• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

MDCard

Bigger nets ?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

if the NBA had a 50% ratio of players that could reach over the net...would they raise the rim?

yes...they would conform to the increased size of the players.

why shouldnt the NHL?

if the goalies are bigger...the percentile of open net available is lower.

if the goalies are more athletic than before...the percentile of shots through is lower.

humans evolve...cars evolve...tv's evolve...sports equipment evolves....why cant a sport?

hell...lets just make goalie pads & blocker out of titanium.

rebounds all day...more shots on net!

done. fixed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

I couldn't agree more. It really is the old saying "less is more". I was at a Spits game earlier this year and I think the score was something along the lines of 8-6, and it got to a point then when a goal was scored I really didn't care. I would take a 2-1 game with a ton of chances over a 8-6 game where the goals mean nothing any day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

I think making the nets bigger would open up the ice.

.... If you need one solution to increase scoring, make the rink bigger.

Thing is, you're talking many, many millions of dollars in renovations plus millions in lost ticket revenue all in the hope that TV revenue increases enough to recoup that cost.

Changing goalie equipment is the best place to start, but if it doesn't work I think changing the nets is the next option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I couldn't agree more. It really is the old saying "less is more". I was at a Spits game earlier this year and I think the score was something along the lines of 8-6, and it got to a point then when a goal was scored I really didn't care. I would take a 2-1 game with a ton of chances over a 8-6 game where the goals mean nothing any day.

This is exactly what I was talking about earlier, though. You're building up a strawman argument here - nobody is saying we expect there to be 8-6 games all the time. Teams are scoring between 2.4-2.6 goals per game, on average. We're talking about bumping that up to around 2.9-3.1 goals per game. Does ONE extra goal per game really cheapen the experience for you? I think you're instinctively overreacting because you're protective of the game, which I appreciate, but it's causing you (and people who argue as you do) to lose perspective.

If "less is more," why not just make goalie equipment huge, and keep every game 0-0 or 1-0? Soccer scores for everyone! Goals will become world changing events! Nobody should get above 50 points per year, or what fun is that?

See what I mean?

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.

I'm curious, why do you think more open ice is a better solution than making the nets bigger? If you don't want to see major changes to the way the game is played, why double the size of the ice before making the nets 5% bigger?

Edited by Aethernum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is exactly what I was talking about earlier, though. You're building up a strawman argument here - nobody is saying we expect there to be 8-6 games all the time. Teams are scoring between 2.4-2.6 goals per game, on average. We're talking about bumping that up to around 2.9-3.1 goals per game. Does ONE extra goal per game really cheapen the experience for you? I think you're instinctively overreacting because you're protective of the game, which I appreciate, but it's causing you (and people who argue as you do) to lose perspective.

If "less is more," why not just make goalie equipment huge, and keep every game 0-0 or 1-0? Soccer scores for everyone! Goals will become world changing events! Nobody should get above 50 points per year, or what fun is that?

See what I mean?

I feel like your argument is directed at people who posted before me. I was simply saying that I would rather have a low scoring game with chances then a high scoring game where the goals mean nothing. I wasn't saying I was against one extra goal per game, not sure where you got that from what I said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like your argument is directed at people who posted before me. I was simply saying that I would rather have a low scoring game with chances then a high scoring game where the goals mean nothing. I wasn't saying I was against one extra goal per game, not sure where you got that from what I said.

Didn't mean to mis-represent what you were saying. I apologize for that. I just feel like there's a knee-jerk argument of "Well we don't want 8-6 games any more than we want 1-0 games" when it comes to this topic and I thought that's where you were going with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problem at all with making nets larger by a couple inches. I don't think it ruins the integrity of the game any more than changing the rules for icings, or delay of game penalties, or two-line passing, etc has. Actually I think wider nets would be more subtle than the above examples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious, why do you think more open ice is a better solution than making the nets bigger? If you don't want to see major changes to the way the game is played, why double the size of the ice before making the nets 5% bigger?

_____________________________________________________________

1) Well I am not talking about "doubling" the size of the rink. Just tweak it up to the international or Olympic size.

2) There's already a precedent for having a larger rink ( International/Olympic).

3) it would open up the ice for more exciting play (such as what you are seeing in 3 on 3).

4) I think tweaking the net size may lead to more "garbagy" type goals. Not necessarily better play.

5) Larger rink may lead to more benefit to skilled teams ... like the Wings.

6) A bigger net may lead to a focus towards extra large goalies...or may lead to some other weird gimmicky strategy that is going to change the game in an odd way. I just find the idea to be misguided on a number of different levels.

Edited by MDCard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't remember who, but a former goalie said making the best wider would screw with the goalies too much, but making then taller would be a good idea. Higher crossbar means the 6'4" goalies would actually leave some room up top, which would lead to the not dripping into the butterfly as quickly, which would lead to more room down low.

Bigger ice wouldn't get the defense to move away from the middle of the ice. You'd just have teams standing around the perimeter passsing the puck and never shooting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't mean to mis-represent what you were saying. I apologize for that. I just feel like there's a knee-jerk argument of "Well we don't want 8-6 games any more than we want 1-0 games" when it comes to this topic and I thought that's where you were going with that.

