Neal Joffee writes:
Regarding Michigan and Minnesota, John Haeussler stated that: "...the
general consensus among the Michigan section was that the Wolverines would
win 7 of 10 if they played on a regular basis."
Fine. That's their opinion. I'd hate to see what would
happen if one of the fans who are unable to separate rooting
from being biased ever posted here. I'm sure you could have
found someone who would say Michigan could win 9 out of 10.
With the games being played closer to Minnesota, you also
probably could have found those who would say Minnesota
would win 10 out of 10. And that Wisconsin would win 9 out
of 10 from either team. And that Western Michigan would
handle any of these teams like they did with Michigan early
in the season. And so on...
Why? What evidence to support this "consensus" can you present? Now, if
you were to ask a section of Minnesota fans at a hockey game the same
question, they would probably say that Minnesota would win 8 or 9 out of 10
games, but the Minnesota fans would have a reason for saying that. The
past few years have shown how Minnesota/Michigan games usually turn out.
Can't someone have an opinion without stastical evidence to
support themselves. We're not writing research papers here
- we're supposed to be having a civil, intelligent
discussion.
I would hesitate before saying that MN fans have a reason for saying
they would win 8 or 9 of 10 from Michigan. Maybe they would and maybe
they wouldn't. You're entitled to your opinion just as others should
be. And I hope your thoughts that you could find MN fans who would
give 8 of 10 to their team doesn't spur defensive comments by Michigan
fans. I'd like to see 10 games between these two regardless of who
won -- it would be great hockey to watch. With regards to your
'evidence' to support your theory, that's no different than what the
Michigan fans were doing. Watching two games and drawing a conclusion
according to their opinion. Two games over two seasons (one in MN,
one at a 'neutral' site), both hard-fought close games, both with
teams at less than full strength (MN injuries early in last year's
game, Botterill suspended for this year's game). It sounds like
you're trying to doing the same thing you're criticizing others for -
looking through maroon and gold-colored glasses.
I don't recall Michigan being in the NCAA Final Four in the past few
years? Why? Wasn't Minnesota there? Oh yeah, they were. I hope not all
Michigan fans think as John Haeussler does.
Maybe I'm missing the point here, but if you're saying
Michigan hasn't been in the Final Four lately, you're off
the mark. 1992. 1993. 1995. If all Michigan fans thought
as John Haeussler does, Yost would not be a very friendly
place for visiting teams, but it would be filled with very
knowledgeable fans.
Three disclaimers to throw in here:
1. I hope I didn't sound like I was rushing to the defense
of John on this point. That was not my intention. I hope I
would have done the same thing if it was a Maine fan
criticizing a BU fan for expressing an opinion.
2. I don't mean to direct these comments solely at the
person who wrote the pro-MN comments. It is more a reaction
to the entire discussion of the last week on this matter.
3. The sentiments expressed here are my personal opinion.
Do as you will with it. I appreciate the forum to form my
own opinions and express them to others. Some day, I might
even express a misguided one and learn from other
participants in the *discussion* - that's what discussion is
all about, isn't it?
Now back to the "my stadium doesn't suck - yours does"
theme. :-)
Glenn Auerbach
[log in to unmask]
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey; send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.
|
