Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Brian Burke on how to promote more goal scoring without changing goalie equipment and net size


Recommended Posts

http://www.tsn.ca/burke-on-a-mission-to-increase-size-of-nhl-ice-surfaces-1.425938

Quote

Burke on a mission to increase ice surface size

saddledome.jpg

Brian Burke has held many titles in a lifetime of hockey - player, agent, general manager, league executive/disciplinarian and president of hockey operations. 

Now, apparently, he would like add another.

Architect.

The president of the Calgary Flames is on a mission - some would describe it as a difficult if not impossible uphill battle‎ - to make ice surfaces bigger in the NHL.

"I've felt this way for a long time," the 59-year-old Burke said this week. "When I was GM of the [Vancouver] Canucks, I felt the ice was too congested for the size and skill we had on our team. I thought the size of the ice surface affected my team's ability to excel. That's where it started for me."

Self-interest may have sparked Burke's initial look into bigger ice. Now, though, the quest is, as he sees it, much more altruistic. 

"It would," Burke said, "be good for the game of hockey."

Burke has no appetite for the larger international ice surface measuring 200 feet long and 100 feet wide, 15 feet wider than the NHL standard of 200 x 85.

Too big, he said.

brian-burke.jpg

He's not even convinced the so-called international hybrid (92 to 94 feet wide) used in some rinks in Finland is necessarily the way to go.

"Ninety feet," Burke said. "An extra five feet on the width, that's it. I believe it would make a big difference in the quality of hockey."

Those dimensions currently exist in a number of college rinks in the United States, most notably at Boston University's state-of-the-art Agganis Arena, where many NHL teams practise when in Boston.

"If you really think about it, it's crazy that we are still using the same size ice surface as we started with in hockey," Burke added. "The players have gotten so much bigger and stronger. There's not enough room out there. It's too congested. An extra five feet would make a big difference."

It's a tough sell, for two reasons.

One, any change in hockey is difficult. It's such a traditional sport, rooted in the word, no.

Two, most existing NHL arenas aren't configured to be wider than 85 feet. The infrastructure (cooling systems/ice plants etc.) simply don't exist beyond the 85-foot confines and even if they underwent a costly retrofit to permit it, teams are no hurry to rip out prime or premium dollar seats and reduce hockey-related revenue to make the ice bigger. 

Burke is undaunted. He's like a dog on a bone on this one. 

"I know how hard it is," Burke said, "but I think every new arena we build in the NHL should have the capacity to be 90 feet wide. We need to have that capability in the future. Why wouldn't we give ourselves that option?"

So, in the year or two prior to the opening of Pittsburgh’s Consol Energy Center in 2010, Burke lobbied the Penguins to incorporate wider ice configurations. 

It didn't happen.

When the Edmonton Oilers were planning their new arena, which will open in the fall, Burke lobbied them, too.

It was a no-go.

The new arena in Las Vegas, a potential NHL expansion site, was already under construction before Burke could make his pitch there.

But he did hit pay dirt in Detroit, where the Red Wings are in the process of replacing Joe Louis Arena with a new facility, the Detroit Event Center. Construction began last spring.

"Brian and I are big proponents of the 90-foot-wide ice surface," said Jimmy Devellano, the longtime Red Wing senior vice-president. "I really believe it will help the NHL game with more flow, less congestion and maybe even a few less injuries.

"In Detroit, when we get our new rink, we'll have the capability to go to 90 feet,' Devellano added.

The Flames, of course, are trying to get a new building in Calgary - that's another story for another day - but should it ever happen, Burke said it will have 90-foot-wide potential.

Detroit and Calgary, it's a start.

ken-holland.

"‎People like (Detroit GM) Kenny Holland more than they like me," Burke said, laughing. "If Kenny and the Wings are in favour of this, maybe others will be too, as more new arenas get built."

Bigger ice is not something anyone at the NHL - from commissioner Gary Bettman to any of the hockey operations department - is necessarily championing or even making an issue of at this point. But Burke did say when 30 NHL GMs were asked in a straw poll on merits of the 90-foot-wide rink, the vote was 24-6 in favour. That was a few years ago. 

