(12-03-2022 02:16 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(12-03-2022 01:44 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(12-03-2022 11:41 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(12-03-2022 11:19 AM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(12-02-2022 08:05 PM)tigerbmw Wrote:  This is what I deplore about posting on this forum. Many of the members go straight to name-calling in response to a simple post.

Anyway, can you say this definitively about the new AAC? No you can't.

I won't answer for Stamm on your offense at his "name calling".
But I can say definitively that the new AAC ranks out higher than all other G5's based on recent numbers.
Just pull up the Sagarin rankings - remove the defectors and add the newcomers.
The AAC composite ranking is still higher than the others.
Closest challenger is the Sun - the MWC is not even close.

But Cincy, UCF & UH won't be there to help the AAC SOS, so those composite rankings will change especially if the other AAC schools adopt our weak OOC scheduling going forward. But your views & differing views are nothing more than speculation for the future & with an obvious weaker AAC there is no guarantee there will be a 1 loss AAC champion going forward, again just speculation.

At least my speculation is based upon data.
Your speculation is based upon...? Bitterness?

What? The data is CINCY, UCF & UH won't be there. Rice FAU & Charlotte will be. The AAC SOS will tank.

Literally, the post right above your reply.
SOS is not the only factor - I'm not using SOS rankings, I'm using total overall rankings. For example, the top rated AAC team in Sagarin is Tulane. They also have one of the worst SOS in the AAC. Same for CUSA. Top rated team is UTSA (one of our newcomers). They have one of the worst SOS in CUSA. Same is true for JMU in the Sun.

Also, the newcomer teams SOS will improve - so if you actually think SOS is the only factor, then they will be ranked higher next year.

Again, there are numbers to show this. You've just got your typical bitter whoa-is-Memphis cold take with zero data.

We made the cotton by playing a 4-8 ole miss, southern, south Alabama, and Louisiana Monroe

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

(12-04-2022 12:17 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(12-03-2022 02:16 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(12-03-2022 01:44 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(12-03-2022 11:41 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(12-03-2022 11:19 AM)Tiger87 Wrote:  I won't answer for Stamm on your offense at his "name calling".
But I can say definitively that the new AAC ranks out higher than all other G5's based on recent numbers.
Just pull up the Sagarin rankings - remove the defectors and add the newcomers.
The AAC composite ranking is still higher than the others.
Closest challenger is the Sun - the MWC is not even close.

But Cincy, UCF & UH won't be there to help the AAC SOS, so those composite rankings will change especially if the other AAC schools adopt our weak OOC scheduling going forward. But your views & differing views are nothing more than speculation for the future & with an obvious weaker AAC there is no guarantee there will be a 1 loss AAC champion going forward, again just speculation.

At least my speculation is based upon data.
Your speculation is based upon...? Bitterness?

What? The data is CINCY, UCF & UH won't be there. Rice FAU & Charlotte will be. The AAC SOS will tank.

Literally, the post right above your reply.
SOS is not the only factor - I'm not using SOS rankings, I'm using total overall rankings. For example, the top rated AAC team in Sagarin is Tulane. They also have one of the worst SOS in the AAC. Same for CUSA. Top rated team is UTSA (one of our newcomers). They have one of the worst SOS in CUSA. Same is true for JMU in the Sun.

Also, the newcomer teams SOS will improve - so if you actually think SOS is the only factor, then they will be ranked higher next year.

Again, there are numbers to show this. You've just got your typical bitter whoa-is-Memphis cold take with zero data.

You've got nothing but speculation, just like anyone else who pontificates about future performance especially in light of a wholesale turnover in conference membership. We'll see next season how it plays out.

(12-04-2022 01:02 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 12:17 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(12-03-2022 02:16 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(12-03-2022 01:44 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(12-03-2022 11:41 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  But Cincy, UCF & UH won't be there to help the AAC SOS, so those composite rankings will change especially if the other AAC schools adopt our weak OOC scheduling going forward. But your views & differing views are nothing more than speculation for the future & with an obvious weaker AAC there is no guarantee there will be a 1 loss AAC champion going forward, again just speculation.

