WC: Shake-up of the lower tiers of IHWC

[Kuracmugger]

what would you guys think about making one big div 1 League and leaving the rest of the tiers as they are? Would GB smash Spain with double digits? I also think this new idea could work better if the rules to be eligible would be loosend which would benefit small countries with a lot of diaspora in hockey countries to be more competitive.

 

[SoundAndFury]

I think the very clear goal is to not avoid unreasonable skill gaps. So, for example, Luxembourg, Belgium, easy trip. Bosnia and Serbia, very easy trip.

But then we are back to the scenario aquaregia mentioned, where nobody is going to bother to organize these friendlies at all because what's the point of playing the team you score on/can score on you at will? And that's not considering how likely, for example, Serbia vs Bosnia friendly game is politically.

Regarding the latter part, I think that's what we are discussing here. To me, what IIHF has currently is an idea rather than a well-backed (in terms of research) plan. That's why I'd wager this will all crumble when they actually start doing said research.

While lower-division tournaments might put a real strain on the federations of participating countries, the new 2nd tier tournament would do just the same. As Albatros pointed out before, we are talking about a tournament that lasts multiple weeks, needs multiple arenas, hotels and hospitality infrastructure which would hugely limit the number of cities that can organize such tournaments, etc. That's the crucial part. I'm yet to hear a single legitimate argument in favor of such a tournament.

Under the current format, everyone can organize and attend the event with relative ease. That's why U18, U20 tournaments work the same way. It's built around the idea of fitting all games into 1 week and 1 arena. But the difficulty and cost grows exponentially once the tournament grows in size.

 

[SoundAndFury]

what would you guys think about making one big div 1 League and leaving the rest of the tiers as they are? Would GB smash Spain with double digits? I also think this new idea could work better if the rules to be eligible would be loosend which would benefit small countries with a lot of diaspora in hockey countries to be more competitive.

OGQ games provide a pretty solid point of reference. GB defeated China 10-1 and Serbia 11-0. And keep in mind that's without any real incentive to run up the score.

As to the second point, loosening the eligibility rules would simply give a tool for richer countries to give themselves an advantage. Small countries don't have money to pay professional hockey players so why would those bother to play in a tournament that means little, risking injuring themselves, sacrificing their holidays, etc. While the counties that have more finance pumped into the NT could just buy those in bulk. Even under the current system, federations like Croatia or China had relative ease in elevating their NTs multiple tiers this way.

And the same would apply to the elite division as well. Should countries like Latvia, Slovakia or even Finland be punished [more than they currently are] because they [are forced to] rely on local players and don't have the said diaspora?

 

[Kuracmugger]

OGQ games provide a pretty solid point of reference. GB defeated China 10-1 and Serbia 11-0. And keep in mind that's without any real incentive to run up the score.

As to the second point, loosening the eligibility rules would simply give a tool for richer countries to give themselves an advantage. Small countries don't have money to pay professional hockey players so why would those bother to play in a tournament that means little, risking injuring themselves, sacrificing their holidays, etc. While the counties that have more finance pumped into the NT could just buy those in bulk. Even under the current system, federations like Croatia or China had relative ease in elevating their NTs multiple tiers this way.

And the same would apply to the elite division as well. Should countries like Latvia, Slovakia or even Finland be punished [more than they currently are] because they [are forced to] rely on local players and don't have the said diaspora?

Ok, that was higher than expected but it is something that could be tried for maybe one year because relegation and promotion work that way (top teams goes to elite divison and last place gets relegated to div 2a).
I see your point with the foreign rules i‘d say it could be solved by capping the amount of naturalized players a country is allowed to have to maybe 2-4. This already existes in Basketball where teams are allowed to have one naturalised player. You can naturalize players with zero ties to a country with a passport and the two year rule but players like dylan/tyler sikura with obvious japanese ancestry can‘t play for japan because domestic japanese hockey is not worthy of their level of club play. All balkan teams could be boosted heavily but because of their bad levels of their leagues they are inable to attract good players to play there for 2 years. GB naturalized like 3/4 of their team at times and the sport is really growing and getting popular there because their league happens to pay better. IMO 2-4 diaspora players with obvious heritage could benefit the teams by making them more competitive and grow the sport even without playing in the country.

 

[SoundAndFury]

I see your point with the foreign rules i‘d say it could be solved by capping the amount of naturalized players a country is allowed to have to maybe 2-4. This already existes in Basketball where teams are allowed to have one naturalised player. You can naturalize players with zero ties to a country with a passport and the two year rule but players like dylan/tyler sikura

This doesn't solve the issue I listed. You can see it with pretty much every nation that has used naturalized players. They play for it as long as they benefit either financially or at least in terms of exposure. Seeing how hard it is to attract players to play for them in the WC, what incentive is there for Sikura brothers to represent Japan? Other than getting paid, which is then again, a bidding war, not a national team. Look no further than the Chinese Olympic team.

Furthermore, the claims about these players growing the game all that significantly don't seem to be well-founded. Both judging by the posts of British posters here and by the sheer number of countries that revert to not using imports. The positive impact of these players is, at the very least, debatable.

 

[Albatros]

You can naturalize players with zero ties to a country with a passport and the two year rule but players like dylan/tyler sikura with obvious japanese ancestry can‘t play for japan because domestic japanese hockey is not worthy of their level of club play.

