The conclusion of this season presented the powers-that-be in college football with a significant dilemma – three name-brand teams with legitimate claims for the last spot in the college football playoff.

There was Alabama, master of that age-old eye-test in which coaches have long put the most stock; Ohio State, the giant-slaying giants, with two wins over teams that were in the top four at the time; and USC, the team no one was talking about but who may have sneakily had the strongest resume overall of the three.

Yes, the College Football Playoff Committee faced a difficult decision between Ohio State, Baylor, and TCU in its first season, but the latter two schools lacked the storied history and nationwide fan bases of this year’s trio. This year there could be no cries of monetary interest in examining the decision of the playoff committee – this year, we could gain some real insight into what the committee actually values in choosing the top four.

I cannot fault the committee for choosing Alabama (full disclosure: I am an Ohio State fan); the Tide looked better for a longer period of time than the Buckeyes, and at full strength they might pose a stiffer challenge for Clemson. But moving forward, I don’t think the committee should ever have to be in the same situation again.

This year, even more than the past three, has shown that the playoff needs expanding.

That’s not to say that the system is terribly flawed as it stands now. The introduction of a four-team battle royale seems to have spiked interest in college football, and it almost certainly has lent more legitimacy to claims that the sport truly crowns its best team every season.

Some years, however, that can be in doubt. Anyone who watched Ohio State play against Notre Dame in the New Year’s Six at the conclusion of the 2015-16 season would be hard-pressed to say that those Ezekiel Elliott-lead Buckeyes weren’t one of the four best teams in the country. Ditto for the year before, when a TCU team that was dropped from the top four for virtually no reason (in favor of the Buckeyes) eviscerated Ole Miss in the New Year’s Six.

And this year, two of the nation’s most qualified teams in Ohio State and USC will be playing each other in a Cotton Bowl that has essentially become a playoff consolation match, helping to settle the question of which squad was more deserving of next runner-up for the playoff.

How much more exciting might an eight or even 16-team playoff be?

It could be done with relative ease – the latter, for example, could consist of a first round home game for the higher-seeded team (one through eight). Then, the four matchups in the round of eight could consist of four of the current New Year’s Six bowl locations, with the final four teams playing in the two remaining New Year’s Six locations in the next round.

Some might argue that this would be too physically and mentally taxing for collegiate student-athletes, but the FCS, Division II and Division III use similar systems, some consisting of even more games than this one.

The committee probably let Alabama in because of that old, reliable, flawed eye-test, and in so doing might have opened up endless debate about what should have been. They had no easy answer.

Next year, however, they could have one that is both easier and four times the excitement. Group of Five teams could finally have a chance to make the playoff, and the traditional powers would be appeased with constant chances to appear with three or even four losses.

Might some of the first round games be blowouts? Certainly – but likely not as often or as much as first round games as in March Madness, for example. And like that ubër-successful counterpart, there might be significant upsets and Cinderella stories.

There’s another, much more simple argument in favor of an expanded playoff.

Who would mind some more high-stakes football?