• 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 to Continue Study of Tournament Formats

S

Skippy

Active member
The Big Sky announced today that it will move forward with looking at different models for its post-season tournaments, including a pre-determined site. The league administrators and conference staff will look at different formats and then take a proposal back to the presidents. They will also look at how many teams will qualify for the tournament, and if both men's and women's tournaments will be in the same location if the decision is made to have a pre-determined site.

So, while no decisions were made, the league presidents agreed philosophically that it's worth looking at changing the current approach, which is having the regular season champs host.

http://www.bigskyconf.com/news/2014/6/4/MBB_0604140741.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
Should be interesting, I really do like the current format, I think there should be awards for winning the conference title, but we all know nothing ever lasts forever, I just really hope the Big Sky isnt doing this just to make Idaho happy
 
WILDCAT said:
Should be interesting, I really do like the current format, I think there should be awards for winning the conference title, but we all know nothing ever lasts forever, I just really hope the Big Sky isnt doing this just to make Idaho happy
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where the idea came from that this was an attempt to make Idaho happy, although I've seen that referenced a few times. I really believe it's been fermenting for awhile, and the final straw was the difficulty a lot of women's teams had getting to North Dakota for the conference tournament in March. When the ISU women had to bus four days, round-trip, for example, that certainly made Seton Sobelewski a supporter of a pre-determined site.

To me, it really seems to boil down to two different view points: what's better for the programs and players (a pre-determined site), and what do the fans prefer (regular season champion hosts). When you have your fans pitted against your players and coaches, that's a tough call.
 
http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/sports/bobcats/mens-basketball/article_a75db190-ec6e-11e3-851f-001a4bcf887a.html?mode=jqm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sounds like Vegas might be dead. Other possible sites are Sacramento, Spokane, Salt Lake City, Seattle, or any other city that starts with S.
 
SWeberCat02 said:
http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/sports/bobcats/mens-basketball/article_a75db190-ec6e-11e3-851f-001a4bcf887a.html?mode=jqm

Sounds like Vegas might be dead. Other possible sites are Sacramento, Spokane, Salt Lake City, Seattle, or any other city that starts with S.
Click to expand...

Good to see they are focusing on the non-conference scheduling issues. It's gotten harder and harder for Big Sky schools to get decent non-conference home games. Perhaps they can negotiate scheduling agreements with conferences like the Big West and the West Coast Conference.
 
Bengal visitor said:
WILDCAT said:
Should be interesting, I really do like the current format, I think there should be awards for winning the conference title, but we all know nothing ever lasts forever, I just really hope the Big Sky isnt doing this just to make Idaho happy
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where the idea came from that this was an attempt to make Idaho happy, although I've seen that referenced a few times. I really believe it's been fermenting for awhile, and the final straw was the difficulty a lot of women's teams had getting to North Dakota for the conference tournament in March. When the ISU women had to bus four days, round-trip, for example, that certainly made Seton Sobelewski a supporter of a pre-determined site.

To me, it really seems to boil down to two different view points: what's better for the programs and players (a pre-determined site), and what do the fans prefer (regular season champion hosts). When you have your fans pitted against your players and coaches, that's a tough call.
Click to expand...

Sucks that ISU's women had to bus to North Dakota, but that was Jeff's call. He could have flown them to Grand Forks, but decided on busing his girls halfway across the country. I blame that on the AD at ISU, not on the format. Everyone who voted to extend UND an invitation to the conference, were also accepting the possibility that UND would host post season tournaments, and that some of those tournaments wouldn't be decided till the end of the conference season. Travel to North Dakota was accepted by the entirety of the conference, at the time of their invitation to join. It is the same situation for every school in the conference. I'm going to go back to the biggest reason why the format shouldn't be changed...the best team should represent the conference in the NCAA's. The best way to ensure that, and to be fair to the regular season champ, is to have the regular season champ host. If they can't get it done, well, then they can't bitch and moan...they had all of the advantages and couldn't get it done. Every school has that chance to host the conference tournament when the season begins. Survival of the fittest. The only change to the current format is that the conference should get rid of the automatic 150K hosting fee. To me that is embezzling funds.

Final thought...if the conference is sooooo worried about its athletes and travel restrictions, then why are they only talking about basketball?? Soccer, Softball, and Volleyball tournaments are still be awarded to the regular season champ. If Volleyball players can leave for a week at the end of Fall semester then I'm pretty sure that basketball players will be fine leaving in the middle of spring semester. Also, they are still having to travel if it is to Grand Forks, Cheney, or VEGAS. And to be honest, I WOULD NOT, if I were an AD, want my athletes in VEGAS with free time on their hands. I really don't understand how having a pre-determined location is positively affecting players. They have to travel no matter. And now, every team has to travel whereas before only 6 teams (this season 7 teams; regular season champ is at home). To me this isn't a good financial arrangement for the conference as a whole. But that is just me.
 
talhadfoursteals said:
Bengal visitor said:
WILDCAT said:
Should be interesting, I really do like the current format, I think there should be awards for winning the conference title, but we all know nothing ever lasts forever, I just really hope the Big Sky isnt doing this just to make Idaho happy
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where the idea came from that this was an attempt to make Idaho happy, although I've seen that referenced a few times. I really believe it's been fermenting for awhile, and the final straw was the difficulty a lot of women's teams had getting to North Dakota for the conference tournament in March. When the ISU women had to bus four days, round-trip, for example, that certainly made Seton Sobelewski a supporter of a pre-determined site.

