Tuesday, April 10, 2007

The "C" word 

I've been hearing the "C" word a lot over the last couple of days.

"When will the Sens "C" this year?"

"Time for the Sens annual "C""

"The Sens may not "C" in the first round, but they will eventually"

"The Sens are "C" dogs"

Etc, etc...

As Bryan Murray eloquently stated yesterday, bullshit.

Further proof of how many writers and broadcasters are lazy and just resort to the first shop-worn cliche that pops into their heads.

First of all, a quick glance at the final standings should prevent the automatic use of the "C" word in this case. To "C" you have to be a heavy favourite. There are no heavy favourites in a series between a 4 seed to a 5 seed that had 105 points each. If anything, the favourite would be the team that features the next coming of Gretzky and the legendary, magical veteran that can shoot fireballs and run people from behind in a single bound.

Just because a team has "C" in the past, doesn't make every future loss a "C". Under-achievement is not synonymous with "C".

Driving into work this morning, a contest asked which 2 Sens played in the 2000 loss to the blue team. The pair of holdovers aside* the only common thread, as Jerry Seinfeld said, is laundry. Laundry doesn't "C", teams "C".

The Sens may lose the series. Depending on how it happens, the Sens may even "C". However, to pre-emptively call any loss a "C" is just plain lazy.

* Phillips and Alfie for the record (Redden was hurt and Fisher was a healthy scratch(!) which, although he was young, says a lot in itself about how differently those teams were built)