[Article] Brian Burke - Lobbying for wider ice surfaces

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Lord Carnage

I guess if teams were just told to ignore the edge of the rink (defensively), and keep the middle congested, then I can see that.

Maybe that's the advantage of only adding 5 feet total (or 2.5' per side). Not enough space so D-men can completely ignore someone on the outside (as opposed to now), so the middle does get just a little wider, thus more room in the middle to score?

Maybe I'm off on that, but I think a little extra space is different than going full-out international sized...

But that's what happens. A puck possessing D-man or forward will stay on the perimeter and not be a threat, so they're not pressured, so they stay out there.

It's pretty awful hockey imo.

[codynw]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Honestly, most games are pretty boring these days, and we're headed slowly towards a dead puck era, but it's worse because there's a LOT less physicality in the game these days. It's a great idea, but I'm sure most traditionalists will say it's stupid and it won't work. To that I say: We won't know until we try it.

I don't think the NHL heading towards another dead puck era, I think it's in one already. This is one of the lowest scoring NHL seasons in decades.

[Lord Carnage]

Originally Posted by nik-

But that's what happens. A puck possessing D-man or forward will stay on the perimeter and not be a threat, so they're not pressured, so they stay out there.

It's pretty awful hockey imo.

But a 30 inch increase on each side of the rink? That doesn't seem enough space to leave someone on the perimeter and not pressure them as opposed to the current size.

I just measured it out just to visualize, and I can't see it making that much of a difference... maybe I'm out to lunch. I guess I'm on board with a small increase like this.

[nik-]

It might not, and no it's not the same size as international. All I'm saying is that bigger ice makes the product worse, not better. It slows it down.

If the goal is solely to reduce obstruction and possible injuries, it very well might do that. As long as they're honest and don't feel it makes a more exciting game.

[Rollin22x]

The extra 5 feet will be painted as a warning track.

[mikephoen]

I would rather see them remove a player. 4 on 4 all the time!

I know, I know, that's too radical of a change for most.

[codynw]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

I would rather see them remove a player. 4 on 4 all the time!

I know, I know, that's too radical of a change for most.

I do agree that this is an interesting idea, but the NHLPA would never, ever allow it.

[speede5]

It would be easy enough to try, set up the winter classic mobile ice rink with the extra width. Play a few games and see what happens.

Heck they could try several configurations over a year or two.

I highly doubt there's much intrest in this radical a change though. It's pretty tough to change existing rinks and if only a few were changed as they were built you would have home field advantage like MLB.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by codynw

I'm convinced people in favour of bigger ice have never actually watched hockey played on bigger ice.

For the most part, they have watched Canada beat Austria 6-0 at the Olympics and think that means higher scoring overall.

When you look at just the big six nations (Canada, US, Russia, Finland, Sweden, Czech Republic), they played nine games between them at the 2014 Olympics and combined for 37 goals. That's 4.11 per game. Three shutouts, seven times a team was held to one goal or less. In Vancouver 2010 and an NHL sized rink, those six teams combined for 44 goals in seven games, or 6.29 per game. Two shutouts and three times a team was held to one goal or less.

These are, of course, incredibly small sample sizes. But they do offer an illustration of the point that the IIHF surface, at least, doesn't lead for more offence.

What Burke's 90 foot suggestion would do is an unknown. But if I was a team, there's no way in hell I even consider the millions in construction costs and lost ticket sales for a guess.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by speede5

It would be easy enough to try, set up the winter classic mobile ice rink with the extra width. Play a few games and see what happens.

Heck they could try several configurations over a year or two.

I highly doubt there's much intrest in this radical a change though. It's pretty tough to change existing rinks and if only a few were changed as they were built you would have home field advantage like MLB.

Or they could play the World Cup tournament on the larger ice to monitor how the game is played and how some of the best players in the NHL can utilize the extra space.

[FlamingHomer]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

I would rather see them remove a player. 4 on 4 all the time!

I know, I know, that's too radical of a change for most.

Way back in the day they had 6 skaters a side now it's 5. It could happen. Wouldn't everyone miss our bottom 4 forwards from our roster though?

[Redlan]

I would like to see a range of acceptable ice surfaces dimensions, as long as a team kept the same dimension for the entire year. This would allow another "Home Ice advantage" where it could be modified based on the team's make-up and style of play.

[FlamesAddiction]

I am fine with wider so players have more room to move laterally, but I don't want to see longer. There is nothing exciting about watching more missed passes and icing.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Or they could play the World Cup tournament on the larger ice to monitor how the game is played and how some of the best players in the NHL can utilize the extra space.

Why on earth would they spend millions modifying the ACC for a two week tournament that would resemble nothing at all like the regular slog that is an NHL schedule?

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by codynw

I don't think the NHL heading towards another dead puck era, I think it's in one already. This is one of the lowest scoring NHL seasons in decades.

I just did some very basic math, but last year there were 6 teams under 200 goals (2.44 goals for per game to hit 200). This year we currently have 10 teams at or under a 2.44 GF/G pace. Obviously this isn't an exact science but its far enough along that these trends are somewhat credible.

[sharkov]

Bigger ice would be better for Hockey as offence and safety will increase and skilled players will get more room for their creative plays. It would be better for European players trying to transition into the NHL

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

For the most part, they have watched Canada beat Austria 6-0 at the Olympics and think that means higher scoring overall.

When you look at just the big six nations (Canada, US, Russia, Finland, Sweden, Czech Republic), they played nine games between them at the 2014 Olympics and combined for 37 goals. That's 4.11 per game. Three shutouts, seven times a team was held to one goal or less. In Vancouver 2010 and an NHL sized rink, those six teams combined for 44 goals in seven games, or 6.29 per game. Two shutouts and three times a team was held to one goal or less.

These are, of course, incredibly small sample sizes. But they do offer an illustration of the point that the IIHF surface, at least, doesn't lead for more offence.

What Burke's 90 foot suggestion would do is an unknown. But if I was a team, there's no way in hell I even consider the millions in construction costs and lost ticket sales for a guess.

Isn't the NHL Allstar game closer to the Olympics rosters than a typical NHL team? Not that I disagree with your assessments.

I was also under the impression that teams could have varied rink sizes based on the theoretical current ice to max size which may provide an actual "home team" advantage? kinda like how in Baseball teams have slightly different stadiums. Or maybe that was a wish from fans...

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by sharkov

Bigger ice would be better for Hockey as offence and safety will increase and skilled players will get more room for their creative plays. It would be better for European players trying to transition into the NHL

How can you say that so definitively?

[kkaleR]

I think that when considering something like this, one should compare international tournaments, especially the past Olympic games.

Larger rinks have makings for more boring games. What I mean is that larger surfaces kill intensity and trap surprisingly works even better in them which results in more low-score-games. Just compare Sochi games to Vancouver. Hockey itself does not really change that much in 4 years.

If something, our rinks in Europe should be made smaller.

[hwy19man]

Originally Posted by kkaleR

I think that when considering something like this, one should compare international tournaments, especially the past Olympic games.

Larger rinks have makings for more boring games. What I mean is that larger surfaces kill intensity and trap surprisingly works even better in them which results in more low-score-games. Just compare Sochi games to Vancouver. Hockey itself does not really change that much in 4 years.

If something, our rinks in Europe should be made smaller.

The New Jersey Devils and Minnesota Wild made smaller rinks have boring games. Those teams took the neutral zone trap to a whole new level.