Bisonfan1234 Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 Don't want to go off topic, but I definately believe college hockey should use the olympic width to try and and distance themselves from the pro game as much as possible and add enjoyment for the fans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siouxrunner Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 Don't want to go off topic, but I definately believe college hockey should use the olympic width to try and and distance themselves from the pro game as much as possible and add enjoyment for the fans. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> how does using an olympic ice sheet add enjoyment for the fans? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 Don't want to go off topic, but I definately believe college hockey should use the olympic width to try and and distance themselves from the pro game as much as possible and add enjoyment for the fans. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If you think the game is better on a large ice sheet, then you don't understand the game. If the rules are enforced, the game is much more exciting on a small surface. Quick, skilled teams make everything happen so much faster on the small surface. UND's teams of the past are perfect examples of that. But, then a few years ago other teams found out the only way to stop teams like UND was to grab them and slow the game down. The league let them get away with it, so UND had to go to bigger players to fight through the clutch & grab. Now, the league says it is going to call the game as it was meant to be called, so teams like the Sioux and Duluth, who play the up-tempo style, will be very exciting to watch. The skills of Murray, Spirko, Zajac and Sioux recruit Ryan Duncan (just to name a few) will be fun to watch on the small surface. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 Don't want to go off topic, but I definately believe college hockey should use the olympic width to try and and distance themselves from the pro game as much as possible and add enjoyment for the fans. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> To paraphrase Dean Blais: UND develops players for the NHL, not the Olympics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NDSU grad Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 Guys, you're falling for the 1234 trap. Pretty soon you'll be discussing current farm policy and the trajectory of the Hail Mary pass, amongst other mindless topics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bisonfan1234 Posted October 7, 2004 Author Share Posted October 7, 2004 A wider ice sheet makes the defense spread out which makes it easier to score. Football, basketball, baseball, hockey, it doesn't matter. People want to see teams score and score often. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 A wider ice sheet makes the defense spread out which makes it easier to score.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ah. So that explains how Denver beat UND 1-0 on the Olympic ice sheet at Colorado Springs last season. It was all that extra ice that the Sioux, a far more offensively talented team, had to work with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 A wider ice sheet makes the defense spread out which makes it easier to score. Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. Just when one thinks he has the game of hockey figured out, an NDSU fan comes along and enlightens us all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bisonfan1234 Posted October 8, 2004 Author Share Posted October 8, 2004 Am I wrong? No. The reason the NHL doesn't use the wider sheet is...they are stupid. And look what happened to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 (A least once per season I have to explain this. Sigh.) There is nothing worse than amateurs on wide ice. Why? Make a pass, miss the target, puck goes wa-a-a-a-ay over to the far boards, skate, skate, skate, skate, skate, skate, (no puck possession by either team), skate, skate, skate, skate, to it, control it, move with it, make another bad pass, it goes wa-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-ay over to the far boards, skate, skate, skate, skate, skate, skate, skate, skate, .... you get the point. The puck spends more time off a stick blade than on. Hockey is a game of puck possession. When the puck is sliding free (after a bad pass) or sitting uncontrolled along the boards (because no one has gotten to it yet) it is not exciting to watch. When a team is in possession making perfect, clean passes and controlling the puck there is nothing better to watch. My opinion: Amateurs should only be allowed on 85' wide (NHL) ice. Professionals, who can make long, clean passes, and who need the added space because of professional size and professional speed, should only be allowed on 100' wide (Olympic) ice. (And when I say "professionals" I mean the NHL. Even the AHL looks bad on wide ice.) Sorry for the diversion. Back to subject: I heard Doug Fullerton may have racked up some "Hilton Honors points" at the UND Hilton Garden Inn this week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WYOBISONMAN Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Guys.............what the FU<K does this silly Olympic ice discussion have to do with the D1 question.....this makes me damn glad we don't have 1234 taking us on these goofy arguments on Bisonville anymore. My advice would be to ignore his rants and talk about the topic at hand.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Am I wrong? No. The reason the NHL doesn't use the wider sheet is...they are stupid. And look what happened to them. