TSN: Changing the ice surface size

[ap3lovr]

TSN as an article up about changing the surface of the ice -
http://www.tsn.ca/burke-on-a-mission-to-increase-size-of-nhl-ice-surfaces-1.425938

I have had this conversation before with a few friends, and was looking for a broader opinion. One of the great things about baseball are the fields themselves. Some lend themselves to the long ball, others to line drive hitters. Teams are sometimes built with their home stadium in mind. So why not allow some freedom with the size of the ice surface for NHL teams. The league can set the parameters saying a certain width and length minimum and maximum, and allow the teams themselves to work it out. It would certainly play more to home ice advantage if you had distinct size differences, it would also put a lot more emphasis to coaching changes between rinks.

Click to read more...

 

[Bruinswillwin77]

Sounds interesting, What size rink do you think the Bruins would benefit greater from? Smaller?

 

[ap3lovr]

Sounds interesting, What size rink do you think the Bruins would benefit greater from? Smaller?

I would think a smaller ice surface would allow for more grinding and hitting. I could see them maybe going with a 205ft in length surface. to give a bit of extra space behind the net to grind it out.

 

[Ratty]

I'd favor a wider, European style rink, to take advantage of the faster stronger skaters and playmakers that seem to be the trend nowadays in the NHL. Also, with the increasing number of European players coming into the league, it would play to their strengths.

 

[ChargersRookie]

Bigger but maintain the proportion.

Spooner would benefit more though, if the ice was just made wider.

 

[Fenway]

No way does the NHL go to a wider surface as it would mean removal of some high price seats.

 

[Ratty]

Bigger but maintain the proportion.

Spooner would benefit more though, if the ice was just made wider.

It would also line up with Krug, Pasternak and, eventually Senyshyn's skill levels.

The biggest obstacle I see is getting the owners to give up a row or two of high priced seats.

 

[ap3lovr]

No way does the NHL go to a wider surface as it would mean removal of some high price seats.

This is why I would say make it optional. Ice surface must be within a certain margin. It can be as big as an international surface, or as small as the current one, or any variety in between. Most rinks won`t make any changes, but as new ones are built, they will certainly start to change and in 30 years we could have 20 different ice surfaces in the league. Gives coaches and players a new angle to play with.

 

[Ratty]

This is why I would say make it optional. Ice surface must be within a certain margin. It can be as big as an international surface, or as small as the current one, or any variety in between. Most rinks won`t make any changes, but as new ones are built, they will certainly start to change and in 30 years we could have 20 different ice surfaces in the league. Gives coaches and players a new angle to play with.

That would be very difficult to manage. Imagine football, for example making a 110 yard field at a different stadium. Baseball is different. Teams play in parks of different dimensions, but they're in a city for three or four games in a series and can acclimate easier.

I see it as a nightmare for a coach to play in a rink of one dimension and, the next night, play in a wider or smaller one. Expansion, yes. But keep the surface consistent for all venues like in football, basketball, soccer, etc.

 

[talkinaway]

I don't like the euro style ice. It gives players too much room and freedom - I kind of like to see the logjams and the battles along the boards. Seeing long passes made or stolen doesn't strike me as quite as "beautiful" as a hard-fought puck battle

That said, I'm sure everyone appreciates different styles. Not sure which style is better for the current Bruins, but it would be short-sighted (if it were allowed) to construct a rink specifically for this year's team. I imagine it'd be hard to add/subtract feet from a rink...although I could be wrong.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

This seems to come up every one or two years and I really don't get it.

This myth about it creating a more offensive game is complete ********. It certainly doesn't do that in Europe. All it does is make it take longer to get from one end of the rink to the other. That's not entertaining.

We already have this in the NCAA with some teams having Olympic sized ice. It doesn't elevate the game to some other level like proponents want you to believe.

I don't see how it's better and I definitely don't see how it could ever be worth the trouble.

 

[Aeroforce]

This seems to come up every one or two years and I really don't get it.

This myth about it creating a more offensive game is complete ********. It certainly doesn't do that in Europe. All it does is make it take longer to get from one end of the rink to the other. That's not entertaining.

We already have this in the NCAA with some teams having Olympic sized ice. It doesn't elevate the game to some other level like proponents want you to believe.

