"Relegated" and "Promoted"?

Aside from finishing first or last, what does it mean for a team to be promoted or relegated after last week's tournaments?

Aside from finishing first or last, what does it mean for a team to be promoted or relegated after last week's tournaments?

Promoted means next year you move up to a higher divison, relegated means next year you move down to a lower division. So if your in Division 1A or 1B and you win the Division, next year you move up to the top level. If you are relegated from Division 1A or 1B then next year you move down to Division 2A or 2B.

Both A and B groups in division one finished their tournaments last night. The two teams moving up to join the elite group are Kazakhstan and Denmark, who advanced after their group ended in a three way tie, with Latvia and Ukraine also earning 4-1 records. Despite Latvia being the dominant team, having a goal differential of +16 and beating the Danes, the tournament set up favoured the Danish. Most likely Germany and Belarus will be the relegated teams who will move down and play in division 1 next year.

Could any of the "established" top tier teams theoretically ever be relegated back down to Div. I? I.e., if the USA or Russia really tanked it next year and finished behind, say, Denmark, would they find themselves relegated? Or are certain nations locked into the top bracket, and everybody else just plays for the last 2 spots each year?

Also, what about the teams relegated from Div II? Is there a separate tournament involving IIHF members like Israel and Turkey that will promote two teams to take the place next year of the teams relegated from Div II in this year's tournament?

Could any of the "established" top tier teams theoretically ever be relegated back down to Div. I? I.e., if the USA or Russia really tanked it next year and finished behind, say, Denmark, would they find themselves relegated? Or are certain nations locked into the top bracket, and everybody else just plays for the last 2 spots each year?

Also, what about the teams relegated from Div II? Is there a separate tournament involving IIHF members like Israel and Turkey that will promote two teams to take the place next year of the teams relegated from Div II in this year's tournament?

a few years ago (3-4 cant remember the exact year) the USA did tank it and had to go down to play in the relegation round, so yah, it's possible.

EDIT: oh wait that was the senior tournament want it? either way, it still shows that it is possible for canada, russia , usa or any established team for that matter to get relegated.

Could any of the "established" top tier teams theoretically ever be relegated back down to Div. I? I.e., if the USA or Russia really tanked it next year and finished behind, say, Denmark, would they find themselves relegated? Or are certain nations locked into the top bracket, and everybody else just plays for the last 2 spots each year?

Also, what about the teams relegated from Div II? Is there a separate tournament involving IIHF members like Israel and Turkey that will promote two teams to take the place next year of the teams relegated from Div II in this year's tournament?

No certain nations are not a lock for the top bracket.So yes the so called top nations can be relegated.Yes there is a tourneamnt and the two team that play in the final move up.

.....Also, what about the teams relegated from Div II? Is there a separate tournament involving IIHF members like Israel and Turkey that will promote two teams to take the place next year of the teams relegated from Div II in this year's tournament?Yes, there is a Div III tournament. It will be held during the 2nd week of January in Ankara, Turkey.

Here are the preliminary groups for next year's (2008) U20 Div I and Div II Groups: http://www.internationalhockeygang.org/forum/showthread.php?p=67408#post67408


a few years ago (3-4 cant remember the exact year) the USA did tank it and had to go down to play in the relegation round, so yah, it's possible.

EDIT: oh wait that was the senior tournament want it? either way, it still shows that it is possible for canada, russia , usa or any established team for that matter to get relegated.Yes, that was the senior level, in 2003.

Thanks!

How many divisions actually exist like is there Div 3 or even Div 4 and what teams participate in these divisions?

How many divisions actually exist like is there Div 3 or even Div 4 and what teams participate in these divisions?

Go to this site for all the information : http://www.iihf.com/

How many divisions actually exist like is there Div 3 or even Div 4 and what teams participate in these divisions?Currently there is the Elite level and then 3 divisions below it.
Go to this site for all the information : http://www.iihf.com/

To be honest, the best International Hockey resource is
http://www.internationalhockeygang.org/forum, and the associated website: www.internationalhockey.net is still under construction

The forum is mainly those who are very interested in international hockey, so you can get pretty much all the information you need explained to you. You can even discuss hockey with members (and players) from countries like Turkey, New Zealand, etc.....

