[OT] Blue Ice

[www.buffalonews.com]

I haven't formed an opinion on this yet, but I have a feeling many people won't like it.

After reading the article, I care less about the color thing than I thought it would. Whatever, let's just go polka dot and get it over with.

What really bugged me was the suggestion of not only increasing the neutral zone, but making a team 'clear it' past the red, er, blue, er center line to 'clear the zone.'

If they do that and a masked gunmen rains down fire on Bettman's offices, um, I apologize.

Most of the article was about blue ice and while my initial thought is that it sounds terrible, it's just an asthetic thing. The bit at the end about changing the way the zones work is much more suibstantial. In short: move the blue line closer to the goal but then once the offensive team crosses the blue line the offensive zone stretches back all the way to the red line. Seems like a terrible idea to me, if only because it would have a dramatic effect on the way the game is played. This isn't tinkering like changing the size of goalie pads or changing where a goalie can play the puck. It's something that could totally change all of the strategies and tactics of the game.

If nothing else, I do appreciate that the NHL is looking at various things experimentally in the AHL. That way they get to try things out on the ice but not have changes affect the big leagues until they prove to be positive changes (or at least that someone thinks they're positive).

A few months ago, Hockey News had an article saying what is needed is a bigger neutral zone to make longer passes possible, but not shrinking the offensive zone.

The solution that was proposed was widening the blueline toward the goal to be about 6 or 8 feet. This grew the neutral zone without shrinking the offensive zone.

Yeah, they've been doing that for a while. The OTL point as well as the 4x4 OT both came from AHL experiments. At the time they also tried a rule where you weren't allowed to hold the puck behind the net (I think at all, or maybe not more than a second or two), but that never went anywhere. They may have tried a couple others at the time too.

I think its a terrible idea.

Man o man. Some of the rumored changes of the NHL when that gets going again and things like this just make me sick. The people at the top seem willing to piss off the die hards in order to appease new fans if you want to call them that. I guess it makes sense on a practical level because the die hards will never leave. Still sucks though. I don't want a shootouts. I don't want bigger nets. I don't want goalies to not be able to go behind the net to handle the puck. I'm perfectly entertained, yet Bettman and all these people are so intent on spreading the game. What a joke. Appreciate your roots and where your current fans are rather than trying to appeal to people who will never love hockey as much.

It can't nearly be as bad as the college football team with blue astroturf, can it?

WRT rule changes, move the goal line back to where it was, keep the attacking zones the same size and that will increase the neutral zone. Then, call the damn clutch and grab penalties, add no touch icing, and eliminate the red line, and you're done.

Go Boise State!!

The colored ice seems a bit bush league, but the point about glare isn't a bad one. Makes sense. If it isn't too gaudy I could probably learn to like it.

I love hockey, but I'm not a traditionalist at all. People should consider changing the game, as long as the key is to emphasize the special skill required to play a very physical game on ice. The current NHL variety of the game is pretty much anything but the optimal way to do that. Can't say I have ideas, but I'm certainly open to others' ideas. I think we all should be.

making the goals larger is not a good thing ... changing the fundamentals is a bad idea. i can deal with the blue ice and orange blue lines and the blue red line. i think if they actually called the game by the rules the have on the books the game might look as it once did. i just feel bad for those poor souls who pay to sit in the arena to see it in person.

blue ice...it's like watching a game where there are ugly uniforms invovled. I have a short enough attention span that I can't sometimes focus on games....and then you toss in ugly color schemes and all I can think is "ugly unis offending eyes!"

I'd like to see the blue ice, if it would be easier to follow the puck, but really is it necessary to put down turquoise with a shade of orange that clashes?

The strategic vision of the NHL is:

1) Expand the league to areas that don't give a shit about hockey.
2) When the game (obviously) fails in the new areas and costs swamp revenue, lock the players out to destroy the NHLPA.
3) Bring the game back with substantial rule changes appealing solely to the new areas.

In effect, it's a leveraged buyout where you get rid of who and what made the company valuable in the first place, and are left with an empty brand name you can slap on anything.

Now what they should really do to improve hockey is this:

1) Get rid of the ice.
2) Eliminate all of the playing surface except for a thin region at the boards.
3) Put the players in cars.

Without being accused of defending the NHL, I would like to make a few counter points.

[Q] 1) Expand the league to areas that don't give a shit about hockey.
2) When the game (obviously) fails in the new areas and costs swamp revenue, lock the players out to destroy the NHLPA.
3) Bring the game back with substantial rule changes appealing solely to the new areas.
[/Q]

1) The problem was not expantion. Hockey has done very well in many of the expanded areas. See Dallas. Also, see Nashville. I've attended a game there four years ago, and even back then, there was strong attendance, even for Nash v. Carolina. I think this comment really relfects a nieve traditionalism and love for "original six" (which I found most Red Wings fans were especially fond of). Hockey has also done well in Colorado

2) THe game did not fail in new areas alone. Look to Chicago, they are a huge part of the claimed losses, and they are "original six." I totally side with the players in the lockout, but that is mostly for free market and economics reasons. If Mike Illich wants to spend 70 million a year, so be it.

3) Just a factual note - the blue ice was being tried out where? Buffalo. Don't they count as a good traditional hockey market?

Cisco

[Q]Cisco Wrote:
3) Just a factual note - the blue ice was being tried out where? Buffalo. Don't they count as a good traditional hockey market? [/Q]
the only good news i read in the article was the mention of Buffalo (and hopefully others) returning to their old jerseys aka the blue and gold ... the new “black fad” is way past it’s prime and I would gladly see it be gone forever. i'm all for the NHL traveling back in time if only for the sake of the uniforms, they were definitely a whole lot better looking than the over marketed crap we’ve seen recently.

[Q]Trotsky Wrote:

Now what they should really do to improve hockey is this:

1) Get rid of the ice.
2) Eliminate all of the playing surface except for a thin region at the boards.
3) Put the players in cars.
[/q]


Or.

1) Get rid of the ice.
2) Put down astroturf
3) Call it Major League Lacrosse

I like watching hockey. I love watching lacrosse. I can only watch 90 seconds of MLL before I need to change the channel.