[GT] World Cup Final - Europe vs Canada Game 2

[Otto-matic]

Are we really complaining about decent televised hockey in September? I could care less about the logistics that went into the tournament and gimmick teams. It was nice seeing some players play when they wouldn't be in the tournament.

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

I watched it because it's hockey and it's on TV and that's how I roll. It was poor, poor hockey with stupid fake board animations and advertisement shoulder patches and a ridiculous team. The fake drama and storylines were over-the-top. But it was hockey. If the Flames had a preseason game on, I'd be watching that instead.

That's where you lose me. (Well that, and repeating over and over about how you don't care about something).

I am in full agreement it's not a replacement for the Olympics, but there was some great hockey in there. To suggest otherwise is asinine.

That Team North America vs. Sweden game was high level hockey with drama.

Regardless, if you don't care, you've made that point. I just fail to see how one can not care about something and then bang a drum over and over repeating they don't care. What's the point?

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by Igottago

You don't think its an issue that many legitimate hockey fans (especially ones that signed up to a hockey forum) had no interest in the "World Cup of Hockey"? You don't find that somewhat worthy of discussion?

I think if you don't care, don't watch and move on. The TV ratings will speak for themselves.

But to proclaim you don't care (not saying you) then watch, and go on repeating over and over how you don't care in the aftermath seems confusing and odd.

[doctajones428]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

I'm hardly the only one speaking out against this tournament. I hope it never happens again. The manufactured storylines... the nonexistent tension...

At the Olympics, I cheered for Team Canada. Here, I cheered for Team Europe, a gimmick team that shouldn't exist.

If you're telling the tournament to go away, I agree with you.

And... I don't care. More people liked this tournament than not and that's not going to change no matter how many times someone tries to be "that guy" and pisses on a tournament in a thread about said tournament filled with people who actually did care about the tournament. Don't like it, don't watch it and go away.

That would be like me going into the Game of Thrones thread to go on and on about how little I care about Game of Thrones and saying I hope it gets canceled simply because I didn't care

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by GoJetsGo

That's where you lose me. (Well that, and repeating over and over about how you don't care about something).

I am in full agreement it's not a replacement for the Olympics, but there was some great hockey in there. To suggest otherwise is asinine.

That Team North America vs. Sweden game was high level hockey with drama.

Regardless, if you don't care, you've made that point. I just fail to see how one can not care about something and then bang a drum over and over repeating they don't care. What's the point?

I haven't said anything today about not caring about this tournament. I've said how I disliked it and thought it was boring, but I never said I didn't care.

The hockey, relative to other high-quality tournaments, was poor. Some regular season games are better. Most playoff series are better hockey than that. The Olympics are definitely better hockey.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by GoJetsGo

I think if you don't care, don't watch and move on. The TV ratings will speak for themselves.

But to proclaim you don't care (not saying you) then watch, and go on repeating over and over how you don't care in the aftermath seems confusing and odd.

I do care, I like international hockey. That's why I think it sucks that they can't figure it out and instead offer up stupid gimmicks instead of a legitimate world cup.

Either pick the olympics or make a proper world cup with real national teams and qualifications that we can look forward to every 4 years. These random NHL all star regional tournaments don't cut it. It actually does a disservice to the sport in my eyes.

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

I haven't said anything today about not caring about this tournament. I've said how I disliked it and thought it was boring, but I never said I didn't care.

Well that's also odd. You don't make a lot of sense at the best of times.

When you say:

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

It's not that we don't care about the tournament... we hate the way the NHL has gimmick-ified it and turned it into a money grab. Then comes the not-caring part.

It sounds to me like you don't care. The rest is semantics on your part.

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

The hockey, relative to other high-quality tournaments, was poor. Some regular season games are better. Most playoff series are better hockey than that. The Olympics are definitely better hockey.

You have no idea what you're talking about. There was a lot of high quality hockey in there with high entertainment value. I can understand finding it less significant on the whole, but to suggest it was poor, unentertaining hockey is asinine.

[TheScorpion]

^ I don't inherently not care about this tournament because it exists. To me, it's boring and contrived -- and that's just how I feel.

Let's agree to disagree on this and not continue to argue.

[N-E-B]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

I haven't said anything today about not caring about this tournament. I've said how I disliked it and thought it was boring, but I never said I didn't care.

The hockey, relative to other high-quality tournaments, was poor. Some regular season games are better. Most playoff series are better hockey than that. The Olympics are definitely better hockey.

