What do you think of 2010 Olympic format?

Looks like a strange format to me for next year's Olympics:

Three groups of four, instead of two groups of six

Group A- Canada, USA, Swiss, Norway
Group B- Russia, Czech, Slovakia, Latvia
Group C- Sweden, Finland, Belarus, Germany

Each team plays the other three teams in its group during the preliminary round. After this round, all teams are ranked/seeded and the top four finishers are given a bye into the quarterfinal round.

The remaining eight teams (#5-12) play in the qualification round (one game each) to get into the quarterfinals. The match-ups are determined by ranking (5 vs. 12, 6 vs. 11, 7 vs. 10, 8 vs. 9).

Once the qualification "round" is over, the quarterfinals are determined (#1 team vs. 8/9 winner, #2 vs. 7/10 winner, etc.).

This seems a rather odd format, compared to previous Olympics or the IIHF World Championships.

I don't like the change, because:

- Three games is not enough to properly rank 12 teams.
- Fans will miss a lot of potentially good games.
- The qualification round is the day before the quarterfinals, so the four teams with byes will have two days off, while the winners of qualification games will have games on consecutive days.

This is a really weak format and I'm not sure why it was changed from previous Olympics, unless they had less time to play the games. Might as well just watch the last day of qualification (each group's #1 and #2 team play each other), then the almost randomly matched qualification round, and finally the "regular" playoff format starting with quarterfinals.

This stinks so bad, Bettman must have come up with it!

:shakehead:cry::rant::help:

i agree, it's a terrible format and i have no idea what the iihf is thinking. also, only being able to take 23 players and no substitutions is insane. basically, the team that is lucky enough not to have any injuries will win. can you imagine a gold medal game where one of the teams is playing with 10 forwards or 5 defensemen? silly.

While this is still not the ideal format for me, it is a HUGE improvement over the format they have used in previous OG. The challenge the IIHF faces is in a two week period to maximize the number of meaningful games.

The first thing we have to acknowledge is that despite decades of trying to grow the game, there is still an enormous drop off in player talent between the top 6 or 7 teams and the rest of the world. There is always a chance a Belarus or Switzerland will catch a top team sleeping at the wheel, but for the most part I think people like to see the top teams playing head to head.

With the old system the preliminary round was nothing more than glorified exhibition games for the top six teams. At least now the preliminary round is shorter and the bye to the QF gives the games some meaning.


I don't like the change, because:

- Three games is not enough to properly rank 12 teams.


In the old system only the top 8 moved on, so ranking 9-12 didn't mean much anyway.

I don't like the change, because:

- Fans will miss a lot of potentially good games.


In the old system each team played a minimum of 5 games and a maximum of 8, with this format the min is 4 and the max is 8, so it is not that different. Also now virtually all 8 games are meaningful, whereas before only 3 were.

I don't like the change, because:

- The qualification round is the day before the quarterfinals, so the four teams with byes will have two days off, while the winners of qualification games will have games on consecutive days.

IMO this is more impactive than QF seeding, just one more reason why the preliminary games are now more meaningful.

In the old system each team played a minimum of 5 games and a maximum of 8, with this format the min is 4 and the max is 8, so it is not that different. Also now virtually all 8 games are meaningful, whereas before only 3 were.

Not that I disagree entirely, but this point is just wrong ;)
In the old format, you had to win games to make it to the next round, so you can't just say that only 3 games were meaningful.

It may not have been easy for the big teams to not make it to the next round, but they still had to deliver in atleast two or three games of the preliminary round.

Not that I disagree entirely, but this point is just wrong ;)
In the old format, you had to win games to make it to the next round, so you can't just say that only 3 games were meaningful.

It may not have been easy for the big teams to not make it to the next round, but they still had to deliver in atleast two or three games of the preliminary round.

In the last OG the US made it to the QF round with a record of 1 - 3 - 1.

The format sucks. The worst part is that everybody goes through after the meaningless 1st round.

I'm sure everyone's dream format will be different, here's mine.

-8 team tournament
-preliminary round, each team plays each other once
-top four teams qualify for semi finals
-bronze awarded to SF loser who finished highest in prelim round
-SF winners play for gold

I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has their own version that could fit in the 2 week OG..

