Canada blocks for expansion of U18, U20

[Karsten]

Canada blocks for expansion of U18, U20

During the past months, the expansion of the U18 and U20 world championship from 10 to 12 countries has been a hot topic in our forums. Based on the comments, a huge majority of our members favour an expansion.

In the run-up to the IIHF Congres in Moscow, a number of European IIHF members submitted a formal proposal to expand U18 and U20 from 10 to 12 by 2009. The proposal had solid support from most European members, but met firm resistance from Canada. In the end Canada managed to put the issue off the agenda.

Source: Danish Ice Hockey Federation

Prior to the Congres, I was aware of the Canadian position, but I am (still) thoroughly disappointed by the Canadian federation's attitude and behavior.

Perhaps I'm expecting more than pure short-sighted self-interest from Canada. Whether "Canada is the Mother of Hockey" is debatable, but noone will deny that Canada is the epicenter of hockey. As such Canada should also be interested in spreading the popularity of the game - it may even be rewarding for Canada in the longer term: greater pool of potential import players, more international tv viewers. international merchandise etc. etc. I cannot see how an expansion with two teams which are competitive with at least #9 and #10, would be such a big mistake.

The 2009 and 2010 U20 World championships will be as popular as ever when the event takes place in Canada One argument that Canada put forward against an expansion is that two more teams would raise the costs (accomodation, food etc) of hosting the event. A hollow argument, in my opinion, since we all know that the event is already a huge source of income for the Canadian federation.

Contrary to the situation in Canada, junior hockey has never been popular in Europe, international junior hockey even less so. The most recent trend is that the top European IIHF members no longer seem interested in hosting the world junior championship. Some of the lower ranking European members might be interested, but with Canada's stance, they are denied the chance. Even worse, it will still be very hard for the smaller countries to create successful national hockey programs, develop international top players and spread the popularity of the game. In Europe, national teams get almost no public attention as long as they play in the lower divisions.

Of course, any expansion must be balanced. The top division must stay reasonably competitive in the short term. But if the time is ripe for an expansion, one should also be aware that such an expansion may make more hockey countries competitive in the longer term. National junior teams like Denmark, Latvia, Germany, Belarus and Switzerland learn nothing by playing against the rest of the division 1 teams. They learn little by playing against the elite nations every second or third year, but they learn a lot by playing against the elite nations every year.

[Jazz]

I am not surprised by this.

I have a feeling that the Canadian Federation's reluctance for 2009 (at least) has to do with the fact that ticket packages, price-structures and deposits are already released and collected for Ottawa 2009, and it would be hard to incorporate more games and ask those who have already paid deposits to pay for more games. (For Vancouver 2006, I made my initial deposit for my ticket package 2 years in advance.)

I hope they will reconsider their stance for 2010 though since no planning and organizing has taken place yet for that tournament.

[Karsten]

Yes, we can only hope.

The issue has been discussed for a long time behind the scenes. The Danish federation who has spoken with many of the big members believed the time was ripe for an expansion. So did Rene Fasel according to an interview with the Danish daily, Politiken.

But it is a little distressing. We all know that Canada is very reluctant to accept an expansion. As long as Canada hosts the U20, I don't think there's any hope. The problem is that none of the big European countries are willing to host the championships at the moment.

[Eric]

In many way it allways down to protectionism in hockey. Its Canada, NHL and the big hockeynation i Europe.

Look at the big 4 nation in Europe insted of invited Slovakia, Switzerland, Belarus, Germany and Denmark they have there on Europeen championship every year. If EHT was a torunament for the top ten teams in Europe, the intresst for it will grow and the teams behinde the big will develop playing against them many times before the IHWC. ´

In Belarus case this year I feelt like they have the team but they wasent ready before it was to late allso Slovakia suffers but are sometimes saved by its NHL-stars.

Every one protect its own intresst in hockey and then everyting faild they blame some one else.

The bigest set back for hockey are that they cant have a IHWC whit all the best it hurts hockey big time. And its not good at all to have IHWC in the same time as SC it hurts the intresst both for IHWC and SC. Its not good at all.

The best ting are to move IHWC to sep and have CHL in april/may insted. If IHWC dont have been on the same time as SC the intresst have been biger in NA and if IIHWC move to sep the intresst for SC will grow in Europe.

[Karsten]

Originally Posted by Jazz

I am not surprised by this.

I have a feeling that the Canadian Federation's reluctance for 2009 (at least) has to do with the fact that ticket packages, price-structures and deposits are already released and collected for Ottawa 2009, and it would be hard to incorporate more games and ask those who have already paid deposits to pay for more games. (For Vancouver 2006, I made my initial deposit for my ticket package 2 years in advance.)

I hope they will reconsider their stance for 2010 though since no planning and organizing has taken place yet for that tournament.

Don't count it. The issue was discussed in Moscow, and Canada wouldn't commit to make an expansion at any specific date.

The logic of this is that Canada's reluctance has little to do with ticket packages for the 2009 world championship. It all comes down to the fact that Canada wants to preserve the U20 (and U18) as kind of best-vs-best tournament. This fits quite well with the fact that many Canadians have a clear preference for the world cup over the world championship.

Why deny this?

Still, we can only hope that the international pressure will mount on Canada, and that they will give in the end.

