Bigger nets ?

[MDCard 48]

I was wondering what thoughts there are on this idea that is being floated out there to make the nets bigger to increase goal scoring.

Personally, I really dislike this idea. I think it is just a weird and gimmicky move. And I think it is a change that alters the nature and the visual of the game too much. I just do not like this idea.

I would agree with perhaps reducing the size of some of the goalie equipment.

And i would really like to see a larger ice surface (like international size rinks). The problem now in my mind is that the players are bigger and faster and the space all 10 players are occupying on the ice has effectively been shrunk. Increasing the size of the ice surface will allow for a more open play and more creative puck movement leading to more scoring chances...kind of like the effect you see in 3 on 3. This is the change I would be most in favor of. I think it would enhance the excitement of the game.

[NerveDamage 4,176]

This is a big discussion as of late and there are mainly two positions on the goalie issue with bigger nets or smaller equipment and I believe none is the answer .

I agree with Scotty Bowman's opinion of moving the blue line closer to net and shrink the zone. The problem with more ice space is that still the defence will clog the slot, you might have a lot of space around but still a lot of traffic in front.

[miksteri 55]

How about compromise on the rinksize, like the olympic size rink which is between euro and nhl rink.

[HadThomasVokounOnFortSt 878]

How about compromise on the rinksize, like the olympic size rink which is between euro and nhl rink.

I don't think you'll see that because you have to get rid of the first 2 maybe 3(?) rows of seating.

[Bill Berzeench 310]

I don't think you'll see that because you have to get rid of the first 2 maybe 3(?) rows of seating.

The last 3. They arent going to call the new 1st row the old 4th row.

[krsmith17 7,191]

I think for the most part, hockey fans in general don't give a s*** if it's a 2-1 game or a 7-6 game. What matters is quality scoring chances. A huge save is just as exciting as a goal in my opinion, and personally, I prefer the lower scoring game. More goal scoring means less excitement on each goal. If games are higher scoring, a 2 goal deficit doesn't mean as much, but with lower scoring, every goal has more of an impact on the game. That's my take. The game is fine, don't change a thing. You want high-flying offense? Follow junior hockey...

[frankgrimes 1,836]

I think it's incredible stupid want more goal scoring go watch the NBA with triple digit scores.

Just saw the highlights from that Ottawa Dallas game both played like they don't know what defense means and the goaltending was average at best. That's not exciting

Right now the game just lacks some other elements that made it must watch TV like more and harder hits, fights and the occasional line brawls.

Some people just can't embrace the fact that goaltenders are now extremely good athletes too.

I want the goals to have an impact and tight games accomplish that. I'm sure it's damn hard to score on Price , King Henrik and Rinne but so what they are the elite of the elite for a reason.

there is no need for tinkering it would just make the game more gimmicky and that's the last thing we need.

If anything bring back the fantastic old-school hockey instead of making the current game even worse

[rick zombo 3,739]

So basically what the NHL needs is more brain-damaged alumni.

[Buppy 1,720]

I don't think anyone's looking for high-flying offense and 7-6 games. Even in the 80s teams were averaging less than 4 gpg. If they do some things to bump up scoring a little, from 2.5 to say around 3.5, I don't think it makes anything gimicky or makes the goals any less special. And looking at it the other way, it would make good goaltending performances a little more special. These days a goalie can allow just 1 goal or even post a shutout without even playing that well.

Changing the size of the rinks isn't feasible. Moving the zone lines around I don't think would be enough. But change the nets a bit, make perimeter shots more dangerous, it forces defenses to be more aggressive and opens things up. Defenses would have to focus more on skill and quickness over structure and discipline. I think it would make things more exciting.

But then, the pessimist in me thinks it would just increase the prevalence of neutral-zone trapping...

[krsmith17 7,191]

Again, it's more about scoring opportunities for me, not the final score. Obviously I was exaggerating a little with the 7-6 games, but I don't feel the need to make any changes to increase scoring. The problem isn't goals, it's the chances to score these goals. We still do see games with 7+ goals, and we STILL see games with only one goal. No matter what changes someone comes up with, teams will always adapt and adjust their game plan to win games. Don't increase the size of the nets, don't decrease the size of the goalie equipment, don't move the blue lines, there's no need to change anything in my opinion...

[Jacksoni 418]

Maybe only midget goales? Pulkkannon in goal? Opens a forward spot for AHL-Jurco.

[Hockeymom1960 5,107]

Stop changing the game I love!! Scorers need to learn how to score, period! What's changed so much that we have to change things.

