Dy…nasty?

Now that we are a couple weeks removed from the Super Bowl, and I have gotten off my soapbox about not watching it, I feel like now is a good time to discuss the Chiefs more in-depth. Or, at least, one aspect of their organization: the dynasty.

When I was out to lunch with a coworker recently, he asked me if I felt like dynasties were good for sports. Being the lifelong centrist on any matter outside of my own fandoms I, of course, told him that I could make an argument either way. And it’s true. I don’t feel one way or another about the topic because they both have benefits and drawbacks.

They say that developing a counterargument to your own argument helps strengthen yours, so mine must be Schwarzenegger-level.

That would surely be the case if I was here to make an actual argument on either side of the aisle regarding dynasties. Fortunately — for the first time ever in my life — I’m not here to argue, but instead to explain.

You know that old adage about losing your friends every seven years or whatever? I feel a similar cycle happens in sports at all levels — even here in little ole Sampson County. I don’t think every sport goes through the same spurts, nor do they all follow the seven-year cycle, but we do see the ebbs and flows that allow for teams to rise to the top and drop back to mediocrity — or worse.

So, are dynasties good or bad? The answer is yes.

Like a forest needing the trees topped or a good, controlled burn, sports — especially at the professional level — needs a good reset. It gets boring and stagnant seeing someone, or some team, always dominate. I know that you know who I’m talking about here. The same team, year in and year out, just always winning.

UConn, the Patriots, the Chiefs, the Yankees, the Warriors, Alabama and Georgia, even the 1970s Steelers — you can see where I’m going with this. All dynasties (some longer than others, and some more recent than others) that have annoyed some, made others mad, and regardless of those two facts, have cemented themselves in history.

But, are they good for the sport? Sometimes, yes.

I know a lot of us are tired of our teams getting their teeth kicked in by just two quarterbacks for about 20 years now. It’s annoying. It’s even more annoying when you’re a Buckeye and Steeler fan because not only did your biggest rival school have a quarterback who is the greatest to ever do it, but he also wrecked your pro team in the playoffs more times than you’d like to admit. Ask me how I know.

I, at one point in time, uttered the words “Ya know, I wouldn’t hate it if Patrick Mahomes took over and became the next Tom Brady,” and let me tell you that the crow tastes terrible for that one. I cannot stand him or his team or wife or brother or dad or anyone else in relation to him anymore. But, he’s still good for the game.

Super Bowl LIX saw more people root for the Philadelphia Eagles than at any other point in time in history, I imagine, save for the two times they played Brady in the Super Bowl. The people are tired of the same teams always winning, which makes it that much better when those at the top fall. We, as fans, go through the cycle until a new team emerges that we can hate on, making the wins against them that much better.

So, I’m not opposed to dynasties. My favorite team was one long before I was around. My college team is a powerhouse against the rest of its league except its biggest rival. I’m used to winning. I’m used to being hated for it.

Keep dynasties around. They’re good for sports.