WCH - Impressions of the Tournament

[Seanaconda]

All soccer teams at the Olympics are national teams and the age rule that applies to all of them.

It applies to all of them but the teams aren't forced to let their players play in the Olympics. So it's basically a world Junior tournament with 3 older guys on each team. So not best on best but yes all the teams are nations. Does every team in a tournament have to be a nation to have it be considered international or is it international if it's more than one nation ? I'll have to google the definition. The fact you have 6 nations in the world cup seems pretty international to me.

Here I googled it. International mostly means something (a company, language, or organization) involving more than a single country. The term international as a word means involvement of, interaction between or encompassing more than one nation.

So more than 1 country so it's an international tournament. Fun

 

[jj cale]

Since olympic soccer holds little interest for me I have just found out in this thread that they have a freaking age rule on the teams that the clubs players have to be 23 and under?

What the **** then are people going on about how special the olympics are and then trashing the NHL for doing this then?


This changes the whole ball game for me in terms of berating this world cup.


Complain about the format of the world cup all you want but I don't want to hear anymore about some special status among posters about the sanctity of the olympics.

What utter ********!!

here the olympics have been doing gimmick deals all along, before any of this world cup format came into being.

 

[Gary Nylund]

For men's Olympic soccer there is indeed an age restriction of 23 years old, with 3 overage players permitted per team. Every team in the qualifying rounds and eventual Olympic tournament consist of players only from their countries, and is subject to the exact same age restrictions. Vastly different from the upcoming hockey World Cup where two of the eight teams have age restrictions imposed on them, and two don't even represent distinct countries.

Apples and oranges, really.

Yes this is all true. I'm just a bit tired of reading some people (well mostly one person to be fair) dismissing the WC as 100% irrelevant because it's technically not best-on-best and it's technically not an international tournament because every single team is not a national team. By that criteria, the Olympics are also 100% irrelevant is all I'm saying.

Man, I dont know from where you are but this is going to be ridiculous discussion. No, its not my country fault so as its not fault of team Canada that they didnt pick Subban. They simply didn't want him. It's same with these czech players.

Its nice you have so many innovative ideas. I might be too conservative but people here treat our national team in very very respectful way even if we basically suck from 2010. There is no other more important representation of this country than the hockey team, and that probably includes even the president. So in Canada you probably dont mind that McDavid weaken your team chances because he plays against your team, but here people would mind a lot if czech players play against our team. Its not a Nedved's case, he has canadian passport as well. Those would remain solely czechs but just play against us.

Oh I do mind believe me and I'm sure I'm not the only one. In fact I'd say the fact that McDavid is on a team other than Team Canada is the single thing I dislike the most about these gimmick teams. I don't even care whether or not this weakens our chances or not and he may or may not have been picked for the team anyway (though I sure as hell would have picked him), I just don't like it on principle. McDavid is likely our future leader and Captain and having him play against us is sacrilegious.

 

[Seanaconda]

Man, I dont know from where you are but this is going to be ridiculous discussion. No, its not my country fault so as its not fault of team Canada that they didnt pick Subban. They simply didn't want him. It's same with these czech players.

Its nice you have so many innovative ideas. I might be too conservative but people here treat our national team in very very respectful way even if we basically suck from 2010. There is no other more important representation of this country than the hockey team, and that probably includes even the president. So in Canada you probably dont mind that McDavid weaken your team chances because he plays against your team, but here people would mind a lot if czech players play against our team. Its not a Nedved's case, he has canadian passport as well. Those would remain solely czechs but just play against us.

Mcdavid probably wouldn't of been picked by team canada or would be their 13th forward or something stupid with how ridiculous team canadas picking can be.

So yes I'm happy mcdavid gets to play and I get to watch him play in this tournament. Even if team north America beats team canada. I do wish canada did have the opportunity to take him if they wanted tho.

 

[Canuckistani]

Here I googled it. International mostly means something (a company, language, or organization) involving more than a single country. The term international as a word means involvement of, interaction between or encompassing more than one nation.

So more than 1 country so it's an international tournament. Fun

So a tournament involving the Leafs, Habs, Rangers, Bruins, Jokerit Helsinki, Moscow, Team Norway and Team Belgium....is an "international tournament."

The lengths people will go to justify the NHL's idiocy really is a sight to behold.

 

[Canuckistani]

Since olympic soccer holds little interest for me I have just found out in this thread that they have a freaking age rule on the teams that the clubs players have to be 23 and under?

What the **** then are people going on about how special the olympics are and then trashing the NHL for doing this then?


This changes the whole ball game for me in terms of berating this world cup.