[Raven]

I think Canada is being stupid and self centered, as this years tournement showed anything can happen. I'm kind of wishing for Canada to get relegated like the Czech republic did (if it can happen to Czech then it can happen to any country) ......how things would change

[Tokyo Bucks]

Anyways, big European hockey nations need to start supporting the junior tournaments if they want Canada to support it's expansion. Does Canada have a veto over these things (hard to imagine), or did they manage to rally some of the other nations behind them?

[Karsten]

Originally Posted by Tokyo Bucks

Anyways, big European hockey nations need to start supporting the junior tournaments if they want Canada to support it's expansion. Does Canada have a veto over these things (hard to imagine), or did they manage to rally some of the other nations behind them?

I think your post contains some keys to this issue.

The U20 World Championship is a huge international hockey event in Canada, arguably even bigger than the men's world championship. I understand the fear that the U20 world championship would become less attractive if it is expanded with more teams. But I also think this view is short-sighted.

In my professional job, I am a specialist in negotiations in consensus-driven international organizations, so I have deep knowledge of what's going on in international organizations like the IIHF.

On this issue Canada's de facto veto power all comes down to "size" and aspiration.

In this case, "size" is a shorthand for the distribution of attractive markets. We all know that the Canadian (and in the broader sense, the North American) market is the most attractive in the world. Both in terms of revenue generated, salaries and career prospects. At the senior level, this gives the NHL a pivotal position. It's the only league that negotiates directly with the IIHF.

At the junior level, the CHL is the most attractive league in the world (followed by NCAA). The CHL attracts many of the brightest European junior players. Unlike the NHL, the CHL does not negotiate with the IIHF directly. At the junior level, the Canadian federation represents Canada's interest.

As I said, the Canadian market is at the same time the biggest market for U20 international events. From a Canadian perspective, big financial issues are at stake, and the Canadian federation is lobbied by Canadian cities wanting to host the the U20s, profit-motivated broadcast companies like TSN, and so on. Their position influence the stance of the Canadian federation in the IIHF.

The Canadian federation can (does) use the relative "size" of CHL as a power instrument in the IIHF negotiations. Currently, there is in place a FIFA-like agreement, according to which all junior leagues must make their players available for the junior world championships. Since the CHL has a bigger share of the best junior players in the world, this strengthens Canada's position in the IIHF negotiations. If the U20 world championship becomes less attractive with an expansion, there is a risk that the release agreement will no longer be renewed and the best players in the CHL will no longer be available for the U20 world championship. This is obviously not in the interests of the IIHF.

The second factor explaining the negotiation dynamics is aspiration. Rising nations like Switzerland Denmark, Latvia, Belarus, Germany (which is a rising nation on the junior scene), and others have a keen interest in expanding the junior championships to avoid getting trapped in the socalled elevator, which we have discussed many times.
So the pressure for expansion comes especially from these countries. They are in part accomodated by the IIHF which have a natural interest in seeing international hockey grow, and perhaps by a few big European hockey nations like Sweden which host a fair share of junior prospects from smaller European countries (in particular Denmark, but also other European countries - e.g. Kopitar used to play there).

It is however my general belief that big European countries are not really active in the negotiations. They may support the rising nations, but the support is not very active. The fact that none of them applied for the 2010 U20 world championship is an indirect indicator of their stance. They have no real interest in the issue. And this just strengthens Canada's power position even further.

These factors explains why Canada has de facto veto power on the expansion. As I said, I am disappointed with their attitude and behavior, but I do understand Canada's position. It's perfectly rational, albeit a little short-sighted But most international negotiations are controlled by short-sighted domestic interests.

[frosken]

Originally Posted by Karsten

The logic of this is that Canada's reluctance has little to do with ticket packages for the 2009 world championship.

Sorry, but I tend to disagree...

I already have my tickets for the 2009 U20's and adding 2 teams would be a logistics nightmare at this time of the game.

While I understand both points of view, I wouldn't make a huge story over this...

Adding teams adds blow-outs, games, and tournament length (more games, thus more days). The U20 tourney has a strict timeframe...we're not talking about older plyaers who's season are over in May, we're talking students who need to go back to school.

IMHO, they should keep it as is, unless there's an influx of countries joining the U20s where it could make it difficult to add them in the current tournament structure.

My $0.02CAD

frosken

[Karsten]

Sorry, but you missed to mention the context. In Moscow, Canada would not commit to make the expansion in 2010, so their reluctance has little to do with the 2009 timeframe. It goes deeper than this.

The timeframe problem could also be solved if there was any will to make the expansion. The U20 usually takes place 26 Dec - 5 Jan. It would only take me 5 min to fit a 12 team tournament into this time frame:

26 Dec - Robind round 1, group A and B
27 Dec - Robin round 2 group A and B
28 Dec - Robin round 3 group A and B
30 Dec - Robin round 4 group A and B
31 Dec - Robin round 5, group A and B

If another break is needed then extend the IHWC with one day (or use Jan 1 as a gameday instead of Dec 31)

Dec 2 - Quarter finals (8 teams) - relegation round (4 teams)
Dec 3 - relegation round
Dec 4 - Semifinals + relegation round
Dec 5 - final + bronze game

Does this look like a logistic nightmare? Not to me!

It all comes down to the fact that the Canadian host cities and tv stations don't want a schedule with "meaningless" games. It would reduce the market value of the tournament.

[Steigs]

This discussion has gotten way too in-depth and (in some cases) personal for my tiny brain to handle... but I'll try a simple commentary anyway.

