> 1. BU played a physical game, which resorted to "cheaper shots" and some
> "goon-like" tactics. Mind you, most people with this idea feel that this
> was all done within the rules, just that such bruising, physical play is
> not what hockey is about, and not a game that most teams can play. Michigan
> was simply unable to deal with such a physical attack.
 
Whoever believes this, isn't a hockey fan.  I HATE goonery, but there is
nothing better in hockey than a clean open-ice hit, and I saw more in one
period thrown by BU than I had the whole season.  I was surprised how Michigan
reacted to BU's physical play, mostly because I'd gotten the impression that
Michigan could play any style, but BU just did it better than anyone Michigan
has seen this year (except perhaps MSU), and it startled Michigan a bit, in my
opinion.
 
There are no black and whites.  Michigan didn't play it's best, BU played
nearly flawless.  BU "won" it, and Michigan "lost" it.  Trying to over-analyze
doesn't do much good -- and neither does denigrating one side or the other.
 
Adam Wodon - AC Productions
Host: "Around the Rinks" - The only National College Hockey talk show
Listen 24 hours/day, 7 days/week at:
http://www.audionet.com/sports/shows/rinks/
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.