The merits of widening the NHL rink.

[Hanji]

Why not? Let the teams decide which size they want, aka MLB. It would allow for great diversity of the league.
Then again, diversity appears to be the antithesis of the NHL agenda. Our league is so darn conservative it’s ridiculous .

 

[CartographerNo611]

Would be fine with rinks being different sizes . Obv can't change them all at the same time without a bunch of teams losing money but it would be an interesting home ice advantage.

Can't expect every rink to lose its first two rows of most expensive seats tho
Plus you would have to modify all the junior and ahl rinks.

Isn’t Tampa’s farm team, Crunk, playing on a rink 25 feet shorter than an NHL rink?

 

[Garbageyuk]

No.

 

[Bounces R Way]

Thread from the dead . To be clear I was saying widen the rinks ~5 feet rather than the 15 that Olympic size are. 200 x 90 rather than 200 x 85, not the 200 x 100 that international ice is.

Nothing I've seen this season has changed my mind, increased scoring and all.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

You lose the last rows, not the first.

It's not just that. Yeah, the 3rd row becomes the 1st and on paper you "only lose" the back couple rows. In reality, you've just changed the sightlines for every seat in the lower bowl along the sides - some to the point that the view of play along the near side is now obscured to some degree. That damages the value of those seats. The upper bowl is also affected, but not as badly - but that's not where the big dollars are for seats.

Not to mention, existing infrastructure in arenas that covers the ice surface creation and maintenance would have to be revamped to handle any extra width. That isn't cheap either.

The "rip a few rows out, make the ice wider" idea sounds so simple, though - and it is, and it's easy to imagine all the oft-touted benefits. When you run into reality, though, the obstacles are huge and the benefits are nearly nil [other than probably reducing hitting]. This idea has been mentioned several times in the past, and I have yet to see anyone come up with even a semi-feasible solution to the sightline issue that would be cheaper than building a new arena.

And no, there will not be a rash of new arenas getting built solely for this.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

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.

This is an often overlooked point. People love to talk about the virtues of bigger ice by referencing "best against best." They don't consider that when it's a pair of largely mediocre teams, you won't see nearly all that skill getting flashed because it isn't there. You're still going to see guys running into each other, you'll still see guys running out of room and making mistakes, and all the other stuff that supposedly a wider rink is supposed to fix.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Widening rinks may or may not have those effects and would be expensive and difficult to implement. Removing offside infractions (aka, no more bluelines) definitely would have the desired effect though, and is super easy to accomplish. Why not argue for that instead?

I have argued for years that once the offensive zone is gained, the offensive zone should extend back to the red line and the puck should have to get cleared back over the red line to clear the zone. Alternatively, once the offense zone is gained the defense must get the puck over the blue line to clear the zone; any offensive action that causes the puck to come back over the blue line and into the neutral zone is ignored. [If the puck goes over the red line as a result of action by the offense, then the zone is considered to be cleared.]

It would be easy to implement, easier to call, and result in more sustained offensives pressure [and over time, more goals] while forcing defenses to take an active role in clearing the zone and not simply be beneficiaries of an offensive miscue around the blue line that causes the entire offensive unit to have to clear and reset an entry.

 

[EightyOne]

Why not? Let the teams decide which size they want, aka MLB. It would allow for great diversity of the league.
Then again, diversity appears to be the antithesis of the NHL agenda. Our league is so darn conservative it’s ridiculous .

While I agree diversity in the game is lacking, f***ing with rink size is so far off-base of what problems the NHL has that I can't take your bitching seriously.

Are you equating robotic interviews and a high cost/cultural barrier to entry, for players or fans, for underrepresented groups is equal to a standardized rink size???? Lol.

 

[SwaggySpungo]

Would be fine with rinks being different sizes . Obv can't change them all at the same time without a bunch of teams losing money but it would be an interesting home ice advantage.

Can't expect every rink to lose its first two rows of most expensive seats tho
Plus you would have to modify all the junior and ahl rinks.

You don’t need to modify any junior or AHL rinks. Whenever a new rink is built, you just build it to the new specification (100 x 90). Easy. Same for the NHL. You just widen the surface if new buildings only, and leave the old buildings alone - unless an owner wants to rip up the existing ice surface to widen it).

