|
Post by Jazz on Apr 15, 2004 22:59:02 GMT -5
Here is a post I posted in IHWC.NET in response to someone asking about the Division stepup for all 40+ teams competing in the different pools. Let me know what (if anything) you think about it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ I personnally don't mind the system as it is for the "current elite" and the Division I Group A and Division I Group B (so in other words, the top 28 teams) - you will see that Div 1 is becoming more and more competitive in the past couple of years.
Where I have a problem is with Division II. It is split up along the same lines as Division I in the sense it is divided up horizontally, so that you get this set up:
Division II Group A--------Division II Group B 29................................30 32................................31 33................................34 36................................35 37................................38 40................................39 (the numbers here indicate rankings from previous year's)
The Competitive balance is out of whack here and the there is clear heirarchy - the Top 2 from the previous year will crush the bottom 2 and middle 2 have semi-competitive games. Here the results are way out there, with scores like 31-0 and shots like 68-7. I honestly don't see the point of anyone losing like that.
I would split Division II up vertically, so that the Top 6 remain together and the bottom six remain togehter, with 2 promoting/relegating like this:
Division II Group A 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 (the numbers here indicate rankings from previous year's)
Division II Group B 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
In this case, I'd swap 35 & 36 with 33 & 34 for the next year. And follow the regular rules whereby 29 & 30 will get promoted to Div I (to be replaced by the 2 being relegated from there) and 39 & 40 will relegate to Div III ( to be replaced by the 2 being promoted from Div III).
Any thoughts on this??
G.
|
|
Graham
Prospect
Sophomore
GBSC Webmaster
Posts: 148
|
Post by Graham on Apr 16, 2004 5:14:55 GMT -5
As I replied to you on IHWC.NET, I agree, but would also extend the change to Div 1. I don't see what benefit Belgium and Korea have in being in the same group as Belarus and Slovenia.
So, this year you would have had Belarus, Slovenia, Norway, Poland, Hungary and Italy in Div 1, with Netherlands, Estonia, Great Britain, Lithuania, Romania, South Korea and Belgium in Div 2. Two excellent divisions, and I think any team being promoted into either division could have a realistic chance of staying in it. Whereas, at present, we generally expect the teams promoted to Div 1 to be relegated after a year.
Graham.
|
|
|
Post by Jazz on Apr 19, 2004 18:11:29 GMT -5
Now to illustrate my point here: Due to the fact that in DivII, the teams at the top will litterally maul the ones at the bottom (scores like 14-2 with shots like 65-14), There is a clear heirarchy. Next year's Division II will split up like this: Group AS. Korea Serbia Australia Bulgaria New Zealand Luxembourg Group BBelgium Croatia N. Korea Spain Israel South Africa Again, here, you can almost bet today that only the top-2 teams in each group have a chance at promotion, the bottom 2 will in each group will fight to avoid relegation, and the 2 teams in the middle will have relatively competitve results. I say Division 2 should be split this way: Upper Group (Division II) S. Korea Belgium Serbia & Herc Croatia Australia N. Korea Lower Group (Division II) Bulgaria Spain New Zealand Israel Luxembourg S. Africa Here the divisions will be much more competitive within each other. Promotion will work like this: - 2 teams swapping from Div I (as it is now) with 2 from Upper DivII
- 2 teams swapping from Upper DivII to Lower DivII
- 2 teams swapping from lower DivII to DivIII.
Any thoughts on this? G.
|
|
|
Post by DanCan on Apr 20, 2004 5:43:11 GMT -5
Sounds good to me, G. I would, however, like to see Iceland and Mexico in Div II next year instead of Luxembourg and South Africa.
|
|
|
Post by Jazz on Apr 20, 2004 21:06:07 GMT -5
Ah yes, you are correct.... I neglected to replace Luxembourg and South Africa - 2 teams relegating from Div II to Div III with Iceland and Mexico, the 2 promoting in the other direction..... I am ashamed.....
