And this is why I like the current set up

[Skippy]

The last day of the season drama over who will host the post-season and who will get in is why I like the Big Sky tournament largely as it is. If you had a pre-determined site and all 12 teams got in, the women would be playing for nothing but seeding today. True the men would still be playing for a share of the regular season crown at the top of the standings, but for nothing but seeding at the bottom.

I know my good friend and colleague PBP will disagree because this will be a travel challenge, especially if Missoula hosts both tournaments. But I much prefer having the last weekend of the season mean something. Heck even the ISU men are playing to knock their instate rivals out of the tourney tonight. So for the small but hardy Big Sky fan base, today should be a fun one.

 

[PBP]

Brad:

You know I always respect your opinion and in a way I actually agree with you on a few points.

I don't think every team should be allowed in the conference post season tournament either. I think it cheapens it and you run the risk of an exceptionally bad team getting hot for three days and possibly stealing a bid (and it's not like the Big Sky gets multiple bids). A post season opportunity is supposed to be a reward...not a right.

And also I'd actually prefer keeping things the way they are even with some schools having significant travel disadvantages, if the only other option is having another Big Sly school (Missoula, Cheney, Ogden) get the right to host for the next three years. Giving one school that type of an advantage is simply wrong in my opinion.

PBP

 

[donny]

I don't think every team should be allowed in the conference post season tournament either. I think it cheapens it and you run the risk of an exceptionally bad team getting hot for three days and possibly stealing a bid (and it's not like the Big Sky gets multiple bids). A post season opportunity is supposed to be a reward...not a right.

PBP

actually somewhat agree with you pbp. in a one bid league like the sky, after the 6th place team, you find bad teams with losing records, conference and overall.

 

[SLCBengal]

Idaho's Newlee isn't happy with the current setup and makes his case for sending everybody to the tournament...

Newlee: “My thoughts on it are that the tiebreaking system is messed up in the Big Sky and their scheduling system is messed up. You got guys getting wins of – the guys in Pocatello get to go down and get Northern Colorado at home and we played them on the road and that’s going to make difference. They got North Dakota at home and we’re on the road somewhere else. They played NAU and those other guys twice and we’re not. If you’re schedule-making is not fair, then they need to send everybody to the conference tournament. That’s my thought on it. It’s certainly not fair. I knew from the start, nobody likes it, and apparently we’re going to have to live with it. It’s just a messed up, scheduling system.”

Read more: Moscow-Pullman Daily News: Idaho coach Jon Newlee on Big Sky tiebreaker, scheduling

 

[Skippy]

Idaho's Newlee isn't happy with the current setup and makes his case for sending everybody to the tournament...

Newlee: “My thoughts on it are that the tiebreaking system is messed up in the Big Sky and their scheduling system is messed up. You got guys getting wins of – the guys in Pocatello get to go down and get Northern Colorado at home and we played them on the road and that’s going to make difference. They got North Dakota at home and we’re on the road somewhere else. They played NAU and those other guys twice and we’re not. If you’re schedule-making is not fair, then they need to send everybody to the conference tournament. That’s my thought on it. It’s certainly not fair. I knew from the start, nobody likes it, and apparently we’re going to have to live with it. It’s just a messed up, scheduling system.”

Read more: Moscow-Pullman Daily News: Idaho coach Jon Newlee on Big Sky tiebreaker, scheduling

Mark filled me in on the whirlwind travel situation the ISU women are experiencing this weekend, and it's complicated by the fact the women's tournament has been pushed up a day since both tournaments are in Missoula. As much as I enjoy the fact that a lot of teams are playing for something (hosting rights, or just getting into the tournament at the end of the season), I also realize what a stress the current system puts on teams as far as travel and getting to the tournament on short notice. And I haven't really seen any suggestions for a permanent site that make a lot of sense to me, either.

I'm about to the point where I wonder if the post-season tournament for a conference like the Big Sky has out lived its usefulness. It doesn't make any money, the conference is only going to get one bid anyway, and it's a logistical nightmare the way it's currently configured. A pre-determined site at a Big Sky city would give that team a big competitive advantage. A pre-determined site not near a Big Sky city will likely result in small crowds. If I were the presidents, I'd seriously consider going to a balanced conference schedule where everybody plays everybody else home and away, and do away with the post-season tournaments entirely. The idea of EVERYBODY going to the post-season tournament is not appealing at all.

 

[PBP]

Brad:

For years, even in the power conferences, I've always wondered what the justification for having a post season conference tournament was, obviously we know the answer to that one...$$$$$.

I'm reminded of a story back when I was at UK when the SEC was giving thought (and eventually doing) to bringing back a post season conference tournament.

Coach Hall said at the time (paraphrasing), "fine...then if the justification in having a tournament is to make additional money, then we'll have it in Rupp Arena every year. We've got the biggest arena and we can sell it out completely for every game..." He didn't like the idea of a postseason tournament in the first place but if you were going to have one and the justification is money then you hold it where you are just about 100% you're going to sell it out.

Needless to say that comment wasn't well received.

Again I agree with you that if you simply have to have a post season tournament, it should be a reward for teams to get in...not a birthright.

The one problem going to a balanced schedule in a league with the number of teams the Big Sky has is that it drops the number of non conference games to such a small number that some schools that need to schedule "money games" might not have the chance to do so....or schedule enough of them and frankly some schools that schedule smaller schools to try to get some wins wouldn't have the chance to do that as well.

