HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Canada Cup/World Cup

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-15-2013, 06:36 PM
  #26
Yamaguchi
Registered User
 
Yamaguchi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 676
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Kanadensisk View Post
There has only been two held outside of NA so I would say the sample size is far too low to draw any conclusions, and it's not like any one of the contenders could claim a home ice advantage in Nagano. If you look at the World Championships on average teams place higher in the year before and the year after hosting than they do the year they host.

Ice size is a different issue that I haven't calculated the winning percentages on, but it is probably a factor. However in general the top players in Europe have way more experience playing on the small ice than North Americans have on the big ice, so it's not really the same both ways.



Here are the percentages of tournaments won at the WJC, when hosting and not.

COUNTRYHOST WINNING %AWAY WINNING %
CAN4041
CZE06
SWE06
FIN203
RUS/USSR2536
USA09

As you can see all but one country has won a higher percentage of tournaments when not hosting as opposed to hosting.



WJC are NOT best-on-best.

Yamaguchi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 08:02 PM
  #27
Mr Kanadensisk
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yamaguchi View Post
WJC are NOT best-on-best.
I understand that, but what's that got to do with home ice advantage?

Mr Kanadensisk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 08:10 PM
  #28
Yamaguchi
Registered User
 
Yamaguchi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 676
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Kanadensisk View Post
I understand that, but what's that got to do with home ice advantage?

...home ice advantage in the international junior hockey

Yamaguchi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 08:46 PM
  #29
Theokritos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,682
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Yoda View Post
I think it's better to play best on best at the Olympics than in some world cup. Succer obvisously views themselves to be larger than the olympic family.
Soccer is larger than the olympic family. Hockey however is not, that's why a best-on-best Olympic tournament is the best hockey can hope for.

Theokritos is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2013, 08:00 AM
  #30
Mr Kanadensisk
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
Soccer is larger than the olympic family. Hockey however is not, that's why a best-on-best Olympic tournament is the best hockey can hope for.
Rugby and Cricket are not soccer either and they are examples of how extremely successful an indepedantly run World Cup can be. I don't think either Rugby or Cricket would think of shifting their showcase tournament to the Olympics.

Mr Kanadensisk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-17-2013, 10:19 AM
  #31
Theokritos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,682
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Kanadensisk View Post
Rugby and Cricket are not soccer either and they are examples of how extremely successful an indepedantly run World Cup can be.
The Olympics give hockey a much broader exposure than a World Cup ever could. I don't think that's debatable.

Theokritos is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-17-2013, 10:44 AM
  #32
NMF78
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Belgium
Country: Belgium
Posts: 537
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
The Olympics give hockey a much broader exposure than a World Cup ever could. I don't think that's debatable.
I agree, with the Olympics you are guaranteed non-hardcore hockey fans will also watch, with a wc of hockey or something similar no one outside of the sport would watch.

NMF78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-17-2013, 10:52 AM
  #33
unknown33
Registered User
 
unknown33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Europe
Country: Marshall Islands
Posts: 2,999
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Kanadensisk View Post
Rugby and Cricket are not soccer either and they are examples of how extremely successful an indepedantly run World Cup can be. I don't think either Rugby or Cricket would think of shifting their showcase tournament to the Olympics.
But neither of those was part of the Olympics in a long time, Ice Hockey is since the 1st Winter Olympics until now.

unknown33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-17-2013, 11:58 AM
  #34
Darth Yoda
Registered User
 
Darth Yoda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Grovebranch's Crease
Country: Sweden
Posts: 2,759
vCash: 593
Quote:
Originally Posted by NMF78 View Post
I agree, with the Olympics you are guaranteed non-hardcore hockey fans will also watch, with a wc of hockey or something similar no one outside of the sport would watch.
Yeah and that definetely is the case in rugby and cricket that was mentioned above. Perhaps those sports are a little bit bigger than hockey though, in some odd way. I mean we do have both Russia, the USA and a nice international altough western centred supporing cast active in our sport. Maybe hockey simply is not big enough for an independant thing to have as much impact as possible, although i for one would'nt say no to have both.

