On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Klein, Steve wrote:
> When you have implications and inferences like this from some of the best
> and most intelligent people on the list, it's no wonder traffic from some of
> our best participants is down or missing this year.
> There's no reason to SHOUT, there's no reason to impugn anyone's intentions
> and there should be no reason to infer negative intent.
> However, most of the above happens all too often in most intelligent
> discussions on this list, even when our good administrators try to conduct a
> constructive sampling of opinion.
> C'mon, people.
>
> As to the lists, I'd like to see them combined.
> All my mail comes into the same place, and my delete key works just fine.
> If a poster uses the subject line well, decision making isn't a problem.
> One reason traffic is down, I believe, is the diffusion of useful and timely
> content on a variety of lists and Web sites.
>
> Now, to post a question:
> Michigan is beatable in any given game.
> With that as a given (even if it is proving unlikely -- just so it doesn't
> appear I'm bashing Michigan, which I'm not, so don't read anything into the
> premise, sigh), who has the kind of team or can play the kind of game to
> challenge Michigan in the NCAA Tournament, from the first round to the Final
> Four. This may be more a matter of style of play and who can play it rather
> than who can upset Michigan on any one given day.
> Personally, if any of my favorite teams can't win, I don't mind seeing
> Michigan win it all because the style of hockey the Wolverines play is good
> for college hockey.
>
> Steve Klein
> [log in to unmask]
> ----------
> On Jan 20, 13:12, Charlie Shub wrote:
> >Art, as usual, has hit the nail right on the head AGAIN.
> >These lists DO NOT BELONG TO THE ADMINISTRATORS
> >These lists BELONG TO THE USERS (VOLUNTEER POSTERS and INDEPENDENT READERS)
> When you have implications and inferences like this from some of the best
> and most intelligent people on the list, it's no wonder traffic from some of
> our best participants is down or missing this year.
> There's no reason to SHOUT, there's no reason to impugn anyone's intentions
> and there should be no reason to infer negative intent.
> However, most of the above happens all too often in most intelligent
> discussions on this list, even when our good administrators try to conduct a
> constructive sampling of opinion.
> C'mon, people.
>
> As to the lists, I'd like to see them combined.
> All my mail comes into the same place, and my delete key works just fine.
> If a poster uses the subject line well, decision making isn't a problem.
> One reason traffic is down, I believe, is the diffusion of useful and timely
> content on a variety of lists and Web sites.
>
> Now, to post a question:
> Michigan is beatable in any given game.
> With that as a given (even if it is proving unlikely -- just so it doesn't
> appear I'm bashing Michigan, which I'm not, so don't read anything into the
> premise, sigh), who has the kind of team or can play the kind of game to
> challenge Michigan in the NCAA Tournament, from the first round to the Final
> Four. This may be more a matter of style of play and who can play it rather
> than who can upset Michigan on any one given day.
> Personally, if any of my favorite teams can't win, I don't mind seeing
> Michigan win it all because the style of hockey the Wolverines play is good
> for college hockey.
>
> Steve Klein
> [log in to unmask]
> ----------
> On Jan 20, 13:12, Charlie Shub wrote:
> >Art, as usual, has hit the nail right on the head AGAIN.
> >These lists DO NOT BELONG TO THE ADMINISTRATORS
> >These lists BELONG TO THE USERS (VOLUNTEER POSTERS and INDEPENDENT READERS)
> When you have implications and inferences like this from some of the best
> and most intelligent people on the list, it's no wonder traffic from some of
> our best participants is down or missing this year.
> There's no reason to SHOUT, there's no reason to impugn anyone's intentions
> and there should be no reason to infer negative intent.
> However, most of the above happens all too often in most intelligent
> discussions on this list, even when our good administrators try to conduct a
> constructive sampling of opinion.
> C'mon, people.
>
> As to the lists, I'd like to see them combined.
> All my mail comes into the same place, and my delete key works just fine.
> If a poster uses the subject line well, decision making isn't a problem.
> One reason traffic is down, I believe, is the diffusion of useful and timely
> content on a variety of lists and Web sites.
>
> Now, to post a question:
> Michigan is beatable in any given game.
> With that as a given (even if it is proving unlikely -- just so it doesn't
> appear I'm bashing Michigan, which I'm not, so don't read anything into the
> premise, sigh), who has the kind of team or can play the kind of game to
> challenge Michigan in the NCAA Tournament, from the first round to the Final
> Four. This may be more a matter of style of play and who can play it rather
> than who can upset Michigan on any one given day.