"I know there's going to be debate on it," Burke said, "but you can't even have the debate if when we build new rinks we don't have the (mechanical) ability to go to 90 feet.‎"

Burke said he can envision a day in the future when at least half the rinks in the NHL are capable of putting in a 90-foot-wide surface. It's at that point, he said, when he believes the league could conceivably switch over and have 200 x 90 as its official regulation playing surface. 

"People are going to talk about uniformity," Burke said, "but we didn't have uniformity when the Boston Garden, Chicago Stadium and (Buffalo's) Memorial Auditorium were less than regulation size."

"Baseball has never worried about their ballparks being unique in size and design," Devellano added. "They have different dimensions."

So Burke will soldier on, recruiting wider-ice proponents one new rink at a time and, maybe one day, there will be enough of them to at least allow for legitimate debate on the issue

As weird as this sounds, I completely agree with Burkie's proposition.

Probably the most logical way of promoting scoring without making the lives of goalies worse. 5 feet extra added to the width of the ice and there's more room for forwards/players to maneuver. Helps unclog the ice, generate more room, and more opportunity for players to go on the offensive. 

...like the article says only thing preventing this is business ($$) and arenas which don't have the capability to extend an extra 5 feet at this moment in time. However, I honestly believe this would be the ideal solution to all this low goal scoring talk and over time hope the league adopts this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think making the neutral zone smaller may have the same effect but like everything in hockey coaches will find a way to ruin it.

Some other people have suggested that the refereeing should be stricter, leading to more PP chances and more scoring.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, TheRussianRocket. said:

http://www.tsn.ca/burke-on-a-mission-to-increase-size-of-nhl-ice-surfaces-1.425938

As weird as this sounds, I completely agree with Burkie's proposition.

Probably the most logical way of promoting scoring without making the lives of goalies worse. 5 feet extra added to the width of the ice and there's more room for forwards/players to maneuver. Helps unclog the ice, generate more room, and more opportunity for players to go on the offensive. 

...like the article says only thing preventing this is business ($$) and arenas which don't have the capability to extend an extra 5 feet at this moment in time. However, I honestly believe this would be the ideal solution to all this low goal scoring talk and over time hope the league adopts this. 

The ice surface is the same size, mostly, as the early days of the game, but we now have fewer players on at one time.  There used to be six skaters (a rover was the extra guy) and the goalie.  That made for two extra bodies out there.  Burke is out to lunch on this matter.  Make the goal size bigger.  It needs to be slightly wider and taller, so guys can score from the perimiter again.  That would force teams to move away from the front of their net on defence.  This will open up the ice.  Making the ice wider will cause less scoring.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DeNiro said:

Of course Burke would say that now that he has a team of imps.

He would have never suggested this as manager of the Ducks or Canucks.

I don't see your point. If anything he realizes this is not something that is achievable anytime soon. He may not even be working for the Flames by the time this actually happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Toews said:

I don't see your point. If anything he realizes this is not something that is achievable anytime soon. He may not even be working for the Flames by the time this actually happens.

Players like Gaudreau and Bennett would benefit more on bigger ice.

Bigger teams like the one he built in Anaheim would not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DeNiro said:

Players like Gaudreau and Bennett would benefit more on bigger ice.

Bigger teams like the one he built in Anaheim would not.

Just make the nets a bit bigger, so the goalies cover the same amount of net they used to before the balloon sized equipment.  That little change would make a huge improvement in opening up the ice in front of the Nets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DeNiro said:

Players like Gaudreau and Bennett would benefit more on bigger ice.

Bigger teams like the one he built in Anaheim would not.

Yes but you do realize that so far there are two teams that are planning on building arenas with the plans for a larger surface. They haven't even built an arena so far that has this capability. What Burke is proposing isn't likely to happen for a decade or more. 

I highly doubt his motivations for this are based on what his team looks like today. Burke hasn't lasted in one organization for longer than 5-6 years. I doubt he is planning for things a decade from now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goalies will object loudly to proposed equipment/net changes and it could have unforeseeable impacts other than goal scoring. 

I read an article on a goalie website a while back where Price said something like "you think there are a lot of goalies with groin injuries now, wait until they widen the nets."  That's Carey Price, not some analyst.  Tried to find the link but couldn't, sorry. 

