HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   International Tournaments (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   WJC: Should the World Juniors move to a larger format? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1310099)

Nullus Reverentia 12-20-2012 01:31 PM

Should the World Juniors move to a larger format?
 
When I mean larger format I mean more teams. Right now there's only 10 teams, and teams that are perenials in the WC's are often WJC tweeners, up and down every year.

There's definitely some good things about it, but there's also some bad things about it.

On the good side, more teams mean teams like Denmark, Germany and Latvia aren't going up and down every year. Give these teams players more exposure, which is always a good thing.

On the down side, the bottom teams in this tournement aren't exactly close to the top teams, unlike the World Championships where it's not that surprising to see Denmark knock off the USA.

Long story short, should the IIHF increase the number of teams?

Canada4Gold 12-20-2012 01:38 PM

If they switch to 8 QF teams then yes, the group stage almost becomes meaningless to the top teams then, as of now you can lose a tournament with a bad group stage like the US did last year, with 8 Quarterfinalists 1 win gets you in the QF which is dumb.

If they go to 8 Quarterfinalists they need to go to 12 teams total

topched 12-20-2012 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Faidh ar Rud Eigin (Post 56697273)
When I mean larger format I mean more teams. Right now there's only 10 teams, and teams that are perenials in the WC's are often WJC tweeners, up and down every year.

There's definitely some good things about it, but there's also some bad things about it.

On the good side, more teams mean teams like Denmark, Germany and Latvia aren't going up and down every year. Give these teams players more exposure, which is always a good thing.

On the down side, the bottom teams in this tournement aren't exactly close to the top teams, unlike the World Championships where it's not that surprising to see Denmark knock off the USA.

Long story short, should the IIHF increase the number of teams?

My God. If anything they should lower it to 8 and have one team up and down each year.

Every tourney there are 2 teams that go winless in round robin play and get thorougly wiped.

I think the 8-0 or 10-1 type losses hurt those countries far more than it helps them.

If you're adding teams like Kazhakstan, Denmark, Norway etc. You're going to have even more of those scores, and potentially some worse ones. If a team is getting beat by double digits more than once, that shows that the playing field is nowhere near level.

Canada4Gold 12-20-2012 01:45 PM

only 1 team goes down per year

Kazakhstan is not one of those teams now, they're not even in D1A

topched 12-20-2012 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canada4Gold (Post 56697639)
only 1 team goes down per year

Kazakhstan is not one of those teams now, they're not even in D1A

Was just thinking back to 09 when they were part of the tournament. That game was embarassing to watch. You feel bad for those kids.

Another issue with the current relegation system is that this tournament changes so much year to year. A good team one year doesn't neccessarily mean a good one the next. This can't really be changed, but still.

Canada4Gold 12-20-2012 01:49 PM

Denmark wasn't smacked around last year, in the group stage sure, but they had 2 OT games in the relegation pool which is where their real competition is. Them beating up on teams in D1 isn't helping.

The games tnhat help are the ones against those teams just above them, Switzerland, Slovakia, Germany, etc. They get those up here not down in division 1, they learn from the beatdowns they take in the group stage and use those lessons in the relegation stage, teams like Latvia, Denmark, Norway, Belarus would learn more by getting in competitive games against teams in the 7-9 range than beating up on France and Austria

Shrimper 12-20-2012 01:51 PM

It wouldn't be possible to increase it at the moment as it would dilute the competition in lower levels which they spent a while thinking about changing to improve it. You'd need new nations to come in as well.

Qurpiz 12-20-2012 02:16 PM

What really needs to happen IMO is Quebec getting its independence, therefore leveling out the field a little (=maybe Canada wouldn't be so ******* dominant) and having one more elite team in the tourney.

After that happens, sure, go for 12 teams, maybe even 14 or 16

And let it be clear, I don't want to start that whole conversation in this thread

Ryker 12-20-2012 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shrimper (Post 56697815)
It wouldn't be possible to increase it at the moment as it would dilute the competition in lower levels which they spent a while thinking about changing to improve it. You'd need new nations to come in as well.

Agreed. The improvements to the elite division due to a change in format, if any, would be greatly outweighed by the damages caused predominantly to the competition in Div IA, but by extension also to the lower ones.

kaiser matias 12-20-2012 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canada4Gold (Post 56697735)
Denmark wasn't smacked around last year, in the group stage sure, but they had 2 OT games in the relegation pool which is where their real competition is. Them beating up on teams in D1 isn't helping.