Darth Yoda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-17-2013, 01:06 PM
  #35
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,735
vCash: 500
Exposure vs Participation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
The Olympics give hockey a much broader exposure than a World Cup ever could. I don't think that's debatable.
Not sure that I follow your point. Exposure has two elements - visibility and participation.

Post WWII the Winter Olympics have been held in a variety of European and Asian countries where hockey is not a mainstream sport or where ice sports have marginal popularity.

Outside of Canada(2 times) and the USA(3 times) none of the top five European hockey countries have hosted the Winter Olympics.Yet pre or post Winter Olympics, skating sports - figure and short track speed skating have progressed enormously in Japan, China, the Koreas, etc. Curling has spiked recently in China, Russia, Latvia due to the Olympics even though it was popular in other European countries before becoming an Olympic sport. The impact of the Sochi games on the Russian hockey infra structure, male and female, will be interesting.

Will the Sochi games boost hockey in Russia like the five NA Winter Olympic Games did in the USA and Canada?

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 05:10 AM
  #36
Mr Kanadensisk
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by unknown33 View Post
But neither of those was part of the Olympics in a long time, Ice Hockey is since the 1st Winter Olympics until now.
True, but moving forward I don't think that is a reason to hold things back. You could still have an independently run IIHF best on best tournament and olympic hockey. For example if the IIHF had their own b on b tournament I would hold the IIHF U20 tournament at the Olympics instead.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NMF78 View Post
I agree, with the Olympics you are guaranteed non-hardcore hockey fans will also watch, with a wc of hockey or something similar no one outside of the sport would watch.
Maybe so, but as mentioned above hockey has had lots of Olympic exposure over the years and yet remains a very marginal sport pretty much everywhere outside of Canada. As we discussed before a large majority of the non-hockey fans who watch Olympic hockey do so because they are fans of the Olympics, not fans of hockey, and thus have no intention of following hockey outside of the games. Furthermore most of these non-hockey fans could not tell the difference between NHLers and amateurs anyway and I'm sure viewership in this demographic would not change significantly if the Olympic format was altered.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
The Olympics give hockey a much broader exposure than a World Cup ever could. I don't think that's debatable.
A well run, independent b on b would more effectively grow the game from the core out and hockey would still have the exposure of being in the Olympics, so if you think that method works then now you have both.

Mr Kanadensisk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 06:13 AM
  #37
jekoh
Registered User
 
jekoh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,728
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
2) having a qualifying process. If you want to hand the top nations a secure spot via invitation, that's fine considering the circumstances (no breaks for international qualficiation matches in the NHL schedule), but you cannot exclude the rest of the hockey world altogether. Let the other countries (Norway, Latvia, Belarus, Switzerland etc) play for spots in the World Cup.
It's not fine to hand the alleged "top nations" a secure spot via invitation. No serious competition does that. In most other sports, you qualify for the world championships or the olympics either by winning a qualification tournament or by simply finishing the previous championship in the top-3 or so. Qualifying for the Olympics through the IIHF rankings is a very similar process and there's no reason for a World Cup to not use that as well. That's very different from a mere "invitation".

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Yes, these are the things the NHL could do to make the tournament more appealing to Europeans.
The world cup of hockey will never be accepted as a true World Cup as long as it's organized by the NHL/NHLPA. Actual World Cups are organized by international bodies, not national leagues.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JackSlater View Post
Well, in addition to what others have said, it seems that the origin of a sport plays a big role. Sports that originated in North America, and tend to be mostly influenced by a North American perspective, tend not to have a World Cup type event. This is true for hockey, basketball, baseball (don't try to talk about that 'Classic') and football.
Basketball has a world cup.

