OK, I've managed to piss off just about everyone in the WCHA
for offering an opinion that Michigan is better than Minnesota.
Rather than respond to all of the messages I've received and
all of the messages that I'm going to receive when more WCHA
fans read my original comments, I'll offer the following:
 
To begin, here is my original text:
> -- Minnesota is the best team Michigan has faced this season.
>That said, the general consensus among the Michigan section
>was that the Wolverines would win 7 of 10 if they played on a
>regular basis.  (Take that for what it's worth.)  Michigan looked
>very flat on Saturday (too content with the football team's win,
>perhaps?) and Minnesota outworked them.  The nothing half
>of Michigan's all-or-nothing power play showed up.  Several
>people have commented on the Wolverine's speed, but I (and
>those with me) thought that Michigan looked very slow versus
>the Gophers.  The normal spring in their stride and cuts just
>wasn't there.
 
I must point out that the "general consensus among the Michigan
section" and "Take that for what it's worth" were intended to fend
off the butt-load of comments, complaints and attacks that I've
received from the WCHA, but apparently the only thing that people
notice in the above paragraph is "7 of 10", so...
 
(1) I can't speak for the rest of the Michigan section, so I don't
know what each of their rationals/reasonings were as individuals.
(2) After seeing the Gophers for a couple of games (and, to a
lesser extent, a handful of games last season) and the Wolverines
for countless games, I personally drew the following conclusions
...which are simply subjective opinions.
(A) Both teams could have played better, but Minnesota played
closer to their potential than Michigan did.
(B) Minnesota did more with their chances than Michigan did
with theirs.  The Wolverines did hold a 31-21 shots on goal
advantage, and I believe the quality chances were also tipped
toward the maize and blue.
(C) Minnesota's studs (Bonin and Crowley, and to a lesser extent
Kraft and Trebil) outplayed Michigan's primary stud (Morrison).
Kevin Hilton was strong for the blue, but overall I think the Gophers
best players outplayed the Wolverines best players individually.
(D) Top to bottom, I think Michigan has more depth.  I.e., over a
longer period of time than 60 minutes, I like Michigan's 3rd and
4th lines more so than Minnesota's.  (No knock on the Gophers...
more of an appreciation for what Michigan's 7th-12th forwards
can do.)
(E) Although he has shown signs of being in a funk, I think
Marty Turco is the equal of Moen/DeBus, if not slightly better.
DeBus got the better of him on Saturday, although Turco
also played well in that game.
(F) The bottom line is, could either team have won that game?
Yes.  Did Minnesota deserve to win the game?  Yes.  Could
one bounce in Michigan's favor have changed the outcome?
IMO, yes.  (Substitute Michigan State for Minnesota and the
same would be true for Tuesday's loss in East Lansing.)
 
I don't think Michigan has to go back to the drawing board
and redesign this team just because they've dropped a pair
to the Gophers and Spartans.  I expect to see Minnesota in
the NCAA tourney and, although their ticket isn't written yet,
I believe MSU will get there as well.  Likewise, I expect to see
Michigan in the NCAA tourney.  If the tourney started now, and
UMinn and MSU were in Michigan's draw, I'd look forward to
some exciting hockey but I wouldn't quiver over the potential
opponents.  I honestly believe that this Michigan team is a
better club than the 1995-96 Gophers or Spartans.  Not by
much, and they may not (and haven't yet) proved it over 60
minutes, but I think they would prevail in an elongated series.
That's my opinion and I'm not going to apologize for it.
 
Unfortunately, it's becoming clear that a sincere opinion that
might be construed as anti-Gopher/WCHA is no longer welcome
in a public forum.  Following this message, I'll try to keep my
opinions private and/or local.
 
Punch away, my arms are at my side.
 
 
John H ([log in to unmask])
Last October, I thought that if Michigan played Colorado College
10 times, the Wolverines would be fortunate to win 3.  CC was a
much better team at that point in the season than the Wolverines
were.  I can only imagine what kind of public outcry that would
have generated had I posted "3 of 10."  Is that anti-Gopher
sentiment as well?  Jeez, it probably would have been a slap
in the face for every other CCHA and WCHA team, right?  Give
me a break.
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.