Would you prefer this format for the WC:

[Trap Jesus]

Let me preface this by saying I understand why it's formatted the way it currently is, but I just think this more traditional way (relative to other 16-team tournaments) would be a lot more interesting. The 7-game round robin just seems excruciatingly long and at points needless to me.

- Same top 16 teams.

- 4 Preliminary Round groups of 4 teams each; all teams play 3 round-robin games.

- Group selection would be done like this:

A: 1, 8, 9, 16
B: 2, 7, 10, 15
C: 3, 6, 11, 14
D: 4, 5, 12, 13

- The top two teams in each group advance to the Playoff Round; 1-4 seeds are the group winners (seeded then by the usual tiebreakers), and the bottom 4 teams are the 5-8 seeds (also seeded by the usual tiebreakers).

- Playoffs work like a usual bracket from there: 1/8 vs. 4/5; 2/7 vs. 3/6.

- Relegation would be determined by a 3-game round robin among the 4 last-place teams in each division (2 teams relegated).

For reference, here are what the groups would look like this year:

A: Sweden, Slovakia, Latvia, Austria
B: Finland, Switzerland, Norway, Denmark
C: Russia, USA, Belarus, Slovenia
D: Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany

Click to read more...

 

[Canuckistani]

Let me preface this by saying I understand why it's formatted the way it currently is, but I just think this more traditional way (relative to other 16-team tournaments) would be a lot more interesting. The 7-game round robin just seems excruciatingly long and at points needless to me.

- Same top 16 teams.

- 4 Preliminary Round groups of 4 teams each; all teams play 3 round-robin games.

- Group selection would be done like this:

A: 1, 8, 9, 16
B: 2, 7, 10, 15
C: 3, 6, 11, 14
D: 4, 5, 12, 13

- The top two teams in each group advance to the Playoff Round; 1-4 seeds are the group winners (seeded then by the usual tiebreakers), and the bottom 4 teams are the 5-8 seeds (also seeded by the usual tiebreakers).

- Playoffs work like a usual bracket from there: 1/8 vs. 4/5; 2/7 vs. 3/6.

- Relegation would be determined by a 3-game round robin among the 4 last-place teams in each division (2 teams relegated).

For reference, here are what the groups would look like this year:

A: Sweden, Slovakia, Latvia, Austria
B: Finland, Switzerland, Norway, Denmark
C: Russia, USA, Belarus, Slovenia
D: Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany

The problem with each team having a 3-game opening round before the playoffs is that you're not leaving much time for teams to gell, while the current 7-game opening round gives teams plenty of time to sort things out before it really counts.

Perhaps the ideal would be the set-up from back in the early-late 90s when it was 12 teams in two pools: 5 opening round games per team and then the QFs. But then IIHF wants 16 teams so that's not an option.

The biggest problem I have with most international formats is that many of the top teams barely seem to face each other. Canada hasn't played Russia at the senior level since 2011! Ridiculous.

 

[admire]

I think it would be great not to have yet a other change to a format that has changed so much just in the last ten years.

 

[masa2009]

The formula you are proposing is common sense, but they want the revenue generated by the additional games.
So, sure it'd be a perfectly valid formula, but since it's the simplest one and yet it's not in place, it must mean that the IIHF has to cram more games.
It does feel long, especially for a yearly event. But the IIHF is not that big of a structure, and for every moneymaking men's elite WC, they will help with less lucrative developmental operations.

That's why we used to have that weird formula with 2 pool rounds then 2-game series for the semis and final in the late 90s. And later the "4 pools of four, then 2 pools of six, then QF" scheme until a few years ago.

This being said, the IIHF is not alone here, I believe the FIBA WC also has a somewhat protracted formula as well. Maybe volleyball too.
I also seem to recall some soccer European cups with two consecutive pool rounds at one point, but I may be wrong since I don't follow it much.

 

[tony d]

To me it's fine the way it is with the 2 8 team groups.

 

[Faterson]

I hated those 4-team mini-groups, the current format is much better and a half-way return to classic World Championships tourneys from decades ago, which were nothing but a round-robin, with no play-offs. Adding play-offs was a great idea, but getting rid of the large-group round-robin was a mistake, so I'm happy it's back.

 

[Pominville Knows]

I hated those 4-team mini-groups, the current format is much better and a half-way return to classic World Championships tourneys from decades ago, which were nothing but a round-robin, with no play-offs. Adding play-offs was a great idea, but getting rid of the large-group round-robin was a mistake, so I'm happy it's back.

