What is the ideal number of teams right now for a best on best tournament?

[xxxx]

"masses"....you want to get masses excited by humiliating their team 12-0? Oh sure. Not even mentioning the fact that it would be like 50-5 on shots.

 

[ForumNamePending]

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..

Well until the top division of IIHF WC expanded to 12 nations in the early '90s the tournament featured 8 or less teams for decades. For several Olympics before 1980, when it increased to 12 nations, the medal group was limited to 6 or 8 teams. Do you honestly believe hockey is no more popular than it was 25-35 years ago or that it has failed to develop or improve anywhere outside of its traditional strongholds? Perhaps it hasn't made enough progress for your liking, but to me that is sort of like saying the NHL should fold all "sunbelt" teams because those franchises, and the cities/regions they play in, when compared to Canada or the American northeast or upper Midwest, still lag far behind in general interest and player production.

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.

It's not like by expanding the field you are losing the matchups between the "big" countries. Sochi featured 14 games (Van - 16, Turin - 20) between what are widely considered the sport's top 8 countries. Say you changed the format to two groups of 4 followed by the SF, 3rd place game and final... Assuming the "right" countries qualify for the tournament, at best you are pretty much breaking even when it comes to the number of "big" games.

Also, and once again, someone from Germany is more likely to watch and follow a tournament that includes Germany regardless of how exciting or entertaining the other games are.

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.

I don't know about that... For example the WCup has been a big deal among the Italian community for as long as I can remember. People pulling for ancestral home just goes to show that people watch the WCup for reasons other than the quality of the play on the field. There's no doubt that the WCup in Canada is more popular than it was a decade or two ago, and I agree in recent years it probably has little to do with immigration, but soccer in general is more popular, so it would make sense that the sport's biggest event would also have a higher profile than what it did a generation or two ago.

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.

Well in every other international tournament games featuring Canada easily outdraw games not featuring Canada so I don't see why the WCup would be any different. Sort of like how in Toronto more people watch the Maple Leafs than the Blackhawks despite the fact the Blackhawks are a infinitely more entertaining product.

"masses"....you want to get masses excited by humiliating their team 12-0? Oh sure. Not even mentioning the fact that it would be like 50-5 on shots.

Maybe this post is going over my head but when was the last time/how often do we see teams lose 12-0 and be outshot 50-5 at the highest levels?

 

[xxxx]

Maybe this post is going over my head but when was the last time/how often do we see teams lose 12-0 and be outshot 50-5 at the highest levels?

Of course I mean if we have like a 28 or 32-team tournament.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

It's not like by expanding the field you are losing the matchups between the "big" countries. Sochi featured 14 games (Van - 16, Turin - 20) between what are widely considered the sport's top 8 countries. Say you changed the format to two groups of 4 followed by the SF, 3rd place game and final... Assuming the "right" countries qualify for the tournament, at best you are pretty much breaking even when it comes to the number of "big" games.

The number of teams in a tournament absolutely effects the number of head to head matches between the top teams. While I think 8 is the right number of teams, there is a big talent gap between 6th and 7th and it is the head to head games between the top 6 that are the really important ones. The Sochi tournament had 30 games and only 8 were head to head matchups between the top 6 teams.

I would like to see a 31 game tournament with 8 teams, each team plays each other once in the opening round and then the top 4 advance to the SF and two obviously in the final. In that format you would have ~18 matchups between the top 6, which is more than double of the Sochi format. Even more importantly every single game would be critical in order to win the tournament. In the Olympic format the first ~18 games of the tournament are more or less exhibition games.

I guarantee this format would be infinitely better than what we've had in the past, but it would be a big change and in general the masses resist change.

 

[ForumNamePending]

Of course I mean if we have like a 28 or 32-team tournament.

Ay-OK... Agreed. While I think everyone should be given the chance to qualify, the final tournament, whatever it ends up being and regardless of the form it ends up taking, doesn't need to feature anywhere near 28-32 teams.