No worries, I actually prefer more scoring. I am a big fantasy hockey guy, and I like it when a players are just dominant. Like I said, my comments were more so comparing extreme's and the OHL game I went to was an example of an extreme. When I say I prefer a 1-0 game over a 9-8 game mean it, but obviously there is a middle gorund. I am not sure what to do to increase scoring, I would have to really think about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Ovechkin played in the 80s and 90s, he'd have 1,500 goals when he finished. The bigger goalies and goalie equipment has tightened up hockey a lot. If you watch a lot of Gretzky highlights, you will see goalies standing up trying to kick their pads out to stop weak shots along the ice and failing. A goalie today stops a lot of those shots with the butterfly style and bigger equipment. Gretzky would have a hard time hitting 500 goals if his career would have started in the 2000's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Ovechkin played in the 80s and 90s, he'd have 1,500 goals when he finished. The bigger goalies and goalie equipment has tightened up hockey a lot. If you watch a lot of Gretzky highlights, you will see goalies standing up trying to kick their pads out to stop weak shots along the ice and failing. A goalie today stops a lot of those shots with the butterfly style and bigger equipment. Gretzky would have a hard time hitting 500 goals if his career would have started in the 2000's.

It really is true. Some of the highlights from back then really show you how much better the players are now a days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It really is true. Some of the highlights from back then really show you how much better the players are now a days.

It almost makes you laugh watching Vancouver goalies in those ugly unis trying to toe punch Gretzky's slide shots to the far post. Ben Bishop would only have to do half a butterfly drop to push those aside!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As was already pointed out, the rink size will not be changed. It would cost tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars to convert all the NHL arena surfaces, not to mention the millions in revenue that would be lost due both the time it would take and the seats that would be lost. Not feasible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't understand the desire to change the game at this point... I'm not completely opposed to making the nets 1-2 inches bigger, but I just don't see the point in changing any part of the game for an extra half a goal or whatever it would work out to be. For me personally, I'm fine with the way the game is right now, and I actually like that it is harder to score these days. The NHL has some of the best athletes in the world at every position, and the skill level has increased dramatically over the years, with more focus on training, and bigger, better equipment. Goalies are a little bigger and more athletic, and they can and will continue to have games where they stand on their head and only allow one goal or even shut the door completely. But at the same time, players can still pick corners, deke goalies completely out of the net, and rack up 5+ goals any given night. There is still plenty scoring, still a lot of 7+ goal games, and still some 3- goal games. It's not as if, we're getting to a point where goals are a rarity. There is still more than enough scoring, so why change it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As was already pointed out, the rink size will not be changed. It would cost tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars to convert all the NHL arena surfaces, not to mention the millions in revenue that would be lost due both the time it would take and the seats that would be lost. Not feasible.

I agree with you, and the thing is that most arenas ar multipurpose, so it would be really difficult to shut down to do all the necessary adjustments. I don't know how long it would take to adapt the cooling systems to the bigger size

I found this cool time lapse

Edited by NerveDamage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Making the rinks larger will do nothing and honestly it will never happen. The arenas today are multifunctional no sane owner will agree to shut them down for a few weeks and risk losing a lot of revenue, it's just not going to happen. Also players, coaches would figure out in a hurry how to take away the new space (i.e. olympic ice). Well I don't care if it helps star-forwards they are STAR forwards so they should be able to score a bunch of goals and assists right? Funny nobody is saying let's help the star defenders doing their job, so why help the forwards? I personally couldn't care less if a new fan is turned away because his favorite player hasn't scored 100 points and "only" managed to get lets say 88. Honestly 100 points should be the exception (a highlight) in a players career not the norm.

Gretzky is hands down the best player who ever played the game but back then goalies - with the few obvious exceptions - weren't as atheltic and well trained as they are now. Never understood why people are so fixated on 3 digit numbers if its that important they can go watch the NBA.

I think a lot of fans are protective (not that it matters what he think anyways..) of the game because some of the changes have all been for the worst: hockey in places with ECHL like attendances, salary cup, instigator rule, constant twinkering with the ASG till it has become basically a joke. Also Ovechkin is not a playermaker he is a finisher, which means he will score more goals and have less assists so I doubt he'll ever reach 100 or whatever points.

Another reason why the game "used to be higher scoring" is owners were able to aDD and KEEP all-star-talent that isn't the case anymore, players have to get used to new linemates, find new chemistry and need time to figure it out. And now people want to punish goalies for being reallyreally good? Doesn't make sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

It's compassionate of you to willingly spend another's money. #FeelTheBern

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I know is goalie pads need to be chopped down so they sit just above the knee, not just below the waist. Some of the pads goalies wear look ridiculous. I'm surprised they can even move. A lot of goalies switched when the size restrictions came in. Width was taken away, so they increased the height. Brodeur is probably the last NHL goalie to wear proper fitting pads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you, and the thing is that most arenas ar multipurpose, so it would be really difficult to shut down to do all the necessary adjustments. I don't know how long it would take to adapt the cooling systems to the bigger size

I found this cool time lapse

Cool video! And here I thought they just put a floor over the ice.

To answer the question, I think the game is ok the way it is. High scoring games are fun, but if it only happens a few times a year. If it's every night, no thanks. I think the perfect hockey score is 3-2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool video! And here I thought they just put a floor over the ice.

To answer the question, I think the game is ok the way it is. High scoring games are fun, but if it only happens a few times a year. If it's every night, no thanks. I think the perfect hockey score is 3-2.

Cool video! And here I thought they just put a floor over the ice.

To answer the question, I think the game is ok the way it is. High scoring games are fun, but if it only happens a few times a year. If it's every night, no thanks. I think the perfect hockey score is 3-2.

Agree provided the Wings have the 3..!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now