It hasn't been mentioned quite that much, but earlier this season NHLPA executive director Paul Kelly introduced the idea of changing the season schedule from an 82 game season, to an 84 game season. The NHL board of governors will get the opportunity to vote on the idea this weekend during the All-Star game in Atlanta. In order for 84 games to become a reality, a two-thirds majority vote (20 or more out of 30) is required.
What would be the significance of the extra two games. It's reported by TSN.ca that it would allow for more out of conference games against the opposite conference, and also cut down on pre-season play. What does not exactly make sense to me, is the idea of having the four teams, who are playing overseas to start the 2008-2009 season in Stockholm and Prague respectively should have to be a team that suffers the consequences of starting the season across the Atlantic Ocean.
The idea may not be heavily scrutinized, but is the extra two games necessary? I know we all have our favorite NHL teams, and would love the opportunity to watch Sidney Crosby, Alex Ovechkin and Evgeni Malkin at least once a year. Imagine the problems the NHL would endure if Crosby breaks his leg in Game 83, or Ovechkin tears his ACL in Game 84. The possibilities of this are rare, but they could happen. The NHL season is already typically a grind and nobody is healthy by the All-Star break, which allows players to heal nicks and bruises.
Do you believe it would be a good, or bad idea for the NHL to increase the schedule to 2 extra games?
Information and Picture provided by TSN.ca