The number of teams in a tournament absolutely effects the number of head to head matches between the top teams. While I think 8 is the right number of teams, there is a big talent gap between 6th and 7th and it is the head to head games between the top 6 that are the really important ones. The Sochi tournament had 30 games and only 8 were head to head matchups between the top 6 teams.

I would like to see a 31 game tournament with 8 teams, each team plays each other once in the opening round and then the top 4 advance to the SF and two obviously in the final. In that format you would have ~18 matchups between the top 6, which is more than double of the Sochi format. Even more importantly every single game would be critical in order to win the tournament. In the Olympic format the first ~18 games of the tournament are more or less exhibition games.

Ay-OK... So pretty much like the old CC format with two extra teams.

A few things...

From an entertainment standpoint, and as brought up earlier in the thread, a game featuring two "big" countries won't necessarily be more entertaining than a game that doesn't. I certainly didn't watch every game from Sochi, but from what I did see I found each of Slovenia-Russia, Latvia-Sweden and Latvia-Canada entertained me more than any of Sweden-Czech Rep, Canada-Finland and Canada-Sweden... Obviously what someone finds entertaining is pretty subjective though, so moving on...

In the format you presented who will get ~18 "good" games as long as the "small" nations know their place and don't get to uppity during qualifying and knock one of the "big" countries out... Since you are into the way soccer does things I assume only the host is reserved a spot and everyone else is going to have to play their way in?

It's not like your idea of limiting the field to only the elite is something that hasn't been done before. As mentioned earlier in the thread for many years both the Olympics and the IIHF WC were limited to a small number of countries. The Olympics expanded their field in '80 and the WC about a decade later. During the time since I think it's obvious hockey has grown and developed outside of the traditional powerhouses. The expanded fields might not have had anything to do with the growth but it obviously hasn't stopped it either. On the other hand, the CC/WCup has always limited itself to just the elite and through 7 editions and nearly 40 years that tournament hasn't gained a whole lot of traction outside of Canada, so perhaps keeping things limited to just the elite isn't the best way forward?

I guarantee this format would be infinitely better than what we've had in the past, but it would be a big change and in general the masses resist change.

I dunno... Does the fact neither of us seem to like tony d's idea make us resistant to change? Sometimes an idea just isn't looked at as an improvement to the current situation. I do like what Theokritos presented so maybe I am generally open to change after all?

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

Ay-OK... So pretty much like the old CC format with two extra teams.

Most similar to the 81 CCup format I suppose, with a 33% increase in the number of teams, which is certainly appropriate given the growth the sport has seen since then.

From an entertainment standpoint, and as brought up earlier in the thread, a game featuring two "big" countries won't necessarily be more entertaining than a game that doesn't. I certainly didn't watch every game from Sochi, but from what I did see I found each of Slovenia-Russia, Latvia-Sweden and Latvia-Canada entertained me more than any of Sweden-Czech Rep, Canada-Finland and Canada-Sweden... Obviously what someone finds entertaining is pretty subjective though, so moving on...

I've often said on these boards that there is no point in arguing in what entertains you, to each their own. However the big point you are missing is which matchups are more marketable to viewers outside of the citizens of the two nations competing. If you're really thinking big that's always the largest potential audience and I think even you would agree that CAN-RUS is infinitely more marketable than Austria vs Latvia.

In the format you presented who will get ~18 "good" games as long as the "small" nations know their place and don't get to uppity during qualifying and knock one of the "big" countries out... Since you are into the way soccer does things I assume only the host is reserved a spot and everyone else is going to have to play their way in?

I could maybe see Slovakia advancing to the final four, although I think the odds of that are diminishing each year. The 8th ranked team would have almost no shot of doing so, and if they did then good for them.

I am more interested in how the FIFA WC grew to what it is today than mimicking it as it is now. I definitely would not hold a hockey best on best outside of the major hockey countries for many years to come (until the sport had grown enough to warrant it), so reserving a spot for the host would not really be a factor.

