I understand. My point however is that any way shape or form that an international tournament is organized, as long as they best players from every country are available, it should be considered best on best.
Why I hope the NHL ditches the Olympics
- Thread starter Canuckistani
- Start date
I understand. My point however is that any way shape or form that an international tournament is organized, as long as they best players from every country are available, it should be considered best on best.
Well..
One set of "amateurs" holds the exclusive rights to the best 800 hockey players in the world.
The other amateurs don't have a single player to offer.. they can only hope that those that do are willing to cooperate.
Seems like one is inherently more capable than the other.
Even if the NHL did have a monopoly on the best 800 hockey players in the world (I assume you are generalizing for the sake of simplicity) players from other leagues are going to be involved. Unless of course the plan is to have a 2 team tournament.
...and yet despite being 'inherently more capable' over the past 18 years and counting they have only managed to organize a single 8 team tournament.
So if you give a baboon a bunch of money, does that make him more capable of organizing something than you or I?
The IIHF has grown it's brand and the World Championship brand consistently and significantly. It's immensely popular and profitable.
The NHL on the other hand has torpedoed itself repeatedly since the early 1990s when it was poised to overtake the NBA in terms of popularity.
If anyone is going to be taking pot shots at the leaders of the hockey world the NHL deserves it the most, especially coming from fans.
If I have a choice of who should run an international tournament, it's certainly not those guys just because they have the most money.
Uh... the Olympics have a strict schedule to keep and there are only 2 rinks to play on. How on earth are you going to have a continuous OT game the day of the closing ceremonies? Nevermind the playoff games that have games coming up on the same exact sheet of ice later in the day.
Fine, you hate shootouts, good for you, but there are no logistical alternatives. The IIHF cares more about running a successful tournament than your petty hatred of certain parts of the game.
I always find it funny that hockey fans think their sport is too good to decide a championship by a shootout, yet the most popular sports event in the world (which consists of only their own sport and they could set the schedule as they please) does the exact same thing.
Fine, you hate shootouts, good for you, but there are no logistical alternatives. The IIHF cares more about running a successful tournament than your petty hatred of certain parts of the game.
I always find it funny that hockey fans think their sport is too good to decide a championship by a shootout, yet the most popular sports event in the world (which consists of only their own sport and they could set the schedule as they please) does the exact same thing.
I offered one. 20 minutes of OT for all elimination games, which would negate most shootouts. Another 10 minutes of hockey won't shatter the tournament schedule.
Of course they do. Soccer games could carry on for days without a goal unless someone put a stop to it.
The final already has 20 minute OT. Adding 10 minutes to the other playoff games would do very little in getting rid of shootouts. They would obviously still be a very possible outcome of any of those games - thus, they are still potentially decided by shootouts. What did you solve exactly?
So could hockey games...
Analogy fail. The NHL weren't given anything. They amassed their collection of talent and wealth.
The NHL is more profitable. The IIHF has never created revenue streams in the same ballpark.. The IIHF gets the majority of it's revenue because they are the ice hockey organization recignized by the IOC. They're about as efficient as government.
But you know.. if you give a baboon a bunch of money..
The NHL has grown consistently and considerably since the early 90s. The only major sport to increase prices through a recession. Revenue continues to increase and the values of franchises are going though the roof. How is that torperding itself?
Because it failed to surpass another well-entrenched american sport? The NBA and NHL have both done well to continue growing. I don't see how the NHL not surpassing the NBA is a failure if it's not a sum zero game.
internation team tournaments are not their motive nor their primary objective.
Actually yes it would.
Since overtime was introduced by the IIHF in 1992, not once has a 20-minute OT period failed to produce a winner at the WJC, WC or Olympics (the shootouts in both the 1994 olympic and WC finals were both after 10-min overtime).
On the other hand, if you look at games with a 10-min OT, you find that a winner emerges only about half the time; hense all the shootouts to hurry things up.
Plus with a 10 minute OT, it's much easier for a team to "play for the shootout" and take their chances there. Not so easy to kill the clock for a full period.
So yes - another 10 minutes does seem to make a difference. A huge difference in fact.
Indeed, over the past 40 years there have been only TWO games (1987 Canada Cup final game 2, and the 1996 World Cup semi) that required double OT. That's it.
Yes... That's kind of my point.
If only there was an organization out there with not only the motive and primary objective of organizing internation team tournaments but also a proven track record of doing so.
Please enlighten me on what your opinion of a best on best would be that wouldn't be considered a joke.