Complain about the format of the world cup all you want but I don't want to hear anymore about some special status among posters about the sanctity of the olympics.

What utter ********!!

here the olympics have been doing gimmick deals all along, before any of this world cup format came into being.

Olympic soccer is an U-23 + 3 event because soccer already has a world cup plus regional championships that are best-on-best.

In other words, no one cares that it's U-23 as Olympic soccer isn't a big deal.

Trying pulling that U-23 format at the FIFA world cup or the Euro/Copa events and see how well that goes down.

 

[Seanaconda]

So a tournament involving the Leafs, Habs, Rangers, Bruins, Jokerit Helsinki, Moscow, Team Norway and Team Belgium....is an "international tournament."

The lengths people will go to justify the NHL's idiocy really is a sight to behold.

I guess technically because the definition is what it is?

If they got rid of the age restrictions and country restrictions I would completely love the world cup format. 2 teams of cast-offs is interesting.

You don't have to like it but I'm fine with all the tournaments being clones. If they keep going to the Olympics I'm fine with the 2 extra teams.

 

[Canuckistani]

I guess technically because the definition is what it is?

If they got rid of the age restrictions and country restrictions I would completely love the world cup format. 2 teams of cast-offs is interesting.

You don't have to like it but I'm fine with all the tournaments being clones. If they keep going to the Olympics I'm fine with the 2 extra teams.

The day the NHL commits to the Olympics is the day I cease caring what they do to the Bettman Cup.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

So a tournament involving the Leafs, Habs, Rangers, Bruins, Jokerit Helsinki, Moscow, Team Norway and Team Belgium....is an "international tournament."

The lengths people will go to justify the NHL's idiocy really is a sight to behold.

To be fair so is the constant griping about the event by a small handful of posters. I think we have sufficiently circled the wagons at this point.

 

[JackSlater]

Nothing "supposed" about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee_Olympic_Team_at_the_2016_Summer_Olympics

Yes, you are correct that the events in which that made up team competed weren't international due to their inclusion. The refuge team was a bad idea.

Soccer in the Olympics isn't best on best tho don't they have an age rule?

The post you quote said that the soccer tournament was international, not that it was best on best. Everyone knows that the soccer tournament at the Olympics is not best on best, other than most likely True Hockey Fan. It was an international tournament though, so your point has no relevance to what he said.

This seems to a perfectly valid point. It should be interesting to see where the goal posts get shifted to this time.

It seems valid... unless someone reads the post he quoted and sees how irrelevant his comment was, for the reason I just explained. Context, once again, is important.

Since olympic soccer holds little interest for me I have just found out in this thread that they have a freaking age rule on the teams that the clubs players have to be 23 and under?

What the **** then are people going on about how special the olympics are and then trashing the NHL for doing this then?


This changes the whole ball game for me in terms of berating this world cup.


Complain about the format of the world cup all you want but I don't want to hear anymore about some special status among posters about the sanctity of the olympics.

What utter ********!!

here the olympics have been doing gimmick deals all along, before any of this world cup format came into being.

How does the Olympics having a joke soccer tournament (I assumed that was widely known)... make this tournament less of a joke? It's not like the Olympic hockey tournament has even been a best on best for most of its history.

 

[Jablkon]

Mcdavid probably wouldn't of been picked by team canada or would be their 13th forward or something stupid with how ridiculous team canadas picking can be.

So yes I'm happy mcdavid gets to play and I get to watch him play in this tournament. Even if team north America beats team canada. I do wish canada did have the opportunity to take him if they wanted tho.

That is where we are different. I would never accept it no matter if it was 2nd tier czech player. I would rather wake up in the morning to watch Zacha play for Devils than see him playing against my team. That simply does not worth it for me. You guys must be crazy about hockey. I dont know what is so important to have McDavid or Kopitar there when you can watch them in 80 matches every year. Good thing on this tourney is that in case one of Euro or NA 23 get to final their opponent can be consider as best in the world even before final )

Jesus I find more and more weird things on it

 

[Jablkon]

Yes this is all true. I'm just a bit tired of reading some people (well mostly one person to be fair) dismissing the WC as 100% irrelevant because it's technically not best-on-best and it's technically not an international tournament because every single team is not a national team. By that criteria, the Olympics are also 100% irrelevant is all I'm saying.



Oh I do mind believe me and I'm sure I'm not the only one. In fact I'd say the fact that McDavid is on a team other than Team Canada is the single thing I dislike the most about these gimmick teams. I don't even care whether or not this weakens our chances or not and he may or may not have been picked for the team anyway (though I sure as hell would have picked him), I just don't like it on principle. McDavid is likely our future leader and Captain and having him play against us is sacrilegious.

