where have all the great teams gone?
As you may know, I am an avid reader of ESPN Page 2 and they often post "best/worst 10" lists, then throw them open for public voting. The Fan's version of "worst Championship teams ever" came out today and my neck is sore from vigorous nodding in agreement -- Particularly the top 3.

Augh! I remember feebling telling people last October/November that I would rather see the hated Yankees win, not that I Really wanted the Yankees to win another World Series, like most people I wanted our beloved M's to take care of that, but shit, whattyagonna do when the N.Y. Pinstriped Postseason Juggernaut's roll over the 116-win SeaMen with ease. You shrug and say "what's the shame in losing to the Yankees!" Exactly, which is what the Ride-their-Backs DIDN'T do. I felt, time and time again, (and, mind you I didn't actually Watch much of the World Serious) that The Ride-0n-Johnson/Schilling's-Backs just didn't Deserve the Title. C'mon, their batting order was solidly sub-par, only Partially redeemed by the maniacal bat of Luis Gonzalez (who I can't help but feel is just another product of this ridiculous live-ball/short-fences phase MLB is in right now -- are you listening Bret Boone, Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, Alex Rodriguez, Jason Giambi, and the whole lot of ya!). It just goes to show you that a team that has only a fraction of greatness in a sea of mediocrity -- as long as that greatness resides in the right place (let's see, they had 1/9 of a batting lineup, from what I saw their bullpen was nothing to write mommy about, but they had 40% of a legendary staring staff!) can win Championships. Ugh.

Then there's the NFL. What does it say about a League when the last two Champions were partial teams, at best, somewhat fortunate (or as in the case of the Pats, Extremely fortunate) to get there (actually what it says is the NFL is the most wide-open, competitive, balanced league out there -- which is a great thing). I will say this, whereas the Ravens had one of the best defenses Ever, they only had to beat one of the great Playoff Poseur teams of All Time, the Football giAnts, to "claim" their Lombardi Trophy; whereas the Patsies did have to defeat the best team in the NFL -- hands down -- in the St. L 'ams. Oh, wait, make that a L' ams team that forgot to get the ball to All Galaxy athlete/sumperman Marshall Faulk in the 4th quarter, and who's "Genius" leader Mike (Marvin the-) Martz-ian ("there was supposed to be a TRE-mendous KABOOM!) forgot that the primary property of a succesful gameplan is to Win the game at hand.

Anywho, I'm not trying to take anything away from any of these teams, who all more or less had to beat the best (remembering that the Edgar Allan Poes had to win IN Tenessee and Oakland to make the Stupor Blow) but let's face it: If those Playoff scenarios are played out 10 more times each those teams win, at best twice (and in the case of the Patsies, once in a 100).
[and don't think I'm a conflicted soul -- the phrase "Trent Dilfer, worst Super Bowl winning QB Ever" haunts me like bad breath, after seeing the guy as clearly the best option for the Hacks QB conundrum... beyond that, the fact that Tom Brady got all the credit for basically being a "just don't screw up and pray for defense/special teams TD's" QB will bother me to my grave, seeing as how potential future Hall of Famer (and all around Washington stat college football god) Drew Bledsoe (pride of Walla Walla) sat on the bench, then gets run out of town (okay, he demanded out -- but who WOULDN'T have?) and I have a strong feeling New England fans will be rueing the "curse of Bledsoe" for a generation (do you REALLY belive Brady has that "potential for greatness that Bledsoe has, I mean, not that Drew always lives up to it, but it's pretty hard to when the rest of your offense is driven by hamsters and you got a turbo flat-6 Boxster engine, just waiting for a stretch of open road]

But we all know the Folly of Dominance, as best represented by those Damn Yankee's I admitted to pulling for above, or the Bulls of a few years back, the Lakers of now... and, to pull an example from Where No One Except Me Gives Shit, Michael Schumacher on the F1 World Championship circuit.

Schumi (and is Ferrari team) has made the racing (at least for the win) quite boring, but it is also quite something to sit back and appreciate someone's Sporting Dominance.

How good is Michael Schumacher? Well, he's looking to make a mockery of this year's Formula One World Championship with his dominance in the Ferrari, with even the mighty Williams and McLaren teams included in the "race for scraps."

Going back to 1974, the World Champion has driven a McLaren or Williams 18 times (out of 28 years). Ferrari has taken 5 titles, but none between 1979 and 2000 (with Schumacher, or course), and other than Mario Andretti in a Lotus in '78, and a couple of Nelson Piquet wins in a Brabham ('81 and 83) EVERY championship has been taken by one of the Big Three since '74... Except: Yep, you guessed it, Schumacher's two titles in '94 and '95 in a Benneton (after which he moved to Ferrari).

So, what does this mean? Well, the Williams/McLaren dominance of the driver's Championship between '84 and '99 was interrupted only by Schumacher, and then ended, of course, after Schumacher and Co. built the Ferrari team into world beaters. It also bears worth noting that I am far from alone in the belief that the '99 title was Schumi's, but for a broken leg that sidelined him for nearly half the season. It was a year that Mika Hakinnen, driving the McLaren -- widely regarded as the quickest car -- won almost by default, or so it seemed (and it's also worth noting that Ferrari won the manufacturer's title that year... somehow).

One could argue whether or not the McLaren was the quickest car on the circuit in the 2000 season, but it certainly was at the start of the year, and the team's Mercede's power probably had more horses than the Ferrari. Either way, one could make the argument that 3 (and at least 2 -- the '94-'95 titles with Bennetton) of Schumi's four titles were won with the car that definitively wasn't the quickest on the circuit. That is something not even Ayrton Senna (3 titles) or Alain Prost (4 titles) can say. Senna won all three of his titles in the era when the McLaren-Honda team for which he drove was untouchable '(88-'91) save for perhaps '91, when the Williams was about even. Prost had three titles with McLaren, including '88, and then with Williams in '93, when no-one could come close to the most technologically advanced car at the height of the electroinc driver aids era.

Right guy, Right Place, Right Time: Jordan in Chicago, Shaq in L.A., Woods in Augusta (and the other events he bothers to show up to).