Mike M wrote:
>I have wanted to ask this question of all of the people on HOCKEY-L
>who hassled John for writing this.
>
>Why does John have to "present evidence of a consensus"?
{snip}
>It would be one thing if people simply responded by trying to make a
>case for why they think 7 of 10 wasn't a valid assessment of the way
>the teams matched up. But far too many people have clearly taken the
>comment personally and responded with flames.
I don't know what notes were sent in private email, but I will point out
that, from my admittedly subjective reading of the posting archives*, this
group
consists of just TWO people (plus one whose post -- written, I noticed, two
days ago -- only made it to he list today, and has since, in a calmer
moment, apologized for that post.)
* My opinion only, your mileage may vary.
There seemed to be at least that many more messages attributing those two
people's opinions to the whole of Gopher and/or WCHA fans. I'm sure that
in calmer moments, none of those people really believed this, either. And
if they don't, I'm asking them to consider that there may be a "silent
majority" of us out here who understood John was presenting a valid opinion
(and who seem to recall Michigan playing in the Phinal Phour last year.
And playing. And playing. :-) But not QUITE managing to play long enough
to knock Minnesota's loss to North Dakota out of the record books as the
longest game ever...grrrr)
Steve Klein wrote:
>Sorry to preach, but if this continues, like John, I'm going to limit or
>eliminate my posts.
>Unfortunately, if enough people like John H. do that, there's going to be
>nothing left but the trash talk, and who wants a list like that?
>It's the game we're about, right?
Why let the flames take over? Instead, continue to post reasoned opinions.
I'd like to point out that there were a great many thoughtful parts of this
discussion that seem to have been lost in the torrent of emotions.
(Really! Look in the archives, they're there!) I think the "Silent
Majority" I referred to above might be more aptly named the "Ignored
Majority". What we all should try to do is to pay attention/respond to
those posts and ignore the flames. (Hey, I said "try"! I know I'm
sometimes as guilty of failing at this as anyone.) So please remember
there were plenty of good posts, similar in approach to what Mike suggests
above, that needed no response, as we read them and said to ourselves, "I
agree!"
Many important and interesting points have already been thoughtfully
addressed. In hope of contributing to that aspect of this thread that I
will send along a very small part of a private email message I sent John H.
To quote John's second post:
>(D) Top to bottom, I think Michigan has more depth. I.e., over a
>longer period of time than 60 minutes, I like Michigan's 3rd and
>4th lines more so than Minnesota's. (No knock on the Gophers...
>more of an appreciation for what Michigan's 7th-12th forwards
>can do.)
I didn't see the games, obviously, but I do know that the Gophers'
main weakness this year was expected to be depth at forward. And it is
hoped/expected that this weakness will in part be rectified by the
impressive freshman class of forwards.
{end excerpt, written yesterday}
Now you can all read today's Minnesota Daily article about the scoring
depth Minnesota's getting (to be posted whenever I finally get connected to
their www server) and laugh at me. :-)
Actually, though, the Daily article represents the other side of the same
coin. John points out an acknowledged (and severe) weakness of the
Gophers. The Gophers are counting on freshmen and sophomores for depth at
forward. My personal rule is to try never to expect too much of freshmen
before Christmas. This, then, is an area where I expected the Gophers to
struggle early in the year. And they have. But I also expected it to be
an area in which the Gophers would show great progress during the year, and
I think (and apparently the Minnesota Daily reporter agrees) we are
beginning to see some of that, too. And I think that always excites us as
college hockey fans, to see the progress of a team working hard to overcome
its weaknesses.
=====
BTW my 1993-4 media guide had the all-time series record as 108-97-12. So
now I guess it would be 110-98-12. Pretty darned close, if you ask me.
And, even if I, as a Gopher fan, oh-so-conveniently choose only the College
Hockey Showcase over last 3 years to compare Michigan and Minnesota, I find
this (going from memory, but I know I've got the victory margins right):
1993 MI 6 MN 0 Site: MI
1994 MI 2 MN 3 Site: MN
1995 MI 2 MN 3 Site: WI
So MN wins it in games 2-1. But MI wins it in total goals 10-6.
Pam Sweeney
Go Gophers!
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey; send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.