WCH - Impressions of the Tournament

[Gary Nylund]

I am against the concept. But as a natural possibly corrupted human being ,watching cze-can and cze- euro for 133 dollars together might deserve consideration) this is actually what I paid for CZE- SVK in 2010 Vancouver. Good deal.

LOL. Aren't we all.

The hockey tournament at the 2010 Olympics was probably the most excited Canada has ever been for an event, and provided perhaps the greatest quality of any tournament I can recall. The hype for 1998 and 2002 was also huge.

I agree though that Sochi saw a significant decline in quality and excitement - very low-scoring with few memorable games. Sure hope it was a one-off.

In terms of generating global interest among hockey fans everywhere nothing comes close to the Olympics, as flawed as it is.

Well there's no way to conclusively prove anything but I strongly disagree with the first point - nothing will ever match (or even come close for that matter) 1972 for excitement. Quality is less clear as there are a number of candidates but 1987 would definitely be my choice.

“I don’t like it at all. Not one thing about it,†Swiss defenceman Mark Streit, who was part of the team that upset Canada and the Czech Republic at the 2006 Olympics, recently told the Cherry Hill Courier-Post. “It’s a nations tournament. You love playing for your country.â€

"I'm sure those two countries will be disappointed not having their own teams," said Czech native Patrick Elias of the New Jersey Devils. "Switzerland is a big part of the IIHF, they've done great the last few years, their hockey has got better and better and more competitive at every age group."

"It would definitely be an exciting thing to happen," Drouin said Friday. "It would be a little different, I guess, playing against your own country. But it might be fun with all those young guys on the same team."

Ryan wondered how those 23-and-under players would feel playing Team USA.

"If you lost, inside you might say, 'Well, at least U.S.A. got a couple of points out of it,'" said Ryan. "It's going to be a weird thing for those kids. But that Young Guns thing will take on a life of its own."

Stamkos was asked how it would be for those young stars to take on Team Canada in that tournament.

"That would be pretty intimidating," Stamkos said. "I don't know how I'd feel about that game. Whether I'd be cheering for them to win or our team to win. If that's the case, those guys will be pretty pumped up."

"I don't think Canadians like to play with Americans too much," said Team Canada Olympic stud Drew Doughty of the Los Angeles Kings. "I don't know how that'd work."

Nobody likes the gimmick teams, give it a rest already.

Hey Gary Nylund, tell the hockey fans in Switzerland. We are going to have a world cup of hockey. Oh but your nation is not good enough so you can not enter a team. Your best players will be mashed together with other small hockey nations. When is it you ask? It begins the exact time you begin your domestic league. Yeah, we do not need your Crappy players so why bother collaborating with your petty league.
In case you think there are no Swiss hockey fans check this article out. It is the celebration of SC Bern championship. And they average 16,000 fans per game.
http://swisshockeynews.ch/index.php...s-celebrated-swiss-champion-sc-bern-yesterday

Now you're just being ridiculous. If the NHL is going to have a tournament at all, this is the only possible time it could happen. Unless you think a reasonable idea is to have it right after the Stanley Cup playoffs or in the middle of the summer.

 

[lynx]

The gimmick teams will be the only reason I watch it, a good move by the league. Impossible not to cheer for the young guns I would think...

 

[Spartachat]

I just got a mail from Leafs Nation saying individual tickets for the tournament will go on sale on August 18th. It is about time already!

 

[JackSlater]

It's pretty much impossible for the tournament to be a bust. It's a hockey tournament in Toronto, with no hockey competition for eyeballs. It will be profitable for the NHL, which is its goal. The tournament is definitely generating less attention than previous editions did though. Tickets still being on sale, and at a reasonable price, conveys that. The lack of discussion on tv (in Canada) conveys that. Europeans won't support this tournament much, but they barely ever supported this tournament and the gimmick teams make it worse off. Americans will ignore it as they always do.

As repugnant as the gimmicks are, I doubt they significantly affect the attendance or viewership for this tournament either positively or negatively. I suspect that the biggest culprit is Sportsnet, a relatively inept network that can't hype hockey nearly as well as TSN or CBC can.

Basically, if we are talking about money, then it won't be a bust. If we are talking about it generating interest, then it is largely failing but not quite at bust level. If we are talking about it being a positive step for hockey, especially international hockey, and a valid continuation of the Canada/World Cup, then it is most certainly a bust already. If we are talking about entertainment value, then it will almost certainly be fine.