There seems to be this misconception that soccer's situation where the world cup is bigger than the olympics is the norm, but in reality football is the exception rather than the rule. In most sports that have both a world cup and the Olympics, the Olympic tournament is bigger.

jekoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 09:24 AM
  #38
Theokritos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,682
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Not sure that I follow your point. Exposure has two elements - visibility and participation.
I was talking about visibility.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jekoh View Post
In most other sports, you qualify for the world championships or the olympics either by winning a qualification tournament or by simply finishing the previous championship in the top-3 or so. Qualifying for the Olympics through the IIHF rankings is a very similar process and there's no reason for a World Cup to not use that as well. That's very different from a mere "invitation".
Okay. When I said "invitation", I meant a secure spot for the top nations in the IIHF ranking without further qualification (as opposed to Soccer where everybody has to go through the qualification, except for the host).

Theokritos is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 11:30 AM
  #39
JackSlater
Registered User
 
JackSlater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,798
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jekoh View Post
It's not fine to hand the alleged "top nations" a secure spot via invitation. No serious competition does that. In most other sports, you qualify for the world championships or the olympics either by winning a qualification tournament or by simply finishing the previous championship in the top-3 or so. Qualifying for the Olympics through the IIHF rankings is a very similar process and there's no reason for a World Cup to not use that as well. That's very different from a mere "invitation".
In a sport like hockey where the top teams are very well defined and there is a large cap, there isn't a big issue with simply inviting the best teams. Clearly it's not ideal though. It would be ideal if the IIHF had an accurate way of measuring teams, but considering that many of the world's best players cannot participate in their tournament, the rankings are sketchy.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jekoh View Post
Basketball has a world cup.
Thanks, I completely forgot that tournament exists.

JackSlater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 11:36 AM
  #40
Theokritos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,682
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackSlater View Post
In a sport like hockey where the top teams are very well defined and there is a large cap, there isn't a big issue with simply inviting the best teams. Clearly it's not ideal though. It would be ideal if the IIHF had an accurate way of measuring teams, but considering that many of the world's best players cannot participate in their tournament, the rankings are sketchy.
True, but it's not really an issue if you just give enough of the top teams (top 8 or top 10) a spot, is it? If you went with the top 4 of course, it would be highly problematic.

Theokritos is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 01:19 PM
  #41
Hanji
Registered User
 
Hanji's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Wisconsin
Country: United States
Posts: 863
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr kanadensisk View Post
there has only been two held outside of na so i would say the sample size is far too low to draw any conclusions, and it's not like any one of the contenders could claim a home ice advantage in nagano. If you look at the world championships on average teams place higher in the year before and the year after hosting than they do the year they host.

Ice size is a different issue that i haven't calculated the winning percentages on, but it is probably a factor. However in general the top players in europe have way more experience playing on the small ice than north americans have on the big ice, so it's not really the same both ways.



Here are the percentages of tournaments won at the wjc, when hosting and not.

countryhost winning %away winning %
can4041
cze06
swe06
fin203
rus/ussr2536
usa09

as you can see all but one country has won a higher percentage of tournaments when not hosting as opposed to hosting.
No conclusion can be drawn from such a superficial examination. You have not even scratched the surface. I had time this weekend and calculated average placement and winning % for all games for all major players since 1982. Results are as follows. Slovakia is omitted as they have yet to host.

Average placement
1=gold, 2=silver etc.
countryhost average placementaway average placement
canada1.72.3
czech republic5.65
czechoslovakia22.9
finland34.6
russia52.6
soviet union1.51.9
sweden44.1
united states4.64.4

average winning % - average win/loss record
countryhost %away %
canada85%76%
czech republic36%55%
czechoslovakia71%67%
finland75%55%
russia61%73%
soviet union93%77%
sweden58%61%
united states51%51%


Average placement is temperately better when a country is host, as is win/loss record. But I am not comfortable forming a conclusion as to whether an advantage exists. It would be beneficial if we had info for all home and away games. We could compare that to our host team information.
A similar thread exists here ,
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=1376939


