Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Will the NHL Ever Go to a Wider Rink?


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1 Toggers

Toggers

    Draftee

  • Member
  • 8 posts

Posted 13 February 2013 - 08:48 PM

If the Wings or other teams go to new arenas, would it be smart to go to the bigger ice surface? Now that the league has so many Europeans, and better skaters over all, wouldn't it be better that they have the bigger surface to maneuver? Even back in the '72 Summit Series, the Canadiens seemed to do better on the bigger ice; they won 3 of the four games in Moscow even though the Soviets were better skaters. I'd rather see end to end action rather than clutching and grabbing on the boards.



#2 shoobiedoobin

shoobiedoobin

    4th Line Grinder

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 348 posts

Posted 13 February 2013 - 08:55 PM

Almost every issue we stick a bandaid on would be cured with widened rinks. The trap becomes almost impossible with that much room. These huge players who have gotten bigger over the decades will finally have more room. Less board related injuries should occur. If they widen the rinks and change the size of the offensive zone you won't really be able to just play boring collapse defense in your own zone, either-too much room to move around. It really would fix a lot. 

 

The one argument I see is that it'd take out a few rows of expensive seating, but you don't remove the expensive front row seats, you just move prices back a few rows each and remove the less expensive closest seats to the concourse. 

 

Coordination would probably be the biggest thing.



#3 GMRwings1983

GMRwings1983

    The Killer is Me

  • Silver Booster
  • 20,647 posts
  • Location:Jerkwater, USA

Posted 13 February 2013 - 09:17 PM

Never.

 

Too many season tickets would be lost from shortening those seating areas, and that's the only thing these money hungry sons of ******* care about.  They showed us as much during the lockout.  


According to my profile, my reputation is excellent. LOL.

#4 Phil Lesh

Phil Lesh

    Silver apples in the sun.

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 304 posts
  • Location:Parts unknown

Posted 13 February 2013 - 09:25 PM

No way owners will take out dozens of high-end seats for wider ice. They'll try every other thing long before they ever get to wider ice.



#5 CrimsonFlame

CrimsonFlame

    1st Line Sniper

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 862 posts
  • Location:Troy, Michigan

Posted 13 February 2013 - 09:26 PM

Never.

 

Too many season tickets would be lost from shortening those seating areas, and that's the only thing these money hungry sons of ******* care about.  They showed us as much during the lockout.  

 

No way owners will take out dozens of high-end seats for wider ice. They'll try every other thing long before they ever get to wider ice.

This



#6 shoobiedoobin

shoobiedoobin

    4th Line Grinder

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 348 posts

Posted 13 February 2013 - 09:47 PM

The one argument I see is that it'd take out a few rows of expensive seating, but you don't remove the expensive front row seats, you just move prices back a few rows each and remove the less expensive closest seats to the concourse. 

Seriously...

 

...it's not losing front row seats, it's losing far back row seats. 



#7 evilmrt

evilmrt

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,533 posts
  • Location:Winter Freakin Wonderland

Posted 13 February 2013 - 11:03 PM

No way owners will take out dozens of high-end seats for wider ice. They'll try every other thing long before they ever get to wider ice.

 

They could just gradually start adding big rinks to new arenas. For example, QC and Seattle/Toronto 2/Wherever should have big ice, and then other rinks should as well when built (like the new Detroit arena). 

 

I remember that Buffalo had a smaller than regulation rink for the longest time. And this was in recent memory. Some of the more old timers can probably shed more light on that. 



#8 marcaractac

marcaractac

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,315 posts
  • Location:St. John's, newfoundland

Posted 13 February 2013 - 11:20 PM

Almost every issue we stick a bandaid on would be cured with widened rinks. The trap becomes almost impossible with that much room. These huge players who have gotten bigger over the decades will finally have more room. Less board related injuries should occur. If they widen the rinks and change the size of the offensive zone you won't really be able to just play boring collapse defense in your own zone, either-too much room to move around. It really would fix a lot. 

 

The one argument I see is that it'd take out a few rows of expensive seating, but you don't remove the expensive front row seats, you just move prices back a few rows each and remove the less expensive closest seats to the concourse. 

 

Coordination would probably be the biggest thing.

if you think aboiut it, the pricing of taking out seats would probably balance out. you'd still get the expensive close to the glass seats, but due to bigger ice, there would be more of them.

 

it would be a much better on ice product overall, IMO



#9 Euro_Twins

Euro_Twins

    Healthy Scratch

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,092 posts
  • Location:Windsor, Ontario

Posted 14 February 2013 - 03:08 AM

They could just gradually start adding big rinks to new arenas. For example, QC and Seattle/Toronto 2/Wherever should have big ice, and then other rinks should as well when built (like the new Detroit arena). 

 

I remember that Buffalo had a smaller than regulation rink for the longest time. And this was in recent memory. Some of the more old timers can probably shed more light on that. 

 

That wouldn't work, you couldn't have 4 or 5 arenas with big rinks and 25 with regular rinks, you would have to expand the current rinks, and too many owners would be bit***** about lost revenue, and we know Jacobs wouldn't let that happen.

 

It is a great idea, and we wouldn't get shut down in the playoffs like last year



#10 frankgrimes

frankgrimes

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,740 posts

Posted 14 February 2013 - 03:39 AM

Owners are not going to remove their corporate luxury seats for that and the trap is part of the game so why remove it?


kftx.jpg

 

The Offseason of truth ...

