Some details about the World Cup...

[SanDogBrewin]

Really hope it's more than 8 teams, I felt the Olympics really helped developing hockey countries get more 'into' hockey, like Slovenia. I bet after Slovenia beat Austria, that it got more players playing/tons of press. We need that in all hockey tournaments.

Of course, I have no actual data to support my stance, just what I feel.

Having 10/12 countries would be a good number imo.

I think the decision, was probably made, to have less teams for a shorter tournament due to time constraints of starting any leagues over seas later or halting an already started league.

With some elimination games played to fill the 7 and 8 spots, the tournament could be a 10-12 team tournament in a sense. That is a "guess" because nothing is finalized.

PS. I don't think the plans would be released to the media if the KHL wasn't on board. Hoping really

 

[SanDogBrewin]

I didn't say fix the tournament, just stack the decks so that the 2 NA home teams have maximum advantage to end up in the final together.

I think there is a great chance that Sweden, Russia and Finland could get to the final just like in 2004. Especially the way Finland and Sweden have progressed the past few years.

The US and Canada have to travel every year for the WHC.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

Really hope it's more than 8 teams, I felt the Olympics really helped developing hockey countries get more 'into' hockey, like Slovenia. I bet after Slovenia beat Austria, that it got more players playing/tons of press. We need that in all hockey tournaments.

Of course, I have no actual data to support my stance, just what I feel.

Having 10/12 countries would be a good number imo.

I disagree. There are not more than 6 or 7 teams ready to play competitive and entertaining hockey at this level. If you are trying to grow the popularity of the sport the last thing you want are teams that can do nothing more than collapse around their own net for 60 minutes. The entertainment level of the hockey in Sochi was atrocious and I'm sure the NHL will be wiser than to follow that sort of format. The key is to take a high quality product and slowly grow it and add more teams when they are ready. The premature addition of teams is counterproductive to growing the tournament in a meaningful way.

Don't forget that what also got a lot of press after the Slovenia - Austria game was that half the Austrian team had been out partying and getting sh**faced before the game.

 

[Xokkeu]

A qualifying tourney or round would be better product than four patsys in group play. Rather than have Canada in a group with Norway and Austria (yawn) have Norway Austria Slovenia etc battle it out for the final 8th spot. Two tourneys in one and the small countries are still encouraged to participate.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

A qualifying tourney or round would be better product than four patsys in group play. Rather than have Canada in a group with Norway and Austria (yawn) have Norway Austria Slovenia etc battle it out for the final 8th spot. Two tourneys in one and the small countries are still encouraged to participate.

I agree with that. I've always thought the best format in todays day and age is to have the 8 teams all play each other once in a round robin, with the top four moving on to the playoffs and the bottom two having to requalify for the next tournament. That way every single game is important and the competitive balance of the teams is good.

 

[Yakushev72]

I disagree. There are not more than 6 or 7 teams ready to play competitive and entertaining hockey at this level. If you are trying to grow the popularity of the sport the last thing you want are teams that can do nothing more than collapse around their own net for 60 minutes. The entertainment level of the hockey in Sochi was atrocious and I'm sure the NHL will be wiser than to follow that sort of format. The key is to take a high quality product and slowly grow it and add more teams when they are ready. The premature addition of teams is counterproductive to growing the tournament in a meaningful way.

Don't forget that what also got a lot of press after the Slovenia - Austria game was that half the Austrian team had been out partying and getting sh**faced before the game.

I agree that the World Cup is not so much an international competition as it is a summer invitational entertainment venture. If the goal is to stimulate more interest in hockey in the United States, I believe that I am right in suggesting that the NHL is much better off if they had a 7-game series between Canada and the United States. If they hold a multi-team tournament, the United States might not make the cut, as in 2004. That reinforces the idea that hockey is just not America's sport, and that hurts the prospects of making hockey more popular.

 

[Xokkeu]

I agree that the World Cup is not so much an international competition as it is a summer invitational entertainment venture. If the goal is to stimulate more interest in hockey in the United States, I believe that I am right in suggesting that the NHL is much better off if they had a 7-game series between Canada and the United States. If they hold a multi-team tournament, the United States might not make the cut, as in 2004. That reinforces the idea that hockey is just not America's sport, and that hurts the prospects of making hockey more popular.