At least my speculation is based upon data.
Your speculation is based upon...? Bitterness?

What? The data is CINCY, UCF & UH won't be there. Rice FAU & Charlotte will be. The AAC SOS will tank.

Literally, the post right above your reply.
SOS is not the only factor - I'm not using SOS rankings, I'm using total overall rankings. For example, the top rated AAC team in Sagarin is Tulane. They also have one of the worst SOS in the AAC. Same for CUSA. Top rated team is UTSA (one of our newcomers). They have one of the worst SOS in CUSA. Same is true for JMU in the Sun.

Also, the newcomer teams SOS will improve - so if you actually think SOS is the only factor, then they will be ranked higher next year.

Again, there are numbers to show this. You've just got your typical bitter whoa-is-Memphis cold take with zero data.

You've got nothing but speculation, just like anyone else who pontificates about future performance especially in light of a wholesale turnover in conference membership. We'll see next season how it plays out.

That will be the ultimate test. However, the MWC themselves saw the writing on the wall when this started unfolding. They desperately wanted to add a couple of teams to beef up football, but were told they would get no additional money for doing so.

The MWC were and continue to be one trick ponies in Boise. The issue is that most of the conference is so easy that if one team in the Boise div trips them up, that team can win out or even suffer a single loss and prevent Boise from getting to the CCG. Or, like this year, Boise loses in their CCG game and are ineligible for the access (or future playoff spot), even if they were undefeated to that point.

The trick to consistently getting the access bowl (or the upcoming playoff spot) is to have balance in the conference so you are not dependent on a single team making it to the CCG and having to win it. Thats why the AAC has had a hammer lock on the access bowl, and its not been close in years. Take this year; what would have happened if Tulane had lost the CCG? Well, UCF would go to the access. What about 2021, when Cinci made the playoffs? If they had lost in the CCG, then a ranked Houston would have went. In 2020 it was also Cinci in the access, but if they lost in the CCG a ranked Tulsa would have went. In 2019 it was Memphis, but if we had lost the CCG it would have been a ranked Cinci to go. You have to go all the way back to 2018 when UCF won, that had they lost to Memphis in the CCG the AAC may have missed the access due to our 4 losses at that point.

(12-04-2022 08:22 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 01:02 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 12:17 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(12-03-2022 02:16 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(12-03-2022 01:44 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  At least my speculation is based upon data.
Your speculation is based upon...? Bitterness?

What? The data is CINCY, UCF & UH won't be there. Rice FAU & Charlotte will be. The AAC SOS will tank.

Literally, the post right above your reply.
SOS is not the only factor - I'm not using SOS rankings, I'm using total overall rankings. For example, the top rated AAC team in Sagarin is Tulane. They also have one of the worst SOS in the AAC. Same for CUSA. Top rated team is UTSA (one of our newcomers). They have one of the worst SOS in CUSA. Same is true for JMU in the Sun.

Also, the newcomer teams SOS will improve - so if you actually think SOS is the only factor, then they will be ranked higher next year.

Again, there are numbers to show this. You've just got your typical bitter whoa-is-Memphis cold take with zero data.

You've got nothing but speculation, just like anyone else who pontificates about future performance especially in light of a wholesale turnover in conference membership. We'll see next season how it plays out.

That will be the ultimate test. However, the MWC themselves saw the writing on the wall when this started unfolding. They desperately wanted to add a couple of teams to beef up football, but were told they would get no additional money for doing so.

The MWC were and continue to be one trick ponies in Boise. The issue is that most of the conference is so easy that if one team in the Boise div trips them up, that team can win out or even suffer a single loss and prevent Boise from getting to the CCG. Or, like this year, Boise loses in their CCG game and are ineligible for the access (or future playoff spot), even if they were undefeated to that point.

