Thank you to both Eric Carlson and Mark Sonnier for responding
to my original comments.
 
Having a bad taste in my mouth for the (UAF) program was a
poor choice of words on my part.  Eric is correct in that my anger
is primarily directed at one player.  I've always considered
myself a proponent of UAF, and if I were to give "program" +/-
ratings the Nanooks would certainly be positive.  I have
experienced many of the good things.  Of course, I'd also
give UAF several minuses for Bob Schwark's play on Saturday.
 
Eric was also upset at my comments such as calling UAF's
Erik Drygas a consistent chump and saying that Schwark had
been let out of his cage.  Understandable.  I've already gotten
myself in pickles earlier this year for colorful comments such
as these, but I'm not going to be lovey-dovey and hide how I
really feel.  IMO, Drygas is a chump.  It's hard to find a team that
doesn't have a chump.  My favorite Michigan chump is Alex
"I know I sometimes take stupid penalties" Roberts.  Alex played
for Michigan when the Wolverines were progressing from being
a mediocre team to becoming an elite-level team.  It was a time
when Michigan wasn't as talented as everyone on their schedule,
which I believe they now are.  And, frankly, Alex took a lot of dumb
penalties.  He was nonetheless a crowd favorite, particularly
among the students.  Others would label Michigan's Ted Kramer
(from the same time period as Roberts) a chump, but Ted's
outbursts generally came in defense of a teammate.  For the
purpose of generically labeling people, I'd call Kramer an
enforcer.  He'd let the fists fly if you messed with one of his mates.
So, I've decided that I'm going to use terms such as "chump"
where I see fit and accept the backlash that each and every
occurrence will no doubt incur.  Btw...you're more likely to find a
chump on a sub-.500 team than a winning team, simply due to
the frustration resulting from losing.  IMO, Michigan was chumpier
before they became a perennial NCAA contender.  Likewise,
they'll probably be chumpier during their next down cycle.  (I'm
realistic...Michigan isn't going to be good forever.  Maybe that's
why I'm enjoying the 1990s so much.)  Of course, on any given
night any number of Wolverines are capable of playing a chumpy
game.  You can be a skill player and still play a chumpy game.
Likewise, you can net a hat trick and still be a hack.
 
Back to Drygas...he isn't an enforcer, he's a chump.  He doesn't
strike me as being nuts, like Schwark.  Drygas is more the type
to minor penalty you to death.  What was a physical defenseman
with limited offensive skills doing in the Michigan crease?  He
wasn't looking for the goal, he was running the goalie.  And, the
goalie popped him a good one.
 
As for my comments about a Laker (UAF plays at LSSU this
weekend) rearranging Schwark's face, I don't agree with Eric
that this is condoning the same type of action that I'm fuming
at Schwark for.  I know I'm in the Hockey-L minority for liking
a tight, physical game over a free-wheeling finesse ("skill"
if you prefer, but playing a tight, physical defensive game is
also a skill) style game.  I admittedly have a defenseman's
"an-eye-for-an-eye" mentality.  If I'm playing defense and you
run my goaltender, I'm going to take you out.  It's that simple.
I don't care if going to the penalty box is not what the team
needs at that point in the game.  (Call me dumb.)  It's the
principle.  Think of it as a Klingon-like honor system.  Now,
no Laker is going to hit Schwark for beating on Brendan Morrison.
(They're more likely to thank him. :-)  If someone goes after
Schwark on Saturday, it'll be because of something Schwark
did to one of the Lakers.  However, if Schwark were to square
off with one of the Lakers, I'd be pulling for the Laker.  Revenge
is a terrible bedfellow, but...
 
