(01-04-2021 03:08 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(01-04-2021 12:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  Who cares? If they don't deserve it, they will lose.

The expansion is about making sure everyone who deserves a shot gets in and that its not decided in a smoke filled room. Its not about weeding out teams. Reality is that its pretty rare that #8 teams would win it, so its not a big deal if you have a #18 Big 10 champ in place of them. And maybe that #18 Big 10 champ found their QB after starting off 1-4. They won something on the field, not just in a board room.

C’mon bullet. The point of expansion is to make more money. The question is what system maximizes that goal for the P5. Which is why I Agree with you that auto bids are the way to go. It’s not like the committee goes away completely as they will still choose the wild card teams.

The point of expansion will always be money and power. P5 will try to keep as much as they can.

The narrative that the playoff has killed interest in the rest of the bowls is funny.

Bowls have always been exhibitions and the reason interest is dying is due to the sheer number of them. Back in the 90s you had about 20 bowls. Were close to 40 now for any normal year. So the BCS didnt hurt interest in bowls either? Maybe because there werent so many 6-6 and 7-5 teams playing in them.

Maybe teams need to drop 1-2 games against FCS so that the field can be expanded. That way kids can play 4-5 weeks of games that actually mean something.

(01-04-2021 01:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  Don't try to read people's minds. You aren't good at it.

I think the basketball tournament is too big. It is 68 out of 350 schools. Nearly 20%.

An 8 team football tourney is 8 out of 130. 6.1%. I think 16 would be too big unless you include all 10 conference champs. And I really don't think all conferences really belong in it.

I am not trying to read minds so to speak. But you simply cannot fit a round peg into a square hole.

Frankly part of the reason that this is so great is that there is a human element to all of it. People love arguing about stuff - especially sports. The publicity is a wet dream for marketing attention.


Again, you seem to have a rise in your pants over the fact that the "committee process" is shady. That is because the odd man out always has a legitimate argument why they should be included instead of the last man in. I watch the Basketball Selection show every year and it is the same thing. The major difference is that they have auto bids but the simple fact is that there is enough room to fit all the conference champs in AND and the teams who are good enough to be there as well. Even with 68 teams the teams on the bubble complain they got screwed.

Football does not have that luxury. There is a finite ceiling as to how many teams you can add to a tournament format and not kill 18-22 year old kids and keep the regular season meaningful and not last longer than the NFL season all at the same time. These are still college students.

You will always have outliers regardless of the system. In the human model, TCU a few years back - should have been in the final 4. This year if you use auto bids Oregon is in and they should not be.

Unless you have a 16 team football tournament you are not going to be able to satisfy the vast majority. Anything less than 16 has to omit all FBS conference champs as auto-bids. At least with 16 you have 6 wild cards who will normally be filled out by the remainder of the top 8 ranked teams who are not already in.


I am not arguing against an 8 team tournament, just the methodology by which the participants are chosen. I think 8 is a perfect number. You should be able to weed in the really good team with an outlier loss and reward a team like Cincy who earned a shot AND not let a team in who had no right being there (Oregon).

(01-04-2021 03:55 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(01-04-2021 01:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  Don't try to read people's minds. You aren't good at it.

I think the basketball tournament is too big. It is 68 out of 350 schools. Nearly 20%.

An 8 team football tourney is 8 out of 130. 6.1%. I think 16 would be too big unless you include all 10 conference champs. And I really don't think all conferences really belong in it.

I am not trying to read minds so to speak. But you simply cannot fit a round peg into a square hole.

Frankly part of the reason that this is so great is that there is a human element to all of it. People love arguing about stuff - especially sports. The publicity is a wet dream for marketing attention.


Again, you seem to have a rise in your pants over the fact that the "committee process" is shady. That is because the odd man out always has a legitimate argument why they should be included instead of the last man in. I watch the Basketball Selection show every year and it is the same thing. The major difference is that they have auto bids but the simple fact is that there is enough room to fit all the conference champs in AND and the teams who are good enough to be there as well. Even with 68 teams the teams on the bubble complain they got screwed.

Football does not have that luxury. There is a finite ceiling as to how many teams you can add to a tournament format and not kill 18-22 year old kids and keep the regular season meaningful and not last longer than the NFL season all at the same time. These are still college students.

