[OOT] Mens Hockey, Feb. 12 with 2 games at 10:00 AM Mountain

[GirlySports]

Here is the ranking table

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_hoc..._qualification

I think it pretty ridiculous that you get the same number of points for winning the Olympics as winning a World Championship, 1200 points.

As as the years go by, the tournaments get weighted less.
So every 4 years the Olympic Champions will only get 50% of his score (600) for the next Olympics while the World Champions get 1200. Pretty goofy.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Here is the ranking table

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_hoc..._qualification

I think it pretty ridiculous that you get the same number of points for winning the Olympics as winning a World Championship, 1200 points.

As as the years go by, the tournaments get weighted less.
So every 4 years the Olympic Champions will only get 50% of his score (600) for the next Olympics while the World Champions get 1200. Pretty goofy.

Exactly so the last team to win a best on best tourney gets 600 points while the team that wins a "b" level at best tourney gets 1200.

The world championships are also a bigger deal in Europe there is no denying it...anyway no big deal, games are played on the ice Canada will take the easy group and hopefully be ready when the knock out games start.

the whole rankings thing is a farce though, totally different teams

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

5th really isn't that much of a stretch. Canada could easily finish 5th.

1998:4th
2002: 1st
2006: 7th
2010: 1st

Is it 100% accurate? No. Is it the best way to do it? Yes.

So of the four best on best tournaments Canada has won 2 of them, more than anyone else

[trackercowe]

Originally Posted by dino7c

So of the four best on best tournaments Canada has won 2 of them, more than anyone else

How many have they won outside of North America? For that matter how many medals have they won outside NA? Zero. They also haven't meddled at the World's since 2009 and haven't won gold since 2007.

Like it or not Canada really deserves to be in the 5th spot. They've had zero medals since winning on home ice in Vancouver, meanwhile all the other main contenders have had at least one since then.

Sure Canada might be the favorites overall, but it's not by a large enough margin as you seem to believe.

Originally Posted by dino7c

So of the four best on best tournaments Canada has won 2 of them, more than anyone else

Sure they've won two, but other teams have had nearly the same amount of success. Finland has three medals (1 silver, 2 bronze), the US has two (both silvers), Russia has two (1 silver, 1 bronze), the Czech's have two (1 gold, 1 bronze), and Sweden won it all in 2006. Canada also barely beat the US four years ago, and were extremely lucky to avoid Sweden in 2002 (thanks to Tommy Salo's head). The difference between gold, silver, and fourth place in tournaments like these is only so much. Just because Canada won both times on North American (smaller) ice does not put them that far above other contenders.

While Canada is the favorites to win it all, would you say they have a better chance than all the other teams combined? That I am unsure of, especially with an unproven Price or a shaky Luongo in net.

[Enoch Root]

What I would like to know is how on earth they got the divisions they did for the women - Canada, US and Finland in one division? wtf?

[trackercowe]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

What I would like to know is how on earth they got the divisions they did for the women - Canada, US and Finland in one division? wtf?

They did that on purpose to avoid the constant beatdowns those teams put on the competition. It makes the "competition" look bad when they are constantly getting massacred 10-0 or 11-2. It makes complete sense if they are trying to save the event, as it's not really worth being kept around if so many games are one-sided. That's not really what the Olympic spirit is all about. How that effects the playoff rounds I do not know, but I assume the better teams will avoid each other until the finals.

[RatherDashing]

Originally Posted by trackercowe

They did that on purpose to avoid the constant beatdowns those teams put on the competition. It makes the "competition" look bad when they are constantly getting massacred 10-0 or 11-2. It makes complete sense if they are trying to save the event, as it's not really worth being kept around if so many games are one-sided. That's not really what the Olympic spirit is all about. How that effects the playoff rounds I do not know, but I assume the better teams will avoid each other until the finals.

The top two teams from the A group get a bye to the semi-finals. The bottom two A teams play the top two B teams in the quarter-finals.

[GirlySports]

yeah , pool B was really a qualifying pool.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by trackercowe

How many have they won outside of North America? For that matter how many medals have they won outside NA? Zero. They also haven't meddled at the World's since 2009 and haven't won gold since 2007.

Like it or not Canada really deserves to be in the 5th spot. They've had zero medals since winning on home ice in Vancouver, meanwhile all the other main contenders have had at least one since then.

Sure Canada might be the favorites overall, but it's not by a large enough margin as you seem to believe.



Sure they've won two, but other teams have had nearly the same amount of success. Finland has three medals (1 silver, 2 bronze), the US has two (both silvers), Russia has two (1 silver, 1 bronze), the Czech's have two (1 gold, 1 bronze), and Sweden won it all in 2006. Canada also barely beat the US four years ago, and were extremely lucky to avoid Sweden in 2002 (thanks to Tommy Salo's head). The difference between gold, silver, and fourth place in tournaments like these is only so much. Just because Canada won both times on North American (smaller) ice does not put them that far above other contenders.