Can you please explain how you can dislike something and find it boring, yet still care?

That's like me caring about the Country Music Awards even though dislike country and think it's boring music.

[Lanny'sDaMan]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

I watched it because it's hockey and it's on TV and that's how I roll.

Ok. I'm with you so far.

It was poor, poor hockey

It was fast, fun river hockey at the highest level. I could not disagree with you more. I was Highly entertained.

with stupid fake board animations

*shrug* I liked the digitized boards. I also liked the winning team graphics they used. Personal taste and all that.

and advertisement shoulder patches and a ridiculous team. The fake drama and storylines were over-the-top. But it was hockey. If the Flames had a preseason game on, I'd be watching that instead.

And my issue with the bolded is that the NHL likely sees it as a comparable/replacement for the Olympics. And this tournament was vastly inferior to even the worst Olympics. Again, at least those had all real countries as teams.

At least winning at those Olympics actually meant helping your country on a grander scheme.

To each their own I suppose, but you seem mighty worked up over a nothing tourney. I was entertained, hockey was played in September at a high level, Canada won so yay, and no Flames were injured during the tourney, so again Yay.

[GranteedEV]

Team North America was ridiculously skilled, and the fastest hockey team ever constructed, and they were playing in a competitive tournament with NHL rules and refs without soft all-star game laissez faire bullcrap. Their entire fate came down to bad coaching and a goaltender injury - rather than the youth that was supposed to be their downfall.

Team Europe was the ultimate underdog story of a bunch of slow, divided, emotionally detached vets years past their prime... who proceeded to knock out the Americans, knock out the Swedes, and almost took a championship level game from the invincible Price/Crosby/Doughty/Toews/Bergeron era Canadians.... before the clock struck twelve. They weren't even supposed to win a game, and they damn near won the game no one else even came close to winning.

Anyone saying the "gimmick teams" were a problem... did not watch the gimmick teams. The gimmick teams were the only reason to watch.

Originally Posted by Igottago

You don't think its an issue that many legitimate hockey fans (especially ones that signed up to a hockey forum) had no interest in the "World Cup of Hockey"? You don't find that somewhat worthy of discussion?

It's an "issue" because Canada with Crosby and Price is invincible. Not sure how you "fix" that, other than splitting Canada into Canada East, Canada Central, and Canada West.

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

Can you please explain how you can dislike something and find it boring, yet still care?

That's like me caring about the Country Music Awards even though dislike country and think it's boring music.

Look at it this way: IMO, Batman v. Superman was terrible, boring, and contrived. However, I cared about it (in a bad way).

The same thing goes for this. I have an opinion about the tournament, so I care about the tournament.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Team North America was ridiculously skilled, and the fastest hockey team ever constructed, and they were playing in a competitive tournament with NHL rules and refs without soft all-star game laissez faire bullcrap. Their entire fate came down to bad coaching and a goaltender injury - rather than the youth that was supposed to be their downfall.

Team Europe was the ultimate underdog story of a bunch of slow, divided, emotionally detached vets years past their prime... who almost took a championship level game from the invincible Price/Crosby/Doughty/Toews/Bergeron era Canadians.... before the clock struck zero. They weren't even supposed to win a game, and they damn near won the game no one else even came close to winning.

Anyone saying the "gimmick teams" were a problem... did not watch the gimmick teams. The gimmick teams were the only reason to watch.

I agree with this. Had NA been in the final, I would have been cheering for them probably.

And that's why this tournament won't ever feel the way the Olympics does for me personally. I felt the same with the 2004 world cup. It's just... not the same. There's not really a way to put it in words.

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

It's an "issue" because Canada with Crosby and Price is invincible. Not sure how you "fix" that, other than splitting Canada into Canada East, Canada Central, and Canada West.

I don't think this is true, though. I know plenty of people that would wake up early, skip work, have TVs on in the office, etc.. for Olympics, but legitimately had no idea that this was happening. People that I would consider hardcore hockey fans. It kind of seems like only pretty hardcore fans, and the people in the city it was taking place, really knew or cared this was happening.

[N-E-B]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Look at it this way: IMO, Batman v. Superman was terrible, boring, and contrived. However, I cared about it (in a bad way).

The same thing goes for this. I have an opinion about the tournament, so I care about the tournament.

I think I got what you're saying. I think you have some valid arguments (some I agree with, some I don't), but that sentence really confused me.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by Igottago

Lol at the bold. Any playoff series would obliterate this tournament in quality of hockey. Heck I would take the majority of regular season NHL games over this.

