Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 51 to 75 of 75

Thread: New format for IIHF World Championships and Lower Divsions...?

  1. #51
    IHF Staff Jazz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Southern Canada
    Posts
    6,449
    Quote Originally Posted by RexKramer View Post
    The proposal for a new IHWC format has been put forth by the Swedish and Finnish federations at the IIHF congress in Slovenia:

    If the new format got accepted from 2012 there will be 2 groups of 8 teams playing a round robin series before the top 4 of each team move on to the crossover knock-out games. The teams ranked 5th to 8th are done after the round robin series and the two last placed teams get relegated. The two groups will be seeded according to the IIHF world ranking.

    The new format would increase the overall number of games from 56 now to 64 but the 56 round robin games can all be scheduled in advance with both teams involved being know thus getting rid of the games in the current format for which the opponents are determined only after the preliminary round. Furthermore, as the groups are bigger differences in strength of teams on one seeding position within the perliminary round become less influential in determining the play-off qualification and more importantly relegation. On the other hand if all preliminary round games are counted towards the standings sceduling effects could bias determining the to be relegated teams.

    I'm unsure whether this is a big improvement over the old format. In terms of ticket sales probably yes, in terms of gettiing rid of mismatched games not.

    http://www.iihf.com/home-of-hockey/n...html?tx_ttnews[backPid]=955&cHash=5efe32ceda
    And I think that it is because of ticket sales (ie, fans knowing where and when their teams will be playing longer into the tournament than currently where they have to wait for the preliminary round the finish) leads me to believe they will accept this over the current set-up. Unless of course, something better comes along....

    And yes, the QFs in most cases (barring distance travel) should be cross over...

  2. #52
    IHF Member Alessandro Seren Rosso's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Turin, Italy
    Posts
    2,991
    The new relegation rule is rather bad. Imho the best was the 3-game series in Quebec in 2008
    My articles at The Hockey Writers

  3. #53
    IHF Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Munich, Germany
    Posts
    163
    It is decided, there will be 2 groups of 8 and no cross-over in quarter finals. And there might be a change to Division I, which is basically reduced to 6 teams:

    http://www.iihf.com/home-of-hockey/n...hf-worlds.html

  4. #54
    IHF Member Conesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Currently Moscow, Russia
    Posts
    2,329
    So based on that article, it makes it sound like to get promoted to Division 1 you'd have to be in Group A, and if you win Group B you'd make it to A, meaning, based on how I interpreted it, you'd have to take two years to make it to the elite level
    Twitter: @CSmeeth

  5. #55
    IHF Staff Graham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    4,245
    Calling them Division 1A and Division 1B is misleading by the IIHF. Division 1A will really be Division 1 and Division 1B will be Division 2. I would assume that the top 3 teams in each 2011 Division 1 group will go into the new Division 1 and the remainder into what should be called Division 2.

    This makes so much more sense than the current system. I genuinely believe that this will provide better, less predictable tournaments and give promoted teams a genuine chance of staying 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

  6. #56
    IHF Staff Graham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    4,245
    Noticed an inconsistency. It says both bottom teams in the top division will be relegated to Division 1 but only the winner of Division 1 will be promoted. Is this a way to reduce the size of the top division, one up/two down? :-)

    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

  7. #57
    IHF Member Conesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Currently Moscow, Russia
    Posts
    2,329
    Quote Originally Posted by Graham View Post
    Calling them Division 1A and Division 1B is misleading by the IIHF. Division 1A will really be Division 1 and Division 1B will be Division 2. I would assume that the top 3 teams in each 2011 Division 1 group will go into the new Division 1 and the remainder into what should be called Division 2.

    This makes so much more sense than the current system. I genuinely believe that this will provide better, less predictable tournaments and give promoted teams a genuine chance of staying up.