 

[SwaggySpungo]

It's not just that. Yeah, the 3rd row becomes the 1st and on paper you "only lose" the back couple rows. In reality, you've just changed the sightlines for every seat in the lower bowl along the sides - some to the point that the view of play along the near side is now obscured to some degree. That damages the value of those seats. The upper bowl is also affected, but not as badly - but that's not where the big dollars are for seats.

Not to mention, existing infrastructure in arenas that covers the ice surface creation and maintenance would have to be revamped to handle any extra width. That isn't cheap either.

The "rip a few rows out, make the ice wider" idea sounds so simple, though - and it is, and it's easy to imagine all the oft-touted benefits. When you run into reality, though, the obstacles are huge and the benefits are nearly nil [other than probably reducing hitting]. This idea has been mentioned several times in the past, and I have yet to see anyone come up with even a semi-feasible solution to the sightline issue that would be cheaper than building a new arena.

And no, there will not be a rash of new arenas getting built solely for this.

There absolutely will be a “rash of new arenas” regardless of the NHL guidelines for the size of the ice surface. We are pushing 30 years since the last building boom in the NHL. There’s probably going to be at least 1 new arena built every few years. Currently, there are 4 teams that plan to build new arenas in the near future. Edmonton, Detroit and the Rangers were all lost opportunities within the past 2 years.

If you’ve decided you want a 200 x 90 ice surface, it’s better to start implementing it immediately. You don’t just wait around with your thumb stuck inside your rear end while the next batch of buildings are completed. You do it now so that every new building has the new spec. This couldn’t be simpler. The NHL is a dumb league run by very dumb people, so it won’t ever happen.

 

[sandysan]

Would this increase scoring and make the games more entertaining though? Not necessarily.

If you like more perimeter play and less physicality, it might be orgasmic.

Thanks, but no.

 

[sandysan]

I think in soccer teams are allowed to have their own dimensions for their field as long as it's within a specific range. Hockey should allowateams to make their rinks different sizes within a small range too.
New arenas that are built can be constructed with the bigger ice planned, yet old arenas wouldn't have to make awkward adjustments that take out seats and thus reduce revenue. It would also give different teams a different style of play at home around the league. I think most fans would agree that the NHL could use a better variety of styles

Less physicality, gain the zone pass, pass pass pass, reverse, passn pass pass reverse passs pass shot?

Be still my beating heart!

Maybe we can get teams to abandon the puck and sheet and swap in a ball and grass. That IS what you are hoping for, right?

 

[Atas2000]

widening the rink is guaranteed to make the game slower and much more boring.

-all widening the rink does is force the action further away from the high price areas (slot, dots and crease)
-pushes the offense out wide.
-encourages the defense to pack the middle even more to block shots.
-and removes nearly all physical play from the game. There are no checks because of the above strategies. Its simply a snooze fest of 2 teams taking turns playing keep away before firing a shot into a crowd.

aka how basically every international game on big ice goes.

1.You obviously have no idea about international play.

2.What happens in those high-price areas on the small rink? Bouncing pucks, endless shots from every position without putting any thought into it, basically not a hockey game. Not what I want to see.

3.Maybe the forwards should learn to play more then the typical get it to the net game which results in the above.

4.How is widening the rink encouraging the D to collapse? You contradict yourself. Blocking shots is way more of a small rink thing. The defencemen would have to be more mobile and put up more mileage per game.

5.The NHL has taken the physicality out of the game already. An average KHL regular season game has more physicality than the average NHL regular season game players walking along the boards unharmed all the time. Maybe the playoffs will be a bit different. I hope it, but I haven't seen the NHL I enjoyed watching for a long time now. Physicality is not attribute to rink size necessarily. Obviously defencemen have to be aware on the wider rink that after finishing a check at the boards they are 10-15 feet further away from the crease, but I always admire how the same people claim the big rink game being an endless corners/boards battle(i.e. boring in their eyes) and go on to attest the big rink game no physicality. If you want physicality, just allow it to happen.

I for my part would prefer a rink size somewhere between the NHL one and the IIIHF 30m. The NHL rink is just a mad tube.

 

[Alex K]

Just give skilled players more space! Less grind, more dangles!

 

[hangman005]

This did not need a necro bump.

Closed.