 

[Seanaconda]

I think once the Olympics are over the media will focus more attention on the world cup. Right now all that's on till 5 or 6 is Olympic coverage on all channels anyways.

 

[Atas2000]

From the business standpoint Bettman was nuts if he serously thought Europeans would travel to Canada to watch. He'd have to build on US and Canadians and obviously there aren't enough interested. It's not the Olympics. Just some NHL fixed tournament.

 

[Jablkon]

From the business standpoint Bettman was nuts if he serously thought Europeans would travel to Canada to watch. He'd have to build on US and Canadians and obviously there aren't enough interested. It's not the Olympics. Just some NHL fixed tournament.

Except no one expect it to be that cheap. Two ,three people around me seriously considering it now. The tickest package costed like entire trip and it is completely opposite now. It is good to be underdog

 

[Canadian Finn]

it's clearly going to flop.

attendance will be lower then the WJC's.

(I'll say one thing, I attended five WJC games last year, and have a number of friends who did about the same. NONE of us are planning on attending a single WHC game).

However, I certainly hope Gary Nylund and True Hockey Fan attend each and every game, as they are the only two people I've heard consistently (almost blindly) speak positively about this event.

 

[xxxx]

it's clearly going to flop.

attendance will be lower then the WJC's.

(I'll say one thing, I attended five WJC games last year, and have a number of friends who did about the same. NONE of us are planning on attending a single WHC game).

However, I certainly hope Gary Nylund and True Hockey Fan attend each and every game, as they are the only two people I've heard consistently (almost blindly) speak positively about this event.

Interesting.

I will tell you one thing, with a clear confidence, that the TV viewership is going to be higher than for the hockey olympics in Sochi, you can bet on that. And no, the attendance is certainly not going to be lower that at the World Juniors You will certainly be proven wrong on these point, just not right now. In 7 weeks or so. I know people will be rather amazed by the quality of hockey so they might somehow forget that they originally thought it would be a flop, or that there would be empty arenas, that the attendance would be bad, that the hockey would suck, etc., but I hope someone like you will come here and admit they were wrong about this.

 

[Spartachat]

Interesting.

I will tell you one thing, with a clear confidence, that the TV viewership is going to be higher than for the hockey olympics in Sochi, you can bet on that. And no, the attendance is certainly not going to be lower that at the World Juniors You will certainly be proven wrong on these point, just not right now. In 7 weeks or so. I know people will be rather amazed by the quality of hockey so they might somehow forget that they originally thought it would be a flop, or that there would be empty arenas, that the attendance would be bad, that the hockey would suck, etc., but I hope someone like you will come here and admit they were wrong about this.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/spor...medal-hockey-win-over-sweden/article17076958/

More than 15 million people in Canada watched the gold medal game in Sochi and that was with the morning start time. The bar is quite high for the WCH.

 

[xxxx]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/spor...medal-hockey-win-over-sweden/article17076958/

More than 15 million people in Canada watched the gold medal game in Sochi and that was with the morning start time. The bar is quite high for the WCH.

I know that. And I'm pretty sure that the number will be higher here.

 

[TheMule93]

I'm honestly just pumped for more hockey

Rooting for the young guns all the way

 

[snipes]

I'm honestly just pumped for more hockey

Rooting for the young guns all the way

I'm almost more pumped for that team. Canada is expected to win the Cup, nothing else will do.

With the Young Guns, they are clear underdogs. They are pitted against the 3 strongest European hockey nations having to play Sweden, Russia, and Finland in group play. Those 3 should defeat the Young Guns and all 3 will be favoured against them.

Plus, the opportunity to see Eichel and McDavid potentially on the 1st line together in a competitive tournament is something we'll likely never see again (and no, All Star games are a false equivalence). The Young Guns are definitely the team I'm most intrigued by and the team I'm pulling for (unless they play Canada at some point).

For all it's faults, the World Cup should be good hockey. I hate that it interrupts Canadas current best-on-best dominance, the historical record will always reflect an asterisk and won't officially count. However, this tournament could be some of the best hockey of this era. I'm keeping an open mind.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I just got a mail from Leafs Nation saying individual tickets for the tournament will go on sale on August 18th. It is about time already!

Is that just for Leafs STHs or the general public?

