bincitysioux
Active member
http://www.ktvq.com/story/28886272/big-sky-tourney-headed-to-reno" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
-
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!
And the winner is.........Reno
- Thread starter bincitysioux
- Start date
SWWeatherCat
Active member
Bye-bye BSC fan and $$$ support from me, anyway. I'll revisit this in 3 years.
We discussed this more in depth in the other thread but in general I like this. Glad Billings wasn’t selected, that was the worst of the finalists imo. I thought Spokane made more logistical sense since about half the conference could drive there. I bet Reno offered some uber-discounted rooms to the BSC to get this bid.
For those that hate this remember its only for 3 years. If it turns out to be a total failure the BSC can always revert back to the old format.
For those that hate this remember its only for 3 years. If it turns out to be a total failure the BSC can always revert back to the old format.
If so, appears that the neutrality issue prevailed, plus sponsor $$$, for both men's & women's tourneys together in one locale. (Spokane bid had Cheney site for the women.) Just might be Reno & bust for 3 years, then return to the former format or an opening pops up at a Las Vegas locale (similar to what happened with the WAC a few years back). Presidents apparently chose to experiment (in futility?)? :twocents:
Webergrad02
Active member
I bet that attendance will not top 1,000 fans for any single game in Reno.
wsucatfan said:
:clap: :clap:... 100% agree.
Let's all be honest...we knew this was going to happen. Reno was a lock. No way in the world Ogden was ever going to get it. Bovee should have done everything in his power to kill this idea not support it with grandiose dreams of actually hosting it. If anything, he should have created an option that was viable like Salt Lake, Denver, or Boise. Ugh!!! RENO???
Worst decision by the Big Sky since awarding the site to Boise in the 90s. Same arguments for having a pre-determined location were made then. Nothing has really changed in 20 years and the Big Sky is trying something again with a far worse RPI and less fan support. TERRIBLE DECISION! :dunce:
Speaking of that, this now makes the BSCT a week long event right? Would/can they play more than 4 games a day?AlumniWSU said:
Day 1: Women bottom 8 teams - 4 games
Day 2: Men bottom 8 teams - 4 games
Day 3: Women remaining 8 teams - 4 games
Day 4: Men remaining 8 teams - 4 games
Day 5, Semi-finals: Women remaining 4 teams - 2 games / Men remaining 4 teams - 2 games (4 games total)
Day 6, Finals: 2 games
talhadfoursteals said:
It depends on how you want to measure the outcome. For the coaches and ADs, who want easier travel, cost certainty and neutrality, this is a winner. For the fans who would like a chance to see their home team host and have a great tournament atmosphere, it's a loser. The Big Sky has been trying to balance these competing issues for 25 years or so, and they will likely continue to make changes in format because those competing interests will never really both be satisfied.
SDHornet said:
The format they choose will certainly be interesting, especially if they go with all 12 teams eligible. Instead of having both men's and women's teams in Reno for 6 days, could they play the women's games the first three days and the men's the following three?
Let’s face it; hardcore fans are going to make the trip no matter what. Having a predetermined site allows every fan to make travel plans well in advance. The old format pretty much made the decision for you: if you live close to the tournament location you could probably make it, if not then you aren’t going unless you wanted to pony up a hefty sum of money for last minute airfare and hotel (assuming they are available).Bengal visitor said:
oldrunner
Active member
I have said it before. This is the best alternative that was presented.
It can be a success, if the BSC will take it seriously and start promoting it right away, working on sponsorships, travel deals, officiating, and other logistics. Also, each member institution should start planning, right now, for their own marketing and promotion. It will be a success if everyone does their part. It will fail if everyone just expects the other guy to do it.
I plan to make it a road trip and drop a little money on Reno. I'd like to meet up with Sacstatesman, SDHornet, MTJack, Midmajor, Bengalvisitor, and any other extraneous posters that show up.
I say, let's get behind this thing and make it a success. If it fails, it fails, but it shouldn't be due to our lack of enthusiasm.
It can be a success, if the BSC will take it seriously and start promoting it right away, working on sponsorships, travel deals, officiating, and other logistics. Also, each member institution should start planning, right now, for their own marketing and promotion. It will be a success if everyone does their part. It will fail if everyone just expects the other guy to do it.
I plan to make it a road trip and drop a little money on Reno. I'd like to meet up with Sacstatesman, SDHornet, MTJack, Midmajor, Bengalvisitor, and any other extraneous posters that show up.
I say, let's get behind this thing and make it a success. If it fails, it fails, but it shouldn't be due to our lack of enthusiasm.
This. If you want to meet up you can find me at the Wild Orchid, the Cal Neva sportsbook, or a craps table when the Hornets aren’t playing. See you there.oldrunner said:I have said it before. This is the best alternative that was presented.
It can be a success, if the BSC will take it seriously and start promoting it right away, working on sponsorships, travel deals, officiating, and other logistics. Also, each member institution should start planning, right now, for their own marketing and promotion. It will be a success if everyone does their part. It will fail if everyone just expects the other guy to do it.
I plan to make it a road trip and drop a little money on Reno. I'd like to meet up with Sacstatesman, SDHornet, MTJack, Midmajor, Bengalvisitor, and any other extraneous posters that show up.
I say, let's get behind this thing and make it a success. If it fails, it fails, but it shouldn't be due to our lack of enthusiasm.
sacstateman
Active member
I will definitely be there.....will make arrangements to meet you there when I get my plans settled in February......I can hardly wait....
Webergrad02
Active member
oldrunner said:
From what I have found this week, all of those posters may be the same person. :lol:
Bengal visitor said:
Neutrality for a conference tournament that's supposed to send the best representative to the Big Dance? What is the point of playing a regular season schedule? To me, the best option is not to have a tournament. Send the regular season champ. If that program can't host the post-season tournament giving it the best chance of representing the Sky at the NCAA Tournament, then there shouldn't be a tournament.
talhadfoursteals said:
Well clearly, Tal, the goal of a post-season tournament is NOT to send the best team -- otherwise, they would just send the regular season champ. Now what is the goal of the Big Sky post-season tournament? I'm not sure, but I can pretty much guarantee every coach thinks every team should be invited, and every team should have an equal opportunity to win the thing. The ADs, they want to stop having to pay for last-minute plane tickets to places like Fargo, N.D. They players, they don't want to ride a bus from Pocatello to Fargo and back. Obviously, those desires don't match every fan's. I, for example, love the fact that Pocatello has hosted the women's tournament three times over the past 15 years. (And I'd kill for the chance to host the men's tournament, even though it probably wouldn't happen in my lifetime). So I'd like to see them keep the same format. But I'm just one stakeholder in all this. The coaches, ADs and players get to have their say, too.
As noted, this latest format, if history is any indicator, will change too. It's just impossible to find a perfect format that will meet every stakeholder's desires.
I don’t get the talk about not having a tournament. It’s not on the table, never will be, so why waste the time bitching about it.
My biggest (only?) gripe with the new format is that everyone gets an invite when not everyone deserves an invite. It devalues the regular season and I just don’t buy into the “everyone gets a trophy” mentality that is common place in today’s society.
My biggest (only?) gripe with the new format is that everyone gets an invite when not everyone deserves an invite. It devalues the regular season and I just don’t buy into the “everyone gets a trophy” mentality that is common place in today’s society.