[MDCard 48]

I think the one thing that has become a bit annoying is all the collapsing around the net and shot blocking. I think the answer is to make the rink bigger. If the D collapses too much around the net then the offensive team can really control the puck on the perimeter working to find an open lane to shoot. It would place a premium on skill over the clogging of zones and lanes that goes on now.

I am surprised that there has been so much talk about making the nets bigger. Patrick Roy said he was in favor of this (it would inflate his stats...). I think making the nets bigger is really a bizarre idea and would change the game in a gimmicky way. I think making the rink better would perhaps enhance the skill aspect and passing aspect of the game.

[frankgrimes 1,836]

here is my novel idea:

If goal scorers are having problems to figure out a defense or shot blocking find a way around it simple as that.

[Internet.Unknown 422]

The NHL isn't going to make the rinks bigger. Do you understand the cost that would be associated with this and the subsequent loss of revenue? Not going to happen.

Some equipment could stand to shrink. That would probably increase scoring.

The ultimate solution? Time. Players will eventually figure out how to beat the butterfly goalies of today. Back in Roy's day, more goalies played a stand-up style. Give today's trend time and players will figure out how to beat it.

[Aethernum 276]

Hockey fans are notoriously protective of their game, I think to a fault. We're not talking about dramatically changing the game so that every team is scoring 5+ goals per game; we're talking about adding an inch or two to the outside of the nets so that goals go from 4 per game to 4.5.

Here's why this is important - not because people can't enjoy 1-0 or 2-1 games, but rather because higher scoring means more involvement from your star players. Imagine if scoring were to go up a half a goal per game, on average. Who is going to be the primary beneficiary of that extra half a goal per game? It's going to be the Crosbys, the Ovechkins, the Kanes of the NHL. The star players on the highest end of the skill bell-curve who, currently, are limited by the defensive nature of the game. And let's not forget - "the game we love" is at a scoring low that hasn't been seen in decades. Today's hockey is NOT the hockey you grew up with.

Getting the high-skill players more involved in the game is a good thing. It means higher profile, more valuable star players. That helps grow the game. You want increased separation between the best players and their more average counterparts, because the average fan doesn't see how, say, Stamkos is more valuable to his team than, say, Tatar is to ours unless he's scoring more goals. Experienced fans recognize how the more skilled players generate more chances and play better two-way games, but it's not the same, and catering to the hard-core fans doesn't grow the game. Boosting the profile of the highest-skilled by rewarding their talents with an extra few goals per month helps the casual fan understand the contributions of the top-end guys. That matters.

No one is saying 1-0 games can't be great. But too often 1-0 games are master classes in poor passing, shots that never make it to the net, and scoring chances that fall an inch short of panning out. Do I enjoy 7-6 games? Not particularly. But I'd rather watch a game with no defense than no offense.

You want to go back to the good ol' days of 80s and 90s hockey? You're not going to see the fights and injury-ending hits come back. Those are gone for good. The only way to bring back "the game I grew up with" is to increase scoring.

Now, how do you do that? There are a few ways:

1. Increase the size of the ice: Opening up the ice will generate more scoring chances, but at what cost? Three rows (at least) would disappear from every lower bowl in the league. There would be less physical play along the boards and more passing back and forth in open ice. And 3v3 overtime? Forget it. The game is already open enough in 3v3, can you imagine playing that same game on Olympic ice? If we're okay with going back to 4v4 OT, then I would see this as, possibly, a viable option, but there's not a whole lot of evidence that opening up the size of the ice will even do that much to affect scoring. Certainly not enough evidence to justify the massive financial costs that would be incurred not just to NHL arenas, but arenas around the country.

2. Call more penalties: This just trains fans to watch for scoring during PPs, and to tune out the rest of the game. We need to increase the scoring on 5v5.

3. Make Power Plays a 4-on-3 situation rather than a 5-on-4 situation: Same problem as above, and this is a FAR more drastic change to the game than tweaking net size.

4. Move the blue lines/eliminate the trapezoid: These changes fall under the "making defensive zone players put their sticks down second" category. That is, the category of changes that make it look like you're addressing the problem without actually addressing the problem. Moving the blue lines isn't going to notably increase scoring, same with getting rid of the trapezoid. Oh, and both of those suggestions impacts the way the game is played much more dramatically than a little net size tweaking.