You will always have outliers regardless of the system. In the human model, TCU a few years back - should have been in the final 4. This year if you use auto bids Oregon is in and they should not be.

Unless you have a 16 team football tournament you are not going to be able to satisfy the vast majority. Anything less than 16 has to omit all FBS conference champs as auto-bids. At least with 16 you have 6 wild cards who will normally be filled out by the remainder of the top 8 ranked teams who are not already in.


I am not arguing against an 8 team tournament, just the methodology by which the participants are chosen. I think 8 is a perfect number. You should be able to weed in the really good team with an outlier loss and reward a team like Cincy who earned a shot AND not let a team in who had no right being there (Oregon).

Again you are trying to read minds and failing. Stop. You make stupid arguments when you do that. I admit smoke filled room has connotations. But its simply a group sitting around a table and picking teams. There's nothing objective about it. You could get a different group and get a different result. You could take one dominate personality out of the room and get a different result. There is no doubt TCU and Baylor were hurt in 2014 by a couple of run oriented coaches being on the committee. The committee said how much they listened to Osborne and Alvarez. And the committee, as do the polls, has a bias based on the name on the uniform.

I want defined rules set out at the start of the season. Not a group that gets overly impressed because an opponent in a ccg folded. With a 5-1-2 those first 5 are always the same no matter who is involved in the selection.

I get the argument about wanting to have discussion and controversy.

As an example, we had a discussion on a Texas boards a few years back about 1983. We were talking about the trajectory of the Texas program if we hadn't fumbled that punt at the end of the Cotton Bowl or if the holding on the UGA TD had been called. But we also talked about what would happen in the Nebraska-Miami game. I'm not sure the Miami program would ever have become what it did, because I didn't think Nebraska would have come out so flat if Texas won. So Miami would never have won that first MNC. Someone said, "See! This is what I love about college football. We are talking about a couple of plays from 30 years ago!"

But I would rather have fairness for the teams. Wouldn't it be better if Nebraska and Texas came out motivated instead of flat because they had been comparing themselves to each other the whole year and couldn't play because of the bowl system?

TCU got screwed in 2014 because we aren't a blueblood and Ohio State is. The unmistakable message was that we would have to be undefeated to make a 4-team invitational. If we had beaten Baylor that year, we would have made it. We didn't.

Rather obviously, I therefore think that the playoffs should be expanded and based on actual conference championships, rather than someone's opinion. If every bid is "at large," our chances are diminished. And because we were non-BCS/non-AQ/G5 for 16 years, I also favor letting them in because it is more fair and creates an underdog scenario that would be great for ratings and fan interest. The 5-1-2 model works for that, so I favor it.

Give me one reason why a top 6 ranked conference champs + 2 at large model can't work.

I say a top 6 ranked champs model, because if a conference has the #7 or 8 highest ranked champ, do they really deserve to get in over a higher ranked champion.

The main issue I have with the 5-1-2 model is that it allows a 25th ranked Pac 12 champ to get in automatically over a #12 ranked Sun Belt for example.

Yesterday we had multiple NFC east games get tons of attention because teams who aren't expected to win it all still had a wild card to play for. TV networks would love this to be the case for college ball.

5-1-2 gets them there.

(01-04-2021 04:37 PM)Jared7 Wrote:  TCU got screwed in 2014 because we aren't a blueblood and Ohio State is. The unmistakable message was that we would have to be undefeated to make a 4-team invitational. If we had beaten Baylor that year, we would have made it. We didn't.

Rather obviously, I therefore think that the playoffs should be expanded and based on actual conference championships, rather than someone's opinion. If every bid is "at large," our chances are diminished. And because we were non-BCS/non-AQ/G5 for 16 years, I also favor letting them in because it is more fair and creates an underdog scenario that would be great for ratings and fan interest. The 5-1-2 model works for that, so I favor it.

Baylor got screwed that year too and was first one out. An eight team playoff would have solved 2014. Really a 5-1-2 would as well. Only years it doesn't really solve that I have found are 2008 and 2007 where there were just a ton of similarly deserving teams.

