Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 51 to 85 of 85

Thread: IHWC may be cut to 14

  1. #51
    IHF Staff Steigs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Ottawa, Ontario
    Posts
    8,141
    I'd love to see more games!
    I like the two-of-eight format, just in that every game counts towards the QF.
    If you see an upset like GER over SVK, it doesn't get erased from the standings for the QF (i'm just using this as an example, and assuming that the win would be clean).
    Might make things a bit more interesting for teams if every game "counted", instead of teams playing just to win one game to stave off the relegation round.

    Then relegation would be easy too: last team in each prelim group is the "worst", and gets relegated straight-up.

  2. #52
    IHF Member Acroni767's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Domzale, Slovenija
    Posts
    779
    Not bad idea - just wait one year so we can come back.
    JE !! SE !! NI !! CE

  3. #53
    IHF Member Betterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    561
    What does that mean for other divisions? Will div1 have 14 teams too?
    Nederlandse IJshockey Bond
    www.nijb.nl

  4. #54
    IHF Staff Jazz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Southern Canada
    Posts
    6,449
    Quote Originally Posted by ElTres View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    I know this might sound stupid, but why not leave the teams to the current number and organise them into two groups of 8? It would mean only one game more in the first round as opposed to the 14 team format. I think it would be interesting, and, by playing 7 games each, no team can blame bad luck or any of the same for relegating or not making the quarter finals. The one thing is though that the tournament should be scheduled over a longer time this way...
    Nightmare, nice idea, but you would end up with 70 games instead of the current 56, i.e., 25% more games! That's not realistic. I guess that's the only reason they want to go down to 14, to keep the number of games on the same level, but split teams into two groups only.
    Yes, and increasing to 70 games will also mean that the tournament would have to last longer than the current set-up of 16 days (ie, 3 weekends and 2 weeks). I am sure these are the logistics they do not want to get into.

    I am against dropping to 14 teams (from 16), but I do see one positive: I would simplify the actual tournament so casual fans would be able to follow more closely. I have heard so many people who don't normally follow the IHWC ask "how exactly does this format work?" and get confused....
    There is no such thing as a "Bad Hockey Market"
    There are, however, several markets with "Bad Hockey"

    International Hockey Forums on Social Media:
    https://twitter.com/ihf_forums
    https://www.facebook.com/ihf.forums

  5. #55
    IHF Member Nightmare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Galati
    Posts
    469
    Quote Originally Posted by Jazz View Post
    Yes, and increasing to 70 games will also mean that the tournament would have to last longer than the current set-up of 16 days (ie, 3 weekends and 2 weeks). I am sure these are the logistics they do not want to get into.

    I am against dropping to 14 teams (from 16), but I do see one positive: I would simplify the actual tournament so casual fans would be able to follow more closely. I have heard so many people who don't normally follow the IHWC ask "how exactly does this format work?" and get confused....
    I know it would be harder, but it sure would be a lot more fun :D
    "It is hard to see a black cat in a dark room, especially when it isn't there."

  6. #56
    IHF Member welmu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    -
    Posts
    621
    8 team groups, basically one more blowout result each group then. Yeah, "lot more fun".. nhl players just get pissed

  7. #57
    IHF Member jokos_31's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Drama
    Posts
    274
    A1 B1 C1 D1
    A2 B2 C2 D2
    A3 B3 C3 D3
    A4 B4 C4 D4
    A5 B5 C5 D5

    E | F |G |H
    A1 B1 C1 D1 with 3 points
    B2 C2 D2 A2 with 2 points
    C3 D3 A3 B3 with 1 point
    D4 A4 B4 C4 with 0 point

    Relegation
    A5
    B5
    C5
    D5

    Quarters
    E1 vs F2
    E2 vs F1
    G1 vs H2
    G2 vs H1

    what do you think?

    10 games per team.
    Ice hockey in GREECE is back !!!

  8. #58
    IHF Member welmu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    -
    Posts
    621
    i would like to keep this simple:

    14 teams
    two groups A & B
    quarterfinals
    semifinals
    final and bronze game

    four best teams play 9 games like it's now

    relegation/promotion with worst team both groups and div1 winners = A7, B7, D1(A) and D1(B)

  9. #59
    IHF Member welmu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    -
    Posts
    621
    Quote Originally Posted by jokos_31 View Post
    A1 B1 C1 D1
    A2 B2 C2 D2
    A3 B3 C3 D3
    A4 B4 C4 D4
    A5 B5 C5 D5

    E | F |G |H
    A1 B1 C1 D1 with 3 points
    B2 C2 D2 A2 with 2 points
    C3 D3 A3 B3 with 1 point
    D4 A4 B4 C4 with 0 point

    Relegation
    A5
    B5
    C5
    D5

    Quarters
    E1 vs F2
    E2 vs F1
    G1 vs H2
    G2 vs H1

    what do you think?

