Dramatic changes to the World Cup?

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Finger Cookin

A kind of sort of, every 3-5 years, fixed schedule. And if they ditched it because it was poor, or because the logistics of it were more difficult than just joining the Olympics, there's no need to resurrect it.

The fact that they are resurrecting it means it was a mistake to ditch it to begin with. Also they ditched the World Cup to go to the Olympics in Asia. Now they are ditching the Olympics in Asia the resurrect the World Cup. It's a full 180.

I personally think they should stay in the Olympics, the World Cup boat has sailed.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by spuzzum

Sochi and Vancouver Olympic ice hockey tournaments were the best of the best. National pride. You definitely know who you are cheering for. No better stage. Even if held in Korea or Botswana for all we care. I was up whenever needed to watch the games and cheer. The NHL has to continue with the Olympics, and sadly, they're going in the opposite direction.

Euro all star team from lesser hockey countries facing national countries? Foolish idea and concept. Many have illustrated the importance of cheering for "their team."

A team consisting of Italians, Germans, Austrians, Slovenians etc would be a laugh. No one would follow them, never mind the players being asked to suit up.

San Marino cheers for San Marino and they know they'll never get to the World Cup. It's called patriotism and being proud regardless of your population.

I love the Champions League idea but not sure it would fly. Logistical nightmare.

I actually think the exact opposite. This might be everyone's favorite '2nd team' in the tournament from fans who have their respective countries already participating. There will be a tonne of interesting stories surrounding the individual players, their backgrounds and how they got there. Also remember how many immigrants (first, second or even beyond that) are in North America and still have ties or national pride. I would bet their second team would be the one with a player from their 'roots'. I know I would cheer especially hard if someone from my origin was on that team.

I also think that their countrymen would follow them, and think it is a great way to increase interest in countries where that interest is a bit limited. The media in those countries will of course write an article or two, and their 'Romanian Gretzky" or "Polish Crosby" should be followed by the respective fans. I think it would be a great way to give some attention to hockey in those countries, and maybe help to build the game up there in the long run. I think Hockey is a very fun sport to watch once you sit down and actually watch a game (I am talking about for someone who has never watched a game before). Maybe there would be more people taking an interest. I think it is as good of an idea as any in trying to make hockey a bit more popular.

If anything, I would love it if that second team was an all-Asian team instead of another Canadian team, or the remainder of the players from North America, etc. I don't think they would be competitive enough, unfortunately, though the sport does seem to be growing in popularity there (Kazakhstan, Korea and Japan probably have a few players, and even Thailand has their own league!). I don't believe they would be anywhere close to competitive enough, unfortunately, so I doubt they get invited any time soon.

[scotty2hotty]

Call me crazy ... but I like (almost) everything about this new World Cup idea / format. The only thing I'd change is to have the top 7 IIHF teams compete and an 8th team made up of top player from remaining countries.

My dream scenario:

- World Cup every 4 years in September

- All-Star Game held the other 3 years ... in September. (I have a lot of reasons for wanting to see the All-Star game moved to the start of the season)

- Winter Classic every year at usual time

- Amateurs in Olympics. A much higher likelihood of upsets from smaller countries when pure amateurs are playing (I would guess). I actually think that more countries would get engaged due to more upsets occurring ... rather than watching the same 5 countries battle for a medal every event.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by scotty2hotty

- All-Star Game held the other 3 years ... in September. (I have a lot of reasons for wanting to see the All-Star game moved to the start of the season)

Why would you want to watch the previous seasons "All-stars" play or display their skills in September vs actually doing it during the season (or perhaps immediately following the Stanley Cup final)?

[Red Menace]

A Champions league may be a nice idea, but all the best teams are in the NHL so I don't really see the point. I doubt it ever happens.