The trick to consistently getting the access bowl (or the upcoming playoff spot) is to have balance in the conference so you are not dependent on a single team making it to the CCG and having to win it. Thats why the AAC has had a hammer lock on the access bowl, and its not been close in years. Take this year; what would have happened if Tulane had lost the CCG? Well, UCF would go to the access. What about 2021, when Cinci made the playoffs? If they had lost in the CCG, then a ranked Houston would have went. In 2020 it was also Cinci in the access, but if they lost in the CCG a ranked Tulsa would have went. In 2019 it was Memphis, but if we had lost the CCG it would have been a ranked Cinci to go. You have to go all the way back to 2018 when UCF won, that had they lost to Memphis in the CCG the AAC may have missed the access due to our 4 losses at that point.

This isn't just about the MWC as competition.

(12-04-2022 08:24 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 08:22 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 01:02 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 12:17 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(12-03-2022 02:16 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  What? The data is CINCY, UCF & UH won't be there. Rice FAU & Charlotte will be. The AAC SOS will tank.

Literally, the post right above your reply.
SOS is not the only factor - I'm not using SOS rankings, I'm using total overall rankings. For example, the top rated AAC team in Sagarin is Tulane. They also have one of the worst SOS in the AAC. Same for CUSA. Top rated team is UTSA (one of our newcomers). They have one of the worst SOS in CUSA. Same is true for JMU in the Sun.

Also, the newcomer teams SOS will improve - so if you actually think SOS is the only factor, then they will be ranked higher next year.

Again, there are numbers to show this. You've just got your typical bitter whoa-is-Memphis cold take with zero data.

You've got nothing but speculation, just like anyone else who pontificates about future performance especially in light of a wholesale turnover in conference membership. We'll see next season how it plays out.

That will be the ultimate test. However, the MWC themselves saw the writing on the wall when this started unfolding. They desperately wanted to add a couple of teams to beef up football, but were told they would get no additional money for doing so.

The MWC were and continue to be one trick ponies in Boise. The issue is that most of the conference is so easy that if one team in the Boise div trips them up, that team can win out or even suffer a single loss and prevent Boise from getting to the CCG. Or, like this year, Boise loses in their CCG game and are ineligible for the access (or future playoff spot), even if they were undefeated to that point.

The trick to consistently getting the access bowl (or the upcoming playoff spot) is to have balance in the conference so you are not dependent on a single team making it to the CCG and having to win it. Thats why the AAC has had a hammer lock on the access bowl, and its not been close in years. Take this year; what would have happened if Tulane had lost the CCG? Well, UCF would go to the access. What about 2021, when Cinci made the playoffs? If they had lost in the CCG, then a ranked Houston would have went. In 2020 it was also Cinci in the access, but if they lost in the CCG a ranked Tulsa would have went. In 2019 it was Memphis, but if we had lost the CCG it would have been a ranked Cinci to go. You have to go all the way back to 2018 when UCF won, that had they lost to Memphis in the CCG the AAC may have missed the access due to our 4 losses at that point.

This isn't just about the MWC as competition.

Correct, but the AAC just pilfered some of the best remaining teams out there. I believe that the AAC will snag a playoff spot 75% of the time or more. I really dont see that as an issue going forward.

The real issue is that we are staring at the easiest shot to a playoff and a national championship in my lifetime, and the team is 6-6 and has been bleh for the past few years. I will literally sh*t a brick if UAB makes a playoff spot ahead of us. (and, for the record, I like UAB just fine.)

(12-04-2022 08:34 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 08:24 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 08:22 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 01:02 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 12:17 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  Literally, the post right above your reply.
SOS is not the only factor - I'm not using SOS rankings, I'm using total overall rankings. For example, the top rated AAC team in Sagarin is Tulane. They also have one of the worst SOS in the AAC. Same for CUSA. Top rated team is UTSA (one of our newcomers). They have one of the worst SOS in CUSA. Same is true for JMU in the Sun.

Also, the newcomer teams SOS will improve - so if you actually think SOS is the only factor, then they will be ranked higher next year.

Again, there are numbers to show this. You've just got your typical bitter whoa-is-Memphis cold take with zero data.

You've got nothing but speculation, just like anyone else who pontificates about future performance especially in light of a wholesale turnover in conference membership. We'll see next season how it plays out.

