Dominance = Boredom

I agree quite a bit with this article by Kevin McCarra. His premise is that two (or three in this case) dominant teams do not make a league more exciting to follow. Several writers (Shanoff) on this side of the pond dispute it, thinking a dynasty is better for the fans. I think columnists like dynasties because they make their job easier, especially when predicting.

And couldn't this passage be describing the late 90s Orioles, Dodgers or Mets:

Throughout this country clubs creak beneath the weight of their budgets and overdrafts, yet there is no return on their investment when managers fail to sign the right players, struggle to prepare them mentally to cope against the best opponents and are found wanting in the tactical battle of wits.

Sure, there are always going to be teams without the financial ability to compete with the galacticos, but there are also teams that just piss away sizable payrolls. Perhaps someone ought bring Moneyball to the Premiership?