Should we eliminate the bronze medal game?

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
To those who think bronze is meaningless, why can't you look at the big picture? These hockey players are part of the whole Olympic team. You may not care for the bronze in hockey, but don't you care that Canada adds one more medal to its total? Don't you have pride at all for your country? Aren't you tired that others always say we're only good at one sport? These medals are proof that we can be good at other sports. Yet you're fine to toss that medal away? How nice of you to to disregard the Canadian Olympic team.
 
What is sad is that you keep making excuses on the loss instead of just admitting that you lost to a better team. Absolutely no one who watched the game could even begin to make the claim that they didn't care enough to try and win. They cared, and they tried, until Finland got their 3rd goal and the frustration boiled over. Just drop your charade and stop disrespecting both your own team and the opposing teams and just maybe people would stop making fun of your comments.

And nope, I haven't been offended by any of this even once. And that post I made was the first one during and after these olympics that I've made in mockery of a team or its fans. Deservedly so.

What are you droning on about? I admitted the day of the game that Finland was better on that day. Play a 7 game series and I suspect it's a different story.

You keep taking this discussion like most Finns I've read so far, offended that we cared a lot less about 3rd place than you do. Seriously, congrats on the bronze, your team was better.
 
The Bronze medal game has to remain.

There is no shame or disappointment in winning the Bronze medal game.

The Gold only mentality is pathetic. :shakehead
 
Congrats on your bronze Finland. Want a hug? You guys certainly seem desperate for attention in this thread.

What do you expect, having this discussion now after the game and who were paying in it and how it ended.

I'm ready for my hug now, please.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
of course not

itsa gut check of character
can you and will you try when things don't go your way


disgusted at usa's performance, shows a lot of where we are as a country right now
 
Yes. It's a meaningless game, unless you are one of the smaller countries with something to prove. Russia, USA, and Canada all would see bronze as a loss as well.

:laugh:

I would bet that the Russian and American players would have been quite happy to have a bronze medal around their neck.

While we're at it, why force any mathematically eliminated teams to play games in the NHL?
 
No.

Zr9y3Xm.jpg


well, a few more points

a) finland is not a lesser team
b) usa is not a top three team
c) usa did try to win, only gave up after they falling behind

Since 2000 there have been 4 Olympics and the US has lost to the eventual Gold medal winner in three of them. 2 the last 4 olympics they've played for the gold. And this time they were arguably the most difficult game for the eventual Gold medal winner.
In three of the last four Olympics they also just happened to be eliminated by thr country long known a the best hockey nation in the world. I'm sure there's angles that would say they aren't a top 3 team, but I just don't see how you could be so dismissive of the idea.
 
I'm sure there's angles that would say they aren't a top 3 team, but I just don't see how you could be so dismissive of the idea.

Something like 5 of the top 8 threads on this board right now have turned into similar cries for outreach, so you shouldn't be too surprised.
 
Somebody with the power to do so should ban and prevent all awards for hockey except the stanley cup.

All options are on the table even military strikes.
 
Nope, why?

I never understood the "2nd is the first loser".

I compete in sailing and although winning first is the best feeling in the world when we did win, my team always have been proud to win a podium no matter the position.

Anyway, why would the olympics eliminate bronze just for one sport? Doesn't make sense.
 
Don't know if this has been said. As professionals, each player made a commitment to represent his country in the olympics, therefore I feel they should honor their commitments by playing every game they are schedueled as best as they can.
However, I can uncerstand their disapointment in losing their chance for gold and not being able to preform to their upmost the day later in the bronze game.

If a player/team isn't able to play to their best, should we force them to play at all?

Should we force a player to play a game in the nhl if their heart or head is not in the game (Player's wife is about to give birth or a loss in the family for examples)?

Would the olympics award the bronze medal to the team who decided to play the medal game while the other team forfits?
 
I would bet that the Russian and American players would have been quite happy to have a bronze medal around their neck.

I wonder if there was a change in perception of the meaning the Bronze if they were playing for it against each other.
 
If a player/team isn't able to play to their best, should we force them to play at all?

Some could as well ask should they be allowed in the tournament at all if they won't commit to the tournament programme where the losers of the semis face each other for the bronze. It's a known thing from beforehand that there is such a game coming up for those gold medal contenders who won't make it in the last but one round.

Sure, for the Olympic purposes it could be possible to award the Bronze for the one who's third in the points or based on goal difference, but then there would certainly be people saying that they see themselves as Gold Medal Contenders foremost and didn't feel like playing to their fullest in the first rounds.
 
I think it's cruel to have it at all. The teams that are in it just lost the game the day before that could have had them playing for gold. And while a lesser nation might consider it their just rewards, and go all out to play in it, there's usually going to also be a "top three" team that simply won't go all to win it, whether they should or not.

And that can and often does lead to a bad hockey game. Is that what we want?

I think as a principle too, that we shouldn't force anyone to compete in the Olympics at any point if they have no chance to get the gold medal. And that's what we're doing with the bronze medal game.

Heck, if we base who gets the bronze on the record during the previous games, then maybe teams who get to coast to the "medal round" will try harder during those "non-medal round" games.

I say, get rid of it.


The site has hit a new low with this thread, unbelievable

:shakehead

To answer your question



no
 
Some could as well ask should they be allowed in the tournament at all if they won't commit to the tournament programme where the losers of the semis face each other for the bronze. It's a known thing from beforehand that there is such a game coming up for those gold medal contenders who won't make it in the last but one round.

Sure, for the Olympic purposes it could be possible to award the Bronze for the one who's third in the points or based on goal difference, but then there would certainly be people saying that they see themselves as Gold Medal Contenders foremost and didn't feel like playing to their fullest in the first rounds.

Don't want to offend any country, but for those who are probably not expecting to win gold and would be very satisfy to medal (Norway, Switzerland, Latvia, etc), there would be no arguing their dedication in the bronze game. For the others favored countries (Canada, USA, Sweden, etc), if you can theorectically condition their participation in the Olympics if they agree to play to their fullest should they end up in a bronze medal game, I'm convinced they would all tell you they would and might even be sincere about it.
However, I don't think anything can prepare or overcome their disapointment of not being able to play for gold. If a lost in the Semis crippled a team's psyche, isn't it justifiable that they wouldn't be able to preform well in the bronze game the day after?
 
For the others favored countries (Canada, USA, Sweden, etc), if you can theorectically condition their participation in the Olympics if they agree to play to their fullest should they end up in a bronze medal game, I'm convinced they would all tell you they would and might even be sincere about it.

I know for sure that Sweden would not only agree but totally play for reals too.

However, I don't think anything can prepare or overcome their disapointment of not being able to play for gold. If a lost in the Semis crippled a team's psyche, isn't it justifiable that they wouldn't be able to preform well in the bronze game the day after?

It's justifiable, if they nevertheless genuinely try. And if they do, isn't it kind of a one test among others to see which semi losing team gets over it better and can collect their psyche for the final push? In a sport with so clear Top 6 (maybe 7) on the international level it's not so unreasonable to expect the teams to best each other for to get the top rankings if they want to claim one. It's not too often when someone from outside makes it to the semis.

And of course it's always a shame if a top country won't get to face another top country. With seeding systems like this, the bronze game is kind of needed for that.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad