Some details about the World Cup...

[1Gold Standard]

and, your point here?


well, it's a foreign concept for blacks to use public libraries in the early 1900s. and so they didn't.

my point doesn't require further explanation, it was a statement of fact.

as for your 2nd comment...if you don't get or understand the difference between the concepts, it's not worth my time commenting on it..so I'll take a pass.

carry on.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

Mostly Finns, Swedes, Yanks, Germans and Russians.

Please be specific. Did you watch the last World Cup?

 

[JackSlater]

No one really cares about the canada cup in Sweden and hardly anyone will stay up late at night to watch it being played in Canada.

So? They shouldn't play the World Cup because hardly any Swedes will watch it? Those who enjoy it, which is a number dwarfing the number of fans in Sweden, will probably survive.

The Olympics and WHC actually creates fans of the sport in Sweden. That is an absolute fact. The Canada cup does not. I can think of several scenarios where a canada cup would be harmfull in that aspect; IF there is no olympic participation but instead a canada cup every four years, is one of those. It's also quite possible that the WHC would be marginalized further in NA aswell as players more inclined to skipp the WHC.

It doesn't matter if the tournament creates fans in Sweden. The IIHF World Championship doesn't create fans in Canada, no one is suggesting that it hurts hockey and shouldn't be played. The tournament provides entertainment for those who wish to watch the best players in the world playing for their national teams. There is no proof at this point that the World Cup comes at the expense of the Olympics, and there are rumblings that participation by the IIHF could help entice the NHL to participate in future Olympics.

The marginalization of the WHC in North America historically is purely the fault of the IIHF. In reality, the first Canada Cup played a role in the growth of the WHC in North America, as in fact the NHL and the IIHF made a deal that the NHL (Canada) would agree to have players at the WHC and the IIHF would endorse the Canada Cup. The Canada/World Cup was a direct factor in leading to NHL participation in the WHC. I guess fans of the WHC should be grateful.

 

[Slimmy]

So? They shouldn't play the World Cup because hardly any Swedes will watch it? Those who enjoy it, which is a number dwarfing the number of fans in Sweden, will probably survive.



It doesn't matter if the tournament creates fans in Sweden. The IIHF World Championship doesn't create fans in Canada, no one is suggesting that it hurts hockey and shouldn't be played. The tournament provides entertainment for those who wish to watch the best players in the world playing for their national teams. There is no proof at this point that the World Cup comes at the expense of the Olympics, and there are rumblings that participation by the IIHF could help entice the NHL to participate in future Olympics.

The marginalization of the WHC in North America historically is purely the fault of the IIHF. In reality, the first Canada Cup played a role in the growth of the WHC in North America, as in fact the NHL and the IIHF made a deal that the NHL (Canada) would agree to have players at the WHC and the IIHF would endorse the Canada Cup. The Canada/World Cup was a direct factor in leading to NHL participation in the WHC. I guess fans of the WHC should be grateful.

I'm not sure how many times I'm supposed to iterate the same points before they hit home.. It's just baffling how you just can't accept that I as a european hockey fan find the Canada cup less than attractive and identify it as a threat to the tourneys which I enjoy and which actually grow the sport in Europe. How much room is there for the sport to grow in Canada and the USA? I'm guessing not a whole lot.

 

[Jussi]

Please be specific. Did you watch the last World Cup?

Yes and there were only a couple games that came close to Olympic level. Canada-Czech. Rep. and maybe Finland-USA. Our games were painful to watch due to our first line being so banged up and far from best form.

 

[Canuckistani]

It's just baffling how you just can't accept that I as a european hockey fan find the Canada cup less than attractive and identify it as a threat to the tourneys which I enjoy and which actually grow the sport in Europe.

How is the World Cup a "threat" to other tournaments?

 

[Kalzu]

Cool if this happens. Obviously I'd prefer the Olympics as the best-on-best tournament but this is OK for me also. Especially great would be if this is played every two years, I'd prefer a biennial WC to quadrennial Olympics. Even better would be if the WC were quadrennial and played between the Olympics where the NHL participates.

My only worry is that (even FIN games) get to PPV channels in Finland as the WC isn't listed like the Olympics/WChsips.

 

[1Gold Standard]

Yes and there were only a couple games that came close to Olympic level. Canada-Czech. Rep. and maybe Finland-USA. Our games were painful to watch due to our first lien being so banged up and far from best form.

Can't really comment on the conditioning level of players in 2004 as I didn't watch a single game, but in this day an age, every serious elite level NHL NT player (discounting injury) is in game shape and ready to go mid September.