It's not like your idea of limiting the field to only the elite is something that hasn't been done before. As mentioned earlier in the thread for many years both the Olympics and the IIHF WC were limited to a small number of countries. The Olympics expanded their field in '80 and the WC about a decade later. During the time since I think it's obvious hockey has grown and developed outside of the traditional powerhouses. The expanded fields might not have had anything to do with the growth but it obviously hasn't stopped it either. On the other hand, the CC/WCup has always limited itself to just the elite and through 7 editions and nearly 40 years that tournament hasn't gained a whole lot of traction outside of Canada, so perhaps keeping things limited to just the elite isn't the best way forward?

The reason the CCup/WCup hasn't gained traction outside of Canada has nothing to do with the field size. The USA, RUS, SWE and CZE have been in every tournament and it hasn't caught on in those countries, so obviously this is a completely different issue.

I do like what Theokritos presented so maybe I am generally open to change after all?

I don't disagree with all of Theo's suggestions. Actually alternating the host city between NA and Europe and using the WCup results as qualifiers for the next WCup are both ideas I'm pretty sure I was the first to post on these boards. My feeling is that every two years is too often for a full WCup, but I would like to see All-star breaks used for head to head international mini series each year instead of ASG's. Also no matter what format you use when there are 12 teams and 8 make it through to the next round you end up with the first round and a large percentage of the total games in the tournament being basically exhibition games for the top 6 teams. I'd rather make better use of those games.

Having said all of this I'm interested to hear what your ideas are on this stuff. I'm happy to defend my suggestions, but it is kind of a one way discussion if you are not going to come up with anything yourself or at least clearly state what your ideal format and field size is.

 

[ForumNamePending]

Most similar to the 81 CCup format I suppose, with a 33% increase in the number of teams, which is certainly appropriate given the growth the sport has seen since then.

At this point I guess we'll just agree to disagree on the appropriate number of teams.

I've often said on these boards that there is no point in arguing in what entertains you, to each their own. However the big point you are missing is which matchups are more marketable to viewers outside of the citizens of the two nations competing.

I've probably been missing your point due to the fact that you have repeatedly used the words "entertaining" and "entertainment" throughout the thread.

If you're really thinking big that's always the largest potential audience and I think even you would agree that CAN-RUS is infinitely more marketable than Austria vs Latvia.

Sure, without question. I would also say neutrals would be more likely to watch a "big" game if their team has a history of occasionally playing in the tournament.

I could maybe see Slovakia advancing to the final four, although I think the odds of that are diminishing each year. The 8th ranked team would have almost no shot of doing so, and if they did then good for them.

I am more interested in how the FIFA WC grew to what it is today than mimicking it as it is now. I definitely would not hold a hockey best on best outside of the major hockey countries for many years to come (until the sport had grown enough to warrant it), so reserving a spot for the host would not really be a factor.

So by following the "FIFA model" all you really mean is this arbitrary ~15% "rule"?

The reason the CCup/WCup hasn't gained traction outside of Canada has nothing to do with the field size. The USA, RUS, SWE and CZE have been in every tournament and it hasn't caught on in those countries, so obviously this is a completely different issue.

Agreed... The CC/WCup's "traction issues" go beyond just who is and isn't allowed to participate.

I don't disagree with all of Theo's suggestions. Actually alternating the host city between NA and Europe and using the WCup results as qualifiers for the next WCup are both ideas I'm pretty sure I was the first to post on these boards. My feeling is that every two years is too often for a full WCup, but I would like to see All-star breaks used for head to head international mini series each year instead of ASG's. Also no matter what format you use when there are 12 teams and 8 make it through to the next round you end up with the first round and a large percentage of the total games in the tournament being basically exhibition games for the top 6 teams. I'd rather make better use of those games.

Having said all of this I'm interested to hear what your ideas are on this stuff. I'm happy to defend my suggestions, but it is kind of a one way discussion if you are not going to come up with anything yourself or at least clearly state what your ideal format and field size is.

