Why not do a 32 team world cup?

[ViD]

Anything over 8 teams is terrible

 

[Maverick41]

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.

Yes, the same thing is happening with soccer. After the latest expansions you will rarely see a single country host a World Cup or the Euros, and even when multiple countries submit a bid together, smaller countries will not be a part of that too often.

And with the limited hockey infrastructure even in the bigger nations, that effect would be even more pronounced in hockey.

 

[wetcoast]

You're overestimating the parity in international hockey; it's not even close to the parity of international soccer. You think Canada beating up on, say, Great Britain at the WC is bad? That's nothing. As you get into lower levels, there's even less parity. Often you'll see things like the 28th ranked international team beating the 34th ranked team 12-0. The teams in Division II would get destroyed by most teams in Division IB, who in turn generally get creamed by teams in Division !A, and those teams are significantly worse than even the worse teams in the Elite division (the teams that get beaten up on by the big nations's B-teams every year at the World Championships).

Agree 100%.

32 teams is a non-starter. Do we really need to see, say, Finland against the United Arab Emirates?

Well it might help the egos of a couple of posters around here right?

 

[wetcoast]

24 teams

4 team by group - 3 games

Round 16 - ranking game for losers

7 games for everyone. Small nations play a single match out of reach and are exposed in the biggest international event every year.

Same format for teams 25 to 48.

Creation of a 3rd division until reaching 72.

Just 1 promotion/relegation.

Realistically after the top 16-20 teams, you could make teams from HF boards posters from Sweden, canada, USA, Finland ect who would beat the national teams of teams ranked 20th and lower that how bad this idea is.

 

[Max Milk]

Realistically after the top 16-20 teams, you could make teams from HF boards posters from Sweden, canada, USA, Finland ect who would beat the national teams of teams ranked 20th and lower that how bad this idea is.

Please, the nerds on here couldn't defeat Luxembourg, let alone a team full of Italian pros and Canadian fromer-ECHL mercenaries.

 

[wetcoast]

Please, the nerds on here couldn't defeat Luxembourg, let alone a team full of Italian pros and Canadian fromer-ECHL mercenaries.

How about the 32nd ranked team I bet they could.

Some serious rec league stars on these boards buddy.

 

[Dirtyf1ghter]

Realistically after the top 16-20 teams, you could make teams from HF boards posters from Sweden, canada, USA, Finland ect who would beat the national teams of teams ranked 20th and lower that how bad this idea is.

The level gap between 10 and 24 is not huge.

And with my system, the top 6 would only play one match against teams ranked between 19 and 24.

If hockey wants to have the most visibility possible, we must integrate China, Japan, Corea, Italy, France, Great Britain, Poland...

Group A

Canada
Norway
Austria
China

Group B

USA
Denmark
Latvia
Ukrainia

Group C

Sweden
Belarus
Kazakhstan
Hungary

Group D

Russia
Germany
France
Japan

Groupe E

Finland
Switzerland
G Britain
Poland

Group F

Czechia
Slovakia
Italy
Slovenia

 

[wetcoast]

The level gap between 10 and 24 is not huge.

Perhaps not as most of these "national teams" can get better by using hired guns but the gap between them and the top 8 is huge and really in any best on best tournament there is a big 3 or 4 and then a couple of teams that could pull and upset and then the rest who have zero chance.

And with my system, the top 6 would only play one match against teams ranked between 19 and 24.

those games would still be a complete joke though right?

If hockey wants to have the most visibility possible, we must integrate China, Japan, Corea, Italy, France, Great Britain, Poland...

Those teams have been around the WC's and Olympics for a while and you can't manufacture interest.

There is either organic growth or there isn't.

 

[Max Milk]

The level gap between 10 and 24 is not huge.

And with my system, the top 6 would only play one match against teams ranked between 19 and 24.

If hockey wants to have the most visibility possible, we must integrate China, Japan, Corea, Italy, France, Great Britain, Poland...