What will happen is an NHL/NHLPA owned World Cup without the involvement of the IIHF. The large percentage, if not all, of the players will be from the NHL, they wont care about the KHL or anyone else's schedule or sending players over....they will have NHL player rosters. This is the only logical reason why they are toying with the idea of combining nations....as beyond the top 5-6 it is impossible to assemble a roster of NHLers from any of the outlier countries.
Perhaps they should only invite 6 countries....play each other once in a round robin...top 4 advance to semi-finals...3 game final.....all done in 3 weeks.

[calgarygeologist]

If this World Cup of Hockey was to be an NHL exclusive type of event (featuring only NHL players) they should just do it with 4 teams. Canada, USA, Russia and Europe. If the goal is to focus on putting on a tournament highlighting the star players they really just need those 4 teams. Sweden, Finland and the Czech Republic could put together teams with available NHL players but they end up digging deep into the NHL pool and not just highlighting the greats. Put the best players Euro players outside of Russia on a team and let them battle against the 3 other nations.

[scotty2hotty]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Why would you want to watch the previous seasons "All-stars" play or display their skills in September vs actually doing it during the season (or perhaps immediately following the Stanley Cup final)?

A few reasons:

- Apart from kids in the host city, the All-Star game is largely irrelevant in it's current iteration
- Personally, I don't like the mid-season break
- The Winter Classic / Stadium Series has supplanted the AS game as the league's premier, mid-season events
- We are hockey starved and hungry for hockey, any hockey, come September .. what better time to showcase the leagues stars as an unofficial kick-off to the season?
- We are watching only a 'half season' of all stars, currently. A September game means a true, full-season all-star roster.
- A starting line-up of the previous season's trophy winners would be cool
- As for precedence ... the NFL holds their all-star game outside of the season and NASCAR kicks off their season with their premier event.

Anyway ... just my opinion. But I would personally be more interested in this type of event to start the season and I think it would make it a bit more relevant again.

[Red Menace]

I think in that scenario that Euro team would be the favourite.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by scotty2hotty

- We are watching only a 'half season' of all stars, currently. A September game means a true, full-season all-star roster.

- As for precedence ... the NFL holds their all-star game outside of the season and NASCAR kicks off their season with their premier event.

The way I view a September all star game is that the performance of players from the previous season (potentially up to 5 months prior) can be largely forgotten by the time an all star game happens. At least with an all star break 60% or 70% through the season it is easier for fans to know and identify the current star players. I'm a pretty average hockey fan and like to think that I pay fairly close attention to what happens but by the time September rolls around much of the previous season is a blur.

NFL does their all-star (Pro Bowl game) at the end of the season. Previously after the Super Bowl and now before the Super Bowl. The season is still pretty fresh with many fans. They don't want 6 months.

[scotty2hotty]

Meh, fair enough. Agree to disagree.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

If this World Cup of Hockey was to be an NHL exclusive type of event (featuring only NHL players) they should just do it with 4 teams. Canada, USA, Russia and Europe. If the goal is to focus on putting on a tournament highlighting the star players they really just need those 4 teams. Sweden, Finland and the Czech Republic could put together teams with available NHL players but they end up digging deep into the NHL pool and not just highlighting the greats. Put the best players Euro players outside of Russia on a team and let them battle against the 3 other nations.

Already done LOL.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0170965/

To spawn international interest in Ice Hockey, a food conglomerate based in Switzerland wants to launch a World Cup Hockey Championship in Europe and North America. Europe, the USSR, USA and Canada are chosen to take part.

[Itse]

Why would you give Russia the third spot behind USA and Canada? Russia has never won such a tournament, and only been a finalist once, back in 1998. You know, when Gretzky was still playing and They Fleury was the Flames leading scorer.

Here's the combined best of the best tournament results, from 1996 World Cup to 2014 Olympics.

Canada: 4 wins + 1 final + 1 semifinal
USA: 1 win + 2 finals + 2 semifinals
Sweden: 1 win + 1 final + 1 semifinal
Czech: 1 win + 2 semifinals
Finland: 2 finals + 3 semifinals
Russia: 1 final + 3 semifinals
(Slovakia and Belarus both with 1 semifinal).


