So I have realized something about myself. I do not like parity in sports. It's been chronically lauded lately -- how it's great for revenue because more teams have chance to win, or at least stay in the race longer. But not me. I like dynasties. I like it when the older teams thrive. I don't want a squad whose colors are black and purple in the World Series, or a team that wears teal to win the Super Bowl. I pride myself on not falling into camps, buying into orthodoxy or taking one side of a deep divide, but I guess I'm proving my own point by breaking formula here.
There have already been plenty of columns lamenting how big and tough the Sox are now, and how it's not the same as the loveable days of pathetic playoff failures. Even from Sox fans and local writers. I don't really sympathize with this at all. Winning is the best. I'd like to see the Sox score 10 runs again tonight to close out the series, and then win it again next year and the year after that. Say what you want to about drama and learning to appreciate success; if I could go back to the Huskers winning 11 games easily every season and rolling up 500 yards per game, I would.
Some theorists believe sports are the avenue through which a "civilized" society replaces fights in the streets and the general removal of approved violence from the hands of ordinary people. So I suppose I ought not be surprised that uglier tendancies like incredible unfairness and lack of concern for social welfare comes to bear for me in this space.
On a complete non-sequeter, here's a question: what do you actually know about the differences between kinds of red wines, or kinds or beer, or whatever your fancy is? I'm thinking of writing about this. You might know that you prefer Pinot Noir to Merlot, but do know the differences in how they're made? I don't, and I'm thinking a lot of people might not.