That will be the ultimate test. However, the MWC themselves saw the writing on the wall when this started unfolding. They desperately wanted to add a couple of teams to beef up football, but were told they would get no additional money for doing so.

The MWC were and continue to be one trick ponies in Boise. The issue is that most of the conference is so easy that if one team in the Boise div trips them up, that team can win out or even suffer a single loss and prevent Boise from getting to the CCG. Or, like this year, Boise loses in their CCG game and are ineligible for the access (or future playoff spot), even if they were undefeated to that point.

The trick to consistently getting the access bowl (or the upcoming playoff spot) is to have balance in the conference so you are not dependent on a single team making it to the CCG and having to win it. Thats why the AAC has had a hammer lock on the access bowl, and its not been close in years. Take this year; what would have happened if Tulane had lost the CCG? Well, UCF would go to the access. What about 2021, when Cinci made the playoffs? If they had lost in the CCG, then a ranked Houston would have went. In 2020 it was also Cinci in the access, but if they lost in the CCG a ranked Tulsa would have went. In 2019 it was Memphis, but if we had lost the CCG it would have been a ranked Cinci to go. You have to go all the way back to 2018 when UCF won, that had they lost to Memphis in the CCG the AAC may have missed the access due to our 4 losses at that point.

This isn't just about the MWC as competition.

Correct, but the AAC just pilfered some of the best remaining teams out there. I believe that the AAC will snag a playoff spot 75% of the time or more. I really dont see that as an issue going forward.

The real issue is that we are staring at the easiest shot to a playoff and a national championship in my lifetime, and the team is 6-6 and has been bleh for the past few years. I will literally sh*t a brick if UAB makes a playoff spot ahead of us. (and, for the record, I like UAB just fine.)

We finished 8th in the "easiest shot" to the CFP, 7th last season.

If the top 4 conference champions get 1st round byes, that means the G5 champ is likely to be the #11 or #12 seed in the playoffs most years. So, if we win the G5 slot, our first game would probably be against the SEC or Big 10 #2.
At least we’d be in the playoffs.

(12-04-2022 09:11 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 08:34 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 08:24 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 08:22 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 01:02 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  You've got nothing but speculation, just like anyone else who pontificates about future performance especially in light of a wholesale turnover in conference membership. We'll see next season how it plays out.

That will be the ultimate test. However, the MWC themselves saw the writing on the wall when this started unfolding. They desperately wanted to add a couple of teams to beef up football, but were told they would get no additional money for doing so.

The MWC were and continue to be one trick ponies in Boise. The issue is that most of the conference is so easy that if one team in the Boise div trips them up, that team can win out or even suffer a single loss and prevent Boise from getting to the CCG. Or, like this year, Boise loses in their CCG game and are ineligible for the access (or future playoff spot), even if they were undefeated to that point.

The trick to consistently getting the access bowl (or the upcoming playoff spot) is to have balance in the conference so you are not dependent on a single team making it to the CCG and having to win it. Thats why the AAC has had a hammer lock on the access bowl, and its not been close in years. Take this year; what would have happened if Tulane had lost the CCG? Well, UCF would go to the access. What about 2021, when Cinci made the playoffs? If they had lost in the CCG, then a ranked Houston would have went. In 2020 it was also Cinci in the access, but if they lost in the CCG a ranked Tulsa would have went. In 2019 it was Memphis, but if we had lost the CCG it would have been a ranked Cinci to go. You have to go all the way back to 2018 when UCF won, that had they lost to Memphis in the CCG the AAC may have missed the access due to our 4 losses at that point.

This isn't just about the MWC as competition.

Correct, but the AAC just pilfered some of the best remaining teams out there. I believe that the AAC will snag a playoff spot 75% of the time or more. I really dont see that as an issue going forward.

The real issue is that we are staring at the easiest shot to a playoff and a national championship in my lifetime, and the team is 6-6 and has been bleh for the past few years. I will literally sh*t a brick if UAB makes a playoff spot ahead of us. (and, for the record, I like UAB just fine.)

We finished 8th in the "easiest shot" to the CFP, 7th last season.