I understand why Canada doesn't want to support the expansion, and Karsten made a pretty good case for that.
However, it IS a very shortsighted point of view, despite that "strict" timetable (trust me, an extra 2 or 3 days on the tournament wouldn't kill any of the players) that Hockey Canada wants to follow.
As a member of an international governing body for the entire sport, Hockey Canada should be keeping in mind that they also have to work for the sport itself to grow. Adding two teams to the U20 tournament won't kill anyone, but will give the "elevator" teams (I love that term, thanks Karsten!) at least a chance to avoid relegation, something that they really don't have much chance at right now.
All in all, pretty lame approach and lack of foresight by Hockey Canada.

[Karsten]

Originally Posted by Steigs

This discussion has gotten way too in-depth and (in some cases) personal for my tiny brain to handle... but I'll try a simple commentary anyway.

This board is neutral. It's neither anti-North American nor anti-European. But the board also has a policy mission, which you acknowledge and support when registrering. The mission is to promote international hockey. That's the edge, and I am here to defend that edge. In this case, I was critical of Canada's stance at the IIHF Congress. Next time, it may be another country.

I and this board was attacked with crazy accusations because someone didn't like his country being criticized. As the administrator, it is my duty to defend myself and the board.

[Trim]

Originally Posted by Karsten

On this issue Canada's de facto veto power all comes down to "size" and aspiration.

In this case, "size" is a shorthand for the distribution of attractive markets. We all know that the Canadian (and in the broader sense, the North American) market is the most attractive in the world. Both in terms of revenue generated, salaries and career prospects. At the senior level, this gives the NHL a pivotal position. It's the only league that negotiates directly with the IIHF.

That is part of the problem in my opinion. The NHL has no federation to answer to so they wield about as much power, if not more, than any of the national federations. In North America, the NHL pretty much is the advertisement for hockey. Not as much in Canada where Hockey Canada is prevalent and the national teams are on television in both men's, women's, and junior categories, but USA Hockey is nonexistant in marketing themselves and the sport, leaving all that to the NHL to draw in people to USA Hockey as amateurs and volunteers.

Originally Posted by Karsten

The Canadian federation can (does) use the relative "size" of CHL as a power instrument in the IIHF negotiations. Currently, there is in place a FIFA-like agreement, according to which all junior leagues must make their players available for the junior world championships. Since the CHL has a bigger share of the best junior players in the world, this strengthens Canada's position in the IIHF negotiations. If the U20 world championship becomes less attractive with an expansion, there is a risk that the release agreement will no longer be renewed and the best players in the CHL will no longer be available for the U20 world championship... These factors explains why Canada has de facto veto power on the expansion.

I agree that the European federations need to be more active, but at the same time, the IIHF should be ensuring that all members are equally represented in decisions. As well, all federations, and therefore leagues, should follow regulations set out for the teams to allow their players to join the U20 national teams regardless if that team is Riga 20 or L'Oceanic de Rimouski.

Originally Posted by Karsten

(Insert Karsten's proposed format here) Does this look like a logistic nightmare? Not to me!

Doesn't look like one to me either. I disagree that any game should be labeled as "meaningless." I know you didn't coin the term but that outlook is why the expansion is not favorable. If a game between Canada and Sweden in the round robin is essential, how is it different when the USA plays Norway? The game could be a relative cakewalk for the Americans and "meaningless" to them, but is the game meaningless for the Norwegians? Absolutely not. Is it in the best interest of the international hockey community for Germany to play Russia in U20 on a yearly basis? Yes and that is how this situation should be looked at. In the beginning there was just the big one - Canada. Finland was not too notable in international play, even in the 60's and 70's, but through constant improvement, aided by their young players seeing Canada in the U20 Championships year after year, they strengthened to be a regular medalist, despite their sole gold of 1995.

Sarcasm Alert & Over-doing-it Rant
If the Big 7 wished to get rid of meaningless games, shouldn't we just make it a single round robin between them? Oh yeah, we can't do that in U18 since Czech Republic was relegated. And with Slovakia's collapsing junior program... oh dear, it looks like maybe we really only have a Big 5 for that event. I suppose we might as well scrap the promoting teams from Division I, too, if we want to be overly insane.

[Stefan]

I can somewhat sympathize with the Canadian standpoint of no expansion. I'm even (though in minority position in these boards) considering lowering the number of teams in the World Champs as many games are really not developing the hockey. The first rounds have now for as long as the format with 16 teams been a boring stretch of motorway for the big teams, and people are really less and less motivated to watch these games (in Sweden it doesn't help with the fact that we have a donald duck channel sending the tournament either, with constant commercial breaks). I really don't see the benefits as the teams trailing from 8-16 doesn't really show much improvement. There are of course exceptions from that, but sadly few. This is of course debatable to the point of terminal exhaustion, so let's leave it.
Although I must stress that having this opinion doesn't make me an enemy of international hockey. Proved perhaps by the fact that I have a Romanian ice hockey site...

Canada's point of view regarding the no to the expansion in the junior champs are perhaps in light of the lack of development in the senior department. I personally do not support that though as the juniors are still in development and here I don't see the problem with more teams. In contrary, I think U-18 and U-20 are suitable for expansion.

[kun]

Originally Posted by Steigs

As a member of an international governing body for the entire sport, Hockey Canada should be keeping in mind that they also have to work for the sport itself to grow. Adding two teams to the U20 tournament won't kill anyone, but will give the "elevator" teams (I love that term, thanks Karsten!) at least a chance to avoid relegation,

That pretty much says it all and my view to.

