In a civilized society, no NHL team should be forced onto the road in March for a nine-game, 20-day, zig-zagging excursion covering 8,178 miles….

I couldn’t agree more, especially when one of those “forced” road games comes because of a conflict with an appearance by…wait for it…“Disney on Ice”.

I don’t care if it’s the Blues, the Wings, the Ducks or the Dive (okay, maybe I could accept the Ducks and the Dive). These ridiculous cross-country road trips, almost always with back-to-back games in different cities, are not the way to decide who’s the best team in the league.

Sometimes I wonder if the schedulers aren’t really just a bunch of escaped simians hired by Gary The Ass to create some random assortment of games with the only goal being “get me 82 games for each team”.

All I can say is Thank God the Wings got their “flights of fancy” out of the way while they were healthy and energized. Now all they have to do is prove they can beat the Central Division on home ice. Should be a piece of cake, right?

Posted by OlderThanChelios from Grand Rapids on 03/06/08 at 07:57 PM ET

I don’t think it has much to do with March ... teams all season end up with 8 and 9 game road trips with all sorts of travel nightmares. Not saying that the NHL couldn’t avoid these long trips (not a single hockey or basketball game was played in early February at Staples Center ... why the 8-game road trip?) but I think this article comes up because the Blues are gripping and an Andy Murray team is once again making a late season collapse. If they were winning and had a solid playoff position, this story wouldn’t get one column inch in the paper.

Posted by thefutureisAnze on 03/06/08 at 09:19 PM ET

I think the eastern teams should have to play on the west coast, then go home for one then back to the west for another.

This way, they would have at least 1/5 the airmiles of the western teams.

Yes I am kidding, but you get the point….right?

Posted by Laker from Dapuddle on 03/06/08 at 09:22 PM ET

i understand and agree, but have to add that these millionaires are not flying coach class.

Posted by cowboycoffee from San Francisco, CA on 03/07/08 at 01:38 AM ET

Cushy flights and accomodations don’t matter when it comes to jet lag.

Give at least as much blame to whoever is in charge of the scheduling of events at the arena.  If an ice show brings in more people and profits than a hockey game, then unfortunately Dora the Explorer wins and the hockey players are shafted.

I hate to see a team playing three games in three cities in four days.  By the end of the stretch the team (usually both) is tired and plays lousy hockey - tired sloppy hockey is a pain to watch.

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 03/07/08 at 05:35 AM ET

Deal with it.  Adapt and overcome.  A good team with good leadership and good players can do just that.  What doesn’t kill you, only makes you stronger. 

Why don’t we just stop the season when a (any) team loses their top 4 d-men to injuries, until they come back healthy? 

Hey, I’m all for an easier schedule. In fact, I’m one who wants the Wings to get into the Eastern Conference for a couple reasons - the travel schedule, for one, would be awesome - not as easy as, say New Jersey.  The Wings own their own jet.  The Devils own a bus.  On the other hand, without the poor scheduling the Wings and other easternmost-western conference teams would probably get soft.

Posted by cementslinger from Midland MI on 03/07/08 at 08:17 AM ET

Yeah, I’m going to feel really bad for the Blues.  Wait, they didn’t go to England on this trip?  Whiners.

Try 11,667 miles over 12 days, with 6 games in 5 cities.

Posted by Earl Sleek from Los Angeles, CA on 03/07/08 at 09:49 AM ET

I agree that to some extent it is whining - which is why I said blame the arena schedulers.

If the arena wasn’t booked for events other than hockey for long stretches of time there would be no need for such long road trips.

The NHL can only do so much when the teams come to the league schedulers with long periods of time already blocked out for other events - concerts, ice shows, basketball games, whatever - and hockey teams usually get the short end of the stick because the other events get priority since they bring in more revenue for the operators of the facility.

As a result the ice is crappier for some games than it shouuld be (because of the other events) and teams have to play back-to-back games with stupid travel schedules that result in lousy and sometimes unwatchable hockey because both teams are tired. 

To some extent this is unavoidable in the regular season, but no team should play back to back games with travel in the playoffs.  With 82 games there is an opportunity for travel inequities to even out - there should be a greater attention to fairness in a best of seven series.

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 03/07/08 at 10:07 AM ET