--- Joe Makowiec <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> . .  .What do people think about going to an Olympic-sized
> sheet?  The nominal North American rink is 200 x 85 feet, with some
> allowance in both dimensions, plus I think that there are standards for the
> radius of the corners.  Olympic/European/International/whatever rinks add
> 15 feet to the width.
>
> The argument goes that the larger area:
> - opens up more area
> - puts a premium on speed and maneuverability
> - creates more passing space
>
> I realize that this can be impractical in old buildings.  But how about
> mandating that in new buildings, they at least have space for 200x100, if
> not actually building it right now?
>
> Joe

Of course the arguments are predicated on an assumption that the defensive players will contest
possession throughout the whole width of the rink.  Another way of coping with a larger rink --
especially for a team that would otherwise clutch and grab -- it to still defend the 85 foot
width.  Also the wider rinks have some other characteristics that aren't immediately apparent.  My
son -- a defenseman -- said he hated playing point on the power play on the wide rinks because
there's so much more rink to cover when the shorthanded team tries to ice the puck.  And of course
the extra 15 feet doesn't really help the power play, because the shorthanded team concedes the
perimeter anyway.  Mandating the larger rink is a $$ issue; it's either fewer seats for the same
size building, or a larger building for the same number of seats (though of course a wider rink
means more front row seats).

I think that the wider home rink is a disadvantage to UNH when the postseason is predominantly on
NHL rinks, and the Frozen Four almost certainly is and will continue to be.

Clay



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com