Bill Connelly lays out some insight into how the expanded playoffs will further deteriorate the meaning of the regular season, and especially the rivalry games:

With this in mind, let’s think about how Rivalry Week would have played out with a 24-team playoff and compare that with what happened with a 12-teamer.

• In real life, Michigan needed a miracle upset of Ohio State to have any playoff hope. Instead, the Wolverines lost by 18. With a 24-team CFP, they’re comfortably in regardless.

• Alabama had to beat Auburn to keep its place in the CFP field and proceeded to blow a 17-point lead before rallying to win late. Meanwhile, Oklahoma needed to beat LSU to hold on to a berth and trailed with five minutes left before a late score. With a 24-teamer, both teams are comfortably in (and have opening-round home games) regardless.

• Texas and Vanderbilt needed to beat rivals Texas A&M and Tennessee, respectively, and hope for some chaos above them to get into the field. (They won, but they didn’t get the chaos.) With a 24-teamer, they’re both in regardless.

• In theory, No. 23 Georgia Tech facing Georgia could have had playoff stakes with a 24-teamer, but the committee actually boosted the Yellow Jackets in the rankings after another loss to the Dawgs. Turns out, they’re in regardless.

• Only two rivalry games are enhanced by a 24-teamer: Arizona would have replaced Arizona State in the field with a 23-7 win in the Territorial Cup, and Virginia would have clinched both an ACC title and a CFP berth with a 27-7 win over Virginia Tech. Meanwhile, No. 19 Tennessee got beaten so badly by Vandy that the Vols would have fallen out — resulting in some solid schadenfreude — and No. 21 SMU would have fallen out with an upset loss to Cal. They’re replaced by Iowa (which blew out Nebraska) and, in theory, North Texas (which blew out Temple).

(Why “in theory”? Because with the CFP committee’s historic view of mid-major teams, I can’t say it would be a surprise if the second-best Group of 6 team tended to rank no higher than 25th. The cynic in me says that Tennessee might have grabbed that last spot in the field instead.)

Now let me be clear: I’ll root against Tech and be crestfallen if we lose even if we both entered the game with zero wins and nothing to play for post-season. I’ll pull for anyone who plays Tech. I’ll take joy in beating Tech whether it means a #1 seed or a #24 seed or a #168 seed in a post-season playoff or a trip to the Poulan Weedeater Bowl. The playoff doesn’t have any impact on my disdain for Tech, Auburn, Florida, Alabama, Tennessee, or anyone else we play as a rival.

But Bill does have a point about the magnitude and impact of the game, which, even though it’s a rivarly game, it is another game in the season where games and their individual importance is being diluted by the opportunity to earn a participation trophy in the post-season. That isn’t that much different from the pre-BCS era, where we were competing and hoping to win at least six games to make a bowl. Man, the 90’s sucked.

But does the expansion really diminish your hatred for a rival? Does it take the sheen off the win as a result?

Discuss.