KHL players open training camp in mid July, so if the KHL is in, their conditioning level shouldn't be a problem.

 

[Slimmy]

How is the World Cup a "threat" to other tournaments?

Well, again, if the NHL contemplates not to participate in the Olympics but instead opts to hold their own "international" tourney, I'd say that is a pretty big threat. There's also the likely possibility that it would lead to the WHC being marginalised even further in the NA. Ultimately the revival of the Canada cup could lead to a big drop in player turnout for the WHC.

 

[JackSlater]

I'm not sure how many times I'm supposed to iterate the same points before they hit home.. It's just baffling how you just can't accept that I as a european hockey fan find the Canada cup less than attractive and identify it as a threat to the tourneys which I enjoy and which actually grow the sport in Europe. How much room is there for the sport to grow in Canada and the USA? I'm guessing not a whole lot.

Finding it less attractive is fine. Just don't watch. That isn't a good reason to suggest that the tournament shouldn't be played and will hurt hockey somewhere.

Viewing it as a threat would be valid, if there was any proof that it is. The tournament existed long before the NHL was involved in the Olympics, and in fact the Canada Cup led directly to NHL involvement in the WHC.

USA obviously has lots of room to grow in terms of hockey support, while Canada obviously doesn't. It's all pretty irrelevant though. It's a tournament that will entertain hockey's current fans regardless of whether new ones join or not, and it does nothing to detract from hockey growth anywhere else. Tournaments are not designed to grow the sport to please some random Swedish fan, but even if they were this tournament would not be harmful as it doesn't detract from growing hockey in any way.

Well, again, if the NHL contemplates not to participate in the Olympics but instead opts to hold their own "international" tourney, I'd say that is a pretty big threat.

The NHL started the tournament 22 years before entering the Olympics, and then held it again in the middle of their Olympic participation. There are rumblings that agreement to participate by the IIHF and national federations would entice the NHL to participate in the Olympics. There isn't any real proof at this point that the NHL is viewing these tournaments as mutually exclusive.

There's also the likely possibility that it would lead to the WHC being marginalised even further in the NA. Ultimately the revival of the Canada cup could lead to a big drop in player turnout for the WHC.

I will repeat this again since you apparently ignored it before. The Canada/World Cup was one of the main factors leading to NHLers participating in the WHC, and thus the growth of that tournament in North American. So history is not on the side of your argument. Also, in recent times Canadian and American rosters grow stronger the closer it is to the Olympics, as players become more inclined to play and prove that they belong in the upcoming best on best tournament. It's possible that players would be less likely to turn down spots if there were a best on best every two years as opposed to four, though that is admittedly just speculation.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

Yes and there were only a couple games that came close to Olympic level. Canada-Czech. Rep. and maybe Finland-USA. Our games were painful to watch due to our first line being so banged up and far from best form.

Being banged up is a completely different issue and obviously players are a lot more banged up in February than they are in September.

 

[Jonimaus]

Tournaments are not designed to grow the sport to please some random Swedish fan, but even if they were this tournament would not be harmful as it doesn't detract from growing hockey in any way.

If this is just a "bonus" tournament, that is true. If the plans to stop sending NHLers to the Olympic games for example goes through, hockey will become an even smaller sport in Europe. Might aswell create an all Canadian tournament where you have 4 Canadian teams battling eachother as in the future Canada cups.

 

[JackSlater]

If this is just a "bonus" tournament, that is true. If the plans to stop sending NHLers to the Olympic games for example goes through, hockey will become an even smaller sport in Europe. Might aswell create an all Canadian tournament where you have 4 Canadian teams battling eachother as in the future Canada cups.

That's the common ground then. Most fans in Canada, from everything I've seen, don't want the NHL to pull out of the Olympics, regardless of whether there is a World Cup or not. I assume the American fans think similarly. If it is revealed that the NHL plans to replace Olympic participation with a World Cup, then my opinion changes. I can see that the NHL pulling out of the Olympics would hurt hockey in Europe to some degree, but there is no evidence that holding a World Cup means that the NHL will leave the Olympics.

 

[Canuckistani]

Well, again, if the NHL contemplates not to participate in the Olympics but instead opts to hold their own "international" tourney, I'd say that is a pretty big threat. There's also the likely possibility that it would lead to the WHC being marginalised even further in the NA. Ultimately the revival of the Canada cup could lead to a big drop in player turnout for the WHC.

