-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts, upgrade to remove ads and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your BigSkyFans.com experience today!
Big Sky Scheduling SUCKS
- Thread starter freja
- Start date
MVEM,
I think freja was referring to the inconsistency of Big Sky scheduling back to back games. Some BS teams only have 2 back-to-backs while others have 5. I think this sucks too!! Back-to-back road games are especially tough and could result in a less talented team winning just because of the fatigue factor.
The league should force all teams to play the same number of back-to-backs in order to level the playing field, in my opinion.
For example, Lady Griz play 4 league b-2-b's and PS has to play 5, Sacramento State plays 3.
I put this question out there to everyone for input. Is this fair or not?
I think freja was referring to the inconsistency of Big Sky scheduling back to back games. Some BS teams only have 2 back-to-backs while others have 5. I think this sucks too!! Back-to-back road games are especially tough and could result in a less talented team winning just because of the fatigue factor.
The league should force all teams to play the same number of back-to-backs in order to level the playing field, in my opinion.
For example, Lady Griz play 4 league b-2-b's and PS has to play 5, Sacramento State plays 3.
I put this question out there to everyone for input. Is this fair or not?
You'd have to figure in which b2bs are home and which away. Are you figuring only the aways? The aways must be more demanding than the homes, although both are tiring.
On the face of it, the 5-4-3 sequence could be read as a wily attempt on the part of the BSC to build up parity, but that's giving them too much credit. In fact, it was a panicky move in the middle of a "crisis" done by people who didn't think past school budgets and ignored the game. Their lame excuse that it gives the players more time in classes is is an after the fact justification that in my opinion doesn't fly. You'd have to ask the players if they got that "benefit".
I don't know how much money was saved thus far. A lot? A little? For sure, it will all have to be carefully worked through in the off season. If they're going to do it again, it HAS to be evenly apportioned out. AND they'll have to do the same this time with the men. If they fail to do so, they're opening themselves up to charges under Title IX.
On the face of it, the 5-4-3 sequence could be read as a wily attempt on the part of the BSC to build up parity, but that's giving them too much credit. In fact, it was a panicky move in the middle of a "crisis" done by people who didn't think past school budgets and ignored the game. Their lame excuse that it gives the players more time in classes is is an after the fact justification that in my opinion doesn't fly. You'd have to ask the players if they got that "benefit".
I don't know how much money was saved thus far. A lot? A little? For sure, it will all have to be carefully worked through in the off season. If they're going to do it again, it HAS to be evenly apportioned out. AND they'll have to do the same this time with the men. If they fail to do so, they're opening themselves up to charges under Title IX.
PDXFAN,
I checked the men's schedules and it seems that they are playing back-to-back games as well. PS men are playing 3 league b-2-b's. Even Big Sky wouldn't be stupid enough to risk violating Title IX.
It seems to me that it wouldn't be that hard to schedule all teams with the same number of b-2-b games during conference play. Just schedule all games on Friday/Saturday and there would be consistency. But it's probably not that simple, as there are probably scheduling conflicts within individual gyms pertaining to other sport commitments etc.
I'd like to see the conference compile some stats at the end of the season that show how individual teams performed in the second game of back-to-backs. I'll bet you there will be a higher loss percentage in those games compared with other, singly scheduled games.
I checked the men's schedules and it seems that they are playing back-to-back games as well. PS men are playing 3 league b-2-b's. Even Big Sky wouldn't be stupid enough to risk violating Title IX.
It seems to me that it wouldn't be that hard to schedule all teams with the same number of b-2-b games during conference play. Just schedule all games on Friday/Saturday and there would be consistency. But it's probably not that simple, as there are probably scheduling conflicts within individual gyms pertaining to other sport commitments etc.
I'd like to see the conference compile some stats at the end of the season that show how individual teams performed in the second game of back-to-backs. I'll bet you there will be a higher loss percentage in those games compared with other, singly scheduled games.
mvem, sorry you couldn't read my mind BUT...the last 4 league games the UM plays are set to a better schedule...12, 13 (yes b2b) then 20 27 4 6(those are not b2b)....just to clarify! I just think there needs to be a re-evaluation of this scheduling mess before next year.
Also the Title IX issue about funds is significant and should be looked at as well, the womens' teams should not have to "save more money" (or is it be in class more
) than the mens' teams.
Also the Title IX issue about funds is significant and should be looked at as well, the womens' teams should not have to "save more money" (or is it be in class more
) than the mens' teams.I agree that the b2b schedule is stupid. There's a reason they axed it after two years in '02.
As for the Title IX thing, of course both men & women are doing the b2b thing. The difference is that the men have the Sunday Altitude TV games which reduce the number of b2b events. I doubt that's enough to make a Title IX violation, though.
No the NAU/NoCo trip is not b2b, but that's true for everyone. The Lady Griz just happen to do that trip at the end.
The difference for the women seems to be how they handled the New Years (Week 1) thing. New Years was a Friday & no-one (except MSU/Weber for some reason) wanted to play on New Years. PSU has 5 b2bs because they only played one game New Years week (Sac). Montana only has 4 b2bs because they played 2 games that week & the ISU game (which would have been on New Years) was scheduled for Monday, January 4th., instead.
Sac's in a different position because they're the odd team out. They don't play as many b2bs because it would be unfair to them; their opponents only play one game that week. I'm not sure why Sac has b2bs some weeks and doesn't for others. Frankly, I don't think Sac should have any b2bs—at least not at home—since their opponents will be fresh anyway. Sac having a b2b at home doesn't save any money at all.