 

[xxxx]

When I ask what are the reasons this tournament "shouldn't count", the answers will probably be like "the US is missing two players, Canada one", or "there is Team NA and Team Europe instead of Slovakia and Switzelrand. The latter is a lame reason for me, since Team NA and Team Europe are stronger than Slovakia and Switzerland and therefore winning the tournament is even harder, not easier. And for those possibly three missing players for US and Canada, all I can say is this. Sweden missed Henrik Sedin and Henrik Zetteberg basically for the whole olympics, plus Backstrom in the gold-medal game, that's their 3 best centers, if something is a hell of a loss, it's this. Yet, no one is putting an asterisk next to our win 3-0. We missed Stamkos (some would say Giroux), and then Tavares too. From our fresh memory, Kessel, T.Johnson, Faulk, or Shattenkirk are all missing on the US roster, players we probably all would have had on the team. Or look back to the previous olympics - in 2006 we missed Jovanovski and S.Niedermayer on the blue line due injuries. How many argue today that Crosby, Spezza, and E.Staal all should've been selected at the time. The US missed Komisarek, Martin, or Booth in 2010. Mikko Koivu and Filppula couldn't play for Finland in 2014. You say a tournament doesn't count because we are not allowed to have McDavid and the US Eichel and Gaudreau. I take it. But then I look at what I just presented and although the reasons are a bit different, the facts are the same. You look at the teams that were missing some key players, and no one is complaining it shouldn't count because of that. Again, the reasons are different, of course, but the resulting facts are the same. When I look at this in this spectrum - Sweden didn't have Zetterberg and H.Sedin in 2014. We didn't have Stamkos. Now the US doesn't have Gaudreau and Eichel and we dont have McDavid. Big deal. I'm jsut saying that this "loss" is so much similar to what could happen in an olympic tournament, that I really don't think there should be any asterisk next to this tournament.

I'm just saying that if the US wins this tournament, I won't be putting any asterisk there because we didn't have McDavid, or because they (perhaps) had to face Team North America in the semis/finals (which would mean that NA team was very successful against the other opponents). The same way if Sweden wins it, I will be happy for them and it will certainly be a success. Disregarding their win because three players (possibly) missed their nations' best roster, and because they "had to face just North America and not Slovakia" (lol) is silly to me.

But where I'm losing it is when I hear that finnish or russian fans wouldn't take the tournament's overall win highly because of this or that. Yeah sure, but you sure do the wins at the world championships where there is like 2% of the best players in the world. But because Canada doesn't have McDavid, and the US Eichel and Gaudreau, and we have to face Team NorthAmerica, even if our (fully motivated) finnish best team wins against the best possible Russian and Swedish team and beats US in the semis and Canada in the finals, but it WON'T COUNT, do you listen, it WON'T COUNT because they missed two players and they missed one, but our gold from the tournament that has like 10 players out of the 200 best of the NHL is counting for everything, you know.

I'm loving this. That's incredible amount of irony there probably few see it.

 

[Spartachat]

Is that just for Leafs STHs or the general public?

Pre-sale on Aug 17th for Leafs Nation and on sale to general public on Aug 18th.

 

[snipes]

When I ask what are the reasons this tournament "shouldn't count", the answers will probably be like "the US is missing two players, Canada one", or "there is Team NA and Team Europe instead of Slovakia and Switzelrand. The latter is a lame reason for me, since Team NA and Team Europe are stronger than Slovakia and Switzerland and therefore winning the tournament is even harder, not easier. And for those possibly three missing players for US and Canada, all I can say is this. Sweden missed Henrik Sedin and Henrik Zetteberg basically for the whole , plus Backstrom in the gold-medal game, that's their 3 best centers, if something is a hell of a loss, it's this. Yet, no one is putting an astersk next to our win 3-0. We missed Stamkos (some would say Giroux), and then Tavares too. From our fresh memory, Kessel, T.Johnson, Faulk, or Shattenkirk are all missing on the US roster, players we probably all would have had on the team. Or look back to the previous - in 2006 we missed Jovanovski and S.Niedermayer on the blue line due injuries. How many argue today that Crosby, Spezza, and E.Staal all should've been selected at the time. The US missed Komisarek, Martin, or Booth in 2010. Mikko Koivu and Filppula couldn't play for Finland in 2014. You say a tournament doesn't count because we are not allowed to have McDavid and the US Eichel and Gaudreau. I take it. But then I look at what I just presented and although the reasons are a bit different, the facts are the same. You look at the teams that were missing some key players, nad no one is complaining it shouldn't count because of that. Again, the reasons are different, of course, but the resulting facts are the same. When I look at this in this spectrum - Sweden didn't have Zetterberg and H.Sedin in 2014. We didn't have Stamkos. Now the US doesn't have Gaudreau and Eichel and we dont have McDavid. Big deal. I'm jsut saying that this "loss" is so much similar to what could happen in an olympic tournament, that I really don't think there should be any asterisk next to this tournament.

