No!!! This idea has never been looked at logically in my estimation. It is either yes or no from the heart not the brain.
There is one argument that cannot be overlooked: hockey needs to be brought to the fans. The winter classic once a year creates demand among people who don't even follow hockey, and excites the most die-hard fan.
Fans may be expecting a classic yearly, but is that a bad thing? There are still variables such as who and where, what weather. Will they be close in the standings? If the winter classic wasn't every year, wouldn't fans simply change their yearly expectation's to every three years?
Some say it would be more exciting if it were every three years, and maybe it would in some sense, but that means three large games less, in three less markets. Hockey does not have the luxury of doing what they think is the best for the game, luckily, a once a year outdoor game IS best for the game.
In the end, the game is two points for the season. The spectacle is what makes the papers, much like Christmas. Would Christmas benefit from being every three years, even just the commercial aspect?
Imagine if you are in a small market, middle class family with a passing interest in hockey. You will never travel outside of Minnesota for a hockey, game but if it comes, maybe you go to Wild games for life after the experience.
If the game was more than yearly it would be guaranteed to play only in large markets like New York and Chicago, but now with only a year between it would be crazy to put it back into Buffalo or Chicago.
If you think with your brain and not your heart, the NHL has finally created a winning formula, and if you were in Chicago this year you would know that wasn't hampered by last year. Some people point to the numbers, that Buffalo had more fans than Chicago. Chicago was filled to capacity, and 100% is 100%.