I sincerely want to know what people think out there --
 
Did Michigan "lose" this game, or did BU "win" it?
 
I've spoken with a lot of people in the last two days, fans of both teams
and fans of neither. There seems to be three general outlooks:
 
1. BU played a physical game, which resorted to "cheaper shots" and some
"goon-like" tactics. Mind you, most people with this idea feel that this
was all done within the rules, just that such bruising, physical play is
not what hockey is about, and not a game that most teams can play. Michigan
was simply unable to deal with such a physical attack.
 
2. Michigan lost. They went up by one and thought they'd run away like last
year, shutting out BU 3-0, 4-0, 5-0... then just plain got caught. BU
concentrated on shutting down their first line only, and let Laroque take
care of the rest of team, "disheartened" by the fact that their top line
hadn't produced 2 or 3 goals by the end of the first period.
 
3. BU won by playing a fantastic game, playing hockey at a level that
Michigan hadn't seen all year -- that most teams never see. In other words,
BU played the best game imaginable, with very few errors -- a season of
such play, nearly unimaginable, would yield nothing but wins, a perfect
season.
 
 
Same goes for CC-NoDak; was CC overmatched by NoDak, was NoDak that fast
and dangerous, or did CC just forget to lace up their skates?
 
 
______________________________________________
Jason Kekoa Greene
[log in to unmask]
Animator, Multimedia Designer, & P.B.
Leopard Communications: http://www.leopard.com
Boulder, Colorado
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.