The World Cup of Hockey is going to be good. Great, actually. We know that after the first three pre-tournament games.

It's hockey in September featuring the best players in the world; if you're complaining about that, you should stop and try to enjoy your life.

But the tournament could have been even better - it could have truly stood out. Here are three reasons why the World Cup should have been played four-on-four.

A tournament like no other

The main criticism of the World Cup is that it's not the Olympics, instead operating as an NHL cash grab - if you haven't looked at ticket prices, don't.

While those concerns are valid, and while the World Cup trophy is an abomination, it's clear after three exhibition games that we're in store for high-level hockey. And that's all that matters.

Organizers took a creative step by adding select teams to the tournament. Europeans from outside the power-hockey countries get a chance to play against hockey's elite, while an Under-23 squad comprised of North American players may be the most exciting team when games start to count on Sept. 17. But playing the tournament at four-on-four would have truly made the World Cup extraordinary.

The NHL and NHLPA could have trumpeted a unique tournament with the world's best playing a format unlike any before, standing out from the Stanley Cup Playoffs, the Olympics, and the World Championship.

Not playing four-on-four is a missed opportunity. There's no other way to put it.

Real estate

The World Cup will be played in Toronto, on NHL ice. Now, imagine the world's best hockey players facing each other at the highest level - All-Star teams, essentially - playing four-on-four. Think about all the room the game's most creative players would have to put on a show. Another missed opportunity.

International ice isn't coming to North America - it takes seats out of arenas, and money out of owners' and players' pockets. But the reality is players are too big and too fast for the smaller ice surface, a major reason that scoring is down. So if going to bigger ice is a non-starter, do the next best thing: go from 10 skaters to eight.

Sit back and think about Canada and the U.S. playing a 60-minute game at four-on-four. Even better: Think about a best-of-three World Cup final between those rivals at four-on-four. The NHL wants the World Cup to promote hockey. Well, it wouldn't get much better than that.

You watched North America's speed show Thursday night, dummying Europe 4-0 in Quebec City. Imagine what that team could do at four-on-four.

Goals

When fewer guys are on the ice, more goals are scored. It's math. Science. Both. And when the best players are pitted against one another; when rivals become teammates; when Steven Stamkos, John Tavares, and Ryan Getzlaf are on a line together; and when Joe Pavelski is flanked by Patrick Kane and Max Pacioretty, it's offense we're looking for.

Yeah, Russian 'tender Sergei Bobrovsky made a stupendous pad save Thursday against the Czech Republic with the friendly on the line, but that'll happen at four-on-four, too, because today's goaltenders are too big, and too good. They have, for all intents and purposes, mastered their position.

A World Cup played at four-on-four would have put the game's best feet forward: Speed, skill, offense, and, in the end, wildly entertaining hockey.

The tournament will be a success, there's no doubt. And that's great for the sport. But what could have been ...

Copyright © 2016 Score Media Ventures Inc. All rights reserved. Certain content reproduced under license.