> Personally, if any of my favorite teams can't win, I don't mind seeing
> Michigan win it all because the style of hockey the Wolverines play is good
> for college hockey.
>
> Steve Klein
> [log in to unmask]
> ----------
> On Jan 20, 13:12, Charlie Shub wrote:
> >Art, as usual, has hit the nail right on the head AGAIN.
> >These lists DO NOT BELONG TO THE ADMINISTRATORS
> >These lists BELONG TO THE USERS (VOLUNTEER POSTERS and INDEPENDENT READERS)
> When you have implications and inferences like this from some of the best
> and most intelligent people on the list, it's no wonder traffic from some of
> our best participants is down or missing this year.
> There's no reason to SHOUT, there's no reason to impugn anyone's intentions
> and there should be no reason to infer negative intent.
> However, most of the above happens all too often in most intelligent
> discussions on this list, even when our good administrators try to conduct a
> constructive sampling of opinion.
> C'mon, people.
>
> As to the lists, I'd like to see them combined.
> All my mail comes into the same place, and my delete key works just fine.
> If a poster uses the subject line well, decision making isn't a problem.
> One reason traffic is down, I believe, is the diffusion of useful and timely
> content on a variety of lists and Web sites.
>
> Now, to post a question:
> Michigan is beatable in any given game.
> With that as a given (even if it is proving unlikely -- just so it doesn't
> appear I'm bashing Michigan, which I'm not, so don't read anything into the
> premise, sigh), who has the kind of team or can play the kind of game to
> challenge Michigan in the NCAA Tournament, from the first round to the Final
> Four. This may be more a matter of style of play and who can play it rather
> than who can upset Michigan on any one given day.
> Personally, if any of my favorite teams can't win, I don't mind seeing
> Michigan win it all because the style of hockey the Wolverines play is good
> for college hockey.
>
> Steve Klein
> [log in to unmask]
> ----------
> On Jan 20, 13:12, Charlie Shub wrote:
> >Art, as usual, has hit the nail right on the head AGAIN.
> >These lists DO NOT BELONG TO THE ADMINISTRATORS
> >These lists BELONG TO THE USERS (VOLUNTEER POSTERS and INDEPENDENT READERS)
> When you have implications and inferences like this from some of the best
> and most intelligent people on the list, it's no wonder traffic from some of
> our best participants is down or missing this year.
> There's no reason to SHOUT, there's no reason to impugn anyone's intentions
> and there should be no reason to infer negative intent.
> However, most of the above happens all too often in most intelligent
> discussions on this list, even when our good administrators try to conduct a
> constructive sampling of opinion.
> C'mon, people.
>
> As to the lists, I'd like to see them combined.
> All my mail comes into the same place, and my delete key works just fine.
> If a poster uses the subject line well, decision making isn't a problem.
> One reason traffic is down, I believe, is the diffusion of useful and timely
> content on a variety of lists and Web sites.
>
> Now, to post a question:
> Michigan is beatable in any given game.
> With that as a given (even if it is proving unlikely -- just so it doesn't
> appear I'm bashing Michigan, which I'm not, so don't read anything into the
> premise, sigh), who has the kind of team or can play the kind of game to
> challenge Michigan in the NCAA Tournament, from the first round to the Final
> Four. This may be more a matter of style of play and who can play it rather
> than who can upset Michigan on any one given day.
> Personally, if any of my favorite teams can't win, I don't mind seeing
> Michigan win it all because the style of hockey the Wolverines play is good
> for college hockey.
>
> Steve Klein
> [log in to unmask]
> ----------
> On Jan 20, 13:12, Charlie Shub wrote:
> >Art, as usual, has hit the nail right on the head AGAIN.
> >These lists DO NOT BELONG TO THE ADMINISTRATORS
> >These lists BELONG TO THE USERS (VOLUNTEER POSTERS and INDEPENDENT READERS)
> When you have implications and inferences like this from some of the best
> and most intelligent people on the list, it's no wonder traffic from some of
> our best participants is down or missing this year.
> There's no reason to SHOUT, there's no reason to impugn anyone's intentions
> and there should be no reason to infer negative intent.
> However, most of the above happens all too often in most intelligent
> discussions on this list, even when our good administrators try to conduct a
> constructive sampling of opinion.
> C'mon, people.
>
> As to the lists, I'd like to see them combined.
> All my mail comes into the same place, and my delete key works just fine.