[Steigs]

Originally Posted by Karsten

This board is neutral. It's neither anti-North American nor anti-European. But the board also has a policy mission, which you acknowledge and support when registrering. The mission is to promote international hockey. That's the edge, and I am here to defend that edge. In this case, I was critical of Canada's stance at the IIHF Congress. Next time, it may be another country.

I didn't mean you, mate.. no worries. I'm as critical of Canada on this issue as you are.

Originally Posted by Karsten

I and this board was attacked with crazy accusations because someone didn't like his country being criticized. As the administrator, it is my duty to defend myself and the board.

That's who I meant.

Originally Posted by KazakhEagles

If the Big 7 wished to get rid of meaningless games, shouldn't we just make it a single round robin between them? Oh yeah, we can't do that in U18 since Czech Republic was relegated. And with Slovakia's collapsing junior program... oh dear, it looks like maybe we really only have a Big 5 for that event. I suppose we might as well scrap the promoting teams from Division I, too, if we want to be overly insane.

Careful saying that, Hockey Canada might actually like the idea enough to try and promote it... in short, the situation is ridiculous.

[RexKramer]

Originally Posted by Karsten

Canada blocks for expansion of U18, U20

...National junior teams like Denmark, Latvia, Germany, Belarus and Switzerland learn nothing by playing against the rest of the division 1 teams. They learn little by playing against the elite nations every second or third year, but they learn a lot by playing against the elite nations every year.

After an expansion the remaining Division I teams (Great Britain, Slovenia, France, Norway etc..) would have to play against more of today's division II teams by which they would learn nothing at all as well (just as you claim that LAT, DEN etc. wouldn't learn against these Div. I regulars). You state that your concern is the development of international hockey, but in your argumentation you only consider the (supposed) positive effect of the expansion (which will concentrate on the elevator teams between top level and div. I) and not the negative one which concentrates on the next class of teams.
Probably you assume that the positive effect exceeds the negative one and it is thus from the total welfare point of view unambiguously optimal to expand the top tier...or did you just not think of resp. care for the teams who "suffer"?

No offense intended but I think if we have the claim to care for international hockey (as a whole) we shouldn't praise the bright side of the medal without even mentioning the flip side.

[Marc]

I'm not so sure, if you consider that Italy (U20) and France (U18) will have to play in division II against very weak nations next year.

If you expand World Juniors to 12, you also make sure those nations don't risk to get down and lose one whole year.

It's a big problem when the gap is exactly between divisions. Now you have 7 big nations + 1 (SWI) + 4 (GER, BLR, DEN, LET), then 9 middle-good junior nations (Norway, Austria, Kazakhstan, Slovenia, France, Japan, Italy, Poland & Ukraine), two middle (GB & Hungary), two weak (Korea & Netherlands), then the rest (much weaker).

It means there is always one of the "middle-good" which will have to go down and lose one generation (21 countries for 20 "secure spots"), whereas the middle ones are going up & down again & again.

The effect of having one easier game for division I nations is not that bad compared to having to lose one whole year.

And it will be more incentive for these middle-good nations to win their division I group. Today, they know they have almost no chance at elite level against Big 7 + Switzerland.

[Karsten]

Rex, yes, I actually believe an expansion could be Pareto-improving, and not just lead to an increase in joint games for the benefit of international hockey.

The situation today is vastly different from what it was 10 years ago. A number of middle-ranked countries have built up relatively strong youth hockey programmes, but are unable to exploit their full potentials because of the institutional impediments the current system imposes. An expansion would, so to speak, widen the possibility frontier to the benefit of these countries. It would also widen the possibility frontier for a number of the elite countries (first and foremost, Canada and USA, but also Sweden, Finland and Russia). The key words here are bigger markets and a greater international pool of talents. The benefits for the middle-ranks would accrue in the short to medium term, and in the longer term for the elite countries.

I'm not sure the other countries will necessarily lose out. Marc has already provided the some arguments for this, so there are no need to repeat them.

This does not mean that we should not be concerned with the rest. In the past, I have often argued that the IIHF could learn from FIFA. One FIFA feature which could be brought in is the distribution of financial means and resources to minor hockey powers. I.e. the IIHF should agree that a certain share of sponsor money and surpluses generated from IIHF events be not only distributed to the participating countries of those events (the situation as it is now) but also to minor non-participating countries (Div I-III). These countries should of course submit plans of how they intend to spend the money, and the implementation and results should be monitored. The IIHF could also play a greater role in facilitating exchange of coaches and referees (in part paid by the IIHF) to the benefit of the minor hockey countries.

[RexKramer]

Marc, you're right but then again according to Karsten's argument it would be good for those very weak Div. II teams tohave opponents like France and Italy...

What I wanted to say is that with every change in the grouping of teams you normally induce two effects: a positive one on some teams and a negative one on some others. Both have to be considered imho and that's what I felt lacks in Karstens argument and so I wanted to getsome focus on them.
If you assume that it is good for teams to play against better ones (and bad for good ones to play against weaker ones) then it is consistent to let this hold for all levels resp. over the entire range of teams. By expanding/reducing one group you necessarily influence all others and consequently also the effects on those have to be considered.