The thing that pisses me off the most is the "23-men-no-substitutions" rule. That is just crazy.

As for the format, I don't mind it that much.

The thing that pisses me off the most is the "23-men-no-substitutions" rule. That is just crazy.


Agreed, if anything I would do completely the opposite, unlimited substitutions. As long as the guys are eligible then who cares what players suit up for their country. Some countries may want to adjust their line ups depending on who they are playing.

I'm sure everyone's dream format will be different, here's mine.

-8 team tournament
-preliminary round, each team plays each other once
-top four teams qualify for semi finals
-bronze awarded to SF loser who finished highest in prelim round
-SF winners play for gold

I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has their own version that could fit in the 2 week OG..


with only 8 teams, how would the qualifications for olympic hockey tournament go? as far as who can compete and who cant?

I'm sure everyone's dream format will be different, here's mine.

-8 team tournament
-preliminary round, each team plays each other once
-top four teams qualify for semi finals
-bronze awarded to SF loser who finished highest in prelim round
-SF winners play for gold

I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has their own version that could fit in the 2 week OG..

An olympic medal awarded without a competition? For the god's love...

Stupid format, what's the point of having a round robin if every single team goes to the playoffs? The 2006 format was perfect for such a tournament, a meaningful first round and then the playoff teams were treated equally, no bye even for the top seeds.

with only 8 teams, how would the qualifications for olympic hockey tournament go? as far as who can compete and who cant?

The top six spots based on IIHF ranking and I would hold a qualification tournament in the summer before the OG to determine the 7th and 8th spot.

An olympic medal awarded without a competition? For the god's love...

But there is competition, it makes doing well in the preliminaries all that more important. I'll never understand the point of calling back two losers to have one last game to see who is third best, you certainly don't see any leagues doing that. Personally I could care less about who finishes 3rd or 2nd, either you win or you don't. I can kind of see giving the top three finishers in a race a medal, but the idea of a bronze medal game is ridiculous.

I'm sure everyone's dream format will be different, here's mine.

-8 team tournament
-preliminary round, each team plays each other once
-top four teams qualify for semi finals
-bronze awarded to SF loser who finished highest in prelim round
-SF winners play for gold

I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has their own version that could fit in the 2 week OG..

The previous format of two groups of six, with eight teams going to the playoff round seemed about as balance and fair as possible given time constraints.

What about something similar to the World Championships? Four groups of four, with the groups combined into two groups for the next round, except keeping the top two in each group instead of top three:

First round- Groups A/B/C/D, four teams each, three games each

Second round- Group E (A1,A2,B1,B2) and Group F (C1,C2,D1,D2), each play two more games against new teams in their group

QF- E1 vs. F4, E2 vs. F3, etc.

This would take sixteen days without having any back to back games, which might require them to start a day or two early, as I believe hockey has in past Olympics?

If you like rewarding top teams with byes, then I could see this working:

Two groups of five teams each, four prelim games.

Top team in each group gets a bye into the SF. Second and third teams play each other in QF. (SF= 1A vs. 2B/3A winner, 1B vs. 2A/3B winner).

Finally, saying that the bronze medal game should not be played, because it is meaningless... that is just so wrong in every way!

Stupid format, what's the point of having a round robin if every single team goes to the playoffs? The 2006 format was perfect for such a tournament, a meaningful first round and then the playoff teams were treated equally, no bye even for the top seeds.

Yes, 2006 format was the best. Except I'd cut it down from 12 total teams to 10 (2 groups of five). I thought 8 games in 12 days might have been too much hockey in too short of time for optimal performance. Of course you want to see what teams can 'gut it out' but you also want them playing at their best.

This would take sixteen days without having any back to back games, which might require them to start a day or two early, as I believe hockey has in past Olympics?
The Games last 16 days.

But there is competition, it makes doing well in the preliminaries all that more important. I'll never understand the point of calling back two losers to have one last game to see who is third best, you certainly don't see any leagues doing that. Personally I could care less about who finishes 3rd or 2nd, either you win or you don't. I can kind of see giving the top three finishers in a race a medal, but the idea of a bronze medal game is ridiculous.

How Canadian. Wait, I distinctly remember Shanahan expressing his regret about losing the bronze medal game in Nagano and saying "In retrospect, any medal is better than no medal at all." So maybe it's not so "Canadian" after all.

I'm all for keeping the bronze medal game. Nothing ridiculous about it. What is ridiculous is your idea of just 8 teams participating. If that was the case, we would have never seen the 21st Century's "Miracle on Ice" (Belarus beating Sweden). Or Switzerland beating Canada for that matter.

Finally, saying that the bronze medal game should not be played, because it is meaningless... that is just so wrong in every way!

Whatever. I'll watch it, like I always have.

And to all those fans of the 2006 format: remember who won gold? The team that DELIBERATELY lost in the first round.

Whatever. I'll watch it, like I always have.

Perhaps it wasn't clear that I see no point in eliminating the bronze medal game, only Kanadensisk wanted to do so.

How Canadian. Wait, I distinctly remember Shanahan expressing his regret about losing the bronze medal game in Nagano and saying "In retrospect, any medal is better than no medal at all." So maybe it's not so "Canadian" after all.


I don't think I'm alone in saying that most North Americans could care less about the bronze medal game, including the players. I hope that on an intellectual level you would realize that once you start rewarding the losers it's completely arbitrary where you stop. Maybe it would be nice if they made brass and aluminum medals for the 4th and 5th place team, then less people would go home with their feelings hurt. But hey, if third place floats your boat...

I'm all for keeping the bronze medal game. Nothing ridiculous about it. What is ridiculous is your idea of just 8 teams participating. If that was the case, we would have never seen the 21st Century's "Miracle on Ice" (Belarus beating Sweden). Or Switzerland beating Canada for that matter.

And thanks to Sweden falling asleep in the QF fans were rewarded with thrilling SF and bronze medal games involving the powerhouse Belarusians. Let's face it, less teams means better quality hockey.

The previous format of two groups of six, with eight teams going to the playoff round seemed about as balance and fair as possible given time constraints.

What about something similar to the World Championships? Four groups of four, with the groups combined into two groups for the next round, except keeping the top two in each group instead of top three:

First round- Groups A/B/C/D, four teams each, three games each

Second round- Group E (A1,A2,B1,B2) and Group F (C1,C2,D1,D2), each play two more games against new teams in their group

QF- E1 vs. F4, E2 vs. F3, etc.

This would take sixteen days without having any back to back games, which might require them to start a day or two early, as I believe hockey has in past Olympics?

If you like rewarding top teams with byes, then I could see this working:

Two groups of five teams each, four prelim games.

Top team in each group gets a bye into the SF. Second and third teams play each other in QF. (SF= 1A vs. 2B/3A winner, 1B vs. 2A/3B winner).

Finally, saying that the bronze medal game should not be played, because it is meaningless... that is just so wrong in every way!

The problem that I see is that no matter how you structure the preliminary rounds, if you have eight teams make it to the QF, the preliminary rounds are basically meaningless to the top 6 or 7 teams. The reality is that no matter what, the top six teams can play at half speed and still easily qualify for the QF, the drop off in player talent between the top 6 or 7 and the rest is just that huge. There is always the chance of a single game upset, but with 12 teams in such a short tournament you are dedicating a lot of your games to matches with non-competitive teams in the hope of an upset.

That's why I would rather see an eight team tournament, with only SF and final playoff games. This way it actually means something for a developing hockey nation to qualify for the OG, there are more head to head games with the top teams, and a prelim round that means something because only half the teams make the playoffs.

I don't think I'm alone in saying that most North Americans could care less about the bronze medal game, including the players. I hope that on an intellectual level you would realize that once you start rewarding the losers it's completely arbitrary where you stop. Maybe it would be nice if they made brass and aluminum medals for the 4th and 5th place team, then less people would go home with their feelings hurt. But hey, if third place floats your boat...


If not caring is indeed the case, it’s a black mark on those teams/players more so than any flawed tournament format.

Yes, everybody would rather be playing for gold; but if a player is lucky enough to wear his country’s colours at Olympics he damn well better have the honour, integrity and dignity to give his best effort no matter how meaningful/insignificant the game.
If your players take issue with this, I’d be questioning whether they deserve to be at the Olympics rather than complaining about a bronze medal game that they might ‘not care’ about.