Yeah i think its more equal this way, that teams gets seven games to both gel and position themselves versus eachother. Then going up against teams from the other group that has done the same.

 

[mattihp]

I hated those 4-team mini-groups, the current format is much better and a half-way return to classic World Championships tourneys from decades ago, which were nothing but a round-robin, with no play-offs. Adding play-offs was a great idea, but getting rid of the large-group round-robin was a mistake, so I'm happy it's back.

This.

 

[slovakiasnextone]

I hated those 4-team mini-groups, the current format is much better and a half-way return to classic World Championships tourneys from decades ago, which were nothing but a round-robin, with no play-offs. Adding play-offs was a great idea, but getting rid of the large-group round-robin was a mistake, so I'm happy it's back.

I agree.

Also the current format gives us really exciting battles for the 4th QF spot between the bottom 5 teams in each group.

 

[Shoalzie]

It would be nice to see the field expand as more nations improve their programs. I'd love to see a 16-team field with 4-team groups similar to the FIFA World Cup. You can have the group draws be a big to-do and everything.

 

[Faterson]

There already are 16 teams, and the 4-team groups seemed like crap and many fans were complaining about it. If anything, it seems like there are perhaps too many teams in the top flight of Worlds now; expanding even further would be weird. Note that FIFA has no "B tier" and "C tier" World Cup, but IIHF does.

 

[Urbanskog]

There already are 16 teams, and the 4-team groups seemed like crap and many fans were complaining about it. If anything, it seems like there are perhaps too many teams in the top flight of Worlds now; expanding even further would be weird. Note that FIFA has no "B tier" and "C tier" World Cup, but IIHF does.

Why do you think that there are too many teams? I think it's time to add some teams.

 

[Faterson]

I believe a Worlds hockey tourney should be all the top teams and a few hopefuls. Right now, it's about 50/50 (too many hopefuls for my taste). And now you're proposing for the hopefuls to be in the majority... Hockey isn't football, Worlds are played every year, not every 4 years (so quality hopefuls have 4 times as many chances to join the top tier and stay there), and the tourney is being boycotted/sabotaged by the game's most important league (adding even more games against or among non-top teams would make the tourney seem even less relevant, I'm afraid).

 

[Atas2000]

The problem with each team having a 3-game opening round before the playoffs is that you're not leaving much time for teams to gell, while the current 7-game opening round gives teams plenty of time to sort things out before it really counts.

This. Also there would be too many upsets for good teams which just had one bad game.

The biggest problem I have with most international formats is that many of the top teams barely seem to face each other. Canada hasn't played Russia at the senior level since 2011! Ridiculous.

I don't think it's due to the format. I bet you can easily find NHL teams which seem to never meet in the playoffs.

 

[Bures Elbow]

This should be how the "world cup" of hockey is in 2016.

But Bettman.

 

[masa2009]

There already are 16 teams, and the 4-team groups seemed like crap and many fans were complaining about it

They seemed like crap because they only served to eliminate one team and be a prelim for the second phase which was another round robin and only eliminated 2 teams out of 6.

A single round with 4-team pools then quarterfinals directly would not generate such complaints. It's just that the IIHF would lose on revenue.

This. Also there would be too many upsets for good teams which just had one bad game.

So what, hockey is a sport so reliant on money and infrastructures, the hierarchy is too static and biased by the sport's lack of accessibility. It could use a few more upsets and generate more interest in emergent countries like that. Look at large markets like FRA or GER, always fluctuating barely above mediocrity when they perform strongly in most other team sports. And Canada is kinda the opposite, king of hockey but surprisingly irrelevant in plenty of more mainstream events. It makes hockey look so niche (which it is).

 

[QnebO]

It's better to have alot of games. I hated when last olympics had only three games before important games. It didin't feel like legit tournament compared to earlier olympics that had four games.

The bottom teams aren't that bad anymore. Actually "upsets" are very common these days. Bottom teams have took huge leaps forward. Level of hockey is raising around the Europe and best countries are closing the Canada in skill level.

I hated those 4-team mini-groups, the current format is much better and a half-way return to classic World Championships tourneys from decades ago, which were nothing but a round-robin, with no play-offs. Adding play-offs was a great idea, but getting rid of the large-group round-robin was a mistake, so I'm happy it's back.

This

 

[Sanderson]

One of the big reasons they changed the format from 4x4 to 8x2 is because of the uncertainty involving the qualification round. They had a tough time selling tickets to games that were only set up a few days in advance at the most. Not a whole lot of fans are prepared to buy tickets in advance while having to gauge which place their country would end up in during the first group stage. Everyone just had to hope that they got the tickets for the right games.

