What is the ideal number of teams right now for a best on best tournament?
- Thread starter Mr Kanadensisk
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 19,802
- 15,458
It depends on the format. You need at least 8 so that you can feature Canada, USA, Russia, Sweden, Finland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Switzerland. I would prefer 12 though, so that you can feature some potentially up and coming countries like Denmark, Germany and so on.
Theokritos
Global Moderator
- Apr 6, 2010
- 12,677
- 5,122
How about starting with a basic lesson from soccer? The World Cup is not a invitational tournament. There is a qualifying process involving almost all of the 209 national teams and there is a calender with dates reserved for the international games over the course of this very process. The calender is observed by the individual leagues so that the national teams usually have access to the best available players.
So what about a meaningful ("best on best") qualifying process in hockey? Go and tell it to the NHL owners. Not viable. Other options? Give the nations who would really suffer from the absence of their NHLers a bye to the World Cup and have a qualifying process for the rest of the world. A band-aid solution, but what else can you do? Of course this means the field of participators in the World Cup would have to be expanded beyond eight teams. 12 national teams at the very least.
tony d
New poll series coming from me in June
I'd like to see 32 here as well, sure there'd be lopsided games but what a great way to increase awareness of how many countries actually play hockey than to do something like this.
The soccer World Cup was an invitational tournament when it started, but I agree with you that having qualifications would be the best. If hockey had a real World Cup (i.e. one run by the IIHF and all the leagues) then I would play it every four years and have the top 6 finishers qualify for the next tournament and then hold a qualification tournament for the last two spots in the year leading up to the big tourney.
The problem is that once you introduce the 9-12 teams you get into the situation where all they do is collapse around their net for 60 minutes and hope for a 0-0 tie and chance in a shootout. Some people might find that exciting but most new viewers would probably never watch another game, because let's face it, it's pretty awful hockey from an entertainment perspective.
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 19,802
- 15,458
Finland did that against Canada in 2014, but they aren't getting kicked out. The Latvians did this to a pretty extreme degree against Canada in 2014 and that game was still quite exciting. The entertainment value of a game depends on the mentality of both teams. For example, at the 2015 WHC the Canadian team was far inferior to the 2014 Olympic team, but they were more inclined to press the attack and teams that tried sitting in a shell ended up shelled.
Jussi
Registered User
Theokritos
Global Moderator
- Apr 6, 2010
- 12,677
- 5,122
My preferences:
-Hold it every two years.
-Alternate hosting between North America and Europe. Fans in both spheres get a best on best tournament (relatively) near them every four years.
-Refereeing: the players of the top leagues (NHL, KHL, Elitserien, SM-liiga, Extraliga etc) determine the best referees of their leagues at the end of every season through a voting. The top guys from that pool are used in the World Cup. Refs from neutral countries in every match.
-12 national teams take part: The top 8 of the IIHF world ranking get a bye in the first edition, the rest play a qualification for the 4 remaining spots.
-World Cup: two groups of 6. The four teams finishing 5th and 6th in both groups are out and need to participate in the qualification for the next tournament. The eight remaining teams are qualified for the next World Cup and they determine the winner of the ongoing tournament through a best-of-three playoff. A1 vs B4, A2 vs B3, 3 vs B2, A4 vs B1. And so on.
-If there is enought time a extended version of the concept above would be preferable: A5, A6, B5 and B6 are out. A4 and B4 are also out of competition but they're qualified for the next World Cup. The six top teams form a new group (second group stage) followed by a shorter knockout stage (best-of-three): straight to a 1st vs 2nd Final or perhaps a SF (1st vs 4th, 2nd vs 3rd) and then a Final.
I would think most people are more likely to watch a game or follow a tournament if their "home" team is involved. Someone from Germany is probably more likely to take an interest in a boring tournament that includes Germany than a exciting tournament that doesn't include Germany.
Also, as JS pointed out it isn't always the "big" countries that deliver the exciting games and the "small" countries that deliver the stinkers.
I think all of this sounds both reasonable and fair, so much so that I can realistically see something similar to this happening in my lifetime... Then again this is hockey we are talking about, so probably not.
IMHO this is a whole lot less likely. If you go best of three in the knockout rounds the tournament becomes considerably longer and the finalists could end up playing as many as 14 games. I'm not sure the leagues would go along with their players having that kind of workload. Also, by having games that may or may not happen logistics become more complicated when it comes to selling TV rights, and tickets to those games, fans booking travel plans, etc.
Just thinking about it now... If you keep the knockout rounds single elimination the tournaments fits really nicely into a 16-17 day window. For example, group stage could start on a Friday and run for 10 days (Group A would play on day 1, 3, 5, etc and Group B on day 2, 4, 6, etc) until the Sunday of the following weekend and then you could have the QFs on Tue and/or Wed, SFs on Thu and/or Fri and the Final (and if you want it, a 3rd place game) on Sat or Sun.
I find it much more enjoyable when both teams are actively trying to attack and win the game, I've seen way to much passive trap hockey over the years, it's hard to watch.
I find in the Olympics I'll watch all of Canada's games and any other head to head games between the US, Swe, Rus, Fin and Cze, the others I don't bother with.
Take soccer for example, ~85% of the national teams are not in the World Cup, but people from all over watch because the product is compelling. I feel that having a good product is much more important than having a lot of teams. You can always have stinkers, but they are less likely to occur if the competition is balanced.
Zine
Registered User
- Feb 28, 2002
- 12,543
- 2,815
Hockey ≠ soccer.
The whole planet watches the World Cup because the game of soccer is ingrained in the cultural fabric of almost every country. Also I'm certain viewership would increase if more teams participated in the World Cup. However hockey fans are an entirely different demographic. Apart from hardcore followers, very few people will watch a hockey tournament in which their own country does not participate, even if it's the most entertaining hockey of all times.
Entertainment value is secondary to watching one's own country participate,.
Last edited:
I disagree. The FIFA World Cup has become quite popular here and it has nothing to do with the Canadian team being in the tournament. In fact I think it is much more popular here now than it was the last time Canada played in the tournament. Its success here is mostly because it is a compelling and entertaining tournament.
Zine
Registered User
- Feb 28, 2002
- 12,543
- 2,815
Interest in the FIFA World Cup is increasing because the game of Soccer is gaining traction in Canada; largely due to your country's immigration demographics one would think. It's not 1986 anymore (your last WC appearance) when the average North Americans wouldn't pass up an opportunity to mock and ridicule the sport of soccer.
There's no doubt whatsoever Canadian World Cup viewership would skyrocket x10000 if Team Canada was in the tourney, REGARDLESS of whether the Canadian squad played a boring, defensive and not entertaining style.
This same scenario holds true for almost every country in regards to the sport of hockey.
Last edited:
Many countries have competed in Olympic hockey over the years, most with little or no sustained growth in the sport as a result. It's leagues that are the real drivers of growth.
If anything I would say Canada's immigrants today are much less from soccer mad nations than they were 30+ years ago, so I don't buy that argument. Also I don't think that Canada's men's soccer team is that popular here and if a weak Canadian team were to make the FIFA World Cup I don't think it would change viewership here that significantly.
What is the argument here? The main reason for Soccer's WCup being wildly popular is because it's limited to ~15% of the world's nations that actively compete in the sport?
If the bottom 24 countries stopped playing hockey tomorrow would you then argue that a tournament should only include 4 teams?
Soccer's WCup is a huge deal because it is a tournament that features by far the planet's most popular and widely played sport. As far as entertainment goes plenty of "soccer people" will tell you the WCup generally has plenty of games lacking in excitement and aesthetically pleasing play. Weaker teams "going Latvia" and packing their half of the field and keeping their entire team in front of the ball isn't unusual. Plenty of "soccer people" will also tell you that if you are looking for the sport played at its highest quality the WCup generally isn't the place to look these days... Despite this it remains soccer's biggest and most popular event.
