i didn't agree with that call, either.
 
however, it looked to me like msu came more prepared to skate hard and
play than did my beloved wolverines.  perhaps i'm more critical of
michigan, but i noticed on more than one occasion when they seemed
tired or just plain, well, lazy.
 
michigan didn't put themselves in a position to win that game.  the
quick whistle hurt, but it didn't cost them the game.  what cost them
the game was state's spirited and superior play.
 
i noticed on saturday night, as well, that michigan didn't seem to
play the physical style presented by michigan tech.  they seemed more
interested in making plays than in giving out huge checks.  did anyone
else notice this?
 
scott quakkelaar
michigan, 1993
ucla, 1995
 
>
> On Mon, 28 Dec 1998, Bill & Virginia Krebs wrote:
>
> >State built an early 3 goal lead and played tight
> >defense to prevent Michigan from scoring but a single goal.
>
---Alan Harder <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From what I could tell, they also used an early whistle from the ref
> to limit Michigan to one goal.  That call was a travesty.
>
 
==
 
unbreakable toys are often useful for breaking other toys
 
                                        -- author unknown
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.