World Cup Boycott

[xxxx]

The catchword here is "international". It refers to a competition between national teams. This one features two non-national teams, so it's not international. It may loosely apply to terms "best-on-best" and "tournament" when they're used solely, but "international" it is not, and therefore does not apply to the definition "international best-on-best tournament" either. The 2004 edition, however, did match that definition, because it was all between national teams.

Simple, no?

It has been explained to you numerous times. Either there are cognitive issues or you are willfully ignoring the definition. It means between nations. This tournament is not between nations, it is between some nations and some non-nations.

I was thinking only the term "best-on-best", sorry.

 

[JackSlater]

This here's a big issue. I don't doubt one bit that Finland is going to mail it in vs. Russia or Sweden, but in a tournament like this, all - not just some - games should be meaningful.

Also, I've this feeling that most of these people who don't mind the tournament now are of the mind because they're fully expecting the gimmicks to be eliminated before the decisive games. If the medal round is all NT-on-NT action, they will think it's a great tournament with genuine legitimacy. However, if one of the gimmicks makes it, it's going to sour the minds of many.

It's kind of hard to tell what's more infuriating - the inclusion of these gimmicks in the first place, or the post-tournament hubbub that's going to remind me that I live on a planet full of idiots. Not that it's going to be a shock in the first place, but still.

Even with the gimmick teams eliminated from contention it's still not legitimate with two of the teams Canada and USA) unfairly limited in a way the other nations are not.

I was thinking only the term "best-on-best", sorry.

Well then why were you posting different definitions of "international"? Regardless, as has already been explained to you, best on best in hockey has always carried the connotation of international best on best. If that wasn't the case, people would be calling the NHL best on best. People use best on best when discussing international hockey, not the NHL.

 

[Slimmy]

I will just say what I said elsewhere but damn are people acting weird. You get this tremendous hockey tournament and you dont want to watch it, instead you rather watch the The Worlds?

I could not possibly disagree more. I mean the World Cup will be one of the most competitive tournament in the history of the sport and can be topped by only a another World Cup in the distant future. The Worlds or even Olympics are not comparable. In the Olympics you have a bunch of flat out terrible teams and because of that you get to see wonderful games like Sweden winning 10-1 against Belarus or some crap like that. I also think that the fact that players will be fresh and not fatigued and bruised from the regular season grind will only make the hockey better.

Also there is no definition what a World Cup should be like. The rules of a tournament can be changed every time, there is no right way. Only thing that should matter is that the on ice product is as good as it can get and the decisions behind this tournament certainly allow this to happen.

I guess some countries like Slovakia could be pissed as they dont have their national team participating but it is a tournament where only the best participate and Slovakia has no chance of winning. Hockey only has a few good countries and therefore in order to create a competitive tournament you have to cut the fat.

I am very excited about the tournament and it certainly has the potential to end up being one of the best tournament ever. If that does not please a hockey fan then I dont know what to say. Do you not want to watch good hockey??!?!?!?!?

It's funny that you pick Sweden - Belarus as an example of a blowout win considering they beat us for one of the arguably biggest upsets in hockey history in the 2002 Olympics QF. No more of that, I guess..

 

[Loffer]

Well, we live end times of "international" hockey, it seems. And what is left is some "transnational" hockey.

So, all in all I think it's only fitting there should be soon a NHL franchise in this so called "end of civilization" aka Las Vegas. Nothing is nothing anymore but some plastic business you can make money of. Yet it tastes only plastic. But let's not spoil the parties.

 

[dubey]

Fans of hockey today are just no fun. Everything sucks and is a gimmick. So much cynicism.

Don't interpret anything you read here as a representation of the average hockey fan because it's not.

 

[kabidjan18]

Don't interpret anything you read here as a representation of the average hockey fan because it's not.

Right, you will not get a representative sample of hockey fans at an international open forum board. You will get a much more accurate sample by examining a single person's hockey buddies who all live in a certain region of Canada, or better yet from interviewing only people at a stadium who are willing spent exorbitant amounts of money to go see hockey games and fill a stadium.

HFboards is the largest hockey forum with the most diverse sample of users, of course there are biases even on an HFboards thread that affect how well it represents the opinion of the general population, however, the idea that you based on personal experiences or perhaps visiting Canadian websites can get a more representative sample is inaccurate. Homerism, however, can be expected as usual

 

[Xokkeu]

Google World Cup hockey gimmick and see what comes up.


Sportsnet had an online poll 85% said thr tournament format was a bad idea.

 

[FiLe]

Sportsnet had an online poll 85% said thr tournament format was a bad idea.

I'd be willing to say that overwhelming majority of hockey fans would prefer a true international tournament to one spiced up with gimmicks.

Whether that stops them from tuning in anyway, is however whole another question. I suspect most will, and those like us who loathe it enough to be willing to skip it altogether are not so numerous.

 

[Xokkeu]

I'd be willing to say that overwhelming majority of hockey fans would prefer a true international tournament to one spiced up with gimmicks.

Whether that stops them from tuning in anyway, is however whole another question. I suspect most will, and those like us who loathe it enough to be willing to skip it altogether are not so numerous.

people will watch certainly. Hockey fans will watch because it's hockey. I'll probably end up watching some of it just because it's on, like the all stars. But unfortunately I won't really care

 

[Maverick41]

For me it's like this:

If this was, what I'd consider a true international tournament (no so called gimmick teams) and Germany was in it. I would stay up and try to find a stream to watch as many games as possible.

If this was, what I'd consider a true international tournament (no so called gimmick teams) and Germany was not in it. I would not stay up all night, but I would try to watch some games the next day, if I could get them on demand or something.