Here is some info....

Participating teams, and result where applicable
Pool A
Sweden - HOST
Belarus
Canada
Czech Republic
Finland
Germany
Russia
Slovakia
Switzerland
United States

Division IA
Denmark - HOST - PROMOTED TO POOL A
Estonia - RELEGATED TO DIVISION II
Latvia
Poland
Slovenia
Ukraine

Division IB
Italy - HOST - RELEGATED TO DIVISION II
Austria
France
Great Britain
Kazakhstan - PROMOTED TO POOL A
Norway

Division IIA
Romania - HOST
Australia - RELEGATED TO DIVISION III
Croatia
Spain
Hungary - PROMOTED TO DIVISION I
Iceland

Division IIB
Lithuania - HOST - PROMOTED TO DIVISION I
Japan
Korea
Mexico
Netherlands
Serbia - RELEGATED TO DIVISION III

Division III
Turkey - HOST
Armenia
Belgium
Bulgaria
China
New Zealand


As you can tell from the lack of promotion/relegation results, Pool A and Division III have yet to be played.

I think Czech won't be relegated this year even if they would finish on last two places in relegation round, as they are host nation next year. Otherwise each country has chance to be relegated.

I think Czech won't be relegated this year even if they would finish on last two places in relegation round, as they are host nation next year.

The IIHF doesn't buckle to even that kind of pressure. If the Czechs somehow finish 9th or 10th, they will go to Division I. The IIHF would host Pool A there without a host team, and if organizers don't like it, the IIHF will make alternate plans.

Switzerland hosted in 1997, and in 1996, the Swiss finished 9th (back when only the last place team got relegated). Had they finished 10th, they would not have played host to the tournament in 1997.

The IIHF doesn't buckle to even that kind of pressure. If the Czechs somehow finish 9th or 10th, they will go to Division I. The IIHF would host Pool A there without a host team, and if organizers don't like it, the IIHF will make alternate plans.

Switzerland hosted in 1997, and in 1996, the Swiss finished 9th (back when only the last place team got relegated). Had they finished 10th, they would not have played host to the tournament in 1997.Here is an example that show's this as not correct.

Germany was host to the 2001 IHWC, and was awarded it before Germany relegated to the B-pool in 1998. Germany spend 1999 and 2000 in the B-pool. However, the IIHF page in 2000 specifically stated that there would be 2 teams relelgating from the A-pool (instead of the usual 1 at the time) if Germany did not finish at the top of the B-pool that year (ie, to make room for the hosts).

Germany saved the IIHF some embarrassment by winning the 2000 B-pool tournament and participating as the hosts on it's own merit.

I'm not sure if any rule within in the IIHF since has changed anything though, but I doubt it.

In 1998 Switzerland was promoted as a host team in men's tournament. However, at that year they expanded pool A from 12 to 16 teams.

11 best teams of 1997 automatically qualified, Belarus as pool B winner in 1997, Japan as Asian qualifier and Switzerland as hosts. Two more sports were given after additional qualification tournament between other top teams of pool B and Norway who was last of pool A in 1997. Kazakstan and Austria won those two places IIRC.

we going to get any games like this?

LOL!

http://www.iihf.com/Hydra/Tournaments_06/output/w20iii/hydra.iihf.com/data/iihf/output/xml/60/IHM060901_74_5_0.html

we going to get any games like this?

LOL!

http://www.iihf.com/Hydra/Tournaments_06/output/w20iii/hydra.iihf.com/data/iihf/output/xml/60/IHM060901_74_5_0.html


133 shots against? **** me.

we going to get any games like this?

LOL!

http://www.iihf.com/Hydra/Tournaments_06/output/w20iii/hydra.iihf.com/data/iihf/output/xml/60/IHM060901_74_5_0.html

Wow, i have never seen such a lopsided game in my life. Some ARM players were like -35 for the game hahaha and the poor goalie who had to face the 133 shots against at the end of the game he probably quit the team :shakehead

Here is an example that show's this as not correct.