Not sure if there's a ton of money to be made in Poland, but hockey taking off in one of those other 6 large economies you named would be a pretty big deal for the game and for the NHL.

And while a 20 or 24 team best-on-best World Cup isn't ideal, and might lead to some 10-1 games on opening day, it could lead to some serious growth for hockey within 10-20 years. Especially if we include countries like China, Japan, France & the UK in such a high profile tournament.

 

[Dirtyf1ghter]

Perhaps not as most of these "national teams" can get better by using hired guns but the gap between them and the top 8 is huge and really in any best on best tournament there is a big 3 or 4 and then a couple of teams that could pull and upset and then the rest who have zero chance.


those games would still be a complete joke though right?


Those teams have been around the WC's and Olympics for a while and you can't manufacture interest.

There is either organic growth or there isn't.

Yes but we are not going to have an 8-a-side world championship.
I've seen jokes go wrong before. With games won very laboriously, even defeats.
What you can't understand is that with my system, we would very quickly reach the 1/4 Finals and that there would be ranking matches. Canada would play 3 matches against nations usually in the world championship (12th, 13th and a top 16), 1 match against a non-top 16 nation and 3 matches against top 8 nations.

So your excuse doesn't work. It's not just for 1 match that the competition would be less interesting. Especially since I'm eliminating this long group phase.

 

[Max Milk]

Perhaps not as most of these "national teams" can get better by using hired guns but the gap between them and the top 8 is huge and really in any best on best tournament there is a big 3 or 4 and then a couple of teams that could pull and upset and then the rest who have zero chance.


those games would still be a complete joke though right?


Those teams have been around the WC's and Olympics for a while and you can't manufacture interest.

There is either organic growth or there isn't.

I mean France is producing a few NHLers now and is competing pretty much every year World Championships. Progress obviously won't come overnight but it IS happening.

The way the game is picking up steam in Scotland & Northern Ireland also can't be ignored. The EIHL is doing good work up there.

China has (had?) a KHL team. It's happening man.

 

[wetcoast]

Yes but we are not going to have an 8-a-side world championship.
I've seen jokes go wrong before. With games won very laboriously, even defeats.
What you can't understand is that with my system, we would very quickly reach the 1/4 Finals and that there would be ranking matches. Canada would play 3 matches against nations usually in the world championship (12th, 13th and a top 16), 1 match against a non-top 16 nation and 3 matches against top 8 nations.

So your excuse doesn't work. It's not just for 1 match that the competition would be less interesting. Especially since I'm eliminating this long group phase.

How many tip quality players would be even interested in this type of tournament?

The NHL season is long and is by far the best league in the world and that's where most of hockey interest lies.

 

[Dirtyf1ghter]

Not sure if there's a ton of money to be made in Poland, but hockey taking off in one of those other 6 large economies you named would be a pretty big deal for the game and for the NHL.

And while a 20 or 24 team best-on-best World Cup isn't ideal, and might lead to some 10-1 games on opening day, it could lead to some serious growth for hockey within 10-20 years. Especially if we include countries like China, Japan, France & the UK in such a high profile tournament.

10-1 is just one game. The small nations would have 6 accessible matches afterwards.

For exemple, China against Norway and Denmark. Then after, 4 games against nations outside the top 16.

 

[wetcoast]

I mean France is producing a few NHLers now and is competing pretty much every year World Championships. Progress obviously won't come overnight but it IS happening.

The way the game is picking up steam in Scotland & Northern Ireland also can't be ignored. The EIHL is doing good work up there.

China has (had?) a KHL team. It's happening man.

Sure it's happening just like that new 3 on 3 league eh?

There is a resin that the WC has 4 or 5 different level and even the 8-16 teams in the top group aren't really that good compared to the top 4 in a real tournament with actual preparation ect... By all teams.

