Dramatic changes to the World Cup?

[GGG]

I don't think Kopitar plays like he does if he is not playing for his country. The Euro team will be better but it will lack heart and probably do worse than the surprse upstart like switzerland, slovenia or Latvia that scares someone in a quarter final.

[scotty2hotty]

I like this World Cup idea.

As long as they find a format and stick with it on a consistent basis, then it should be fun. Nothing worse than an ever changing format and random years.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Growing the sport isn't the NHL's mandate. Growing its business is. That's why the league wants a World Cup, but not Olympics. It gets no benefit from the latter.

As far as the changes go, I like some, hate others. What made the Canada Cup great was that it was limited entry. There were only six teams. Sucks for the Slovakias and Switzerlands of the world, but that is what the World Championship is for.

If the NHL wants to maintain the 10-12 team format, it can't play one city only. Changes the logistics.

I am sure we have had this dance before, but gowing hockey is good business for the top league in the world (NHL). There is a reason that round ball fans in NA follow European leagues. Fans of a sport will always seek out the top level to follow.

As more people get access/exposed to hockey they will seek out the top players/league, which in turn will increase the NHL revenue.

[Weitz]

What happens when people say no to playing for some BS all-star team?

Or when players on the other teams say no because they want to enjoy their summer off? Which they won't be able to do with this in September.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

How does that help the NHL's business though?

It doesn't necessarily, which is why it won't happen. However, I said nothing about growing the NHL's business. There is a way better exposure to the NHL if the top teams are touring Europe in a tournament though rather than having a random regular season game in Europe in sporadic years.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by nik-

A Champions League would be much better than a World Cup for growing the game imo.

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

How does that help the NHL's business though?

NHL teams makes it NHL revenue, I presume with a 'Champion's League' setup it would remain a club competition and not a National competition.

Realistically though, its the competition thats going to be really tough. The NHL holds a monopoly on top talent, pitting an NHL team against a KHL team might be okay, but from there the dropoff is likely pretty significant.

[PeteMoss]

I don't mind the 'other' Europe team, but the young stars team is dopey. Who exactly is going to cheer for that team? I mean you might cheer for them to beat the Russia or something... but its just weird. They'd be better off doing two 'other' Europe teams.

Canada
US
Russia
Finland
Sweden
Czech
Eastern Europe - Slovakia/Belarus/Slovenia/Latvia/Austria
Western Europe - Swiss/France/Germany


Still weird... I'd just add Switzerland and Slovkia OR add one of them and a other Europe team.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Weitz

What happens when people say no to playing for some BS all-star team?

Or when players on the other teams say no because they want to enjoy their summer off? Which they won't be able to do with this in September.

I'd assume they'd get paid for it, since the main reason to do this is money.

[BACKCHECK!!!]

I'm normally pretty traditionalist when it comes to hockey things.

But I definitely like the 'Rest of Europe' team idea.

And I could see myself getting behind some other kind of Dark Horse team. Maybe a Young Stars team, or a "Best Players Not In The NHL" team. Maybe rekindle the Victoria Cup, and give a berth to the winner. For example the New York Rangers beat Magentogorsk for the Victoria Cup in 2008, and Zurich Lions beat the Blackhawks in 2009. So there would be a World Cup spot going to a top-tier NHL, KHL, Swiss-A, or SHL, etc, team.

Or how about this for a crazy idea... How about giving the #8 spot to the defending Stanley Cup champions?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I am sure we have had this dance before, but gowing hockey is good business for the top league in the world (NHL). There is a reason that round ball fans in NA follow European leagues. Fans of a sport will always seek out the top level to follow.

As more people get access/exposed to hockey they will seek out the top players/league, which in turn will increase the NHL revenue.

That is flowery and nice, but the NHL has five Olympics' worth of data, two of which were held in North America, that tells them what kind of financial impact the games have had for the NHL. The fact that the NHL has made no bones of the fact it wants the hell out of them should tell you what the result of its analysis is. Notable as well that the league hasn't gone back to Europe to start the season the last two years.

Tavares' injury in the Olympics, plus Paul George's ugly broken leg in a national team basketball match is also going to be things that weigh heavily on the NHL's mind.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

I'd assume they'd get paid for it, since the main reason to do this is money.

Per the CBA, an NHL run tournament would count as HRR. The players would get their 50% cut.

[Finger Cookin]

Injuries in the Olympics or World Cup are not good for NHL teams either way. So I don't know that Olympics injuries should be singled out for any particular reason.

[terminator]

"rest of europse A' Vs USA

[_Q_]

What I would like to see is for the tournament to be held in one country. 6 teams qualify. Every team in the world has a chance to qualify through qualification tournaments held during the 4 years leading up to the tournament.

Once competition becomes stiff and the weaker nations start icing quality teams, increase the teams to 8, then 10 and so on.

The way it's been done in the past seems so gimmicky.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

That is flowery and nice, but the NHL has five Olympics' worth of data, two of which were held in North America, that tells them what kind of financial impact the games have had for the NHL. The fact that the NHL has made no bones of the fact it wants the hell out of them should tell you what the result of its analysis is. Notable as well that the league hasn't gone back to Europe to start the season the last two years.

Tavares' injury in the Olympics, plus Paul George's ugly broken leg in a national team basketball match is also going to be things that weigh heavily on the NHL's mind.

Can you post an article about the financial impact (or lack of), genuine interest.

Perhaps you are correct. If so then that is a sad thing IMO.


I wonder if the NHL is looking at Europe as a viable expansion.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Finger Cookin

Injuries in the Olympics or World Cup are not good for NHL teams either way. So I don't know that Olympics injuries should be singled out for any particular reason.

difference being the Owners get a lot more money by risking their players in the World Cup compared to the Olympics

[Street Pharmacist]

Love this idea. Absolutely love it.

So many negative Nancy's around these parts.

DON'T CHANGE THINGS! I DON'T LIKE CHANGE!

Seriously. This sounds great. Adding competitive teams to an international tournament? Awesome

[DoubleF]

Why not throw in players into a pool based on the country criteria, then mix all players and create 6 teams of mixed talent?

[FlameZilla]

I enjoyed the World Cup. I preferred the Canada Cup. I'm always game for more hockey.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by DoubleF

Why not throw in players into a pool based on the country criteria, then mix all players and create 6 teams of mixed talent?

Why not just chuck the sticks into a pile at centre ice?