It's a tough distinction that you're trying to make here. You're saying that UW could have won on good ice but also that having it on bad ice made it a crapshoot. Well, if UW could win on good ice, then they could win on bad. I think I understand that you thought the hockey itself was terrible, but by adding things like it made the game a crapshoot it implies that it was simple luck that carried the day.
I agree with you whole-heartedly that it was terrible hockey to watch. Just brutal and not only not representative of NCAA hockey, but also not representative of pond or outdoor hockey.
Part of what makes pond hockey so much fun is that you (usually) don't have someone trying to separate you from the puck or separate your head from your shoulders. The pond is all about free-wheeling firewagon hockey where the deke and the dangle carry the day. You can even look down at the puck from time to time with no worries.
There's no dump and chase or getting a lead and clogging up your zone to hang on for a win. There's no checking. Clutching and grabbing are frowned upon.
I doubt very much that the Gopher players would say that they had a blast playing the game as Harley said. I'm guessing the event itself was a blast, but the hockey was probably very frustrating. If the Badgers had lost, I'd think that they would have been frustrated by it too.
I'm in favor of the Badgers never playing in another of these - and we're 3-0.
It's not hockey - neither true pond hockey NOR organized hockey. It's a dull, sloppy, crappy hybrid of the two that combines the negatives from each instead of the positives.
That said, they were keeping score and UW did win, so at least there's that.
