Big Sky Conference tournament - to a neutral site?

[heyoh22]

The Missoulian newspaper has posted a good recap on the upcoming May BSC meeting discussion. The plans for are to look at holding the tourney at a neutral site, as a way to save on travel expenses. It shows and example on how Montana expenses to get to the events square with the reimbursements( they came up short).

Interesting concept, especially with more teams coming to the league in the furture.

http://missoulian.com/college/griz/article_fb14778c-569a-11e0-a0bc-001cc4c03286.html

 

[oldrunner]

This is only coming up because the thing was held in a Jr high gym this year. It was never a solvent when it was held at a nuetral site in the past. That, and the fact that there is no truely nuetral site. Sites always favor someone. Until the BSC gets more than one team into the dance, I say scrap it all together.

 

[SWeberCat02]

This is only coming up because the thing was held in a Jr high gym this year. It was never a solvent when it was held at a nuetral site in the past. That, and the fact that there is no truely nuetral site. Sites always favor someone. Until the BSC gets more than one team into the dance, I say scrap it all together.

:clap: :clap: :clap:
There is simply not enough fan interest to support a conference tournament in the Big Sky. The best solution is to kill it. And when the conference expands, increase the number of conference games to make up for not having a tournament.

 

[SWeberCat02]

"As long as you're only getting the one bid, it is really important to try to send your best team forward," Big Sky commissioner Doug Fullerton said. "Our best opportunity to advance our league is to start getting in a position to win a game in the tournament."

Then why do you even risk not sending your best by having a conference tournament? Just send your best team, your regular season champion.

 

[n.ogdencat]

"As long as you're only getting the one bid, it is really important to try to send your best team forward," Big Sky commissioner Doug Fullerton said. "Our best opportunity to advance our league is to start getting in a position to win a game in the tournament."

Then why do you even risk not sending your best by having a conference tournament? Just send your best team, your regular season champion.

I've never been against the Tournament, but your argument is very persuasive.

UM is the only school hoping/wanting the Neutral site crap. Nobody else wants it. Like always, it wont happen, and UM will probably use the, "we could leave" shiz to get their way. A Neutral site would be the biggest mistake for a one horse conference. If they are going to have a tournament then they need to have it at the Regular Season Champions gym. I know UNCO plays in a glorified stake center, but the thing I liked was seeing the place completely packed. It was a huge reward for UNCO winning the regular season, and they should get the home court advantage so that, as this years best team, represent the Sky in the NCAAs. The last Neutral Site was in Boise...the 6th seeded Broncos upset the 1 Seeded WILDCATS and went to the tourny. They shouldn't have, but they bought themselves the home court advantage. Weber should have had Ruben, Lewis, Andy, Kirk, and Al in the tourny two years in a row, but got screwed out of going in 94 because Boise bought out the site. NO GOOD!! NEUTRAL SITE IS A VERY DUMB IDEA!! I"m sure St. Mary's, Cleveland St, and Wichita State would agree with us.

 

[pccatfan]

"As long as you're only getting the one bid, it is really important to try to send your best team forward," Big Sky commissioner Doug Fullerton said. "Our best opportunity to advance our league is to start getting in a position to win a game in the tournament."

Then why do you even risk not sending your best by having a conference tournament? Just send your best team, your regular season champion.

I've never been against the Tournament, but your argument is very persuasive.

UM is the only school hoping/wanting the Neutral site crap. Nobody else wants it. Like always, it wont happen, and UM will probably use the, "we could leave" shiz to get their way. A Neutral site would be the biggest mistake for a one horse conference. If they are going to have a tournament then they need to have it at the Regular Season Champions gym. I know UNCO plays in a glorified stake center, but the thing I liked was seeing the place completely packed. It was a huge reward for UNCO winning the regular season, and they should get the home court advantage so that, as this years best team, represent the Sky in the NCAAs. The last Neutral Site was in Boise...the 6th seeded Broncos upset the 1 Seeded WILDCATS and went to the tourny. They shouldn't have, but they bought themselves the home court advantage. Weber should have had Ruben, Lewis, Andy, Kirk, and Al in the tourny two years in a row, but got screwed out of going in 94 because Boise bought out the site. NO GOOD!! NEUTRAL SITE IS A VERY DUMB IDEA!! I"m sure St. Mary's, Cleveland St, and Wichita State would agree with us.

I think that the only reason that Montana wants a neutral site is that they actually got homered during a game for once and don't know how to handle it. They think that they are well above the rest of the Big Sky and deserve special treatment. I'd love to see them get slammed by the refs at home like Weber has before. They also think that they're the basketball powerhouse of the Big Sky. Since when was Montana the basketball team to beat? I mean come on, it's not like football where they actually did have some dominance.