My take is that wether the Russians, Swedes, Americans or Chinese organize it and everyone's best are available it's a legitimate tournament.
It's a combination of both player availability and who actually shows up.
If China organized a best-on-best hockey event in August, with all players available to compete, yet the hockey powers each sent their D-squad...then obviously the mere availability of the top stars would not make it a best-on-best tournament.
I agree that if each country sent their d-squad it wouldn't be considered best on best. However, if it's only a couple 2-3ish players who aren't there it's still a legitimate tournament.
All those years that Lemieux and/or Bourque and/or Roy etc. didn't show, it was still best on best. At least in my opinion.
When we look at the tournaments traditionally considered to be best on best, the only time I recall a nation sending a very sub par team in relation to what was available to them was the soviets in 1976.
Yes... That's kind of my point.
If only there was an organization out there with not only the motive and primary objective of organizing internation team tournaments but also a proven track record of doing so.
There's a fantastic dish of irony in your sarcasm.
If only the IIHF had proven track record of doing so.. if only.
I believe the Czech Rep and Russian/USSR/CIS teams from the '91 CC are generally considered as being significantly weaker than what their 'A teams' could have been at the time.
Slovakia (and to a lesser extent some other nations) got hosed in both '98 & '02.
Agreed.
In 1996 Canada was missing it's top two defencemen (MacInnis and Bourque), top 3 scorers from the previous season (Lemieux, Kariya, Francis), and Stanley Cup MVP (Roy). Its starting six, in other words. Yet the 1996 World Cup was still a best-on-best event. Similar losses were suffered by Russia in 1998 and Finland in 2006.
It's still an open question as to why the Soviets withheld the likes of Mikhailov, Petrov, Yakushev, Anissin, Shadrin, Tsygankov and Liapkin in 1976.
Some say the players were "too tired," that there was a power struggle that sabotaged the roster (Kulagin not wanting Tikhonov to win), or maybe the Soviets were just afraid to lose. Either way, everyone else sent their best.
Not sure what you mean... They organize 20+ international tournaments a year. The currently in progress Challenge Cup of Asia exists whether you care about it or not.
In 1991 Canada was missing Mario Lemieux, Ray Bourque and Patrick Roy (not to mention Yzerman and Savard) who are arguably the very best of their generation in their respective positions. Again, it's just my opinion but these omissions didn't keep it from being legitimate tournament from a Canadian perspective. The Czechs and the Russians may have been missing players but it would be hard to convince me that they were more significant than the Canadians mentioned above who weren't at the tournament.
I don't remind repeating, to an extent. I'd be ok with repeats being legal in sets of 3-5, so repeat shooters would be possible, but not something you'd see again and again and again.
I'm gonna say it this way: It's not like I don't wanna see olympics. I do. But not at expense of World Cup.
so from the three possibilities:
only World Cup - YES
World Cup plus Olympics - YES
only Olympics - NO
That's my opinion.
Most NHL owners and executives made their money outside of hockey. Did they earn their money yes. Did they earn any respect in terms of how to run a hockey league, uh no.
The IIHF and NHL have different purposes. The NHL's only goal is to amass wealth for it's 30 odd owners. The IIHF has a global mission to promote hockey and often does so at a financial loss. If the IIHF's only goal was to amass wealth for it's shareholders I also would regard it with the same distain I regard the NHL.
There's nothing the NHL has done that convinces me they'd host a better international tournament than the IIHF.
Jussi
Registered User
You can't compare one league and a governing body of a sport.
One's purpose is to make money and one's purpose is to govern the sport globally. IIHF is more lucrative to it's members than the NHL is. IIHF does not keep the money it makes from the hosting World Championships and such, it goes to organizing events that don't make profit (ie. everything but the Worlds and WJC) and to the sports development. If you cannot spare a few minutes to use google and do some research on what the function of the IIHF is and how it operates, please don't insult everyone's intelligence by trying to paint them as something they're are not.
Zine
Registered User
- Feb 28, 2002
- 12,547
- 2,820
The problem with the 'NHL World Cup' is that it's viewed as a joke by many. And with the emergence of the KHL, who knows if they'll release players for a rival league's tournament.
only World Cup - no
World Cup plus Olympics - Sure
only Olympics - yes +++
Ad
Upcoming events
-
Props Alex Ovechkin to Record 895th Career Goal During 2024/25 Regular SeasonWagers: 12Staked: $21,883.00Event closes - 2 days from now- Updated: