The merits of widening the NHL rink.

[Bones Malone]

How do you figure? They can't just peel off the roof and raise the stands to make more room for the rink.

Given that half the buildings in the league are under 20 years old, the only way to make this a leaguewide standard would be to take out the removable rows by the glass. Otherwise we'd be talking about changing things 1 arena at a time, over a term of like 30-50 years.

The discussion was about losing the big dollar front row seats. If you widen the rink, your third row becomes your first row assuming you take out 2 rows of seating. So you don't lose anything in that regard. What you lose out on is the last rows of seating in the lower bowl.

 

[tarheelhockey]

The discussion was about losing the big dollar front row seats. If you widen the rink, your third row becomes your first row assuming you take out 2 rows of seating. So you don't lose anything in that regard. What you lose out on is the last rows of seating in the lower bowl.

Oh, I thought you meant physically removing the last rows

 

[LeafGrief]

Don't change the ice, don't change the nets. Make the goalie equipment smaller if you have to.

 

[TheNumber4]

Watching international ice best on best tournaments you really do see players with more time and ice to make plays. Skill shines through when players aren't constantly running into each other with no room to make plays. I'm in favor of larger ice, I think the game improves because of it.

Although I don't think it'll ever happen because of the costs of retrofitting all the arenas.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

For those using international ice as reasons why it wouldn't work, that's not the increase the OP and article are talking about.

Burke has no appetite for the larger international ice surface measuring 200 feet long and 100 feet wide, 15 feet wider than the NHL standard of 200 x 85.
Too big, he said.
He's not even convinced the so-called international hybrid (92 to 94 feet wide) used in some rinks in Finland is necessarily the way to go.
"Ninety feet," Burke said. "An extra five feet on the width, that's it. I believe it would make a big difference in the quality of hockey."

So Burke is suggesting adding 5 feet of width. No one really knows what impact that could have on NHL hockey but I'd love to see it tested.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

Never happen.

There is no way the owners/players will eliminate some of the most expensive seats.

They'd be losing a tier of the cheapest seats and actually increasing the number of the most expensive seats, because the perimeter of the rink would be larger and could accommodate more seats.

 

[ThePhoenixx]

So the lower bowl is just going to grow?

 

[Windy River]

All the talk of goalie equipment and bigger nets etc I think misses the point. It's about the game play not just the scoring.

I like the idea of slightly bigger rinks - or alternately the same rinks and change to 4vs4

 

[Tofveve]

Scoring could be increased by even just several incremental changes to the sizes of the rink, goal-posts, width of lines etc. And all of this could pass under politically correct wording so it doesn't seem like the game is being tampered with. Modernization (just like equipment has been modernized).

Goal scoring needs to be increased slightly plain and simple.

 

[Tofveve]

BTW, I'm meaning like 6 inches to each side of the rink. The goal post diameter decreased by half an inch on three sides. Etc. Small changes that will add up.

 

[Newsworthy]

I agree with original poster that slightly wider rinks will equal more exciting hockey.

 

[CanadianPensFan1]

I do think giving the players a bit more room would be good. I think it woild cut down on injuries. Maybe another 7 to 10 feet wide. Add a few feet long to compensate.

I don't see the big deal with different rinks being different sizes (until they all get done). I get that baseball is different but a lot of fields are different... Green monster much? eventually it would all even out.

I don't think going full euro size is a good idea.

 

[member 297479]

I believe it would significantly reduce dump-and-chase schemes and allow for more offensive creativity. Zone entries would be more pleasurable to watch. I went to my first live NHL game last year, and my jaw dropped when I saw how big these the guys are from just behind the bench. Imagine the various plays if McDavid had a little bit more space to skate and look for openings, or Laine had a second more to release a shot. The OP makes a good argument. Like others have alluded to - the game and players has gotten faster, bigger, more physical. In the meantime, rink size hasn't grown to reflect that. Eventually it probably will happen but revenue is a more acute short-term consideration.

 

[paragon]

Everyone who loves 3vs3 should be in favor of increasing the rink size.

