First, on your last point. The fact that UNH plays in an Olympic size rink
has not, I repeat, not been a disadvantage when it comes to their
post-season play. Since the Whittemore Center opened in 1995-96 (I can't
believe it's in the 10th year already), UNH has made the NCAA tournament in
all but two years ('96, '01). In the eight years they made it, they have
advanced to the FF four times, reaching the final twice. You would have to
assume that to achieve that type of success, they would have to win some
games along the way that were not played on Olympic size sheets. And they
have, starting with Albany in '98, the Worcester Centrum in '99, '02 & '03,
and the Fleet Center in '02 and '03. Overall, their record on 200 x 85
sheets in those post-season years is 14-10. As a close observer of the UNH
scene, their failures in the post-season have had a lot more to do with
talent gaps than the size of the sheet they are playing on. BTW, one of
their most distressing NCAA losses was to Niagara in 2000 at 200 x 100
Mariucci.

As to the larger point, the size of hockey rinks has not really changed much
since the NHL began over 80 years ago. What has changed is the size, speed,
and skill level of the players, and also the sophistication of the equipment
they play with. While changing the size of the rink won't cure all the ills
of ice hockey, it would go a long way in bringing back an emphasis on the
skill parts of the game - skating, stickhandling, passing. Some may disagree
with me, but I would rather watch some smooth skating and precision passing
up through center ice than the clutching, grabbing and trapping that passes
for good hockey in the NHL today. Sure, I like a good hit as much as the
next guy/girl, and having teams work the puck along the boards is one of my
favorite parts of the game. But what first attracted me to hockey many moons
ago was not the neutral zone trap but watching the players whiz by as they
make phenomenal plays with the puck. Don't forget, what separates hockey
from other sports is you have to master one art, skating, before you can
even begin to master the others that will make you a good hockey player.
Somehow the powers that be have lost sight of that fact.

> From: Clay Satow <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 09:55:16 -0800
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Opening up the game
>
> --- Joe Makowiec <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>

> 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