Really, not to pick on John :-), but just a few more thoughts I had:
John writes:
>--- 1989-90 Season ---
...
>Michigan breezed past Western Michigan in the first round of the CCHA
>tournament, 5-3 and 8-2.  Michigan then lost a tough semi-final game
>to Michigan State in OT, setting the stage for the Michigan-BGSU
>showdown in the consolation.  It was felt (at least in Ann Arbor) that
>the winner would go to the NC$$.
 
It is certainly possible to put together a case for Michigan going to the
tourney, I agree.  But Michigan fans may have been overemphasizing the
importance of the consolation game (possible if they didn't quite
understand what had taken place the year before, and that tourney games are
not weighted more heavily than regular season games).  Michigan was still
only 1-3-0 vs BG heading into the consolation.  The other factors were all
close enough that head-to-head became of prime importance.  In fact, nearly
every factor had a one-game swing either way, be it overall record, common
opponents, etc.
 
>Michigan took it to the Falcons, winning 5-4 in a game that was nowhere
>near as close as the score would indicate.  Ann Arbor was buzzing.
>Michigan's record stood at 24-12-6, they finished 4th in the CCHA and
>3rd in the tournament (besting BGSU's marks from the previous year).
>The Wolverines were 10-2-4 over their final 16 games, with both losses
>coming to Michigan State.  During the season, Michigan had captured its
>2nd consecutive GLI Championship crushing #1 MSU in the championship
>game, 6-3.  The Wolverines also swept NC$$ semi-finalist Boston Univ,
>4-3 and 6-2.  Michigan featured CCHA Rookie-of-the-Year David Roberts
>(21-32--53), senior netminder Warren Sharples (20-10-6,3.24,.886) and
>sophomore sensation Denny Felsner (27 goals in an injury plagued 33
>games).
>
>BGSU had All-Americans Nelson Emerson and Rob Blake, but questionable
>goaltending in freshman Angelo Libertucci (4.03).  Surely, with the
>precedent being set in 1989, Michigan would get an NC$$ invitation.
 
Certainly all of this is true, but again, you said you had a biased
viewpoint. :-)  Nearly everything in the two paragraphs above consists of
information that has no bearing on the selections and just clouds the issue
a little.  Plus it is easy to take just the info that supports one's case.
 
For example, Michigan 10-2-4 over its last 16...but over their last 13,
both BG and Michigan had a win pct. of .731 (BG 9-3-1, Michigan 8-2-3).
Michigan beat MSU to win the GLI, but the Wolverines were 0-4-1 against MSU
in their other 5 meetings.  And Michigan did beat BU twice, early in the
season in Ann Arbor, but no one except maybe at BU imagined that BU would
have been an NC$$ semifinalist - the Terriers (seeded 4th East) had to pull
a major upset of #1 MSU on the road in the quarterfinals to get there.
 
Michigan may have swept BU earlier - but then again, BU knocked out the top
team from the CCHA that Michigan was only 1-4-1 against.  It all depends on
how you look at things.  Again, as someone who was unbiased, I didn't think
Michigan was going to get in even before the CCHA tourney (barring a
Michigan championship and automatic bid).
 
>Postscript: Final 1989-90 records...
>
>            Michigan    24-12-6   .643
>            BGSU        25-17-2   .591
 
But those are final records...at the time of selection, BG was 25-15-2 .619
which is a swing of one game - with one more BG win or Michigan loss, the
teams would have had identical win percentages.
 
My opinion is if the head-to-head had favored Michigan 3-2-0 instead of BG,
then it would have been Michigan that would have gone.  It was just that
close.  It goes to show just how important every game can be for teams
trying to make the NC$$s.
---
Mike Machnik    [log in to unmask]   Color Voice of the Merrimack Warriors
(Any opinions expressed above are strictly those of the poster.)    *HMN*