Amidst the good vibes, it was easy to discount one small change with potentially significant consequences: an increase from 82 to 84 games in the NHL\u2019s regular season.<\/p>\n
We\u2019re diving into the league\u2019s new schedule and considering the unforeseen impact of adding more games to a packed calendar. I\u2019ve flagged five key reasons this subtle shift is an ill-timed cash grab by hockey\u2019s power brokers.<\/p>\n
\ud83d\udcc5 History of the Schedule<\/p>\n
Before we get into the future schedule, it\u2019s important to understand the league\u2019s past. The visual below shows the maximum number of combined games a team has potentially been able to play across the regular season and postseason since expansion.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Forcing more games out of the talent is far from a new idea. With the exception of abbreviated lockout and pandemic calendars \u2014 excluded above \u2014 the NHL\u2019s schedule length had been the same since the mid-1990s. Teams currently play 82 regular season games, while the Stanley Cup finalists can play another 28 if their four best-of-seven series go the maximum. That\u2019s 110.<\/p>\n
The league briefly dabbled with an 84-game season schedule in 1992-93 and 1993-94 where teams played a pair of neutral site games to serve as feelers for future expansion. It didn\u2019t stick.<\/p>\n
For 30 years, everyone seemed to agree \u2014 the season was long enough. 82 games wedged into six-plus months and four grueling playoff rounds was plenty. Plus preseason games, All-Star weekends, and international events. Every cent had been squeezed, every sweat drop had been left on the ice. Until now\u2026<\/p>\n
\u2705 Arguments for Change<\/p>\n
Prior to picking apart the new 84-game version, the reasons supporting the additional games deserve their day in court. And there are reasons, sort of.<\/p>\n
It balances the schedule. 84 games ensures each team plays its division rivals exactly four times. Argument against: Ah, competitive balance. It\u2019s a nice idea. But let\u2019s be serious. If anyone had the slightest interest in fairness, the current playoff format would be scrapped. The NHL\u2019s division-based bracket often features first-round series between elite teams. The format doesn\u2019t re-seed either, leading to easier postseason paths for weaker teams. We can\u2019t pretend a balanced schedule matters.<\/p>\n
The preseason has been reduced by two games. You may be screaming that this is all noise as the new CBA has offset the preseason by two games \u2014 a net-zero change in game count. Argument against: Established veterans mostly sit out the exhibition calendar anyway, reluctantly drawing in for two or three low-intensity games to appease fans and shake off rust. Two intra-division games tacked onto the schedule don\u2019t offset meaningless autumn skates that top players mostly watch from home.<\/p>\n
There is money to be made. Money is the only (real) reason for adding to the schedule. Two extra divisional matches sell more tickets, TV ads, and draft beer. The owners and players share equally in any new hockey-related revenue. Argument against: Sure, 84 regular season games generates more dollars than 82 games. So would 86 games. Or 100 games. A postseason play-in round would create \u201cmust-watch\u201d games too. But where does this line of thinking end?<\/p>\n
Everyone signed off on the change. While we\u2019re not privy to the details on whether scheduling was a contentious issue, both the NHL and NHLPA bilaterally agreed from negotiations. Argument against: The NFL added one game in 2021 to create a 17-game schedule. Many players still hate it<\/a>. There\u2019s now buzz of an 18th game. While money talks, sometimes leadership needs to save the players from themselves.<\/p>\n \u274c Why 84 Games is a Bad Idea<\/p>\n Okay, the new CBA had its chance to prove to us more games is good for hockey. It hasn\u2019t. Let\u2019s get down to why this money-driven move shouldn\u2019t have gone forward.<\/p>\n #1. Players are finally getting healthier.<\/p>\n While missed games aren\u2019t a perfect measure to weigh frequency and severity of injury, it\u2019s a reasonable proxy for player health. Enter NHL Injury Viz<\/a>, which houses 25 years of player injury and illness data. I\u2019ve normalized games missed by season for schedule length and team count over the past quarter century, and the results are fascinating.<\/p>\n From the visual, we can see that games missed have now dropped below pre-pandemic levels. Given the data counts injuries and illnesses that players actually miss games from, we can\u2019t say that every single physical issue is factored. But we can conclude that in 2024-25 NHL players missed the fewest relative number of games in at least 23 years.<\/p>\n In a league where players missing \u201conly\u201d 6,641 games is a positive trend, cramming in a few more tough matchups to juice a percentage point of revenue feels wrong.<\/p>\n #2. We are wearing out our biggest superstars.<\/p>\n No one is going to cry for Connor McDavid. He\u2019s 28 years old and has earned just shy of $100 million in his 10-year career before endorsements. His next deal could push him near $20 million per season given the rising salary cap. Two more games shouldn\u2019t wreck a finely tuned athlete.