|
|
|
Post by Jazz on May 11, 2004 23:30:26 GMT -5
Take a look at Lithuania's results in the past 4 years: - 2001:
Finished last in DivI. Record of 0 Wins, 5 Losses, 0 Ties. Goal differencial: -26, relegated to DivII
- 2002:
Finished 1st in DivII. Record of 5 Wins, 0 Losses, 0 Ties. Goal differencial: +65, promoted to DivI
- 2003:
Finished last in DivI. Record of 0 Wins, 4 Losses, 1 Tie. Goal differencial: -23, relegated to DivII
- 2004:
Finished 1st in DivII. Record of 5 Wins, 0 Losses, 0 Ties. Goal differencial: +63, Promoted to DivI
|
|
|
Post by doogster on May 12, 2004 0:54:19 GMT -5
How about this format? I put this together based on the IIHF 2004 National Team Final Positions:
Pool A #1-16 Canada Sweden United States Slovakia Czech Republic Finland Latvia Switzerland Germany Russia Austria Denmark Kazakhstan Ukraine Japan France
Pool B #17-26 Slovenia Belarus Italy Norway Poland The Netherlands Estonia Hungary Great Britain Romania
Pool C #27-34 South Korea Belgium Lithuania China Serbia Croatia Australia North Korea
Pool D #35-40 Spain Bulgaria New Zealand Israel Luxeumbourg South Africa
Pool E #41-45 Iceland Turkey Mexico Ireland Armenia
The two countries that finish the lowest in their Pool each year would be relegated down a Pool for the following year.
|
|
|
Post by Jazz on May 12, 2004 1:27:19 GMT -5
Hmmm..
Couple of thoughts:
Do you think they (the IIHF) will be keen on going to 5 Levels?
You've got 10 teams in Pool B and 8 teams in Pool C. Are you proposing going back to an 8 team round-robin for C and introducing a 10 team round-robin for B?
|
|
Graham
Prospect
Sophomore
GBSC Webmaster
Posts: 148
|
Post by Graham on May 12, 2004 3:41:56 GMT -5
I assume Japan and France should be in Pool B and Slovenia and Belarus in Pool A?
Otherwise, it looks a lot better to me. Groups would have genuine competition at both the top and bottom of the groups. The only bit I don't agree with is the number of teams you are promoting/relegating. I think 2 between Pool A and Pool B is fine. But I don't think the groups below Pool B are large enough to allow 4 teams to be changing each year. I'd stick to 1 team from Pool B relegation down.
Graham.
|
|
|
Post by TampaLightning on May 12, 2004 7:59:27 GMT -5
These might be better so teams are not so overmatched (more pools, I mean).
Those Lithuania numbers tell the whole story. Nobody learns much from playing those much worse or much better than them.
|
|
|
Post by Lukasz on May 12, 2004 8:07:59 GMT -5
For my this Pool B is much more interesting that present groups. I think that 2 last teams should be relegate to Pool C, and I have two reasons. First is that team which will be 9 don’t deserve to play in next year because probably they will have only one victory or even only one draw. Second argument is that teams from Pool C, will have more motivation to play when they see wide open door. 10 teams in Pool B is necessary, in this year Poland lost first match with Slovenia and all fans knew that they don’t have chance to promotion after ONE match!
|
|
|
Post by doogster on May 12, 2004 9:17:05 GMT -5
Well ... You may notice the pattern in the number of teams in each Pool.
I like how I set it up. I think the games would be better and the matchups more even. There would definately be less "double digit" scores.
|
|
|
Post by TampaLightning on May 12, 2004 9:17:52 GMT -5
Correct, doogster. And there have been some very ugly scores over the years!!
|
|
|
Post by Jazz on Jul 29, 2004 3:24:08 GMT -5
*bump* In case any of our newer members had any thoughts on this
|
|
pyr
Prospect
Sophomore
Posts: 259
|
Post by pyr on Jul 29, 2004 3:49:40 GMT -5
Hmmm, this idea really has a point...but as you can see by different numbers in each Doogster´s pool, it´s hard to create a pool without a dominating or super weak team. But definitelly a good idea
|
|