The winner of the Pac 12 Tournament is NOT the conference champion -- not in my book. Conference tournaments are bullshit and are only advantageous to teams looking to improve their seeding in the big tournament, or teams on the bubble trying to get in. That isn't nothing, sure, but it's still a waste of time.
If Arizona State had somehow won this stupid conference tournament, would you say they're conference champs? Not bloody likely.
@Waldorf Agree. I wish they'd do away with all the conference championships. They are about nothing other than getting the conference more NCAA tournament bids.
How many conferences would have post-season tournaments if the rule was that the regular season champion got the automatic bid to the tournament? Answer: none.
The NCAA allows each conference to determine how it selects the team that gets its one automatic bid. Until the NCAA allowed conference runners-up and also-rans into the field in the mid-70s, only one conference held a post-season tournament to determine its champion. That was the ACC. In an era where only the champion got into the tournament, that was pretty ballsy, if you ask me.
Now, all the conferences secretly hope that a 6th-place team gets hot and wins the tournament, while betting that the real tournament-worthy teams will still keep their bids.
No, Coach, but they're in the running for Miss Congeniality
If they use a round ball it is likely UA will win.
Does UCLA win their first conference Championship in 13 years? Not likely
Ed O'Bannon hangin post game with our Bruins.
https://twitter.com/UCLAMBB/status/1502542261506441222