Sidney Crosby’s injury has not yet cost him a game as the captain of the Pittsburgh Penguins. It may not even cost him a game as the captain of Team Canada.
For now, his status is uncertain heading into Friday’s semifinal game against Finland after getting hurt in the quarterfinals against Czechia.
But Crosby’s injury has reignited the conversation — especially in Pittsburgh — about the wisdom, practicality, necessity and benefit of having NHL players at the Olympics.
Those are all very different words — and different versions of the same question. Not to mention arguments that have bubbled up about the absence of the Russian team and 3-on-3 as a determining factor in overtime.
So, let’s engage in all those debates to wrap up the week.
• Should NHL players be at the Winter Olympics?: Of course not. As we’ve seen with Crosby and other players who have been injured during international competition over the years (John Tavares, Kevin Fiala, Dominik Hasek, Joe Sakic), it’s an incredible risk, especially in-season. And there’s never been any extrapolated data that shows the NHL gets a prolonged cross-promotional marketing bump more than a few weeks beyond the games.
To say nothing of the restrictive NBC Olympics media rights deal.
When it comes to these “club vs. country” debates, I’m club every time. I’m silver Stanley Cup over gold medal. Give me a six-month season and a two-month playoff run versus a handful of games over a two-week tournament.
If you want to make hockey a Summer Olympic sport and play it after the Stanley Cup with the NHL guys, I’m in. If Crosby or any other star gets injured in July, that’s better than February, when 25 games are left before the playoffs.
Sound stupid? Hockey as a summer sport? Yeah, it probably is stupid. It’ll never happen.
Then again, is awarding the Stanley Cup in June stupid? Yes. Yes, it is. But they do it anyway.
When are the World Championships (without many of the best in the world)? The last two weeks in May, right?
Is July all that different from June or May? If you give me best-on-best Olympic hockey in July, I’m just as inclined to watch it then as I am in February.
Or, just play the games in February, as logic dictates, without NHL players.
• Yeah. But don’t you want to watch NHL players at the Olympics?: Sure I do. If you put chicken wings and cheesesteaks in front of me for lunch every day, I’m going to eat them. That doesn’t mean it’s smart.
NHLers in the Olympics make for a great product. You are getting the best performers on the biggest international stage. As a consumer, I’m going to gobble it up.
But “should” and “want” are two entirely different things. I want NHL players there for two weeks at a time because the product is superior, and it’s better viewing.
Should they be there? Given the cost-benefit analysis to the league, no, they shouldn’t. But the league office doesn’t want to fight the players on it, and it’s a chip in their pocket.
• Would you even watch if Olympic hockey featured non-NHL players?: I would. The Lake Placid 1980 guys weren’t in the NHL yet.
This argument from hockey zealots always makes me laugh: “You need the best in the world to be in the Olympics! And the Olympics need the best in the world!”
Do you? If you do, then maybe that’s a commentary on the sport on the international level. If the flag waving, jingoism, national pride n’at is so important, does it matter who is skating if “USA” is on their chest?
Isn’t it about the name on the front of the jersey instead of the back? I seem to recall hearing that somewhere.
I mean, do people really know the names of the U.S. bobsledders, curlers, ski jumpers and speed skaters more than a week out from the games … if at all? No. But people watch anyway because of the flag.
Here’s an idea worth reinvestigating. Give the NHL guys the Olympic break anyway, even if they aren’t playing. Instead of three weeks, make it two. Put the hockey spotlight on the Olympics and shut down the NHL. Disrupting the schedule is the least of my concerns.
They got two weeks off for the 4 Nations Face-Off. They get a week or so off for the All-Star Game. Give the NHL a mid-winter break. Highlight the next generation of prospects or players and give them center stage.
Is it the purest determination of who the best hockey country is in the world under those parameters? No. But March Madness isn’t the most talent-rich version of basketball. The NBA is. Yet, for three weeks in March, college basketball is king.
Hockey fans love to say the World Junior Championship, college hockey and the minor leagues should get more attention like college football and college basketball.
This would be a way to do that — once every four years, anyway.
• Is 3-on-3 a good idea in the Olympics?: No. I don’t even like 3-on-3 as a way to determine Sharks-Oilers on a Tuesday night in December, let alone an Olympic elimination game.
The 3-on-3 format is a tricked-up, bastardized version of the game. You almost never see 3-on-3 in regulation. Meanwhile, you could get a 1-on-1 skater versus goalie breakaway at any point during any hockey game. Somehow, though, hockey purists tend to hate the shootout and prefer 3-on-3.
I don’t get it. Give me 5-on-5 or 4-on-4 for 20 minutes. If that doesn’t resolve the game, go to a shootout.
Since 1980, I’d argue the three most memorable moments in Olympic hockey were Crosby’s “Golden Goal” (4-on-4) in 2010, T.J. Oshie’s shootout exhibition versus the Russians in 2014 and Peter Forsberg/Tommy Salo claiming gold for Sweden during a shootout in 1994 at Lillehammer.
Indeed, the 3-on-3 format has provided three memorable results in Milan so far in these games.
A GOLDEN GOAL FOR GOLD! pic.twitter.com/oLDfElGnI9
— NBC Olympics & Paralympics (@NBCOlympics) February 19, 2026
QUINN HUGHES! USA WINS! ???? pic.twitter.com/WxbCRKxPiO
— NBC Olympics & Paralympics (@NBCOlympics) February 18, 2026
MITCH MARNER CALLS GAME IN OT. ????????????#WinterOlympics pic.twitter.com/8nCO7eg2fa
— NBC Olympics & Paralympics (@NBCOlympics) February 18, 2026
Would they have been any less memorable if they ended 4-on-4 or in a shootout? I don’t think so.
• Would things be different if the Russians were in Italy this year?: Certainly. Amplifying the previous point, it would’ve been a better tournament with more of the world’s best players.
I can’t guarantee they’d be in the semifinals, but they’d probably be there — or at least they would’ve reconfigured preliminary play so that two of Finland, Sweden and Russia would be alive this weekend with the U.S. and Canada.
There are so many good Russian players in the NHL that it is a bit phony to truly call this tournament “best-on-best” if the Russians aren’t there.
It’s most of the best. It’s good enough. But that team absolutely would’ve added a lot of drama and skill to the mix.