I don't think using results from a previous tournament as qualifiers is unique or groundbreaking. The whole "finish high enough in this tournament and you get to come back for the next one" is a format the IIHF has been using for decades. It seems to work fairly well and helps to keep things interesting at the bottom of the standings.

As far as what I would like to see... Assuming this new tournament would be replacing the Olympics and NHL's WCup I think Theokritos' post provides a good framework. The "extended version" also addresses your issue of not having enough "marketable" and too many "meaningless" games. I don't know if it's my "ideal" format but it does look somewhat-kinda-sorta realistic.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

I've probably been missing your point due to the fact that you have repeatedly used the words "entertaining" and "entertainment" throughout the thread.

Fair enough, but I think you can see that the two are very closely related in this context.

Sure, without question. I would also say neutrals would be more likely to watch a "big" game if their team has a history of occasionally playing in the tournament.

or at least if they played in the qualifications perhaps.

I don't think using results from a previous tournament as qualifiers is unique or groundbreaking. The whole "finish high enough in this tournament and you get to come back for the next one" is a format the IIHF has been using for decades. It seems to work fairly well and helps to keep things interesting at the bottom of the standings.

Not common in tournaments that aren't held annually and the details are pretty much identical.

As far as what I would like to see... Assuming this new tournament would be replacing the Olympics and NHL's WCup I think Theokritos' post provides a good framework. The "extended version" also addresses your issue of not having enough "marketable" and too many "meaningless" games. I don't know if it's my "ideal" format but it does look somewhat-kinda-sorta realistic.

I'm assuming you would want to hold this mid-season and if so his proposal isn't all that realistic due to the number of days it would take to play. Since '98 the NHL has breaked long enough for a 9 - 12 day tournament. Theo's first proposal would need at least ~22 days, which isn't all that realistic. If time isn't a factor there are all kinds of formats that people could dream up. I still find it weird that you can't come up with your own proposal.

 

[ForumNamePending]

or at least if they played in the qualifications perhaps.

Being given the opportunity to qualify is certainly preferable to being given no opportunity at all.

I'm assuming you would want to hold this mid-season and if so his proposal isn't all that realistic due to the number of days it would take to play. Since '98 the NHL has breaked long enough for a 9 - 12 day tournament. Theo's first proposal would need at least ~22 days, which isn't all that realistic. If time isn't a factor there are all kinds of formats that people could dream up.

No... I don't care if it is held mid-season. September is fine with me, although when it comes to getting this tournament max exposure in the US, September is pretty much the worst time you can hold it and February is pretty much the best... But ya, I don't care, and since I'm trying to keep things somewhat realistic, September is cool.

As far as the format goes, as I said earlier, for the reasons you outlined above I don't think the best of three knockout rounds are realistic. If you keep the knockout rounds single games the finalists, even in the extended version, would only play 10 games (or 8 in the "standard" version), or one more game (or one less) than in the format you proposed.

I still find it weird that you can't come up with your own proposal.

I thought I had.

Do you want me to propose something that has no chance of ever happening just for the sake of it?... OK...

Take the present IIHF WC, setup as it is now, and schedule it so all players are available (at the end of the day this pretty much means the Euro leagues pushing their seasons back a month). With the tournament now being "best vs best" Canada and the US will be much more interested in hosting it and the IIHF would be plenty happy to oblige. Plenty of reasons why this won't happen... Not sure I even prefer it.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

No... I don't care if it is held mid-season. September is fine with me, although when it comes to getting this tournament max exposure in the US, September is pretty much the worst time you can hold it and February is pretty much the best... But ya, I don't care, and since I'm trying to keep things somewhat realistic, September is cool.