The goal of the World Cup is not to make hockey popular in America. It's so the nhl has control of the revenue and rights.

 

[habsrule4eva3089]

I agree that the World Cup is not so much an international competition as it is a summer invitational entertainment venture. If the goal is to stimulate more interest in hockey in the United States, I believe that I am right in suggesting that the NHL is much better off if they had a 7-game series between Canada and the United States. If they hold a multi-team tournament, the United States might not make the cut, as in 2004. That reinforces the idea that hockey is just not America's sport, and that hurts the prospects of making hockey more popular.

Yet this summer invitational will be 10 fold more exciting then the Sochi Olympics Hockey, where no one went to watch, no atmosphere was present and the game was on a surface that should not be played with the sport of Ice Hockey.

Entertainment is good, and the Hockey we will see at the World Cup will be similar to Vancouver 2010, which was the greatest tournament this sport will ever have.

 

[SanDogBrewin]

A qualifying tourney or round would be better product than four patsys in group play. Rather than have Canada in a group with Norway and Austria (yawn) have Norway Austria Slovenia etc battle it out for the final 8th spot. Two tourneys in one and the small countries are still encouraged to participate.

Agreed

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

I agree that the World Cup is not so much an international competition as it is a summer invitational entertainment venture. If the goal is to stimulate more interest in hockey in the United States, I believe that I am right in suggesting that the NHL is much better off if they had a 7-game series between Canada and the United States. If they hold a multi-team tournament, the United States might not make the cut, as in 2004. That reinforces the idea that hockey is just not America's sport, and that hurts the prospects of making hockey more popular.

I'd rather see a three game mini series each year between Canada and the USA in place of the NHL all-star game, but that doesn't have much to do with the WCup.

 

[Canuckistani]

I didn't say fix the tournament, just stack the decks so that the 2 NA home teams have maximum advantage to end up in the final together.

If the deck is stacked in favour of the NA teams by having most games in NA then by that logic every WHC is stacked in favour of Europe.

At least the World Cup in 1996 and 2004 gave some home games to European teams as well - the only tournament ever to be played on both sides of the Atlantic.

And how is it that anyone still buys into the notion of some unfair "home ice" advantage anyway? Home teams have pretty much sucked at these tournaments.

At the World Cup Canada lost in Montreal in 1996 (after barely squeeking into the final in Philadelphia against Sweden), and won in 2004. Sweden's WHC gold in 2013 was the first home gold since the Soviets won in Moscow back in 1986 (after 13 straight losses by top-7 hosting nations from 1989-2012). At the Olympics USA won in 1980, Canada lost in 1988, USA lost in 2002, Canada won in Vancouver, Russia lost in Sochi.

 

[OttawaRoughRiderFan*]

If the deck is stacked in favour of the NA teams by having most games in NA then by that logic every WHC is stacked in favour of Europe.

At least the World Cup in 1996 and 2004 gave some home games to European teams as well - the only tournament ever to be played on both sides of the Atlantic.

Well said. So... is the rumour that ALL of the games will be played in Toronto?

**

The reason the majority of the games (if not all) will be played in Canada is $$$. In 2004, I paid $500 (albeit resale) for a pair of tickets to a Canada-Russia round robin game. The day other countries are willing to pay what we pay, they will host a World Cup. Until then, "follow the money" - the NHL does.

 

[WinTheRightGames]

I disagree. There are not more than 6 or 7 teams ready to play competitive and entertaining hockey at this level. If you are trying to grow the popularity of the sport the last thing you want are teams that can do nothing more than collapse around their own net for 60 minutes. The entertainment level of the hockey in Sochi was atrocious and I'm sure the NHL will be wiser than to follow that sort of format. The key is to take a high quality product and slowly grow it and add more teams when they are ready. The premature addition of teams is counterproductive to growing the tournament in a meaningful way.

So Finland should be left out?

 

[Yakushev72]

The goal of the World Cup is not to make hockey popular in America. It's so the nhl has control of the revenue and rights.

I have to believe they have some self-interest goals in this venture - if, in fact, it is actually played - that goes beyond just fostering international play. They think that Americans would be more likely to watch if it were a national team as opposed to NHL teams full of foreigners representing cities that they don't live in. Its probably true, but it would backfire if the US didn't do well.

