Eric and Jennifer Burton wrote:
 
[. . . ]
 
>     I was refering to the post that said that college was a better skating
> game, which I used the following player as a retort, with out realizing
> that half of those guys probably skated a lot on the larger surface. I
> used these players as an example.
>
I understand, but saying "Olympic sized rinks promote a more exciting,
skating style of play versus the NHL" is NOT the same thing as saying
"College hockey players are better skaters than NHL players."  Marty
expressed a preference for a STYLE OF PLAY.  Now you can agree or disagree
with what style of hockey you find exciting, and you can agree or disagree
with what style of play the larger ice surface promotes, but if you're going
to post retorts, at least post retorts to points that were made.
 
> In fact last nights NHL game showed a great display of skating abilities
> of most players on both teams. Anyone notice that Dallas really doesn't
> have any so called goons and Robbie Ray sat in the press box. I think
> Playoff hockey is really even better than the regular season. Last night
> game just highlights that.
>
I agree generally (though I went to bed after the second period, may catch
the rest of the game on tape when I have a chance.)
 
On the topic of the effect of larger ice surfaces:  You mentioned the
trouble that teams have with power plays.  Last night my son played a game
on a 100 x 200 sheet.  One of the comments he had after the game was that it
was great for killing penalties for a reason that I think you mentioned --
that it's easiser to clear the puck from the attacking zone.  I agree with
that point, but I also think that if a team is a good passing team and they
set up the power play correctly the players are more spread out, and it's
more difficult to defend them.  I happen to like that.  In my son's case,
I'm not likely to see that, because it's your typical spring/summer "game"
team that has random attendance, and never practices.
 
Another reason I like the larger ice surfaces is that in relative terms, the
ice has shrunk.  Not long ago, a 6' 200 lb. hockey player was BIG.  Now, he
may be "too small" to even be considered.  Skaters are faster and more
skilled; the thing that amazes me most about Jaromir Jagr's stick skills is
not just how good he is, but that he does it with a stick that looks about
eight feet long.  Rink size is to me somewhat like the 10 foot basket in
basketball.  No doubt it was set at that height because it was impossible
for most people to reach; nowadays, as if basketball weren't boring enough,
they've turned into dunkathons.
 
One reason that Marty gave for liking larger rinks I've gotta respond to
with vehement disagreement -- more space for advertising.  I think that
modern day NHL rink looks like a MINOR LEAGUE baseball stadium or a Stock
Car racer (and that's not a compliment).  If I had my way, there would be NO
advertising.  I don't mind "Tim Horton's Donut Shops"  so much -- at least
he was a hockey guy.  But spare me the Bell Atlantics and please, please,
spare me the "swoosh."
 
But hey, who am I to argue with that lifelong hockey fan, they guy who, as a
child, went to bed with his skates on, clutching autographed pictures of
Howie Morenz, with his dog "Hobey Baker" at his bedside.  I'm referring, of
course, to Gary Bettman.
 
Clay
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.