While Canada is the favorites to win it all, would you say they have a better chance than all the other teams combined? That I am unsure of, especially with an unproven Price or a shaky Luongo in net.

You say canada are the favorites to win it all yet think they should be ranked 5th lol? The worlds has ZERO to do with this tournament since its not a best on best tournament. Anyone who thinks Canada has the 5th best roster in this tournament knows absolutely nothing about hockey.

Who said Canada has a better chance than all the other teams combined? not me I said they had the best odds

[Magnum PEI]

Originally Posted by vilzeh

This.

This comment is why I don't like to see Canada win anything, can't stand the likes of you, arrogant and spoiled fans.

The ranking is based on earlier tournaments, and that is common sense.

I expect this kind of bitterness from the Swedes, not the good-natured Finns. What the hell?

[vilzeh]

Originally Posted by Magnum PEI

I expect this kind of bitterness from the Swedes, not the good-natured Finns. What the hell?

There's a breaking point for everyone. Dino7c, of course Canada has the best roster, they are clear favorites, but luckily its not played on paper and Canada have won nothing outside of NA. Thats how seeding works, you can't go with 4 year old results, now that would be silly.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by vilzeh

There's a breaking point for everyone. Dino7c, of course Canada has the best roster, they are clear favorites, but luckily its not played on paper and Canada have won nothing outside of NA. Thats how seeding works, you can't go with 4 year old results, now that would be silly.

so go with results from competition between completely different teams...doesn't sound any better to me.

Its fine though...when the underdog #5 Canada plays #2 Finland on Sunday we will see how accurate the IIHF rankings are

[vilzeh]

Originally Posted by dino7c

so go with results from competition between completely different teams...doesn't sound any better to me.

Its fine though...when the underdog #5 Canada plays #2 Finland on Sunday we will see how accurate the IIHF rankings are

Seriously, you're not bright.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by vilzeh

Seriously, you're not bright.

Seriously lets just enjoy the only meaningful international hockey tournament in the last four years and see how things end up

[vilzeh]

Lets, I agree with you.

[getbak]

The pre-tournament rankings ensure the groupings are all relatively equal. They make it so that you don't have Canada, Russia, Sweden, and the USA in one pool and Switzerland, Austria, Slovenia, and Latvia in another.

Beyond that, they mean nothing.

[Canada 02]

not a good start for Canada vs Denmark

3-1 after two ends

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by trackercowe

They did that on purpose to avoid the constant beatdowns those teams put on the competition. It makes the "competition" look bad when they are constantly getting massacred 10-0 or 11-2. It makes complete sense if they are trying to save the event, as it's not really worth being kept around if so many games are one-sided. That's not really what the Olympic spirit is all about. How that effects the playoff rounds I do not know, but I assume the better teams will avoid each other until the finals.

Originally Posted by RatherDashing

The top two teams from the A group get a bye to the semi-finals. The bottom two A teams play the top two B teams in the quarter-finals.

Originally Posted by GirlySports

yeah , pool B was really a qualifying pool.

Yeah, I saw it explained on CBC and I think that is a great idea. Good on them for finding a way to make it more competitive.

I retract my earlier remarks

[trackercowe]

Originally Posted by dino7c

so go with results from competition between completely different teams...doesn't sound any better to me.

Its fine though...when the underdog #5 Canada plays #2 Finland on Sunday we will see how accurate the IIHF rankings are

All Canada is right now is paper champions. That's like saying the Yankees should be prohibitive favorites every year when they won four years ago. It's not like Canada brings over a terrible lineup every year, or that the other teams aren't missing significant pieces in their own right. All teams are usually at a disadvantage at the World's, the only real benefit the European teams have are that they have access to players playing in the KHL and European leagues.

Here is Canada's roster from last year:

http://www.tsn.ca/canadian_hockey/feature/?id=63060

50% of that team are either playing now, or were seriously considered for the team. Pretty much every player at the Olympics has played in the World's at some point in their career, so it's not like Canada is sending over AHL level or even lower level NHL talent.

[schooner]

Originally Posted by dino7c

so go with results from competition between completely different teams...doesn't sound any better to me.

Its fine though...when the underdog #5 Canada plays #2 Finland on Sunday we will see how accurate the IIHF rankings are

Well then its a good thing that the IIHF rankings are not meant to predict future results. It is purely a system to reward a country (not a specific selection of players) for past accomplishments and as best as possible evenly distribute teams through the pools.