On March 10 2012 05:05 StarStruck wrote: That will NEVER happen in the NHL.
Speculation ends there.
in the 70s and 80s there were different sized rinks in different cities. the Original Montreal Forum was larger than 200' X 85' and held way more seats than the original Boston Garden.
as the players continue to grow in size it will be seen as the only viable option. and the new stadiums will be able to hold more people generating more revenue.
the Molson family remembers those "good old days" when the Forum brought in more money than any other rink in North America.
non goalies and their equipment are not going to stop growing this year. both will only get bigger and bigger.
The Saddledome in Calgary is already made for 200X100.
Unless we start seeing 400 pound players in the NHL all the time, I'm pretty sure it's never going to become "the only viable option."
no the current crop of players over 6'5" is making it a reality.... and its a way to make more money by building 24,000+ seat arenas.... around these largers surfaces. the NHL is already getting a small taste of this with these outdoor games...
theoretically it can be done with the smaller ice surface but...
keeping in mind... Cleveland's municipal stadium and Montreal's Olympic Stadium hosted baseball games with 68,000+ capacity.. but the viewing experience was horrific.
yes I am positive that the NHL is gonna do a league wide initiative to build new stadiums for everyone to accomadate this change.
The bottom line is that any change takes, at minimum, two rows from the most expensive non-luxury box seats in the joint. replacing it with mezzinine or upper tier doesnt make up the difference. those are the most coveted seats, the ones that companies buy for the season to give to clients they want to impress. It will never happen
as i've already said in my previous post.... the just move the platinums up 2 rows then the golds up 2 rows.. and then the reds... in the end the ACC would lose 2 rows of Grays or Purples... the least expensive seats in the house.
the NHL has already embarked on many league wide initiatives... including limiting goalie movement.. adjusting crease size etc.
in the 90s the NHL embarked on a league wide initiative to standardize the ice surface size at 200X85. until then many rinks had different sizes.
the NHL loves holding up cities telling them to build new arenas.
never is a long time. there used to be 7 players on the ice.... its down to 6... and in recent NHL meetings 5 a side has been brought up to increase room for the players.
this does not have to be a "league wide" initiative.. the arenas can change 1 at a tiem.. just like they did in the 90s whne standardizing to 200X85.
even by having 5 aside in regular season over time the NHL is acknowledging there is not enough room on the ice.
if the NHL can get Sidney Crosby to play in a night game in a football stadium under artificial lighting conditions in the pouring rain .. so that he can't see Steckel coming at him.... they can do anything as long as it involves them getting more revenue...
Moving it back two rows requires a complete renovation of stadium, or a new stadium. Otherwise they are gone. You can't just take two That's a lot of money and they'll have less seats to do it in.
You still lose seats at the end of the day without changing the entire layout of the arena.
It will never happen. It's not needed for the game and even if it was, there's 30 owners who'd tell bettman to fuck himself.
A solid third of the league routinely struggles to fill up at this point. There's no way they're going to force clubs to take away the most expensive seats, or spend some $300-500 million to expand the rink and add new seats when many teams already have issues filling existing spots.
i've already explained 3 times the most expensive seats remain. its the seats at the top that "disappear".
and now u r talking out of both sides of your mouth. if 1/3 of the league can't fill their buildings any how.. then this change has no impact... except the initial renovation costs... and again that assumes they tell every team they MUST go to 200X100.
they won't.. it'll be "grandfathered" in the way Helmets in 1979 were and 200X85 was in the 90s... 1 player and 1 arena at a time.
once a few teams start packing 24,000 into their new giant sized buildings... they'll fall like dominoes.
not having a standard size is retarded. thats miles away from little nuances like higher boards and shit at different arenas.
you have issues you might want to address if you can't figure out that you lose two rows from the lower bowl if this is done in existing arenas. there isnt space to expand the lower bowl.
renovation or new building is $300m at least. there is no benefit to that cost
this is quite possibly the dumbest conversation i've ever been a part of
Nice as hell though. (on a side note, if only that Omark kid knew how to play defence... he has all the hands in the world.)
Also, whats with the push for larger rinks? International ice produces a rather boring product as far as I am concerned, much closer to Soccer than something exciting. It doesn't lead to more speed, or more offense. In fact it actually leads to much much less offense.
The whole game starts to boil down to the forwards seeing a ton of free ice on the outside, which makes them take it because it is the safe area, then the defending team just kind of laughs and stays on the inside. Puck control is much more absolute, and you see this murky passive pass fest (like I said, soccer) in which no one takes offensive chances because they don't need to. No one takes big jumps toward the net because defensively it is just smarter to hold offensive zone control than to make a move to the net and lose possession.
Why do you think the "soft euro" stereotype exists? The European game on the bigger ice just has less flow. The product on the international ice is one that lacks physical presence, scoring chances, and is all about puck control; the game is more about not surrendering the next goal more than going out and trying to score it.
People complain about trap hockey NOW, you'd be mortified by the play you see when there is more room for the guys to play.
On March 10 2012 07:29 JimmyJRaynor wrote: i've already explained 3 times the most expensive seats remain. its the seats at the top that "disappear".
and now u r talking out of both sides of your mouth. if 1/3 of the league can't fill their buildings any how.. then this change has no impact... except the initial renovation costs... and again that assumes they tell every team they MUST go to 200X100.
they won't.. it'll be "grandfathered" in the way Helmets in 1979 were and 200X85 was in the 90s... 1 player and 1 arena at a time.
once a few teams start packing 24,000 into their new giant sized buildings... they'll fall like dominoes.
It is definitely not as simple as you think to do this and not as cost effective as you think. The Renovation Route This is the route the small market teams will take as they would have to move to another city most likely to have a new arena built. 1.So a renovation is the quick fix if you want a 200x100 rink. It will not give you more seats as you won't be able to add seats to a building of already finite size. First thing let's say the the added 15 feet of ice takes 4 rows of seats, 2 on each side. Now using the Verizon center of the Washington Capitals, the cost of the back row of the lower level is around $200 depending upon the game. Now there are around 240 of these seats total. So $200x240x41=$1,968,000 in potential lost revenue. This will be different as i used gate prices and not ticket plan pricing. Add on the addition of renovation costs and it starts to not seem worth it for a change that you are not sure the fan wants. 2. Some of the arenas hockey is played in also host basketball. How will this effect the owners who share a building? I am not sure about this but i bet there are some.
New Arena route 1. These cost alot, like billions of fucking dollars, but might have the benefit of more seats. More seats though can lead to a shittier experience for those unable to buy good seats. Take Fedex Field, the washington redskins stadium. It is fucking huge and i cannot think of a worse stadium.
Ok I'm done with this. I really don't need to explain anymore. To borrow the phrase from my neighborly rednecks, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/mlKCEl.jpg)