(01-04-2021 04:46 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Give me one reason why a top 6 ranked conference champs + 2 at large model can't work.

I say a top 6 ranked champs model, because if a conference has the #7 or 8 highest ranked champ, do they really deserve to get in over a higher ranked champion.

The main issue I have with the 5-1-2 model is that it allows a 25th ranked Pac 12 champ to get in automatically over a #12 ranked Sun Belt for example.

I think there's a good chance Oregon is a better team than Coastal Carolina.
Now they don't have the resume because of this weird year. You just start throwing more subjectivity into it. But I do hate to see unbeatens left out. For that reason, I really wanted San Jose, Coastal Carolina and Cincinnati to lose. So you don't have an unbeaten who didn't get a chance to play for the title.

(01-04-2021 04:46 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Give me one reason why a top 6 ranked conference champs + 2 at large model can't work.

I say a top 6 ranked champs model, because if a conference has the #7 or 8 highest ranked champ, do they really deserve to get in over a higher ranked champion.

The main issue I have with the 5-1-2 model is that it allows a 25th ranked Pac 12 champ to get in automatically over a #12 ranked Sun Belt for example.

The politics of no P5 wanting their champ excluded.

Since you need each of them on board...

(01-04-2021 05:51 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(01-04-2021 04:46 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Give me one reason why a top 6 ranked conference champs + 2 at large model can't work.

I say a top 6 ranked champs model, because if a conference has the #7 or 8 highest ranked champ, do they really deserve to get in over a higher ranked champion.

The main issue I have with the 5-1-2 model is that it allows a 25th ranked Pac 12 champ to get in automatically over a #12 ranked Sun Belt for example.

The politics of no P5 wanting their champ excluded.

Since you need each of them on board...

Yes - if/when an 8-team playoff gets put into place, having all P5 champs getting auto-bids (or as I’ve noted elsewhere, “contract spots” from a legal standpoint) will be the bare minimum. It may not be fair, but the #25 ranking for this year’s Pac-12 champ is exactly why the P5 wants auto-bids in the first place. It’s all about 100% ironclad guarantees without hemming, hawing, committees or rankings - that’s the point of having the power.

(01-04-2021 04:37 PM)Jared7 Wrote:  TCU got screwed in 2014 because we aren't a blueblood and Ohio State is.

TCU was not screwed in 2014. TCU had a Baylor problem and a Big 12 problem. The Baylor problem was that nobody could rank TCU ahead of Baylor, because same record and H2H. That means that to put TCU in to the playoffs, you would have to put both TCU and Baylor in the playoffs. But that was untenable, because no way did either of them deserve to be in over FSU, the only unbeaten, and Alabama and Oregon, who had played much tougher schedules.

So the only issue the committee had to address was Baylor vs Ohio State, and Ohio State had a clearly stronger resume than Baylor.

The Big 12 problem was the lack of a CCG. What should have happened is Baylor and TCU should have played again in a Big 12 CCG. The winner would surely have gotten in to the playoffs over Ohio State.

(01-04-2021 05:51 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(01-04-2021 04:46 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Give me one reason why a top 6 ranked conference champs + 2 at large model can't work.

I say a top 6 ranked champs model, because if a conference has the #7 or 8 highest ranked champ, do they really deserve to get in over a higher ranked champion.

The main issue I have with the 5-1-2 model is that it allows a 25th ranked Pac 12 champ to get in automatically over a #12 ranked Sun Belt for example.

The politics of no P5 wanting their champ excluded.

Since you need each of them on board...

Then play better football and have one of the top 6 champs. It's really that simple.

It's simply not fair for a #20-25 ranked champion to get in over a 10-15 ranked champ for example. Going with the top 6 conference champs solves this problem.

(01-04-2021 07:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-04-2021 04:37 PM)Jared7 Wrote:  TCU got screwed in 2014 because we aren't a blueblood and Ohio State is.

TCU was not screwed in 2014. TCU had a Baylor problem and a Big 12 problem. The Baylor problem was that nobody could rank TCU ahead of Baylor, because same record and H2H. That means that to put TCU in to the playoffs, you would have to put both TCU and Baylor in the playoffs. But that was untenable, because no way did either of them deserve to be in over FSU, the only unbeaten, and Alabama and Oregon, who had played much tougher schedules.