 

[Xokkeu]

I have to believe they have some self-interest goals in this venture - if, in fact, it is actually played - that goes beyond just fostering international play. They think that Americans would be more likely to watch if it were a national team as opposed to NHL teams full of foreigners representing cities that they don't live in. Its probably true, but it would backfire if the US didn't do well.

Self interest... Like controlling all the right and revenue.

 

[Xokkeu]

Well said. So... is the rumour that ALL of the games will be played in Toronto?

**

The reason the majority of the games (if not all) will be played in Canada is $$$. In 2004, I paid $500 (albeit resale) for a pair of tickets to a Canada-Russia round robin game. The day other countries are willing to pay what we pay, they will host a World Cup. Until then, "follow the money" - the NHL does.

There may or may not be some games in Montreal.

 

[Yakushev72]

If the deck is stacked in favour of the NA teams by having most games in NA then by that logic every WHC is stacked in favour of Europe.

At least the World Cup in 1996 and 2004 gave some home games to European teams as well - the only tournament ever to be played on both sides of the Atlantic.

And how is it that anyone still buys into the notion of some unfair "home ice" advantage anyway? Home teams have pretty much sucked at these tournaments.

At the World Cup Canada lost in Montreal in 1996 (after barely squeeking into the final in Philadelphia against Sweden), and won in 2004. Sweden's WHC gold in 2013 was the first home gold since the Soviets won in Moscow back in 1986 (after 13 straight losses by top-7 hosting nations from 1989-2012). At the Olympics USA won in 1980, Canada lost in 1988, USA lost in 2002, Canada won in Vancouver, Russia lost in Sochi.

You're probably right about the WHC being in Europe more often than in NA, but that's the fault of Canada and the US for not bidding to host the games. The IIHF won't force a country to host it if it doesn't want to. But the rotation isn't even comparable to the World Cup, where the games that count are always held in Canada. European teams (except for Russia, of course) were allowed to host a couple of prelim games against each other, which thrilled no one, mainly because NA crowds didn't want to watch them.

As for home ice, do you think that NHL teams battle all year to get a 4-3 home ice advantage because it isn't decisive? Yes, there are anecdotal examples of the home team losing, but it happens far less often than the reverse. European teams get screwed in the World Cup format and they know it, but they go along because they play in the NHL and have no other choice.

 

[Yakushev72]

Self interest... Like controlling all the right and revenue.

Of course that's the main goal. I believe there would be other agendas as well, but making money and controlling all of the administrative decisions tops everything.

 

[Xokkeu]

You're probably right about the WHC being in Europe more often than in NA, but that's the fault of Canada and the US for not bidding to host the games. The IIHF won't force a country to host it if it doesn't want to. But the rotation isn't even comparable to the World Cup, where the games that count are always held in Canada. European teams (except for Russia, of course) were allowed to host a couple of prelim games against each other, which thrilled no one, mainly because NA crowds didn't want to watch them.

As for home ice, do you think that NHL teams battle all year to get a 4-3 home ice advantage because it isn't decisive? Yes, there are anecdotal examples of the home team losing, but it happens far less often than the reverse. European teams get screwed in the World Cup format and they know it, but they go along because they play in the NHL and have no other choice.

Russia wasn't in an adequate position to host games in 1996 or 2004. Now that it's no longer hungover from the Soviet collapse I'm sure the World Cup could be hosted in Moscow.

 

[Canuckistani]

Yes, there are anecdotal examples of the home team losing, but it happens far less often than the reverse.

In international hockey the exact opposite it true.

Like I said, after the Soviets won WHC gold in Moscow in 1986, the next home-ice gold was Sweden in 2013. In between top-seven hockey nations lost THIRTEEN straight WHCs on home ice.

It's a little better at the Olympics (Gold: USA 1980, Canada 2010, Losses: Canada 1988, USA 2002, Russia 2014), while there have only been two World Cups, which saw Canada lose at home in 1996 and win in 2004.

Home-ice wins are hardly the norm.

European teams get screwed in the World Cup format and they know it, but they go along because they play in the NHL and have no other choice.