To me, it really seems to boil down to two different view points: what's better for the programs and players (a pre-determined site), and what do the fans prefer (regular season champion hosts). When you have your fans pitted against your players and coaches, that's a tough call.
Click to expand...

Sucks that ISU's women had to bus to North Dakota, but that was Jeff's call. He could have flown them to Grand Forks, but decided on busing his girls halfway across the country. I blame that on the AD at ISU, not on the format. Everyone who voted to extend UND an invitation to the conference, were also accepting the possibility that UND would host post season tournaments, and that some of those tournaments wouldn't be decided till the end of the conference season. Travel to North Dakota was accepted by the entirety of the conference, at the time of their invitation to join. It is the same situation for every school in the conference. I'm going to go back to the biggest reason why the format shouldn't be changed...the best team should represent the conference in the NCAA's. The best way to ensure that, and to be fair to the regular season champ, is to have the regular season champ host. If they can't get it done, well, then they can't beotch and moan...they had all of the advantages and couldn't get it done. Every school has that chance to host the conference tournament when the season begins. Survival of the fittest. The only change to the current format is that the conference should get rid of the automatic 150K hosting fee. To me that is embezzling funds.

Final thought...if the conference is sooooo worried about its athletes and travel restrictions, then why are they only talking about basketball?? Soccer, Softball, and Volleyball tournaments are still be awarded to the regular season champ. If Volleyball players can leave for a week at the end of Fall semester then I'm pretty sure that basketball players will be fine leaving in the middle of spring semester. Also, they are still having to travel if it is to Grand Forks, Cheney, or VEGAS. And to be honest, I WOULD NOT, if I were an AD, want my athletes in VEGAS with free time on their hands. I really don't understand how having a pre-determined location is positively affecting players. They have to travel no matter. And now, every team has to travel whereas before only 6 teams (this season 7 teams; regular season champ is at home). To me this isn't a good financial arrangement for the conference as a whole. But that is just me.
Click to expand...

You're making a number of assumptions here, Tal. First you're assuming that all 12 teams will indeed go to the Big Sky tournament in basketball. That decision has not been made. The coaches apparently voted in favor of that format, but no final decision has been made.

Second, you're assuming that ISU was in the financial position to be able to afford to fly the women's team to North Dakota. That may or may not have been the case. You're also assuming the AD made the decision -- again, Seton may have decided that the flight connections available at that late date were so bad, it was easier to bus, with a practice stop along the way.

As to why this is a problem "only" in basketball, well it's obviously not, but the basketball coaches have clearly raised it as an issue and perhaps the soccer and volleyball coaches will next. We shall see.

This is going to be a very tough call for the presidents. On the one hand, they have "their people" -- their coaches and ADs -- telling them the current arrangement is not workable, from a travel and people perspective. On the other hand, it's highly likely there will be fewer fans show up at a pre-determined site, and there is no guarantee the league office can find a suitable facility in a suitable location. I don't think this is a "done deal" at all, and a lot of how it shakes out will be determined by what kind of deal the league office can work with potential sponsors and host sites.
 
Regarding ISU bussing to Grand Forks, my understanding (and you can consider this hearsay) is they could have flown, but chose to bus for 2 reasons alluded to by Bengal visitor.

One, they could have flown, but they would have been limited by the number of people they could take. Not sure if this included players, managers, what, but by bussing, they could take all they wanted.

Two, scheduling last minute flights is both costly AND restrictive. You don't have a lot of flexibility when you have to schedule last minute. Montana faced flight delays and a cancellation of one of their flights. EWU wasn't able to get into Grand Forks until the night before their game, if I remember correctly.

This isn't just an ISU thing. Many schools have the same complaint.

This has always been a problem with volleyball. This is why the tournament, which has taken place over the Thanksgiving weekend, is scheduled a year before. The regular season champ has hosted the tournament the following year. Trying to schedule last minute flights the week of Thanksgiving, typically the busiest time for flying, is next to impossible. Unfortunately, a situation is created which doesn't necessarily favor the current season champ. The regular season champ hasn't advanced to the NCAA's for at least the last two seasons.
 
