Jim Kelley feels that the NHL deserves credit for the Winter Classic, but should go slowly in planning events in the future.

Let us state for the record that the past two days in Buffalo have been clear, windless and though cold, mostly sunny. All things considered, a perfect day for a little shinny.

Let us also state that that was not the case on New Year’s Day, a day that was cold, dank, sunless, snowy and windy. Not the worst-case scenario given the area’s weather reputation (do the words Blizzard of ’77 or ’85 ring a bell?) but not conducive to outside hockey even if you do jam more than 70,000 fans into the outdoor arena.

I mention both of these scenarios because in the last word department the NHL a) deserves a little credit for their Winter Classic outing on Jan. 1 in Western New York and b) they also merit a word of caution.

Regarding praise, the event was electric. For the most part, the fans loved it and as a spectacle it was sensational. It wasn’t the best hockey game I ever saw and it wasn’t the worst either, but it would be wrong to say the weather didn’t have an impact on the contest. It was the same for both teams, but it wasn’t good and the ice wasn’t good either.

However, the NHL - in America at least - is a league that needs to take risks and it took a big one on Jan. 1 and managed it reasonably well. Simply put: good on them, both for trying and for doing it to the best of anyone’s ability.

With success, though, comes the inevitable duplication - especially in the NHL - and when you throw profits and television into the mix it’s safe to speculate that there will be owners who will want to put on an outdoor game as often as physically and fiscally possible.

To that I would urge extreme caution. There is a case to be made for having too much of a good thing. I’ve been to both outdoor games that flew the NHL banner; I was in Buffalo on Tuesday and I was in Edmonton for the Heritage Classic in 2003. I also attended Rendez-Vous ’87 in Quebec City and if I had to rate those three I’d give the No. 1 spot to Quebec, which had the good sense to blend the outdoor winter carnival with an exceptional hockey game between NHL all-stars and the Soviet national team that was played indoors. In essence, Quebec combined the elements of the two things hockey fans seem to like most: good hockey and a heck of a party in a wonderful setting.

Edmonton did that in 2003 and it was a memorable event because it was outdoors and because it was preceded by an old-timers’ game that featured Wayne Gretzky and Mark Messier and others from those memorable Edmonton Oilers teams against a similar collection from the great eras of the Montreal dynasty. That game in many ways was more attractive than the regular-season Edmonton-Montreal game that followed, but a lasting memory of that outing was also the horrific cold and the fact fans had to endure it for more than five hours. It wasn’t nearly as cold in Buffalo but the weather did have an impact on both the way the game was played and the conditions the fans had to endure. In Quebec it was, quite frankly, the coldest I’ve ever been in my life (short of a weekend on the corner of Portage and Main in Winnipeg one afternoon), but the game was inside and as memorable (and competitive) as any I’d ever seen. The party was just as good.

So here are my thoughts regarding the future of NHL special events: Concerning outdoor games: go slowly. It was about four years between Edmonton and Buffalo and I would argue that was enough time for the novelty of the Edmonton "classic" to wear off and have me anticipate with excitement the "classic" in Buffalo. It’s possible that the time frame could be compressed a bit, but the view from here is that an "annual" classic would be a mistake, something that dilutes an event that has its place but only in moderation.

A better idea might be to have an occasional outdoor game, like in Montreal where next season the franchise will celebrate its 100th anniversary. Having it outdoors would be a treat and having it in conjunction with using all-stars would make it an event, but one that wouldn’t have an impact on the standings potentially based more on weather than play.

Now you certainly can’t have an outdoor game in Los Angeles, Florida or some of the other southern climes simply because even if you could sustain ice, what would be different about playing a sporting event outdoors in sunshine? Heck, that’s why they play the Super Bowl in those places. When events shift south, I’d argue for a Quebec-like experience with an indoor game featuring NHL all-stars against a European squad, perhaps a team made up from the current Olympic champion. That might put some pride back in the game (especially if team NHL played Sweden or Russia or a squad from the Czech Republic.)

It would get even better if it were done after the NHL pulled out of Olympic competition and there was some question concerning both the opponent’s roster and its commitment to winning. Such a plan would allow the outdoor concept to retain a certain distance and remain in the "unique" category. It could also improve dramatically if the members of the International Olympic Committee and the International Ice Hockey Federation opted to play the Olympic gold medal game outdoors. This may come as a surprise to a lot of modern-day hockey fans, but the hockey portion of the 1960 Olympics in Squaw Valley, including the gold-medal game, was played outdoors. Not only was Blyth Arena roofless but the facility was horseshoe-shaped with the south side open to both the elements and the view of the ski jumping facilities. A two-for-one ticket if there ever was one.

Having the Olympic gold medal decided on an outdoor rink with the whole world watching would only serve to whet the appetite for a similar game in North America. Having it happen just once every four years would be just enough of an incentive to make an occasional North American game with the reigning Olympic champs a game worth staging.

It’s likely a pipe dream, but it’s not like it has never happened before and it does represent the best of all worlds: A huge party; a game the world would deem worth watching; and a copycat effort on only an occasional basis, one that fans would embrace but one that won’t cause any problems regarding an NHL regular-season contest.

Let’s face it, in the two outdoor NHL games to date the league has been good at managing the event but it has also been lucky. Had either Edmonton or Buffalo been forced to cancel because of weather it would have been not just a logistical nightmare, it would have been a public relations disaster.

In addition, the first time an NHL regular goes down via a weather-related injury, you can bet the enthusiasm for this kind of event would fade and in a hurry. But if the game were only an occasional thing and able to be rescheduled by a day or so because the league is in town all week, well, what’s so hard about that? It’s a workable plan with a lot less downside.

Besides, if you’ve been to an NHL all-star game indoors lately, well, it couldn’t possibly be any worse.