 

[SWeberCat02]

As stated in the article the desire by some in the conference to have the tournament at a neutral site is due mostly to the difficulty and high cost of traveling at the last minute. UM and NAU lost big money this year due to this issue. Having it at a neutral site would allow for earlier planning and would eliminate some of this. And from what I can tell, the coaches generally are for a neutral site. But the problem with a neutral site is that there isn't really a good neutral site to have it at. The only sites I would say could maybe work are Vegas or Reno because they would provide more neutrality than other sites like Boise, Spokane, Salt Lake, or Phoenix, and would probably be better draws for fans due to the other reasons to visit the cities (sin and mayhem). Although like I have said previously, I still just don't think the fan interest is there, even if it's held in Vegas.

 

[weberwildcat]

Maybe something needs to change because having the tournament in where ever North Dakota St is will cost a lot more than going to Denver "last minute".

 

[wsucatfan]

As stated in the article the desire by some in the conference to have the tournament at a neutral site is due mostly to the difficulty and high cost of traveling at the last minute. UM and NAU lost big money this year due to this issue. Having it at a neutral site would allow for earlier planning and would eliminate some of this.

I knew the big sky conference was rigged and they already know which teams are going before the season starts? :roll:

I guess that theory works for the teams that are top three (the some), but when the conference is balanced it could take the last week of the season to determine who is in or out in the bottom 3 spots. So either way they will be buying tickets "last minute".

 

[SWeberCat02]

As stated in the article the desire by some in the conference to have the tournament at a neutral site is due mostly to the difficulty and high cost of traveling at the last minute. UM and NAU lost big money this year due to this issue. Having it at a neutral site would allow for earlier planning and would eliminate some of this.

I knew the big sky conference was rigged and they already know which teams are going before the season starts? :roll:

I guess that theory works for the teams that are top three (the some), but when the conference is balanced it could take the last week of the season to determine who is in or out in the bottom 3 spots. So either way they will be buying tickets "last minute".

If the tournament goes to a neutral site (and especially after the conference expands), the tournament will expand to at least eight teams, and possibly all teams. And travel to larger cites such as Vegas is generally easier and cheaper than travel to places like Greeley and Flagstaff.

 

[oldrunner]

If they expand to 8 teams for the trny, then the first and second rounds could be at home team sites. The championship could then be played in Reno or Vegas. My vote would be Reno. That would be the most nuetral.

 

[SWeberCat02]

If they expand to 8 teams for the trny, then the first and second rounds could be at home team sites. The championship could then be played in Reno or Vegas. My vote would be Reno. That would be the most nuetral.

But this would defeat the purpose of having the tourney at a neutral site, so that teams and fans can plan well in advance.

"When this league goes to additional teams, are we still going to stay with the same archaic format?" asked Northern Arizona coach Mike Adras, the dean of Big Sky coaches who just completed his 12th season as head coach of the Jacks. "Or when are we going to jump in like everybody else and make it an event that all teams can plan on going to and their student bodies and fans can make it into something?"

But I do like Reno as a possible site. It's similar to Vegas, would be fairly neutral, and isn't already hosting three conference tournaments like Vegas.

 

[weberwildcat]

reno may be a good neautral site but do fans want to go to reno? i dont think so. vegas yes. but do we have enough fan support as a conference to make vegas feasible? maybe we could take a look at each box score of the WWC tourney.

 

[heyoh22]

CatCat, good suggestion. Look at the attendance figures for the WCC tourney, which was the first to go to Vegas. Bottom line question is would the BSC draw well enough to get the hotel to bundle rooms/arena in a package, and would the conference make enough $. I read that the host team currently pays the conference 100K for the privilege of hosting. Is that just funds to the conference , or does the conference help the teams that have to travel last minute to the host city?

If a neutral site is the decision, I would urge Vegas rather than Reno for ease of getting there. Reno is not a major destination, Vegas has lots more flights heading there. Easier to get there from Grand Forks ND that to Reno. More hotels and less chance for winter weather disruptions.

Last, if it becomes an 8 team field, how about starting the event on Thursday, then play 2nd round Friday and finals on Sunday? Maybe some TV coverage is possible?

 

[SWeberCat02]

Average home attendance for Big Sky for 2010-11 season was 2,289.
Average home attendance for West Coast for 2010-11 season was 2,823.

Average attendance for four of the five Big Sky Tournament games (attendance N/A for the other game) was 2,718.
Average attendance for three of the seven West Coast Tournament games (attendance N/A for the other four games) was 7,240.

 

[weberwildcat]

i wonder if the attendance to the N/A games they dont want us to see, lol.

i believe the wcc tourney is friday-sunday the week before championship week? if so that would help attendance. i dont think ours being mon-wed in vegas would be any good for travelers. should we assume the big sky title is on wed because that is the only way we can get on espn?

if the big sky changed the tournament to later in the week it would probab conflict with too many bigger conferences.