> If a poster uses the subject line well, decision making isn't a problem..
> One reason traffic is down, I believe, is the diffusion of useful and timely
> content on a variety of lists and Web sites.
>
> Now, to post a question:
> Michigan is beatable in any given game.
> With that as a given (even if it is proving unlikely -- just so it doesn't
> appear I'm bashing Michigan, which I'm not, so don't read anything into the
> premise, sigh), who has the kind of team or can play the kind of game to
> challenge Michigan in the NCAA Tournament, from the first round to the Final
> Four. This may be more a matter of style of play and who can play it rather
> than who can upset Michigan on any one given day.
> Personally, if any of my favorite teams can't win, I don't mind seeing
> Michigan win it all because the style of hockey the Wolverines play is good
> for college hockey.
>
> Steve Klein
> [log in to unmask]
> ----------
> On Jan 20, 13:12, Charlie Shub wrote:
> >Art, as usual, has hit the nail right on the head AGAIN.
> >These lists DO NOT BELONG TO THE ADMINISTRATORS
> >These lists BELONG TO THE USERS (VOLUNTEER POSTERS and INDEPENDENT READERS)
> When you have implications and inferences like this from some of the best
> and most intelligent people on the list, it's no wonder traffic from some of
> our best participants is down or missing this year.
> There's no reason to SHOUT, there's no reason to impugn anyone's intentions
> and there should be no reason to infer negative intent.
> However, most of the above happens all too often in most intelligent
> discussions on this list, even when our good administrators try to conduct a
> constructive sampling of opinion.
> C'mon, people.
>
> As to the lists, I'd like to see them combined.
> All my mail comes into the same place, and my delete key works just fine.
> If a poster uses the subject line well, decision making isn't a problem.
> One reason traffic is down, I believe, is the diffusion of useful and timely
> content on a variety of lists and Web sites.
>
> Now, to post a question:
> Michigan is beatable in any given game.
> With that as a given (even if it is proving unlikely -- just so it doesn't
> appear I'm bashing Michigan, which I'm not, so don't read anything into the
> premise, sigh), who has the kind of team or can play the kind of game to
> challenge Michigan in the NCAA Tournament, from the first round to the Final
> Four. This may be more a matter of style of play and who can play it rather
> than who can upset Michigan on any one given day.
> Personally, if any of my favorite teams can't win, I don't mind seeing
> Michigan win it all because the style of hockey the Wolverines play is good
> for college hockey.
>
> Steve Klein
> [log in to unmask]
> ----------
> On Jan 20, 13:12, Charlie Shub wrote:
> >Art, as usual, has hit the nail right on the head AGAIN.
> >These lists DO NOT BELONG TO THE ADMINISTRATORS
> >These lists BELONG TO THE USERS (VOLUNTEER POSTERS and INDEPENDENT READERS)
> When you have implications and inferences like this from some of the best
> and most intelligent people on the list, it's no wonder traffic from some of
> our best participants is down or missing this year.
> There's no reason to SHOUT, there's no reason to impugn anyone's intentions
> and there should be no reason to infer negative intent.
> However, most of the above happens all too often in most intelligent
> discussions on this list, even when our good administrators try to conduct a
> constructive sampling of opinion.
> C'mon, people.
>
> As to the lists, I'd like to see them combined.
> All my mail comes into the same place, and my delete key works just fine.
> If a poster uses the subject line well, decision making isn't a problem.
> One reason traffic is down, I believe, is the diffusion of useful and timely
> content on a variety of lists and Web sites.
>
> Now, to post a question:
> Michigan is beatable in any given game.
> With that as a given (even if it is proving unlikely -- just so it doesn't
> appear I'm bashing Michigan, which I'm not, so don't read anything into the
> premise, sigh), who has the kind of team or can play the kind of game to
> challenge Michigan in the NCAA Tournament, from the first round to the Final
> Four. This may be more a matter of style of play and who can play it rather
> than who can upset Michigan on any one given day.
> Personally, if any of my favorite teams can't win, I don't mind seeing
> Michigan win it all because the style of hockey the Wolverines play is good
> for college hockey.
>
> Steve Klein
> [log in to unmask]
> ----------
> On Jan 20, 13:12, Charlie Shub wrote:
> >Art, as usual, has hit the nail right on the head AGAIN.
