Quote:
Originally Posted by Rain Man
It's interesting to think about the impact of a league that has fewer or more teams. In Otto Graham's era, there were roughly half the number of teams if you combine the NFL and AAFC. The number actually got smaller when NFC absorbed the AAFC, and the NFL had 12 teams through much of the 1950s. Through much of the 1930s there were 10 or fewer, and I think the lowest was 8.
So a guy like Otto Graham was playing in a league where the talent pool was roughly twice as deep on any given team. That would argue that it was harder to dominate as a player or a team. But at the same time there were fewer opportunities for a talent to get discovered because roster spots were hard to come by. You didn't have to compete with a big pool where some unestablished player had a freak season, a la Kareem Hunt leading the league in rushing or Scott Mitchell throwing for a million yards. So was it easier or harder to be named to an all-star team?
I think if you were a top player, it would be easier for the reason cited above. It was harder to establish yourself due to smaller rosters, but it was easier to perpetuate your reputation if you did get established. At least, that's my theory.
|
Makes sense. But imagine the quality of each roster if the AFC were cut to 8 teams today. Mahomes, Burrow, Allen, Herbert, Lawrence (and Rodgers?) would still be battling it out in the playoffs, only they’d have twice the talent around them.