I'd rather see the Cubs beat a team with historical signifance (Red Sox, Tigers, Yankees) than the White Sox. I'm willing to bet that if it came down to a Cubs/Sox WS, the outcome would cause rioting in Chicago. With the amount of anymosity between the two fan groups, we're talking 68 Democratic Convention riots. If the Cubs and Sox were to meet in the World Series this year or any other year, I don't think it would result in any uptick in violence. Most fan fights are fueled by alcohol and I'm sure bars would proclaim which team they are backing so that you won't get too many over served Sox and Cub fans crammed into one space together for a World Series game. I doubt the fans of one team or the other would want to be around a lot of fans of the other team, it would ruin the experience of everyone cheering together a victory. I don't understand the "historical significance" comment. What is the historical significance of the Red Sox, Tigers and Yankees? The Red Sox have not won too many World Series' titles over their history (seven, five of them long before 2004), the Tigers have won four and of the Yankee's 27 titles, 20 came between 1923 and 1962....46+ years ago. The two oldest teams in the American League are the White Sox and Indians-they played each other in the very first American League game back on April 24, 1901. The Indians were knowns as the Cleveland Blues at the time. The White Sox won the AL pennant that year, there was no World Series-postseason games prior to 1903 were considered exhibition games. The World Series games listed in the books from the 1880's and 1890's were among the National League and the American Association League. I would enjoy a Crosstown Classic World Series. It would en El of a series! (I can't take credit for that line-it was used by the media quite a bit during the summer of 1977 when the Sox and Cubs occupied first place longer in their respective divisions than any other MLB team. Neither one, however, was in First on the only day it mattered: October 1st.