Jump to content

MDCard's Photo


Member Since 09 May 2010
Offline Last Active Today, 08:52 AM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Bigger nets ?

Today, 01:08 AM

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?[/quote]
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.

In Topic: Bigger nets ?

Yesterday, 08:24 PM

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.



In Topic: Bigger nets ?

Yesterday, 08:12 PM



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.

In Topic: Bigger nets ?

Yesterday, 04:25 PM

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.

In Topic: 11/25 GDT : Boston Bruins at Red Wings, 7:30 EST

25 November 2015 - 10:27 PM

If we play like this the rest of the season, we will make the playoffs.  We played very well tonight.  Just couldn't put the puck in the net when we needed too.  We are improved since Dats, Richards and Green have been back.


I would like to see AA up here and Miller or Andersson out.  We need to be a bit more dangerous offensively.