Or perhaps they do care and it’s just an excuse for losing.:dunno:

I like the three round-robin games. That's the way it was done in 1998 and 2002. In those years, it meant more time for these teams to practice - a big issue in a short tournament where players have minimal experience playing with each other.

With the five round-robin games in seven days in 2006, there was little time for practice, and I think it showed in the quality of hockey. (Which wasn't as good as 2002). Finland was the one team that showed me chemistry and cohesion - strong team play - throughout the tournament.

How will they determine the fourth team to get a bye out of the round-robin? The best GF-GA among the three second place teams? I don't like it. It means that a team like the U.S. could go nuts against Norway.

I wouldn't mind a 10-team tournament. We can do without Latvia and Norway. Belarus and Germany are good enough that they belong. They're competitive. (The Swiss and Slovakia also belong).

You're never going to have a perfect format in a short best-on-best tournament. No matter the system, you're going to have somebody crying foul. I like the three pools of four, but beyond that, I'm reserving judgment.

If not caring is indeed the case, it’s a black mark on those teams/players more so than any flawed tournament format.

Yes, everybody would rather be playing for gold; but if a player is lucky enough to wear his country’s colours at Olympics he damn well better have the honour, integrity and dignity to give his best effort no matter how meaningful/insignificant the game.
If your players take issue with this, I’d be questioning whether they deserve to be at the Olympics rather than complaining about a bronze medal game that they might ‘not care’ about.

Or perhaps they do care and it’s just an excuse for losing.:dunno:

And now our ultra nationalist Zine decides who has honour, integrity and dignity worthy of being at the Olympics. Dude, you have an unhealthy obsession with Russia, and an equally unhealthy hate for Canada, get a life. :shakehead

There's nothing arbitrary about a bronze medal. It exists in every Olympic sport. Plus it exists in every major world tournament (soccer, basketball, etc.). Why should hockey be different? Your "aluminum medal" argument is just silly.

Strangely enough, after Russia won its bronze medal game at WHC in 2007, they haven't lost another game in more than 2 years. Something to build upon :)

There's nothing arbitrary about a bronze medal. It exists in every Olympic sport. Plus it exists in every major world tournament (soccer, basketball, etc.). Why should hockey be different? Your "aluminum medal" argument is just silly.

Never mind, I think you missed the point.

And now our ultra nationalist Zine decides who has honour, integrity and dignity worthy of being at the Olympics. Dude, you have an unhealthy obsession with Russia, and an equally unhealthy hate for Canada, get a life. :shakehead

C'mon, quit with the personal insults.....this is a good topic.

Like I said, there's no reason to do away with the bronze game. The 'gold or nothing' mentallity doesn't preclude players from giving an honest effort even when gold is out of reach.

Instead of eliminating the game, perhaps the ones who should be eliminated are the players making a mockery of themselves and their country by not caring.

The Olympics do have a number of sports where the bronze medal is awarded to both semi-finalist losers without and actual competition occurring. Though mostly in the fighting events where injury concerns are likely higher.

In all the IIHF mens tournaments (WC and OG) since 1992 Canada has played in 12 gold medal games and 6 bronze medal games. Our gold medal record is .500 (6W, 6L) and our bronze medal record is .167 (1W, 5L). That to me suggests that we were not competing as hard in the bronze medal games.

Whether or not a team has represented itself with honour and integrity is ultimately judged by the people of the country they are representing. Personally I care very little how Canada does in the bronze medal game, because for me the tournament either ends when you get the gold or the day you are eliminated from winning it. Personally I do not find it entertaining watching any game where one of the teams is not engaged, be it the bronze medal game, or a preliminary round game where a superpower is mailing it in against a vastly less skilled team. I understand that for a lot of people the bronze is important, I'm just saying that for me it is not.

In all the IIHF mens tournaments (WC and OG) since 1992 Canada has played in 12 gold medal games and 6 bronze medal games. Our gold medal record is .500 (6W, 6L) and our bronze medal record is .167 (1W, 5L). That to me suggests that we were not competing as hard in the bronze medal games.

