On Friday, College Football Playoff executive director Bill Hancock announced that the playoff will remain at four teams through the end of its current 12-year contract (which expires at the end of 2025).

I think this is terrible news. The College Football Playoff has devolved into boring matchups of the same teams every year. And those matchups are often blowouts. We've had a few memorable games — such as the 2017 national championship game between Alabama and Georgia. Or the 2017 semifinal matchup between Oklahoma and Georgia. But for the most part, we've seen subjected to semifinal boat races that are over by halftime.

Surprisingly there are still some notable folks against the playoff expanding.

And one of those folks is The Athletic's Ari Wasserman.

On Sunday, Wasserman wrote a column questioning whether or not expanding the playoff would actually help the sport. His biggest reason — and it's a reason I've seen from countless others as well — is that an expanded playoff would devalue the regular season.

From The Athletic:

But you know what else we love? Regular-season upsets in college football.

And in college football, upsets in September, October and November have a tendency to end seasons the very same way they do in the NCAA Tournament. That’s why we all collectively turn a game on when an undefeated, top-five power is losing in the fourth quarter. We sit on the edge of our seats and hope and pray that the top-five team loses, taking a huge punch to its CFP resume. We love the stakes. We love what losses mean.

Wasserman is completely missing the point. What he doesn't realize is that regular-season upsets only matter for about six teams. For programs like Penn Stae or Iowa — teams that have finished in the top 10-15 in the final AP rankings but have been left out of the playoff — those regular-season losses don't mean much at all as it is.

Expanding the playoff to 16 teams (which is a good number for college football), would instantly create more late-season drama.

Last year in the final week of the season, the only games that had major playoff implications were Michigan/Ohio State and Auburn/Alabama.

During the conference championship game weekend, there were four games with playoff implications: Baylor/Oklahoma State, Alabama/Georgia, Cincinnati/Houston, and Michigan/Iowa.

Now, imagine a system where 16 teams get in. Suddenly those last couple of weeks are filled with insane drama. Games like Wake Forest/Boston College, Oregon/Oregon State, or LSU/Texas A&M suddenly mean a lot more.

(Imagine the insanity surrounding an out-going Ed Orgeron leading a 5-6 LSU team to an upset over Texas A&M that keeps the Aggies out of a 16 team playoff. Complete madness).

Wasserman is correct that the same teams will likely keep winning the playoff. At least for the first few years. But even if that's the case long-term, we would still have more compelling matchups late in the season — and in the post-season — than what we're currently getting.

I think an expanded playoff would instantly make the regular season more exciting. More teams would have something lose. And that always makes for captivating television.

College football is once again missing a huge opportunity.

But we shouldn't be surprised — the sport, in general, is always 10 years too late when it comes to doing what makes sense.

Featured image via Marc Lebryk-USA TODAY Sports