I don't see how it's better and I definitely don't see how it could ever be worth the trouble.

I agree completely. The last Olympics were proof enough for me.

 

[dafoomie]

If teams can make their ice bigger they should be able to make it smaller, like going back to the Garden ice dimensions in Boston. Jacobs could squeeze in 1 extra row on either side and an extra two on each end.

 

[Fenway]

If teams can make their ice bigger they should be able to make it smaller, like going back to the Garden ice dimensions in Boston. Jacobs could squeeze in 1 extra row on either side and an extra two on each end.

Best idea I have seen today


Jacobs is a paradox at times. Only 2 NHL teams still give the figurehead goal judges their traditional seat in the first row behind the goal and the Bruins are one of them. ( the other is Florida ) All other teams have moved the goal judge to the press box or somewhere else in the arena. Unlike years ago the judges can not flick the red light on by themselves, they must wait for the referee to point.

 

[Odie]

I personally hate the wider ice.

 

[Cirris]

No way does the NHL go to a wider surface as it would mean removal of some high price seats.

over-rated argument. The 2nd row simply becomes the new first row, and up the line until there's one less row.

 

[bob27]

I see it as a nightmare for a coach to play in a rink of one dimension and, the next night, play in a wider or smaller one. Expansion, yes. But keep the surface consistent for all venues like in football, basketball, soccer, etc.

Soccer pitches generally have quite a bit of variance, even at highest levels. It does not change the game much, but gives interesting character to playing in certain places.

 

[Ratty]

Soccer pitches generally have quite a bit of variance, even at highest levels. It does not change the game much, but gives interesting character to playing in certain places.

OK, scratch soccer from that list. Add lacrosse.

 

[Lobster57]

i like the idea of allowing the ice to be within certain sizes, the narrow Boston Garden, the short Aud in Buffalo. Even having the corners be different radii would be nifty

 

[Odie]

over-rated argument. The 2nd row simply becomes the new first row, and up the line until there's one less row.

That would cost them roughly $2 million in ticket revenue every year, and around 300 people who aren't in the building spending their money on food, drinks, etc...

 

[Ogrim]

Me and my father was having a conversation about rink-size the other day. We pretty much agreed that most euro rinks are too damn wide and the game would benefit from being tighter.
The grass is always greener, eh?

 

[ClassicB]

Leave the game (rink) alone. They've screwed with the game enough over the years.

 

[BruinDust]

They should just do what Scotty Bowman has suggested a few times and move the blue-lines back in to where they used to be pre-lockout 2005.

It would open up the neutral zone a bit ny making it larger, and reduce the slot-collapsing shot-blocking defense schemes used by most NHL teams. D-men who are now standing on a blue-line that is closer to the net, become a bigger threat from the point, which should in theory force the wingers to cover their point-men like the old days. Now you should have two less defenders in the slot negating offense and goal-scoring.

Seems a lot cheaper to try out this than to start changing the size of rinks.

 

[BobbyAwe]

If they're going to widen the rink it should only be by 5ft. The International rinks are ridiculous. To increase scoring the only real difference would be made by making the net a couple inches wider or 4 on 4.

 

[jgatie]

This seems to come up every one or two years and I really don't get it.

This myth about it creating a more offensive game is complete ********. It certainly doesn't do that in Europe. All it does is make it take longer to get from one end of the rink to the other. That's not entertaining.

We already have this in the NCAA with some teams having Olympic sized ice. It doesn't elevate the game to some other level like proponents want you to believe.

I don't see how it's better and I definitely don't see how it could ever be worth the trouble.

I agree completely. The last Olympics were proof enough for me.

This^^

European ice surfaces leading to more goals is a freaking myth. All it does is make the game spread out and scoring opportunities decrease because everything is at the perimeter. Want proof?

Goals scored in:

Sochi:

Group A - 31
Group B - 36
Group C - 28

Qualifiers - 20
1/4 Finals - 19
Semis - 4
Bronze - 3
Gold - 5

Total - 116


Vancouver:

Group A - 31
Group B - 37
Group C - 30

Qualifiers - 30
1/4 Finals - 21
Semis - 12
Bronze - 8
Gold - 5

Total - 174


Notice also as the competition ramped up, the goals did too. Bigger surfaces does not mean more scoring.