As for the Title IX thing, of course both men & women are doing the b2b thing. The difference is that the men have the Sunday Altitude TV games which reduce the number of b2b events. I doubt that's enough to make a Title IX violation, though.
No the NAU/NoCo trip is not b2b, but that's true for everyone. The Lady Griz just happen to do that trip at the end.
The difference for the women seems to be how they handled the New Years (Week 1) thing. New Years was a Friday & no-one (except MSU/Weber for some reason) wanted to play on New Years. PSU has 5 b2bs because they only played one game New Years week (Sac). Montana only has 4 b2bs because they played 2 games that week & the ISU game (which would have been on New Years) was scheduled for Monday, January 4th., instead.
Sac's in a different position because they're the odd team out. They don't play as many b2bs because it would be unfair to them; their opponents only play one game that week. I'm not sure why Sac has b2bs some weeks and doesn't for others. Frankly, I don't think Sac should have any b2bs—at least not at home—since their opponents will be fresh anyway. Sac having a b2b at home doesn't save any money at all.
freja said:
It doesn't make much sense.
And what is up with the EWU/MSU game being on Thursday instead of Friday? That gives both EWU & MSU an unfair advantage over Montana & PSU (who play Friday). I don't think it will amount to much since all 4 of those teams are relatively deep, but it's still nonsensical.
pdxjagwired
Member
Agree. Add Seattle U and have them be a travel partner with Eastern and PSU becomes a travel partner with SacSt. However, that doesn't resolve the ridiculous back-to-back scheduling. What an absolute joke.
Btw, WCC only has 8 teams and I don't see them adding Seattle any time soon.
Btw, WCC only has 8 teams and I don't see them adding Seattle any time soon.
interesting, although Seattle U fits better with the Jesuit programs than BSC programs just philosophically but I don't think that should make or break an alignment; I don't think all the WCC schools have a religious affiliation do they?? that would make a much more sensible travel set-up, I sure hope they reconsider the back to backs.
ManOfVision
Active member
freja said:
Yes, each WCC school has a religious affiliation. Most are Jesuit/Catholic, and Pepperdine is more Protestant/Christian (forgive the labels - not a religious expert).
I think the WCC would add Seattle if they could convince Pacific to leave the Big West at the same time and keep an even number of teams.
Looks like my being away from here for a while means I missed out on this one.
The back-to-backs are supposed to occur only for road pairings of less than (IIRC) 400 miles. I think that's supposed to encourage BUS travel for the short trips, though I could be wrong. Of course, one night's lodging is saved, theoretically. Loss of revenue... perhaps that would be hard to prove. Eh...
I think we all know that BSC wants schools with football. That's probably more important at this level than it is upstairs, simply because, for most FCS schools, football is equal parts blessing and curse. Obviously, Montana in this conference throws that theory off a bit.
Seattle WANTED to go to the WCC. They used to be a member. Gonzaga does not want them, therefore it didn't happen. Gonzaga LOVES having a relatively easy 8-team conference; it guarantees a successful conference schedule and maximizes the number of big payout games they can schedule. Gonzaga is Montana with tons more daring, so to speak. As such, don't expect Seattle OR Pacific (or, as many people in the Rockies and the Sun Belt Conference are begging, U Denver) to join the WCC anytime soon.
Could the Big Sky add Seattle and be successful? I think so. Does Seattle want it? Eh...
The back-to-backs are supposed to occur only for road pairings of less than (IIRC) 400 miles. I think that's supposed to encourage BUS travel for the short trips, though I could be wrong. Of course, one night's lodging is saved, theoretically. Loss of revenue... perhaps that would be hard to prove. Eh...
I think we all know that BSC wants schools with football. That's probably more important at this level than it is upstairs, simply because, for most FCS schools, football is equal parts blessing and curse. Obviously, Montana in this conference throws that theory off a bit.
Seattle WANTED to go to the WCC. They used to be a member. Gonzaga does not want them, therefore it didn't happen. Gonzaga LOVES having a relatively easy 8-team conference; it guarantees a successful conference schedule and maximizes the number of big payout games they can schedule. Gonzaga is Montana with tons more daring, so to speak. As such, don't expect Seattle OR Pacific (or, as many people in the Rockies and the Sun Belt Conference are begging, U Denver) to join the WCC anytime soon.
Could the Big Sky add Seattle and be successful? I think so. Does Seattle want it? Eh...
Gonzaga may not own the decision...
...but if you're everyone else in the WCC, would you really want them to leave?
All they have to do is threaten to join the WAC (who, BTW, has whispered that they'd take the Zags in a heartbeat) and they'll get concessions from the other schools.
Truth be told, it's no different than how most schools in the BSC would react if Montana sneezed...
...or how the WAC might react if Boise State gets their ticket out...
...or how the Pac-10 might handle USC threatening to leave. That may sound far-fetched (especially with talk of Pac-10 expansion), but who's to say that Texas wouldn't have a counteroffer to Pac-10 schools from what's theoretically being offered right now?
...but if you're everyone else in the WCC, would you really want them to leave?
All they have to do is threaten to join the WAC (who, BTW, has whispered that they'd take the Zags in a heartbeat) and they'll get concessions from the other schools.
Truth be told, it's no different than how most schools in the BSC would react if Montana sneezed...
...or how the WAC might react if Boise State gets their ticket out...
...or how the Pac-10 might handle USC threatening to leave. That may sound far-fetched (especially with talk of Pac-10 expansion), but who's to say that Texas wouldn't have a counteroffer to Pac-10 schools from what's theoretically being offered right now?