Hopefully the NHL opts for both the World Cup and Olympics, which would allow for a best-on-best every two years. Arguably that's too frequent, but European soccer follows such a schedule with alternating Euros and World Cups so I don't see why hockey can't as well. The more the better.

We got a brief taste of it with the World Cup in 2004 in between Olympics in 2002 and 2006. The hockey was great and player attendance at the WHC wasn't negatively affected.

 

[cutchemist42]

I also really hope there is not NHL interfering with NT selections. Won't find anymore articles on it, but I've seen Czech posters on toher forums say they disliked the news of the NHL interfering with CR's selections at times.

I personally still think the World Cup in February idea is better because I still believe this tournament will get lost on NBCSN in the USA. MLB ratings were at the top in their markets in primetime during September because of expanded playoff races. NFL and CFB are bigger since then as well. I think its going to be tough to find spots for this tourney to shine in the USA.

Olympics/WHCs is enough intl hockey for me and Im honestly not into hockey that early in the Fall so I'll be passing. I will only truly be pissed if the NHL bails on the Olympics and tries to hijack the number 1 tourney spot. I dont think that happens because I think staying in the Olympics is the ONLY REASON the Euro countries are going along with the NHL Invitational.

 

[SanDogBrewin]

Head of the Finnish hockey federation and IIHF vice secretary Kalervo Kummola said on Finnish tv yesterday that he was travelling with Fasel to meet with NHL and NHLPA to discuss the World Cup. He mentioned that the tournament would follow the 2004 model so there would be games played in Finland.

That would make a lot of sense to keep it that way and take the burden off some of the travel.

 

[SanDogBrewin]

This. Especially when considering that the World Cup is designed to stop the NHL participation in the Olympics.

Did the 1996 and 2004 World Cup stop the NHL players participating in the 1998 and 2006 Olympics ?

 

[Jussi]

That would make a lot of sense to keep it that way and take the burden off some of the travel.

Already confirmed it would only be exhibition an exhibition game. All the tournament games will be played in Toronto and Montreal.

 

[Urbanskog]

Did the 1996 and 2004 World Cup stop the NHL players participating in the 1998 and 2006 Olympics ?

No, but Bettman doesn't seem overly eager to send the NHL'ers to Pyeongchang.

 

[Get North]

Bettman doesn't want the players to go but he really doesn't control that decision a whole lot.

 

[Kalzu]

One thing I preferred in the WC over the Olympics was theyes have a continuous OT. Even better would be if the playoffs were best-of-three.

 

[Slimmy]

Finding it less attractive is fine. Just don't watch. That isn't a good reason to suggest that the tournament shouldn't be played and will hurt hockey somewhere.

Viewing it as a threat would be valid, if there was any proof that it is. The tournament existed long before the NHL was involved in the Olympics, and in fact the Canada Cup led directly to NHL involvement in the WHC.

USA obviously has lots of room to grow in terms of hockey support, while Canada obviously doesn't. It's all pretty irrelevant though. It's a tournament that will entertain hockey's current fans regardless of whether new ones join or not, and it does nothing to detract from hockey growth anywhere else. Tournaments are not designed to grow the sport to please some random Swedish fan, but even if they were this tournament would not be harmful as it doesn't detract from growing hockey in any way.

A big part of the IIHF's raison d'etre is to grow the sport. Holding B and C tourneys as well as womens and girls hockey tourneys. The money from the main event trickles down to the less developed hockey countries and their federations, helping with their junior programs. That's why I prefer the IIHF holding the international tournament's and not the NHL.

The NHL started the tournament 22 years before entering the Olympics, and then held it again in the middle of their Olympic participation. There are rumblings that agreement to participate by the IIHF and national federations would entice the NHL to participate in the Olympics. There isn't any real proof at this point that the NHL is viewing these tournaments as mutually exclusive.

Since the NHL is a business and there's a big market for international play, barring players from the Olympics would be inline with their business model = making as much money as possible.

If the IIHF and their federations along with the NHLPA are not in a position to sway the NHL then we can expect the Canada cup to be held in place of the Olympics.

I will repeat this again since you apparently ignored it before. The Canada/World Cup was one of the main factors leading to NHLers participating in the WHC, and thus the growth of that tournament in North American. So history is not on the side of your argument. Also, in recent times Canadian and American rosters grow stronger the closer it is to the Olympics, as players become more inclined to play and prove that they belong in the upcoming best on best tournament. It's possible that players would be less likely to turn down spots if there were a best on best every two years as opposed to four, though that is admittedly just speculation.