The games tnhat help are the ones against those teams just above them, Switzerland, Slovakia, Germany, etc. They get those up here not down in division 1, they learn from the beatdowns they take in the group stage and use those lessons in the relegation stage, teams like Latvia, Denmark, Norway, Belarus would learn more by getting in competitive games against teams in the 7-9 range than beating up on France and Austria

That didn't happen this year in Division IA. If you look at the results, you will see that up until the last day it was a toss-up between Norway, Denmark or Belarus for promotion. Those teams were all relatively equal in skill, and are probably of similar calibre to Germany and Latvia. While they didn't have much trouble with Austria or France, the scores of those games are probably a lot closer than they would have been if it was Denmark playing Canada again. Their games against each other are far more competitive. And with only one team getting promoted and relegated each year, it means a team like Latvia can stay in the top division for a couple years and experience playing Canada a couple times, gaining said experience, rather than losing 10-0 once and going back down for a year or two.

The current system works well. You can't add anymore teams to the top level because these teams would get blown out each time. And it would totally destroy the lower levels, which the IIHF has finally fixed with their new system of promotion and relegation.

Xokkeu 12-20-2012 05:13 PM

There is too much of a gap between the top teams like Canada, US, Russia, Sweden and the teams like Germany, Latvia, Norway etc. The Czechs, Slovaks and Finns, being small countries have good and bad years as is too be expected, but teams like Germany, Latvia etc rarely ever compete with anybody in these tournaments. I'm not sure it really benefits anybody to have more of these completely overmatched teams in the tournament. The big teams don't gain much from winning 7-0. The small teams don't gain much from being smashed 7-0.

The only realistic way that I could see the tournament expanding would be to have a preliminary round like they used to do in the Olympics. That way teams like Germany, Denmark, Latvia, Norway etc would have a chance to play against each other. As it is now those teams basically get crushed and their entire tournament comes down to a one game play off in the relegation round against the other crappy team. The preliminary round of course creates a whole bunch of other challenges regarding players release, scheduling conflicts etc. For that reason I don't see the benefits. It's better to just let the smaller countries play on a more competitive playing field in the next division.

Mr Kanadensisk 12-20-2012 05:25 PM

I'd much rather see the number of teams reduced to 7, then have a round robin where each team plays each other once, then top 4 into the SF. All the teams would be competitive, all the games would be important, I bet it would be an incredibly entertaining tournament.

Rob 12-20-2012 05:28 PM

Hockey Canada has been against it. They don't want the tournament to go longer nor have more games in a shorter time frame.

As a fan I am against it as it would bring the quality of the tournament down.

Canada4Gold 12-20-2012 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kaiser matias (Post 56702883)
That didn't happen this year in Division IA. If you look at the results, you will see that up until the last day it was a toss-up between Norway, Denmark or Belarus for promotion. Those teams were all relatively equal in skill, and are probably of similar calibre to Germany and Latvia. While they didn't have much trouble with Austria or France, the scores of those games are probably a lot closer than they would have been if it was Denmark playing Canada again. Their games against each other are far more competitive. And with only one team getting promoted and relegated each year, it means a team like Latvia can stay in the top division for a couple years and experience playing Canada a couple times, gaining said experience, rather than losing 10-0 once and going back down for a year or two.

The current system works well. You can't add anymore teams to the top level because these teams would get blown out each time. And it would totally destroy the lower levels, which the IIHF has finally fixed with their new system of promotion and relegation.

My point was these teams aren't improving beating teams they always beat.

I don't care if they keep it at 10 but if 8 teams make the playoffs is almost renders the group stage pointless for the top teams. My point was they should raise it to 12 if they raise the playoffs teams to 8. I'd prefer if they kept it at 6 and 10

ricky0034 12-20-2012 07:30 PM

i'd rather it be decreased than increased

Royal Canuck 12-20-2012 09:00 PM

Im okay with expanding to 12 teams just for the fact that we could have 4 divisions of 3 teams and the knockout format would be much easier, (Top 2 through round robin advance from their division, then the 4 division teams are seeded and play a 1 game knockout) then a semi-final to play for gold and the loser plays for bronze, each against the winners/losers of the other 2 divisions).

VanIslander 12-20-2012 09:07 PM

I don't care how many in the opening round, but...

Reduce it to eight teams in the medal round (have two divisions of four teams each play each other once before the playoff games).

Canada4Gold 12-20-2012 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VanIslander (Post 56707825)
I don't care how many in the opening round, but...

Reduce it to eight teams in the medal round.

reduce to 8 in the medal round? You nrealize the current medal round consists of 6 teams. Not sure how you reduce from 6 to 8 :help:

Stansfield* 12-20-2012 09:19 PM

No need to see players further pad their point totals against weak teams.

Also, was anybody else confused by Canada4Gold and topched having the same avatar? :laugh:

Canada4Gold 12-20-2012 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by topched (Post 56697689)
Was just thinking back to 09 when they were part of the tournament. That game was embarassing to watch. You feel bad for those kids.

Another issue with the current relegation system is that this tournament changes so much year to year. A good team one year doesn't neccessarily mean a good one the next. This can't really be changed, but still.

It'd be nice if a team that gets promoted from division 1 plays in the elite that same year. That way those who have good teams and get promoted, don't lose all the players that promote them.