Yep, but two ranked teams played for the conference championship. The Tigers have been in, are in, and will continue to be in a very competitive and very good football conference. Basketball not so much. IMO moving to the bigxii would have been a much bigger deal for basketball than football. I am not afraid the conference is going to do in the Tigers. No there is a better chance the university administration will do that than the conference will.
That and the way the have nots get all the money no matter how good you get, or how hard you work.

(12-04-2022 09:34 PM)CKMcDan Wrote:  If the top 4 conference champions get 1st round byes, that means the G5 champ is likely to be the #11 or #12 seed in the playoffs most years. So, if we win the G5 slot, our first game would probably be against the SEC or Big 10 #2.
At least we’d be in the playoffs.

You are correct and that is why the first six seeds in the tournament should be the conference champions. The two lowest seeded conference champions would play a home game as a reward for their success in the regular season. If they do not do that then a conference title will really cease to have any importance. Also when the tournament goes to 16 teams (it will) they should only add the other four conference champions (they won't).

really happy to see this. when the playoff started I always figured they would eventually expand to 6 instead of 8 or 12 under the guise of reducing games and stress on the 'student-athletes' but really an effort to stack the deck for the power conferences.

(12-04-2022 10:08 PM)Keeper Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 09:34 PM)CKMcDan Wrote:  If the top 4 conference champions get 1st round byes, that means the G5 champ is likely to be the #11 or #12 seed in the playoffs most years. So, if we win the G5 slot, our first game would probably be against the SEC or Big 10 #2.
At least we’d be in the playoffs.

You are correct and that is why the first six seeds in the tournament should be the conference champions. The two lowest seeded conference champions would play a home game as a reward for their success in the regular season. If they do not do that then a conference title will really cease to have any importance. Also when the tournament goes to 16 teams (it will) they should only add the other four conference champions (they won't).

Quote:The two lowest seeded conference champions would play a home game as a reward for their success in the regular season. If they do not do that then a conference title will really cease to have any importance.

Are you still going with this nonsense? It doesn't seem possible, but you are claiming that the conference title is NOT important when it rewards an 8-5 team with a playoff spot? That isn't good enough in ponytail world?

You think that 8-5 Toledo should be rewarded with a home game against Ohio State? Toledo lost to Ohio State 77-21 this season. That is the rematch the fans are demanding?

(12-04-2022 01:02 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 12:17 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(12-03-2022 02:16 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(12-03-2022 01:44 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(12-03-2022 11:41 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  But Cincy, UCF & UH won't be there to help the AAC SOS, so those composite rankings will change especially if the other AAC schools adopt our weak OOC scheduling going forward. But your views & differing views are nothing more than speculation for the future & with an obvious weaker AAC there is no guarantee there will be a 1 loss AAC champion going forward, again just speculation.

At least my speculation is based upon data.
Your speculation is based upon...? Bitterness?

What? The data is CINCY, UCF & UH won't be there. Rice FAU & Charlotte will be. The AAC SOS will tank.

Literally, the post right above your reply.
SOS is not the only factor - I'm not using SOS rankings, I'm using total overall rankings. For example, the top rated AAC team in Sagarin is Tulane. They also have one of the worst SOS in the AAC. Same for CUSA. Top rated team is UTSA (one of our newcomers). They have one of the worst SOS in CUSA. Same is true for JMU in the Sun.

Also, the newcomer teams SOS will improve - so if you actually think SOS is the only factor, then they will be ranked higher next year.

Again, there are numbers to show this. You've just got your typical bitter whoa-is-Memphis cold take with zero data.

You've got nothing but speculation, just like anyone else who pontificates about future performance especially in light of a wholesale turnover in conference membership. We'll see next season how it plays out.

You said that Fresno State was in the top position for a playoff spot. He has numbers, what do you have?

(12-04-2022 09:34 PM)CKMcDan Wrote:  If the top 4 conference champions get 1st round byes, that means the G5 champ is likely to be the #11 or #12 seed in the playoffs most years. So, if we win the G5 slot, our first game would probably be against the SEC or Big 10 #2.
At least we’d be in the playoffs.

