This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
And then we lost in OT in the semis to SLU.
Correct - they were invited, but declined because their seniors would not have been allowed to play. Not sure if that was as a protest or if they just didn't want to play without those players - anyone know more?
And then we lost in OT in the semis to SLU.
Just for the record, the semis become first-to-3-points, not best-of-three, the next season. A win and a tie would end it after 2 games.
Yup, must have crossed.
Building on that, my purely subjective opinion is that while Michigan had the most talented team in '97, North Dakota had that edge in '98. Of course the actual titles were flipped. That made those championships especially noteworthy to me, even if the specific upsets weren't all that unlikely.
Building on that, my purely subjective opinion is that while Michigan had the most talented team in '97, North Dakota had that edge in '98. Of course the actual titles were flipped. That made those championships especially noteworthy to me, even if the specific upsets weren't all that unlikely.
As I know you recall, UND & UM did play head-to-head in '98 -- at one of the infamous Yost Regionals. But that's a whole 'nother story.
Respectfully disagree; though I have to say I totally disagree. By the end of the season, both the Spartans and Buckeyes were playing great. One week earlier at the Joe, the same two teams played for the CCHA Playoff Championship. The Spartans won that one in overtime. At the Regional, the Buckeyes won in overtime. They were both wonderful games; I personally attended both.
JJMc may have a different take; I'll let him speak for himself. But I was referring to Yost & Mariucci regionals as a group. The success of the Wolverines and Gophers on home ice galvanized most of the college hockey world to oppose regionals on campus. The depth and breadth of that opposition expressed itself in the recent vote by the coaches association, who voted overwhelming against a return to campus sites.
Respectfully disagree; though I have to say I totally disagree. By the end of the season, both the Spartans and Buckeyes were playing great. One week earlier at the Joe, the same two teams played for the CCHA Playoff Championship. The Spartans won that one in overtime. At the Regional, the Buckeyes won in overtime. They were both wonderful games; I personally attended both.
Had the Spartans blown us out at the Joe, only to be edged out a week later, maybe you'd have a case. I'm also not denying that, long term, MSU has a decidedly better hockey resume than we do. But in the post-season of 1998, the teams were evenly matched.
JJMc may have a different take; I'll let him speak for himself. But I was referring to Yost & Mariucci regionals as a group. The success of the Wolverines and Gophers on home ice galvanized most of the college hockey world to oppose regionals on campus. The depth and breadth of that opposition expressed itself in the recent vote by the coaches association, who voted overwhelming against a return to campus sites.
I'm going to leave it at that and suggest others do the same. No sense in hijacking a good thread. But you deserved an answer.
Note that if you have further interest in the campus sites debate, there's a lengthy thread on the subject, which should be easy to find with a website search. Hours of reading pleasure await.
So that would make Happy's vote last year's RIT win over Minnesota State.
Just when I'm almost over it.
I'm on record as favoring campus sites for at least the first round of NCAA play, and I haven't changed my mind. But you've got to admit JJMAC's story is one seriously indelible image.