There was nothing stopping players from declining if they felt it was so horribly unfair. Yet most of them, even from the Euro leagues, decided to play. Go figure.

Every team except Russia and Slovakia had a home game at the World Cup tournaments, whereas no other tournament has ever had more than two teams playing at home (USA hosted some games at the Canada Cups, while Sweden and Finland co-hosted the WHC in 2012, 2013).

I'd have no problem with Europe hosting all playoff games if that's what they want. That's something for them to bring up.

 

[Canuckistani]

Russia wasn't in an adequate position to host games in 1996 or 2004. Now that it's no longer hungover from the Soviet collapse I'm sure the World Cup could be hosted in Moscow.

Moscow did host an exhibition game in 1996 (5-4 win over Finland), before a sellout crowd so I think Russia would have been able to host had they not been placed in the North American pool for both World Cups.

I suppose the organizers were looking to place the teams in order to maximize rivalries (Sweden-Finland in Europe, Russia-Canada-USA in NA) but I hope they shake it up a bit next time. Would love to see some WC games in Russia for once.

 

[Xokkeu]

Moscow did host an exhibition game in 1996 (5-4 win over Finland), before a sellout crowd so I think Russia would have been able to host had they not been placed in the North American pool for both World Cups.

I suppose the organizers were looking to place the teams in order to maximize rivalries (Sweden-Finland in Europe, Russia-Canada-USA in NA) but I hope they shake it up a bit next time. Would love to see some WC games in Russia for once.

It's about cash. In 1996 Russians weren't going to be spending $200 for a game ticket. Nowadays that's a parking fee in Moscow.

 

[Jussi]

To reduce costs for players insurances, the qualifying would be better off done either in the Olympics or at the Worlds. The countries with the best results in the three years in those competitions prior to the World Cup.

 

[Yakushev72]

In international hockey the exact opposite it true.

Like I said, after the Soviets won WHC gold in Moscow in 1986, the next home-ice gold was Sweden in 2013. In between top-seven hockey nations lost THIRTEEN straight WHCs on home ice.

It's a little better at the Olympics (Gold: USA 1980, Canada 2010, Losses: Canada 1988, USA 2002, Russia 2014), while there have only been two World Cups, which saw Canada lose at home in 1996 and win in 2004.

Home-ice wins are hardly the norm.



There was nothing stopping players from declining if they felt it was so horribly unfair. Yet most of them, even from the Euro leagues, decided to play. Go figure.

Every team except Russia and Slovakia had a home game at the World Cup tournaments, whereas no other tournament has ever had more than two teams playing at home (USA hosted some games at the Canada Cups, while Sweden and Finland co-hosted the WHC in 2012, 2013).

I'd have no problem with Europe hosting all playoff games if that's what they want. That's something for them to bring up.

I don't even understand what point you are trying to make with your comments about home-ice?? Take 1990 as a case in point. The Soviets, Czechs and Canada were loaded with top-end Olympic-caliber talent (e.g., Fetisov, Fyodorov, Bure, Jagr, Yzerman, Coffey, Fleury, etc.), so are you really saying that because Switzerland didn't win Gold, that home-ice advantage doesn't work. I wonder how much you know about hockey if you take a premise like that and then surmise from it that you're really better off playing on the road. Especially when Canadian fans view Russian teams as ghoulish Marxist fiends, and put intense pressure on patriotic Canadian referees to blow the whistle on the Russians and swallow it on Canadian fouls, as in the Canada Cups!

As for the tournament being held in Europe, its always next time. Yeah, we'll give that some consideration next time. But Europeans know that that's never going to happen, that next time will never come.

 

[Canuckistani]

I don't even understand what point you are trying to make with your comments about home-ice??

You tell me. You're the one who argued that home-ice is so important at these events. My point is that the historical record states otherwise.

Switzerland's home-ice loss in 1990 is irrelevant since I specifically focused only on top-seven nations. Obviously Norway, Latvia, Austria or Belarus aren't going to win gold, no matter where the event is held, thus I didn't count them.

As for the tournament being held in Europe, its always next time.

It was already held in Europe in 1996 and 2004. If you want the semis and the final to the held in Europe then that's something for the Europeans to look into and ask for. Have they?