I am not really a baseball fan, though I usually tune in around the divisional playoffs and to varying degrees "watch" most every game (much to my wife's chagrin) during the league championship series and World Series. I pretty much do the same with the NBA, and of course I closely follow "March Madness" and a lot of college and pro football. I'm not sure what the fascination is, but it's probably because a sporting event provides a microcosm of life--opportunities to start fresh, face challenges, adapt to situations, maintain focus and deal gracefully with winning or losing. That's why I think sports are such an emotionally and physically healthy pastime. Oh, and I enjoy the "live," unpredictable aspect of watching athletics in real time. But back to my point . . .
Sweeps, and the domination they typically manifest, really disappoint me. Though I don't really care about the Rockies or the Red Sox as teams, I am interested in watching them square off because of the potential drama--and drama mainly consisting of one team getting thumped gracefully isn't much "drama." This is probably the reason that I don't really enjoy watching dynasties, even when said dynasty is my team. I'm just not sure how "healthy" it is to get pleasure out of watching my team pummel a lesser foe. Which is why I felt sorry :) for Nebraska football fans all those years and teased my father-in-law about Duke BBall's dominance during that stretch of years . . . who cares to watch someone else's team dominate every game and how many contests can you endure just waiting for an unlikely upset?
While the World Series was a disappointment, I have enjoyed this college football season like none before it. It seems that almost every game could be interesting and the opinions of pundits or even computers is almost irrelevant. To be clear, I am not saying that the seeming dominance of the Red Sox or the Patriots (maybe it is a Blue State problem I'm having), but I do want to go on record as saying that I don't mind a bit of fiddling with formulas in sports to achieve something approaching parity.
So, here's to you "parity" . . . even though thwarting the natural ascendancy of superior talent requires significant manipulation of sports leagues, I think you're worth the trouble.
Hello world!
7 years ago
5 comments:
While I see your point about a sweep not necessarily being exciting tv, grant mercy to the Red Sox Nation this one additional year as they (we)relish in realizing that 2004 was not a dream, it did really happen, and the curse is definitely broken! Who knows, next time we might even enter into the discussion about parity. Um, maybe....
I predict the Pats will be the second team in NFL history to go undefeated.
The order of draft picks are supposed to help achieve parity.
I understand, Diane and the Rockies and Indians (and how can I forget the Yankees) will vouch for the fact that you're not dreaming.
Even you would admit that the way you prevailed over Cleveland was more satisfying than your win over Colorado, no?
William,
You may be right and I think that the NFL has done a pretty good job of achieving parity--as Colin Cowherd said on the Herd yesterday, maybe they should bust up the NE monopoly and create four teams. Ha. They are a machine.
I just had to look up my comment on this post and gloat.
Wow, you remember two-month-old comments?
It was quite an accomplishment, no doubt, and I think winning it all is almost essential to dethrone the '72 Dolphins. On the other hand, the Pats had parity-geared NFL rules working against them . . . aren't sports great?
Post a Comment