Germany was host to the 2001 IHWC, and was awarded it before Germany relegated to the B-pool in 1998. Germany spend 1999 and 2000 in the B-pool. However, the IIHF page in 2000 specifically stated that there would be 2 teams relelgating from the A-pool (instead of the usual 1 at the time) if Germany did not finish at the top of the B-pool that year (ie, to make room for the hosts).

Germany saved the IIHF some embarrassment by winning the 2000 B-pool tournament and participating as the hosts on it's own merit.

I'm not sure if any rule within in the IIHF since has changed anything though, but I doubt it.

If I'm not mistaken, wasn't that the year the IIHF went to the "2 up and 2 down" for all IIHF World Championships at every level?

we going to get any games like this?

LOL!

http://www.iihf.com/Hydra/Tournaments_06/output/w20iii/hydra.iihf.com/data/iihf/output/xml/60/IHM060901_74_5_0.html

50-0 :eek:

Only time I ever seen that is when I play NHL 06 :D

If I'm not mistaken, wasn't that the year the IIHF went to the "2 up and 2 down" for all IIHF World Championships at every level?No. In the 2000 IHWC it was still one-up/one-down. Only France relegated, and Germany promoted.

The 2-up/2-down was instituted starting with the 2001 tournament in Germany (Belarus & Norway relegated, Poland & Slovenia where promoted for 2002) for the Senior level. It was 2003 for the U20 level.

Interesting thing about those promotions/relegations on U20 level is that Canada, USA, Russia, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Sweden, Finland and Switzerland have been on top level since then, meaning that two teams who were promoted for the tourney have always been relegated on first year.

"Top seven" have kept their place in U18 level, but Switzerland has been relegated in 2003 and 2005 (promoting in 2004 and 2006). Belarus was the one who kept place in 2003 and Denmark in 2005.

U18 Worlds went up to 10 teams when they were changed from European to World Championships for 1999. Canada didn't join at that moment, but in 2002. For that one year it was changed for 12 teams, so that Canada was starting from top level, pool B winner in 2001 was in and no one was relegated after 2001 pool A.

Interesting thing about those promotions/relegations on U20 level is that Canada, USA, Russia, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Sweden, Finland and Switzerland have been on top level since then, meaning that two teams who were promoted for the tourney have always been relegated on first year.

"Top seven" have kept their place in U18 level, but Switzerland has been relegated in 2003 and 2005 (promoting in 2004 and 2006). Belarus was the one who kept place in 2003 and Denmark in 2005.

U18 Worlds went up to 10 teams when they were changed from European to World Championships for 1999. Canada didn't join at that moment, but in 2002. For that one year it was changed for 12 teams, so that Canada was starting from top level, pool B winner in 2001 was in and no one was relegated after 2001 pool A.
Yeah, the U18 was inconsistent for that one year of 12 teams because Canada stated late that they wanted to join.

However, to your point on the U20, if you notice, Germany & Belarus have been yo-yoing back and forth (together in the same year) for the past few years now. Also, the other teams that promoted (in the years Germany and Belarus are in Div I) have also relegated back to Div I immediately.

Because of this, I've been saying for the past number of years that the U20 elite needs to expand to 12 teams, to foster the growth of developement of these tier-2 nations just outside the elite. This is especially important because this is an age restricted event. Germany may well relegate with a young crop that will be all 19 next year when they are back on Div I, and these players won't have a chance at the elite nations again before they graduate out of the U20 age group. Also important is that it is possible for a team like Finland, Switzerland or Slovakia to get upset that will cause them to get relegated down to Div I - don't laugh, it will happen (it could have happened to the US when they lost against Belarus in 2005). In a 10-team set-up, if one of the Top-8 (I include Switz at this level) does get relegated, they will make a mockery of the Div I group next year, and rob another Div I nation from promoting to play the elite.
People arguing against this will look at the lopsided scores, but you need to look at the bigger picture - these teams need a chance to play the elite in order to progress in this age of some nations putting more resources into hockey.

