In article <[log in to unmask]>,
[log in to unmask] wrote:
 
>3) It seems logically inconsistent to note in one sentance that
>Brush 'bolted like lightning,' yet, in another, claim that Brown
>has a 'considerable skating advantage.'
 
Perhaps Brown's skating advantage caused them to become more tired?  I
dunno.  I doesn't seem inconsistent to me.  The Brush goal was one
incident at the end of a long, long game.  One incident never proves or
disproves anything.
 
>For the 45693479th time, Princeton and Brown were evenly matched.
>The Tigers prevailed in part because Konte was unbelievable in goal,
>in part because they may have been better conditioned and thus
>able to prevail in the 82nd minute of their fourth game in a week,
>and in part because, for the first time in team history, they
>believed that they deserved to win. Princeton and Brown played
 
I agree with all of this, plus: Parsons's off night; tight, controlling
defense (especially in game 1); slightly better scoring opportunities (in
a 1-goal game, the smallest differences matter).
 
>five games this year, Princeton won three (out of four at
>Meehan). I realize I'm starting to sound like a broken record,
 
I am still amazed that all five games were one-goal games (not counting an
empty-netter).
 
>but the utter denial of some of the Brown posters is making
>me regret that I've ever said anything nice about a deserving
>hockey team.
 
What denial?  If any Brown fan here said that Princeton didn't deserve to
win, I must have missed it.  What are you getting upset about?  Relax,
it's just a mailing list.  We can have differences of opinion without
getting
angry, can't we?
 
--
 
- Andrew Brecher ([log in to unmask])  <insert disclaimer here>