I have no idea how you can believe that. Virtually every team in this tournament had a roster that would be an overwhelming Stanley Cup favorite, with many rolling 3 separate lines that would be 1st lines on many NHL teams. You'll see more poor passes, missed reads, and just plain sloppiness in an average regular season game than you saw from Team Canada this entire tournament.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Cole436

It was some damn good hockey, but I also had a very hard time being engaged in this tournament.

When we had the first WCH it was freshly after the 2002 Gold, and everyone knew the lockout was coming, so there was something to savour about it. As well Canada was going nuts for hockey because of the 2004 Cup run...

The first World Cup of Hockey was held in 1996. Team USA won.

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Look at it this way: IMO, Batman v. Superman was terrible, boring, and contrived. However, I cared about it (in a bad way).

The same thing goes for this. I have an opinion about the tournament, so I care about the tournament.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

http://www.cbc.ca/sports-content/hoc...head-rule.html

That's an oddly written story. He claims the ice in Salt Lake wasn't International size, then confirms that it was.

The 2002 IIHF rule book allowed for rinks to be between 29 and 30 metres in width for International Tournaments. 29 metres is just over 95 feet. 10 feet wider than NHL rinks.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by Mike F

I have no idea how you can believe that. Virtually every team in this tournament had a roster that would be an overwhelming Stanley Cup favorite, with many rolling 3 separate lines that would be 1st lines on many NHL teams. You'll see more poor passes, missed reads, and just plain sloppiness in an average regular season game than you saw from Team Canada this entire tournament.

That sounds great except for the fact that its missing the main thing that makes us love sports. Emotion. This tournament had none.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

I personally watched zero minutes of it because I do not support the idea of it replacing the olympics. I would have watched it if they were saying that this was going to be going on in addition to the olympics.

It's a shame you bought into that argument, which was fueled not by any truth but simply by being repeated as fact over and over.

As was discussed in McLean's interview with Bettman, and by Elliot Friedman on the broadcast during (IIRC) game 1 of the finals, whether the pro players go the the Olympics or not revolves around a beef between the IOC and the IIHF over transportation costs and insurance. See this article:

NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly said Tuesday afternoon that little progress had been made with respect to the league's participation in the 2018 Games. Daly said the league was recently updated on talks between the International Ice Hockey Federation and International Olympic Committee, and those talks didn't look good.

"I'm not going to handicap it, but what I'd say is I think time is very short to make a decision and I'm not sure there's been a lot of progress made in the past six months," Daly said ahead of the World Cup of Hockey final between Canada and Europe. "And I'm not sure there's any prospect of progress being made.

"So on the basis of that I would say I'm more negative today than I was two weeks ago."

The IOC has suggested that it won't the pay out-of-pocket expenses it has historically covered alongside the IIHF. Rene Fasel, the IIHF's president, told the Associated Press earlier on Tuesday that he believed the odds were 50-50 that the NHL would participate.

This article goes even further:

As Canada appears ready to hoist the World Cup of Hockey trophy and prove we are the dominant hockey nation, the media narrative will likely once again debate whether the event is going to mean the end of NHL participation in the Olympics. Here's the thing – the two aren't interdependent.

As much as the spin has been an "either or" conversation, the success (or lack thereof, depending on your opinion) of the past two weeks will have nothing to do with whether or not Sidney Crosby will suit up for Canada in Pyeongchang, Korea.

Olympic participation relies on one simple question – will the IOC continue to front the bills to bring professional hockey players to the Olympic Games?

.....

Generating revenue and growing the game internationally is precisely why the World Cup of Hockey is a separate and distinct conversation from NHL Olympic participation in Pyeongchang 2018. The NHL and the Olympics still need each other. So instead of looking at the re-emergence of the World Cup of Hockey as a threat to NHL participation in the Olympic Games, it should be viewed for what it is: a hockey property created to generate additional revenue directly to the NHL and NHLPA.

If fans are worried their favourite NHL players won't be playing for Team Canada in 2018, it isn't because the World Cup of Hockey took place this fall. It also isn't likely that the finger should be pointed at Canada's favourite villain Gary Bettman. It's most likely because IOC president Thomas Bach decided to draw a line in the sand on funding professional participation and refused to insure the NHL for lending him their players.

Perhaps the public positioning of both the NHL and the IOC is merely a power play. A test of egos. If that's the case, the next 500 days should be interesting.