My own opininon on this matter is anyhow entirely different:

eliminate the horizontal splitting and get more vertically split groups in order to maximize homogeneity within groups because I think the best you can get is playing against equal teams. Furthermore I honesty think that these few international games are not what makes a country's players better. National team improvement is a symptom/conesequence of better domestic structures and much less the cause for better domestic conditions.

[RexKramer]

Originally Posted by Karsten

Rex, yes, I actually believe an expansion could be Pareto-improving, and not just lead to an increase in joint games for the benefit of international hockey.
The situation today is vastly different from what it was 10 years ago. A number of middle-ranked countries have built up relatively strong youth hockey programmes, but are unable to exploit their full potentials because of the institutional impediments the current system imposes. An expansion would, so to speak, widen the possibility frontier to the benefit of these countries. It would also widen the possibility frontier for a number of the elite countries (first and foremost, Canada and USA, but also Sweden, Finland and Russia). The key words here are bigger markets and a greater international pool of talents. The benefits for the middle-ranks would accrue in the short to medium term, and in the longer term for the elite countries.

I'm not sure the other countries will necessarily lose out. Marc has already provided the some arguments for this, so there are no need to repeat them.

This does not mean that we should not be concerned with the rest. In the past, I have often argued that the IIHF could learn from FIFA. One FIFA feature which could be brought in is the distribution of financial means and resources to minor hockey powers. I.e. the IIHF should agree that a certain share of sponsor money and surpluses generated from IIHF events be not only distributed to the participating countries of those events (the situation as it is now) but also to minor non-participating countries (Div I-III). These countries should of course submit plans of how they intend to spend the money, and the implementation and results should be monitored. The IIHF could also play a greater role in facilitating exchange of coaches and referees (in part paid by the IIHF) to the benefit of the minor hockey countries.

Ok, I acknowledge that. And full agreement to the last paragraph because in the end improvement comes only from investment in structures, know-how and players.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by RexKramer

eliminate the horizontal splitting and get more vertically split groups in order to maximize homogeneity within groups because I think the best you can get is playing against equal teams.

I've been saying this for some time. Look at the bottom of the Elite Senior Division. You really don't know who is going to get relegated each year. 6 strong candidates, and another 2 that wouldn't really surprise you. In the whole of the World Championship system, it is the only place where you see that lack of predictability.

If you remove the groups, top v bottom is only a difference of 5 places and not 11 (Group A) or 9 (Group B). Suddenly, a lot more can happen all the way through that division. When you get promoted, you are playing against teams a lot closer to your own ranking. In the current groups, the 4th seeds and 6th seeds are 4 ranking places apart and that is simply too much.

However, there is perhaps a downside to having only these horizontal groups. Once you get promoted, if you can avoid relegation that first year, you start becoming used to the play at that division and become more secure in that position. There is, perhaps, an argument that the vertical split helps mid-table teams more. But, I think that relegation wouldn't be the same disaster as it currently is because the level below you would still be much higher. Therefore, I don't think this "negative" outweighs the positive of removing the vertical split.

The one thing in your post that I would disagree with is that I don't think you develop best by playing teams of equal strength. I think you develop best against teams who are a little better than you. It forces you to raise your game. The key is that they can only be a little better. Israel learnt nothing in Division 1 because they were so far off that standard. You need to keep the promotions so that you are not instantly out of your depth.

Originally Posted by RexKramer

Furthermore I honesty think that these few international games are not what makes a country's players better. National team improvement is a symptom/conesequence of better domestic structures and much less the cause for better domestic conditions.

Again, one of the arguments I've had in the UK for some time. People keep looking at why the national team do so badly and talk about the players, the coaches, the support. They never look at their own league and ask if it is to blame. Even if you play all 4 international breaks, you are only going to play 20 games a season in your national jersey and have about the same number of days in training camp. That's not where you learn your hockey. You learn it playing the 50+ games a season and the 150 days of training.

The problem is, from a financial point of view in the lesser nations, the funding you get by being better at international level is a cause for better domestic conditions. The problem is that the sport needs to understand that it needs to speculate wisely before it can get that accumulation.

Graham.

[RexKramer]

Originally Posted by Graham

I've been saying this for some time. Look at the bottom of the Elite Senior Division. You really don't know who is going to get relegated each year. 6 strong candidates, and another 2 that wouldn't really surprise you. In the whole of the World Championship system, it is the only place where you see that lack of predictability.

And that lack of predictability is actually what makes things interesting. Therefore I'd be in favor to change either the playing format of IHWC (vertical split with a some exchange between top group losers and bottom group winners) or to reduce the number of participating teams. Competitive balance is the single most important factor that makes sport competitions attractive (others are important as well, no doubt).

Originally Posted by Graham

If you remove the groups, top v bottom is only a difference of 5 places and not 11 (Group A) or 9 (Group B). Suddenly, a lot more can happen all the way through that division. When you get promoted, you are playing against teams a lot closer to your own ranking. In the current groups, the 4th seeds and 6th seeds are 4 ranking places apart and that is simply too much.

100% agree

Originally Posted by Graham

However, there is perhaps a downside to having only these horizontal groups. Once you get promoted, if you can avoid relegation that first year, you start becoming used to the play at that division and become more secure in that position. There is, perhaps, an argument that the vertical split helps mid-table teams more. But, I think that relegation wouldn't be the same disaster as it currently is because the level below you would still be much higher. Therefore, I don't think this "negative" outweighs the positive of removing the vertical split.