Last edited by Hanji: 03-19-2013 at 06:45 PM.
Hanji is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 03:16 PM
  #42
Mr Kanadensisk
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jekoh View Post
It's not fine to hand the alleged "top nations" a secure spot via invitation. No serious competition does that. In most other sports, you qualify for the world championships or the olympics either by winning a qualification tournament or by simply finishing the previous championship in the top-3 or so. Qualifying for the Olympics through the IIHF rankings is a very similar process and there's no reason for a World Cup to not use that as well. That's very different from a mere "invitation".
Many serious competitions are invitational, I would even say that Italy and Japan were "invited" to play in the '98 and '06 Olympics, as far as I recall they didn't get there through qualification.

Mr Kanadensisk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 03:18 PM
  #43
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,735
vCash: 500
Participation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
I was talking about visibility.



Okay. When I said "invitation", I meant a secure spot for the top nations in the IIHF ranking without further qualification (as opposed to Soccer where everybody has to go through the qualification, except for the host).
Participation is the key especially from all levels of sponsors and the grassroots level of the community. Until that happens little progress or growth will happen. Does not matter if the visibility is part of the Winter Olympics or WCs.

Visibility creates a situation where once the event is over the community is left to wait for its next turn in the cycle. Participation creates a situation where the community builds for the future on the value generated by the event.

Invitation. Tournaments or events function on the "Open" or "Closed" format. Either way it is possible to build qualifying factors into existing structures and events. No extra qualifying process would be required.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 04:04 PM
  #44
Theokritos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,682
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Kanadensisk View Post
Many serious competitions are invitational
As long as it's invitational it's not going to be taken seriously in Europe, period.

Theokritos is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 05:39 PM
  #45
Mr Kanadensisk
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
As long as it's invitational it's not going to be taken seriously in Europe, period.
I think first and foremost the European teams need to have a reasonable chance at winning. If they are successful the fans in Europe will take it seriously, the invitational thing is just an excuse not to care because they didn't do well. The Rugby World Cup started as an invitational tournament and then had automatic qualification for the top 8 teams in subsequent years and it has a strong following in Europe, the same is more or less true for cricket, so I don't think your claim is accurate.


Last edited by Mr Kanadensisk: 03-19-2013 at 05:49 PM.
Mr Kanadensisk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 06:04 PM
  #46
Theokritos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,682
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Kanadensisk View Post
I think first and foremost the European teams need to have a reasonable chance at winning. If they are successful the fans in Europe will take it seriously, the invitational thing is just an excuse not to care because they didn't do well.
Believe what you want to believe. I know what I know [=in your eyes: I believe what I believe] about what Europeans consider a serious, legitime competition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Kanadensisk View Post
The Rugby World Cup started as an invitational tournament and then had automatic qualification for the top 8 teams in subsequent years and it has a strong following in Europe so I don't think your claim is accurate.
Read my earlier post. Giving the top nations a bye is okay, but the Rugby World Cup has a qualification process for the rest of the nations, unlike the CC/WC of Hockey. The rest of the world need to have a chance to participate. Without that criterion it's not a legitime world cup.

BTW jekohs point was that automatic qualification based on objective rules (for example IIHF world rankings) is not the same as invitiation (for example in the Canada Cup). This point is valid.

EDIT:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Kanadensisk View Post
The Rugby World Cup started as an invitational tournament and then had automatic qualification for the top 8 teams in subsequent years and it has a strong following in Europe, the same is more or less true for cricket
Sorry, but I think you're being delusional if you think the Cricket World Cup has anything close to "a strong following in Europe". Cricket is next to non-existant in the awareness of sports fans outside of Great Britain.