Whether or not a team has represented itself with honour and integrity is ultimately judged by the people of the country they are representing. Personally I care very little how Canada does in the bronze medal game, because for me the tournament either ends when you get the gold or the day you are eliminated from winning it. Personally I do not find it entertaining watching any game where one of the teams is not engaged, be it the bronze medal game, or a preliminary round game where a superpower is mailing it in against a vastly less skilled team. I understand that for a lot of people the bronze is important, I'm just saying that for me it is not.

Fine, just a difference of opinion then. But who says teams aren’t trying, particularly with a medal on the line?

In fact, I distinctly remember Canadians rallying around and supporting the teams who came home with WJC bronzes.
While I agree with you to an extent about WC, I think the ‘gold or I don’t care’ mentality doesn’t apply for tourneys Canadians have strong interest in….primarily WJC and Olympics. Hypothetically speaking, I can't imagine Team Canada giving half an effort during the bronze game in front of a home crowd in Vancouver. I don't think the fans would stand for it.
"We don't care" is nothing more than the typical excuse for losing or playing poorly.

"We don't care" is nothing more than the typical excuse for losing or playing poorly.

I'm sure if you checked Canada's mens winning percentage in bronze medal games against our QF, SF, F and prelim game records, the bronze medal games would be our lowest winning percentage game hands down. That really says it all.

I'm sure if you checked Canada's mens winning percentage in bronze medal games against our QF, SF, F and prelim game records, the bronze medal games would be our lowest winning percentage game hands down. That really says it all.

They haven't played in that many bronze medal games so far.
So the amount of empirical data doesn't allow conlusions like that.

They haven't played in that many bronze medal games so far.
So the amount of empirical data doesn't allow conlusions like that.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread:

In all the IIHF mens tournaments (WC and OG) since 1992 Canada has played in 12 gold medal games and 6 bronze medal games. Our gold medal record is .500 (6W, 6L) and our bronze medal record is .167 (1W, 5L).

While agree it is not a lot of data to work with it certainly shows a correlation between our bronze game performance and general apathy towards the game with Canadian fans.

I'm sure if you checked Canada's mens winning percentage in bronze medal games against our QF, SF, F and prelim game records, the bronze medal games would be our lowest winning percentage game hands down. That really says it all.

I already answered this.

WC can't be grouped in with WJC and olympics.....it's a tournament Canadians generally care less about as it is. Although I'd say that's changed recently (at least for the players) because of olympic roster implications. It's no different than how Euro teams put less emphasis on WJC.

In tournaments that your whole country follows with people glued to television sets (WJC, olympics) you're lying if you say Canadian players don't care.

I already answered this.

WC can't be grouped in with WJC and olympics.....it's a tournament Canadians generally care less about as it is. Although I'd say that's changed recently (at least for the players) because of olympic roster implications. It's no different than how Euro teams put less emphasis on WJC.

In tournaments that your whole country follows with people glued to television sets (WJC, olympics) you're lying if you say Canadian players don't care.

All I can say is that in Nagano it didn't look to me like the Canadians put a whole lot into the bronze game and it didn't really bother me. Here is the first article that came up when I googled that bronze medal game. Note that this is from a Japanese journalist.

"Canada, meanwhile, emotionally drained after its shoot-out loss to the Czech Republic on Friday, were listless on the ice and will go home empty-handed -- after coming to Nagano as the clear gold medal favorite."

http://www.shinmai.co.jp/oly-eng/19980221/0006.htm

Maybe we could agree that the Canadians don't care enough about the bronze to put in the effort required to beat one of the other top teams.

Maybe we could agree that the Canadians don't care enough about the bronze to put in the effort required to beat one of the other top teams.

Yep, sure looks like the team doesn't care by how little everyone celebrates the goals (including the team bench). How 'listless' they all look.:rolleyes:

YSYXmzwTuiE


Let's see...international ice, reffing, IIHF/IOC is pro-european, shootouts, poor roster selections, injuries, anybody can win 1 game, and now you don't care.
What's next, you guys become malnourished when overseas because you run out of butter tarts?;)

Yep, sure looks like the team doesn't care by how little everyone celebrates the goals (including the team bench). How 'listless' they all look.:rolleyes:


Let's see...international ice, reffing, IIHF/IOC is pro-european, shootouts, poor roster selections, injuries, anybody can win 1 game, and now you don't care.
What's next, you guys become malnourished when overseas because you run out of butter tarts?;)

Wow, we celebrated a goal.....

