• Hi Guest,

    We've updated the site to combine all the forums that were part of the Big Sky Fans Network into one location. This will make it easier to navigate and participate in all the discussions for each school without having to have multiple accounts, etc. We are still working out some tweaks but please let us know if you notice anything.

    With the migration, in some circumstances, your username could have been merged with one of your other usernames from the other forums. If this is the case, you can request to change your username in your account details page of your profile.
  • Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!
  • Guest, do want an ad free experience on BigSkyFans.com among other benefits? Upgrade your account today!

    Simply click your profile name > account upgrades > BigSky Club > choose between the year long subscription (two free months) or month to month

    Thanks for the continued support. Cheers!

Abolish Conference Tournaments!

S

SWeberCat02

Active member
The ONLY reason for a conference tournament is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$. I'm finished with supporting it. I'll continue to be at all the regular season games, but I will choose to no longer support the hidden agenda of conference tournaments by ponying up money for tickets. It's wishful thinking, but the Big Sky should take the lead and make a statement by ending its conference tournament and giving the auto bid for the NCAA to the team that most earned it, the regular season champ.
 
I agree. What's the point of even playing the regular season? As some kind of tune-up for the only thing that actually matters? Although I do enjoy seeing BYU lose their tournament every year.
 
Many of you probably remember Rick Majerus' critical comments regarding conference tournaments each and every year. In the case of the Mountain West Conference, I have to agree with him (which alone brings a sharp pain to my stomach).

However, the Big Sky Conference still has it right. The tournaments are at the regular-season-champs' arena, and if the regular-season champ can't win the tournament on their home court, they probably don't deserve to go dancing (ouch, the indigestion has returned once again).

The alternative is a regular-season schedule spaced so the teams play right up until Selection Sunday--solely to avoid a long break between the season and The Big Dance.

I'll take the Big Sky tournament. It's a much-needed test of fortitude before the real test begins.
 
I agree - tournaments are all about $.
I don't like the fact that the auto bid depends on just 1 or 2 games. In this case, just 20 minutes.

I hope the NCAA expands to 96 teams next year and that each conference gets 2 teams in (regular season champ and the tournament champ). This would resolve this problem. Nobody cares about the NIT or CIT.
I personally don't care much if WSU wins their NIT game next week I hope they win, but don't expect their hearts to be into that game.
 
I really don't want to see the NCAA field expanded, and agree with Weberdude the tournament in the big sky is ok with me. It just stings like a son of a b!tch the last two years.
 
The ironic thing is the Big Sky tournament is NOT for money. The host team has to guarantee $165 K to cover the travel expenses of everyone else, and they are lucky to not lose money. And in years when the host team loses in the semifinals, you can be sure they lose their shirts because the crowds evaporate.

At least the Big Sky got away from its old format where the conference tournament was a pre-determined site, no matter who won the regular season title.

I've done a lot of thinking about whether the conference should do away with its post-season tournament. There are a lot of plusses and minuses on both sides. For example:

--If you do away with the post-season tournament, a lot of teams are going to be eliminated from the regular season race and have nothing to play for very early in the conference season. That is going to reduce fan interest and ticket sales.

--If you eliminate the tournament, then you take the Big Sky completely out of the picture during "championship week." The Big Sky is getting a ton of national pub today because of Johnson's incredible performance last night. If there is no tournament, the Big Sky "disappears" while the rest of the nation's small conferences get their 2.5 hours of fame.

--The conference tournament prepares the league champion for the NCAA tournament by putting them into the "one-and-done" environment. Granted, it doesn't always help them overcome the disparity in talent between the BSC champion and the big guys.

The positive factors in eliminating the tournament are: 1) you reward the regular season champ appropriately and put your "best team" in the dance and 2) you reduce the costs of holding the tournament. There are probably others that I can't think of right now. (Oh, and the fans of the regular season championship team don't get quite so P-Oed. :D )
 
the hard part is to see 2 regular season titles go in vain. 28 conf wins out of 32 games. the way we look at the NIT it really makes you hate the conf tourneys for the small conferences. the ivy league doesnt have a conf tourney, cornell didnt have to worry about getting upset by harvard.
 
