and/or a bad program become a solid program? If VT and Texas agreed to a home-home series and Texas ended up going 2-10 or 3-9, then I can understand VT fans clamoring for VT to receive the benefit of the doubt because historically Texas is a good program. However, how can anyone foresee into the future whether Texas is entering or going through a 10-20 year slump to where people think the program has declined to a level on par with Kansas?

Likewise, if VT agreed to a home-home series with Indiana, then most people would assume that Indiana was going to be an "easy" P5 victory. Should VT not be rewarded for playing Indiana who ends up going 9-3 or 10-2? How can anyone foresee into the future whether Indiana is entering or in the middle of a Boise State-like upswing in the program vs. the upswing being a fluke?

In the last 5 seasons, Duke has had a winning record in 4 of them and even won the division in 2013. So when the Committee sees that a team has played Duke, then is Duke a "solid team" or "same ole Duke (aka a cellar dweller)?" FWIW prior to Bobby Bowden's arrival, FSU was really viewed as an "average (at best) program;" an overall record of 157-136-14 (bowl record of 2-5-2). If FSU starts to have a decline, then at what point does the program go back to its pre-Bowden reputation (if at all)? Why should certain programs be given the "benefit of the doubt" and other not even though both groups went through "lean years" or even "lean decades?"