You’re not going to convince the common fan of this. They won’t know it until they are looking at an inferior product.

And many fans don’t care about winning Chips, they just want to go to a game and be entertained. If you want proof, look at perpetual bad franchises in any sport from any time. Most sell out of come close to it … Unless the town is a bad fit for the franchise like the Marlins or Rays in Florida.

I agree. I really don’t know what’s the fascination with 32 from a fan standpoint (business not withstanding). MLB also wants to expand, and 75 percent of league never wants to compete. In regards to competition, it makes no sense. Eventually 34 will be the new 32 and people will make the same argument that there is plenty of talent to spread around without any data to support such a claim. But the NFL, regardless of its financial success, on the field the 32 teams structure have never looked worse, and it might be the worst era of qbs in a long time.

It would actually be interesting if there was data somewhere that could determine what the peak number of teams is considering competition, talent, and the market size individual for each sport. There is NO WAY 32 teams (which will be 34 one day) is the pinnicle for all 5 professional leagues. One might be better at 28 and the other at 18. Maybe splitting up leagues with promotion and relegation when it inevitably hits 36. But there is no way you can convince anyone with a critical thought in their head that 32 is the magic number for all the sports without some exponential dilution of talent and ownership motivation to compete that will ruin the overall product (which we may already be seeing in the NFL and MLB).