The IIHF can't really win ether way. The only scenario where I can see them coming out unscathed is if the Canada cup is not held and Olympics continue as is.

 

[JackSlater]

A big part of the IIHF's raison d'etre is to grow the sport. Holding B and C tourneys as well as womens and girls hockey tourneys. The money from the main event trickles down to the less developed hockey countries and their federations, helping with their junior programs. That's why I prefer the IIHF holding the international tournament's and not the NHL.

Good for the IIHF. I'm aware of what they are supposed to do. This tournament does nothing to stop them from doing those things, as far as we know right now. So once again, a World Cup does not detract from growing hockey.

Since the NHL is a business and there's a big market for international play, barring players from the Olympics would be inline with their business model = making as much money as possible.

If the IIHF and their federations along with the NHLPA are not in a position to sway the NHL then we can expect the Canada cup to be held in place of the Olympics.

Those are nice assumptions. Assumptions. You continue to ignore what has been said in the North American media, which is that the World Cup is a piece that can be used to entice the NHL to continue participating in the Olympics.

As far as swaying the NHL, I don't believe that the IIHF or any federations will have much impact on what the NHL does. The NHLPA, however, is their essential negotiating partner, and they seem to be unanimously in favour of continuing Olympic participation. If they NHL refuses to go to the Olympics, which is essentially a three week shutdown of the league once every four years, then they will have to give something decent back to the players. I don't think it's worth it for them from a business perspective.

The IIHF can't really win ether way. The only scenario where I can see them coming out unscathed is if the Canada cup is not held and Olympics continue as is.

Or... you know... they hold the World Cup and everything else remains as is... just like in 2004.

 

[Slimmy]

Good for the IIHF. I'm aware of what they are supposed to do. This tournament does nothing to stop them from doing those things, as far as we know right now. So once again, a World Cup does not detract from growing hockey.

Maybe I'm thinking of another poster but the IIHF running tourneys isn't simply bureaucracy (hellofa word to spell). It's how the order of things should be for the good of the game.

Those are nice assumptions. Assumptions. You continue to ignore what has been said in the North American media, which is that the World Cup is a piece that can be used to entice the NHL to continue participating in the Olympics.

Why should I listen to NA media? They´re blathering idiots. Using Olympic participation as a bargaining chip is distasteful. It's ONCE every FOUR YEARS. They're not really winning the hearts and minds of the hockey fans. I think it's an idiotic strategy but maybe I'm wrong.

As far as swaying the NHL, I don't believe that the IIHF or any federations will have much impact on what the NHL does. The NHLPA, however, is their essential negotiating partner, and they seem to be unanimously in favour of continuing Olympic participation. If they NHL refuses to go to the Olympics, which is essentially a three week shutdown of the league once every four years, then they will have to give something decent back to the players. I don't think it's worth it for them from a business perspective.



Or... you know... they hold the World Cup and everything else remains as is... just like in 2004.

Yes, assumptions. There is a whole lot of that going around. I say leave the international tourneys in the hands of the IIHF and the NHL can continue making money on.. you know.. the NHL.

 

[JackSlater]

Maybe I'm thinking of another poster but the IIHF running tourneys isn't simply bureaucracy (hellofa word to spell). It's how the order of things should be for the good of the game.

What they do with the money is fine, and no fans are actually hoping for the NHL to make a profit. The point is that the organizing body for the tournament itself is pretty much irrelevant. If your concern is that the money won't go to various development targets, which is your prerogative, then this tournament still isn't an obstacle because it doesn't detract from the IIHF at all.

Why should I listen to NA media? They´re blathering idiots. Using Olympic participation as a bargaining chip is distasteful. It's ONCE every FOUR YEARS. They're not really winning the hearts and minds of the hockey fans. I think it's an idiotic strategy but maybe I'm wrong.

You should at least pay attention to what they say because unlike you, they aren't just making baseless assumptions and whining. They are reporting at least some of the realities of these negotiations. Whether or not using the Olympics as a negotiation piece is distasteful has nothing to do with the World Cup itself. It reflects on the NHL, not the tournament. I (and pretty much everyone else) agree that the NHL can easily afford to give fans and players something so simple as Olympic participation.

Yes, assumptions. There is a whole lot of that going around. I say leave the international tourneys in the hands of the IIHF and the NHL can continue making money on.. you know.. the NHL.

Fine, that is your opinion. At least that one can't be easily disproven like your fears about the IIHF being unable to escape the situation "unscathed".