IIHF World ChampionshipDiscuss International Tournaments like the WJC, Olympics, and World Cup, as they take place, or discuss past tournaments. performances.
Am the only one who wants the bye to the semis for the top-ranked team eliminated?
Seriously the U18 tourny doesn't have the rule in effect currently (I'm not sure about prior years) and the number of teams is still the same. It clearly takes out the one cool thing in sports- upsets
scenario- USA and Canada finish atop group A and B (if they end playing in different groups). The Swiss stump Canada, the Czechs take out USA. No medals for two hockey powerhouses. Talk about embarrassment. There's something that would really make my day
Last edited by SpeedDemon: 12-27-2012 at 08:50 PM.
I like the format for next year in terms of relegation, last placed teams in the two pools face one another in a best of three series.
I actually would LOVE to see that! Two teams competing for something meaningful to their country. That makes for good competition. Latvia, Switzerland, Germany... usually you couldn't catch me watching any game with them in it against non top-7 hockey country powers. Those may actually be the most intense games those marginal top-level hockey country teams ever play!
This is what we already had around the turn of the century and it makes the money games more exciting. It turns round robin games to exhibitions but once the quarters hit - it will be fun.
Eliminating the bye means the tournament result is more meaningless. Sure, more games, but having a terrible game in the QFs can mean that a top-ranked team is eliminated for having a single bad game.
For example, the World Championships are like this. Canada emerges as the top seed during the preliminary round, outscoring most opponents by wide margins, and then has a bad game against Slovakia during the QFs. Boom. They're done.
Can anyone claim that Slovakia deserved to move on more than Canada? Maybe people don't really care, and want more unpredictability (which I admit is fun). But it also means that the results of the tournament aren't as meaningful since it is designed to increase the impact of random events.
Eliminating the bye means the tournament result is more meaningless. Sure, more games, but having a terrible game in the QFs can mean that a top-ranked team is eliminated for having a single bad game.
For example, the World Championships are like this. Canada emerges as the top seed during the preliminary round, outscoring most opponents by wide margins, and then has a bad game against Slovakia during the QFs. Boom. They're done.
Can anyone claim that Slovakia deserved to move on more than Canada? Maybe people don't really care, and want more unpredictability (which I admit is fun). But it also means that the results of the tournament aren't as meaningful since it is designed to increase the impact of random events.
Well the teams they outscored by wide margins were Kazakhstan, Belarus and France. I think Canada won 3-2 against Slovakia and Switzerland in group play in the same tournament Slovakia knocked them out?
So I guess you will argue the results of Olympics are not meaningful too because of random events?
Well the teams they outscored by wide margins were Kazakhstan, Belarus and France. I think Canada won 3-2 against Slovakia and Switzerland in group play in the same tournament Slovakia knocked them out?
So I guess you will argue the results of Olympics are not meaningful too because of random events?
My argument was that a tournament with a bye takes into account teams that have demonstrated, over the course of the preliminary round, that they are probably better teams and so are deserving of a place in the semis (i.e. if something goes wrong, it's not in the QFs where you can't play for a medal if you lose).
whereas
a tournament without a bye means that the preliminary round doesn't actually mean much since you can be the best, but still not make it to the semis because of a bad QF game against a team that did much worse during the prelim round, which doesn't make sense; conversely, a team could be pretty horrible and lose most of its games, but still pull off a win when the result actually 'counts'. Doesn't mean that this team is more 'deserving'/better at all.
Hence, the winner of a tournament with a bye is more likely a team that 'should have' won if the point of the tournament is that the best team wins.
My argument was that a tournament with a bye takes into account teams that have demonstrated, over the course of the preliminary round, that they are probably better teams and so are deserving of a place in the semis (i.e. if something goes wrong, it's not in the QFs where you can't play for a medal if you lose).
whereas
a tournament without a bye means that the preliminary round doesn't actually mean much since you can be the best, but still not make it to the semis because of a bad QF game against a team that did much worse during the prelim round, which doesn't make sense; conversely, a team could be pretty horrible and lose most of its games, but still pull off a win when the result actually 'counts'. Doesn't mean that this team is more 'deserving'/better at all.
Hence, the winner of a tournament with a bye is more likely a team that 'should have' won if the point of the tournament is that the best team wins.
You also said "But it also means that the results of the tournament aren't as meaningful since it is designed to increase the impact of random events."
The same thing occurs in the Olympics so I guess you believe the Olympics are not meaningful too?
I actually agree with you on the current format I like the current format except the idea of the QF winners having to play the next day.