Welcome to hockeytown Jonas aka Lundquist 2 Gustavsson!

blank cheque for The Captain or Jim Star Nil please..


#11 thegerkin

thegerkin

    Statue of Liberty!!!

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,562 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids, MI

Posted 14 February 2013 - 06:41 AM

Mixed feelings about this. The wider ice would definately ease the transition for the ever-increasing population of European players. On the other hand, as other have mentioned, is the costs. And, if Don Cherry hasn't already blown up about it, I can see traditionalist getting pissed off at such a drastic change to the sport.



#12 cusimano_brothers

cusimano_brothers

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,605 posts
  • Location:Niagara Falls, ON

Posted 14 February 2013 - 08:16 AM

In a word: no.


"Mess up tomorrow, don't mess up now".

- Harry James Benson, CBE.


#13 ogreslayer

ogreslayer

    1st Line All-Star

  • HoF Booster
  • 1,958 posts
  • Location:Indianapolis

Posted 14 February 2013 - 08:23 AM

Will the public want to help pay for the probably 15+ new arenas the owners would ask to be built to support going to a wider ice surface?  Don't think they would use this move as an excuse to at least float new arena talk out there?  I think a good chunk of them would, especially those sharing arenas with the NBA.



#14 shoobiedoobin

shoobiedoobin

    4th Line Grinder

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 348 posts

Posted 14 February 2013 - 10:25 AM

^Lol no one has to build new arenas to accommodate wider rinks.

Owners are not going to remove their corporate luxury seats for that and the trap is part of the game so why remove it?

A lot of things were "part of the game" before we installed some fresh brains and got rid of them. 



#15 frankgrimes

frankgrimes

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,740 posts

Posted 14 February 2013 - 10:54 AM

^Lol no one has to build new arenas to accommodate wider rinks.

A lot of things were "part of the game" before we installed some fresh brains and got rid of them. 

 

Getting rid of a game system is a bit different and like others explained owners are not going to be fond of that idea.


Edited by frankgrimes, 14 February 2013 - 10:55 AM.

kftx.jpg

 

The Offseason of truth ...

Welcome to hockeytown Jonas aka Lundquist 2 Gustavsson!

blank cheque for The Captain or Jim Star Nil please..


#16 shoobiedoobin

shoobiedoobin

    4th Line Grinder

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 348 posts

Posted 14 February 2013 - 12:11 PM

Getting rid of a game system is a bit different and like others explained owners are not going to be fond of that idea.

They already tried to change the game quite a bit after the lockout with one of the biggest goals being limiting or getting rid of the very thing you said was part of the game.



#17 Nev

Nev

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,039 posts
  • Location:Lincolnshire, England

Posted 14 February 2013 - 12:40 PM

No.  Every 4 years we hear how much more open the hockey will be in the Winter Olympics, but the truth of the matter is that the defending team continue to collapse round the net to deny the attackers space to the inside, and the attackers just skate round the outside where they are no danger.


"If I can be totally honest, it's not a lot of guys you get impressed by. Actually, it's no one else but him. From the bench, to see what move he makes -- you're like, 'I wish I could do that.' Sometimes you sit on the bench and just think, 'wow,' and you look over to the other bench and they sit there and shake their heads, too. He has great, great skills. I'm probably not going to play with another player who has the kind of skills he has." Mikael Samuelsson on Pavel Datsyuk

#18 Din758

Din758

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,176 posts
  • Location:Hockeytown, USA

Posted 14 February 2013 - 12:49 PM

i agree with the thought that it should happen but probably wont.

 

but your reasoning of why it wont? because theyll lose the expensive seats? really dumb argument. simple business sense would make up that money quick.


Crosby is a crybaby *****

#19 Learn2LuvIt

Learn2LuvIt

    2nd Line Scorer

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 557 posts

Posted 14 February 2013 - 02:14 PM

Simple:

Wider rink = Less seats = Less Income for owners = No go

 

Additionally, some arena's cannot accommodate wider rinks due to the building and steps to lower area seating being built to go all the way down to the boards.  Unless they tore out concrete steps a wider rink would not be possible.  I'm no builder or architect...but that just sounds expensive.


ENJOY THE RIDE

#20 The Axe

The Axe

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,379 posts

Posted 14 February 2013 - 03:50 PM

Simple:
Wider rink = Less seats = Less Income for owners = No go
 
Additionally, some arena's cannot accommodate wider rinks due to the building and steps to lower area seating being built to go all the way down to the boards.  Unless they tore out concrete steps a wider rink would not be possible.  I'm no builder or architect...but that just sounds expensive.


Wrong. You havent thought this out. You add more glass seats and more seats up to the last x amount of rows that need to be removed in the lower section. So if you have 25 rows around the lower section and you need to remove 3 of them to get the bigger ice, you are not losing rows 1, 2, and 3 as far as tickets and ticket prices are concerned. Youre losing rows 23, 24, and 25. That is lost revenue that needs to be made up, but im sure they could make it up with ticket price increases.

I would propose to make it mandatory for a rink thats 15 feet wider and 30 feet longer for every NEW NHL arena from this point forward. Then give existing teams/arenas the option for upgrade. Fast teams with skill would probably change their rinks. Slow teams with muckers would probably stick to what they have.





Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users