    10 games per team.
    if i understand that right.. 5 groups? 20 teams? it just too many many teams i think... gap between 1st and 20th team/nation would be too big

  10. #60
    IHF Member jokos_31's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Drama
    Posts
    274
    4 groups 5 teams per group

    I think teams 14-20 are at the same level.
    Ice hockey in GREECE is back !!!

  11. #61
    IHF Member welmu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    -
    Posts
    621
    Quote Originally Posted by jokos_31 View Post
    4 groups 5 teams per group
    oh, yes... a,b,c,d

  12. #62
    IHF Member bordshockeypampen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Jönköping, Sweden
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by jokos_31 View Post
    A1 B1 C1 D1
    A2 B2 C2 D2
    A3 B3 C3 D3
    A4 B4 C4 D4
    A5 B5 C5 D5

    E | F |G |H
    A1 B1 C1 D1 with 3 points
    B2 C2 D2 A2 with 2 points
    C3 D3 A3 B3 with 1 point
    D4 A4 B4 C4 with 0 point

    Relegation
    A5
    B5
    C5
    D5

    Quarters
    E1 vs F2
    E2 vs F1
    G1 vs H2
    G2 vs H1

    what do you think?

    10 games per team.
    Beautiful!

    I would however change the quarters:
    E1 vs G2
    E2 vs G1
    F1 vs H2
    F2 vs H1

    That way I would reduce the risk that two teams from the same preliminary group would meet eachother in a quarter final.

  13. #63
    IHF Member leksandstars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Lidköping, Sweden
    Posts
    293
    Everyone look at this: http://www.iihf.com/channels/iihf-wo...ash=9f0874143c


    Its about voting for new IHWC format for example they think its gonna be tighter results if they go to 14 teams, but i am not so sure about that. Of course if USA, Canada, Russia, Sweden, Finland etc have top players the score can run away pretty fast against lower ranked nations, but. i say but, as for this years IHWC ive never seen a tighter tournament, like, Belarus loses three games after full time tie. Against Russia and Czechs thats awesome, Canada narrowly earned victory against Norway, Norway beats Germany, Germany beaten Slovakia, Slovenia made the second game to penalty shoot outs against Slovakia, Switzerland beats Sweden etc etc.. So if they wanted tighter results after this years IHWC im not so sure its that good maybe for some years ago but now more and more countries are beginning to tighten up with each others..

    I have even thoughts about expand it to like 20 teams. The 16 nations that was up now, also, Hungary, Austria of course then , Kazakstan and Ukraine, then we got Poland, Japan, etc..

    Both Kazakstan and Ukraine could easily keep up the game with teams ranked 5th - 16 th i am pretty sure about that, when Kazakstan latest was up to top division they made pretty good results, Ukraine has a downfall now but they are settled at top levels so they know hot to do at higher stages..

    Anyone see my point. Making it 14 teams doesnt change that a score can be 9 - 1, 10 - 1, 7 - 0 etc

    Canada with top players can still beat teams like Denmar, Norway, Belarus with thoose results if they gonna cut they need to cut into 12 teams minimum. then we got all fourth seeds out from top division and then its almost not likely a tournament anymore i think a Championship shall inherit as many nations as possible...

    This is a very hard thing to do and what to do. I am not sure either i am also tired of seeing this 10 - 1 results, 8 - 1 etc. but we must accept that this is how hockey is there are only a few nations that are top nations, its an difficult game take soccer for example, there we got 20 - 30 countries that can beat each other but thats a hole other thing..

    So if they gonna change anything at all they shall change it to 20 i think 18 teams doesnt sound so realiable like 9 teams groups?

    oh i found another idea at this very moment, maybe have 20 teams in top division..

