Why We Cheer Against The Winners
Living 5 years in upstate South Carolina, I always found it hard to cheer for the Clemson Tigers. Their fans were loyal to the point of obnoxiousness, their team-- despite underachieving seemingly every year -- always seemed to be better than mine, and more than once, they embarrassed our conference on a national stage. Yet, in the last two years when Clemson has taken the field for the national championship, I have found myself roaring support for them like a lifelong fan. Why? Because their opponent both times has been big, bad Bama.
Yes, Alabama, the dynasty of the last decade of college football. Since Nick Saban arrived in Tuscaloosa in 2007, the Crimson Tide have appeared in the National Championship 5 times, winning 4 of them. They have appeared in the SEC Championship 6 times, winning 5. They have been in the College Football Playoff each year of its existence. Simply put: they're the annual favorite to win it all.
Why do I have such animosity against Alabama though, and the dominant teams like them in the different sports. With another modern dynasty playing tonight in the Super Bowl tonight, I wanted to further examine some of the reasons why I, and many others, love cheering against dynasties.
I. They Always Win
The most simple explanation is jealousy. At least, that's what the fans of the dynasty teams want you to think. And I suppose there's truth to that. When you're a fan of a team that never wins the big ones (like, say, North Carolina Football), it is hard to watch another organization win time and time again. It's akin to watching the rich get richer; why should additional riches go to those that already have so much? Why can't my team do that, just once?
It would be like if a multimillionaire became President, and then used the Presidency to further line his pockets-- oh well, never mind.
II. It Means More For The Others
On an individual-game scale, the reason we usually cheer for the underdog is because, well, they're the underdog! If a team wins big games and titles year after year, you would imagine they would get "tired of winning," as our President likes to say. Thus, when a dynastic team comes up against one that has achieved significantly less, we almost always cheer for the latter to get a share of the glory.
We all relate to the underdog, probably even those of us that have never been an underdog in our lives. We want to see the fight against the "Establishment" prevail.
III. To The Victors Go The Spoils
Winners get what they want. It's as simple as that. And I don't just mean trophies. I mean getting away with what they want.
Extremely skewed home-field officiating (Duke). Avoiding any serious NCAA sanctions despite years of questionable practices (Kentucky basketball, pretty much any SEC Football program). Evading any sort of major NFL punishments-- apart from a 4-game ban that people lost their MINDS over --despite multiple instances of blatant cheating (Patriots).
IV. Dynasties Are Bad For The Sport
I recognize that this is an opinion claim that I'm stating as fact, but hear me out. An avid European Soccer fan, I recognize the benefit American sports have over the rest of the world: parity. Whereas the Premier League has historically been dominated by the "Big Four" clubs with embarrassing amounts of money, the teams of the NFL, MLB, NHL, NBA and MLS all have wildly different seasons year-to-year, with only a few exceptions. This is even more true in college sports: college football and college basketball have both only had one instance of a back-to-back national champion (Bama in 2012-13 and Florida in 2006-07, respectively) since 2000.
Any time we see a team like the Patriots, or Alabama football, or Kentucky basketball, or the Yankees of lore be a consistent threat to win it all, it threatens to disrupt the entertainment of watching new competitors fight for the top prize every year. As much fun as we have watching dynasties lose, I would venture to say it's even more fun to not see dynasties at all.