Terrible world cup ideas

[Jussi]

I agree that it's idiotic for the IIHF to schedule its tournament during the playoffs of by far the best league in the sport, but the damage is long done. European leagues end too early to accommodate the NHL schedule, and there isn't a great demand for the tournament in North America anyway (which is completely the fault of the IIHF). The stupidity of the IIHF, just like the crookedness of the IOC, does nothing to mitigate how stupidly the NHL is organizing this tournament.

How exactly is it the IIHF's fault?

 

[sandysan]

How exactly is it the IIHF's fault?

because they schedule it, every freaking year, to coincide with a far more prestigious and meaningful hockey tournament ? And they do it by design ?

Why do you think that is ?

 

[DyerMaker66*]

How exactly is it the IIHF's fault?

Maybe if we'd hosted the event more times than West Germany we'd care.

 

[sandysan]

That's all understood and falls under "We all know the owners don't like being involved in the Olympics, most of us also see that their position is completely understandable"... You originally framed your argument by stating part of the problem is the players themselves aren't getting paid when up to this point that doesn't appear to have been a problem at all.

Owners not getting paid = Problem - We get this, some even agree
Players not getting paid = Apparently hasn't been a problem - You don't get this?

Earlier in the thread you claimed you had no allegiance to the IIHF, the IOC, the NHL, or even the teams involved... For you it's all about the players on the ice! So why are you against the players involvement in something they obviously care a lot about? For someone who has no allegiance a lot of your arguments seem to be about protecting the NHL owner's "assets'" and sticking it to everyone else.

you still dont get it. the players can't get paid against the wishes of the owners. if you dont cut the owners in, what the players want ( hell even if they wanted to play for free) IT DOES NOT MATTER.

What I want is best on best, a simple premise. whether it be under the rings or the shield. so far the only time this has happened was in the olympics, in games that were extensively reliant on nhl talent and furthermore required the nhl to shut down for two weeks to release the players to their national teams. for this the NHL, a PRIVATE SPORTS LEAGUE gets ZERO return for this investment. And you want them to continue to do this in perpetuity, and when they dont you have the temerity to say that they are the greedy ones.

the nhl has looked at this and found that the games are almost exclusively driven by talent they have under contract, they have access to venues, they know that the market for best on best hockey is there locally and unlike the previous situation where EVERY DIME goes to line someone else's pockets, if they do the little that the IOC does themselves, their liabilities do not increase one iota but their rewards do exponentially.

based on the cba, the pa is going to have a say on pay. if they see the owners getting a cut they will want to get a cut themselves. if the players wanted to play under the current situation ( for free) they absolutely could. they would be idiots to do so but that is THEIR perogative.

so all of this money coming in off the talents of the players, letting all that cash go exclusively to the owners is idiotic, but letting it go to the IOC is somehow a responsibility of the players. how does that make sense?

if the olympics are not the least bit interested in making money, then operate as a not for profit, give the rights away for free and cover the costs for running the games by selling limited official sponsorships. You think that happens anytime soon ?

if competitive eating were more popular, the ioc would have no problem putting a gold medal on joey chestnutt.

 

[ForumNamePending]

Because in a competition between what players want and what they are contractually obligated to do, that's not much of a choice.

I'm sure that the grind of the season wears on players. I'm sure that sometime in the season they would like to do something else. But they are getting paid to honor their contracts, not just when they don't have something they might enjoy more.

So you agree though the players not getting paid hasn't been the problem in all this?

EDIT... WOW!!! Two separate responses for the same post!!!

And once again... So you agree though the players not getting paid hasn't been the problem in all this?

How exactly is it the IIHF's fault?

When it is held, where it is held, barring of NA Pros for a good portion of it's existence hasn't exactly endured it to the NA audience. I'm not sure it would have mattered anyway... Even if the IIHF did the fair thing, when all this blew up in the '60s & '70s, and immediately opened up to NA pros and even went the extra mile and moved the tournament to September to accommodate the NHL schedule it's pretty hard to imagine NHL owners going along with the idea of their best players annually playing in the WC just before the start of the NHL season.

 

[JackSlater]

How exactly is it the IIHF's fault?

Half a century of antagonistic behaviour by the IIHF toward Canada (and USA to a lesser extent) and it isn't exactly surprising that the IIHF's tournament is an afterthought. If the IIHF hadn't designed a tournament it calls the "World Championship" so that it excluded the world's best players for its first five decades of existence, perhaps the demand for the tournament would actually be substantial in North America. None of that has anything to do with the complete stupidity of both the NHL and this World Cup though.

 

[Urbanskog]

The World Championship has always been held at the same time of the year. In fact, the tournament start has only gotten later and later. However, it's the NHL that has delayed the season start so harshly that the finals are played in June.