So the only issue the committee had to address was Baylor vs Ohio State, and Ohio State had a clearly stronger resume than Baylor.

The Big 12 problem was the lack of a CCG. What should have happened is Baylor and TCU should have played again in a Big 12 CCG. The winner would surely have gotten in to the playoffs over Ohio State.

Disagree on clearly stronger given tOSU lost to VaTech who was weaker than WVU that year and need two blown ref calls to survive PSU and struggled with a Minnesota team TCU throttled. At best it’s a debate. Destroying Wisconsin made it easy and OU’s backup QB losing to OkSt so they fell out of the T25 took a dominant win out of BU’s resume despite Bu playing a much tougher version of that team as they fell off without Knight. QB injury at WVU hurt both BU and TCU’s resumes. With Trickett they gave Bama a tough game.

Big 12 getting a title game that year probably makes a difference but how much is debatable. Tons of Big Ten influence on that selection committee.

(01-04-2021 08:54 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(01-04-2021 05:51 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(01-04-2021 04:46 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Give me one reason why a top 6 ranked conference champs + 2 at large model can't work.

I say a top 6 ranked champs model, because if a conference has the #7 or 8 highest ranked champ, do they really deserve to get in over a higher ranked champion.

The main issue I have with the 5-1-2 model is that it allows a 25th ranked Pac 12 champ to get in automatically over a #12 ranked Sun Belt for example.

The politics of no P5 wanting their champ excluded.

Since you need each of them on board...

Then play better football and have one of the top 6 champs. It's really that simple.

It's simply not fair for a #20-25 ranked champion to get in over a 10-15 ranked champ for example. Going with the top 6 conference champs solves this problem.

I said it’s a reason it can’t work. Given the political issues I’m probably right.

I agree it isn’t fair. I prefer your model.

I don’t like it but realistically it’s what we are probably dealing with and it’s a massive step up from now.

(01-04-2021 09:32 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(01-04-2021 07:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-04-2021 04:37 PM)Jared7 Wrote:  TCU got screwed in 2014 because we aren't a blueblood and Ohio State is.

TCU was not screwed in 2014. TCU had a Baylor problem and a Big 12 problem. The Baylor problem was that nobody could rank TCU ahead of Baylor, because same record and H2H. That means that to put TCU in to the playoffs, you would have to put both TCU and Baylor in the playoffs. But that was untenable, because no way did either of them deserve to be in over FSU, the only unbeaten, and Alabama and Oregon, who had played much tougher schedules.

So the only issue the committee had to address was Baylor vs Ohio State, and Ohio State had a clearly stronger resume than Baylor.

The Big 12 problem was the lack of a CCG. What should have happened is Baylor and TCU should have played again in a Big 12 CCG. The winner would surely have gotten in to the playoffs over Ohio State.

Disagree on clearly stronger given tOSU lost to VaTech who was weaker than WVU that year and need two blown ref calls to survive PSU and struggled with a Minnesota team TCU throttled. At best it’s a debate.

IIRC, the computers had Ohio State over Baylor, as did the BCS formula so you can't chalk it up to CFP bias. Baylor's OOC schedule was extremely soft, and Texas and Oklahoma were both down that year. Ohio State just played a tougher schedule, which is basically what we have to go on.

Baylor was an anchor that dragged the Big 12 down, in that if Baylor didn't exist there at 11-1, the committee could have compared OSU to TCU directly, and TCU maybe wins that comparison. But with Baylor in the picture having the edge on TCU, then that doomed the Big 12. A CCG that pitted Baylor vs TCU would likely have solved that problem.

(01-04-2021 05:05 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Yesterday we had multiple NFC east games get tons of attention because teams who aren't expected to win it all still had a wild card to play for. TV networks would love this to be the case for college ball.

5-1-2 gets them there.

That’s exactly right. It what I have long been arguing.

So much of the discussion is about who is actually makes the playoff, which is certainly important but doesn’t address the bigger picture. The NFL understands that the playoff *race* is what drives their interest and gets fans to watch *their* team (not their conference or division) long into the season.

