Who would you have left out

TCU only lost one game, to Baylor, which created the tie at the top of the Big XII where Baylor was the conference champion, not TCU.

Was TCU a great team that year? Yes. However, should a team that did not win it's conference regular season or title game (the Big XII didn't have one) be a national champion? If you are Notre Dame or BYU, or other historical independents? Then yes. But TCU was in the Big XII and didn't win the Big XII that year.

The Playoff teams that year

OSU - lost early to a bad VaTech team (I could see TCU being ahead of them) but then they had wins against MSU (8) and Wisconsin (18) on their way to winning their division and conference. Right or wrong, a 1 loss team that didn't win their conference versus a 1 loss team that did, is not a travesty, especially with a win against a team that finished in the top 10 of the CFP final rankings.

FSU - undefeated heading into the playoffs, and were destroyed by Oregon

Oregon - lost one game to a very good Arizona team, which they avenged in the Pac12 title game (beating Arizona 51-13, they are sort of like this year's OU). Again, only had 1 loss, were able to avenge it and win their conference title.

Bama - lost to the previously mentioned Ole Miss (who was destroyed by TCU in the Peach Bowl). Went on to win the SEC with wins over Miss St (7), Missouri (16) and Auburn (19) along the way (those are the final playoff rankings after the championships).

TCU
1) Didn't win their conference
2) Played two games against teams that finished in the final CFB rankings and went 1-1
3) What would be the justification for putting TCU ahead of Baylor? The Bowl results?

I like TCU, and have attended many TCU football games. But that loss to Baylor killed them because it basically made sure they couldn't win their conference unless Baylor lost again, and they didn't. By the end, they were a great team, but I have no problem saying they didn't deserve a shot at the title, because they didn't win the Big XII.