Hmmm, either I have a mental blockade or you mixed up horizontal and vertical splitting. To define terms:

Vertical splitting is according to playing strength (IHWC, Div. I, Div. II,....), horizontal splitting is putting teams of similar strength into different groups on one vertical level (Div. I A and B...). But I assume you mean the same thing and call horizontal what I call vertical because you litterally draw a horizontal line(s) in the ranking list to split the teams (and vice versa)....If that's correct again I totally agree with you.

Originally Posted by Graham

The one thing in your post that I would disagree with is that I don't think you develop best by playing teams of equal strength. I think you develop best against teams who are a little better than you. It forces you to raise your game. The key is that they can only be a little better. Israel learnt nothing in Division 1 because they were so far off that standard. You need to keep the promotions so that you are not instantly out of your depth.

Maybe I shortened that statement too much. More precise I believe that development (isolated view on one team) is strongest when your avareage opponent is on this team's level and there is a certain but not too big variance. In other words playing with teams where some are equal some slightly better and some slightly weaker is imho the best you can get. But of course withi a tournament when two unequal teams play each other we have two parties affected and both the effect on either of them has to be considered.
Clearly, the more teams there are within a vertical split the bigger the spread between top and bottom will be and additional horizontal splitting further widens the spread as

Originally Posted by Graham

Again, one of the arguments I've had in the UK for some time. People keep looking at why the national team do so badly and talk about the players, the coaches, the support. They never look at their own league and ask if it is to blame. Even if you play all 4 international breaks, you are only going to play 20 games a season in your national jersey and have about the same number of days in training camp. That's not where you learn your hockey. You learn it playing the 50+ games a season and the 150 days of training.

I think much more important is what goes on the 15 years before players get that far...

[martin]

I don't have any problems with the Canadien decision. They have already been selling ticket packages and this was finally the reason. It's more the mistake of those who want an expansion. To me it seems that this issue is just a topic since January 2007 because Slovakia struggled at the U20 and for the U18 just since the Czechs were relegated. Should it be a good idea to make short-term decisions just because a "big nation" is relegated instead of mid and long term planning? I don't think so.

To me it was ridiculous enough to expand the Women's World Championship to 9 teams soon after Russia was relegated... That's not sport if we handle "negative surprises" like this.

BTW I don't see any reason for an expansion. At U20 and especially U18 the base of good players is not so large in many countries. Already the differences between the top nations and those around place 8 to 10 is very big. So why adding more teams without any chances to make the final round? Just to be part?

[Graham]

Originally Posted by martin

BTW I don't see any reason for an expansion. At U20 and especially U18 the base of good players is not so large in many countries. Already the differences between the top nations and those around place 8 to 10 is very big. So why adding more teams without any chances to make the final round? Just to be part?

Because it would create the level of competition for relegation that we see in the senior Elite division. Instead, we can pretty much guarantee who gets relegated from u20 and u18 every year.

Graham.

[Beaver Fever]

Why not instead of expanding or using the previous years as a basis have a qualifying tournament. For example subtract the semi finalist from the previous year and have a tournie with the rest of the elite division plus the next four. The top six go through. This way the elevator teams will play competive games with top calibre teams and may avoid the embarassing blow outs. The four teams that lose will go down and play div1. Another positive is the elevator teams get more games. In my opinion more games = better players.

[Steigs]

question Beaver Fever:
when do you want these games to take place?
The problem is that the IIHF has a pretty packed schedule, especially when you consider that international breaks already include U20 matches and tournaments where these countries al lparticipate already

[Beaver Fever]

Originally Posted by Steigs

question Beaver Fever:
when do you want these games to take place?
The problem is that the IIHF has a pretty packed schedule, especially when you consider that international breaks already include U20 matches and tournaments where these countries al lparticipate already

Not sure. I hadn't put a lot of thought into the logistics. I was just thinking from a development stand point.

[Namrezy]

My question would be what is there to gain by increasing the number of teams? Are there that many worthy of being in the top group? IMO, the answer is no. If you could show that having a team in the top grouping for a tournament would promote hockey growth in that country, then I would be much more willing to consider it. But realistically, losing 9-0 in your games probably does not help your hockey development much.

Rather what I would like to see is the promotion tournament (U 20 Div I A & BI) being held prior to the Main World Junior event. What happens each year is that the team who win their place by finishing top in Div I A & B the year prior, lose many of their players due to age restrictions. So rather then being a strong team, they are weaker with younger players who did not play the year prior. Allow the team (s) that won the tournament, the ability to continue on and later that year, play in the World Juniors. It would make for a better team and a better tournament IMO.

[Tokyo Bucks]

Interesting suggestion. But do the top Div I teams' programs have enough money to compete in an additional tournament in the same year (or does the World Juniors actually make money for the participating countries? Then it would be a positive incentive and these near-elite programs will gain much valued additional experience and funding.)

[ElQuapo]

Originally Posted by Namrezy

Rather what I would like to see is the promotion tournament (U 20 Div I A & BI) being held prior to the Main World Junior event. What happens each year is that the team who win their place by finishing top in Div I A & B the year prior, lose many of their players due to age restrictions. So rather then being a strong team, they are weaker with younger players who did not play the year prior. Allow the team (s) that won the tournament, the ability to continue on and later that year, play in the World Juniors. It would make for a better team and a better tournament IMO.

This suggestion actually gives me another idea - from when I was playing football (soccer) as a kid.

The division composition could follow the players.