Now this really surprises me. You fought tooth and nail to have developing nations included for the purpose of growing the tournament yet you're perfectly content to hold it at a time of year when no one other than hard core fans are going to watch. If we're talking preseason tournaments then that would almost certainly be one run by the NHL and I can't see the NHL expanding the number of teams to include nations that have very few NHLers. For me mid-season is the way to go and it would require all the leagues and the IIHF to work together to organize it. It may not happen right away but if the NHL stops going to the OG it could happen one day.

 

[ForumNamePending]

Now this really surprises me. You fought tooth and nail to have developing nations included for the purpose of growing the tournament yet you're perfectly content to hold it at a time of year when no one other than hard core fans are going to watch. If we're talking preseason tournaments then that would almost certainly be one run by the NHL and I can't see the NHL expanding the number of teams to include nations that have very few NHLers. For me mid-season is the way to go and it would require all the leagues and the IIHF to work together to organize it. It may not happen right away but if the NHL stops going to the OG it could happen one day.

I'm not really fighting for anything... We are talking about a hypothetical tournament that might never happen and I will certainly never have any input into how it is run.

I already said that from an exposure stand point, as far as the US is concerned, September is probably the worst time you could hold it. The problem is for this thing to ever happen the NHL would have to be onboard and I think it is far more likely they would be for a tournament held in September than one held in February. The reasons why September is a bad time when trying to gain traction in the US are pretty much irrelevant just about anywhere that would be considered a "developing" nation. In Europe (and most other places) you don't have to worry about getting buried by both the start of football season and the stretch drive in baseball. Sure, you have soccer to worry about, but outside of June (which still partially conflicts with the NHL season) & July in non WC/EC years it's unavoidable, so you are going to have to contend with it regardless of when it is held.

If I was the grand ruler of all things hockey I probably wouldn't hold it in September, but I'm not, and like I said above, I think the NHL would be much more likely to signoff on a tournament that doesn't take place in the middle of their season.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

I already said that from an exposure stand point, as far as the US is concerned, September is probably the worst time you could hold it. The problem is for this thing to ever happen the NHL would have to be onboard and I think it is far more likely they would be for a tournament held in September than one held in February. The reasons why September is a bad time when trying to gain traction in the US are pretty much irrelevant just about anywhere that would be considered a "developing" nation. In Europe (and most other places) you don't have to worry about getting buried by both the start of football season and the stretch drive in baseball. Sure, you have soccer to worry about, but outside of June (which still partially conflicts with the NHL season) & July in non WC/EC years it's unavoidable, so you are going to have to contend with it regardless of when it is held.

If I was the grand ruler of all things hockey I probably wouldn't hold it in September, but I'm not, and like I said above, I think the NHL would be much more likely to signoff on a tournament that doesn't take place in the middle of their season.

The NHL has already shutdown 5 times mid season for the OG with obviously no direct compensation. I'm confident that if a proper World Cup was organized by the iihf, where all leagues with players participating were also partners in the tournament (as well as the players), then a mid season break is completely realistic. I believe that even international sporting competition is an entertainment business and I have no problem with players and clubs who participate sharing in the profits. A good chunk of the $$$ should definitely go to development as well.

 

[cutchemist42]

My thoughts as a Canadian, who has watched World Cups now since the early 00s and have noticed friends get into it....

I feel my regular sport fan friends except for a few, get into the tournament because it is simply too huge to ignore. Its like the Olympics, when the whole world is practically involved and talking about it, you just want to join in. I actually do think the WC is already bringing in a lot of casuals in Canada already. So while I do think Canada being in the World Cup would increase ratings specifically for Canadian games, I think it would be by less than some might think.

Its slightly similar to how we watch the NFL in big numbers while having no local NFL teams, vs avoiding the NBA unless the Raptors are ok and even then, not in large numbers. The NFL is just too big to ignore.

That being said, my ideal tournament is 8 teams, but qualifiers to get to those 8 teams. Id probably allow auto qualifiers.

 

[Nakawick]

I would have an 8 team world cup of the top 8 ranked according to IIHF. A round robin with top 4 playing the semi's and then finals, screw 3rd place.

