While I agree, I don't believe that is the "due" Triumph is referring to.
Make up calls happen all the time; especially in hockey.
But some sorta "franchise of destiny therefore they're due" is simply beyond the scope of that. The Blues are due because the franchise hasn't won ever and hasn't been in this position since 1970. If that were true, there would be a lot more "due" teams that win. There's a reason why Cinderella stories are in fact stories....and why Cinderellas don't win all that often.
My point was about "due" in general, as opposed to "due" for a specific team. The Blues aren't really "due", because they haven't often been competitive and fallen just short, but have largely just not been a particular factor. They're like the Jets that way. A team like the Bills were "due" during their 4 year run at the SB, but they didn't get over the hump in that instance. On the other hand, Elway was also "due", given the number of appearances he had, and he managed to win. Elway won, because he was "due" and playing when the NFC finally fell back towards being less dominant over the AFC after a run of almost 20 years. Buffalo lost, because it was "due" when the NFC was still kicking the tar out of the AFC.
So, sure, "due" is about talent. But it's also about timing and the odds, and the calls, and injuries/sickness, and more. Or, to put it another way:
If the Bruins hadn't won the cup just a few years ago, we'd all be talking about how they were "due" to have a year where they didn't have to face an Islanders or Oilers dynasty, or an uber talented team like the Lightning, on their quest for the cup.
But, in the end, "due", as applied in sports, is such a vague term that we can probably all sit back secure in the knowledge/belief that we had a valid point. So, looking back at it, I probably shouldn't have responded to One-Be-low, and he has my apology for being so absolutist in my response to him.