That would lead to teams getting relegated 1 year, play D1, get promoted, and play elite, get relegated, repeat. Fringe countries would often play twice in 1 year many times

stv11 12-21-2012 04:00 AM

I would like to have a 12 teams tournament with 8 teams making it to the medal round, I've never been a fan of the 6 teams playoffs.

Regarding the blowouts issue, Denmark, Norway and Belarus are not worse than Germany and Latvia, it's not like an expansion would add a much weaker team to the tournament. The lower divisions would be fine too, last week division IA tournament would have featured Denmark, Slovenia, Austria, France, Poland and Kazakhstan, not a unbalanced list of teams.

Xokkeu 12-21-2012 04:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stv11 (Post 56713439)
I would like to have a 12 teams tournament with 8 teams making it to the medal round, I've never been a fan of the 6 teams playoffs.

Regarding the blowouts issue, Denmark, Norway and Belarus are not worse than Germany and Latvia, it's not like an expansion would add a much weaker team to the tournament. The lower divisions would be fine too, last week division IA tournament would have featured Denmark, Slovenia, Austria, France, Poland and Kazakhstan, not a unbalanced list of teams.

It wouldn't add a much weaker team, but it would add more weaker teams. I don't see the benefit for anybody when big guys run over these guys.

The only reasonable way would be an eight team bye to the round robin. Then have the extra six or whatever countries play a preliminary round to see the top two advance.

In that case you'd have....


USA
Canada
Russia
Slovakia
X


Czechs
Sweden
Finland
Switzerland
X


Prelim round

Germany
Latvia
Denmark
Norway
Belarus
Slovenia


Of course the question is, can you get all those players released for extra games? I don't know. But I don't see the reason to have Canada play Germany and Denmark or Russia play Latvia and Norway. Those games are wasted.

Sanderson 12-21-2012 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xokkeu (Post 56703087)
There is too much of a gap between the top teams like Canada, US, Russia, Sweden and the teams like Germany, Latvia, Norway etc. The Czechs, Slovaks and Finns, being small countries have good and bad years as is too be expected, but teams like Germany, Latvia etc rarely ever compete with anybody in these tournaments. I'm not sure it really benefits anybody to have more of these completely overmatched teams in the tournament.

Is that so?
I do remember quite a few of those smaller teams being competitive, Germany beating USA and Slovakia and then getting relegated because of losses against Belarus and Switzerland, Russia barely beating Kazakhstan, Switzerland taking the eventual gold-medal winner Sweden to a shootout. It happens, just like blowout losses happen. Now, blowouts were a bit more extreme lately then in the years prior to that, but there is a reason for that as well.

The problem is, the smaller nations are much more dependent on the skill of their oldest age-class. There have been quite a few times where teams got up to the WJC on the strength of their best class in years, only to lose most of them for the next tournament and get blown to bits because the next class was weak. Just like teams got relegated to a lower level even though they were probably much stronger than the team that got up. That's why having only one team go down makes sense.

Then you get to the point of different strategies. Some smaller nations try to compete with the best, and then lack the energy to beat those who are about their level, as those teams didn't waste any energy on the big nations, letting themselves get steamrolled, to save anything they have for the games they can win.

They just changed the system so maybe they should wait for some years and see how it goes.

stv11 12-21-2012 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sanderson (Post 56713685)
Is that so?
I do remember quite a few of those smaller teams being competitive, Germany beating USA and Slovakia and then getting relegated because of losses against Belarus and Switzerland, Russia barely beating Kazakhstan, Switzerland taking the eventual gold-medal winner Sweden to a shootout. It happens, just like blowout losses happen. Now, blowouts were a bit more extreme lately then in the years prior to that, but there is a reason for that as well.

The problem is, the smaller nations are much more dependent on the skill of their oldest age-class. There have been quite a few times where teams got up to the WJC on the strength of their best class in years, only to lose most of them for the next tournament and get blown to bits because the next class was weak. Just like teams got relegated to a lower level even though they were probably much stronger than the team that got up. That's why having only one team go down makes sense.

Then you get to the point of different strategies. Some smaller nations try to compete with the best, and then lack the energy to beat those who are about their level, as those teams didn't waste any energy on the big nations, letting themselves get steamrolled, to save anything they have for the games they can win.

They just changed the system so maybe they should wait for some years and see how it goes.

Some good points here. A possible solution to avoid teams being promoted thanks to a good class and not being competitive the following season would be to play a tournament with the bottom two teams and the top two teams of division IA to decide who plays in the top division. With such a system, teams would earn their place in the WJC on the strength of the players who will actually take part in the tournament. It could also help in solving the last problem you mention: with no threat of direct relegation, no need to save energy for the key games.

tony d 12-21-2012 09:47 AM

No, I think it's perfectly fine at 10 teams as it is now.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:56 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.