RealGM

With Washington playing horrible in nonconference, how many at large bids do you think the Pac will get? How many will they deserve?

I personally think that no Pac-10 team has a great case for an at large, with the potential exception of USC, who is on probation. Cal may get an at large, but everyone else imo is not worthy. Washington is way too erratic at this point. They may get it together by the end of the year though.

By far the worst season for a major conference I have seen.

Certainly no more than 3 teams. And that's only if a couple of teams separate themselves from the pack in the conference. Maybe an Arizona State. Certainly a Cal. Washington possibly gets on a hot streak. A bid will definitely be wide open in the Pac 10 tourny as no one will be the definitve favorite. UCLA could be dangerous by then, especially with the tourny in their backyard.

Probably looking like three teams total. Compared to year's past, this Pac10 is weaker than a 90 year old with leukemia.

The Pac 10 is weak but it is a tragedy how many players left early for the NBA. Imagine if Davon Jefferson, Jerryd Bayless, and Ryan Anderson were still around.

No way Pac-10 gets more than 2 teams in at this point. Everyone is beating up on each other in conference and that doesn't help considering they have no non-conference wins worth a damn besides USC's win vs. Tennessee.

The Pac should not have any chance at getting an at-large unless the committee plays favorites and looks at history. It has been a down year to say the least. Cal is a very good team, but they have been off and on due to injuries. USC has played with motivation lately, but they were discouraged after learning they could not compete for a tournament birth. (that provided some serious losses) ASU is alright but has suffered several in conference losses. UCLA has been hit by the injury bug and just has not gelled. (like the DX article explained) And Washington has been a huge disappointment given the emergence of Quincy Pondexter. Just shows how much Brockman meant to his team. Thomas is great, but he can't carry the load himself. (and their perimeter shooting isn't there)

jman3134 wrote:The Pac should not have any chance at getting an at-large unless the committee plays favorites and looks at history. It has been a down year to say the least. Cal is a very good team, but they have been off and on due to injuries. USC has played with motivation lately, but they were discouraged after learning they could not compete for a tournament birth. (that provided some serious losses) ASU is alright but has suffered several in conference losses. UCLA has been hit by the injury bug and just has not gelled. (like the DX article explained) And Washington has been a huge disappointment given the emergence of Quincy Pondexter. Just shows how much Brockman meant to his team. Thomas is great, but he can't carry the load himself. (and their perimeter shooting isn't there)

Washington should be dangerous in the Pac 10 tourny though. How wide open is that thing gonna be this year?

I find it funny that there is no "in" team right now for the tourny from this conference, usually by now this Conference has at least 2-3 teams as a lock for the tournament. Interesting to see what and how many teams come out of this conference.

IMO, the two best teams in this conference are clearly Cal and USC, although ASU has a case. I believe that Cal will probably win the Pac-10 tournament, but if they don't, I honestly wonder what kind of seeding they will get. Can anyone say 13 seed?