I wrote...
>  *  And, not on the GLI, but...MSU's wins in the Icebreaker should
>count every bit as much as their wins in the GLI.  No if's, and's or
>but's.  Just like Michigan's win over Minnesota in the Hall of Fame
>game.  These games were NOT exhibitions.  From day one they've
>been presented as regular-season non-conference contests that
>were granted exemptions from the NCAA 34-game limit.  It will be
>a travesty if the NCAA rules that these games "don't count."  As far
>as I know, they have not yet made such a ruling and these games
>should be included in the respective records of the teams when
>polls and ratings are reported.  The cries of Jack Parker, Doug
>Woog and others are reminiscent of Shawn Walsh not realizing
>that taking money from the boosters while he was suspended was
>wrong.  These are intelligent individuals.  Personally, I find their
>feigning of ignorance/innocence quite appalling.
 
My apologies for anyone that I offended with the above comments.
My wording could have been less offensive, but my general
feelings haven't changed.
 
Erik B makes a good point in Woog's favor, noting that most HOF
games have been exhibitions.  Maybe both Berenson and Woog
shoulder some responsibility if they didn't get together beforehand
and say, "Hey, let's make sure that we're both on the same page
here."  But as far as this Michigan fan is aware, the game has always
been presented as a regular-season non-conference contest in
this area.  (I.e. it counts.)  Michigan is counting the result and the
individual statistics in their totals as are the CCHA.  I never heard
the 1997 game referred to as an exhibition prior to the game.  My
beef with Woog concerns his verbal complaints that Michigan played
Marty Turco the entire contest while he used three different netminders.
Woog didn't feel that was very sportsmanlike on Michigan's part,
playing their starting goalie for 60 minutes.  Yet, I seriously doubt
that anyone from Michigan requested the change in the Gopher's
net.  Michigan was playing to win, as you would expect with any
regular-season game.  If Woog was playing just for the experience,
maybe he should point the finger at whoever led Michigan to believe
that the game was NOT an exhibition...or at whoever led him to
believe that the game WAS an exhibition.  Criticizing Michigan's
sportsmanship was neither of those.  Frankly, I see that as sour
grapes and always will.
 
As for the Icebreaker, what can I say?  Again, this was presented
as a regular-season, non-conference tournament.  Just like the GLI,
Beanpot and countless others.  An exemption from the NCAA
34-game regular-season limit was even requested (and granted!)
for the event.  Parker didn't seem to have a problem with the games
counting when the Icebreaker was the buzz back in Milwaukee in
March.  Somehow, over the summer, he seemed to conveniently
forget.  It's been reported that he said he didn't realize that the games
were to "count."  I don't believe him.  He may have decided that
he'd prefer that the games didn't count, but I don't believe that he
didn't realize they were going to.  It's my understanding that Parker
took the lead on trying to get the games ruled exhibitions.  From
what little I know of the situation, the way it was handled (by Parker)
sure stinks.  That's my point/position.
 
Likewise, I disagree with every poll and rating system that doesn't
recognize all of the games mentioned above.  It's my belief that
the status quo (the games are NOT exhibitions) should be in effect
until the proper authority (the NCAA?) says otherwise.  Yet, most
"media outlets" have removed these games from the records.
Why?  Because a coach wants it that way?  That's what it looks like.
 
Apparently, the status quo of the HOF game is in question.  I wonder
if Michigan would have participated if they felt the game was an
exhibition.  We'll probably never know.  The Icebreaker status quo
is clear.  The games count until the NCAA says that they don't.  I
hope the NCAA rules on all of the games as soon as possible.  As
for Woog, I'll gladly retract my comments from my previous posts.
It seems clear that the two teams viewed the game differently and
had reason to do so.  I'll simply say that Woog showed poor
sportsmanship attacking Michigan's sportsmanship given the
previous sentence.  As for Parker, my initial sentiment is unchanged.
Did he commit a crime?  Heavens, no.  But, IMO, he's feigning
ignorance of the situation in an attempt to change something he
wishes to see changed.  Why he prefers the games to be exhibitions
I do not know.  But, why didn't he just say, "Hey, I'd prefer this
event to be an exhibition."...rather than playing dumb?  My beef,
based on what's been presented by the media, is how he's
handling the situation.  I see it as helping no one.  Maybe a great
many fans, myself included as well as the BU fans who *insist*
that the games are exhibitions, wouldn't feel the need to voice
our views on the situation if Parker had handled it better.
 
 
John
[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.