Why not do a 32 team world cup?

[heksagon]

8-12 is pretty much the max, unless you prefer to see some absolute spankings by the top teams

The World championships have 16 teams, and there rarely are absolute spankings (meaning 10+ goal difference). While best on best the gap would obviously widen, looking at the IIHF rankings I think you could go to around that 16-20 teams without it getting too ridiculous aside from a couple of possible blow out games. After ~20 teams it would get a bit silly, so 32 teams is too much for hockey.

 

[john g]

32 team would result in a challenge to Antropov's 39 point U18 game vs Iceland

 

[TruePowerSlave]

The World championships have 16 teams, and there rarely are absolute spankings (meaning 10+ goal difference). While best on best the gap would obviously widen, looking at the IIHF rankings I think you could go to around that 16-20 teams without it getting too ridiculous aside from a couple of possible blow out games. After ~20 teams it would get a bit silly, so 32 teams is too much for hockey.

Even with 16 teams the gap between the 8-16 ranked teams to the top dogs is massive. The best teams would have to show a a little bit and cruise to a comfortable multi goal win. That's not so entertaining for most.

 

[JianYang]

If you love watching international women's hockey, then you will find no problem with this.

 

[Albatros]

Even with 16 teams the gap between the 8-16 ranked teams to the top dogs is massive. The best teams would have to show a a little bit and cruise to a comfortable multi goal win. That's not so entertaining for most.

Well, at the latest such tournament Canada beat Norway 3:1 and Latvia 2:1 in an elimination game.

 

[Boonk]

The World championships have 16 teams, and there rarely are absolute spankings (meaning 10+ goal difference). While best on best the gap would obviously widen, looking at the IIHF rankings I think you could go to around that 16-20 teams without it getting too ridiculous aside from a couple of possible blow out games. After ~20 teams it would get a bit silly, so 32 teams is too much for hockey.

'Rarely spankings'? There are numerous blowout games every single year with 16 teams and with Russia out even moreso. 20 teams would be just as ghastly.

 

[heksagon]

'Rarely spankings'? There are numerous blowout games every single year with 16 teams and with Russia out even moreso. 20 teams would be just as ghastly.

I specified spanking as games with 10+ goal differential, which are rare. Blowouts yes, but we just had a 8-1 win in the Stanley Cup finals (by the eventual losing team anyways...). Blowouts like that happen in hockey, and they don't ruin tournaments. Games ending 25-0 and teams being from completely different planets would, on the other hand. And that would start to happen if we had teams like Australia or Israel playing the top teams, but 20 teams would have the likes of Slovenia and Italy being the worst teams, which could still give a somewhat respectable performance.

I admit 20 teams is maybe pushing it, and I'm not sure how the tournament format would work anyways, but 16 teams would be fine IMO.

 

[Boonk]

I specified spanking as games with 10+ goal differential, which are rare. Blowouts yes, but we just had a 8-1 win in the Stanley Cup finals (by the eventual losing team anyways...). Blowouts like that happen in hockey, and they don't ruin tournaments. Games ending 25-0 and teams being from completely different planets would, on the other hand. And that would start to happen if we had teams like Australia or Israel playing the top teams, but 20 teams would have the likes of Slovenia and Italy being the worst teams, which could still give a somewhat respectable performance.

I admit 20 teams is maybe pushing it, and I'm not sure how the tournament format would work anyways, but 16 teams would be fine IMO.

Does it really matter if the game is a score of 10+ goals? The regular blowouts against these small teams are unwatchable garbage games that arent even competitive, and theres a lot more of those at the IIHF Worlds with 16 teams than the Stanley Cup finals which feature the two best NHL teams going head to head whove already played and won 3 series to get there. Its not even remotely the same comparison.

I love international competition but the levels of parity between the big 5-6 teams, to small teams, to minnow teams on the international level are far wider and have nowhere near the parity compared to a Stanley Cup final. 10-12 teams in the final elite international level or best v best World Cup, with qualification rounds, should be the standard.

 

[Hennessy]

16 is as thin as you can push it.

And I like when they do it. But it gets pretty brutal.

I think the ideal for international hockey tournaments is 12-team round robin with two groups.
That way you ensure all the top teams, including the fringe ones, are present, without also having a few nations who just aren't ready at all for that level.

 

[heksagon]

Does it really matter if the game is a score of 10+ goals? The regular blowouts against these small teams are unwatchable garbage games that arent even competitive, and theres a lot more of those at the IIHF Worlds with 16 teams than the Stanley Cup finals which feature the two best NHL teams going head to head whove already played and won 3 series to get there. Its not even remotely the same comparison.

I love international competition but the levels of parity between the big 5-6 teams, to small teams, to minnow teams on the international level are far wider and have nowhere near the parity compared to a Stanley Cup final. 10-12 teams in the final elite international level or best v best World Cup, with qualification rounds, should be the standard.

I support Finland in international football. We have almost no chance against the top teams, but I was really happy to see us take part in those one European championships. If we made the World Cup, I would be over the moon. There is something to be said about growing the sport and getting better by facing the best.

Think about the lower end teams and their fans; they are unlikely to be unhappy about losing badly to the top teams; most likely just happy to have a chance to play in a high level tournament, and have close games against the other non top teams. Many people were against increasing the number of teams in international football too, but few complain about it now that it has happened.

Plus surprises and upsets happen, and cheering for an underdog can be exciting. Even those blowouts can be an entertaining showcase of top end hockey skill from the top nation, I disagree about them always being unwatchable garbage.

But still, 16 is probably the maximum amount of teams for a sensible tournament system. 12 is also fine. 8 or 10 is a bit few because of some nice teams missing, and the 4 team tournament we will have is very disappointing. (But understandable as a kind of warm up for the Olympics).