Completely agree here. Dont understand why you still justify this tourney because this only itself is fatal error imo. In fact it was the first thing I was pointing out. Not the fact that there are mixed teams but players playing against their country.

 

[Jablkon]

Yes this is all true. I'm just a bit tired of reading some people (well mostly one person to be fair) dismissing the WC as 100% irrelevant because it's technically not best-on-best and it's technically not an international tournament because every single team is not a national team. By that criteria, the Olympics are also 100% irrelevant is all I'm saying.



Oh I do mind believe me and I'm sure I'm not the only one. In fact I'd say the fact that McDavid is on a team other than Team Canada is the single thing I dislike the most about these gimmick teams. I don't even care whether or not this weakens our chances or not and he may or may not have been picked for the team anyway (though I sure as hell would have picked him), I just don't like it on principle. McDavid is likely our future leader and Captain and having him play against us is sacrilegious.

Since olympic soccer holds little interest for me I have just found out in this thread that they have a freaking age rule on the teams that the clubs players have to be 23 and under?

What the **** then are people going on about how special the olympics are and then trashing the NHL for doing this then?


This changes the whole ball game for me in terms of berating this world cup.


Complain about the format of the world cup all you want but I don't want to hear anymore about some special status among posters about the sanctity of the olympics.

What utter ********!!

here the olympics have been doing gimmick deals all along, before any of this world cup format came into being.

But hockey in OGs was always on senior level. Soccer on Ogs is limited by age but thats also due to fact that soccer U21 teams play their cups and partly through them qualify to OGs. Becauce players getting older meanwhile the age limit is not 21 but 23 to allow those players who battle for OGs to participate + you can have 3 senior players. Something like if first six teams from world juniors qualify to OGs. But that was never case of hockey in OGs so how does it matter?

 

[xxxx]

You choose to not get it. You make up a factually wrong definition and you won't, and can't, defend it. It's not a matter of opinion - your definition is idiotic and does not match the term which has existed for decades. I use the definition as it has always been and as the vast majority use it. You attempt to twist the definition, in a nonsensical way, to attempt to justify something you like and that you want others to agree with. You are entitled to like the tournament, but apparently you cannot accept that the fact is that it is not a best on best tournament.

Except for one thing. I admitted this is not 100% best-on-best, if using your definition - because Canada and the US can't have those 3-5 players. I never disputed that one. Yet you think I don't get it.

I don't try to twist this definition, since as I say there isn't just only one. Yes there is only one that has been used, doesn't mean that the definition of best-on-best is given by some logic though, when the word is BEST ON BEST. How do you interprete, is up to you. As is being a #1 defenseman, it's a matter of your definition, it's not set in stone. You are simply not willing to understand that there could be COMPLETELY DIFFERENT definitions of what best-of-best / best-on-best means. Of course that when you act like there is only one definition acceptable, then I won't argue with you since it doesn't make sense.

Simply said, my definition of best-on-best isn't strict, while your is.

I have a right to say that I have a bit broader definition of what best-on-best means and it isn't necessarily tied up with if every team is "a national team", or "has the absolute best that there is, being available to it". That you think the definition has to be tied to these two things, that's your opinion, fine. I don't necessarily agree here.

 

[Seanaconda]

That is where we are different. I would never accept it no matter if it was 2nd tier czech player. I would rather wake up in the morning to watch Zacha play for Devils than see him playing against my team. That simply does not worth it for me. You guys must be crazy about hockey. I dont know what is so important to have McDavid or Kopitar there when you can watch them in 80 matches every year. Good thing on this tourney is that in case one of Euro or NA 23 get to final their opponent can be consider as best in the world even before final )

Jesus I find more and more weird things on it

Maybe it's just from being canadian and seeing how many good canadian players never get to play in international tournaments that matter (not the whc) that I would rather them get to play when canada will never take them because Team canada wants it's boring shutdown team. With mostly old players

until they lose another one and then they will go back to youth and then do the same thing again.

Team north America without an age limit could make one of the most exciting teams ever if you could take all the offensive dmen team canada never takes and all the offensive forwards that aren't 2 way centers. (What is the forwards core at 10 or 11 centers atm) Could make such an entertaining team I would like to watch. It would let team canada make its boring shutdown we just want gold team

while having an underdog team go full offense with high risk entertaining play.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Completely agree here. Dont understand why you still justify this tourney because this only itself is fatal error imo. In fact it was the first thing I was pointing out. Not the fact that there are mixed teams but players playing against their country.

