NHL commissioner Gary Bettman had some interesting remarks during an interview with NBC in Vancouver a little while ago. Bettman reiterated that the NHL is not committed to sending players to the Olympics beyond 2010, a prospect first raised during the 2006 Turin games. It can certainly be argued that the two-plus-week Olympic break causes an undesirable break in the season, and its detrimental effects on teams are well-documented, but there is no reason the NHL should bar its players from representing their home countries in the most prestigious hockey competition in the world.

The NHL first began sending its players to the Olympics in the 1998 Nagano games, and it did so in 2002 and 2006 as well. The League extended the arrangement to 2010 as part of the labor deal reached in 2005 but would not commit beyond that, citing concerns about player health and the temporary shutdown of the season.

“There are a number of factors—how long of a break, and whether that break is beneficial to the season we’re trying to have in North America,” NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly said during the Turin games. “Injuries are also an issue and a concern of our clubs and our players.”

Daly certainly raises two very valid points. The Olympic break forces the NHL to compress the schedule during January and February, often forcing teams to play games on back-to-back nights multiple times and greatly limiting their practice and rest time. My beloved Capitals, for example, had back-to-backs in four out of five weeks leading up to the Olympic break, including playing four games in six days three times in that span. While it didn’t stop them from winning 14 straight games, the team’s fatigue and lack of practice began to show in February, as the team gave up four or more goals in five of their last six games, going 2-1-2 in those games. In particular, the team’s streak-snapping 6-5 overtime loss in Montreal on Feb. 10—and regulation defeat in Ottawa the next night—show the detrimental effect of a compressed schedule. Bench boss Bruce Boudreau’s comments after the Ottawa loss sum it up nicely: “I’ve been telling them every frigging night about bad habits. The break can’t come soon enough for me, where we can get five or six days of practice and get back on track here.”

In fact, the Olympic break has had a detrimental effect on a number of teams during a more inopportune time—the Stanley Cup playoffs. In 2006, the Presidents’ Trophy-winning Detroit Red Wings, which sent more players to the Olympics than any other team, suffered a shocking six-game loss in the Western Conference quarterfinals to the eighth-seeded Edmonton Oilers, who did not even clinch a playoff spot until the final week of the regular season. The San Jose Sharks, who also sent a number of players to the Games—including Russian goaltender Evgeni Nabokov—also suffered a six-game loss to the Oilers in the second round. Analysts attributed these upsets to Olympic-related fatigue by the players; Russia, Sweden, Finland, and the Czech Republic had all advanced to medal games in Turin.
So suppose for a moment that the NHL kept playing during the Olympics. As you may be aware, there happens to be an NHL team in Vancouver: the Canucks, the only club to have lost to both New York City teams in the Stanley Cup Finals. As a result of renovations to GM Place necessitated by the Olympics, the Canucks will return to action tonight in the midst of a 14-game road trip. Add in another six or seven games and you have the mother of all road trips. It’s pretty difficult to argue in favor of forcing a team to play 20 straight games away from home, but that would have been the consequence of continuing to play during the Olympics.

And while it may be tempting to argue that this is a rare, isolated situation, take a look at some past host cities. Calgary, Alberta hosted the Games in 1988, with games played at the Saddledome—the home of the Calgary Flames. While the loss of their home didn’t stop the Flames from winning the Presidents’ Trophy with 105 points, Calgary did get swept by the provincial rival Edmonton Oilers in the Smythe division finals—the only sweep of the 1988 playoffs prior to the Stanley Cup Finals. Denver was slated to host the Olympics in 1976 before Colorado voters expressed an unwillingness to do so in a 1972 referendum—and our commencement speaker’s city has not only been home to the Colorado Avalanche since 1995, but also played host to the Colorado Rockies (soon to become the New Jersey Devils) from 1976-82. No other team in one of the four major sports has to go through such a gargantuan road trip—the closest is the NBA’s San Antonio Spurs, who embark on an eight-game road trip each February necessitated by the San Antonio Stock Show & Rodeo—and eight games is a lot less than 20. It’s a no-win situation for the NHL, so why not let its skaters play for the glory of their countries and at least get something out of it?

Does taking time off for the Olympics cause an undesirable interruption of the season? Yes. Does it have often-unfortunate consequences for some teams? Yes. So is it worth it? Most definitely. By not suspending play during the Olympics, the NHL will not only potentially impose substantial hardships on one of its teams, but will also be placed in the awkward situation of competing with one of the world’s preeminent sporting events for television ratings and fan attention.

The NHL prides itself on being the world’s most competitive ice hockey league. So why shouldn’t the players that comprise that league be given the opportunity to represent their countries on ice hockey’s grandest stage?