Hey, writer...if you talked to someone trained psychoanalytically you would find out that the reason you like super bowl blowouts better than closely contested games is that you don't really know or like football. People who know the game understand that as long as there are no bad calls by the refs, the prize of the trophy is so valuable that winning it really is just fine enough. They know that it takes alot to win a football game and that a close win can be very well enjoyed and celebrated. And people who like the game understand and see what is really going on on the field. They appreciate and enjoy lots of subtle things other than the ego aspect (the triumphant standing over the vanquished) of the narrative.
You can get away with this kind of sports writing at Slate because Slate is only geared toward human interest sports writing to begin with. That's no reason, though, that it should allow shallow dilettantism along the lines of "...I hate close games...no one to mock..." Writer cannot have played the game.

The "no one to mock" line is telling. Many so-called journalists are nothing more then movie critics, dressed up in serious suits. They have never achieved or created anything of significance themselves, but bill themselves as "experts" while they try to pull down the folks out their actually trying to do something. You see this in every aspect of media, but the most pathetic version is in sports. Pro sports are basically games played by grown-ups for the entertainment of the paying public. But to here some of these smug, pious sports commentators and writers, you would swear the NFL was trying to bring world peace, or on the flip side, are obsessed with what supermodel they are boinking, totally ignoring the actual game.

Sports are supposed to be fun. Period

..."movie critics, dressed up in serious suits." Well put!
"...Sports are supposed to be fun. Period" What kind of thing upsets you the most along these lines?