ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
This kinda goes down a whole different rabbit hole, but obviously I continue to totally disagree.I may be reading too much into your response, but I disagree. I think the solution is a 12 or 16 team playoff where 2 loss teams are getting in, and seeding becomes more important. The current 4 team format I think creates a spending war that tends to reward only the very top spenders, and the way to solve that isn't necessarily parity, but a more open playoff format where more 2nd tier teams get in. Wouldn't bet my beach house on it, but a lot more games become interesting if the playoff format is more open.
And we've kinda reached a singularity here because two 16 team superconferences leading to a 12 team playoff is a format we're all extremely familiar with, that's the NFL. Now it's not EXACTLY the same for a variety of reasons, but every tweak brings us closer and closer.
And I think you and I are in total agreement that we're heading toward a world in which Alabama vs Georgia is like a week 14 tilt between the Chiefs and the Bengals. We just disagree on what that means for the sport.
Anyway, the big force that is going to start to drive a greater degree of parity than we have today is NIL. The marginal 5 star is worth less as Bama's 6th than as Penn State's first. The financial resources are actually much more evenly distributed than the current balance of power, and that won't hold in a more open marketplace.