I'm not really "justifying" it, I've said from the start that the gimmick teams are a bad idea. I just think some of the negative reactions are too "over the top". Not watching at all is something I would not consider as it will still be incredibly interesting and far from meaningless in my humble opinion. Despite my objections to the U23 team they will be very interesting to watch and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they did much better than some expect. How anyone can not want to watch this team play is beyond me. Also, talking about how the gimmick teams are here to stay as if it's a fact is untrue and annoying. Etc.

But hockey in OGs was always on senior level. Soccer on Ogs is limited by age but thats also due to fact that soccer U21 teams play their cups and partly through them qualify to OGs. Becauce players getting older meanwhile the age limit is not 21 but 23 to allow those players who battle for OGs to participate + you can have 3 senior players. Something like if first six teams from world juniors qualify to OGs. But that was never case of hockey in OGs so how does it matter?

In my case it's just a reaction to the tone set by some posters here - the WC is just a "cash grab", the WC is meaningless, it's not "international", it's not best-on-best, the NHL is evil (OK I overstated that one but still), the NHL is corrupt and so on whereas the Olympic Games on the other hand are some sort of ideal to strive for.

In my opinion, the Olympic Games are a corrupt mess and it's just kind of fun to point out that some of the things that people have been screaming about with respect to the WC also apply to the Olympics.

 

[xxxx]

Yes, you are correct that the events in which that made up team competed weren't international due to their inclusion. The refuge team was a bad idea.

It wasn't. The athletes have no choice than to "not participate" otherwise. Sometimes a feeling for humanity should be stronger than "logic", or what "should be".

 

[JackSlater]

Except for one thing. I admitted this is not 100% best-on-best, if using your definition - because Canada and the US can't have those 3-5 players. I never disputed that one. Yet you think I don't get it.

I don't try to twist this definition, since as I say there isn't just only one. Yes there is only one that has been used, doesn't mean that the definition of best-on-best is given by some logic though, when the word is BEST ON BEST. How do you interprete, is up to you. As is being a #1 defenseman, it's a matter of your definition, it's not set in stone. You are simply not willing to understand that there could be COMPLETELY DIFFERENT definitions of what best-of-best / best-on-best means. Of course that when you act like there is only one definition acceptable, then I won't argue with you since it doesn't make sense.

Simply said, my definition of best-on-best isn't strict, while your is.

I understand where you are coming from here, but generally it isn't feasible for each person to construct their own definition and use it when nearly everyone else uses a different definition. If you want to call it something else, then provided the reason makes sense then there is no issue. If you claim that this tournament has more talent per team than the Olympics or something, for instance, then I would have to agree. The definition of best on best is largely established though. If I decide that this tournament is a league instead of a tournament, by some definition I make up, it doesn't make it so.

I have a right to say that I have a bit broader definition of what best-on-best means and it isn't necessarily tied up with if every team is "a national team", or "has the absolute best that there is, being available to it". That you think the definition has to be tied to these two things, that's your opinion, fine. I don't necessarily agree here.

I agree that you have a right to say it. I can even respect that you at least directly attempt to defend the ideas. I would like to hear your definition of what a best on best is though.

Also, talking about how the gimmick teams are here to stay as if it's a fact is untrue and annoying. Etc.

I like how you take a stand against something that the vast majority of people aren't even saying. It's very bold and, dare I say it, heroic. Some would call it yet another strawman though.

I do hope that most people can read and realize that loathing the gimmicks and not wanting them to continue is not the same thing as stating that they are certain to continue. Seems that a few cannot wrap their minds around the concept of people wanting something bad to fail so that it definitely goes away instead of just maybe goes away.

 

[Doshell Propivo]

Well, considering McDavid feels like a refugee on the Oilers, I can see the parallels some of you are making here...

 

[86Habs]

I'm not really "justifying" it, I've said from the start that the gimmick teams are a bad idea. I just think some of the negative reactions are too "over the top". Not watching at all is something I would not consider as it will still be incredibly interesting and far from meaningless in my humble opinion. Despite my objections to the U23 team they will be very interesting to watch and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they did much better than some expect. How anyone can not want to watch this team play is beyond me. Also, talking about how the gimmick teams are here to stay as if it's a fact is untrue and annoying. Etc.

In my case it's just a reaction to the tone set by some posters here - the WC is just a "cash grab", the WC is meaningless, it's not "international", it's not best-on-best, the NHL is evil (OK I overstated that one but still), the NHL is corrupt and so on whereas the Olympic Games on the other hand are some sort of ideal to strive for.

In my opinion, the Olympic Games are a corrupt mess and it's just kind of fun to point out that some of the things that people have been screaming about with respect to the WC also apply to the Olympics.

