The debate this result will cause misses the point
On Selection Sunday, the final debate was between whether an 11-2 SMU with two losses was more worthy of the final at-large spot than a 9-3 Alabama team. The committee made its choice, SMU got manhandled and now you will hear plenty of cries that Alabama should've been in the field.
Would Alabama have made for a more competitive game? Possibly! I mean, it was 38-3 in the fourth quarter. There's a low bar to clear.
However, let's not forget that while Kevin Jennings threw three interceptions today, Alabama's Jalen Milroe threw three interceptions of his own in Alabama's 21-point loss to Oklahoma. That's the game that knocked the Crimson Tide out of contention, so we can't assume anything.
Nor should we. Instead, we should be asking if the playoff format needs to be changed. If we reserved the first-round byes for the top four ranked teams, regardless of whether they won their conference, it would likely lead to more "competitive" first-round games.
Consider this: Penn State finished at No. 4 in the final rankings. It's possible the Nittany Lions would've had a bye, and it may have been Boise State or Arizona State hosting this game insteaad. It's even more likely an 11-1 Notre Dame would've finished in the top four, if it were eligible, and would've had a first-round bye, so it would've been somebody else hosting Indiana during Friday night's blowout.
Regardless of hypotheticals, the greater point is this: The expanded playoff is here, and it's not going anywhere. Instead of arguing about which teams should've been in it this year, let's focus on creating the best product we can in the future.