I'm not sure why you are so upset that most Canadians don't like the same thing you do. I don't know what else to say other than you are a broken record with an obvious political agenda and an unhealthy hate on for Canada. Every situation you discuss involving Canada you try in vain to put as negative as spin on the country as you can. The only reason I can think is that you are somehow threatened by us. Listen, Russia is a great hockey nation, but when it comes to this game there is no shame in taking a back seat to Canada. Canada is number one in hockey because we are the most committed to it and trolling for the rest of your life isn't going to change that.

:shakehead

Wow, we celebrated a goal.....

I'm not sure why you are so upset that most Canadians don't like the same thing you do. I don't know what else to say other than you are a broken record with an obvious on for Canada. Every situation you discuss involving Canada you try in vain to put as negative as spin on the country as you can. The only reason I can think is that you are somehow threatened by us. Listen, Russia is a great hockey nation, but when it comes to this game there is no shame in taking a back seat to Canada. Canada is number one in hockey because we are the most committed to it and trolling for the rest of your life isn't going to change that.

:shakehead


A political agenda and an unhealthy hate? Er...ok. Anyhow, anybody (you) who spends so much time on other county's boards spewing negativity is more likely the one feeling threatened.

Listen, Canada is a great hockey nation (you invented the sport), but when it comes to this game there is no shame in taking a back seat to Russia.....particularly at the very top level right now, and trolling Russian boards for the rest of your life isn't going to change that.

:shakehead

A political agenda and an unhealthy hate? Er...ok. Anyhow, anybody (you) who spends so much time on other county's boards spewing negativity is more likely the one feeling threatened.

Listen, Canada is a great hockey nation (you invented the sport), but when it comes to this game there is no shame in taking a back seat to Russia.....particularly at the very top level right now, and trolling Russian boards for the rest of your life isn't going to change that.

:shakehead

I see you have no more evidence about our passion for the bronze than a video clip of some guys celebrating a nice goal, as usual your argument is lame. As for your last post we both know the truth, and let's face it you make Rush Limbaugh look objective.

Looks like a strange format to me for next year's Olympics:

Three groups of four, instead of two groups of six

Group A- Canada, USA, Swiss, Norway
Group B- Russia, Czech, Slovakia, Latvia
Group C- Sweden, Finland, Belarus, Germany

Each team plays the other three teams in its group during the preliminary round. After this round, all teams are ranked/seeded and the top four finishers are given a bye into the quarterfinal round.

The remaining eight teams (#5-12) play in the qualification round (one game each) to get into the quarterfinals. The match-ups are determined by ranking (5 vs. 12, 6 vs. 11, 7 vs. 10, 8 vs. 9).

Once the qualification "round" is over, the quarterfinals are determined (#1 team vs. 8/9 winner, #2 vs. 7/10 winner, etc.).

This seems a rather odd format, compared to previous Olympics or the IIHF World Championships.

I don't like the change, because:

- Three games is not enough to properly rank 12 teams.
- Fans will miss a lot of potentially good games.
- The qualification round is the day before the quarterfinals, so the four teams with byes will have two days off, while the winners of qualification games will have games on consecutive days.

This is a really weak format and I'm not sure why it was changed from previous Olympics, unless they had less time to play the games. Might as well just watch the last day of qualification (each group's #1 and #2 team play each other), then the almost randomly matched qualification round, and finally the "regular" playoff format starting with quarterfinals.

This stinks so bad, Bettman must have come up with it!

:shakehead:cry::rant::help:

Is this 100% accurate? If so then I agree this format is no good. I have mens hockey tickets for the 4 games on the 23rd (Qualification round) and it looks like I could likely miss out on watching Canada. Oh how lame that would be! :rant:

Stupid format, what's the point of having a round robin if every single team goes to the playoffs? The 2006 format was perfect for such a tournament, a meaningful first round and then the playoff teams were treated equally, no bye even for the top seeds.

to determine the seeds

whoever criticizes this format, might as well criticize the NHL, it's the same format, except some teams are eliminated in the NHl because there are 30 teams surely you aren't going to have all 30 going to the playoffs

to determine the seeds

whoever criticizes this format, might as well criticize the NHL, it's the same format, except some teams are eliminated in the NHl because there are 30 teams surely you aren't going to have all 30 going to the playoffs

I actually think the NHL would be better with two or four divisions instead of three in each conference, but that's a whole other debate. Still, you can't compare a format where every team play at least once against every other one and where teams are actually eliminated with one where only three games are played, most teams don't face each other, and no team is eliminated.