As popular as the WCup is in Canada it would be even more so if the country could actually qualify for the event. Say Canada did qualify and they were playing South Korea at the same time Spain was playing Argentina... What game do you think would produce the higher viewership numbers in Canada, the one featuring Canada or the one featuring two teams that should be able to produce a game of much higher quality?
If the bottom 24 countries stopped playing hockey tomorrow would you then argue that a tournament should only include 4 teams?Soccer's WCup is a huge deal because it is a tournament that features by far the planet's most popular and widely played sport. As far as entertainment goes plenty of "soccer people" will tell you the WCup generally has plenty of games lacking in excitement and aesthetically pleasing play. Weaker teams "going Latvia" and packing their half of the field and keeping their entire team in front of the ball isn't unusual. Plenty of "soccer people" will also tell you that if you are looking for the sport played at its highest quality the WCup generally isn't the place to look these days... Despite this it remains soccer's biggest and most popular event.
As popular as the WCup is in Canada it would be even more so if the country could actually qualify for the event. Say Canada did qualify and they were playing South Korea at the same time Spain was playing Argentina... What game do you think would produce the higher viewership numbers in Canada, the one featuring Canada or the one featuring two teams that should be able to produce a game of much higher quality?
Zine
Registered User
- Feb 28, 2002
- 12,543
- 2,815
So you just claimed the FIFA World Cup to be entertaining and compelling. What exactly makes it entertaining and compelling? Why are people so emotionally attached to it?
Because, fact is, top to bottom, the overall level of play is pretty good but nothing overly special (just like ForumNamePending said). Loads of teams employ passive defensive systems, with many games being snore fests.
Last edited:
Zine
Registered User
- Feb 28, 2002
- 12,543
- 2,815
I strongly, strongly doubt the validity of this comment. Perhaps some other Canadians could verify.
What is the argument here? The main reason for Soccer's WCup being wildly popular is because it's limited to ~15% of the world's nations that actively compete in the sport?
Soccer's WCup is a huge deal because it is a tournament that features by far the planet's most popular and widely played sport. As far as entertainment goes plenty of "soccer people" will tell you the WCup generally has plenty of games lacking in excitement and aesthetically pleasing play. Weaker teams "going Latvia" and packing their half of the field and keeping their entire team in front of the ball isn't unusual. Plenty of "soccer people" will also tell you that if you are looking for the sport played at its highest quality the WCup generally isn't the place to look these days... Despite this it remains soccer's biggest and most popular event.
As popular as the WCup is in Canada it would be even more so if the country could actually qualify for the event. Say Canada did qualify and they were playing South Korea at the same time Spain was playing Argentina... What game do you think would produce the higher viewership numbers in Canada, the one featuring Canada or the one featuring two teams that should be able to produce a game of much higher quality?
The point is that after years of having more than 8 teams at IIHF tournaments there is pretty strong evidence that it has done next to nothing in growing hockey outside of the traditional hockey markets, so maybe some new thinking is required.
I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a huge soccer fan, but if I see two soccer powers are playing in the WCup then there is a good chance I might watch and I think most new fans are the same. I think the head to head games between the big soccer nations attract more new viewers globally than do the games between the lesser nations, even though those countries will get a bump in their domestic viewership. The bottom line is the more head to head games between the top teams the better and to get those you need less, not more teams in the tournament.
Last edited:
I think that most FIFA World Cup fans in Canada are fans of other national teams, often ones adopted based on ancestry. Keep in mind though that Canada is a nation of immigrants and the majority of people here have always had an ancestral connection to big soccer countries, yet for many years the WCup wasn't nearly as popular as it is now, so I don't think you can claim that the ancestral connection is why more people follow the World Cup here today.
Still relatively few people follow the Canadian men's national team. If Canada could put together a decent team then I could certainly see them starting to develop more of a following at home, but I don't think just qualifying for the WCup would make the massive difference in viewership that you claim. Would it go up? Yes, absolutely, but not as much as you think.
One thing that helps quite a bit is the MLS. If fans here start to know more of our national team players through the MLS then they're more likely to follow the national team.