    Graham.
    Oh gotcha, that makes sense. And yes, that probably would lead to more equality each year at the WCs.
    Twitter: @CSmeeth

  8. #58
    IHF Member Conesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Currently Moscow, Russia
    Posts
    2,329
    Quote Originally Posted by Graham View Post
    Noticed an inconsistency. It says both bottom teams in the top division will be relegated to Division 1 but only the winner of Division 1 will be promoted. Is this a way to reduce the size of the top division, one up/two down? :-)

    Graham.
    Maybe. I guess it might have more parity too, like the two relegated teams would have to compete with the rest of Division 1 to move back up. Like, there would be more competition, as conceptually the two relegated teams would (maybe) make their way back up, meaning that there would be one open slot to move up. Just my take on that.
    Twitter: @CSmeeth

  9. #59
    IHF Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by Graham View Post
    I would assume that the top 3 teams in each 2011 Division 1 group will go into the new Division 1 and the remainder into what should be called Division 2.
    Well, I doubt it's possible since General Congress will be held in May and Div I tournaments in April. I think teams should know what's at stake before their tournaments.

  10. #60
    IHF Staff Graham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    4,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Mate View Post
    Well, I doubt it's possible since General Congress will be held in May and Div I tournaments in April. I think teams should know what's at stake before their tournaments.
    I think it's already decided, but it's a typically poorly written IIHF press release.

    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

  11. #61
    IHF Member Conesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Currently Moscow, Russia
    Posts
    2,329
    Quote Originally Posted by Graham View Post
    I think it's already decided, but it's a typically poorly written IIHF press release.

    Graham.
    Aside from the poorly written article, I'm actually looking forward to these implementations
    Twitter: @CSmeeth

  12. #62
    IHF Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Redditch
    Posts
    160
    I don't like this from a GB point of view.. Looks like we'll be the yo-yo team between Group A and Group B

  13. #63
    IHF Staff Graham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    4,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Rowson View Post
    I don't like this from a GB point of view.. Looks like we'll be the yo-yo team between Group A and Group B
    Only for the seniors. I think this is better for us in the long run because it will prevent us yo-yoing between Div 1 and 2 at u18 and u20 level. Spending every year either winning games 8-0 or losing games 8-0 doesn't help us develop our national team.

    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

  14. #64
    IHF Member Bennison's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Hagestad, Sweden
    Posts
    3,183
    Quote Originally Posted by ElTres View Post
    It is decided, there will be 2 groups of 8 and no cross-over in quarter finals. And there might be a change to Division I, which is basically reduced to 6 teams:

    http://www.iihf.com/home-of-hockey/n...hf-worlds.html
    Not only a change for Div 1, but for all divisions below... My guess is that the top two teams in Div 1A advance to the top pool IHWC. But will there be two promotions/relegations across the board?
    Cum bibam cervisiam gaudeo.

  15. #65
    IHF Staff Graham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    4,245
    It explicitly states only one up/one down between 1A and 1B, so that would seem to be the case all the way down. The promotion out of 1A is less clear, but i would agree that it appears that both gold and silver get promoted. Personally, I'd have preferred bottom down/top up and a playoff during the subsequent season between second bottom/second top.

    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

  16. #66
    IHF Staff
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Vienna, Austria
    Posts
    5,144
    Quote Originally Posted by Alessandro Seren Rosso View Post
    The new relegation rule is rather bad. Imho the best was the 3-game series in Quebec in 2008
    This was the worst format ever. Slovenia this year seemd way strong enough to get past either of France and Italy but still were relegated just by the bad luck of being pared with Slovakia.
    The smaller the groups and thus the set of games which determine advancement resp. elimination in a particular stage of the tournament the more influential is the composition of the group. Thus, some groups will be invitably tougher than others. With bigger groups this effect vanishes and so with the new format at least the relegation decision will be less prone to be driven just by the composition of the preliminary round groups.
    There's enough examples of lower end teams getting out of relegation trouble by one lucky punch against an out of shape 3rd seeded team.
    In that respect I like the new format, the problem is that with the bigger groups there will be even more pretty much useless games of top vs. bottom seeded games. Now we have 12 games in each group that are between teams that were seeded at least 2 spots apart from each other in the old preliminary groups making up 24 candidates for boring games. In the old system the number of games between teams seeded at least two ranks apart from each other was just 16. This is imho a downside of the system and together with the fact that even more games have to be fitted into the 2 week schedule which will shorten regeneration for the teams and have a detrimental effect on the intensity of the games and increase the strain the tournament has on the players which in turn might lead to even more top notch players skipping the tourney after a long NHL season.