Michigan will not see Schwark again unless UM and UAF meet
in the CCHA playoffs.  Had Schwark stayed in Tuesday's game,
I'd have been very disappointed if one of the Wolverines didn't
take a shot at him.  Of course, had Schwark stayed in the game
on Tuesday the referee would likely never work again.  So, what
happens if UM and UAF do meet in the post-season?  Well,
nothing until the outcome is decided.  Assuming that Michigan would
at somepoint take command of the game, it's then acceptable for
one of the Wolverines to rough up Schwark (or, attempt to).  I know
that 90% of the people reading this don't agree.  And please note
that I speak for myself, not UM.  Coach Berenson is certainly not
going to seek any revenge on an opposing player.  If a Wolverine
were to go after Schwark, he'd have to make an individual decision
to do so...and he'd have to be prepared to:
  (A) take some blows because Schwark might knock him silly;
  (B) accept the consequences handed out by the game referee; and
  (C) accept the consequences handed out by the UM coaching staff.
Also, I don't think that Schwark should be hit in the same manner that
he hit Morrison.  Another stick to the head is not the answer.  I'd prefer
to see someone check him into the wall then drop the gloves and go
after him mano y mano.  Call it "old school" hockey, taking care of
your own.
 
Michigan has gotten themselves into somewhat of a pickle,
because big wingers Jason Botterill and Warren Luhning have
each received two disqualifications this season and now cannot
afford to come to the aid of a teammate for fear of getting a
third DQ.  And, everyone knows this.  Morrison's penalty minutes
are on the rise because he receives about one minor a game
for retaliating to the treatment he gets from opposing teams.
This isn't unusual, mind you.  Michigan's opponents focus on
containing Morrison.  Michigan State's opponents try to derail
Anson Carter.  UAF's foes should put a body on Cody Bowtell,
because he's the most dangerous skater on the Nanook roster.
However, because of his DQ's, Botterill cannot play Dave
Semenko to Morrison's Gretzky.  And Morrison is being duly
punished, shift after shift.  Bowling Green's Brian Holzinger was
a model of restraint because I rarely remember him retaliating,
and I know he must have been getting mauled last season.
 
As for UAF's plight in the CCHA this season, only time will tell.
They're nicely sitting in 6th at the moment, but they also have
played four more games than everyone chasing them.  A point
or two or four at Lake Superior would help tremendously.
 
As for Eric's very subtle comments regarding Ann Arbor, I have
to agree.  Yost is not a friendly place for visiting teams.  The
student section is very vocal, including profanity.  Of course,
this is true of every rink I've ever been in.  I can't remember
going to a game anywhere (including Fairbanks) where someone
wasn't cussing up one side and down the other.  I don't condone
this, but I can't escape it.  IMO, the amount of profanity in the stands
is a bigger problem for hockey than the amount of violence on
the ice.  The reason it is more prominent at Yost is that the student
section is quite large (1800 student season tickets, I believe)
and very close to the visitor's section behind the visiting bench.
And, foul language has been added by the students to one of
the standard Yost cheers.  Yes, choreographed profanity.
Outside of that area I think Yost is a friendly place to see a game.
The section I sit in certainly has fun, and mindless profanity is
very rare.  However, if a visiting fan expects to go somewhere and
not be abused...I simply don't understand it.  I suit myself up in
maize and blue and take verbal abuse in every CCHA rink I visit.
If someone doesn't think their home crowd acts this way, I suggest
wearing the colors of the visiting team and cheering for them.  If
the home folks don't recognize you, watch out.
 
Lastly, on Schwark going berserk this past Saturday and spearing
Morrison in the face and neck (and Eric attested that Schwark has
similarly lost control before, although not this season), THE ANN
ARBOR NEWS quoted UM coach Red Berenson with the following:
 
  "I don't know if it's on tape.  If it is, we'll send it to the league.
  That's not hockey.  That's terrible. ... It was a bad, bad penalty
  that you should pay for."
 
We shall see.  Again, I know that most people subscribe to the
theory that Schwark should be appropriately penalized (four
game suspension, perhaps?) and the matter should be closed.
Yeah, like that has a chance of happening.  What goes around
comes around and I'm sure that Mr Schwark will get what's
coming to him, someday.
 
 
John H ([log in to unmask])
No, just because I live in Michigan and have a backwards (or
backwoods) way of thinking doesn't mean that I'm a member
of the militia.  I tote a hockey stick, not a gun.  :-)
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.