5. Decrease the size of goalie equipment: I understand the sentiment behind this change, but do you know what happened the last time we tried this? Goalie equipment actually got bigger. Here's why: Bigger netminders still need to be fully protected. So when we last tried shrinking goalie equipment, goalies across the league had their equipment redrawn to dimensions that more closely fit their bodies. This gave a more distinct advantage to larger goalies. People figured this out, and started looking for big, athletic bodies to fill the net. Smaller goalie equipment really just means a bigger difference between the size of goaltending equipment for smaller goalies and bigger goalies. So as a result, shrinking the size of goalie equipment just means giving bigger goaltenders a larger advantage, which means more big goaltenders, which actually means bigger equipment on average.

6. Increase the size of the nets: Move to soccer sized nets!!! Fundamentally change the game!!! Really? Here's my suggestion: Make the nets two inches taller, and four inches wider. You don't think that will change scoring? Imagine if every shot that has rung off the post this season for Detroit had gone in. You're talking about an extra goal per game, no more no less, and without changing anything about the nature of the way the game is played. The only change is that an extra half a shot to a shot per game is going to go in, rather than ringing off the post. The nice thing about changing the size of the nets is that there's actually a few ways to do this. You can make the nets themselves larger, OR you can do what Patrick Roy suggested and just make the goalposts smaller. Instead of, what, 2" goalposts (?), you make goalposts an inch or an inch and a half smaller. Nothing about the nets themselves has to change. Or you can make the nets like 3% bigger and not have a panic attack about it. This is a gimmick, but going to 4v3 power plays isn't? This is a fundamental change to the game, but changing the location of the lines isn't? It's too difficult to replace all the nets in the NHL, but not to do renovations on every arena in the league to increase ice size?

I don't get it. Increasing the size of the nets by an inch will bump up scoring without fundamentally changing the way the game is played. And bumping up scoring will grow the game by letting star players do their thing. Give players a realistic shot at getting to 100 points in a season again. We're not asking for every game to be 7-6. We're saying maybe a few more 3-2 games than 2-1 games. Oh, and we're also talking less overtime, fewer shootouts, and (best of all) fewer loser points. I don't see the drawback. Maybe I'm still in love with the hockey of the late-80s and early-90s, because THAT'S the hockey that I grew up with, and increasing the size of the nets takes us the tiniest little tip-toe back in that direction.

I suppose when it comes down to it, I just don't understand people who insist that increasing scoring is a fundamental change to the game. The game IS fundamentally changing. We're at lower levels of scoring now than we've seen in DECADES. And we're apparently willing to move around the blue lines, make our goalies less safe, or, hell, even force every rink in the league to change its dimensions and eliminating seating before we're willing to say, "Uhhh, hey, what if we made the nets like an inch bigger?"

Someone explain to me why I'm wrong.

Edited November 26, 2015 by Aethernum

[GMRwings1983 8,793]

Reduce the goalie equipment

[krsmith17 7,191]

Reduce the "size" of the goalie equipment or actually reduce the goalie equipment? Maybe make goalies choose between a glove or a blocker? They can use one or the other. That should increase scoring for sure...

[frankgrimes 1,836]

Hockey fans are notoriously protective of their game, I think to a fault.

Someone explain to me why I'm wrong.

If fans aren't protective of their game it will get worse each year simple as that. it's your opinion so you aren't wrong bit you are focussing only on the star forwards which I think is a mistake because there are superstars on the defense and in goal too.

If a potential fan can't appreciate a low scoring game a great blocked shot, fantastic safe well maybe then hockey isn't the right sport to follow for them pure and simple.

My novel idea if someone wants to get 100 points is. .play your rear end of and hope to stay injury free. The nhl is the best league in the world scoring goals is and should be tough star forwards will need to figure out a way to do it.

The goalies then played mostly a stand up style and more often than not weren't in good shape that's changed now

Edited November 26, 2015 by frankgrimes

[Dabura 12,206]

I dunno that increasing the size of the net really solves anything. We'd see more goals, but do we want more goals for the sake of having more goals, or do we want more offense, more open ice, more displays of skill - more scoring chances?

[Aethernum 276]

If fans aren't protective of their game it will get worse each year simple as that. it's your opinion so you aren't wrong bit you are focussing only on the star forwards which I think is a mistake because there are superstars on the defense and in goal too.

If a potential fan can't appreciate a low scoring game a great blocked shot, fantastic safe well maybe then hockey isn't the right sport to follow for them pure and simple.

My novel idea if someone wants to get 100 points is. .play your rear end of and hope to stay injury free. The nhl is the best league in the world scoring goals is and should be tough star forwards will need to figure out a way to do it.

Do you think the fans should have "protected" their game from the forward pass in the 1920s? Now THAT increased scoring.