 

[Dirtyf1ghter]

How many tip quality players would be even interested in this type of tournament?

The NHL season is long and is by far the best league in the world and that's where most of hockey interest lies.

The NHL is a problem for the development of hockey but that's another debate. This private league should not have as much power and the federations which train the players must have access to the players as in all sports which are not crushed by a North American private league. With this format, it's just 2 weeks of competition.

 

[Max Milk]

Sure it's happening just like that new 3 on 3 league eh?

There is a resin that the WC has 4 or 5 different level and even the 8-16 teams in the top group aren't really that good compared to the top 4 in a real tournament with actual preparation ect... By all teams.

Who was in the finals at the World Championships again this year?

I don't think anyone would place Switzerland or Czechia in the top 4 right now.

Upsets happen, especially in single-elimination game tournaments. Canada's best lost to Kazakhstan on the world's biggest stage. Sweden's best was eliminated by Belarus. At one point I believe Poland defeated the best the Soviets had to offer. These things happen and they most certainly would again, were such a tournament to take place.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Please, the nerds on here couldn't defeat Luxembourg, let alone a team full of Italian pros and Canadian fromer-ECHL mercenaries.

If you submitted an HFBoard All Star Team of regular posters that played at moderately high levels and stay active in competitive Men's Leagues, you'd get a pretty good team at the level of those teams or better, but if you just picked random HFBoard users then you wouldn't.

 

[wetcoast]

Who was in the finals at the World Championships again this year?

I don't think anyone would place Switzerland or Czechia in the top 4 right now.

Upsets happen, especially in single-elimination game tournaments. Canada's best lost to Kazakhstan on the world's biggest stage. Sweden's best was eliminated by Belarus. At one point I believe Poland defeated the best the Soviets had to offer. These things happen and they most certainly would again, were such a tournament to take place.

The way the WC's is set up coinciding with the NHL playoffs simply reinforces the point that it's not a best on best tournament and the idea of a 32 team WC would be best on best right?

The NHL is a problem for the development of hockey but that's another debate. This private league should not have as much power and the federations which train the players must have access to the players as in all sports which are not crushed by a North American private league. With this format, it's just 2 weeks of competition.

While I'm not a big fan of Bettman the IIHF or Olympic committees aren't exactly the type of people that should have power either.

The NHL is the organic place where the best players go plain and simple.

 

[Max Milk]

If you submitted an HFBoard All Star Team of regular posters that played at moderately high levels and stay active in competitive Men's Leagues, you'd get a pretty good team at the level of those teams or better, but if you just picked random HFBoard users then you wouldn't.

Ah yes, the HF Boards Selects. I could get behind that.

Good team on paper, but can you imagine the intense debates they'd have over starting line-ups and special teams? Buddy, it'd be chaos.

The way the WC's is set up coinciding with the NHL playoffs simply reinforces the point that it's not a best on best tournament and the idea of a 32 team WC would be best on best right?

The examples I provided with Canada & Sweden are from best-on-best Olympic tournaments. As for the Soviets, they pretty much always brought their best team to the World Championships.

 

[Max Milk]

DP

 

[Dirtyf1ghter]

The way the WC's is set up coinciding with the NHL playoffs simply reinforces the point that it's not a best on best tournament and the idea of a 32 team WC would be best on best right?


While I'm not a big fan of Bettman the IIHF or Olympic committees aren't exactly the type of people that should have power either.

The NHL is the organic place where the best players go plain and simple.

Obviously we're talking about an ideal world where the NHL frees players to compete.

I stayed at 24.

The presence of the best in the NHL is the result of a historical sporting logic (40 years ago, Canada concentrated the overwhelming majority of talents) and a cyclical financial logic (the North American economy).

In the hockey of tomorrow, North American players will be in the minority and non-Western capital will be able to mobilize a lot of money.

Currently, IIHF hockey has more visibility in Europe than the NHL. If I hadn't been able to see the international competitions in France, I would never have seen hockey in my life.

