> From: Clay Satow <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 19:01:35 -0800
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Opening up the game
>
> --- Greg Ambrose <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> You see a lot more of UNH than I do.  I'm just wondering if that "talent gap"
> is more of a "style"
> difference  -- that the type of players who UNH recruits and the type of
> player that wants to go
> to UNH are the type that plays better on the big ice.  Sean Collins, for
> example, I remember from
> high school; superb open ice player, but relatively small.  I could see him
> being really attracted
> to a team with a big ice surface.

Absolutely not a style difference. In the years when UNH succeeded, they had
plenty of players who were able to use their skills and take advantage of
the larger ice surfaces and perform well on the smaller ones too. Mark
Mowers, Jason Krog, Darren Haydar, to name just a few, were equally adept on
both. The years they didn't succeed, particularly in '96 and '01, they were
missing big components. In '96 they had a lot of up front talent (Mowers,
Boguniecki, Nickulas), but they played no defense and had absolutely
miserable goaltending so they won only 12 games. In '01, they could defend
all 200', they had Ty Conklin in net, but they couldn't generate any
offense. These failures had very little to do with the style of player, they
had a lot more to do with the quality.
>
> Also,if the "big ice" theory is right, one would expect that there is a lot
> less clutching and
> grabbing on the games played on 200 x 100 rinks.  Is that your observation?

My observation is that there is clutching and grabbing on the big sheet,
maybe not as much as on the small sheet, but it is there.  After all, most
teams' north/south game is played in the middle of the rink. Where it makes
a difference is on power plays. It's a lot easier to maintain control of the
puck on a sheet with wide corners like those at the Whit than on small
bandboxes like the one UNH played on last night at Merrimack. That aside, I
will say that speed still makes a big difference and, through the years,
UNH's speed has allowed them, by and large, to succeed at the Whit
(123-30-15) since it opened.
>
>>
>> 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. . .
>
> Well, I don't know anyone who disagrees with you, least of all me.  I just
> don't take it as a
> given that going to the larger rink will automatically seriously reduce the
> amount of clutching
> and grabbing.  Making the rink wider does not increase the slot area, which is
> where a lot of the
> clutching and grabbing goes on.  With regard to players now being bigger and
> faster, the most
> logical suggestion I've heard is to go to four on four full time.  That would
> ensure more open
> ice, even in the slot,and therefore skating and stickhandling would be more
> important over the
> whole ice, not just on the perimeter.

I'd hate four on four and, let's face it, the player's union would never go
for it. At 200 x 85, today's rinks have 17,000 square feet of ice surface. A
200 x 100 would have 20,000. Don't you think that the extra 3,000 square
feet just might make a difference? As I stated above, most of the game is
played in the middle, but I think that widening the rink will put more of an
emphasis on speed and agility and allow those who possess it to succeed more
and, at least to these eyes, make the game more enjoyable to watch.

Greg