 

[member 297479]

I do think giving the players a bit more room would be good. I think it woild cut down on injuries. Maybe another 7 to 10 feet wide. Add a few feet long to compensate.

I don't see the big deal with different rinks being different sizes (until they all get done). I get that baseball is different but a lot of fields are different... Green monster much? eventually it would all even out.

I don't think going full euro size is a good idea.

What is full euro size?

 

[blueberrie]

The only places you can't score from are on the boards and in the neutral zone.

Slightly larger ice gives players an extra half second to get the puck off the boards and zone entries are easier.

I'm for it, make the switch when 10-15 teams can and grandfather the rest of the new arenas in.

 

[tsujimoto74]

How do you figure? They can't just peel off the roof and raise the stands to make more room for the rink.

Given that half the buildings in the league are under 20 years old, the only way to make this a leaguewide standard would be to take out the removable rows by the glass. Otherwise we'd be talking about changing things 1 arena at a time, over a term of like 30-50 years.

Because whatever row is now next to the glass is your 1st row, and you adjust the prices accordingly. Functionally, it's like you lose the last 2 rows of seating in the lower bowl.

 

[bouncesonly]

TLDR. But, if you think back to the 2014 Olympics, played on European sized ice, the games were rather boring. We were told this would be the case by those familiar with the game. It's too easy to defend the wide ice.

Now, I am for widening the ice but only to 90 feet . (up from 85).

But, where offense usually goes to die is the neutral zone. Defending teams clog it up and attacking teams aren't able to generate speed to launch an attack/gain the zone.

With that in mind I also propose that 10 feet be added to the neutral zone by extending the rink 10 feet as well.

So, instead of 200 x 85 it would be 210 x 90.

You actually don't need to change the rink size at all. Just widen the blue line towards the net more. That'll increase the neutral zone while maintaining the current attack/defensive zone.

 

[Chimpradamus]

It won't happen, ever. More seats and income is more important than to stop playing hockey in the same bathtub as 100 years ago. Improved game quality has nothing to do with it, fans still keep going as lemmings, so why improve the game?

 

[Not Sure]

I wish they allowed variations in the rink size within certain constraints. It would bring back home ice advantages, allowing variation that teams could take advantage of. Slight differences in end boards allowing for different bounces, larger ice surfaces for fast skilled teams, smaller rinks for grinding physical teams, maybe even allow differences in blue line placement or glass height like baseball has different wall distances/heights.

 

[hansomreiste]

I'm a big fan of Swedish & Russian hockey and I never wanted them to have NHL-sized rinks. For the same reason, I don't want NHL to have European-sized rinks. All rinks are beautiful. Personally, I really love the leagues/styles as they are now. NHL for fast-paced, bumper car hockey and Europe for a more tactical and build-up based play. All good in their place.

 

[Seanaconda]

They'd be losing a tier of the cheapest seats and actually increasing the number of the most expensive seats, because the perimeter of the rink would be larger and could accommodate more seats.

Not really unless they make the stadium bigger they would have less seats if they just made the rinks bigger as is. You can call them your cheapest seats if you want but most arenas use all the space they have

 

[jetsv2]

What if you made the rink an egg shape, where it is wider in the neutral zone and roughly the same as current width in each teams ends. It would open up more space in the neutral zone for speedy players to come up ice without the other team clogging it up. You would obviously have to do it over time as new buildings were built, but I think it would be an interesting idea to try.

 

[Stephen]

If Brian Burke is endorsing an idea about tweaking the game, it's probably not a great idea. Creating more peripheral ice surface just means teams can clog up the center and push everything out to useless cycling along the boards once you realize you can force a guy to drive wide and then you don't let them back in.

 

[Stephen]

What if you made the rink an egg shape, where it is wider in the neutral zone and roughly the same as current width in each teams ends. It would open up more space in the neutral zone for speedy players to come up ice without the other team clogging it up. You would obviously have to do it over time as new buildings were built, but I think it would be an interesting idea to try.

That would be very interesting, if the rink naturally funneled the play closer to the net as you approach it.