Regarding where the tournament is held, Canada and USA never bid for it. The one time either of them did so, back in 2008, Canada won it. The IIHF can't force Hockey Canada or US Hockey to host it on their soil if they aren't interested.

 

[sandysan]

sandysan: For athletes Olympics is pure sport: no money, represent your country, winners get gold medals, live in Olympics with other athletes etc. It's about sport and not about money. You make it look like Olympics is about money, but money is just something that's needed in arranging Olympics. Ice hockey is just one sport in Olympics, and most viewers around the world don't care about ice hockey and having NHL players there is completely irrelevant for most viewers. IOC wants to have NHL players in Olympics, but doesn't need them. .

are you serious ? the IOC NEEDS the NHL players because the days of people getting interested in college kids participating against " soldiers" are done. There is a very good reason why the AHL isn't proposing a similiar cup: no one will care about a tournament full of players who couldn't make an nhl roster aside from their direct family.
( the world juniors are different because its viewed as a developmental tourney).

and we have talked about this on these boards before. hockey is, at worst, the second most popular even at the winter games. with sub ahl talent it would be near the bottom. I suspect we will get to see how much the ioc needs the nhl if the league decides not to go to korea and the games are filled with has beens, never were's and nobodies.

if people want best on best it's one of two choices, olympics or world cup then everything else WAY behind. the ioc needs the nhl WAY more than the nhl need the olympics, and the nhl knows it. the see how little the ioc brings to the table andf decide they can do it better themselves. ask anyone whether they would prefer being their own boss or working for someone else, the answer is clear.

and if its not your cup of tea, don't watch and secretly hope that it ends up being a dumpster fire. fine by me. I understand this position because if it isnt a dumpster fire, and the nhl sees that they can make bank off of this, this switches the ioc from marginally relevant to completely dispensable and the world championships to a club level tourney below the spengler cup.

 

[sandysan]

So you agree though the players not getting paid hasn't been the problem in all this?

EDIT... WOW!!! Two separate responses for the same post!!!

And once again... So you agree though the players not getting paid hasn't been the problem in all this?



When it is held, where it is held, barring of NA Pros for a good portion of it's existence hasn't exactly endured it to the NA audience. I'm not sure it would have mattered anyway... Even if the IIHF did the fair thing, when all this blew up in the '60s & '70s, and immediately opened up to NA pros and even went the extra mile and moved the tournament to September to accommodate the NHL schedule it's pretty hard to imagine NHL owners going along with the idea of their best players annually playing in the WC just before the start of the NHL season.

no I dont agree. lets do this step by step

the people in the drivers seats are the OWNERS. if they dont release the players, the player's position is MOOT. The PA could be 100% for participation and if the owners were against it, the players have one choice strike or breach.

so now lets go to the position that the owners can be convinced by the ioc to release their players for some sort of payment ( which will never happen but still). If the owners are getting money, the likelihood that the players agree to forgo any compensation for themselves is exactly ZERO.

if the players decide ( it will be voluntary, the owners could not force players under contract to play in the world cup) to play in the world cup they will expect to get paid, no ?

why do the players care WHO is stealing from them in this situation ? why is it idiotic for the players to allow all of the revenue to go to one party but not another ?

and because they are in the drivers seat, if the owners wont release the players then the ONLY chance for best on best is the world cup. if no olympics the wc becomes the most talent laden tourney on the planet and the players competitive and financial desires will be sated in one fell swoop.

 

[Jussi]

because they schedule it, every freaking year, to coincide with a far more prestigious and meaningful hockey tournament ? And they do it by design ?

Why do you think that is ?

It's biggest audience is in Europe, only European countries want to host it, so naturally it's scheduled shortly after the European leagues are over. If that's not fine with you, perhaps you should ask the NHL to shorten their season and/or start it sooner?

 

[Jussi]

Maybe if we'd hosted the even more times than West Germany we'd care.

Well USA should have applied to host it then...

 

[sandysan]

I have no slightest clue about what are you trying to say. Just saying that it certainly isn't the IIHF which is at fault here.

so international means " represents everyone but north america"? the iihf is at fault for selecting the one time of the year when many players, from all nations, can't participate because they are already engaged.

I thought people wanted best on best not " best of the rest". the nhl is an abomination for a one-time leftover europe and young guns, but the iihf can exclude top end talent for decades and gets a pass because " well we hold them every year at the same time"? ha!

 

[Jussi]

so international means " represents everyone but north america"? the iihf is at fault for selecting the one time of the year when many players, from all nations, can't participate because they are already engaged.

I thought people wanted best on best not " best of the rest". the nhl is an abomination for a one-time leftover europe and young guns, but the iihf can exclude top end talent for decades and gets a pass because " well we hold them every year at the same time"? ha!

