Sorry my previous letter was cut off for some reason.
 
What would've happened if UNH had scored the last 3 goals and
Clarkson had won 5-1, Mike would have a harder time convincing me
(and likely others) that Clarkson won on luck. I think that luck
played a part in the game (as it does in most) but to attribute the
win almost solely to luck, as Mike seems to, is doing a disservice
to the participants. UNH had about a 14-3 advantage in power
plays (the exact #'s elude me), I EXPECT THAT UNH WOULD DOMINATE
WHEN THE HAVE A MAN ADVANTAGE, why is does that make them so great
(or why does that diminish Clarkson's effort). From talking to a
friend who went to the game (a someone's posting on hockey-L), he
(they) didn't think the UNH was that dominant on the even-strength
situations, just the PP advantage (which I would expect). If anything
made Clarkson look bad, it was taking so many penalties not being
dominated while shorthanded.
 
Keep in mind that luck plays a part in every game. FOr instance,
most people wouldn't believe me if I said that Clarkson got lucky
in their opening 9-3 win against BC. The SOG were about even. Just
by looking at the SOG and score, most people would not think that it
was Clarkson who got lucky BUT: BC had a 15-3 advantage in power
plays (29:00 of total power play time and 8:00 of 5-on-3) but each
team scored 2 PPG. While up 2-1 late in the first, BC had a 4:00
5-on-3 but failed to score. Clarkson translated that momentum into
6 2nd period goals to cap the blow out. Granted Clarkson got lucky
in that sense, but to wholely attribute the win to luck does a
disservice to the fact that Clarkson translated that luck into
goals while BC's luck (29:00 PP time) netted them not nearly enough
to win.
 
Bri Farenell
Clarkson '95
TEMPORARILY AT: [log in to unmask]