> >These lists DO NOT BELONG TO THE ADMINISTRATORS
> >These lists BELONG TO THE USERS (VOLUNTEER POSTERS and INDEPENDENT READERS)
> When you have implications and inferences like this from some of the best
> and most intelligent people on the list, it's no wonder traffic from some of
> our best participants is down or missing this year.
> There's no reason to SHOUT, there's no reason to impugn anyone's intentions
> and there should be no reason to infer negative intent.
> However, most of the above happens all too often in most intelligent
> discussions on this list, even when our good administrators try to conduct a
> constructive sampling of opinion.
> C'mon, people.
>
> As to the lists, I'd like to see them combined.
> All my mail comes into the same place, and my delete key works just fine.
> If a poster uses the subject line well, decision making isn't a problem.
> One reason traffic is down, I believe, is the diffusion of useful and timely
> content on a variety of lists and Web sites.
>
> Now, to post a question:
> Michigan is beatable in any given game.
> With that as a given (even if it is proving unlikely -- just so it doesn't
> appear I'm bashing Michigan, which I'm not, so don't read anything into the
> premise, sigh), who has the kind of team or can play the kind of game to
> challenge Michigan in the NCAA Tournament, from the first round to the Final
> Four. This may be more a matter of style of play and who can play it rather
> than who can upset Michigan on any one given day.
> Personally, if any of my favorite teams can't win, I don't mind seeing
> Michigan win it all because the style of hockey the Wolverines play is good
> for college hockey.
>
> Steve Klein
> [log in to unmask]
> ----------
> On Jan 20, 13:12, Charlie Shub wrote:
> >Art, as usual, has hit the nail right on the head AGAIN.
> >These lists DO NOT BELONG TO THE ADMINISTRATORS
> >These lists BELONG TO THE USERS (VOLUNTEER POSTERS and INDEPENDENT READERS)
> When you have implications and inferences like this from some of the best
> and most intelligent people on the list, it's no wonder traffic from some of
> our best participants is down or missing this year.
> There's no reason to SHOUT, there's no reason to impugn anyone's intentions
> and there should be no reason to infer negative intent.
> However, most of the above happens all too often in most intelligent
> discussions on this list, even when our good administrators try to conduct a
> constructive sampling of opinion.
> C'mon, people.
>
> As to the lists, I'd like to see them combined.
> All my mail comes into the same place, and my delete key works just fine.
> If a poster uses the subject line well, decision making isn't a problem.
> One reason traffic is down, I believe, is the diffusion of useful and timely
> content on a variety of lists and Web sites.
>
> Now, to post a question:
> Michigan is beatable in any given game.
> With that as a given (even if it is proving unlikely -- just so it doesn't
> appear I'm bashing Michigan, which I'm not, so don't read anything into the
> premise, sigh), who has the kind of team or can play the kind of game to
> challenge Michigan in the NCAA Tournament, from the first round to the Final
> Four. This may be more a matter of style of play and who can play it rather
> than who can upset Michigan on any one given day..
> Personally, if any of my favorite teams can't win, I don't mind seeing
> Michigan win it all because the style of hockey the Wolverines play is good
> for college hockey.
>
> Steve Klein
> [log in to unmask]
> ----------
> On Jan 20, 13:12, Charlie Shub wrote:
> >Art, as usual, has hit the nail right on the head AGAIN.
> >These lists DO NOT BELONG TO THE ADMINISTRATORS
> >These lists BELONG TO THE USERS (VOLUNTEER POSTERS and INDEPENDENT READERS)
> When you have implications and inferences like this from some of the best
> and most intelligent people on the list, it's no wonder traffic from some of
> our best participants is down or missing this year.
> There's no reason to SHOUT, there's no reason to impugn anyone's intentions
> and there should be no reason to infer negative intent.
> However, most of the above happens all too often in most intelligent
> discussions on this list, even when our good administrators try to conduct a
> constructive sampling of opinion.
> C'mon, people.
>
> As to the lists, I'd like to see them combined.
> All my mail comes into the same place, and my delete key works just fine.
> If a poster uses the subject line well, decision making isn't a problem.
> One reason traffic is down, I believe, is the diffusion of useful and timely
> content on a variety of lists and Web sites.
>
> Now, to post a question:
> Michigan is beatable in any given game.
> With that as a given (even if it is proving unlikely -- just so it doesn't
> appear I'm bashing Michigan, which I'm not, so don't read anything into the
> premise, sigh), who has the kind of team or can play the kind of game to
> challenge Michigan in the NCAA Tournament, from the first round to the Final
> Four. This may be more a matter of style of play and who can play it rather
> than who can upset Michigan on any one given day.
