Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2

The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

Cost of Changing the Size of Ice Surfaces?

Thread Tools
01-01-2012, 05:06 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 100
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Tommy Hawk View Post
Why not make the international ice the same size as the NHL ice instead of the other way around?
So, to paraphrase you're saying you advocate making concussions a more common occurrence in international play, which is generally a best on best scenario?

How does that make any sense?

kward is offline   Reply With Quote
01-01-2012, 05:13 PM
Global Moderator
Killion's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 32,593
vCash: 500
How bout this; we play full time 4 on 4 keeping the same roster sizes with 5 forward & 5 defensive pairings along with a few "swing" players who play both; eliminate the tapezoid & encourage the goaltenders to play the puck including a deep end transitional role?. Hockeys gone through a lot of changes & generally changes with the times, dropping from 7 per side to 6; increasing roster sizes; introducing the forward pass; the center ice red-line during WW2 etc. With todays players being so well conditioned, on the whole a lot bigger & a Hell of a lot faster, easy to give them more room by simply eliminating 2 of em from the ice. Im no fan of overtime but everypne loves 4 on 4, 4 on 3's, 3 on 3's and a 3 on 2?. Fun stuff. You could even make the rinks narrower by 10' & add another 2 rows at ice level.

Huh? Am I not your dream Commissioner or what?..

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
01-03-2012, 10:17 AM
Global Moderator
tarheelhockey's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 52,803
vCash: 1020
Originally Posted by wjhl2009fan View Post
So if a team built a arena that is the smallest and it means alot of 1-0 games you would have no issues with that?
Not at all. If that team thinks it can win more games and make more money with that strategy, more power to 'em. They still have to go on the road and try to keep up on bigger surfaces.

Can you imagine if the 2011 Finals had been on a 220x100 rink in Vancouver and a 190x85 rink in Boston? Talk about home-ice advantage... winning a road game in that series would have been HUGE for either team.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
01-03-2012, 12:32 PM
Registered User
King_Stannis's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Erie PA, USA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,071
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by EagleBelfour View Post
THE NHLPA will love your idea!
Yeah, but it's not like they'd be willing to lose an entire season or anything.

King_Stannis is offline   Reply With Quote

Forum Jump


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:29 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. @2017 All Rights Reserved.