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> bf1234....could you please provide your contact info so Blaiser and the UND Hockey Coaches can get in touch with you. Blaiser has been under the false assumption that the smaller ice surface is more conducive to higher skilled players. When Ralph Engelstad, Dean Blais, Scott Hennen, and others were flying around the country on Ralph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bisonfan1234 Posted October 8, 2004 Author Share Posted October 8, 2004 Sic, so teach your team not to make long passes. I mean, did I even have to say that? Isn't it obvious? Short, high percentage passes are the key to any sport in which passing is involved (football, bball, etc.). With that in mind, my point about spreading out the defense (much like the spread offense in football) still holds try and should thus allow for more shots on goal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Sic, so teach your team not to make long passes. .... Self-contradicting argument: No long passes .... but spread out the defense on wide ice. The only way to spread the D in hockey is spread out and use the whole ice: bigger spacing = longer passes. Back to topic: So, if UND goes DI, and builds an indoor passing/training facility, (which are the topics that started the thread, see WYO, I'm trying ), which other programs have that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bisonfan1234 Posted October 8, 2004 Author Share Posted October 8, 2004 Sic, wrong again. Simply having more ice means that you can send someone way over to the boards even though he might not ever get the puck. But you still have to send someone over to defend him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Sic, wrong again. Simply having more ice means that you can send someone way over to the boards even though he might not ever get the puck. But you still have to send someone over to defend him. Please, send one guy to the blue line at the far boards from the puck and don't ever make the long pass to him. I'll keep defending the front of the net. Thanks for making it my five (plus goalie) defending the net from your four. This ain't football. You defend the goal, not the guy. Here's your consolation prize. WYO: Would having teams with staggered probation dates be beneficial to a conference in some way? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 (edited) Stats can be a wonderful thing, baby! Since 1995, UND and Minnesota, both known for being offensive-minded, up-tempo teams, have played 40 times -- 20 times on NHL ice and 20 times on Olympic ice. Here's the breakdown of combined goals per game: NHL ice = 175 goals (8.75 goals per game average) Olympic ice - 136 goals (6.8 goals per game average) For the math challenged, that's an average difference of nearly 2 goals per game. So much for the theory that the larger ice sheet creates more offense. Edited October 8, 2004 by PCM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ethanm Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 If the Olympic ice is so great, why have schools like MN and NH (I believe) looked at switching to NHL-size ice? And don't say it's just about the money gained by adding more seats. If the Olympic ice was so great, they wouldn't sacrifice the extra space to earn a few more dollars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bisonfan1234 Posted October 8, 2004 Author Share Posted October 8, 2004 PCM, you're right. My theory didn't line up well with your stats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 My theory didn't line up well with your stats. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thank you. That being said, I agree with the Sicatoka that Olympic-sized ice sheet makes more sense in the NHL than it does in college. However, I doubt that we'll see any major changes in that area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bisonfan1234 Posted October 8, 2004 Author Share Posted October 8, 2004 I doubt you see much of the NHL period. The players/owners will lock out for an entire season. This is more than the edge that the NBA needed to fully dominate the market between football and baseball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 (edited) If you think the game is better on a large ice sheet, then you don't understand the game. If the rules are enforced, the game is much more exciting on a small surface. Quick, skilled teams make everything happen so much faster on the small surface. UND's teams of the past are perfect examples of that. But, then a few years ago other teams found out the only way to stop teams like UND was to grab them and slow the game down. The league let them get away with it, so UND had to go to bigger players to fight through the clutch & grab. Now, the league says it is going to call the game as it was meant to be called, so teams like the Sioux and Duluth, who play the up-tempo style, will be very exciting to watch. The skills of Murray, Spirko, Zajac and Sioux recruit Ryan Duncan (just to name a few) will be fun to watch on the small surface. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Olypic rinks suck period. There is no flow to game in one of these god awful rinks. The checking part of the games suffers because there is more room. The old Aud and the Boston Garden were perfect examples of what can happen in a smaller rink. There was all kinds of open ice hits as well as good hits on the boards. The bigger rinks take this aspect out of the game. NHL rinks rule. On a second point: Not to say that your argument is flawed because its not, but what makes you think that by the end of the season the Refs will still be on board with the clutching and grabbing and calling them as penatlies. I for one doubt the refs will stay with the program. Edited October 8, 2004 by Goon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DamStrait Posted October 9, 2004 Share Posted October 9, 2004 Since 1995, UND and Minnesota, both known for being offensive... The dirty yellow vermin are definitely offensive, but the Sioux just score a lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WPoS Posted October 9, 2004 Share Posted October 9, 2004 If the Olympic ice is so great, why have schools like MN and NH (I believe) looked at switching to NHL-size ice? And don't say it's just about the money gained by adding more seats. If the Olympic ice was so great, they wouldn't sacrifice the extra space to earn a few more dollars. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I seriously doubt the U will ever leave the Olympic sized sheet. True they have discussed it, but it will not happen. The style of play the Gophers are known for and the size of the ice generally help the Gophers when they play most other teams that come from smaller ice. Generally, smaller ice leads to tighter play with less speed in skating. Larger ice helps teams that are tallented with speed and passing, but not with a strong checking squad. Goon, don't be scared...you know you don't like the big ice only because you guys don't play on it! I'll take the big ice anyday. Having played on both sizes, in my limited ability, the size difference is HUGE on the ice. IMO make them ALL Olympic. But that's just me... WPoS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.