Should NHL consider move to wider ice surface?

[hf101]

Hockey has been full of debates over time. Perhaps the two biggest raging right now surround how to make the game safer and how to increase scoring.

There's one intriguing idea that could potentially kill those two birds with one stone. Over the weekend, Kevin Paul Dupont of the Boston Globe shared an idea from Brian Burke that theNHL should consider making the ice surface wider.

“By and large, we're still playing on the same-sized surface on which the 5-foot-9 Leo Boivin

was deemed the feared hitter of his day,'' said Burke, summoning the name of a former Boston defenseman of the 1950s and '60s. “Our players are bigger and faster now, and if that changes, it's only going to increase.

“A wider rink should allow for more playmaking, more scoring, better power plays . . . overall, a greater emphasis on skill, but still with plenty of hitting. No one wants to turn hockey into a non-contact sport.''

Burke is not talking about adopting an ice surface similar to those used in Europe, which are typically 200-by-100 feet, rather something between that and the 200-by-85 rinks the NHL utilizes now. The former Maple Leafs general manager believes a 200-by-92 feet surface might accomplish the boost in scoring and safety.

It's certainly thought provoking and worth consideration.

While there's a possibility more room would make for less congestion through the neutral zone and perhaps fewer open-ice collisions that lead to injury, I'm not sold it would increase scoring as dramatically.

If you've ever followed international hockey, the scoring isn't necessarily much higher due to the bigger ice surface. Despite all of the room on the ice, the faceoff dots are placed the same internationally as they are in the NHL. The games are still won and lost between those dots, by and large.

All you have to do is watch the Finnish national team to see how bigger ice can be defended just as ably as the smaller North American surface, sometimes even more stiflingly.

The high-percentage scoring areas are still in the same places and are still hard to get to if a team remains disciplined in its own end no matter the size of the ice. Widening the ice actually only increases the perimeter, which could lead to more shots from low-percentage scoring areas.

The wider surface also occasionally makes it tougher to establish offensive zone time. There is more blue line to defend and wider gaps for defensemen to respect when trying to hold the zone. The wider ice creates more room to move the puck in the zone. But if the opponent successfully clogs the middle, it's not a lot different than a normal NHL game.

That would be less of a problem on a 92-foot rink than it is on the European-style rink. But, again, teams that clog the middle of the ice in their own zone would prevent a higher percentage of scoring chances just like they do now.

Where the bigger surface might help is creating more room for teams to transition quicker. That's when it gets a little more exciting. Teams can open things up a bit in transition, and you might see more goals off the rush, which is aesthetically pleasing.

In that instance, NHL teams might have to consider putting a premium on speed when building their rosters. Teams also wouldn't have to play that plodding, north-south game as much with the wider sheet allowing for more east-west play and exploring more of the ice.

High-skill and speed players could definitely capitalize on the extra room. But for the average NHL player, it's nothing more than some extra ground to cover and be aware of.

It probably wouldn't take NHL coaches long to figure out how to jam up the neutral zone and clog scoring lanes defensively, which puts us right back to square one.

The other question that has to be answered is: Does the NHL need more scoring to draw a bigger audience? Television ratings and ticket sales are up in most markets. The game is growing. Would this move make it grow any faster? That's pretty hard to say.

Burke's idea is an interesting concept and one that is certainly worth exploring, but the money factor will reign supreme in this debate. The owners would have to consider if widening the ice is worth the potential loss of seating, especially now that business appears to be moving in a positive direction for the NHL already.

Considering that the game can always try to find ways to improve its product, this is still an important discussion to have.

Source

[DaGreatGazoo]

I think the ship has sailed on this....the time to do it was 10-15 years ago. Think how many new arenas have been built in that time. It would have been perfect to design those arena for possible expansion to a wider ice surface.

I think it's a great idea, and would really move the game forward. Just not sure how feasible it is anymore. Example, you think Toronto or MTL want to lose 3-5 rows of seats along the glass? That's a lot of lost revenue for teams.

[AlaskaFlyerFan]

I think the ship has sailed on this....the time to do it was 10-15 years ago. Think how many new arenas have been built in that time. It would have been perfect to design those arena for possible expansion to a wider ice surface.

I think it's a great idea, and would really move the game forward. Just not sure how feasible it is anymore. Example, you think Toronto or MTL want to lose 3-5 rows of seats along the glass? That's a lot of lost revenue for teams.

It may not be possible to retro-fit the arenas now, but who knows? Maybe a genius architect incorporated that into the design. I would think they have to consider all possibilities when designing.

So, just thinking outside the box and not trying to hijack...Do the arena football, indoor lacross, indoor soccer then adopt the wider playing surface, too?

[Digityman]

Not sure about the other sports @AlaskaFlyerFan but I am in favor of widening for the NHL. 85 feet to 92 feet isn't really that much. That's 3 feet on either side, which is really just the first row around the glass if we are talking about seats.

[Podein25]

85 feet to 92 feet isn't really that much. That's 3 feet on either side

It's 3 feet six inches on either side. Just saying. 6 extra inches matter. Ahem.

I'm against it. It too easily leads to soccer on ice.

But if it's extra ice they want they could achieve that by simply removing one linesman and one ref. I don't understand that sacred cow. Moving to two refs was dumb and hardly constitutes an innovation in the refffing profession. They're regressing, if anything. Have two refs call lines and penalties with more support from cameras and instant replays. That's the way the game needs to evolve in my opinion. I think it's actually a no brainer.

[B21]

It's 3 feet six inches on either side. Just saying. 6 extra inches matter. Ahem.

Mrs. B21 been telling stories about me again?

[flyerrod]

After watching several european games on the bigger ice, I LOVE IT!! It actually seems to lessen the diving......