Would the NHL ever expand to the bigger ice surface?

[Senovision]

Just wondering would the NHL ever think of expanding the ice surface to the same size as the international ice surface standards.
More room to move around.
I know it might be impossible for some NHL arenas to adapt.
I'm not saying I'm for it, but I'm just wondering if in the future this could be a possibility.

Click to read more...

 

[Cosmix]

There does not seem to be much interest in increasing the size of the ice surface. I saw a show on TV recently where Burke said he had proposed to a couple of teams that they install a larger ice surface in their new under construction areas to accommodate a larger ice surface in the event that the NHL ever went in that direction, but that the two teams chose not to do so. Personally I would like to see a larger ice surface to give the skilled players more room to maneuver. With players getting bigger and faster, the ice surface of today seems to cramp the game a bit.

 

[Sun God Nika]

Only if you want low skilled players to go extinct

 

[FolignoQuantumLeap]

God, I hope not. We don't need more defensive brand of hockey.

 

[BonkTastic]

Only if you want low skilled players to go extinct

Olympic ice surface would slow the game down TREMENDOUSLY.

Low skill players might actually do better... depending on the skillset we are talking about though, I suppose.

 

[NyQuil]

In actual fact, the IIHF is considering going to smaller ice surfaces.

 

[Senscore]

And give up the extra arena seating? Never.

 

[SPF6ty9]

How about eliminating the cookie cutter rinks we have now and letting teams design their rinks within a set of specifications (ie. you can make your rink between 82 and 88 feet wide)? Make it a bit like baseball, add another element to home ice advantage.

 

[BonkTastic]

How about eliminating the cookie cutter rinks we have now and letting teams design their rinks within a set of specifications (ie. you can make your rink between 82 and 88 feet wide)? Make it a bit like baseball, add another element to home ice advantage.

Too dangerous.

 

[Gil Gunderson]

Please no. Hockey on the large ice surface is painful to watch.

 

[RAFI BOMB]

Only if you want low skilled players to go extinct

It requires more skill to play on the smaller ice surface. The lack of time and space forces players to process more information over a shorter time span. The ability to think the game quick enough and the pressure on decision making is more challenging on a smaller ice surface.

The NHL would be far less exciting if they transitioned to the bigger ice surface.

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

Wasn't there something a few years ago, where a few rinks (not NHL rinks) were made that were halfway between NHL regulation and Olympic size?

 

[Knave]

The nets don't get bigger with a bigger ice surface. All it will do is slow things down because you'll see so much more perimeter play and zone defense

From the NHL's perspective as a gate driven league... fewer seats (larger ice surfaces) is the last thing they would want.

 

[AchtzehnBaby]

The nets don't get bigger with a bigger ice surface. All it will do is slow things down because you'll see so much more perimeter play and zone defense

From the NHL's perspective as a gate driven league... fewer seats (larger ice surfaces) is the last thing they would want.

I thought it was to do with high cost of renovations

 

[danielpalfredsson]

International ice leads to a boring game. There's way too much room. Everything gets funneled to a certain point on the ice. I think people have a bias towards it because they associate international ice with the Olympics where they see what are essentially all-star teams compete.

Brian Burke has been attempting to lobby teams that build new arenas into making the arenas convertible to a larger ice surface. Not Olympic sized, but a size slightly bigger than the current NHL size. Some teams like Detroit have done it, others have refused. The major issue with expanding the ice surface would be that unless every NHL team rebuilt their stadium with the bigger ice surface in mind, which is not going to happen, it would eliminate rows of high priced seats close to the ice.

 

[danielpalfredsson]

I thought it was to do with high cost of renovations

The major issue with renovation is that it eliminates the first few rows of seats, which are big drivers of revenue.

The easiest way to implement a larger ice surface would be to accept a similar philosophy to baseball where some rinks would be different as the larger ice surface is phased in over a few decades.

I personally think it will be a non-issue, because by the time it can be implemented, other factors are going to change the game. I think we'll see hitting slowly phased out and eliminated. Probably starting with open ice hitting being illegal, and then all hitting in general. Concussions are in every sport, even soccer, but if the public finds the typical contact sports like football and hockey too dangerous for children, it will make a major dent in the development of future players for the sport.

 

[Tnuoc Alucard]

Wasn't there something a few years ago, where a few rinks (not NHL rinks) were made that were halfway between NHL regulation and Olympic size?

Yes.

In fact the ice surface in Salt Lake City, for the Olympics, was a "halfway NHL regulation and Olympic size" ice surface.

 

[inthewings]

How about eliminating the cookie cutter rinks we have now and letting teams design their rinks within a set of specifications (ie. you can make your rink between 82 and 88 feet wide)? Make it a bit like baseball, add another element to home ice advantage.

This will never happen, but I love the idea. Have ranges for ice dimensions and even zone sizes, and let teams dictate how they're set within the ranges and build their rosters to suit their home ice. One of the best things about baseball is the uniqueness of the different parks.

 

[stempniaksen]

This will never happen, but I love the idea. Have ranges for ice dimensions and even zone sizes, and let teams dictate how they're set within the ranges and build their rosters to suit their home ice. One of the best things about baseball is the uniqueness of the different parks.

It's a different beast in a contact sport though. The uniformity of rinks is just as important for player safety as it for any other reason.I love the uniqueness of the parks in baseball, I just think it's asking for trouble to do that in the NHL as well.

 

[GrantLemons]

Years ago I remember reading that some GM's (notably Brian Burke) were advocating for all new rinks to be constructed with the capability of easily extending the size of the pad in the event the league wanted to test or move to using a bigger ice size. I believe he was unsuccessful, and the new rinks since were not built with that option.

Kind of sad. Would be awesome to at least have some exhibition games on slightly larger pad (>NHL, <Olympic) to see what the results are.

EDIT: Derp, just read palfreddsson's post above basically noting the same thing

 

[Cosmix]

Wasn't there something a few years ago, where a few rinks (not NHL rinks) were made that were halfway between NHL regulation and Olympic size?

That was what Burke was suggesting, a larger ice surface but not as large as Olympic size.

 

[Cosmix]

International ice leads to a boring game. There's way too much room. Everything gets funneled to a certain point on the ice. I think people have a bias towards it because they associate international ice with the Olympics where they see what are essentially all-star teams compete.

Brian Burke has been attempting to lobby teams that build new arenas into making the arenas convertible to a larger ice surface. Not Olympic sized, but a size slightly bigger than the current NHL size. Some teams like Detroit have done it, others have refused. The major issue with expanding the ice surface would be that unless every NHL team rebuilt their stadium with the bigger ice surface in mind, which is not going to happen, it would eliminate rows of high priced seats close to the ice.

Yes, existing seats would have to be removed to enlarge the ice surface, and other renovations would be required to existing arenas to make it work. However, if the ice surface was widened, there would be more rink-side seats, not less. The arena would probably have less seats overall unless expanded at the same time. I think it would be better for the league to provide rules for arena construction that would include a larger ice surface for all new construction.

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

That was what Burke was suggesting, a larger ice surface but not as large as Olympic size.

I'm pretty sure it was done somewhere, either for a tournament or exhibition competition. Maybe 10+ years ago?