Using the IIHF ranking for seeding purpose would have been less random.

I actually think the NHL would be better with two or four divisions instead of three in each conference, but that's a whole other debate. Still, you can't compare a format where every team play at least once against every other one and where teams are actually eliminated with one where only three games are played, most teams don't face each other, and no team is eliminated.

Using the IIHF ranking for seeding purpose would have been less random.

true, but if there was elimination the tournament would be shorter, and if they all had to play eachother the tournament would be longer..so it's give or take, remember that the NHL has a say in this, they are the ones who pressured the IIHF to lower the preliminary games to 3, therefore this format.

i really don't see what the big deal with it is though, there are only 12 teams, it's not like there was 20+ where some sort of preliminary elimination would surely be needed. Plus 3 games in preliminary is enough in a short tournament like this. A lot of these teams work really hard and had to go through a lot to get here, i think it's only fair they get at least 4 games, and in the 4th have the privilage to go against one of the top 4 or 6 in the world and maybe get an upset which would be tremendous for them...

true, but if there was elimination the tournament would be shorter, and if they all had to play eachother the tournament would be longer..so it's give or take, remember that the NHL has a say in this, they are the ones who pressured the IIHF to lower the preliminary games to 3, therefore this format.

i really don't see what the big deal with it is though, there are only 12 teams, it's not like there was 20+ where some sort of preliminary elimination would surely be needed. Plus 3 games in preliminary is enough in a short tournament like this. A lot of these teams work really hard and had to go through a lot to get here, i think it's only fair they get at least 4 games, and in the 4th have the privilage to go against one of the top 4 or 6 in the world and maybe get an upset which would be tremendous for them...

All of your points are right on, smaller teams deserve to take part, and once the playoffs are underway, everyone will forget how the seeding was decided. But as far as I'm concerned, the biggest problem with this format is the bye for the top 4, especially for the 4th seed, which will basically be decided by who can score the most goal in the easiest game.

All of your points are right on, smaller teams deserve to take part.

I'm sorry but I completely disagree. In order to compete the athletes should reach a minimum standard of ability, as is the case with almost every other sport at the Olympics. The countries with "smaller" teams need to commit themselves to hockey much more than they currently are in order to deserve a spot. There is now decades of evidence to tell us the philosophy of allowing a lot of teams to these tournaments in the hope it will help them develop does not work. Switzerland is a perfect example, despite being in almost every major men's tournament in the last 20 years, being touted as one of the next countries to join the big 7, if anything the Swiss have regressed not improved. I just think that making it too easy to qualify for the OG cheapens the meaning of it, is counter productive to growing the sport and means that fans are forever watching a watered down product.

I'm sorry but I completely disagree.

Much like with everything else, you're in the minority :)

Much like with everything else, you're in the minority :)

That's okay, I'd rather be right than popular.

Switzerland is a perfect example,

There is no such thing as a perfect example because not a single item (country) is represantative for a larger amount of items.

If your statistical parameter would count for anything I could say your proven wrong because earlier this fall a bunch of lousy players from Zurich beat one of the strongest NHL outfits. But I don't believe in it so you can save your excuses

(which would be for example that the game didn't matter for the canadians of course because as we all know thanks to you canadians decide after the game whether it mattered or not based on this equasion: win = mattered, lost = didn't matter).

There is no such thing as a perfect example because not a single item (country) is represantative for a larger amount of items.

If your statistical parameter would count for anything I could say your proven wrong because earlier this fall a bunch of lousy players from Zurich beat one of the strongest NHL outfits. But I don't believe in it so you can save your excuses

(which would be for example that the game didn't matter for the canadians of course because as we all know thanks to you canadians decide after the game whether it mattered or not based on this equasion: win = mattered, lost = didn't matter).