This would cost some money short term, but if the game is more exciting that would be made up easily by increased league wide attendance. 

Of all the possible options,  I don't find this one that egregious.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bigger ice is absolutely the best way to solve the issue. The problem is, to adjust current arenas it would mean taking out the most expensive seats in the house. and a number of them. While you could simply adjust seating costs you do remove a number of seats and I think this is why teams may be reluctant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Toews said:

Yes but you do realize that so far there are two teams that are planning on building arenas with the plans for a larger surface. They haven't even built an arena so far that has this capability. What Burke is proposing isn't likely to happen for a decade or more. 

I highly doubt his motivations for this are based on what his team looks like today. Burke hasn't lasted in one organization for longer than 5-6 years. I doubt he is planning for things a decade from now.

The Flames will likely be building a new arena within the next 5 years.

Burke could easily still be there at that time. He's done a pretty good job with the Flames. No reason to believe he'll be canned anytime soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Just make the nets a bit bigger, so the goalies cover the same amount of net they used to before the balloon sized equipment.  That little change would make a huge improvement in opening up the ice in front of the Nets.

I don't like that idea - its against the tradition of the game and only addresses the issue of goalies equipment marginally.

In my view it doesn't address all the root causes

1. Reality is goalies are better athletes today, trained better, and more importantly most are BIG! Most starters are 6'2 and over so is changing the net size going to make much of a difference? not in my opinion, unless its material then its just weird.

2. The game is so tight now because (as with goalies) players are bigger, faster, and better athletes than decades past, there is simply less time and space to allow creative players to be creative, for speed to be as effective as it used to be because teams have strategies to stop it (that's how the neutral zone trap emerged / left wing lock).

3. A larger ice surface isn't that against tradition and international ice has always been bigger, this is a slight adjustment

4. Adjusting the ice would make the game itself faster, more exciting for fans vs simply hoping for more goals vs 6''2 goalies who will adjust, as will systems.

5. Realize this, these players, the elite ones and even average ones, if you give them 1/2 a second more to take a look at a net, they can snipe, its the lack of space and time that is the cause- address that first and I bet scoring goes up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, PlanB said:

Goalies will object loudly to proposed equipment/net changes and it could have unforeseeable impacts other than goal scoring. 

I read an article on a goalie website a while back where Price said something like "you think there are a lot of goalies with groin injuries now, wait until they widen the nets."  That's Carey Price, not some analyst.  Tried to find the link but couldn't, sorry. 

This would cost some money short term, but if the game is more exciting that would be made up easily by increased league wide attendance. 

Of all the possible options,  I don't find this one that egregious.  

 

The goalies would have to play a different style, where they actually have to make exciting saves by MOVING ATHLETICALLY, instead of being in a big butterfly and blocking the puck.  How much longer before we see a seven foot tall 400 lb blob in net?  Just stuff em in there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Alflives said:

The goalies would have to play a different style, where they actually have to make exciting saves by MOVING ATHLETICALLY, instead of being in a big butterfly and blocking the puck.  How much longer before we see a seven foot tall 400 lb blob in net?  Just stuff em in there.

1297511401000_ORIGINAL.jpg?quality=80&si

 

 

hqdefault.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Alflives said:

The goalies would have to play a different style, where they actually have to make exciting saves by MOVING ATHLETICALLY, instead of being in a big butterfly and blocking the puck.  How much longer before we see a seven foot tall 400 lb blob in net?  Just stuff em in there.

Sorry Alf buddy,  got to respectfully disagree,  goalies are arguably already the best athletes on every team in the NHL and it makes zero sense to hang them out to dry by simply widening the nets because owners won't retrofit their rinks to accommodate a slightly wider ice surface. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

Of course Burke would say that now that he has a team of imps.

He would have never suggested this as manager of the Ducks or Canucks.

??????????

"I've felt this way for a long time," the 59-year-old Burke said this week. "When I was GM of the [Vancouver] Canucks, I felt the ice was too congested for the size and skill we had on our team. I thought the size of the ice surface affected my team's ability to excel. That's where it started for me."

 

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? he lobbied to the penguins while he was gm of the ducks??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...