    And go like this:

    Group stage 1:

    6 teams playing each others:

    Hungary - Ukraine
    Austria - Kazakstan
    Slovenia - Italy
    Slovakia - France

    they all play each other and they all gonna play each other in this first group stage cause they finished at 12th place minus 13 - 20

    Then they go into the next group stage top 4 maybe

    or make it like every nation but not top 6 ae already ready for quarters and 2 nations qualify for that lol. hm this didnt make sense, the tournament is gonna be to long or to short for different nations,
    well 16 teams sound good for me then 14 is no change. 12 or 16 or 20.

    also i found a positive thing with 1 more team in each group the lower ranked nations got chance to win and play more games at their "own level" then just getting knocked by better nations make a tight win and go to next group stage where they gonna get knocked in every game..

    tell me what u think guys
    cya

  14. #64
    IHF Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Budapest, Hungary
    Posts
    2,954
    Quote Originally Posted by welmu View Post
    i would like to keep this simple:

    14 teams
    two groups A & B
    quarterfinals
    semifinals
    final and bronze game

    four best teams play 9 games like it's now

    relegation/promotion with worst team both groups and div1 winners = A7, B7, D1(A) and D1(B)
    Welmu, why exactly 14? Why not 12? Or, to keep the things even more interesting, 8? In that case even "big teams" would have something to be afraid of, right?

  15. #65
    IHF Staff Steigs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Ottawa, Ontario
    Posts
    8,141
    I think it should go back to the 1908 fomat: a single game between the top two ranked teams for the world championship. Canada vs whoever promotes

    While having 16 teams may not improve players from smaller nations because it's such a short tournament, the fact that they even have a chance at getting to the top level and playing against Canada, Sweden, Russia, etc can be a great motivator for players and hockey programs.
    I worry that if you start closing off the top level by allowing less teams to compete, you might start seeing more national teams like GBR, which seem not to really care because they don't see themselves as having a chance at promoting.

  16. #66
    IHF Member welmu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    -
    Posts
    621
    Quote Originally Posted by kerusz View Post
    Welmu, why exactly 14? Why not 12? Or, to keep the things even more interesting, 8? In that case even "big teams" would have something to be afraid of, right?
    I don't know, but this format i suggested could be more easier for people to follow, and there is not so many meaningless games like there are now. It's hard to say if 14 is the right number because now only six nations are able to win this tournament (you can maybe add slovakia there, if nhl players will play for them). In my mind only teams/nations which can challenge bigger teams are Switzerland, Germany, Belarus, Latvija, Norway and Denmark. That makes 13 competitive teams, you can add one there. Other teams are just way behind top6 nations. And really, will it help norway hockey forward, if they face example canada and try to play that "bunker" hockey and still loses 10-0, i don't know. It's hard to make this tournament more competitive and add more tight games before smaller hockey nations will improve and they have better players than they have now.
    And that relegation format i suggested would guarantee, that truly the best 14 teams in ihwc will participate. I know its easy for you to argue with my suggestion, and find holes for my format but i would like if it is something like this.
    Sorry, too much bad english in one post

  17. #67
    IHF Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    576
    Quote Originally Posted by Steigs View Post
    I think it should go back to the 1908 fomat: a single game between the top two ranked teams for the world championship. Canada vs whoever promotes
    Canada are only rankt number 3 so I think its best if Sweden vs Finland in the final. Its allways good games. Canada and the rest can play B-IHWC our some NHL-Donald Duck-World Cup of hockey or something else NHL have made up.....

  18. #68
    IHF Member leksandstars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Lidköping, Sweden
    Posts
    293
    Quote Originally Posted by Steigs View Post
    I think it should go back to the 1908 fomat: a single game between the top two ranked teams for the world championship. Canada vs whoever promotes

    While having 16 teams may not improve players from smaller nations because it's such a short tournament, the fact that they even have a chance at getting to the top level and playing against Canada, Sweden, Russia, etc can be a great motivator for players and hockey programs.
    I worry that if you start closing off the top level by allowing less teams to compete, you might start seeing more national teams like GBR, which seem not to really care because they don't see themselves as having a chance at promoting.


    LOOOOOOOL!!!

    You are in knowment that u did talk urself away now??
    The top two ranked, then its Sweden my friend not Canada.
    Sweden play WC every year then Canada or Russia or USa can get a chance of it every each fourth year or something LOOOOOOOOOOL

  19. #69
    IHF Member ElQuapo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Århus, Denmark
    Posts
    779
    Quote Originally Posted by Steigs View Post
    I worry that if you start closing off the top level by allowing less teams to compete, you might start seeing more national teams like GBR, which seem not to really care because they don't see themselves as having a chance at promoting.
    I agree.