Last edited by Theokritos: 03-19-2013 at 06:10 PM.
Theokritos is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 07:05 PM
  #47
Hanji
Registered User
 
Hanji's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Wisconsin
Country: United States
Posts: 863
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Does not matter if the visibility is part of the Winter Olympics or WCs.
Yes it does matter because visibility is imperative. Visibility provides the initial spark in many instances. You are correct in that it's the community and sponsors job to invest in participation once interest is generated. But the olympics offer x10000 the exposure a World Cup can. A World Cup every 4 years will only reach the already converted.

Hanji is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 07:21 PM
  #48
Jussi
I am siege face
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Finland
Posts: 41,848
vCash: 612
Quote:
Originally Posted by jekoh View Post

Basketball has a world cup.
Isn't it just the World Championships?

Jussi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 09:04 PM
  #49
Mr Kanadensisk
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
Believe what you want to believe. I know what I know [=in your eyes: I believe what I believe] about what Europeans consider a serious, legitime competition.
I believe Europeans want a best on best tournament to be organized by the IIHF and not the NHL which is perfectly understandable. The qualification process would not determine whether the best on best tournament was legitimate or not in their eyes. People may say that now who are trying to discredit the Canada Cup, but it would not be an issue otherwise.

I guess according to the logic you are trying to sell Anderson Silva's fights are not serious, legitimate competitions because his opponents are invited to fight him by the UFC.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
Read my earlier post. Giving the top nations a bye is okay, but the Rugby World Cup has a qualification process for the rest of the nations, unlike the CC/WC of Hockey. The rest of the world need to have a chance to participate. Without that criterion it's not a legitime world cup.
I'm sorry but this is just a continuation of the same silly logic. Back in the Canada Cup days pretty much every country who played hockey at even a basic level took part in the tournaments so the "rest" of the hockey world did have a chance to participate. If qualification is so important to you then think of the prelimary round as the qualification process for playing in the final tournament.

As I've said many times I would not choose the Canada Cup format moving forward. To keep the quality of hockey as high as possible I would recommend starting an IIHF B on B tournament with a bye for the top 6 teams and then have two more spots open via some sort of qualification process. When more countries were ready to compete I would expand the number of teams in the tournament. This whole concept of making spots available for countries that are not ready has never worked to grow the game and actually hurts growth by weakening the product.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
BTW jekohs point was that automatic qualification based on objective rules (for example IIHF world rankings) is not the same as invitiation (for example in the Canada Cup). This point is valid.
It is just splitting hairs as another weak attempt to discredit the Canada Cup. As I pointed out teams have played in the Olympics without following a qualification process, essentially by invitation, so his argument really holds no water.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
Sorry, but I think you're being delusional if you think the Cricket World Cup has anything close to "a strong following in Europe". Cricket is next to non-existant in the awareness of sports fans outside of Great Britain.
As a dual EU - Canadian national I am perfectly aware of Cricket's status in Europe. The fact it is not popular in most of Europe has absolutely nothing to do with their qualification process and again Rugby has a similar following to hockey in Europe and I have never heard someone claim the RWC tournaments aren't serious, legitimate competitions because of their qualification process. Common sense dictates that if the best players from the contending countries (plus a few others) are there then you are going to have a legitimate, serious competition.

Mr Kanadensisk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2013, 09:23 PM
  #50
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,735
vCash: 500
Participation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanji View Post
Yes it does matter because visibility is imperative. Visibility provides the initial spark in many instances. You are correct in that it's the community and sponsors job to invest in participation once interest is generated. But the olympics offer x10000 the exposure a World Cup can. A World Cup every 4 years will only reach the already converted.
The Winter Olympics have provided regular visibility to the European market since 1948. Yet hockey has never enjoyed grass roots and sponsorship participation in Europe.

The only Winter Olympics that have generated visibility AND continuous participation from the sponsors and grassroots levels in the hosting country were the 1960,1960,2002 games in the USA and the 1988 and 2010 games in Canada.

If participation at the grassroots and sponsorship levels has not happened in Europe in 64 years then it is doubtful that it will happen. Would like to see it happen but there are no positive indicators going into 2014.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:22 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.