Leave the Olympics at 12 teams but with 2 divisions with crossover quarters, semi's and medal games.

Leave the world championships at 16 teams.

 

[ForumNamePending]

The NHL has already shutdown 5 times mid season for the OG with obviously no direct compensation. I'm confident that if a proper World Cup was organized by the iihf, where all leagues with players participating were also partners in the tournament (as well as the players), then a mid season break is completely realistic. I believe that even international sporting competition is an entertainment business and I have no problem with players and clubs who participate sharing in the profits. A good chunk of the $$$ should definitely go to development as well.

I'm not as optimistic for a couple of reasons...

Shutting down in the middle of the season is one of the big reasons why NHL owners dislike Olympics. I'm not sure how much the owners seeing some of the money helps with this.

The WCup is a tournament 100% controlled by the league (and PA). The league could have scheduled the tournament anytime they wanted and still went with September.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

I'm not as optimistic for a couple of reasons...

Shutting down in the middle of the season is one of the big reasons why NHL owners dislike Olympics. I'm not sure how much the owners seeing some of the money helps with this.

The WCup is a tournament 100% controlled by the league (and PA). The league could have scheduled the tournament anytime they wanted and still went with September.

I imagine that a big part of it is that it is easier to coordinate with the other leagues to do it in September as opposed to February. If the IIHF was involved I think February would be doable. Also if the tournament was run by the IIHF it would probably increase it's acceptance and profitability in Europe, and if the NHL was receiving a percentage then it would help them too.

 

[jfc64]

8: Canada, USA, Russia, Sweden, Czechia, Finland, the winner of Switzerland, Germany, Denmark and Slovakia in a qualifying round plus a team with anyone who wants to join. It could be old stars, men next door, NHL professionals or wannabees. Maybe Putin or Blatter can buy a way in. Kopitar should be forced to participate. Every time until he's 50.

 

[RandV]

My thoughts as a Canadian, who has watched World Cups now since the early 00s and have noticed friends get into it....

I feel my regular sport fan friends except for a few, get into the tournament because it is simply too huge to ignore. Its like the Olympics, when the whole world is practically involved and talking about it, you just want to join in. I actually do think the WC is already bringing in a lot of casuals in Canada already. So while I do think Canada being in the World Cup would increase ratings specifically for Canadian games, I think it would be by less than some might think.

Its slightly similar to how we watch the NFL in big numbers while having no local NFL teams, vs avoiding the NBA unless the Raptors are ok and even then, not in large numbers. The NFL is just too big to ignore.

Yeah that's kind of how I see it. Also watching the spectacle without an actual home team involved means we get to enjoy it stress free. It would be great if your team goes deep and absolutely amazing if they when but starting with 32 teams there's so many fans that are going to go home unhappy, like say England.

Looking at hockey again for many Canadian fans I don't think the 2006 Olympics were an enjoyable experience.

 

[HC Jets]

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.

What I agree with..
-holding it every two years (4 years is too long)
-alternate hosting NA + EUR
-neutral refereeing (I don't see how this dosen't happen already)

What I don't agree with...
-Format

I would have 20 teams (4 groups of 5), each team in each group plays each other once. Top 10 in IIHF rankings enter through a bye, other 10 are determined by qualification. The top team in each group gets a bye to the quarters, the next two teams get a bye to a qualification round (like the Olympics). Everything is single game knockout until the semis, which it would be best of three for every matchup except the bronze medal game.

I think this is a perfect balance between "lets have 8 teams and only 8 countries watch" and "lets have 32 teams and have most of the games be boring or brutal beatdowns". Many teams will get to show off their hockey talent, while all the non-top 10 teams will have to qualify to have an chance to play.

I think this works for people who support both extremes in terms of amount of teams.

 

[Theokritos]

Personally I like best-of-three better than single-game knockouts, that's one thing. The two groups set-up has the benefit that we actually get to see more direct comparisons between the best countries than in a four group setup, that's another. Just my preferences.