Let me introduce you to the "share the wealth" philosophy. It is the main reason why I didn't feel shocked and devastated after the ohio st game and why i laugh at the yankees every year they don't win in baseball. If my favorite team wins a title (i.e. Texas Football, White Sox baseball, almost Maverick basketball), I am willing to tolerate years of less than championship standard. My philosophy is adjusted for each sport in terms of how long a team should win in a time period. It allows for lots of cities and organizations to feel the euphoria of a championship. The NFL had gotten pretty good at it until Belichick screwed it up and won 3 of 4. I officially started this idea after experiencing the Cowboys and Bulls dynasties in the 90's, and feeling almost selfish about it. It also makes it easy to decide which organizations to root for (especially if the favorite team is out).

College FB/BB- I give a 5 year period or more specifically an entirely new roster between championships, since football in college is mostly elitist and the same 20 teams win a very large % of the championships. Basketball is similar, but if George Mason would have won a year ago, all bets would have been off. Last football season, Ohio St is on the point that's an entirely new year (for Texas, this would be 2009). Since Troy Smith redshirted in 2002, ohio st's championship year, and comparatively Colt McCoy redshirted during a championship year, it's ok if Ohio st won, and especially so this year. Good teams to see win include West Virginia (never won), Auburn (1957), Louisville (never), Michigan only 10 years ago, but a decent length, Florida '96, Notre Dame '88, though Notre Dame acts like a dynasty so not much sympathy for them, and laughable when they're 0-5. USC won too recently, as did LSU and the other winners of the decade aren't as much in the hunt like OU and Miami. Good year for a new winner, unless USC wins, then it sucks again.

MLB- baseball has gotten good at avoiding dyasties by having the Yankees find ways to lose the last 6 years. Red Sox, White Sox, Marlins, Angels, Arizona and St. Louis are the recent winners, so they are out of the potential group. So pretty much anyone but the Yankees would be good for baseball, with current playoff teams being Yankees (2000), Red Sox (2004), Angels (2002), Indians (1948) , Phillies (1980), Diamondbacks (2001), Cubs (1908), and Rockies (never). So, that would take out the Sox, Angels, D-backs, and Yanks. I use 10 years as the common openly root for teams, and the Yanks are one of the only ones who break it.

NFL - 10 years is usually the mark, but 5 isn't horrible and 20 would spread it more, but not probable for a lot of teams. The NFL were the best inbetween Elway's retirement and the Patriots first title with parity. They are now among the worst. This year, the Patriots look like they will not struggle to win it all (though maybe in the playoffs). Teams that would be nice to see champs include: Jacksonville (never), Atlanta (never), Miami (1973), Philly (never, but i'm a Cowboys fan so I will probably not root for them), Bears (1985), and Seattle (never). All were over 20 years ago. Cowboys had the dynasty so I'm not devastated by their recent drought (by their standards) of 11 years, but I won't be devastated if it takes another 10 to win it all. They could do it this year and it be quite alright though. I waited 18 years for the White Sox and the Longhorns, so I don't mind.

NBA- The NBA is by far the worst at showing parity, most easily concluded with this simple fact: from 1980-2004 either the Lakers, Celtics, Bulls or a New York based team were in the finals in every year but 1995 (which only happened because MJ was rusty after playing none for 18 months). 2005 featured the previous two champions, which wasn't much better. But 2006 provided some hope, with two teams both going for their first championship in the Mavs and the Heat. The Heat won, so they can have a lull and we can "spread the wealth." Pretty much anyone but the Spurs (who screwed it up again last summer), Pistons, Lakers or Heat would be preferable to win the championship. Best hopes include: Mavericks (never won, home-state team, and one of more-entertaining teams in the league), Phoenix (never won, most entertaining team in basketball), Clippers (former laughing stock, never won), Cavs (never), Nuggets (never), Magic (never). Actually, 14 teams have never won, so almost half of the league had never experienced victory, plus, Sacramento only won when Rochester, Atlanta won in St. Louis, making the mark 16 of 30 to never win in their city. If you want to add one time winners, the Heat, Bucks, Sonics, TrailBlazers, Wizards are added to the list, making 21 of 30 with 1 championship or less. Only three teams have won more than 3, being dynasties with the Lakers 3 dynasties (minneapolis, magic, and shaq); Celtics 2 (Russell, Bird); Bulls 1 (MJ), and Spurs 1 (Duncan)Add three in the two brief Detroit runs (Bad boys, Laker-killers), your down to two rockets, two knicks and three 76ers. That's it. Actually, that's about the history of the nba in about 100 words.

So, after the favorite team goes down, perhaps try the "share the wealth" philosophy and root for the underdog, essentially. Though I know not rooting for the Horns would kill a lot people.