    Also, non hardcore fans would probably loose interest if their nation never got a chance to match up against the big guys - actually I think I would even myself loose some of my interest in national hockey if Denmark was a permanent B-nation (which they would be if the A-Group was only 10-12 nations) - and I consider myself an above average fan.

  20. #70
    IHF Member welmu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    -
    Posts
    621
    Quote Originally Posted by ElQuapo View Post
    I agree.

    Also, non hardcore fans would probably loose interest if their nation never got a chance to match up against the big guys - actually I think I would even myself loose some of my interest in national hockey if Denmark was a permanent B-nation (which they would be if the A-Group was only 10-12 nations) - and I consider myself an above average fan.
    yes, that's true. But if your team is good enough, they will play A-level. I remember when Graham said that Brit players had hard times to motivate themselves in Div1 level when opponents in some games were too strong on paper. That didn't sound too good. And if nhl players themselves says that it's hard to get motivated for a game against "B" nations, again, it doesn't sound good. I'm sure that, if there is no nhl players on this tournament there would be much tighter games. Example many of denmark and norway players playing now good leagues in europe (DEL, Elitserien, Sm-league and so on). If teams are built only with european league players, there would be more surprises, see what happened to slovakia without its nhl stars.

  21. #71
    IHF Staff Steigs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Ottawa, Ontario
    Posts
    8,141
    Quote Originally Posted by leksandstars View Post
    LOOOOOOOL!!!

    You are in knowment that u did talk urself away now??
    The top two ranked, then its Sweden my friend not Canada.
    Sweden play WC every year then Canada or Russia or USa can get a chance of it every each fourth year or something LOOOOOOOOOOL
    before this year's tournament, you're right. for next year, trust me, Canadian gold will put us... where now?

  22. #72
    IHF Staff Steigs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Ottawa, Ontario
    Posts
    8,141
    Hrm... Canada (probably not a huge issue, though we would be pretty borderline Big-7 then) and USA (they would probably NOT be Big-7 at all, let alone be able to create a team) rosters built with only Europe-based import players. You have to be very careful how you want to plan that.

  23. #73
    IHF Member welmu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    -
    Posts
    621
    heh, i didn't meant that we should get rid of north american based or nhl players. Without nhl players this tournament could be a less more attractive for many people i think...
    mmm... there is many american players around the world playing hockey, i'm sure they could create a team if necessary

  24. #74
    IHF Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    135
    this is my preposition:
    16 teams, 4 groups of 4 teams, same as now. 1 and 2 in every goup go to QF. 3 and 4 play in two relegation groups where number 4 is relegated. This is simple and the max amount of games for one team is 6.

    I think that international hockey would take a giant leap backwards if we were to reduse the number of teams to 14 or 12. This would make it almost impossible for new nations to go up and even more impossible to create some intrest and enthusiasm around their national teams. And what the hockey world certainly doesn`t need is to get smaller.

    I also believe it would be even more dificult for the smaller nations to get sponsors and govermental funding if they didn`t stand a chance to go up. This would affect their junior programs and the devolopment of hockey in these nations. And we sould be left with and even wider gap between the top nations and the bottom nations.

    This is not the way to go and will be the death of international hockey.

  25. #75
    IHF Member welmu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    -
    Posts
    621
    Quote Originally Posted by joakim_64 View Post
    this is my preposition:
    16 teams, 4 groups of 4 teams, same as now. 1 and 2 in every goup go to QF. 3 and 4 play in two relegation groups where number 4 is relegated. This is simple and the max amount of games for one team is 6.

    I think that international hockey would take a giant leap backwards if we were to reduse the number of teams to 14 or 12. This would make it almost impossible for new nations to go up and even more impossible to create some intrest and enthusiasm around their national teams. And what the hockey world certainly doesn`t need is to get smaller.

    I also believe it would be even more dificult for the smaller nations to get sponsors and govermental funding if they didn`t stand a chance to go up. This would affect their junior programs and the devolopment of hockey in these nations. And we sould be left with and even wider gap between the top nations and the bottom nations.

