other hand, I understand the complaint made by the Canadian poster, though not his extreme position of "only top 6 nations, and that's it". We've seen what havoc that notion has wreaked with the formerly respectable Canada/World Cup, turned into Bettman's Mickey Mouse all-star Cup in September 2016. I just think top 10 teams would be a nice compromise solution between the current, perhaps too wide field, and the "top 6 only" extremism... but it's not gonna happen.

Switzerland finished 11th back in 2012, a year later they finished 2nd, earning the silver medals.

In your proposed format they would have gotten relegated in 2012 and the only medal they might have won in 2013 would be Division I gold.

 

[Jakk123]

Switzerland finished 11th back in 2012, a year later they finished 2nd, earning the silver medals.

In your proposed format they would have gotten relegated in 2012 and the only medal they might have won in 2013 would be Division I gold.

Yeah, and also, guess who finished 10th in 2011 and won silver in 2012

 

[Urbanskog]

Yeah, and also, guess who finished 10th in 2011 and won silver in 2012

USA finishing in 13th place in 2003 while winning bronze a year later comes to mind as well.

 

[Elvs]

If Denmark win tomorrow then that pretty much relegates Slovenia

Germany look safe after their win over Latvia. Latvia are bottom but they play both Austria and France and should be able to get points from both games

I'd hate to see Latvia get relegated. They are missing their top 2 defensemen and 3 top six forwards. When they have their best team they can make the quarter finals, so it would be unfortunate to see them drop out from the top division.

 

[slovakiasnextone]

Yeah, and also, guess who finished 10th in 2011 and won silver in 2012

Yeah, I was gonna write that first, but then I had a brain fart and thought that 10th wouldn't have as relegated, I think I was actually counting with 12 teams, haha.

USA finishing in 13th place in 2003 while winning bronze a year later comes to mind as well.

Please, don't remind me about that one

 

[Jakk123]

Yeah, I was gonna write that first, but then I had a brain fart and thought that 10th wouldn't have as relegated, I think I was actually counting with 12 teams, haha.



Please, don't remind me about that one

Funny, how things change, right now I would give anything for such a tourney from us as 2004 was, the ending was pretty horrendous, but the hockey we played was beautiful.

 

[slovakiasnextone]

Funny, how things change, right now I would give anything for such a tourney from us as 2004 was, the ending was pretty horrendous, but the hockey we played was beautiful.

True. But if I had to pick between 2004 and 2012, I'd still go for 2012.

 

[Tritsche]

I'd hate to see Latvia get relegated. They are missing their top 2 defensemen and 3 top six forwards. When they have their best team they can make the quarter finals, so it would be unfortunate to see them drop out from the top division.

Same for Team Denmark! I hope both stay where they are.

 

[Faterson]

Switzerland finished 11th back in 2012, a year later they finished 2nd, earning the silver medals.

In your proposed format they would have gotten relegated in 2012 and the only medal they might have won in 2013 would be Division I gold.

So what? If they're really good and it's not a flash-in-the-pan (although it looks that it was, for both recent Switzerland and Slovakia medals), they would return to the top category a year later and prove they belong there long-term, that they're a consistent play-off team. Looks like that isn't happening for either of these two teams,

 

[ozo]

I'd hate to see Latvia get relegated. They are missing their top 2 defensemen and 3 top six forwards. When they have their best team they can make the quarter finals, so it would be unfortunate to see them drop out from the top division.

I like you, sir!

 

[ForumNamePending]

I think the tournament should be limited to the 6 nations with the most NHL players, a U24 team and a team featuring the best of the rest!

Seriously though... 16 teams is perfectly fine. I can't help but think the talk about retracting the tournament to 8-10 teams is mostly a knee-jerk reaction to the Germany and Latvia (two teams that have apparently had serious player availability issues this year) beat downs earlier in the tournament. Despite those lopsided scores IMHO it is pretty hard to argue that the quality and quantity of the 2nd tier nations hasn't gradually increased over time.

Also not sure why so many think a tournament should be limited to only the teams capable of winning it. If this line of thinking was applied to soccer (easily the deepest and most competitive team sport on the planet) the World Cup wouldn't feature much more than a dozen nations.

 

[BladesofSTEELwFIRE]

I meant global popularity, and surely (though regrettably), tennis is more popular than ice hockey worldwide. Never mind the tennis analogy – there's the World Hockey Juniors analogy with fewer teams, or senior World Championships themselves a few decades ago, also with fewer teams, and they worked fine (pure round-robin, no play-offs).

Maybe globally but tennis has taken a major nosedive in popularity in the USA. I wonder if NHL playoff ratings are higher than coma inducing tennis tourneys?

They better be in Canada or hockey is in trouble!

 

[boris4c]

There is nothing wrong with the current format, it's perfect.

There have been a couple of blowouts but all of the teams are competitive nonetheless, even the ones who got blown out. Slovenia is the only team without a win but even then, their games have been very competitive. Plus, I really enjoy watching those non-traditional teams.

 

[nabby12]

Again entirely depends on the popularity of the sport in the country. As a Latvian I can tell you Davis cup doesn't even register as a sporting event here.

That's because Ernests Gulbis hasn't registered as a tennis player this year.