I'm just saying that if the US wins this tournament, I won't be putting any asterisk there because we didn't have McDavid, or because they (perhaps) had to face Team North America in the semis/finals (which would mean that NA team was very successful against the other opponents). The same way if Sweden wins it, I will be happy for them and it will certainly be a success. Disregarding their win because three players (possibly) missed their nations' best roster, and because they "had to face just North America and not Slovakia" (lol) is silly to me.

But where I'm losing it is when I hear that finnish or russian fans wouldn't take the tournament's overall win highly because of this or that. Yeah sure, but you sure do the wins at the world championships where there is like 2% of the best players in the world. But because Canada doesn't have McDavid, and the US Eichel and Gaudreau, and we have to face Team NorthAmerica, even if our (fully motivated) finnish best team wins against the best possible Russia and Swedish team and beats US in the semis and Canada in the finals, but it WON'T COUNT, do you listen, it WON'T COUNT because they missed two players and they missed one, but our gold from the tournament that has like 10 players out of the 200 best of the is counting for everything, you know.

I'm loving this. That's incredible amount of irony there probably few see it.

When Russia, Sweden, and Finland play each other it is best-on-best hockey. Those teams have unbridled access to players under their federation (Voynov notwithstanding due to an NHL suspension).

Best-on-best by definition requires all teams have full access to use any player under their jurisdiction and federation. By the USA and Canada being restricted, it does not meet the definition under a strict interpretation. Even if Canada wins, we'll say the same thing.

Russia, Finland, Czechia, and Sweden have no restrictions. They are sending their best, if one of them wins they won't be able to call it a best-on-best victory the same way Canada could not. It's good to address the historical record now.

Maybe we need a new category or label? At it's core this tournament is a Hockey Summit of the best players in the world and a summit of the Big 6 and two non-national teams. Both of the non-national teams are better and more talented teams than the teams who would have made up the 7th and 8th spot (Switzerland, Slovakia, Germany, Denmark. Most likely two from that group would have filled the remaining spots). The 7th and 8th teams are in a different category as hockey nations, it's not meant to be rude or disparaging, they just are not at the same level right now as the Big 6.

This will very likely be a one time thing. The NHL evaluated the situation, saw a unique opportunity with rare talents like McDavid and Eichel being marketable as the next generation of players. It was a rare situation where they had an American and Canadian talent widely viewed as the torch bearers and future faces of the NHL. Canada has such a deep roster that many of the best young talent in the NHL wouldn't get a chance to participate. The goal is to showcase the very best of the NHL. They saw players like Kopitar being among the most talented in the world, but due to being from Slovenia unable to showcase one of their best players.

The Olympics still reign supreme and without question the only true best-on-best we've had recently. Nothing changes that. I view this as kind of a transition tournament, especially for Finland, Sweden, and the USA. A changing of the guard is underway for those teams, this will benefit the young players as we head into the 2018 Olympics.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Pre-sale on Aug 17th for Leafs Nation and on sale to general public on Aug 18th.

Thanks!

 

[JackSlater]