The way this tournament will be played in 2016, I will not watch (not even highlights). I might check the boxscores but that would be about it.

But that is just me. If anyone wants to watch this because it might be great hockey, go ahead and have fun.

 

[JackSlater]

I'd be willing to say that overwhelming majority of hockey fans would prefer a true international tournament to one spiced up with gimmicks.

Whether that stops them from tuning in anyway, is however whole another question. I suspect most will, and those like us who loathe it enough to be willing to skip it altogether are not so numerous.

It's a tournament in Toronto in September - there will be plenty of fans, and the audience in Canada (with no significant sporting opposition outside of possibly the Blue Jays) will be big. Most people outside of the NHL have enough brain cells to realize that the gimmicks do nothing but hinder the tournament, but most will view a heavily flawed product as superior to no product at all.

 

[BayStreetBully]

For me it's like this:

If this was, what I'd consider a true international tournament (no so called gimmick teams) and Germany was in it. I would stay up and try to find a stream to watch as many games as possible.

If this was, what I'd consider a true international tournament (no so called gimmick teams) and Germany was not in it. I would not stay up all night, but I would try to watch some games the next day, if I could get them on demand or something.

Germany really should be in these tournaments, like they used to be. They are a team I'll miss for sure.

 

[Paxon]

Best players in the world? I'll definitely be watching. I don't like the novelty teams any more than anyone else but I can get over myself to watch some great hockey. The fact is most of the best nations are participating and though I don't like the Team NA U22 concept, at least it will be a blast to see how they do. Team Europe is a pretty resoundingly terrible idea, but so be it.

Google World Cup hockey gimmick and see what comes up.


Sportsnet had an online poll 85% said thr tournament format was a bad idea.

Sure, but most of them will still take the time to watch the same as they've taken the time to criticize it, because they care.

 

[Paxon]

The US team would probably have at minimum 3-4 players off the North America team.

I'd be more inclined this tournament a whirl is the NHL didn't handicap team USA and Canada(although Canada will obviously be fine) for selfish reasons.

The US team is not better than the other European teams to the point it can give up 3 or 4 good players.

This is certainly true. Canada and USA are both hurt by Team NA, but it's USA that has its actual chances altered. It needs players like Eichel and Gaudreau to inject some new blood and offensive talent into a team that had totally stagnated in Sochi. The roster looks far too similar. Canada meanwhile was probably the best international team ever at Sochi, so while a young player or two may have made the team, it doesn't really have an impact on paper.

 

[Xokkeu]

This is certainly true. Canada and USA are both hurt by Team NA, but it's USA that has its actual chances altered. It needs players like Eichel and Gaudreau to inject some new blood and offensive talent into a team that had totally stagnated in Sochi. The roster looks far too similar. Canada meanwhile was probably the best international team ever at Sochi, so while a young player or two may have made the team, it doesn't really have an impact on paper.

I saw one roster review that was like "US goes with old guard again." Like no **** they did. They had to!

 

[JackSlater]

I saw one roster review that was like "US goes with old guard again." Like no **** they did. They had to!

Yeah, but imagine the excitement of seeing Eichel and McDavid on the same team! It's worth significantly compromising team USA O24's chances to see Eichel and McDavid instead of something like boring old Eichel and Kane.

 

[Paxon]

Yeah, but imagine the excitement of seeing Eichel and McDavid on the same team! It's worth significantly compromising team USA O24's chances to see Eichel and McDavid instead of something like boring old Eichel and Kane.

Throw Gaudreau on the wing and no one would find that exciting.

 

[JackSlater]

Throw Gaudreau on the wing and no one would find that exciting.

True. I prefer the excitement of Gaudreau and Monahan on a line. Imagine it - they're from different countries! Wow

 

[Xokkeu]

Why not a McDavid Eichel Barkov Line. Super fun

Oh wait that's what all star games are for

 

[1Gold Standard]

Yeah, but imagine the excitement of seeing Eichel and McDavid on the same team! It's worth significantly compromising team USA O24's chances to see Eichel and McDavid instead of something like boring old Eichel and Kane.

Good thing that the knucklehead at the NHL office, the man who came up with this ridiculous concept, has since moved on to other ventures and is no longer with the NHL, otherwise he'd have some explaining to do to his bosses when the dust settles on this nonsense.

 

[Xokkeu]

Good thing that the knucklehead at the NHL office, the man who came up with this ridiculous concept, has since moved on to other ventures and is no longer with the NHL, otherwise he'd have some explaining to do to his bosses when the dust settles on this nonsense.

Who was it?

 

[1Gold Standard]

Who was it?

John Collins. He took his #2 with him as well. so good riddance to them both.

 

[JackSlater]

Good thing that the knucklehead at the NHL office, the man who came up with this ridiculous concept, has since moved on to other ventures and is no longer with the NHL, otherwise he'd have some explaining to do to his bosses when the dust settles on this nonsense.

Collins? Nice. I wonder what other brilliant ideas he had beyond outdoor hockey and tainting the oldest best on best hockey tournament.

 

[1Gold Standard]

Collins? Nice. I wonder what other brilliant ideas he had beyond outdoor hockey and tainting the oldest best on best hockey tournament.

not much beyond the January 1 games and this colossal screw up of a tournament. But he managed to parlay that into his own sport marketing company and a deal with the NFL. so, good for him. He's now a corporate party organizer for the NFL. He'll order tents, entertainment and kegs for the NFL corporate crowd. basically what I did for free when I was a student in the 90s organizing mixers for my faculty brothers.

 

[Sentinel]

I really wish they named that team "Holy Roman Empire." That would put the fear of God into Canada's hearts!