I would have preferred keeping this current format and adjusting the relegation system. I would make the bottom teams in each pool have the three game series relegation match (Really like that idea for next year). Teams that finish fourth can play one another for placings if it matters. It is really annoying that Slovakia who will probably end up in the relegation round do not carry over the point they won against Russia into the relegation round.
My argument was that a tournament with a bye takes into account teams that have demonstrated, over the course of the preliminary round, that they are probably better teams and so are deserving of a place in the semis (i.e. if something goes wrong, it's not in the QFs where you can't play for a medal if you lose).
whereas
a tournament without a bye means that the preliminary round doesn't actually mean much since you can be the best, but still not make it to the semis because of a bad QF game against a team that did much worse during the prelim round, which doesn't make sense; conversely, a team could be pretty horrible and lose most of its games, but still pull off a win when the result actually 'counts'. Doesn't mean that this team is more 'deserving'/better at all.
Hence, the winner of a tournament with a bye is more likely a team that 'should have' won if the point of the tournament is that the best team wins.
If you can't stand the heat and bring your A-game when the game actually has meaning you deserve to go out. If you are the best you win.
Perhaps Stanley Cup should also be awarded to President trophy winner? The idea is to find the best, they could have few bad games and lose a series dear god!
I like the format for next year in terms of relegation, last placed teams in the two pools face one another in a best of three series.
Is that how it'll be next year? 4 teams make it in the two division with no more bye with the two last place team get a best of 3 series or is this just speculation?
Eliminating the bye means the tournament result is more meaningless. Sure, more games, but having a terrible game in the QFs can mean that a top-ranked team is eliminated for having a single bad game.
For example, the World Championships are like this. Canada emerges as the top seed during the preliminary round, outscoring most opponents by wide margins, and then has a bad game against Slovakia during the QFs. Boom. They're done.
Can anyone claim that Slovakia deserved to move on more than Canada? Maybe people don't really care, and want more unpredictability (which I admit is fun). But it also means that the results of the tournament aren't as meaningful since it is designed to increase the impact of random events.
Ever hear the saying "can't win 'em all"?
Gotta take the good with the bad
Besides If Canada becomes a bit too relaxed thinking the gold medal will be handed to them and underestimates the Slovaks they deserve to lose.
I'm not sure I agree with your comment of randomness of events since the deck is usually stacked heavily against the less elite countries but the slim chance is still there
If you can't stand the heat and bring your A-game when the game actually has meaning you deserve to go out. If you are the best you win.
Perhaps Stanley Cup should also be awarded to President trophy winner? The idea is to find the best, they could have few bad games and lose a series dear god!
Well, a 7 game series is vastly different from having a single elimination format. The idea behind having 7 games is to reduce the impact of having a single bad game, making it more likely that the 'best' team will win. I'm sure you knew this already, however, and also knew that the same argument cannot be applied to short tournaments like the WJCs. So, no. I don't think the President's Trophy winners should be awarded the Stanley Cup.
My other posts were written from a tournament design perspective. If the objective of the tournament is that the best team wins then the purpose of the preliminary round becomes clear: the teams that perform better in this round are more likely the better teams and thus 'deserve' to earn a bye to the semis - a place for better teams that have earned the right to be closer to a medal.
However, when you eliminate the bye in a single elimination format then you introduce an element of randomness because the top seeded team could have an anomalous bad game that completely disregards anything else it may have done in the prelim round and so the statistically inferior team moves on. Hence the overall tournament results may be less meaningful in the context of designing a tournament where the best team will win.
Is that how it'll be next year? 4 teams make it in the two division with no more bye with the two last place team get a best of 3 series or is this just speculation?
Yes that is how it will be next year, not speculation. The format will be first used in the 2013 Under 18 World Championships in Sochi.
The two teams placed fifth and last in each group will play a best-of-three series to avoid relegation. The loser of this series will be relegated to Division I.
I like skipping the bye but I fell that this devalues the round robin. They should consider a page playoff.
1A vs 2A, winner moves to the semis. The loser plays 3A and the winner of that game moves into the pool B semis and pool B does the same.
The only problem with that is now that there is only one relegation spot the top two teams playing in the relegation round won't really care as there is little to no chance they get sent down.
But it also means that the results of the tournament aren't as meaningful since it is designed to increase the impact of random events.
Sure, but I guess you need to strike a certain balance between excitement and a smaller impact of random events. If the latter is all you care about, then the best format is a league without playoffs. Personally, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to such a system getting implemented again, but I think most people would.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prairie Habs
I like skipping the bye but I fell that this devalues the round robin. They should consider a page playoff.
I don't think it devalues it that much, because the team that placed fourth will still get eliminated in a great, great majority of cases. It will be a huge upset if that isn't going to be the case. Oh, and what are page playoffs?
