Using "must-win" correctly

It drives me nuts this time of year to watch highlights or pick up the newspaper and hear some reporter talking about the Lakers heading into a "must-win" Game 3.

Game 3 is never "must-win" in a best-of-7...that phrase should be reserved only for when a team is going to be officially eliminated if they lose.

Pretty simple math...Lakers lose Game 3 to fall behind 0-3, then reel off four straight...guess Game 3 wasn't a "must-win" then, huh?

pet peeve of mine.

 

See Flyers, 2010.

 

It's only "must win" if Joey Crawford is officiating.

 

I'm of the differing opinion, because I see every game in the playoffs as a must win, so it's useless to say any game is must win. Every loss is one step closer to elimination, so all of them are must win games.
I think we just need to retire the phrase.

 

It's cliche and often, when used, inaccurate. Saying or writing a team in down 2-0 or 3-0 is enough to let the reader know what the losing team is up against.

 

What will sports radio people talk about with this logic in place?

 

I don't think I'd ever really use it. Find more elaborate ways to say it. Maybe if it's in a quote, and then the rest of the quote needs to make up for it.

 

But Game 3 is literally a must-win for the Lakers, literally.

 

Kobe will have to literally explode and carry his team.

 

LOL, I don't know about that, but I think Phil Jackson literally just shat himself.

 

I save my ire for misuse of "unanswered points." Sometimes, use.

 

Game four is a must-win for the Mavs. Can't let the Lakers back into the series.