Should the NHL break to the Olympics? A topic that didn't generate too much debate 35 years ago, but its now coming up more and more. The reason this question didn't generate so much heat 35-40 years ago is due in part to the NHL not sending players to the Olympics. Rather, the Olympic hockey teams were made up of either college players or players from various minor leagues.
Now with entire teams made up of NHL players, the NHL takes a two week Olympic break every four years to accommodate this situation. However, with recent season ending injuries that occurred in the Olympics; New York Islanders captain, John Tavares, and Detroit Red Wings captain, Henrik Zetterberg, the NHL is starting to rethink the 'sending NHL players to the Olympics.' This would in turn eliminate the NHL Olympic Break. Mind you, the NHL has all the right reason to want to stop sending players to the Olympics especially due to the situation mentioned above.
The Olympic Break more or less doesn't hurt the NHL monetarily, it could hurt the teams though. The league's teams continue to practice even with players off playing for their respected countries. The thing is, the line chemistry isn't there. Players are used to playing on the same lines game in and game out. Without this chemistry, the line doesn't preform as well as it should. Part of the team is missing, literally.
Then there is the question of, "Should the Olympic Break be eliminated and have teams play during the two week break?" This then falls back to my previous thought of team chemistry. It's just not the same.
With the disallowing players to go to the Olympics, the NHL games can continue and the team chemistry is still intact. It's been done before and it turned out to pay great dividends. You remember the 1980 USA Hockey team?