> Personally, if any of my favorite teams can't win, I don't mind seeing
> Michigan win it all because the style of hockey the Wolverines play is good
> for college hockey.
>
> Steve Klein
> [log in to unmask]
> ----------
> On Jan 20, 13:12, Charlie Shub wrote:
> >Art, as usual, has hit the nail right on the head AGAIN.
> >These lists DO NOT BELONG TO THE ADMINISTRATORS
> >These lists BELONG TO THE USERS (VOLUNTEER POSTERS and INDEPENDENT READERS)
> When you have implications and inferences like this from some of the best
> and most intelligent people on the list, it's no wonder traffic from some of
> our best participants is down or missing this year.
> There's no reason to SHOUT, there's no reason to impugn anyone's intentions
> and there should be no reason to infer negative intent.
> However, most of the above happens all too often in most intelligent
> discussions on this list, even when our good administrators try to conduct a
> constructive sampling of opinion.
> C'mon, people.
>
> As to the lists, I'd like to see them combined.
> All my mail comes into the same place, and my delete key works just fine.
> If a poster uses the subject line well, decision making isn't a problem.
> One reason traffic is down, I believe, is the diffusion of useful and timely
> content on a variety of lists and Web sites.
>
> Now, to post a question:
> Michigan is beatable in any given game.
> With that as a given (even if it is proving unlikely -- just so it doesn't
> appear I'm bashing Michigan, which I'm not, so don't read anything into the
> premise, sigh), who has the kind of team or can play the kind of game to
> challenge Michigan in the NCAA Tournament, from the first round to the Final
> Four. This may be more a matter of style of play and who can play it rather
> than who can upset Michigan on any one given day.
This is a difficult question to answer, but in fact I think the answer is
any number of teams. Parity reigns in college hockey, and Michigan, while
an obvious #1 is not head and shoulders above the rest of the country.
I'll respond from an ECAC perspective.
Vermont is the team with the experience, the scoring, the goaltending to
go all the way. Tim Thomas seems to be experiencing a little senioritis
in goal, but he can turn it on at well. A hot Thomas and the French
Connection spells Championship. I don't think Michigan can physically
muscle the Catamounts, they've seen enough of it already. Vermont will
have more trouble getting out of the ECAC with a #1 or #2 seed than
playing the tournament. I think it has gotten to the point that inorder
to win the tournament you need to watch the first game match-ups rather
than play them. Vermont is probably the only ECAC team with a realistic
chance of grabbing a #1 or #2 East seed. Vermont has victories over UNH
and BU, so it has a good chance to win a pairwise match-up over either
one.
But this year the ECAC sports teams that can stack up against the Western
teams. While there have been a couple of blemishes, most notably Miami's
pasting of Cornell and Colgate, and the strange meltdown Clarkson
underwent against Denver, by and large the ECAC is on the same level as
the other leagues. Cornell obviously can play Michigan head to head.
They seem to suffer from consistency problems however, so a three or four
game winning streak might pose a challenge. Last year's experience is a
plus though.
Similarly for Clarkson. I can't understand why Clarkson has the record it
does. It beats UNH on the road, loses to Yale at home. Go figure.
If Clarkson gets in gear, they have the horses to take out Michigan and
the rest of the big boys. Like Cornell they have last year's experience
to draw upon. Unlike Cornell, they have a potential dominating
goaltender, and play an offensive system. Clarkson may suffer the same
fate as Vermont though, getting out of the ECAC will be rough this year.
Wins against BU and UNH though help it in the pairwise match-ups.
ECAC darkhorses include Princeton and RPI. I don't think that Princeton
has the experience to go much farther than it already has. Princeton is
the biggest overachiever in college hockey. Overachievers don't make it
to face Michigan in the final. RPI is too young at this point to be
pegged a potential rival for Michigan. The Engineers also suffer from a
weak strength of schedule. Colgate remains an enigma this year. On paper
they've got a classy squad. On the ice--I won't recite their more
notorious breakdowns of late.
There you have it--my limited call of Michigan wannabes. But the point I
want to stress is that the big two or three teams in the ECAC definitely
have a shot this year. There aren't any really "scary" teams out there,
Michigan is the scariest, and if Cornell can eke out a tie on Wolverine
ice, that has to indicate the ECAC will be in the mix come tournament
time.
*****************************************************************************
Brian Morris RPI Engineers--Big and Nasty
[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.
|