Look at my own Chicago Bears. One could argue it’s a sign of mediocrity from a competitive standpoint that an 8-8 team with Mitch Trubisky at QB could be in the playoffs and that’s something that the college football system wouldn’t ever allow.

On the other hand, 7 teams were still playing for playoff spots heading into the last week of the season. Several other teams that had already clinched playoff spots were still trying to secure seeding and a first round bye. This is why the NFL wins the ratings every week. People aren’t cheering for their conference or a national brand. They’re tuning to watch *their* team play meaningful games. I was glued every week to the Bears with purpose (not merely going through the motions) even though they frustrated me as heck. Why? Because the NFL knows the right balance between making every regular season game very meaningful (in a way that’s impossible for MLB or the NBA) but not to the point where they’re knocking out the majority of teams out of the championship race in the first couple of weeks of the season like college football does.

College football can get much closer to that model with a 5-1-2 playoff system. Every P5 team that could still qualify for its conference championship game is mathematically still in the national championship race, which has a massive downstream impact on the number of teams that are still playing meaningful games later into the regular season. Even a single reserved G5 slot provides a national championship dream (however unrealistic it might be) that doesn’t exist in the current system.

Maybe Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, Oklahoma and a few others will still dominate in the end in an 8-team playoff world. However, it’s not just about the end. It’s about maximizing the value of the entire regular season for as many schools (and by extension, their conferences) as possible. That’s why I think we’re heading to a 5-1-2 system sooner rather than later. Particularly in the wake of this pandemic, schools aren’t in a position of leaving what is effectively easy free money on the table that comes with an expanded playoff any longer.

And the weakest team was obviously FSU. Funny how the committee said they’d reward the “best” 4 teams, even putting FSU at #4 but then reversed that to “most deserving” the next week. I’ll say they ultimately got it (“it” being “most deserving”) correct, but it’s a shame we had 5 Power champs all with 1 or fewer losses (only other time was 2002 or thereabouts). Couldn’t leave undefeated FSU out the first year; woulda been gnashing of teeth even outside the ACC.

Locking in 5 champs is key for the reasons mentioned. The power players buy in to the format; more is determined on the field than by (former) coaches; and it does lend an air of a “nation-wide” playoff, not just for the Southeast.

While Top 6 champs can’t be done, maybe the Pac-12 can be squeezed out and we can have 4 auto champs +2 non-auto champs. We’ll know more as that western conference continues to balance politics and sports in 2021.

(01-04-2021 10:12 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-04-2021 05:05 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Yesterday we had multiple NFC east games get tons of attention because teams who aren't expected to win it all still had a wild card to play for. TV networks would love this to be the case for college ball.

5-1-2 gets them there.

That’s exactly right. It what I have long been arguing.

So much of the discussion is about who is actually makes the playoff, which is certainly important but doesn’t address the bigger picture. The NFL understands that the playoff *race* is what drives their interest and gets fans to watch *their* team (not their conference or division) long into the season.

Look at my own Chicago Bears. One could argue it’s a sign of mediocrity from a competitive standpoint that an 8-8 team with Mitch Trubisky at QB could be in the playoffs and that’s something that the college football system wouldn’t ever allow.

On the other hand, 7 teams were still playing for playoff spots heading into the last week of the season. Several other teams that had already clinched playoff spots were still trying to secure seeding and a first round bye. This is why the NFL wins the ratings every week. People aren’t cheering for their conference or a national brand. They’re tuning to watch *their* team play meaningful games. I was glued every week to the Bears with purpose (not merely going through the motions) even though they frustrated me as heck. Why? Because the NFL knows the right balance between making every regular season game very meaningful (in a way that’s impossible for MLB or the NBA) but not to the point where they’re knocking out the majority of teams out of the championship race in the first couple of weeks of the season like college football does.

College football can get much closer to that model with a 5-1-2 playoff system. Every P5 team that could still qualify for its conference championship game is mathematically still in the national championship race, which has a massive downstream impact on the number of teams that are still playing meaningful games later into the regular season. Even a single reserved G5 slot provides a national championship dream (however unrealistic it might be) that doesn’t exist in the current system.