None of the member countries have suggested moving it so it's not going to happen. September would be the worst possible time in Europe to hold a hockey tournament.

 

[sandysan]

It's biggest audience is in Europe, only European countries want to host it, so naturally it's scheduled shortly after the European leagues are over. If that's not fine with you, perhaps you should ask the NHL to shorten their season and/or start it sooner?

again you want the talent laden nhl to bend to the will of an irrelevant hockey federation with an axe to grind? they are a PRIVATE company they get to set their own damn schedules and do not need the consent of the iihf or anyone else.

if canada wanted to host the world championships but decided they wanted to host them say in the summer to allow all of the top end talent from all nations to be able to participate, you think that the iihf consents ? or would they, most likely, force canada to go up against the sc playoffs.

if its the former, its not fundamentally different than the world cup except that the nhl is running a tourney not hockey canada.

 

[Urbanskog]

so international means " represents everyone but north america"? the iihf is at fault for selecting the one time of the year when many players, from all nations, can't participate because they are already engaged.

I thought people wanted best on best not " best of the rest". the nhl is an abomination for a one-time leftover europe and young guns, but the iihf can exclude top end talent for decades and gets a pass because " well we hold them every year at the same time"? ha!

All other countries have scheduled their leagues to end before the tournament will commence, what is it that you don't get?

 

[sandysan]

None of the member countries have suggested moving it so it's not going to happen. September would be the worst possible time in Europe to hold a hockey tournament.

so the iihf then has to accomodate europe over everyone else, good to know.

because having a tournament in head to head against the SC playoffs is "the worst possible time" to hold a hockey tournament.

 

[Jussi]

so the iihf then has to accomodate europe over everyone else, good to know.

because having a tournament in head to head against the SC playoffs is "the worst possible time" to hold a hockey tournament.

Not to Europeans since the games don't clash on tv.

 

[ForumNamePending]

no I dont agree. lets do this step by step

the people in the drivers seats are the OWNERS. if they dont release the players, the player's position is MOOT. The PA could be 100% for participation and if the owners were against it, the players have one choice strike or breach.

so now lets go to the position that the owners can be convinced by the ioc to release their players for some sort of payment ( which will never happen but still). If the owners are getting money, the likelihood that the players agree to forgo any compensation for themselves is exactly ZERO.

if the players decide ( it will be voluntary, the owners could not force players under contract to play in the world cup) to play in the world cup they will expect to get paid, no ?

why do the players care WHO is stealing from them in this situation ? why is it idiotic for the players to allow all of the revenue to go to one party but not another ?

and because they are in the drivers seat, if the owners wont release the players then the ONLY chance for best on best is the world cup. if no olympics the wc becomes the most talent laden tourney on the planet and the players competitive and financial desires will be sated in one fell swoop.

None of that changes the fact that through 5 previous Olympics the players have apparently been fine with not getting paid. The IOC not sharing any of the wealth with anyone has not been a sticking point for the players themselves wanting to be involved. You writing paragraphs about how awful the IOC is (and it most likely is) or how the owners have all the leverage doesn't change the fact that the players, at least up to this point, have been fine with playing in the Olympics without being financially compensated.

 

[Urbanskog]

None of that changes the fact that through 5 previous Olympics the players have apparently been fine with not getting paid. The IOC not sharing any of the wealth with anyone has not been a sticking point for the players themselves wanting to be involved. You writing paragraphs about how awful the IOC is (and it most likely is) or how the owners have all the leverage doesn't change the fact that the players, at least up to this point, have been fine with playing in the Olympics without being financially compensated.

Actually, the IOC only keeps 10% of the revenue to itself.

 

[DyerMaker66*]

Well USA should have applied to host it then...

I'm Canadian.

 

[sandysan]

None of that changes the fact that through 5 previous Olympics the players have apparently been fine with not getting paid. The IOC not sharing any of the wealth with anyone has not been a sticking point for the players themselves wanting to be involved. You writing paragraphs about how awful the IOC is (and it most likely is) or how the owners have all the leverage doesn't change the fact that the players, at least up to this point, have been fine with playing in the Olympics without being financially compensated.

And they do so with the owners consent. How often does it have to be repeated? If the owners say no, what the players say is.moot.

The owners have said yes in the past and hot nothing for it. Nothing. There is one way to change their mind, cut them in and if they do the players will want a cut ( justifyably).

Even if the players Would play for nothing, those days are gone.long the owners will demand a cut as a condition for releasing the players, and then the players will want their cut.

Which is pretty much how the world cup is set up to run with the IOC left holding the bag.

 

[ForumNamePending]

And they do so with the owners consent. How often does it have to be repeated? If the owners say no, what the players say is.moot.

