Some random comments...many in response to previous posts:
  (a) I was at JLA on Friday for "Canada's" 5-4 win over "USA."
The attendance was announced in the low 7000s.  I'm not sure
that *that* many were actually there.
  (b) IMO, the event as a whole was rather poor...but, on the other
hand, can any idea be a bad idea if the net result is an additional
hockey game?
  (c) Let's cut through some of the "promotion" of the game for a
moment.  This was NOT Canada-USA.  This was NOT CIAU-NCAA.
This was a select group of American born NCAA seniors playing
a select group of Canadian born CIAU players (not necessarily
seniors).  For some sweeping generalizations, not *intended* to
offend:
    (1) Canada produces many more talented players than the
US.  Imagine building four World Cup style teams, sequentially.
Canada I vs USA I is a great matchup.  Canada II, Canada III
and Canada IV easily defeat USA II, USA III and USA IV on paper.
The US is arguably as deep as many top European countries,
but they don't have nearly the depth that Canada has.  All of the
above statements still apply when looking at only players 18-25
years old.  Be they in the CHL (major junior), CIAU, NCAA, NHL
or professional minor leagues, the depth of the Canadian talent
is far greater than the depth of the American talent.
    (2) Most NCAA Division I teams can beat most CIAU teams.
    (3) If an all-star team of Canadian born NCAA seniors played
an all-star team of US born NCAA seniors, my money would be
on the Canadians.  Add the CIAU into the talent pool and the
spread is even greater.
  (d) Now, for some credit.  The organizers did a great job of
forming competitive talent pools.  I wonder if they realized in
advance just how competitive.  Pitting American born NCAA
seniors versus Canadian born CIAU players makes sense.
I think that most people expected the game to be a walkover
for the US...but giving some serious thought to the talent pools
involved, there's no evidence I'm aware of to favor either side
over the other.
  (e) If the "USA" roster would not have been restricted to seniors
(which, of course, would be against NCAA rules, but let's imagine
for a moment)...add Mike Crowley, Chris Drury, Erik Rasmussen,
some players from the US WJC team, et al...then I would expect
a walkover for the "US."  (Likewise, add CHL and Canadian WJC
players and it becomes, on paper, a walkover for "Canada.")
  (f) The MAJOR flaw with the game was the promotion.  First of
all, it should not have been promoted as Canada versus USA.
Given the talent pools used, this doesn't make sense.  It shouldn't
have been billed as the CIAU versus NCAA.  Given the talent
pools used, this doesn't make sense.  The game pitted two
evenly matched squads.  Unfortunately, the roster restrictions
employed to make the squads evenly matched are such that
it's difficult to give each team a name which accurately reflects
the talent pools.
  (g) Anyone who says that this game was more important for
"Canada" is dead on.  It certainly received MUCH more attention
in Canada.  As a fan of the sport of hockey, I'm happy that "Canada"
won because it hopefully sends a positive message about the
CIAU.  I think it would have been greatly unjust to be critical of
the CIAU if "Canada" had lost.  As for the States, how many
people outside of Hockey-L and the families of the players
even knew about this game?  Guess what...even fewer cared.
I went to cheer for Blake Sloan and Harold Schock, two Univ
of Michigan defensemen.  Other than the fact that the USA
jersey would be nice to have as a collectible, I didn't feel any
sense of nationalistic pride.
  (h) I doubt that the previous sentence is true for most Canadians.
The crowd was 60-40, "Canada".  The crowd enthusiasm was 85-15,
"Canada," if not more.  Frankly, some of the "Canadian" fans were
as entertaining as the game.  The two guys sans shirts with the
Candian flag painted on their chests and wearing wigs were a
stitch.  The Univ of Toronto band members took turns sneaking
into the goal judge's box between periods and took pictures of
each other turning the red light on.  The fans seemed to have a
great time.
  (i) If you saw the "Canadian" bench following the winning goal,
you KNOW that this game meant more to them than "USA."
  (j) The only real indication that I got from "USA" coach Ron
Mason that this game was more than just a fun Friday night was
the fact that he didn't play backup goaltender Bob Petrie.
Especially since Tim Thomas was shaky.  (Not that the team
in front of him was a cohesive defensive unit, mind you.)  It's
sad that in a single-game format, not all of the players selected
were given a chance to play.  (Likewise for "Canada's" backup
netminder.)
  (k) "USA" was assembled on Tuesday and Wednesday.
"Canada" actually played a couple of exhibition games together
as a team before coming to the Joe.  This should tell you a
little about the relative importance.
  (l) I wish the CIAU received enough respect that it didn't feel
the overwhelming need to prove itself in games like this.  I
don't hear many true hockey fans knocking the CIAU.  Sure,
the numbers are very small, but I'm sure you can find a handful
or more CIAU alums playing in the NHL every season.  We
should celebrate their success stories rather than be down on
the CIAU as a whole.  One of the most entertaining series I've
seen was the Alberta Golden Bears visiting Michigan in 1992-93.
That Alberta team featured, among others, defenseman Cory
Cross...now a regular with the Tampa Bay Lightning.  And, former
CIAU-er Steve Rucchin has one of the most enviable positions
in hockey...centering Paul Kariya and Teemu Selanne in Anaheim.
  (m) I think, given all of the above, it's a shame that some
Canadians feel the need to kick sand in the face of Americans
because "Canada" won the game.  That may be what the game
was billed as, but that's not what the game was about.
 
Arthur (NOT ART) Berman ([log in to unmask])
writes...
>Is in inherent in a segment of people from Michigan (info assumed
>from e-mail address) to diminish other teams' wins?
 
As much as I'd like to, I'll refrain from making any comments about
things that seem to be inherent in a segment of people from Alberta.
 
 
John Haeussler ([log in to unmask])
  (n) I'd much rather see a game of CCHA seniors versus WCHA
seniors than what I saw last Friday.  Hopefully the ECAC-HEA
game will continue.  Maybe this can someday lead to a four
team weekend tourney.
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.