Maybe Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, Oklahoma and a few others will still dominate in the end in an 8-team playoff world. However, it’s not just about the end. It’s about maximizing the value of the entire regular season for as many schools (and by extension, their conferences) as possible. That’s why I think we’re heading to a 5-1-2 system sooner rather than later. Particularly in the wake of this pandemic, schools aren’t in a position of leaving what is effectively easy free money on the table that comes with an expanded playoff any longer.

I disagree with the bolded part. What distinguishes the NFL from CFB is that the NFL is national. I am a die-hard (and often) Rams fan of 47 years, so of course I tuned in for the Rams - Cardinals game yesterday. But before that, I watched Dallas vs NY and Cleveland vs Pittsburgh. Because I follow "the NFL", not just the Rams.

If the Rams lose to the Hawks on Saturday, I'm still tuning in for the Redskins-Bucs later that evening, and the full slate of wild card games on Sunday. I'll also watch all the divisional games the next weekend and on through the Super Bowl. I care about who wins in the NFL whether the Rams are still in the mix or not. I think most NFL fans are that way.

College football is not and never will be that way. It is a blood-and-soil sport with loyalties tied to states and regions and alma maters. Efforts to make college football like the NFL will IMO either not work or will drive away viewers. The NFL exists to have playoffs. It couldn't exist without them. Its whole organizational principle is crowning an NFL champ through a process of elimination every year. The NFL is thoroughly corporatized and everyone likes it that way - until "their" team threatens to move unless a new stadium is constructed at taxpayer expense. College football has thrived for over 120 years without ever having that. The whole notion of Alabama or USC "moving" is absurd on its face. Very different animals.

That said, if the Powers That Be think more playoffs will make more money, we will get them. I do agree that many in athletics envy the NFL and have as an operative goal making their sport more like it. IMO, CFB would be wrong to emulate it. CFB is successful because it is different than the NFL. If it becomes like the NFL, then it is just "minor league football" will become a minor league sport, like minor league baseball is.

(01-04-2021 07:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-04-2021 04:37 PM)Jared7 Wrote:  TCU got screwed in 2014 because we aren't a blueblood and Ohio State is.

TCU was not screwed in 2014. TCU had a Baylor problem and a Big 12 problem. The Baylor problem was that nobody could rank TCU ahead of Baylor, because same record and H2H. That means that to put TCU in to the playoffs, you would have to put both TCU and Baylor in the playoffs. But that was untenable, because no way did either of them deserve to be in over FSU, the only unbeaten, and Alabama and Oregon, who had played much tougher schedules.

So the only issue the committee had to address was Baylor vs Ohio State, and Ohio State had a clearly stronger resume than Baylor.

The Big 12 problem was the lack of a CCG. What should have happened is Baylor and TCU should have played again in a Big 12 CCG. The winner would surely have gotten in to the playoffs over Ohio State.

TCU was obviously screwed in 2014. You say that "nobody could rank TCU ahead of Baylor" but the fact is that everyone did, including the AP and the Coaches and the CFI Committee up until the final weekend when TCU won by 52 points over ISU. And then, after the Bowls, they (everybody) did again after TCU torched Mississippi 42-3 and Baylor lost. No school other than TCU has ever been ranked 3rd by the Committee and dumped to 6th after winning by 52. The reason everybody ranked TCU over Baylor was because Baylor lost to WVa., who TCU beat. And, Baylor's SOS was abysmal because they rarely play any other P5 team and didn't that year either.

But the real reason was because Ohio State won the Big10 (with a huge W over Wisky in the CCG) and the Committee just couldn't leave them out in the first year. And FSU wasn't just the only unbeaten, they were also the defending national champ. Even if there had been a Big12 CCG, my view is that Ohio State would still have gotten in - especially over Baylor because of their weak OOC schedule but also over TCU. Ohio State is Ohio State; TCU was a newly promoted non-AQ team with a small alumni base that doesn't necessarily get as high TV ratings.

The Frogs need to go undefeated to make the Invitational. If we have a loss, they will find whatever reasons they can to keep us out. This is not a great situation for us, but we share it with other non-blueblood P5 teams and we're still a bit better off than most G5's who not only need to go undefeated but also to have a bit of luck and an arguably tougher OOC schedule. A 5-2-1 system would be much more fair for schools like TCU and G5 teams.