There were six teams deserving of reaching the College Football Playoff this season. But there were only four spots.
But what if there were more spots?
An expansion of the Playoff field to eight teams has seemed inevitable from the day the four-team system was announced. Four more Playoff games means oodles more TV viewers, which means oodles more dollars.
And then we wouldn't be having all these arguments, either — but that's nonsense because of course we would, trying to figure out who got snubbed from the expanded bracket.
But this season's emphasis on the conference-champion debate might kick the efforts to expand the Playoff into high gear. Just take it from NCAA president Mark Emmert.
Mark Emmert on the CFP: “I'd like to see all five of the conference champions get in the playoff.”— Ralph D. Russo (@ralphDrussoAP) December 7, 2016
Now, technically speaking, there are 10 FBS conferences, each of which crowns a champion at the end of every football season. Emmert is obviously referring to the Power Five conferences: the Big Ten, Big 12, ACC, Pac-12 and SEC. He might want to pick his words a bit more carefully, considering he represents the other five conferences — the American, Conference USA, the MAC, the Mountain West and the Sun Belt — too, but his point remains understood.
This season has sparked a ton of controversy as the Playoff selection committee opted for the first time to include a team that did not win its conference, Ohio State, and it picked the Buckeyes over the Big Ten champs, Penn State. Plus, Big 12 champion Oklahoma was passed over in favor of non-champion Ohio State, too, actually falling behind another non-champion from the Big Ten, Michigan, in the final Playoff rankings.
With that decision brought the reasonable question of how much a conference championship should matter in getting a team into the final four and competing for a national championship.
The Playoff committee's mission is to pick the country's four best teams, and there aren't many people out there that will argue that Ohio State isn't one of the country's four best teams. But there's something to be said for winning a conference championship because if the Buckeyes can waltz into the Playoff without even playing in the Big Ten title game, why even have a conference championship game — besides, obviously, earning one more night of big-time TV money.
And so the call for an expanded Playoff bracket has reached perhaps its greatest volume in the short time the Playoff has existed. The obvious solution to Power Five conference champions continually being boxed out is to lock in five spots on the bracket for the five conference champions. Then, guarantee a spot for the highest-ranked team from the Group of Five conferences, and you're left with two "at-large" spots that this season would've gone to Ohio State and Michigan, two of the highest-profile programs in the country sure to drive TV viewership in battles against conference-champion Alabama, Clemson, Washington, Penn State and Oklahoma teams. And P.J. Fleck's undefeated Western Michigan squad takes the final slot.
That's quite the field. But if you think it would've solved all this year's problems, you're wrong. Still there would've been outcry that red-hot USC didn't make the field. The Trojans are playing so well that they could very well win the whole thing, despite their three early season losses. That debate over snubs will exist forever, no matter the size of the field, something we see play out each and every season in the NCAA men's basketball tournament.
Also, what a damper an expanded bracket would put on the final few weeks of the regular season. Ohio State's game against Michigan, the highest-rated game of the college football season with more than 16 million people watching, would've been effectively meaningless. No matter who won or lost, both teams would've made that eight-team field, right?
Additionally, another round of Playoff football would expand the season to 16 games for some teams. That means more physical demands on student-athletes and a season cutting deep into January, which would impact their educational and time demands.
But again, an expansion of the Playoff bracket has always seemed inevitable. There's too much money to be made, and at the same time fans seem to be all about that idea. People love the postseason for good reason, and the win-or-go-home nature of the NFL playoffs make those games the most-watched sporting events of the year.
Now the NCAA president is chiming in with hopes of an expanded field. So really isn't it just a matter of time?
When the White Sox traded Chris Sale to the Red Sox Tuesday, it shook up the balance of power around Major League Baseball.
Wednesday morning, that power shift was present in Bovada's 2017 World Series odds.
On Nov. 3 (the day after the World Series ended), the Cubs were the frontrunners for the 2017 World Series at 7/2 odds. The Boston Red Sox were right behind at 9/1.
After acquiring Sale, the Red Sox have now bumped up to 11/2 odds to win it all while the Cubs have gone down slightly to 15/4.
Here is the complete list of the Top 5 odds, as of Wednesday morning:
1. Cubs - 15/4
2. Red Sox - 11/2
3. Nationals - 9/1
4. Indians - 12/1
5. Astros - 12/1
The Cubs' odds may also see a boost if/when the Wade Davis trade becomes official.
On the other hand, the White Sox odds fell from 40/1 the day after the 2016 World Series to 66/1 Wednesday morning after dealing away Sale.
Of course, Sale is only one player, but it's more so the Sox trading him away is a clear indication they are not "going for it" in 2017 for the major decrease. If the Sox continue to sell, look for those odds to fall even further.
As of Wednesday morning, the Colorado Rockies (before they signed Ian Desmond to a five-year deal), Arizona Diamondbacks, Cincinnati Reds and San Diego Padres were the only teams with lower odds to win a championship in 2017 than the White Sox.