So, if the Danish U18 composed of players from 88/89 for example played in the Elite Group and stayed there, then they should also play in the U20 Elite Group when they "graduate" to that class - regardless of which level the U20 composed of the players 1-2 years older than them played.

Also, if the U18 team only plays in the 1. div, then they should only play in the 1. div at U20, even if the previous U20 team actually played in the Elite Group - and stayed there.

The level would be which ever level the oldest players on the team played at the last time they where the oldest players.

This would assure that smaller nations with a good crop of players from a particular year where not handicapped by which ever performance their predecessors put up before them.

I am not sure whether this would work or if it is actually a good idea - it just popped up to me :)

[Mikael99]

Originally Posted by Namrezy

My question would be what is there to gain by increasing the number of teams? Are there that many worthy of being in the top group? IMO, the answer is no. If you could show that having a team in the top grouping for a tournament would promote hockey growth in that country, then I would be much more willing to consider it. But realistically, losing 9-0 in your games probably does not help your hockey development much.

Rather what I would like to see is the promotion tournament (U 20 Div I A & BI) being held prior to the Main World Junior event. What happens each year is that the team who win their place by finishing top in Div I A & B the year prior, lose many of their players due to age restrictions. So rather then being a strong team, they are weaker with younger players who did not play the year prior. Allow the team (s) that won the tournament, the ability to continue on and later that year, play in the World Juniors. It would make for a better team and a better tournament IMO.

I disagree with the notion that it is worthless for the team that looses 9-0 to be a part of the tournement.
Look at Denmark, they're a great exsample of a country who have greatly benefitted from being in the A-Pool the last 5 years and now also appear in the junior world championships.

This have greatly benefitted the local interest in Denmark, making the local leage more attractive to foreign players. Furthermore it has opened up some eyes amongst the scouts and given a lot of young danish players the chance to get into NHL and into SEL also.

People might think that this is the first time we have theese huge talents, but in reality it is not. I believe we have had atleast 5-10 players during the 1990'ties who had the skilllevel to get drafted in the first 3 rounds, but unfortunately due to the fact that they where from the excotic hockeycountry of Denmark many of them where not even drafted.
Even with Jannik Hansen it was a struggle was he a 9'th rounder?

[Tobias]

Originally Posted by Mikael99

Look at Denmark, they're a great exsample of a country who have greatly benefitted from being in the A-Pool the last 5 years and now also appear in the junior world championships.

The fact that the senior team has played 5 years in the a-pool has nothing to do with the junior team's succes. That being said, i agree that we still get something from those blowout games.

People might think that this is the first time we have theese huge talents, but in reality it is not. I believe we have had atleast 5-10 players during the 1990'ties who had the skilllevel to get drafted in the first 3 rounds, but unfortunately due to the fact that they where from the excotic hockeycountry of Denmark many of them where not even drafted.
Even with Jannik Hansen it was a struggle was he a 9'th rounder?

IMO we certainly havn't had 5-10 players with top 3 round potential during the 90ties. Who are you thinking of? We have Kim Staal and Morten Green, both could maybe have gone in the top 3 rounds.

[Steigs]

I would have to agree that having a men's team play constantly in the top levels of iternational hockey might not have a direct impact on the junior teams (or even the senior team, though they HAVE gotten better over time), but the indirect impact of giving greater exposure to Danish hockey (both at home and abroad i.e. scouts) would indeed bring richer sponsors and more fans, which in turn means more money more development etc etc.
So yes, keeping the expansion is definitely one of the better ways to help develop those nations who are just on the cusp (others might be Hungary, Slovenia or Norway. Even Ireland, at a lower level, has gotten quite a boost from its promotion to DivII back in April) of making that next leap.

[Mikael99]

Originally Posted by Butcher

IMO we certainly havn't had 5-10 players with top 3 round potential during the 90ties. Who are you thinking of? We have Kim Staal and Morten Green, both could maybe have gone in the top 3 rounds.

Might not be all of theese guys below who would hit the first 3 rounds, but i am pretty sure that had danish icehockey talents had the same positive reflection amongst scouts as they do right now, some of theese guys would also have ventured to north america and most of them would have gotten drafted.

Morten Green, Kim Staal, Jesper Damgaard, Lasse Degn, Kasper Degn, Kasper Degn, Ronny Larsen, Daniel Nielsen, Peter Hirsch.

If they would have made it into the NHL is another case, but i do think Kim Staal, Jesper Damgaard, Green and perhabs one of the Degns could have had a shot at it.

[Namrezy]

Originally Posted by Mikael99

I disagree with the notion that it is worthless for the team that looses 9-0 to be a part of the tournement.
Look at Denmark, they're a great exsample of a country who have greatly benefitted from being in the A-Pool the last 5 years and now also appear in the junior world championships.

This have greatly benefitted the local interest in Denmark, making the local leage more attractive to foreign players. Furthermore it has opened up some eyes amongst the scouts and given a lot of young danish players the chance to get into NHL and into SEL also.

People might think that this is the first time we have theese huge talents, but in reality it is not. I believe we have had atleast 5-10 players during the 1990'ties who had the skilllevel to get drafted in the first 3 rounds, but unfortunately due to the fact that they where from the excotic hockeycountry of Denmark many of them where not even drafted.
Even with Jannik Hansen it was a struggle was he a 9'th rounder?

