Been thinking about other potential ramifications to the Committee's decision, as well as the decision last year (although Phil Savage made a good point on SiriusXM tonight - last year's decision wasn't to put Ohio State in. They were already ranked #2 and in before the CCGs. The decision last year came down to whether a one loss conf champ Washington got in over a two loss conf champ Penn State). Beyond the potential that a playoff with teams mainly/wholly from one region of the country may have to accelerate cord cutting of ESPN and the loss of advertising dollars for ESPN (fewer viewers translates into fewer advertising dollars), there could be other ramifications for the conferences and college teams. First, there's no reason to "up schedule" anymore. Quality wins, just ask Ohio State whether those matter anymore. Strength of schedule, just ask USC if that matters. Granted, it was the 31 point loss to Iowa that we're told swayed the Committee's mind, but what if Ohio State had scheduled Kent State instead of Oklahoma? Yes, maybe they wouldn't have been helped last year, but given three wins over top 10 teams, did a week two Oklahoma win really mean that much last year? By scheduling Kent State or Akron or the other OU, Ohio U, this year, Ohio State would have only had one loss. Second, conference championships don't mean anything anymore. So why have them? The downside far outweighs the upside for the conference. Alabama sat at home, risking nothing, able to entertain recruits (including one of Ohio State's 5 star D-end commitments), and moved up in the poll by not playing. A few years ago the Committee emphasized the 13th data point, but after this year and last year, there's no point to it. Had Oklahoma lost to TCU, the Big 12 would probably have been shut out. It didn't hurt Ohio State last year or Alabama this year to not have a conference championship, but we know two losses definitely hurt. Third, the Big Ten and PAC 12 will reassess their nine game conf schedules. Again, downside outweighs the upside. It would have been better for Ohio State to have a schedule that had a home game against a Kent State or Akron, etc. following an emotional victory over Penn State this year than having to travel to Iowa City. In 2015, it would have been much better for Ohio State to be playing Buffalo instead of Michigan State prior to the Michigan game. It's a great rivalry, but USC doesn't benefit at all playing Notre Dame anymore. It only hurts. What if Clemson had played a healthy Miami in the regular season on the road? What if Alabama had played UGA in Athens in addition to the other 8 conf games? Fourth, I know you won't agree, but there really is an SEC bias to the Committee and I'm not saying that just because two sec teams got in (but why not two Big Ten in 2015 or 2016?) or because Alabama got in this year, although both are evidence of it. The bias is evidenced by the fact that the Big Ten champion the last two years had two losses and didn't get in, but it was clear this year that Auburn with two losses, and ranked #2 going into Saturday, would have gotten in had it beaten UGA. That didn't go unnoticed. You guys hate the Big Ten. You hate Ohio State. But the Big Ten is a wealthy, powerful, and influential conference. PAC 12 not as much, but still an important conference and one that can't be too happy. Notre Dame isn't happy and it's told mid-way through the season it isn't getting in because it doesn't play for a conference championship (that we now know isn't necessary.) The CFP was set up to avoid what happened in 2011, but it's trending back that way, and its not because the SEC is just that good. It's not and is far weaker than it was in 2011 top to bottom. I believe next year is the fifth and final year of the CFP agreement. There will be changes demanded by the other conferences for it to continue. I think all conferences are hesitant to expand the field to 8.