<\/p>\n But consider his last two years. On top of the preseason schedule, McDavid faced 164 regular season games (missed 21 due to injury), the mid-season 4 Nations Face-off (scored the winning goal), plus two All-Star weekends (designed and won the 2025 skills event). He\u2019s also played an additional 53 games of nasty postseason hockey with fewer than 90 days off each summer. That\u2019s more than 230 game days in 21 months.<\/p>\n And while international best-on-best hockey is great for all of us, McDavid will fly to Italy and back for another six Olympic contests in February 2026. This compresses the NHL season further, resulting in 13 back-to-back outings for Edmonton<\/a>, who have a famously exhausting travel schedule. With international play now slated as part of the league\u2019s bi-annual calendar, do we need to drain the top guys further?<\/p>\n #3. Load management is inevitable \u2014 if it hasn\u2019t already started.<\/p>\n Hockey fans famously chirp their basketball-loving pals about NBA talent skipping games. Hockey players would never sit out to rest. Well, we might test that theory soon. Every sport has a tipping point. In an NHL where 10 of 16 playoff teams can usually sleepwalk to the postseason, someone is going to implement the obvious benefit of load management. It may have crept in late last season\u2026<\/p>\n McDavid missed eight games in April with a lower-body injury. With a playoff spot secured, he was not rushed back, coasting to his 100th point in the season finale against the lowly San Jose Sharks<\/a>.<\/p>\n Leon Draisaitl, with the Rocket Richard Trophy locked, missed Edmonton\u2019s final seven games with an undisclosed injury. He was fit enough to play the Oilers\u2019 first playoff game, logging two points in 22:02.<\/p>\n After leading NHL forwards in average ice time (22:47), reigning MVP Nathan MacKinnon sat the final three games with an undisclosed injury. It may have cost him the scoring title \u2014 he lost by five points to Nikita Kucherov \u2014 but ensured MacKinnon was well-rested for the postseason.<\/p>\n While these might not be random Tuesdays in January, three of the league\u2019s biggest stars may have quietly started a trend last spring. They were good with recovering slowly for the greater good. Goaltenders are already ahead of the curve<\/a> to maximize performance \u2014 only five started 60 games last year. Will these two extra games, combined with a recurring international slate, finally push sport science in hockey to its inevitable conclusion?<\/p>\n #4. The NHL product will get watered down.<\/p>\n Logically, the longer the season, the less important each game becomes. The new CBA is effectively telling us that by adding to the calendar. It\u2019s not good for entertainment purposes. Here\u2019s why: even if players don\u2019t sit out, there is another consequence\u2026 they just don\u2019t play as hard (gasp).<\/p>\n Again, it\u2019s two games. But we all know that feeling when you see your favorite team play the first minute of its first April playoff game. The elevated speed and physicality on that opening dump in where you lean toward the TV and nod at your buddy? This is what we give up with more games.<\/p>\n Like you or I, athletes only have so much to give in a week, a month, or a year. With ongoing talk of further expansion, more teams spread out talent. More games spread out intensity, further diluting the product.<\/p>\n #5. The cap is already rising significantly.<\/p>\n In the last decade, when the salary cap rose modestly \u2014 or not all during the pandemic years \u2014 adding games to the schedule was a defendable lever to pull. Wealthy owners and athletes or not, things were ugly in the not-too-distant past. When would fans return to arenas? How much escrow were the players facing? Would league economics ever get back on track?<\/p>\n While many dollars were lost from COVID, the rising salary cap tells a story of a league confident in economic resurgence.<\/p>\n The cap ceiling is set to rise 29% from this past season by 2027-28. We saw the first signs of player compensation boosts in July as teams and player agents stickhandled their new reality. While free agents always get paid, they were PAID this offseason given the generous cap space. Adding to the schedule as the cap quickly climbs feels like missing the forest through the trees.<\/p>\n Conclusion: Adding two games to the calendar may not bring mass injuries, load management, and a tired product overnight. But tipping points are difficult to identify in the moment. The new schedule also messes with recordkeeping and milestones, among other statistical issues. Much-needed labor peace is a win for anyone in hockey, yet even the biggest superfan would have to admit the season runs excessively long.<\/p>\n At best, the NHL and NHLPA have taken a shortsighted risk. At worst, it could deliver a host of negative, unintended consequences. Only time will tell\u2026<\/p>\n Follow\u00a0@AdjustedHockey<\/a>\u00a0on X; visit\u00a0www.adjustedhockey.com<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n