Widen the Ice!!

[Boston_Habs]

Before we get back to talking about the Habs, just a few final thoughts on the Olympic rules, which we would all agree was an important factor in the overall quality of play.

1. Red Line: Don't want to beat a dead horse here, but I'm still in favor of getting rid of it. I just don't see the downside. You can't play any more defensive without a red line than with it, so what's the problem? It may not increase the scoring, but it DOES force the dmen to hang back a bit and creates more room in the neutral zone.

2. Quick Faceoffs: The fans love it, the players love it, the coaches love it... the advertisers hate it. Some type of hybrid solution should be implemented.

3. Ice Surface:  I always felt this was the least likely change to occur, but the more I think about it the simpler it seems. I've been told that the impact of widening the ice surface to int'l dimensions would be about 400 seats. However, this is not premium seating you would be losing. You keep the same number of premium seats by just moving everyone back and ending up with 400 fewer seats at the top of the arena. What's the average lowest ticket price, $US35? That's about $575,000 in lost revenue per year (peanuts!!). Most of the arenas in the NHL are brand new and should be able to accommodate some minor retrofitting. It's only 15 feet after all. Seriously, what am I missing??

Anyway, I would appreciate other comments. I just thought that the quality of play at the Olympics was outstanding and it wasn't only because of the immense talent out there. For the NHL to sit back and do nothing would be stupid, given how tight and conjested the NHL game has become.  

[clear observer]

Excellent points and arguments.

To add to that we must also remember that with injuries, insurance only kicks in for a team when a player is down between 25-30 games or MORE. The lost revenues would be more than compensated for if the league went to 100x200 foot ice, since the cramped space (huge players, 4 officials) is, I'm certain, responsible for a substantial amount of injuries.

It's simple...bigger ice...less traffic...less traffic...less injuries...less injuries...less "lost revenue". And of course, as you mentioned all the other benefits.

To me, these changes should be a no-brainer.

Good topic,

CO  

[habmeister]

If they took out four rows of seats it would be seats in the lower level of every arena.  Average ticket prices there are well over $100 each.  For instance at Molson Center or GM Place if they widen the ice they have to take out lets say four rows on each side of the lower level.  The price zones wouldn't change and add those four seats to the first four rows of the balcony?!?  Instead of lets say 25 rows in the lower level on the sides they would only have 21 rows.  

Not only that, but they'd have to reconstruct the brine pipes under the arena floor, completely tear out the penalty boxes, players benches and boards and rebuild the whole surface.

Looking at the GM Place map they would lose 800 tickets per game at an average price of $110 CDN.  That would equal about $3,960,000 over the course of the season not including construction costs and playoff revenues lost.  They also can't "add" four rows to the balcony because there is a roof right behind the top seats.

The only way to widen the ice is to have all new arenas with a standard width.  As the current gm place's and molson centres get torn down and newer better ones built in another 20 years then we can build them to fit.

[Thanatos]

Here's a thought, a larger ice surface would probably mean less injuries to the players resulting in a reduced cost to each team as fewer players would have to be called up each season.This should help offset any loss revenues from fewer ticket sales. Futhermore, perhaps the schedule could be returned to the former 84 games during the regular season. If each team played one extra home and away game each and  the games that were added were those that were most likely to draw the most fans(such as a Mont./Tor. game, etc.), would not those added revenues offset any loss from reduced seating?

[MPLABBE]

IF we widen the ice,some idiot will find a way to ruin the show.Heck,everyone knows how to do that:just line up 5 guys at the blueline.It will royally kill the show.

[Boston_Habs]

Maybe I'm just not getting what the implications would be. Of course, you would be removing the first few rows and the most expensive seats, but I don't see why that should matter. OK, you would technically have fewer rows until the first balcony, but the difference in proximity to the ice is minimal. There must be some way you can adjust the price breaks, or raise the price of premium seating to cover the difference. And the end game here is a better quality product, which should benefit the whole league in the long run.

I admit I know nothing about construction or engineering, but I find it hard to believe that you would need to construct an entirely new arena to accommodate a 15 foot increase in width. I'm sure it would be expensive, as you pointed out, but probably not more than a few $$ million per team, and you amortize that over the expected gains accrued from improving the quality of the game.

 

[habernac]

Red line stays. We don't need to give cherry pickers or overly defensive types any advantage, and this would give them exactly that. The 15 second rule for face offs needs to be implemented. No touch ice is also a must.

[MPLABBE]

habernac said:

Red line stays. We don't need to give cherry pickers or overly defensive types any advantage, and this would give them exactly that. The 15 second rule for face offs needs to be implemented. No touch ice is also a must.

That's right,Rucinsky and Savage may actually score 30 goals and prove us wrong with no red line