Bigger Rink Size Matters

I must disagree with the notion that increasing the size of the rink 
will improve the game. It seems to me that while the players would have 
more room, the game would move more slowly because of the size of the 
playing surface. I think the strength of hockey is it?s excitement, not 
it?s "flow" or "beauty", as proponents of the larger rink seem to 
believe. 

I see it like a movie. The most popular movies are the most exciting 
ones. The most beautiful are often the most boring, too. I think one 
thing that makes the movie exciting is the speed with which the plot 
advances. In a game, the plot advances when a goal is scored or when an 
exceptional chance is thwarted. The plot stalls when the puck is too far 
from either net to score a goal. Because of the extra room, the puck 
would move more slowly on a larger rink. On a small rink, the puck has 
to move fast because there is always someone close to try to steal it. 

I?ve been watching hockey since the 80?s and I remember some of the old, 
smaller buildings. When one player was questioned about playing in the 
old Boston Garden, he said it seemed like every time the puck came over 
the blue line, it was a good scoring chance. And has anyone seen that 
Toronto-Detroit game on Classic Sports? Before I saw that game I thought 
old hockey would be dull, because the players of today are bigger and 
faster. Was I ever wrong. Those guys went north-south so fast, it was 
ridiculous. Try to play the trap when it takes guys two seconds to go 
through the neutral zone! The defense has no time to set up. 

In football it takes like ten minutes from the time they receive the 
ball to the time it is in the red zone.

What has hurt hockey is too many things to go into here, so decreasing 
the size of the rink is not the only way to address the issue. This is 
good as it has absolutely no support. (I think awarding teams three or 
four points for a win is a good idea that I haven?t heard anyone 
mention. ) But it?s my two cents, anyway.