For a kid to want to play hockey, he has to see hockey on television, for free on the public service.

 

[wetcoast]

Ah yes, the HF Boards Selects. I could get behind that.

Good team on paper, but can you imagine the intense debates they'd have over starting line-ups and special teams? Buddy, it'd be chaos.


The examples I provided with Canada & Sweden are from best-on-best Olympic tournaments. As for the Soviets, they pretty much always brought their best team to the World Championships.

Sure Canada lost a junior game 6-3 and that probably is the exception that proves the rule and at the adult level how have the results been?

 

[wetcoast]

Obviously we're talking about an ideal world where the NHL frees players to compete.

I stayed at 24.

The presence of the best in the NHL is the result of a historical sporting logic (40 years ago, Canada concentrated the overwhelming majority of talents) and a cyclical financial logic (the North American economy).

The economy has very little to do with anything here, china and India will in a couple of decades have among the largest economies in the world hockey success isn't going to follow.

Canada has had and will continue to have a strong pipeline of talent.

For this example after naming the Canadian National team they could select a dozen+ teams that would still beat the bottom section of 20-24 teams in your model.

In the hockey of tomorrow, North American players will be in the minority and non-Western capital will be able to mobilize a lot of money.

So are you predicting that Canada and or the USA will drop out of the top 4 nations in the world?

Not likely in anyone's lifetime reading this right now.

Currently, IIHF hockey has more visibility in Europe than the NHL. If I hadn't been able to see the international competitions in France, I would never have seen hockey in my life.

Not sure what you mean by visibility and what that has to do with the topic.

Sure the time zones means more live games but that's always been the case.

France has something like 76 pro, semi pro teams and sure are visible but any kid wanting to be a hockey player in their dreams wants to play in the NHL.

For a kid to want to play hockey, he has to see hockey on television, for free on the public service.

So?

 

[Max Milk]

Sure Canada lost a junior game 6-3 and that probably is the exception that proves the rule and at the adult level how have the results been?

Oh right. That WAS at the World Juniors and not the 1998 Olympics. Damn, my mistake, I guess I misremembered that one. Nontheless, the best Canadian players still lost to Switzerland in 2006. It isn't quite as bad as losing to Kazakhstan, but it goes to show that these types of upsets do happen.

 

[Dirtyf1ghter]

The economy has very little to do with anything here, china and India will in a couple of decades have among the largest economies in the world hockey success isn't going to follow.

Canada has had and will continue to have a strong pipeline of talent.

For this example after naming the Canadian National team they could select a dozen+ teams that would still beat the bottom section of 20-24 teams in your model.



So are you predicting that Canada and or the USA will drop out of the top 4 nations in the world?

Not likely in anyone's lifetime reading this right now.



Not sure what you mean by visibility and what that has to do with the topic.

Sure the time zones means more live games but that's always been the case.

France has something like 76 pro, semi pro teams and sure are visible but any kid wanting to be a hockey player in their dreams wants to play in the NHL.




So?

If Saudi Arabia absolutely wants to create a league that pays twice as much, they can. It's a question of will and perhaps one day a non-Western market will want to do it.

Canada dominates less and less, and will dominate less and less because this country is at its maximum level while hockey is progressing elsewhere.

Canadians have been in the minority for 10 years in the NHL and their percentage is gradually decreasing. USA, Russia and Europe other than Sweden and Finland have a lot of room for improvement.

I predict that one day there will be more Europeans than North Americans in the NHL. To date, while the draft system favors North Americans, there are already 43% of Europeans drafted. And the trend is increasing for the next few years.

As a child, I dreamed more of playing with France in the Olympic tournament than playing in the NHL for Nashville or Carolina. Kids don't watch the NHL much. Often the subscription is paid but you have to have time to watch the matches. The local pro team is seen more.When you live in Europe, you know how much hockey there is outside of the NHL.