The Point After: 04/01/2007

As the second round of the NHL playoffs continue, the New Jersey Devils and Ottawa Senators kick off their Eastern Conference semifinal Thursday night in what is likely to be a pretty intriguing series.

The Senators, if you ask the Canadian media, are one of two franchises still alive in the quest for the Stanley Cup and, as such, carrying Canadian hockey fans hopes of the mug returning north of the border for the first time in 14 seasons.

Truthfully, there are many Canadian hockey fans who are not on the "Let the Stanley Cup Come Back to Canada" bandwagon but suffice to say that, yes, the large percentage of fans who don't have a team to root for are likely pulling for someone up north to win the damn thing already.

However, Ottawa Citizen columnist Wayne Scanlan — a long serving sports columnist in the capital region — suggests in Thursday's editions that because it's been 15 years without an NHL championship in Ottawa that perhaps the edge could go to the Senators for being hungrier.

Now we've heard it all.

The argument, and we're paraphrasing here, goes that Ottawa wants it bad and, because they've got a whack of those coveted rings already, perhaps the Devils won't be as bound and determined as the plucky Sens. While it holds true that close but no cigar would serve to motivate this Ottawa club, it's difficult to argue that that thirst overrides the copious amounts of championship experience possessed by the Devils, arguably the most battle-tested team in the post-season.

It's hard to say if the article was an attempt to give hope to a Senators fan base that has been hurt in the past and is following a team likely not equipped to make a long Cup run again this spring, but suggesting Ottawa's edge could come because of desire is akin to convincing yourself Ryan Leaf was a better prospect than Peyton Manning because of the former's rocket arm. You're ignoring a whole lot more evidence to the contrary if you're in that camp.

There's no saying Ottawa isn't capable of pulling off this series. It would be far from stunning if it did. Still, there is empirical evidence that says the Senators are up against it and the play of Ray Emery is going to be far more significant than some intangible, abstract quality like "who wants it more." (I'm pretty sure New Jersey still wants it, FYI.)

There's a reason why we see the likes of the New England Patriots, New York Yankees (OK, not the best example recently), heck even the Carleton Ravens, come through in the games that matter. Ask around: You want the guys who have been there before.

Hunger all you want, but when the guy you're facing on the other end is Martin Brodeur — three rings, and that little Olympic gold medal as well — along with a bunch of guys who have championship rings to prove their mettle ... Well, let's just say I'm putting my money not on the hungry horse but on the one who has strapped on the oat bag and gotten a good grub-on once or twice.

DEVILS IN 6

They say things like this come in threes.

Universities caught the attention of people across North America over the past few weeks — from New Jersey, south to North Carolina and, ultimately, down in Virginia. Three cases that portrayed some of the ugliest sides of society and three cases that, at different times and if even just briefly, flashed a glaring lack of perspective from both onlookers and those embroiled deeply in the scandals.

That each of the Dom Imus v. Scarlet Knights debacle, Duke lacrosse scandal and Virginia Tech massacre took place on college campuses is one infallible link to three events otherwise completely detached. Yet, these three stories — the most sensationalistic of 2007 — that have captivated viewers and bystanders are also joined by rushes to judgment; hurried reactions that dodged around prudence on the way to irrational controversy.

Beginning in Camden, N.J., where a women's basketball team was completely blind-sided by the infantile, utterly random and bigoted comments of an irrelevant radio shock jock. Those who knew what Imus was all about prior to him calling the Scarlet Knights a group of "nappy-headed hos" weren't dismayed whatsoever that he said what he said. Those who didn't know what he was about were likely blown away that someone could be so patently stupid. Make no mistake there were thousands of people who jumped on the Imus-bashing bandwagon who previously had never heard his name before he went and made it household.

No one with a level head would argue that Imus shouldn't have been publicly raked over the coals but where this tale diverges into lunacy is with the sacramonious appearance of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, both of whom have become ambulance-chasers of racial outrage. While Jackson and Sharpton took the time to remind the world of all they have done to champion the causes of African-Americans, the fact remains that both of them do their most notable work only when the cameras are pointing in their direction. And unquestionably if such an opportunity presents itself, the reverends will be the first two on the scene. That was the case with the Imus debate. Sharpton and Jackson dragged the argument out in a process that reaked more of self-promotion than fighting for what was right.