That's all I've been asking for. Give us a shot. IIRC the original proposal had the top 6 conference champs seeded 1-6. Meaning the G5 would be a 5 or 6 seed, with a 1st round home game. But they may have tossed that with this latest proposal - not sure.

If only the top 4 conference champs get top seed, I believe here's how it would look this year:
#1 Georgia - bye
#2 Michigan - bye
#3 Clemson - bye
#4 K-State - bye
#12 Tulane @ #5 TCU
#11 Penn St @ #6 Ohio State
#10 USC @ #7 Alabama
#9 Utah @ #8 UTK

If the top 6 champs get top seeds, it's this:
top 4 unchanged
#12 Penn St @ #5 Utah
#11 USC @ #6 Tulane
#10 UTK @ #7 TCU
#9 Alabama @ #8 Ohio St

(12-05-2022 12:24 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 09:34 PM)CKMcDan Wrote:  If the top 4 conference champions get 1st round byes, that means the G5 champ is likely to be the #11 or #12 seed in the playoffs most years. So, if we win the G5 slot, our first game would probably be against the SEC or Big 10 #2.
At least we’d be in the playoffs.

That's all I've been asking for. Give us a shot. IIRC the original proposal had the top 6 conference champs seeded 1-6. Meaning the G5 would be a 5 or 6 seed, with a 1st round home game. But they may have tossed that with this latest proposal - not sure.

If only the top 4 conference champs get top seed, I believe here's how it would look this year:
#1 Georgia - bye
#2 Michigan - bye
#3 Clemson - bye
#4 K-State - bye
#12 Tulane @ #5 TCU
#11 Penn St @ #6 Ohio State
#10 USC @ #7 Alabama
#9 Utah @ #8 UTK

If the top 6 champs get top seeds, it's this:
top 4 unchanged
#12 Penn St @ #5 Utah
#11 USC @ #6 Tulane
#10 UTK @ #7 TCU
#9 Alabama @ #8 Ohio St

It should be the first scenario I believe. The 6 top ranked conference champs are all in, but that doesnt affect their seed. They are still seeded based upon the final ranking.

I do like how they made it the top 6 conference champs. This was the scenario the PAC commissioner feared and didnt want.

Regardless of seeding, we will have an easier path than all but 20-25 other programs in the country.

(12-05-2022 12:24 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 09:34 PM)CKMcDan Wrote:  If the top 4 conference champions get 1st round byes, that means the G5 champ is likely to be the #11 or #12 seed in the playoffs most years. So, if we win the G5 slot, our first game would probably be against the SEC or Big 10 #2.
At least we’d be in the playoffs.

That's all I've been asking for. Give us a shot. IIRC the original proposal had the top 6 conference champs seeded 1-6. Meaning the G5 would be a 5 or 6 seed, with a 1st round home game. But they may have tossed that with this latest proposal - not sure.

If only the top 4 conference champs get top seed, I believe here's how it would look this year:
#1 Georgia - bye
#2 Michigan - bye
#3 Clemson - bye
#4 K-State - bye
#12 Tulane @ #5 TCU
#11 Penn St @ #6 Ohio State
#10 USC @ #7 Alabama
#9 Utah @ #8 UTK

If the top 6 champs get top seeds, it's this:
top 4 unchanged
#12 Penn St @ #5 Utah
#11 USC @ #6 Tulane
#10 UTK @ #7 TCU
#9 Alabama @ #8 Ohio St

The format has always been the same from the beginning. Your first scenario is the correct one. In 2019 we would have played at Georgia as the 12 seed.

I assume the format will be:

4 "automatic" bids (and 1st round byes) to conf champions - assume SEC, Big 10, then the top rated champion from B12, P12 & ACC.

G5 winner gets in, leaving 7 bids for the left-out P5 champ, CCG upset losers, and the highest rated P5 conf #2's, #3's, etc. That lets Ohio State in when they lose to Michigan, and Alabama in when they lose to LSU.

If the G5 overall champ get an auto-bid, that's the best we could hope for.

12-5 matchups are the most dangerous in the NCAA tournament, anyways. I just want us in.