    This is not the way to go and will be the death of international hockey.
    Why then we just not increase the number of teams to 24 or 30 if we want to create interest and enthusiasm in every hockey country? I agree it's good idea to spread the word around world and make hockey a bigger sport. Maybe it's still better to have equal teams to compete with, rather than playing against superior opponent. If your team is good enough you have still a chance to be in elite, that's why there is relegation and promotion systems

  26. #76
    IHF Member Betterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    561
    Did they speak about this proposal during the IIHF congress at Montreal?
    Nederlandse IJshockey Bond
    www.nijb.nl

  27. #77
    IHF Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    576
    Quote Originally Posted by Betterman View Post
    Did they speak about this proposal during the IIHF congress at Montreal?
    I hope they cut the IHWC to at least 12 teams. I want to see 10 but I think 12 are good enought....and I can take 14 but we needs to cut, its not good to have very week teams in the championship the big problem are the split Div I.

    The hockey world have under 50 active teams and only 20 whit a pro.hockeyprogram so I think its best to cut.
    10 in the IHWC and 8 teams in Div I.

  28. #78
    IHF Member ahtikullervo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    673
    16 sounds better than 14 or 12.
    Brian Burke: "True leaders don’t need a letter on their chest. They still lead. Teemu is like that."

  29. #79
    IHF Staff Graham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    4,245
    And 8 is a very difficult number to organise. Requires 4 games a day over 10 days and finding training time on top of the 12 hours that the games will take up.

    Graham.
    "It's very hard to talk quantum using a language originally designed to tell other monkeys where the ripe fruit is."
    ---
    "Night Watch", Terry Pratchett

  30. #80
    IHF Member Betterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    561
    I guess this proposal is dead now? IHWC will remain 16 teams?
    Nederlandse IJshockey Bond
    www.nijb.nl

  31. #81
    IHF Member tux96's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Oberhausen, Germany
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by joakim_64 View Post
    this is my preposition:
    16 teams, 4 groups of 4 teams, same as now. 1 and 2 in every goup go to QF. 3 and 4 play in two relegation groups where number 4 is relegated. This is simple and the max amount of games for one team is 6.
    This is very unlikely to happen: 18 games less with the same number of teams, and you would drop some of the more interesting games. It would be much harder for the organizing association and the IIHF to make money.
    Cowards die many times before their deaths;
    The valiant never taste of death but once.
    - www.anne-emscher.net -

  32. #82
    IHF Member ahtikullervo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    673
    Quote Originally Posted by Betterman View Post
    I guess this proposal is dead now? IHWC will remain 16 teams?
    Sounds good to me!
    Brian Burke: "True leaders don’t need a letter on their chest. They still lead. Teemu is like that."

  33. #83
    IHF Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    576
    Quote Originally Posted by ahtikullervo View Post
    16 sounds better than 14 or 12.
    Why have 16 teams if we dont have 16 good teams? The smaller nations in the IHWC dont learn to play the game on there own they only learn defence tactics....its better they play team on the same level and step up when they are ready.

    Teams like Italy, Austria, France have not done any progress at all compere to the big nation since the 90:s, they have learn smart defence tactics but they havnt take there game to a higher level.

  34. #84
    IHF Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    45
    The IHWC will not go to 12 or fewer teams because there's an unwritten rule that any sport's WC must have more teams than the Olympic tournament for that sport.

    The question of going from 16 to 14 is how do they handle the transition year...

    Possibly three teams would be relegated in the final year of the 16-team IHWC. And also, some sort of playoff between the winners of Div. IA and Div. 1B., with the loser not being promoted.

    The new 14-team IHWC would be as Welmu described in post #58.

  35. #85
    IHF Prospect krystof.herold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Prague
    Posts
    27
    I know this is an old topic but i want to write down my idea after reading lot of your posts in this thread.
    I think that the IHWC should stay on 16 teams. The Group phase is good for worse teams (to get experience and to bring little boys and girls to ice hockey in countries like Hungary, France etc.), good teams (they need to warm up) and spectators (many goals or tight games David v Golias), too.
    In football Brazil can also delete Saudi Arabia 6-0 in group phase and nobody says anything.
    Maybe the bad thing is the second group phase. Jokos_31 had a good idea.
    So:
    Groups - A, B, C, D - of four
    Relegation group A4, B4, C4, D4
    Groups II
    E - A1, B2, C3, D1
    F - A2, B3, C1, D2
    G - A3, B1, C2, D3
    Quarterfinals
    Random doubles of (E1, F1, G1, E2, F2, G2, and best two teams of EFG3)
    Semifinals
    Bronz-Medal Game
    Final Game
    -----------
    Division I 17-22
    Division II 23-28
    Division III A,B 29-40
    Division IV A,B 41-48

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •