Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
redruM

Fixing The NHL

26 posts in this topic

I'm sure we debatedthis during the last Olympics, maybe even during th elockout...

You want a more exciting game.. widen the rinks like Olympic Hockey.. the games are so fast moving, and its not just the big 6 teams..its almost imp[ossible not to create scoring chances on the bigger ice!!!

I know the owners will NEVER go for it becuase it will cost them $$$... but if they truly want a better product thats what needs to be done.. not all these dopey trapziods or missing red lines....

Edited by redruM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You answered your own question man :P

Though I'm sure losses in front row seats could be made up by upping the down-low prices, but it will NEVER happen in our time (well not as long as Bettman and clowns are in power, no offense LCB :lol:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You answered your own question man :P

Though I'm sure losses in front row seats could be made up by upping the down-low prices, but it will NEVER happen in our time (well not as long as Bettman and clowns are in power, no offense LCB :lol:)

Thats why i never take the owner side.. in any disputes.. its ALWAYS about the $$$ w/ them .. they DONOT care about the game!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fairness to the owners in this case it's not only about the money.

From what I read bettman had his people look into it and with a handful of the rinks it's wont be physically possible to widen the ice given the infrastructure of those arenas.

However, I see no harm in grandfathering the arenas. Every new arena will have to accommodate a wider surface. Rinks didn't use to be the same size, why should they have to be now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many new arenas have been built in the last 10-15 years. They could have done it, it would have been great.

That being said....it will never happen. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wider rinks are not the complete solution - I'm watching Sweden trap the hell out of Russia on the big ice.

I used to be convinced that wider rinks are better, but with the way the NHL calls the game now, I'm not so sure. Throwing checks on the big ice means you have to be sure you can get back in position, something that's more difficult on the larger surface. Right now we've got almost the optimal speed and physicality in the NHL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wider rinks are not the complete solution - I'm watching Sweden trap the hell out of Russia on the big ice.

I used to be convinced that wider rinks are better, but with the way the NHL calls the game now, I'm not so sure. Throwing checks on the big ice means you have to be sure you can get back in position, something that's more difficult on the larger surface. Right now we've got almost the optimal speed and physicality in the NHL.

I think we have optimum spead becuase 1/2 of the game is played at 5 on 4 or less!!! meaning the dpead picks up as there is more ice to use!!! Same w/ OT 4v4 is greta beacue all of the open ice, sothen 5v5 on a bigger rink should be as exciting!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4X4 in OT is more exciting because everybody already has 1 point and they're just playing for the bonus point. The extra ice helps penalize teams for being aggressive and going for it with odd-man rushes for the other team.

A larger ice surface in the NHL would actually lead teams to play more conservative and lead to less skating and forechecking and more positional play and early drop backs to play defense, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4X4 in OT is more exciting because everybody already has 1 point and they're just playing for the bonus point. The extra ice helps penalize teams for being aggressive and going for it with odd-man rushes for the other team.

A larger ice surface in the NHL would actually lead teams to play more conservative and lead to less skating and forechecking and more positional play and early drop backs to play defense, IMO.

i watched alot of hockey yesterday and thought most of what i saw was very very exciting... now can the intensity of the olympics keep up over an 82 game season, probably not... but I know in soccer, bigger playing surface often leads to more scoring chacnes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Olympic hockey, done over a short period of time with the worlds best, is different than NHL hockey with a long period time and lots of players not talented enough to play in the olympics. There really isn't a point in comparing the Olympics and the NHL because the 2 styles of play are completely different and that is because of talent and time, not ice surface.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i watched alot of hockey yesterday and thought most of what i saw was very very exciting... now can the intensity of the olympics keep up over an 82 game season, probably not... but I know in soccer, bigger playing surface often leads to more scoring chacnes...

I watched every game from Finland v. Switzerland on - Slovakia vs. Russia was really exciting, but because those teams are loaded with offensive stars and short on defensive stalwarts. It's in their best interest to play an offense first game - no NHL team will ever assemble rosters like those where it can be good to be offense-first.

Check out the scoring in the international ice Swedish league some time - it's not much better than the NHL, if at all. While they have less offensive stars, they also have less defensive stars also - and smaller players who can't cut it in the NHL often go there to be stars. The bigger ice surface makes for more perimeter play.

The NHL has made enough changes and I really like them - the NHL is a much better game than it was before the lockout, and I'm not talking here about the shootout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I watched every game from Finland v. Switzerland on - Slovakia vs. Russia was really exciting, but because those teams are loaded with offensive stars and short on defensive stalwarts. It's in their best interest to play an offense first game - no NHL team will ever assemble rosters like those where it can be good to be offense-first.

