This is a thread that has been gaining momentum for some time.The latest defensive forward thread touching on the Bob Gainet / Craig Ramsay debate looked at this issue briefly. Let's expand the discussion.
Presently all the NHL teams play on a regulation size - 200" x 85" NHL rink. This was not always the case. Three recent rinks, Boston, Buffalo and Chicago - closed within the last 20 years were smaller by app. 10 % in surface area, shorter and narrower with a distinctly smaller neutral zone. Will not go into the strategic or technical differences at this time but will look at one common aspect.
In all three instances teams that were prime Stanley Cup contenders, under performed.
Much has been written about the various reason for the lack of anticipated success, depth, coaching, ownership and various other reasons have been discussed yet the issue of rink size has not been discussed.
Let's start the discussion with informal opinions about the rink size issue, specifically - were the teams who played their home games on a smaller ice surface at a disadvantage going in if all other aspects were equal?