I think you may be creating a bit of a strawman here by comparing the Olympic hockey tournament with the summer and winter Olympic events at large (you're right in that they are largely a corrupt mess). At least, that has been your chain of thought these last few pages. While the post-1998 Olympic hockey tournaments have been best-on-best tournaments which resulted in a lot of amazing hockey, there are still faults with the structure - namely, using shootouts to decide the playoff/medal games, and the single-game final. In my opinion, the ideal that the NHL should strive for with these World Cups, should they continue, is the 1996 version of the World Cup.

My concern with this upcoming World Cup is that it sets a precedent for potential future stupidity such as NA vs. Europe, playing for your country of ancestry (as discussed yesterday), etc. instead of simply implementing a proper ****ing World Cup. It's difficult to imagine how the NHL could take something so simple and screw it up so badly. Secondly, and most importantly, I'm concerned about the possibility of the NHL doubling-down on this World Cup nonsense and pulling out of the Olympics.

 

[Lepardi]

Here I googled it. International mostly means something (a company, language, or organization) involving more than a single country. The term international as a word means involvement of, interaction between or encompassing more than one nation.

So more than 1 country so it's an international tournament. Fun

And NHL and NBA games are international games as well by your definition. Fun

 

[Seanaconda]

I think you may be creating a bit of a strawman here by comparing the Olympic hockey tournament with the summer and winter Olympic events at large (you're right in that they are largely a corrupt mess). At least, that has been your chain of thought these last few pages. While the post-1998 Olympic hockey tournaments have been best-on-best tournaments which resulted in a lot of amazing hockey, there are still faults with the structure - namely, using shootouts to decide the playoff/medal games, and the single-game final. In my opinion, the ideal that the NHL should strive for with these World Cups, should they continue, is the 1996 version of the World Cup.

My concern with this upcoming World Cup is that it sets a precedent for potential future stupidity such as NA vs. Europe, playing for your country of ancestry (as discussed yesterday), etc. instead of simply implementing a proper f***ing World Cup. It's difficult to imagine how the NHL could take something so simple and screw it up so badly. Secondly, and most importantly, I'm concerned about the possibility of the NHL doubling-down on this World Cup nonsense and pulling out of the Olympics.

They will only pull out of the Olympics if the insurance and stuff is too expensive for it to be worth it. They couldn't even practice as a team together during the last Olympics before it started because the insurance was such a mess.

If they drop out of the Olympics chances are they change the world cup to the Olympic format.

I feel if they wanted to drop the Olympics they would of made both the tournaments the same. Having 2 different tournaments makes sence having them both the same doesn't. Like soccer the world cup is the soccer version of hockey's Olympics while the Olympics has the under 23 +3 rule. So they are different

 

[mjlee]

What happened to this format? https://www.nhl.com/news/2016-world-cup-of-hockey-schedule-announced/c-778411

I see that half the games are going to be played at 3PM, presumably to appeal to European watchers, but how many fans in Toronto are going to be able to attend at three on a weekday?

 

[Lepardi]

Since olympic soccer holds little interest for me I have just found out in this thread that they have a freaking age rule on the teams that the clubs players have to be 23 and under?

What the **** then are people going on about how special the olympics are and then trashing the NHL for doing this then.

Good luck trying to find people going on about how special the Olympic football tournament is. It's not a major tournament cause the world's best don't have time to take part. They were in the EURO2016 and Copa America in June and July, and they need some rest after that.

World Cup and the continental championships are the major tournaments in football. Come back with your raging when the World Cup of soccer starts to include teams like" Team South America U24" and "Team European Leftovers" for more competitiveness. Never gonna happen, cause it's so utterly moronic.

 

[1Gold Standard]

They will only pull out of the Olympics if the insurance and stuff is too expensive for it to be worth it. They couldn't even practice as a team together during the last Olympics before it started because the insurance was such a mess.

If they drop out of the Olympics chances are they change the world cup to the Olympic format.

I feel if they wanted to drop the Olympics they would of made both the tournaments the same. Having 2 different tournaments makes sence having them both the same doesn't. Like soccer the world cup is the soccer version of hockey's Olympics while the Olympics has the under 23 +3 rule. So they are different

While the IOC/IIHF/Broadcasters/Sponsors and NHLPA should all be digging in their pockets to come up with the estimated 10 million $$$ price tag associated with insurance and logistics getting NHL players to and from Olympics, the question of insurance for summer orientation camp is and should be the sole responsibility of the individual national federations.


and yes, the NHLPA, not the NHL, has to come up with part of its share towards that 10 million $$$ price tag, as it is primarily the players who want Olympics. The only thing asked of the NHL is a 3 week shut down once every 4 years to accommodate this...and for that they should get some marketing rights.