I agree with you that drawing conclusions based on the results of one or a few games is a completely useless exercise. However time and time again people do exactly that on these boards. Not only are there many factors which can skew results in international competition, such as familiarity with ice surface, rules and motivation, one game is just too small a sample size for any meaningful analysis. For anyone who disputes this I ask that they research the relationship in statistics between sample size and margin of error. If we are trying to find measures of a nations progress we must look for as broad a sample area as possible. Two areas that I think are meaningful are overall participation numbers and professional club statistics. For example the Swiss only have two full time NHLers this year, and while many will claim it is because Swiss players don't want to play in the NHL, the truth is it is a good example of the lack of Swiss players at the elite level.

well if you go by amount of NHL players the US national team would be on Russias and Swedens level or above.

my personal believe is that every country that wants to participate should be allowed to compete. They don't have to be able to compete but they should be allowed to prove it as part of the olympic tournament. - that doesn't exclude qualification.

It would get really unfair though if you started excluding countries based on their projected (not actual) strenght. For you projected strenght equals actual strength. You seem to forget that the actual strenght is determined on the ice.

If you exluded Switzerland you'd have to do the same for Belarus, Germany, Norway, Latvia and Slovakia. Would you really want to see 6 countries competing for 3 medals?

I'm curious about your ideas how the format should be changed. Bear in mind that there is something that is called the olympic spirit.

well if you go by amount of NHL players the US national team would be on Russias and Swedens level or above.

The US will have about the same chance of making it to the final as Canada, Sweden, Russia, Finland and the Czech`s. Remember to take as large a sample area as possible. In the post Soviet era the US won the `96 WCup and finished 2nd in the `02 OG. Say what you will about the WCup, but beating the Canadians (who are deeply passionate about the WCup) 3 out of 4 times on home ice is a HUGE accomplishment.

my personal believe is that every country that wants to participate should be allowed to compete. They don't have to be able to compete but they should be allowed to prove it as part of the olympic tournament. - that doesn't exclude qualification.

I agree that every team should have a chance to make the OG through the qualification process.

It would get really unfair though if you started excluding countries based on their projected (not actual) strenght. For you projected strenght equals actual strength. You seem to forget that the actual strenght is determined on the ice.

If you exluded Switzerland you'd have to do the same for Belarus, Germany, Norway, Latvia and Slovakia. Would you really want to see 6 countries competing for 3 medals?

If you read earlier in the thread you would see that I proposed 8 teams, not 6. No matter where you draw the line you are excluding someone, whether you allow 8 or 16 teams.

I'm curious about your ideas how the format should be changed. Bear in mind that there is something that is called the olympic spirit.

My suggestions for the format are listed earlier in the thread and thanks for the reminder about the olympic spirit.

what are you implying with that picture?

If you read earlier in the thread you would see that I proposed 8 teams, not 6. No matter where you draw the line you are excluding someone, whether you allow 8 or 16 teams.


Yeah but Switzerland is among those 8 or are very likely to finish in the top 8 through any form of qualification. I don't get. First you wanted to exclude them because they can't play hockey proven by their lack of NHL players. And now you want them in there.

what are you implying with that picture?

Just showing the Olympic spirit German fans shared with the world in 1936.

Yeah but Switzerland is among those 8 or are very likely to finish in the top 8 through any form of qualification. I don't get. First you wanted to exclude them because they can't play hockey proven by their lack of NHL players. And now you want them in there.

The difference is that by having 8 teams you still give the developing countries a chance to be there while keeping the overall skill level of the tournament very high.

Just showing the Olympic spirit German fans shared with the world in 1936.

My question was what are you implying with it? How is it related to the discussion?

My question was what are you implying with it? How is it related to the discussion?

Because unless you were insinuating I was not honouring the spirit of the Olympics you wouldn't have brought it up in the first place and given the Olympic history of the Nazi's and the East German's I just don't think someone sporting a Germany flag should go there.

I'm willing to bet Dfire wasn't born in 1936 and has never been involved in the training of East German athletes.

I'm willing to bet Dfire wasn't born in 1936 and has never been involved in the training of East German athletes.

No, but I'm sure he knows the history.

I'm willing to bet Dfire wasn't born in 1936 and has never been involved in the training of East German athletes.
Why do people even bother with K ? :laugh: