If you knew that in your business or personal life, if you changed one aspect of something you do or have, and it changed five or six problems, wouldn’t you do it? The NHL missed the boat again a few years ago to solve a lot of the things they have been nit picking at recently.
In the 1990’s, the NHL went through a growth spurt as far as new arenas go. More than twenty-five arenas opened up in this era and the NHL could have made hockey better by doing one thing: make the playing surface wider. Just by adding five or six feet to each side, could make a world of difference.
Here is a list of recent changes and areas of concern.
- Neutral zone traps
- Less goal scoring, overall offense and passing
- Goalie “no-play” zone
- Removing the center red line
- Moving the goal line back
- Choppy ice
Let’s look at each one.
1) Neutral zone trap. With bigger players, you can string your players across the width of the ice and “clog up” the neutral zone making it very hard for players to skate by. This forces the opponent to dump the puck and chase. Wider ice and you may be able to skate past and enter the offensive zone carrying the puck.
2) Less goal scoring. Being able to skate away from defenders with more open ice will spread out the defense and allow players to pass freely, creating more offense and scoring chances. Making the goalie move from side to side is a classic way to get an open shot.
3) Goalie “no-play” zone. With extra ice in the corners, a goalie would have to be very sure that he can get to the puck, move it, and get back in his net without giving up a goal. Also, if hey goes to play the puck, he should be fair game for hits, but that’s another argument.
4) Removing the center red line. With more passing and skating, there would be less need to dump the puck and therefore limit the number of times teams would ice the puck.
5) Moving the goal line back. This was done to make the offensive zone bigger. Wider ice does the same thing, with more space closer to the net.
6) Choppy ice. Not a major change but a wider surface could lead to less traffic in the neutral zone allowing the ice to remain in good condition longer.
Of course this is an expensive idea now, no one wants to eliminate 3 rows of paying customers, but surely the NHL knew what teams were going to build new arenas. When twenty-five or more teams were changing their home address, the NHL could have changed the face of hockey for the better. Wide open skating, more scoring and skilled players showing off their talents; this could have been the “Holy Grail” answer.
But, the NHL missed out on the opportunity.
Again.