I don't think there is a "perfect solution", you'd think there would be, but like you I've never heard it suggested (yet).

Regarding Jon's comments I certainly understand his frustration, talked with him after the game Saturday and he has a point about the unbalanced schedule but let's also not forget that Idaho was picked in the preseason polls to finish 3rd and 4th. ISU was picked to finish 8th and 9th. Idaho played ISU twice...on paper Idaho was a much more experienced team, they were taller, they were stronger in many cases. They also got blown out by the Bengals 71-50 on New Year's Day.

To a certain extent Idaho put themselves in the position they were in because they couldn't sweep ISU. That's on them...not on the schedule makers.

And Jon also left out a particular point...Idaho got to play a dysfunctional Portland State team twice this past season...ISU only got to play them once...and it was on the road. The unbalanced argument can work both ways can't it?

PBP

 

[JJB]

The more things change, the more they stay the same. I see Newlee is still a whine expert.

He probably didn't realize that ISU was 1-3 against NAU and "those other guys." Idaho was 2-0.

Major fail for Newlee. He had something like 5 of 6 top scorers returning this season, including the #1 scorer in Barr. He couldn't even manage a .500 record in conference.

 

[mvem]

I'm about to the point where I wonder if the post-season tournament for a conference like the Big Sky has out lived its usefulness. It doesn't make any money, the conference is only going to get one bid anyway, and it's a logistical nightmare the way it's currently configured. A pre-determined site at a Big Sky city would give that team a big competitive advantage. A pre-determined site not near a Big Sky city will likely result in small crowds. If I were the presidents, I'd seriously consider going to a balanced conference schedule where everybody plays everybody else home and away, and do away with the post-season tournaments entirely. The idea of EVERYBODY going to the post-season tournament is not appealing at all.

Two problems with this…

1. Ditching the conference tournament wouldn't allow the conference teams to schedule more total regular-season games to compensate. Standard NCAA scheduling limits would still apply (I believe conference tourneys are exempt from those limits).

2. Not having a tournament means many teams will have nothing to play for in the late-going. That would likely cause home attendance to plummet for weeks, depending on how dominant the conference leader is.

 

[Skippy]

I'm about to the point where I wonder if the post-season tournament for a conference like the Big Sky has out lived its usefulness. It doesn't make any money, the conference is only going to get one bid anyway, and it's a logistical nightmare the way it's currently configured. A pre-determined site at a Big Sky city would give that team a big competitive advantage. A pre-determined site not near a Big Sky city will likely result in small crowds. If I were the presidents, I'd seriously consider going to a balanced conference schedule where everybody plays everybody else home and away, and do away with the post-season tournaments entirely. The idea of EVERYBODY going to the post-season tournament is not appealing at all.

Two problems with this…

1. Ditching the conference tournament wouldn't allow the conference teams to schedule more total regular-season games to compensate. Standard NCAA scheduling limits would still apply (I believe conference tourneys are exempt from those limits).

2. Not having a tournament means many teams will have nothing to play for in the late-going. That would likely cause home attendance to plummet for weeks, depending on how dominant the conference leader is.

1. You're only talking about a maximum of three games for two teams, two games for two teams, and one extra for four teams, as the tournament is currently constructed. Not a big deal.

2. The conference is already talking about taking EVERY team in the post-season tournament, at a pre-determined site, so nobody will have anything real to play for during the regular season.

 

[mvem]

1. You're only talking about a maximum of three games for two teams, two games for two teams, and one extra for four teams, as the tournament is currently constructed. Not a big deal.

But you said you wanted to return to everybody playing everybody else twice. That would mean 22 conference games & just 7 non-conference games, unless a team gets into an exempt non-conference tournament (those aren't too numerous for women's teams).

2. The conference is already talking about taking EVERY team in the post-season tournament, at a pre-determined site, so nobody will have anything real to play for during the regular season.

But those teams would still be alive for the postseason, at least (I oppose allowing everyone in the conference tournament, however). Being eliminated entirely means the rest of the season is a lost cause and there's little incentive for fan support.

 

[Skippy]

1. You're only talking about a maximum of three games for two teams, two games for two teams, and one extra for four teams, as the tournament is currently constructed. Not a big deal.

But you said you wanted to return to everybody playing everybody else twice. That would mean 22 conference games & just 7 non-conference games, unless a team gets into an exempt non-conference tournament (those aren't too numerous for women's teams).

Big Sky teams have a terrible time scheduling non-conference, Division I home games. Nobody wants to travel to Pocatello, Missoula or Cedar City. So you add meaningful conference games, including guaranteed home games, and you subtract the number of non-conference games you have to try to fill with the Western Montanas and College of Idahos. You can still play three or four non-conference money games on the road.

 

[Skippy]

But those teams would still be alive for the postseason, at least (I oppose allowing everyone in the conference tournament, however). Being eliminated entirely means the rest of the season is a lost cause and there's little incentive for fan support.[/quote]

The entire Big Sky has seen a dramatic drop in attendance over the past 25 years. The league has gone from an average of 5000 fans a game in 1987, to 1700 this year -- 1,300 if you take out Weber's 6,000 fans a game. I don't think eliminating the post-season tournament is going to greatly accelerate what is already a trend toward deep disinterest.