In Durham, N.C., the case against three Blue Devils lacrosse players was dropped entirely by the North Carolina State Attorney General's office, exonerating Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and David Evans from charges of rape and sexual assault against a stripper in 2006. Duke's president, Richard Brodhead, as well as school trustees released a statement in which they were thankful that the ordeal had passed and effusive in at least creating the perception they wished everyone involved the best.

A year ago Brodhead cancelled the lacrosse team's 2006 season. He sided with the law and due process in lieu of aligning with his tarnished athletes and made them pariahs way before the truth had a chance to come out. He, along with many others of the same mindset, expedited the process of passing wrongful blame.

The sport was examined more intently than it ever had been. In the immense scope of big-time college athletics, lacrosse barely existed to anyone outside the game. That didn't stop anyone from passing judgment on the players, on the school, on racial motivation or, most absurdly, the sport itself. The Durham Police Department even went so far as to post a full-page newspaper ad with every lacrosse player's head shot, a disturbing McCarthyist attempt to smoke out the rest of the evil-doers.

But earlier this month, that all changed when attorney general Roy Cooper called the case a "result of a tragic rush to accuse and a failure to verify serious allegations", and proclaimed the athletes innocent. Following that strong language of vindication, Brodhead quickly backpedalled and the board followed. Meanwhile, the three athletes — plus the coach who was compelled to resign in the wake of the scandal — were left in limbo as everyone tried as hard as they could to runaway from the case. Yet it still remains that a year's worth of accusations, insults and misguided abuse has gone unchecked. Those who spoke of innocence until guilt proven, hardly followed that very basic tenet.

To read the words of a year ago is to learn that those athletes were guilty and even an unequivocal exoneration a year later hasn't yielded so much as an "oops" from anyone who was blinded by the need to hurriedly weigh in, speak up or lash out. So much as those who actually commit the crimes are at fault and deserving of punishment, so too are those who choose to muddy the names of the wrongfully accused. No one, it's safe to say, is in a rush to get Seligmann, Finnerty and Evans their reputations back.

Most tragically, of the three interlinked stories, is the 33 people slain last week by a lone gunman who wreaked havoc on the college town of Blacksburg, Va. The morning of April 16 brought an unimaginable horror to the campus of Virgina Tech. The ensuing media spotlight shone on a student body quick to stick together and fortified by one of the worst tragedies in the history of the United States.

Eminent poet, and VaTech professor, Nikki Giovanni spoke eloquently at a school convocation a day later, reading her piece that served to galvanize the 15-some-thousand in attendance, ultimately resulting in the crowd pouring into a chant of "Let's Go Hokies." At a time when those on campus were still struggling with pain of what happened one day prior, Giovanni's words were an elixir that temporarily aided the healing process for thousands of mourners. There is, after all, strength in numbers.

Yet message-board posters and bloggers alike can't resist the urge to rail against it. Another example — and there are more — of an inability to see the forest for the trees. Some went so far as to call the chant — most often heard at Hokie football games — tacky and insensitive to the victims. Understandable that you'd exercise great discretion when approaching an extremely delicate event, but who are outsiders to suggest what these students and faculty should do to find that illusive solace?

The reality is that questions are more forthcoming than answers when discussing the Virgina Tech tragedy. But raising questions about something that so obviously united that group is off the mark. If it's something so simple as a chant or the words from a poet that lift the spirits of those who actually endured the catastrophe, then trying to squelch that is infinitely more callous and a dreadfully mistimed criticism.

There's always a bigger picture than one sentence a radio blowhard utters, or the initial reaction to an accusation. And there's always a bigger picture than complaining about the perceived sociopolitical agenda of someone who tries to relieve hundreds inextricably linked by a calamity.

So, over the past month, when so many others were missing the point, it would seem those students who gathered in VT's Cassell Coloseium were the rare individuals who actually understood it.