Will the NHL Ever Go to a Wider Rink?

[Toggers 3]

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.

[shoobiedoobin 138]

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.

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

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.

[Phil Lesh 93]

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.

[CrimsonFlame 424]

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

[shoobiedoobin 138]

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.

[evilmrt 636]

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.

[marcaractac 3,962]

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

[Euro_Twins 4,475]

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

[frankgrimes 1,836]

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

[thegerkin 189]

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.

[cusimano_brothers 1,655]

In a word: no.

[ogreslayer 1,069]

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.

[shoobiedoobin 138]

^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.

[frankgrimes 1,836]

^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 February 14, 2013 by frankgrimes

[shoobiedoobin 138]

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.

[Nev 1,085]

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.

[Din758 371]

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.

[Learn2LuvIt 245]

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.

[Guest The Axe]

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.

[MabusIncarnate 5,344]

We could just throw everyone off and leave it to the discretion of the team's own arena like they do in baseball. We could have "Mile Long Stadium" and "The Glass Monster" with 40 foot tall boards where over the glass delay of game penalties become a non-factor. Random length and width for each stadium would be entertaining, imagine the ice space in Phoenix with all that extra seating room to spare.

[Learn2LuvIt 245]

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.

Respectfully....I don't think you read my post thoroughly. I never mentioned losing premium seats (other posters did), I simply stated that you would be loosing three rows at ice level. Which you would be....I don't care how you want to number the rows and what you charge per that row....really not that relevant.

But for argument sake; let's take your assertion that an arena would loose three rows. That's at least 300-400 seats!! (and that's a very conservative number....look at a map of The Joe and start counting). So let's take your theory and follow it through (at least try)....the top seats of the lower bowl at the Joe go for $80 a seat (that's actually low as I did my research and three of the major ticket venue's have the average price of these top lower bowl rows a bit higher than $80 per seat).

= Math (using low numbers and averages to give you a break make sure there is no doubt you have no clue):

300 seats x $80 per seat = $24,000 per game in lost revenue

$24,000 in lost revenue per game x 41 home games per year = $984,000 in lost revenue per year!!!

Also things any owner/business minded person would consider:

300 people per game that are NOT buying your food, pop, beer, jersey's/swag, and parking!!!! A survey conducted by HockeyBroad 65.7% of hockey fans claimed they spent more than $26 above ticket price when attending an NHL game. Link to article and survey http://www.hockeybroad.com/

= Math

300 fans per game x $26 = $7800 in lost revenue per game.

41 home games per year x $7800 = $319,800 in lost revenue per year!!!!

So now we are up to $1,303,800 in lost revenue per year!!!!

Lastly:

Construction cost remove these 3 rows!! (Again, I'm no builder or architect...but this sounds like a couple million at least).

In your statement about adding more premium glass seats....maybe some, but not that many. Having 100 more seats that you can charge $30 more per seat (again...Math: 100 more premium seats x $30 more per seat...$3000 per game....$123,000 season....this doesn't offset the $1,303,800 you lost in achieving this + building costs!!!). Hell, you could add 200 more premium seats and the economics STILL don't work. Any why, because the fans want it. I'm not sure if you were around the last 6 months of the lockout, but the owners don't have a huge respect for "what the fans want". They are business owners first, hockey people second. Dude...I'm no Bill Gates....but you're the one who might want to think this out. Booya.

[Pskov Wings Fan 71]

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.

The difference is just 13 feet (4 meters). There got to be a way to modify existing buildings provided there is a will to do that.

[Guest The Axe]

Respectfully....I don't think you read my post thoroughly. I never mentioned losing premium seats (other posters did), I simply stated that you would be loosing three rows at ice level. Which you would be....I don't care how you want to number the rows and what you charge per that row....really not that relevant.

But for argument sake; let's take your assertion that an arena would loose three rows. That's at least 300-400 seats!! (and that's a very conservative number....look at a map of The Joe and start counting). So let's take your theory and follow it through (at least try)....the top seats of the lower bowl at the Joe go for $80 a seat (that's actually low as I did my research and three of the major ticket venue's have the average price of these top lower bowl rows a bit higher than $80 per seat).

= Math (using low numbers and averages to give you a break make sure there is no doubt you have no clue):

300 seats x $80 per seat = $24,000 per game in lost revenue

$24,000 in lost revenue per game x 41 home games per year = $984,000 in lost revenue per year!!!

Also things any owner/business minded person would consider:

300 people per game that are NOT buying your food, pop, beer, jersey's/swag, and parking!!!! A survey conducted by HockeyBroad 65.7% of hockey fans claimed they spent more than $26 above ticket price when attending an NHL game. Link to article and survey http://www.hockeybroad.com/

= Math

300 fans per game x $26 = $7800 in lost revenue per game.

41 home games per year x $7800 = $319,800 in lost revenue per year!!!!

So now we are up to $1,303,800 in lost revenue per year!!!!

Lastly:

Construction cost remove these 3 rows!! (Again, I'm no builder or architect...but this sounds like a couple million at least).

In your statement about adding more premium glass seats....maybe some, but not that many. Having 100 more seats that you can charge $30 more per seat (again...Math: 100 more premium seats x $30 more per seat...$3000 per game....$123,000 season....this doesn't offset the $1,303,800 you lost in achieving this + building costs!!!). Hell, you could add 200 more premium seats and the economics STILL don't work. Any why, because the fans want it. I'm not sure if you were around the last 6 months of the lockout, but the owners don't have a huge respect for "what the fans want". They are business owners first, hockey people second. Dude...I'm no Bill Gates....but you're the one who might want to think this out. Booya.

Too low. Youre right. 28 lower sections. Lets say average 10 seats a section. X 3 rows. = 840 seats. Lets call it 1000 to make math easy. And lower back rows are closer to 125 avg around the league. So 125,000 + 25,000 in food = 150,000 per game lost. X 41 = 6.15 million lost. Add 10 ads to the boards and 4 more to the ice at 250,000 a pop = 3.5 mil. Now we got 2.65 mil left. Increase average ticket prices by 3 bucks a ticket and average concession sales by 1 dollar per person. 4 x 17,000 = 68,000. X 41 = 2.79 mil. Ding ding ding.

[Rivalred 630]

Wonder if it would increase or decrease scoring