I don't think a player needs to play in the top tournament right now to be noticed. while I would admit that the '90's was a different story (although I am not sure what 5-10 players you mention as well).

I think the factor that people forget is that these tournaments do have to make money. And like it or not, unless it is the home country of that team, how many fans want to see a 9-0 game? I favour an improved and more competitive top tournament. Not just to add teams to a tournament to increase notoriety of the sport within that particular country at the potential detriment of others. IMO, increasing the sport popularity within a country is the job of that country's ice hockey federation.

Now using Denmark as an example, you are saying that losing each year is better then say playing in that tournament every second year with a more competitive team and maybe even winning some games?

I doubt they'll do what I suggest, but just my opinion that I would rather go with this way just as you'd rather have the other way.

[Hollywood]

I too have wondered about the developmental aspect of this tournament. The players from the weaker countries often play in senior leagues at least of the same calibre of the WJC. That's where they develop, for the most part.

The Canadian players develop loads more in the regular season. The WJC is more of a proving ground than a developmental ground.

[Tobias]

The idea is to make progress as a hockey nation. Being in the a pool is not just a question of the games we play at the level. E.g. the domestic Danish league has become even more professional, and now has 45 regular season games instead of 36. I think that one of the major reasons is to keep up with the other nations, and be prepared for a though schedule at the IHWC. Another reason is to give our talents more icetime, which is also important at such tournaments.

But still we are also improving our game in the a pool. Being much more focussed on not making mistakes that was okay in the b pool. Refine your game.
It's also a question of putting the bar higher, have ambitions. If you really want to improve, you have to play against the top teams sometime, you don't just promote whren you are good enough and then win against the Big 7 nations.

Furthermore we are improving our results against those nations. Just look at last year. Taking the lead against Sweden, and playing a very close game. We lost the game 5-2, but the game was a lot closer than those numbers indicate.

[RexKramer]

Same song again from me:

I think Denmark has not improved by being in the A pool for 5 years now. It's much more the other way round, they are hanging on up there for this time because they have improved. And this improvement comes from other sources...

Think of Japan. They were given a free shot at IHWC for a long time and didn't improve at all...
Improvement of a national team is the consequence of the right investment in the hockey system of a country (rinks, coaches, top prospect development abroad etc...) imho.

[Hollywood]

Originally Posted by RexKramer

Same song again from me:

I think Denmark has not improved by being in the A pool for 5 years now. It's much more the other way round, they are hanging on up there for this time because they have improved. And this improvement comes from other sources...

Think of Japan. They were given a free shot at IHWC for a long time and didn't improve at all...
Improvement of a national team is the consequence of the right investment in the hockey system of a country (rinks, coaches, top prospect development abroad etc...) imho.

I agree.

It is not developmental. It is a proving ground.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by RexKramer

I think Denmark has not improved by being in the A pool for 5 years now. It's much more the other way round, they are hanging on up there for this time because they have improved. And this improvement comes from other sources...

I would completely agree with RexKramer in that the key driver for Denmark's continuing existence in the top flight is almost entirely down to the restructuring of Danish league hockey in the late 90s. National teams can never exist in isolation. At the very most, a hockey player will only spend around 6 weeks of the year with their national team. But, they spend the rest of the year with their club side. Therefore, it is always the league structure that will have the biggest impact on your national team's performance.

This is the bit that British hockey has failed to grasp over the past 15 years with catastrophic effect. Our British players are treated as 2nd class citizens in the league, and then we wonder why they can't score goals or play on special teams for the national side...

I also think, though, that anyone who says Denmark is getting something from their blow-out games isn't doing the Danish national teams justice. Yes, they have the occasional blow-out because they are inconsistent, but they are able to compete with the elite teams. Look at 2005; although they got beat 7-0 by Sweden, they also only got beat 2-1 by Finland. I'd suggest that they gained nothing from the Swedish game, but a lot from the Finnish game.

I also think that, with regards to the argument about expanding, you can't base the argument upon teams being blown out. We already have blow-outs at this level. And yet, those teams that get blown-out and relegated, don't blow-out the other Division 1 medallists the following year. Therefore, if you increase the size of the group, although you'll increase the number of blow-outs, you'll also increase the number of competitive games at the bottom of the group. And that might of even more value, because, if you do learn more from a competitive game than an uncompetitive game, all of these teams will be getting more games that they'll learn from.

Although I see the value in what Namrezy is trying to achieve, I still don't think it works. If you place the Division 1 worlds before the Elite worlds, you are giving the promoted teams a far better preparation than the elite teams. Therefore, I think the promoted teams would almost always stay up, but then get relegated the following year when the teams that they replaced become better prepared than they are. So, in effect, you've got the same problem, but just on a 12-month delay.

For me, the first big aim would be to get rid of the ridiculous Group A/Group B split in the lower divisions. It simply doesn't work. In this particular case, it means that 2 teams are getting kicked out of the elite group every year. If we had a single 6-team Division 1 with the top 3 teams from the current Groups A and B, then we'd only have 1-up/1-down. The team being promoted would have the same opportunities to stay up as they do now, but there would be more scope for longer stays in the elite group since there would only be one position that qualified for the drop.

After that, the IIHF should then be actively encouraging non-World Championship tournaments. It comes back to the earlier statement that national sides are not created in 1-week tournaments alone. There needs to be more serious tournaments for these teams all year long, and I personally don't think the IIHF come close to doing enough to promote national team sport outside of the Worlds and Olympics.

Graham.