As far as growing the game, I just don't think the NHL is in a place where it can turn away potential new fans. Do we really think hard-core fans are going to leave the NHL in droves because of a 2" change to the size of the net? You can't even see that difference on your TV at home. But the increased scoring that would result WOULD help star forwards grow their brand and that brings in more casual fans.

Edit: To clarify, I'm not saying you're wrong. I get that hockey traditionalism is an important part of why the game is where it is. But I think sometimes we're more than a tad bit overreactive to what would, actually, be a minor change. We're acting like making the nets 2" bigger all the way around would fundamentally isolate fans of the "way the game used to be." For one thing, the game USED to be higher scoring. For another thing, it's not changing the way the game is played. It's just rewarding high-skill players slightly more for what they already display on a nightly basis.

At the very least, let's reverse the trend of scoring going down each season and keep things where they are now. That isn't going to happen just by players "trying harder." Ovechkin tries plenty hard and has just as much skill as anyone else from back in the day, but he can't get above 100 points. That's a product of the game, not his play or his effort level.

Edited November 26, 2015 by Aethernum

[Bill Berzeench 310]

Reduce the "size" of the goalie equipment or actually reduce the goalie equipment? Maybe make goalies choose between a glove or a blocker? They can use one or the other. That should increase scoring for sure...

Arm save. And another goalie goes down with a broken arm. The wings have called up their new 8th grader, Peter "Peetie" MgMgRath, newplay keeper.

[Aethernum 276]

Arm save. And another goalie goes down with a broken arm. The wings have called up their new 8th grader, Peter "Peetie" MgMgRath, newplay keeper.

Reason #2393481 to trade Howard.

[MDCard 48]

1. Increase the size of the ice: Opening up the ice will generate more scoring chances, but at what cost? Three rows (at least) would disappear from every lower bowl in the league. There would be less physical play along the boards and more passing back and forth in open ice. And 3v3 overtime? Forget it. The game is already open enough in 3v3, can you imagine playing that same game on Olympic ice? If we're okay with going back to 4v4 OT, then I would see this as, possibly, a viable option, but there's not a whole lot of evidence that opening up the size of the ice will even do that much to affect scoring. Certainly not enough evidence to justify the massive financial costs that would be incurred not just to NHL arenas, but arenas around the country.

Someone explain to me why I'm wrong.

1) Taking a few rows out of the lower bowl is not going to kill revenue if you can actually improve the flow of the game and the offensive chances out there, open up the ice, attract more of the general public to the game and then enhance TV REVENUES!! The whole reason these kind of issues come up and there is talk of increasing scoring is that the league is looking at ways to attract more eyeballs to their game to enhance TV revenues. It is all about getting improved TV deals in the United States. TV revenues are far more lucrative than a few rows of seats in the arena. Why do you think the NY Rangers are the most valuable NHL franchise (they probably have a great TV deal with their market and the number of TV eyeballs they attract. Or why does the Big 10 expand to gobble up Maryland and Rutgers (answer: to tap into the East coast market which enhances their TV revenues). This type of talk doesn't just show up in a vacuum.

2) The seats along the boards will still be premium priced seats. You are just losing the back three rows of seats in the lower bowl.

3) I am not sure that you have to severely retrofit arenas to increase ice area. After all, many arenas (like MSG) are dual sport arenas. They are switching over from basketball to hockey all the time (not to mention the circus, the monster truck rally etc.). Increasing the size of the rink is probably not that costly of a move.

4) The players are faster and stronger. They are plowing into each other along the boards and this causes injuries (often to star players). There is a lot of grinding along the boards, kicking at the puck to move it along and get it freed up along the boards. Opening up the ice will get rid of some of this and actually have players skating and passing to open areas rather than plastered to the boards fighting to dig the puck out.

5) Opening the ice up will allow for more interesting offensive flow AND perhaps more goals. Making the nets bigger will just more ricocheted pucks to fly in. Is that all that interesting?

6) People are raving about how interesting and exciting 3-on-3 is. Why is that? More open ice. More exciting chances. Less clogged up play with guys constantly standing in lanes to block shots. And it is no coincidence that when there is more open ice the goals come more quickly. You don't have to make the net bigger to get more scoring...you have to create more open ice which then creates more opportunities.

6) If they make the rink bigger, then OT should go back to 4 on 4.

Personally, i like the game as is. I don't need any changes to occur. But i am pretty dead against making the nets bigger to increase scoring. If you need one solution to increase scoring, make the rink bigger.

[MDCard 48]

Interesting article on the business aspect of the NHL and what drives the value of the franchises. Several franchises (Montreal and Washington) are benefitting from better TV contracts.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2015/11/24/the-nhls-most-valuable-teams-2/