Anyways, if any of you want to read more of this expansion (with many thoughtful ideas, and on the entire IIHF Division promotion/relegation set-up in general) on the international forum, click here (http://www.internationalhockeygang.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4357)

we going to get any games like this?

LOL!

http://www.iihf.com/Hydra/Tournaments_06/output/w20iii/hydra.iihf.com/data/iihf/output/xml/60/IHM060901_74_5_0.html


Who in the blue hell leaves a kid in to face 133 shots?

Who in the blue hell leaves a kid in to face 133 shots?

Well, it might have been a good experience for him. He got to make 83 saves in one game...

EDIT: Heh, just noticed:

Penalty 50:26 52:26 ISL 2 min. 24 ALENGARD Emil - Holding the stick
Goal 51:11 0:40 ISL SH1 22 BJARNASON Arnthor
Penalty 51:48 53:48 ISL 2 min. 19 VIDARSSON Thorhallur - Elbowing
Goal 52:42 0:41 ISL SH1 12 ERIKSSON Karl
Goal 52:49 0:42 ISL SH1 24 ALENGARD Emil
Goal 53:15 0:43 ISL SH1 15 BLONDAL Orri

4 SH goals in less than 3 minutes... well, at least none of them was a 5 on 3 shortie... Gotta give the Armenians some credit for that ;)

Aside from finishing first or last, what does it mean for a team to be promoted or relegated after last week's tournaments?

In International Hockey, ran by a non profit IIHF, all countrys have the same conditions.

If Cuba would sign on they would have to pay a fee and then just show up for a tournament. Though since there are so many teams, and the competition differs so much, you go through a pool system.

Cuba would start at the lowest level, the D-pool the last time I heard, and work their way up. If they win the D-pool they would then move up to the the C-pool.

If Canada and Qubeck split one of them would probably start in the D-pool, like when the Czech and the Slovakians split up, or Soviet and Latvia.

Here in Europe all leagues are non profitable, and actually owned by the fans.

The highest league in Sweden are the Swedish Elite League, which is basically run by all the 100's of teams in Sweden, and all the teams are owned by the fans.

In the SEL the same system applys, you win it one year, but if you finnish last the year after you will be relegated/demoted to the 2nd tier league.

This makes regular season extremely competetive at times, there are quit allot of money at the highest level, and practically none at the 2nd highest level. This have some interest on a place like this, were we discuss prospects, its impossible to "rebuild" for a team in Europe, and its so much easier for a coach often to bring in a vet then to play a kid.

Imagine the pressure on a coach in Toronto for example if the Maple Leafs would be sent to the AHL if they had a terrble year...

Owned by the fans, non profitable?

Sure, most European teams aren't all that interested in making money, as winning is more important, but there are hardly any teams which don't try to make a profit.

While some teams have a membership and allow a bit of influence, they aren't really owned by the fans. Only in rare cases do the fans have enough power to bring a change in leadership to the club.
Most of the teams are controlled by a paid management, which only in theory has to listen to members. A pretty large number of teams are in a NHL-like situation, though, with guys like Anschütz owning the team.

Owned by the fans, non profitable?

Sure, most European teams aren't all that interested in making money, as winning is more important, but there are hardly any teams which don't try to make a profit.

While some teams have a membership and allow a bit of influence, they aren't really owned by the fans. Only in rare cases do the fans have enough power to bring a change in leadership to the club.
Most of the teams are controlled by a paid management, which only in theory has to listen to members. A pretty large number of teams are in a NHL-like situation, though, with guys like Anschütz owning the team.

Maybe in Germany. Teams in Sweden can't even be owned by someone private. Some teams creates company's that handle the organization, and therefor can "sell" part of the team, but even there its a 50% limit.

And here the fans have the ultimate power. They choose a board, and the board chooses the GM ect.

And there aren't a single team that makes money and "hands" it out to anyone. Sure they want a good economy, so they can buy players and build arenas ect, but no team make profits and hands it out to someone private.