Top dog: Canada.
Tier 2: Sweden, USA, Czech.
Tier 3: Finland, Russia.

If you only look at results from the last decade (2004-2014):

Canada: 3 wins
Sweden: 1 win, 1 final
Finland: 2 finals, 2 semifinals
USA: 1 final, 2 semifinals
Czech: 2 semifinals
Russia and Slovakia: 1 semifinal


Top dog: Canada
Tier 2: Sweden, Finland, USA
Tier 3: Czech, Russia, Slovakia


Russia is a World Championship powerhouse, that's pretty much it. If we're talking best of the best national teams, you can MAYBE squeeze them in at the fourth place over Finland due to having more star power.


Also: the definition of a succesful tournament for Finland is doing better than Sweden. The idea of a combined Swedish+Finnish team makes my head hurt. And that would probably be the easiest combination.

[GirlySports]

Cause every tournament needs a villain.

[sureLoss]

http://www.tsn.ca/westhead-nhl-playe...event-1.144286

The National Hockey League and the Players' Association hope to generate between $75 million and $100 million from the rekindled World Cup of Hockey, according to their preliminary estimates.

A person familiar with the matter told TSN that the eight-team tournament, which is scheduled to be held in September 2016, will raise about half its revenue from the sale of broadcast and internet streaming rights. The NHL and NHLPA have predicted those rights may garner close to $50 million.

NHL senior vice president John Collins said it's too early to say how much cash the league and NHLPA will generate.

"We are not at the finish line yet on the WC," Collins wrote in an email. "More meetings still needed with PA and federations. Premature to comment on any specifics."

NHLPA spokesman Jon Weatherdon declined to comment.
The NHL and NHLPA will hold an auction for the 17-game tournament's TV rights. In Canada, that means TSN, Sportsnet and CBC are all expected to bid for the property.

It's a gamble to spend so much on a tournament like the World Cup when there's no guarantee Team Canada will advance beyond the round robin portion. But if it does, there could be a big payoff in TV ratings. The final of the World Cup will be a best-of-three format, TSN has learned.

Besides TV rights, the NHL and NHLPA will also sell sponsorship rights to the World Cup. They anticipate selling to eight premier corporate sponsors and negotiating deals of at least $1.5 million in each category, a source told TSN.

[Reign of Fire]

Rather see Canada B team

[Resolute 14]

If every participating country sent its best players, splitting Canada into two teams would pretty much guarantee neither makes the playoff round.

[transplant99]

The NHL and NHLPA will hold an auction for the 17-game tournament's TV rights. In Canada, that means TSN, Sportsnet and CBC are all expected to bid for the property.

It's a gamble to spend so much on a tournament like the World Cup when there's no guarantee Team Canada will advance beyond the round robin portion. But if it does, there could be a big payoff in TV ratings. The final of the World Cup will be a best-of-three format, TSN has learned.

Awesome....just like the 87 Canada cup format....which ranks right up there with the best hockey I have ever watched. The 2002 Olys and the 72 Summit series being the others besides several SC playoff series.

It's gonna be great!

[Enoch Root]

How about instead of a European all star team, do what they do in some of the youth international tournaments? And that is split Canada in to three - east, central (Ontario) and west.

It creates 2 more teams, levels the competitiveness and eliminates the one uberdominant team.

And imagine the rivalries between the three!

[d_phaneuf]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

If every participating country sent its best players, splitting Canada into two teams would pretty much guarantee neither makes the playoff round.

disagree

say for arguments sake you split it

Canada East (Ontario East)
Canada West (West of Ontario)

I think both would be favored to medal

even if you split it in to 3 like above (East/Central/West) there's a good shot 2 medal

[FlamesAddiction]

The more I think about, the more I love the idea of an all-star team comprising of players from countries that do not have their own team in tournament. Showcasing talent from some of those smaller countries could go a long way to promoting the sport.