Some countries like exactly Japan do not hand out passports like candy, the IIHF would have to abolish all nationality requirements and even then I don't think that the JIHF would be eager to select them or any other non-nationals.

 

[joelef]

I like seeing that far flung places and even warm weather countries playing hockey . It Dosent need to change.

 

[Slimmy]

Wealthy nations aren't so wealthy anymore. Cutting costs is a necessity. Where does IIHF get most bang for buck? They obviously think this is the best route to go. Sounds reasonable to me.

 

[Kuracmugger]

Some countries like exactly Japan do not hand out passports like candy, the IIHF would have to abolish all nationality requirements and even then I don't think that the JIHF would be eager to select them or any other non-nationals

You can‘t have double citizenship in japan right? If so of course none of these canadians would want to give up their canadian /us passport which is understandable

 

[Kuracmugger]

This doesn't solve the issue I listed. You can see it with pretty much every nation that has used naturalized players. They play for it as long as they benefit either financially or at least in terms of exposure. Seeing how hard it is to attract players to play for them in the WC, what incentive is there for Sikura brothers to represent Japan? Other than getting paid, which is then again, a bidding war, not a national team. Look no further than the Chinese Olympic team.

Furthermore, the claims about these players growing the game all that significantly don't seem to be well-founded. Both judging by the posts of British posters here and by the sheer number of countries that revert to not using imports. The positive impact of these players is, at the very least, debatable.

I guess your right. I could see the motivation of playing internationaly as normally you don‘t get paid for playing on the NT but these naturalized players porbably do. In my opinion 1-3 such players don‘t have a huge impact because the rest has still be brought up by the country itself which helps smaller nations who lack the players and infrastructure to be more competitive but what you said is valid. I probably just like the idea of making teams more competitive but ofc it can stop the development of the country. But as a swiss i can say we‘ve also had our fair share of imports on the NT (Ryan Gardner and so on) when weren‘t the nation that we are now and it has helped to grow interest in the sport by getting better results with the NT. But Switzerland was not at the same point japan is right now so the argument of stopping developing the sport is valid.

 

[aquaregia]

Wealthy nations aren't so wealthy anymore. Cutting costs is a necessity. Where does IIHF get most bang for buck? They obviously think this is the best route to go. Sounds reasonable to me.

got curious enough to have a skim through their public accounts for 20/21 and 21/21...

https://blob.iihf.com/iihf-media/iihfmvc/media/downloads/annual%20report/consolidated_financial_report_2021-2022_final.pdf

taking a peek at their financials, hard to really gauge how much of a saving they would make by these changes unless they outright cut off the bottom half of the countries, and even so they're paying them much less than half of the total funds allocated for development support here.

Also, wow that is a tiny amount for broadcasting rights lol! makes me think they might just do better giving them away to national FtA broadcasters around the world rather than the pitiful sum they're taking in for all levels of the WC. Am I misinterpreting things I wonder?

If the BBC or even like Channel 4 were showing team GB play it would make a marked difference in terms of interest over here, plenty of growing the game is just 'Make Sure People Know It Exists!' and if that would only take sacrificing <$200k a year well...

 

[aquaregia]

kind of a duff period to look at these I suppose because these were COVID-disrupted years but for some idea of where the IIHF money is going in order to support these tournaments:

 

[bv29]

Hm, how did organizational costs jumped from 1,3 milion to more than 15 ? Yes, it was COVID year, but still a huge jump.

EDIT: not jumped of course, since it was a year prior...

 

[bv29]

When this decision about shake-up should be known ?

 

[Namejs]

When this decision about shake-up should be known ?

After the Semi-Annual congress on Sep 26

 

[Jumptheshark]

Curious to know how many people posting actually go to Group A or B games? I am going to Romania for Group a in 2025. I find them a blast

 

[MeHateHe]

Curious to know how many people posting actually go to Group A or B games? I am going to Romania for Group a in 2025. I find them a blast

I always build in some sporty aspect to my European trips. I got to spend a little time inside a rink in Reykjavík this summer, and then kinda busted into the Stavanger Oilers fan shop. Would love to hang out in one of the lower level senior/U20:tournaments.

 

[SoundAndFury]

Curious to know how many people posting actually go to Group A or B games? I am going to Romania for Group a in 2025. I find them a blast

I go to the tournaments in Lithuania which, if you account for U20/U18 levels as well, is almost every year these days.

 

[Jumptheshark]

I go to the tournaments in Lithuania which, if you account for U20/U18 levels as well, is almost every year these days.

I was just curious. I have discovered on this site some people bitch for the sake of bitching cause they just know. Regardless of whether or not they have actually been to the games.

There are now 82 countries in the IIHF. There are only 16 team playing in the top level--everyone else want to get there. I think having all the 2nd level teams playing in a tournament just like the 1st level is great idea.

 

[bv29]

If they decide on shake-up that means there will be no promotion/relegation in D1A and D1B next spring (except for promotion to the Elite) since they will get merged for 2025/2026. ?!

 

[SoundAndFury]

I was just curious. I have discovered on this site some people bitch for the sake of bitching cause they just know. Regardless of whether or not they have actually been to the games.

There are now 82 countries in the IIHF. There are only 16 team playing in the top level--everyone else want to get there. I think having all the 2nd level teams playing in a tournament just like the 1st level is great idea.

Feels a bit like barking at the wrong tree. While I agree that there is an excessive amount of bitching going on on these boards, in this case the reasons for it are well-founded and mostly come from the people who support the nations playing at this level.