And the winner is.........Reno

[Skippy]

Now official:

OGDEN, Utah (April 24, 2015) – The Big Sky Conference and the Reno-Sparks Convention and Visitors Authority announced Friday a three-year agreement that will bring the league's basketball championships to Reno, Nev.

Starting in 2016, the Big Sky Conference Men's and Women's Basketball Championships will be played downtown at the Reno Events Center. The REC was constructed in 2005 and can accommodate roughly 5,000 fans in a basketball configuration.

Big Sky Conference Commissioner Doug Fullerton and Deputy Commissioner Ron Loghry traveled to Reno on Friday for an on-site announcement.

"This was an exhaustive process,'' said Big Sky Conference Commissioner Doug Fullerton. "Reno, as a city, and the folks that we worked with did a spectacular job in representing their community. We're extremely excited about going to Reno for our championships. I used to travel to Reno often, and one thing that always impressed me about the community is it's a lot like the communities we have in the Big Sky. It's a very similar feel. I know we're going to be welcomed. The coaches and the fans attending are going to feel very good about coming to Reno."

All 12 men's and all 12 women's teams from the conference will participate in the championship. The dates and tournament format will be announced at a later date.

 

[n.ogdencat]

And the loser are........BSC fans.

: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:

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.

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.

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.

You are absolutely right. Evidently the conference is not interested in sending the best team to the tournament. As for the purpose, if it is not for sending the best team to The Dance, who knows. In the past it was an automatic money maker for the conference. The schools would have to guarantee so much once winning the regular season title and ended up having to give it directly to the conference. No matter the scenario, the conference always gets money. The school...well, not so much. This is why the conference doesn't want to get rid of the tournament. Also, RENO must have ensured a good amount of money to the conference to have gotten the "right" to host (we all knew it was going to be Reno...I don't understand all the show about visiting other locations). As for what players having to ride a bus. So what...it is what it is. They are NCAA athletes and if that is all that the school can afford so be it. That is the schools fault that it has to bus athletes. You should have asked Tingey some hard questions when he sent his women's basketball team on that trip from hell. But...as you have so finely pointed out, a predetermined location takes away from the purpose of college sports. Reno cannot, and will not, compare with a team earning the right to host and having the tournament at its gym (after Weber, I always want ISU to host, because it is so close :rofl:, but I agree...I dont' see that happening in my lifetime either lol).

You are right though...in 3 years it will change again.

 

[sacstateman]

The reason for every team is the same reason as having a predetermined site.....if you don't know today who is going to the tournament then you can't make advanced plans (travel and hotel reservations)....and if you really want to get REAL, then just admit the BSC representative will probably NEVER win a game in the big dance so why all the worry about sending "the best team".....actually you probably have a better chance of winning a game by sending the team that is playing the best at tournament time and on a neutral court (we will never have a "home" court advantage in the big dance anyway).....and BTW....I can assure you I don't live in Denver nor anywhere near Denver but I think if you look at your roster (home towns) you may be able to put 2 and 2 together...See you in Reno oldrunner.....

 

[oldrunner]

Coaches were getting fired for not making the BSCT. None of the coaches like that. Yes, it is a little like everyone getting a trophy, but not quite. After all, people's careers are at stake here. It just gives ADs one less reason to fire someone.

As far as not having it all together, I believe that the coaches like the extra game or two for a lot of reasons. The BSC just needs to fight for a higher RPI ranking to get a second team into the dance. I don't think we are that far off. Having 12 teams helps if we can get some of the bottom to improve and our top team to start winning a game or two at the dance.

P.S. We put 2 and 2 together a long time ago. We just like the debate. :lol:

 

[bincitysioux]

I totally understand the financial and logistical reasons for doing this. All things considered, Reno was the logical choice among the candidates, even though I hate it, I understand it. Billings really shot themselves in the foot by only bidding the men's side. Ogden/SLC/Weber shot themselves in the foot by not pursuing an off campus venue.

I think the thing I will miss the most about the old format even more than the champion hosting, is that not all teams got into the tournament. That alone really made the regular season exciting.

I know attendance is probably one of the least important factors in something like this, but I really question whether or not the title game will even draw 2,000 fans even if it is Weber v. Montana who have the best fanbases.