The owners have said yes in the past and hot nothing for it. Nothing. There is one way to change their mind, cut them in and if they do the players will want a cut ( justifyably).

Even if the players Would play for nothing, those days are gone.long the owners will demand a cut as a condition for releasing the players, and then the players will want their cut.

Which is pretty much how the world cup is set up to run with the IOC left holding the bag.

Correct! The owners finally putting their foot down and telling the players 'no' is something that would prevent the players from participating in the Olympics. On the other hand the IOC telling the players you are not getting paid for your involvement is something that has yet to prevent the players from wanting to participate. The IOC is happy to have the players for free and the players are seemingly happy to be there for free. The owners on the other hand would like to get paid, and that's fine, but don't act like the road block to continued NHL player participation in the Olympics is the players themselves demanding compensation from the IOC.

Also, pretty sure the IOC will survive just fine if NHL players aren't in Korea.

 

[sandysan]

Correct! The owners finally putting their foot down and telling the players 'no' is something that would prevent the players from participating in the Olympics. On the other hand the IOC telling the players you are not getting paid for your involvement is something that has yet to prevent the players from wanting to participate. The IOC is happy to have the players for free and the players are seemingly happy to be there for free. The owners on the other hand would like to get paid, and that's fine, but don't act like the road block to continued NHL player participation in the Olympics is the players themselves demanding compensation from the IOC.

Also, pretty sure the IOC will survive just fine if NHL players aren't in Korea.

The players can take the position that so long as no one else gets paid, they will play for free. The owners reject this position on its face = no participation.

If the owners get a cut to release their players, the likelihood that the players allow the owners and the IOC to completely split the profits is exactly zero. So in this case, the players will only participate if they get paid.

So the motivations for it are unimportant, if the players are to play, they are going to be compensated, regardless of what they want.

The motion you support that the ioc cuts the owners in but demands the players play for free is a non starter for obvious reasons.

 

[Warden of the North]

Just saying again, the young stars team is a terrible idea.

 

[BayStreetBully]

if the players decide ( it will be voluntary, the owners could not force players under contract to play in the world cup) to play in the world cup they will expect to get paid, no ?

why do the players care WHO is stealing from them in this situation ? why is it idiotic for the players to allow all of the revenue to go to one party but not another ?

and because they are in the drivers seat, if the owners wont release the players then the ONLY chance for best on best is the world cup. if no olympics the wc becomes the most talent laden tourney on the planet and the players competitive and financial desires will be sated in one fell swoop.

You're speaking as if the Olympics and World Cup are equal in the players' eyes. They are not. The players want the Olympic glory. They want the Olympic gold medal. They want to be etched in the pages of 100 years of Olympic history the same way they want to be part of Stanley Cup history.

The players don't want to replace that with a tooty fruity World Cup that has organized teams in a style more appropriate for a WWF pay-per-view event. Even if the World Cup had 8 regular nations teams and even if it was a TRUE best on best (of which it is not), the players would still prefer the Olympics because there is no lore attached to winning a World Cup. It's the very same reason some players turned down offers to play in the WHA in the 1970's for more money- there was no glory in winning the Avco Cup. They'd rather play for the Stanley Cup for less pay.

Your argument simply doesn't work because the Olympics and World Cup are not equal. It's not as simple as creating your own tournament and giving it a catchy name and creating your own trophy. It doesn't matter if you have all the talent in the world participate. The NHL through the World Cup cannot offer the players anything meaningful to play for besides money. If it was that easy, why is Wimbledon more prestigious than the Canadian Open? Why is the Olympics more prestigious than the World Championships of Athletics? They all have best on best or have the potential to be best on best. Some tournaments have built up prestige and lore through decades of history. The NHL cannot replicate the prestige of the Olympics for the players any more than the English/Spanish/German soccer leagues creating a new best on best soccer tournament to replace the FIFA World Cup.

The ship has sailed for the World Cup in hockey. If the Canada Cup was played regularly every 4 years since 1976, if they hadn't skipped 2000, 2008 and 2012 giving us 40 years or continuous hockey, then perhaps they could have built up some prestige along the way. The days of Wayne and Mario and Brett Hull and Brian Leetch playing for glory in the Canada/World Cup are over. They grew up at a time when the Olympics was not a possibility, so understandably they valued the Canada Cup/World Cup as a best on best. And even in 2004, a few of the old generation remained. It is 2016 now. This current generation of NHL players haven't grown up with the World Cup. If the NHL wanted to revive the World Cup and make it the premier international hockey tournament, they will need 40 more years of continuous, uninterrupted hockey to build up history. And even then, that is a maybe. So why would the players give up the Olympics during that time? You need to look at the bigger picture and be realistic.