The BSC Tournament should stay. I like the BSC Tournament particularly more than other conference tournaments because it only takes the top 6 (hell it could be whittled down the top 4 imo) from the conference thus adding value to the regular season. Most all other conferences allow everyone into their tournament regardless of record.

The BSC regular season champ is rewarded with home court advantage which is a great idea, however I didn’t know the hosting school had to pony up the travel money for the other schools. I would have thought the BSC would cover that.

Also I hope the NCAA Tournament isn’t expanded. The expanded field would just mean more ACC, Big East and other “major” conferences would get more bids. The “smaller” conferences would probably still only get their tournament champ in.
 
Bengal visitor said:
The ironic thing is the Big Sky tournament is NOT for money. The host team has to guarantee $165 K to cover the travel expenses of everyone else, and they are lucky to not lose money. And in years when the host team loses in the semifinals, you can be sure they lose their shirts because the crowds evaporate.

At least the Big Sky got away from its old format where the conference tournament was a pre-determined site, no matter who won the regular season title.

I've done a lot of thinking about whether the conference should do away with its post-season tournament. There are a lot of plusses and minuses on both sides. For example:

--If you do away with the post-season tournament, a lot of teams are going to be eliminated from the regular season race and have nothing to play for very early in the conference season. That is going to reduce fan interest and ticket sales.

--If you eliminate the tournament, then you take the Big Sky completely out of the picture during "championship week." The Big Sky is getting a ton of national pub today because of Johnson's incredible performance last night. If there is no tournament, the Big Sky "disappears" while the rest of the nation's small conferences get their 2.5 hours of fame.

--The conference tournament prepares the league champion for the NCAA tournament by putting them into the "one-and-done" environment. Granted, it doesn't always help them overcome the disparity in talent between the BSC champion and the big guys.

The positive factors in eliminating the tournament are: 1) you reward the regular season champ appropriately and put your "best team" in the dance and 2) you reduce the costs of holding the tournament. There are probably others that I can't think of right now. (Oh, and the fans of the regular season championship team don't get quite so P-Oed. :D )
Click to expand...

Good points but I would counter with these arguments:

If it isn't about money (and I would be surprised if the tournament didn't actually lose the conference or host school money when hosted by schools such as Portland St and E Wash) then all the more reason to take the thing out back and shoot it dead.

I don't think any player with a scholarship to lose or a coach with a job to lose would give up on a season. This isn't the pros where losing means a better draft position and salaries are guaranteed. And if they do give up, to hell with them. The bottom feeders of this league don't have any fans to lose anyway.

You would get much, much more national pub by winning in the NCAA tournament, and your best chance of doing that is by sending your best team. Your best team is the one that was truly tested for 16 games and 2 months and won the league title. And I'm not sure I buy the argument that the conference tournament brings much national pub anyway. Without AJ's 42 points and UM's huge comeback, this game is a nonstory to anyone outside of Ogden and Missoula.
 
SWeberCat02 Attorney At Law, great points, However I like our conference tourney because unlike the WAC or MWC they only take the top 6 teams, the #1 seed gets to host, and a first round bye, plus play the lowest remaining seed. It is completely set up for us to succeed as a #1 seed. We should be able to win 2 games on our home court, We have been absolutely dominate on our home court in the regular season. Then there is no argument. I am A okay with the Big Sky tourney, and I anxiously await our chance to avenge last night and Host again in 364 days.
 
weberskipc said:
SWeberCat02 Attorney At Law, great points, However I like our conference tourney because unlike the WAC or MWC they only take the top 6 teams, the #1 seed gets to host, and a first round bye, plus play the lowest remaining seed. It is completely set up for us to succeed as a #1 seed. We should be able to win 2 games on our home court, We have been absolutely dominate on our home court in the regular season. Then there is no argument. I am A okay with the Big Sky tourney, and I anxiously await our chance to avenge last night and Host again in 364 days.
Click to expand...
I agree, as far as conference tournaments go, the Sky does do it more correctly than others. And the Sky won't ever drop it when all of the other conferences (except the Ivy) are doing it. It really has become standard and expected. But I would personally much rather kill all of the conference tournaments and start the NCAA's earlier.
 
It is frustrating to win the conference and then lose in the tournament. But it would also suck to have two or 3 teams finish 11-3 and have the NCAA participant determined through a tie-break that came down to how the 3 teams finished against the #8 team in the conference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top