Yes, and if they win I think it will go to either the runner-up or the regular season winner. Each conference does it different.CinciX12 wrote: Can USC participate in the conference tournament?
I see, so I guess my scenario is only when the NCAA has banned teams??Azubuike24 wrote: USC isn't playing in the conference tournament. They are re-aligning it so that the 8/9 game is played on Wednesday and then it will proceed Thursday-Saturday with 8 teams. It used to be 7/10 and 8/9 on Wednesday, but the 7th place finisher will automatically go to the quarterfinals this year.
If USC was playing and ended up winning it, the NCAA would only have to select them. Since their post-season ban is self-imposed, they would then choose to take the bid or sit out. The NCAA Tournament wouldn't take the runner-up or regular season champion if they weren't deserving of at-large bid status.
I kind of hoped this would occur and make it a special scenario where no Pac-10 teams get in. But alas, one will.
Part of me still thinks thats the right thing to do though (with maybe the exception of this year).CardsFlyinHigh wrote: Over the past few years the committee has shown a bias against Mid-Majors. It might not be right, but I defintely think theyd take a second place Pac-10 team over a third place MVC team
But where do we draw the line? Because if the Big East beats up on one another from the 3 spot on down all we hear is about how deep the conference is.Azubuike24 wrote: I think the difference this year is nobody in the conference has any business being an at-large team. For instance, the SEC was bad last year, but Tennessee and LSU were going to get NCAA bids regardless of whether they won the conference tournament.
The Pac-10 has too many teams who will literally hurt the resumes of everyone else. I mean with the large sample size we have thus far on all of the Pac-10 teams, who is going to run the table, or even win 80% of their remaining games? Nobody...IMO. Nobody has even a remote chance to win 2/3 of them.