Now you know exactly when your team will play all the way to the quarterfinals.

I really don't see the need to make any changes to the current setup, 8x2 is working just fine. The proposal from the op makes the tournament way too short again. You need to remember that this tournament is one of the big money-makers for the IIHF, it is essential to fund a whole lot of things. Having 1/4 of the teams out after three games doesn't help with that.

 

[Faterson]

A single round with 4-team pools then quarterfinals directly would not generate such complaints.

So you would shorten the Worlds to only 3 or 4 games for most teams? What an awful idea. You might as well cancel the World Championships, then. As mentioned before, the Olympic tournament already suffers due to being too brief (which is due to pressure from the NHL), and it would be horrible for the Worlds to follow that trend.

The current format is fine, except I dislike the seedings for the 2 groups being made based on those weird IIHF rankings that tend to be too static and frequently generate the same opponents from one year to another. I would welcome a random draw, the way it's done for football World Cups. (Ensuring, of course, that the top 6 hockey nations would be divided 3 teams per group.)

 

[slovakiasnextone]

So you would shorten the Worlds to only 3 or 4 games for most teams? What an awful idea. You might as well cancel the World Championships, then. As mentioned before, the Olympic tournament already suffers due to being too brief (which is due to pressure from the NHL), and it would be horrible for the Worlds to follow that trend.

The current format is fine, except I dislike the seedings for the 2 groups being made based on those weird IIHF rankings that tend to be too static and frequently generate the same opponents from one year to another. I would welcome a random draw, the way it's done for football World Cups. (Ensuring, of course, that the top 6 hockey nations would be divided 3 teams per group.)

It's failing to understand not only how much the Worlds create in revenue for the rest of the IIHF tourneys and for the growth of the sport, but also the fact that the Worlds are the hockey event of the year in several hockey countries and what generates the most ineterest for the sport, even in countries that aren't top tier nations. And I would think that we all want the game to grow.

 

[QnebO]

And I would think that we all want the game to grow.

Yeah and it has grown already, I'd say not least because of WHC tournaments. Countries like Denmark, Norway, France, Germany, Austria, Belarus and what lifting their level will do all the good things. National leagues in Europe will more solid material to select from. It will create more competition, make all the leagues stronger, and that will only lift everybodys level more. It's positive cycle.

 

[Atas2000]

So what, hockey is a sport so reliant on money and infrastructures, the hierarchy is too static and biased by the sport's lack of accessibility. It could use a few more upsets and generate more interest in emergent countries like that. Look at large markets like FRA or GER, always fluctuating barely above mediocrity when they perform strongly in most other team sports. And Canada is kinda the opposite, king of hockey but surprisingly irrelevant in plenty of more mainstream events. It makes hockey look so niche (which it is).

Yeah, let some weak teams come into the QF because of some bad bounce so one of the big teams has an easy path to the finals, right? I don't like it.

Also FRA nad GER are totally different markets, but first and foremost soccer dominated markets. You can't do anything about it. Also ze Germans are very strange with their hockey. The arenas are full, but you barely find hockey coverage on TV. It's not the question of the success at world's.

 

[Justinov]

The new format is especially better for the smaller countries as they will get a "full tournament" each year with 7 matches of importance! It will increase their experience level for big important matches and getting players used to play long tourneys, which is only learned the hard way.

I also agree that the new format feels more like a real tournament for spectators, than the 4-team-in-each-group system.

 

[Sanderson]

The current format is fine, except I dislike the seedings for the 2 groups being made based on those weird IIHF rankings that tend to be too static and frequently generate the same opponents from one year to another. I would welcome a random draw, the way it's done for football World Cups. (Ensuring, of course, that the top 6 hockey nations would be divided 3 teams per group.)

The football world cup doesn't have a random draw. I don't see a particularly good reason for implementing one in hockey either. The system works just fine. It benefits those who have longterm success. What better way to fairly create groups than by taking the last few performances into account?

You don't always have the same teams every year. Of course some of them will be the same, that goes without saying, there are only two groups after all.

 

[Faterson]

The football world cup doesn't have a random draw.

Of course it does, what are you talking about. Both the World Cup itself and the qualifiers have random draws based on various pools (like the top 6 hockey nations would be the top pool), and the draw is a big televised event every time. The groups composition is too static and stagnant now in hockey World Championships.