Check out the scoring in the international ice Swedish league some time - it's not much better than the NHL, if at all. While they have less offensive stars, they also have less defensive stars also - and smaller players who can't cut it in the NHL often go there to be stars. The bigger ice surface makes for more perimeter play.

The NHL has made enough changes and I really like them - the NHL is a much better game than it was before the lockout, and I'm not talking here about the shootout.

other than the added PPs i donot see alot of change.. taking the red line out did not change the game all that much ( and maybe that shoudl tell me that making the rink bigger will not help much either... just think more ice means more open space which means the 2nd tier of players would really benefit...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
other than the added PPs i donot see alot of change.. taking the red line out did not change the game all that much ( and maybe that shoudl tell me that making the rink bigger will not help much either... just think more ice means more open space which means the 2nd tier of players would really benefit...

I'm really not sure what games you're watching. Yes, the red line change hasn't been a big deal, but that wasn't the important one. The clutching and grabbing is gone. Power plays are down in the last 2 months - players have figured out how to play under the new rules, and it's a much better game for it.

Defense still wins. Defense will always win - the NHL can't legislate defense out of the games. But now it's real defense, instead of clutch and grab garbage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy i listen to when the topic of big rinks comes up is Lemaire, who predicted that the redline would not change the way things are played, and if i remember correctly says that trapping may even be more effective on the big ice then it is on the small one.

Personally, I enjoy the small ice, if for nothing but the added physicality. Yea sure the US and Canadian teams are physical in the Olympics, but thats just our style of play, and they still arent nearly as tough as the NHL style games, give me more hitting!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4X4 in OT is more exciting because everybody already has 1 point and they're just playing for the bonus point. The extra ice helps penalize teams for being aggressive and going for it with odd-man rushes for the other team.

This USED to be true... now teams play for the shootouts...... :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i watched alot of hockey yesterday and thought most of what i saw was very very exciting... now can the intensity of the olympics keep up over an 82 game season, probably not... but I know in soccer, bigger playing surface often leads to more scoring chacnes...

cuz soccer is the perfect example of a high scoring game with a lot of american popularity

oh wait ;P

;D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I've seen the missing red line means that Martin Brodeur can flip the puck up to the opposing blue line, where the EGG guys can move in like flies on s**t to the goal. I think it has done more to speed up the play, but announcers just don't talk about it much.

Bigger ice? It would take away some physicality, but to 35+ year old guys aren't going to move faster to keep up with the puck. Who knows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see much of a problem with the current product other than that silly trapezoid rule, not a big enough goal crease (the real reason why goalies are getting run into legal or illegal) and inconsistent officiating.

Edited by Derek21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about this, The goalie can ONLY play the puck behind his net and he can not come out to trap the puck when his defenseman have brain farts. Creates more offense by allowing attackers to take a breakaway shot that the goalie must react to instead of smother 20 feet beyond his crease....

I think the rivalries are not what they used to be. I think that goalie pads could still be shrunken a smidge more. And the game needs better marketing. Those "My NHL" commercials are lame!

Alot of the players in hockey are foreign so their is a language barrier but most hockey players talk like they are robots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the current product. I wish they would get rid of the trapezoid. Make it like lacrosse were the goalie can come out to play the puck but if he does, takes the chance of being checked. Increase the crease slightly and protect the goalies when they are obstructed or hit while in their creases more. Officiating overall is good, but could always be more consistent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about more outdoor games??? Edmonton drew over 50000 people and the rink could be made bigger too..... :clap::clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How about more outdoor games??? Edmonton drew over 50000 people and the rink could be made bigger too..... :clap::clap:

I really like the idea of more outdoor games. But how many places could do it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/hoc...ohiostate_x.htm

Wisconsin played Ohio State at Lambeau field in front of about 41,000 fans.

The Lambeau game was the third outdoor matchup in North America, after Michigan and Michigan State played to a tie in 2001 and the NHL's Heritage Classic in 2003 in Edmonton, Alberta, when Montreal beat the Oilers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cuz soccer is the perfect example of a high scoring game with a lot of american popularity

oh wait ;P

;D

the fact that you equate gioals w/ excitment is just silly... how exciting was the 16-0 game???

Read my quote Offensive opportunities.. if you think goal scoring means excitment then you and i are looking for 2 different things...

goals often mean mistakes more then excitment!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see much of a problem with the current product other than that silly trapezoid rule, not a big enough goal crease (the real reason why goalies are getting run into legal or illegal) and inconsistent officiating.

*DING* *DING* *DING* *AND _THAT_ IS THE RIGHT ANSWER*

(why am I putting CBC's "This Hour Has 22 Minutes" references on an American board?)

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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0