[rlmorel]

"...As long as they can beat what I call League Bullies - teams that have won four or five Super Bowls and are there every year - I will cheer for the SD when appropriate...."

Interesting. So, Lexinom, you are more of a communist/socialist when it comes to sports, that is, give it to teams that haven't had a championship in a while versus those that pay the price in hard work or practice all year?

Just because they "need" it or are "deprived"?

Just curious...

[BeadCounter]

Interesting. So, Lexinom, you are more of a communist/socialist when it comes to sports, that is, give it to teams that haven't had a championship in a while versus those that pay the price in hard work or practice all year?

Just because they "need" it or are "deprived"?

Just curious...

Well, is it socialistic to have the Salary Cap? We are back to this question again.

I think a lot of people just cheer for the Underdogs but to tell you the truth, when Baltimore won their first Superbowl, then you later had Tampa Bay, St. Louis Rams and the Saints winning, I thought it was good for the game though I admit the attraction in that was seeing the Championships "distributed" more, that might sound socialistic. It was good to see other teams than Dallas, SF and the Giants win it. Close to domination there for awhile with a few teams.

But in baseball, you have plenty of people who just don't care to see the Yankees win every year as they did very much on a regular basis in the past. I don't know if that is wanting "socialism" though.

[Lexinom]

Nah, I'd rather the same team win the championship by fiat each year. It's more exciting that way - and apparently more "conservative". </sarc>