  17. #67
    IHF Staff Jazz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Southern Canada
    Posts
    6,449
    Quote Originally Posted by Bennison View Post
    Not only a change for Div 1, but for all divisions below... My guess is that the top two teams in Div 1A advance to the top pool IHWC. But will there be two promotions/relegations across the board?
    This would be my guess as well - unless Graham's uncovered a diabolical plan by the IIHF in his post above to gradually reduce the Elite level year by year.... ;-)

  18. #68
    IHF Staff Jazz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Southern Canada
    Posts
    6,449
    Quote Originally Posted by RexKramer View Post
    This was the worst format ever. Slovenia this year seemd way strong enough to get past either of France and Italy but still were relegated just by the bad luck of being pared with Slovakia.
    The smaller the groups and thus the set of games which determine advancement resp. elimination in a particular stage of the tournament the more influential is the composition of the group. Thus, some groups will be invitably tougher than others. With bigger groups this effect vanishes and so with the new format at least the relegation decision will be less prone to be driven just by the composition of the preliminary round groups.
    There's enough examples of lower end teams getting out of relegation trouble by one lucky punch against an out of shape 3rd seeded team.
    In that respect I like the new format, the problem is that with the bigger groups there will be even more pretty much useless games of top vs. bottom seeded games. Now we have 12 games in each group that are between teams that were seeded at least 2 spots apart from each other in the old preliminary groups making up 24 candidates for boring games. In the old system the number of games between teams seeded at least two ranks apart from each other was just 16. This is imho a downside of the system and together with the fact that even more games have to be fitted into the 2 week schedule which will shorten regeneration for the teams and have a detrimental effect on the intensity of the games and increase the strain the tournament has on the players which in turn might lead to even more top notch players skipping the tourney after a long NHL season.
    Yes, these are downsides....

    what they might do from a scheduling perspective might be to arrange the games for the higher seeds in a way that they are alternating between the 'upper-half' and the 'lower-half' teams within each group. This way there are not consecutive challenging games in the early part of the tournament (it might also allow for an upset if a higher seeded team is caught taking a game lightly....)

    EG - Canada could play Slovenia first, then Sweden, then France, then Finland, then Italy etc....

    (just a thought....)

    As I stated above, the QF's should be cross-over unless there is significant distance between the groups...)

  19. #69
    IHF Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    North East England
    Posts
    76

    Great Britain

    Quote Originally Posted by RexKramer View Post
    You're right, the article mentions 3 possibilities for the quaterfinals including crossover games (other two are matches within the group and a draw which is not specified at all). But to me crossover games seem by far the most plausible way as having the knock out matches within the groups would repeat games already played before which doesn't make too much sense imho and the traveling argument is if at all only valid once in a while (as in the Canda 2008 case) and not for the typical IHWC.
    Yeah I agree completly :)

    CJ

  20. #70
    IHF Member SLAJA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Narva/Нарва
    Posts
    200
    iihf just wants to take the fans money and overwork the players so they can be richer....
    ***СЛАЯ***

  21. #71
    IHF Member Bennison's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Hagestad, Sweden
    Posts
    3,183
    Quote Originally Posted by SLAJA View Post
    iihf just wants to take the fans money and overwork the players so they can be richer....
    That may be true, but I don't think that is the reason behind this change. Especially the changes in the lower divisions are longed for.
    Cum bibam cervisiam gaudeo.

  22. #72
    IHF Staff Jazz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Southern Canada
    Posts
    6,449
    I suspect that the reason for the lack of "cross-over" QFs in 2012 and 2013 is due to the fact that Finland and Sweden are co-hosting both tournaments. Thus neither would want to potentially lose a home QF gate if they are lower seed and would otherwise have to travel to the other country....

    Hopefully, they will reintroduce cross-over QFs in 2014.

  23. #73
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Subotica, Serbia
    Posts
    415
    This new format for the first division and below dividions is very good...
    There will be much better competition and much more eagual games in 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B divisions...

    IIHF

  24. #74
    IHF Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Oxford, UK
    Posts
    73
    So anyone know what happened to this then? Seemed to get all forgotton about!

  25. #75
    IHF Staff
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Vienna, Austria
    Posts
    5,144
    In current news Rene Fasel spoke out on the IIHF's stance of the new tournament format. On the downside he recognizes that 56 preliminary games are borderline many for the span of time. To deal with that in the mid term stretching the tournament timewise, increasing the number of players to be registered per team or a reduction in the number of participating teams are mentioned.

    http://www.20min.ch/eishockey_wm/int...-soll-25605625

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
  •