UConn had a vote in the rule change that led to the BET ban being imposed on us, and judging by the fact that it passed unanimously, evidently voted for it themselves. I said back when the Big East passed that rule that it was a good rule but I didn't want to see them going and granting a waiver to Syracuse when they were inevitably banned. Well, 'Cuse is not in the Big East anymore, and neither are we (though I believe that rule along with everything else Big East except the name carries over to the AAC) but I'm glad to see it being applied to them too. The merits of our ban versus theirs are another issue, but the Big East didn't issue our postseason ban, and made the right decision in making the rule change. Think about it - there's a decent chance SMU gets a postseason ban before the tournament starts, self-imposed or otherwise. They're probably getting one eventually, it's a matter of when rather than if. Suffice it to say, either this year or next, SMU will probably be banned from the postseason. Imagine if they were allowed to participate in, and win, the AAC Tournament. At this point, it's highly unlikely we're going to the NCAA Tournament unless we win the conference tournament. Considering how the selection committee hated The American last year and will hate them even more now that Louisville's gone, it's possible the same will be true next year even if we have a better season. Imagine if SMU were postseason banned and we faced them, and lost, in the AAC Title Game, costing us a tournament berth. Would that be fair? Of course not. We'd all be complaining about it, and justifiably so.
Postseason bans should include conference tournaments. When you allow the conference to determine the merits of the postseason ban, you start up a very slippery slope that I don't particularly want to get into. And it could also cost a team a spot in the tournament.
