As the 2016 World Cup winds down, we wondered: What should the next installment of the event look like? Should teams like North America and Europe be invited back? Or should the tournament be limited to teams representing one specific country? Should there again be a team of under-24 players? Our writers offered their thoughts and suggestions.
The kids played hockey that we'll never forget, and the old goats from Europe reminded us what a team-first concept can produce. But the World Cup of Hockey, in my mind, needs to return in 2020 with a traditional format.
Why? Because it isn't truly "best-on-best" unless countries have all their best players at their disposal. Team USA should have had access to Johnny Gaudreau, Jack Eichel, Brandon Saad and Auston Matthews. Hey, the Americans might have still lost, but at least they would have been able to pick from among all their best options. And Connor McDavid should have been on Team Canada (a scary thought, given how Canada has romped through this tournament).
The point is, "best-on-best'' was coined for the old Canada Cup tournaments because, unlike the Olympic hockey competitions of the time, the Canada Cup truly showcased the best NHLers from each country. So, I would suggest the top eight hockey countries return for 2020, with the last two spots to be determined in a European qualification tournament in the summer of 2019. And if the NHL doesn't participate in the 2018 Olympics in South Korea (plenty left to play out on that end either way), then it's even more imperative for the NHL and the NHL Players' Association to return with a traditional, country-only format so that there's a best-on-best event that truly crowns the best country in the world that year. -- Pierre LeBrun
This is a tough question for me, because my favorite part of this World Cup was watching Team North America play. The kids put in the two best games of the tournament, against Russia and Sweden, and yet I don't think they should be here again. For the World Cup to matter as much as it should, hockey needs to follow soccer's example. Every four years, it should stage a best-on-best tournament, featuring the eight highest-seeded countries in the world.
I like the size and duration of this tournament, except I'd make the final a single game to improve the chances of an upset. I'd have one city host the World Cup, but I'd move the event around among the competing countries from year to year and give it a more genuinely international flavor. Reserve the Olympics for the kids -- 23 and under, again, just like soccer. Then we get to see the game's brightest young stars every two years, and we're only asking for more from its horses every four. Two different tournaments, with two different feels. And with the World Cup being the most inclusive and meaningful of them all. -- Chris Jones
The two best stories in this World Cup were Team North America capturing the heart of hockey fans everywhere and Team Europe making a Cinderella run. I see that my colleagues are trying to euthanize both of them. They're just as heartless as I always suspected.
I'm not interested in bringing Germany or Slovakia back into the mix, only to get steamrolled by Canada. I loved the stories of the players on Team Europe who beat major powers during international play for the first time in their lives. I say let it continue.
My only changes would be to add a quarterfinal round so we don't see another scenario where the kids are sent home after going 2-1 and playing out of their minds. I'd give Team USA and Canada an exemption or two to grab a player off the North American team they might need, and I'd allow anybody who had previously played on North America to try out for their national team. If they make it, they're on. If not, they can return and give us Young Guns 2. -- Craig Custance
I'm a big believer in building the game of hockey at the grassroots level. The World Cup of Hockey concept had me intrigued from Day 1. While the creation of Team North America and Team Europe seemed like a gimmick at first, it actually was all about building the sport. It took Team Europe coach Ralph Krueger to make me realize that.
If, by some chance, there's a child in one of those European countries who falls in love with this great game and develops into a solid human being because of hockey -- even if he or she doesn't become a pro player -- then this tournament was a success. You don't have to reach the NHL to be considered a success story. A life in hockey, in any fashion, at any level, helps the game and society. There's a much bigger picture to the World Cup and Krueger is right.
Now, I also agree with many hockey people that a best-on-best tournament should be country versus country. The best-case scenario would be to compete at the Olympic level, but if the NHL could figure out a way to make the World Cup an exciting and successful event, I'm all for keeping it in the four-year loop. Yes, logistics are a challenge, as we've seen in 2016, but for the betterment of the game and the continued development of kids around the world, this event needs to continue. -- Joe McDonald
I must admit that I really wrestled with this whole proposition of what's next for the World Cup. The first edition of the tournament in 12 years was, in some ways, a perfect storm, with the dynamic -- some would even say inspirational -- play of Team North America, and the plucky determination of Team Europe in reaching the finals against powerhouse Canada.
Many folks, including some of my colleagues, want to do away with both teams. I think that would be a mistake. No international tournament has ever had the level of NHL participation that the 2016 World Cup of Hockey has. To willfully move away from that just to introduce teams that will play a less-inspiring brand of hockey -- and that is what a true, Olympic-style tournament will produce -- would be self-defeating.
To cover both ends of the argument, let's expand the field to 12 -- a la the Olympics -- with two spots reserved for Team North America, part deux, and Team Europe, which would be composed of players from nations that did not qualify in a qualifying tournament. No pretournament games would be played, to keep the length of the event manageable.
As for the location, that's even more difficult. The NHL has insisted that every ticket for every game in Toronto was sold. If you split a 12-team tournament between two cities, would fans bite? And can you find a place in North America or Europe to achieve this, so as to legitimately call it a World Cup? What about Toronto and Buffalo? Or Washington and Pittsburgh? It's a lot to ask, but especially if the Olympics become a nonfactor for the NHL moving forward, I can't imagine that cities in North America and abroad wouldn't be clamoring to have hockey's best visit for a couple of weeks in September. -- Scott Burnside