 

[Crow]

Nunavut

I had never heard of such a thing. Guess I’m old and out of touch and observably from the USA.

 

[Boonk]

I support Finland in international football. We have almost no chance against the top teams, but I was really happy to see us take part in those one European championships. If we made the World Cup, I would be over the moon. There is something to be said about growing the sport and getting better by facing the best.

Think about the lower end teams and their fans; they are unlikely to be unhappy about losing badly to the top teams; most likely just happy to have a chance to play in a high level tournament, and have close games against the other non top teams. Many people were against increasing the number of teams in international football too, but few complain about it now that it has happened.

Plus surprises and upsets happen, and cheering for an underdog can be exciting. Even those blowouts can be an entertaining showcase of top end hockey skill from the top nation, I disagree about them always being unwatchable garbage.

But still, 16 is probably the maximum amount of teams for a sensible tournament system. 12 is also fine. 8 or 10 is a bit few because of some nice teams missing, and the 4 team tournament we will have is very disappointing. (But understandable as a kind of warm up for the Olympics).

The Finnish NT for football is still a bad comparison because soccer has far more parity and enrolement through the sport at various age groups and competitions throughout the world, even if the Finnish NT is the weakest on the European continent in UEFA they arent an effortless pushover of a game to play in the sport.

There is absolutely nothing like that on the international stage of ice hockey. There are 6 nations who are the top nations, and maybe half a dozen or so smaller nations who can give them a push or the odd upset here and there but thats it. The countries past the top 10-12 consistently get blown out by the top 6 with no effort in most tournaments and are fighting for scraps to not get relegated or qualify with the other 8-12 ranked teams. Beyond those teams and as the age groups and divisions get lower, it gets much worse in terms of parity. Its just not watchable hockey most of the time and its far too much for an IIHF sanctioned tournament that doesnt even feature all the best players available for every country, nvm a best v best World Cup type format.

 

[Max Milk]

8 teams leaves out some quality NHLers.

10 teams is an excellent tournament

12 teams is ideal.

16 teams works.

20 teams is alright.

24 teams is pretty much the limit.

32 teams is an abomination.

 

[Max Milk]

Woof, that’s some thin pickings after the top 8-10.

Also, Sweden is ranked laughably low on this list.

Those are the current IIHF rankings, divided by continent, of course.

 

[bobholly39]

Soccer is played in every country in the world.

Is hockey even played in 32 countries?

 

[Max Milk]

Soccer is played in every country in the world.

Is hockey even played in 32 countries?

Hockey is played everywhere in the world. That's not the question. The question is can those countries ice a team that isn't made up entirely of beer leaguers.

 

[bobholly39]

Hockey is played everywhere in the world. That's not the question. The question is can those countries ice a team that isn't made up entirely of beer leaguers.

How many countries have actual hockey leagues though? Is it even 32? To your point beer league isn't exactly olympic material

 

[Max Milk]

How many countries have actual hockey leagues though? Is it even 32? To your point beer league isn't exactly olympic material

I mean even the Phillipines & Mongolia have hockey leagues... there's probably roughly 50 to 100 "national" hockey leagues in the world if you think about it.

And you're 100% correct in saying that most of those leagues are not Olympic material.

 

[Zine]

20-22 teams will get you some massacres, but it's still doable. Beyond that it's just a waste of time to include the likes of Japan, Romania, Korea, Croatia, Netherlands, Spain, Ukraine, Australia, etc.

Austria
Belarus
Canada
China (assuming they're naturalized KHLers)
Czechia
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Great Britain
Hungary
Italy
Kazakhstan
Latvia
Norway
Poland
Russia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Sweden
Switzerland
United States

 

[DJJones]

Ya the comparison to football doesn't work. Take Canada, more kids play soccer than any other sport. We're up there for female soccer but it's a long shot for us to ever make a 32 team world Cup for men.

A random beer league team might be competitive with the 32nd ranked country

 

[FerrisRox]

Soccer is played in every country in the world.

Is hockey even played in 32 countries?

Are you serious? Hockey is played in way more than 32 countries.

There are 82 countries in the International Ice Hockey Federation.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Even with 16 teams the gap between the 8-16 ranked teams to the top dogs is massive. The best teams would have to show a a little bit and cruise to a comfortable multi goal win. That's not so entertaining for most.

The smaller teams just pack it in to keep the score respectable.

Take Canada... it's a long shot for us to ever make a 32 team world Cup for men.

They were literally just in the World Cup and will be next time as a Co-Host.

 

[DJJones]

The smaller teams just pack it in to keep the score respectable.


They were literally just in the World Cup and will be next time as a Co-Host.

wtf, why do I have no recollection of that haha

 

[Maverick41]

8 teams leaves out some quality NHLers.

10 teams is an excellent tournament

12 teams is ideal.

16 teams works.

20 teams is alright.

24 teams is pretty much the limit.

32 teams is an abomination.

That is similar to how I feel about it.
A World Cup or Olympics, if we are talking best on best, should be limited to 8-12 teams for now. And at most I could see them expand to 16.

For the World Championships, I could see an expansion to 24 teams happening at some point. I don't think quality of competition would be too much of an issue there. It would probably more of an logistical problem to go past the current 16 team format.

 

[Albatros]

For the World Championships, I could see an expansion to 24 teams happening at some point. I don't think quality of competition would be too much of an issue there. It would probably more of an logistical problem to go past the current 16 team format.

One of the many consequences would be more teams never hosting international tournaments anymore, while in the countries that do host interest in these new teams would generally be very limited.