When I ask what are the reasons this tournament "shouldn't count", the answers will probably be like "the US is missing two players, Canada one", or "there is Team NA and Team Europe instead of Slovakia and Switzelrand. The latter is a lame reason for me, since Team NA and Team Europe are stronger than Slovakia and Switzerland and therefore winning the tournament is even harder, not easier. And for those possibly three missing players for US and Canada, all I can say is this. Sweden missed Henrik Sedin and Henrik Zetteberg basically for the whole olympics, plus Backstrom in the gold-medal game, that's their 3 best centers, if something is a hell of a loss, it's this. Yet, no one is putting an asterisk next to our win 3-0. We missed Stamkos (some would say Giroux), and then Tavares too. From our fresh memory, Kessel, T.Johnson, Faulk, or Shattenkirk are all missing on the US roster, players we probably all would have had on the team. Or look back to the previous olympics - in 2006 we missed Jovanovski and S.Niedermayer on the blue line due injuries. How many argue today that Crosby, Spezza, and E.Staal all should've been selected at the time. The US missed Komisarek, Martin, or Booth in 2010. Mikko Koivu and Filppula couldn't play for Finland in 2014. You say a tournament doesn't count because we are not allowed to have McDavid and the US Eichel and Gaudreau. I take it. But then I look at what I just presented and although the reasons are a bit different, the facts are the same. You look at the teams that were missing some key players, and no one is complaining it shouldn't count because of that. Again, the reasons are different, of course, but the resulting facts are the same. When I look at this in this spectrum - Sweden didn't have Zetterberg and H.Sedin in 2014. We didn't have Stamkos. Now the US doesn't have Gaudreau and Eichel and we dont have McDavid. Big deal. I'm jsut saying that this "loss" is so much similar to what could happen in an olympic tournament, that I really don't think there should be any asterisk next to this tournament.

Injuries are a part of hockey. The situation is obviously very different though, and no reasonable person is going to count this as a best on best tournament. The reasons have been explained to you numerous times and they are unassailable. You want there to not be an asterisk, but there always will be. The NHL created a tournament that is not international and is not fair, as there are two non-national teams in the tournament and two of the supposedly national teams cannot pick all of their players because the rules of the tournament are geared against them. Only a blind fool would willfully ignore those facts.

It's also funny that you are comparing injuries, a terrible part of hockey that everyone hates, to the very structure of this tournament. Great idea when blind fans resort to comparing obviously idiotic elements of the tournament to injuries in order to justify them.

Once again this is nothing but embarrassing whining from someone who seemingly wants everyone else to blindly follow as he does. There is a reason that we never really see anyone come along and note "wow, what a good point True Hockey Fan just made". The logic isn't there. It's all based on what you want, rather than what is reality. Reality is that this is not a best on best, as not all teams are able to select their best. It isn't even international tournament. You may want it to be an international tournament or a best on best tournament, but the fact is that it isn't. If you want to enjoy it that is your choice, but anyone with a shred of critical reasoning sees the tournament for the sham that it is.

I'm just saying that if the US wins this tournament, I won't be putting any asterisk there because we didn't have McDavid, or because they (perhaps) had to face Team North America in the semis/finals (which would mean that NA team was very successful against the other opponents). The same way if Sweden wins it, I will be happy for them and it will certainly be a success. Disregarding their win because three players (possibly) missed their nations' best roster, and because they "had to face just North America and not Slovakia" (lol) is silly to me.

Yes, we can all imagine that you will reach the wrong conclusion. You have been consistent in your poorly thought out reason and willful ignorance to the explanations for just why this tournament is a sham. The fact, once again not what you want but a fact, is that you don't know the impact that the missing American and Canadian players would have. If USA wins, we don't know what would have happened with McDavid in the Canadian lineup. If Canada wins, we don't know what would have happened with Gaudreau/Eichel/Saad/Jones/whoever available to USA. The results are tainted. Even without that, any national team losing to a non-national team taints the results of the tournament. The NHL has rendered it just an exhibition tournament between some teams, some of which are follow different themes than others.

But where I'm losing it is when I hear that finnish or russian fans wouldn't take the tournament's overall win highly because of this or that. Yeah sure, but you sure do the wins at the world championships where there is like 2% of the best players in the world. But because Canada doesn't have McDavid, and the US Eichel and Gaudreau, and we have to face Team NorthAmerica, even if our (fully motivated) finnish best team wins against the best possible Russian and Swedish team and beats US in the semis and Canada in the finals, but it WON'T COUNT, do you listen, it WON'T COUNT because they missed two players and they missed one, but our gold from the tournament that has like 10 players out of the 200 best of the NHL is counting for everything, you know.

I'm loving this. That's incredible amount of irony there probably few see it.

You are indeed correct that it won't count. Of course we will see fans from whatever country wins change their tune when their team wins, as winners will always do, but you can see the majority of opinion already. The fact that the tournament unfairly impacts some teams but not others by its very nature renders the results meaningless.

No reasonable person would accept the results of the Stanley Cup playoffs if the NHL arbitrarily removed some players from a few of the teams. The results would be tainted. Likewise, no reasonable person will take the results of this tournament seriously. Everyone can see that you want the tournament to be valid, but it's obvious to any reasonable person capable of thinking beyond what the NHL tells them that the tournament is not valid.

 

[xxxx]

Once again this is nothing but embarrassing whining from someone who seemingly wants everyone else to blindly follow as he does. There is a reason that we never really see anyone come along and note "wow, what a good point True Fan just made". The logic isn't there. It's all based on what you want, rather than what is reality. Reality is that this is not a best on best, as not all teams are able to select their best. It isn't even international tournament. You may want it to be an international tournament or a best on best tournament, but the fact is that it isn't. If you want to enjoy it that is your choice, but anyone with a shred of critical reasoning sees the tournament for the sham that it is.

Not really. I'm just tired of the people who constantly whine about the format and rules, etc. And if anyone wants someone to blindly follow something, it's probably those very people who are constantly and persistently whining that this tournament is stupid and means nothing. The reason no one is really agreeing with anything I post is that everyone else is whining against the tournament, so that's pretty logical those people won't be in agreement with me what a great logic huh I'm pretty sure a lot of people think this tournament is as valid as it can be. But what can I say. A tournament must be "perfect" to be valid I guess. I know the tournament isn't technically 100% best-on-best, but it's as close as it gets, and that 1% that is missing isn't enough for me to put an asterisk there, let alone mocking it to death, but its probably enough for you, so, good for you.

 

[Lepardi]

Interesting.

I will tell you one thing, with a clear confidence, that the TV viewership is going to be higher than for the hockey olympics in Sochi, you can bet on that.

Are you talking about TV viewership globally or TV viewership in Canada? Cause the global viewership will definitely be smaller than it was for Sochi. Russia has over 140 million people, and when Russia plays Olympic hockey on their home soil, that's gonna draw some serious ratings there. A World Cup game in the middle of the night not that much.

 

[xxxx]

Are you talking about TV viewership globally or TV viewership in Canada? Cause the global viewership will definitely be smaller than it was for Sochi. Russia has over 140 million people, and when Russia plays Olympic hockey on their home soil, that's gonna draw some serious ratings there. A World Cup game in the middle of the night not that much.

yes I was talking about Canada.

 

[1Gold Standard]

I have serious doubts that people in large numbers will be tuning in for an early start on Rogers SN hockey coverage. Even if this were a traditional and real best on best international tournament, I'd be less than enthused that this tournament is a SN property. Team Canada games will get average ratings in Canada, but will lose the ratings war if they go head to head against Toronto Blue Jay baseball. The U24 North American team may get decent ratings if they play well...but the rest of the teams/games will be a ratings disaster.

so good to be back from summer vaca.

 

[JackSlater]

Not really. I'm just tired of the people who constantly whine about the format and rules, etc. And if anyone wants someone to blindly follow something, it's probably those very people who are constantly and persistently whining that this tournament is stupid and means nothing. The reason no one is really agreeing with anything I post is that everyone else is whining against the tournament, so that's pretty logical those people won't be in agreement with me what a great logic huh I'm pretty sure a lot of people think this tournament is as valid as it can be. But what can I say. A tournament must be "perfect" to be valid I guess. I know the tournament isn't technically 100% best-on-best, but it's as close as it gets, and that 1% that is missing isn't enough for me to put an asterisk there, let alone mocking it to death, but its probably enough for you, so, good for you.

The people "whining" are people who actually think critically about the issues with this tournament and don't blindly accept what the NHL is offering. The justifications offered are weak, and hence very few people are willing to actually agree with them. People don't set out to find fault if they are already hockey fans. They are finding fault because ample fault is there.

This tournament isn't "as close as it gets" to a best on best tournament. Actual best on best tournaments are as close as it gets to best on best tournaments. Novel thought, I know.

I have serious doubts that people in large numbers will be tuning in for an early start on Rogers SN hockey coverage. Even if this were a traditional and real best on best international tournament, I'd be less than enthused that this tournament is a SN property. Team Canada games will get average ratings in Canada, but will lose the ratings war if they go head to head against Toronto Blue Jay baseball. The U24 North American team may get decent ratings if they play well...but the rest of the teams/games will be a ratings disaster.

so good to be back from summer vaca.

As idiotic as the format is, I do agree that Sportsnet is a bigger factor in the lack of enthusiasm in Canada. More NHL short-sightedness. Put this on TSN and the hype would be there.

 

[Jablkon]

If I remember clear, argument about missing players in team Canada and USA oroginally came from canadian or american posters here. Most Euro fans had tons of other complaints....