I heard that, for at least one team, it was $30,000.00+ and a two day ordeal to get to Grand Forks. :yikes:
 
If they want it to be fair, they should just host the tournament in the Energy Solutions Arena, It is literally smack dab in the middle of the conference geographical map. "But that would give Weber fans an advantage" And Spokane and Seattle wouldn't give advantages to the likes of Eastern Washington and Idaho? Or Sacramento an unfair advantage to the Hornets? Or Denver an unfair advantage to the Bears? Or VEGAS to NAU and SUU?

There is not one place they could move the tourney to that would not give any team an "advantage"…………………………………...unless they moved it to Florida

They should leave the format alone, The Big Sky is not a "Big" enough conference, it doesn't have any basketball fan base outside of Weber really. I Don't want to see the Big Sky championship played in front of a couple hundred fans in a Vegas arena on ESPN, that'll sure improve the image of our conference :roll:



And enough smacking the other arena's of the Sky, not everyone is lucky enough to have a Dee Events Center like we are, heck we started out in a Gym to did we not? This is not Egriz, This is Wildcat Country, we are better than that.
 
If ESA in Salt lake is too large or expensive, why not SLCC's arena. It's better than 60% of our league's facilities already and would have all of the other requirements. Like I have said before, ALL alternatives need to be explored. I think it is safe to say that the status quo is the least likely thing to happen. There is a 'best' for the fans, another one for the teams, one for the presidents, and the unfortunate thing is that the BSC administration has any say in it at all. It is my opinion that they should be neutral on issues like this. If they want to take the bull by the horns and run this thing on their own, then I would consider their opinion. I can remember when they did that. I seem to remember a silver basketball and Coors Light as our sponsor. I think that was all done by the Conf. :twocents:
 
I lived in Sac and have been to the nest. I heard rumblings of an upgrade in the 90's. I am sorry if I feel that some of the arenas are holding us back as a conference. I am sure that getting teams to come to the nest is a huge challenge. Besides Weber, I love to see the hornets succeed.

Not many athletic budgets in the Big Sky could take too many $30,000 travel bills.
 
Just an idea If we wanted a predetermined site what if the team that wins the reg season hosts the next year. Ya it kinda sucks that they wouldnt host the year that they won but at least everyone knows where they have to plan to go and we would still get to host if we won the reg season, just the following year. Just a thought
 
Wildcat_Fan said:
Just an idea If we wanted a predetermined site what if the team that wins the reg season hosts the next year. Ya it kinda sucks that they wouldnt host the year that they won but at least everyone knows where they have to plan to go and we would still get to host if we won the reg season, just the following year. Just a thought
Click to expand...

The Big Sky actually tried that approach in the 1990s. It was one of many variants in the conference tournament format that have been tried over the years. It led to Boise State coming from a sixth seed to winning the tournament and going to the NCAA, so was killed shortly thereafter.

One thing you have to ask when assessing all of this is: what is the value of a post-season tournament? If the goal is to simply put the best team in the NCAA tournament, then why not just send the regular season champion, who will have proven they are the best over an 18-game regular season? If there IS value in having a tournament (i.e., it keeps fans involved throughout the season, gives hope to the hopeless, etc.), then what format maximizes that value?

The Big Sky was one of the first conferences in the country to go to the post-season tournament to select its NCAA rep. What was the original thinking back then (in the 1970s), and should that thinking be re-examined 40 years later?
 
I wasn't able to head up to the Dee tonight, so I had to listen/watch online. The halftime show had Bovee on, apparently there are about 7-8 sites that have made a bid for a 3 year pre-determined location for the Big Sky tournament. Some of the sites included, Ogden, Reno, Seattle, Flagstaff, and Missoula (I don't remember the rest). He said the Big Sky President might have an announcement during the tournament this year who they are going to reward the bid too.
 
The main issue is lack of travel preparation time for fans and players right?

Solution = 2 divisions 6 teams in each.

The regular season champion of each division hosts the following years 6 team divisional tourney.
(I don't like the idea of all teams being in; however, not allowing this defeats the purpose of having travel time preparation, unless 4 teams a year just cancel existing travel reservations.)

Following the tournaments, the 2 winners play a title game hosted by which ever of the 2 has the best conference record.

This way, only one team per year has to make last minute travel arrangements since the other is already hosting or just returning home.

Additional benefit, the title game is never hosted by a team not playing in it. We have all seen how empty arenas appear on ESPN when the host team is eliminated.

Also, teams might get to host the title game even if they don't win the regular season. Take Weber for example. We are clearly not hosting this year. However, if Weber holds a better record than the team which wins the other division's tournament, they would still host a championship game. This could make the regular season much more exiting.

Any thoughts?
 
:twocents:
ANYTHING is better that a predetermined site! Making a change to a predetermined site is suicide for fan support. They may still make more money out of whatever deal is made but arenas will be empty. The BSC does not compare with the top conferences in the country in regards to this kind of set up so don't try to make it what it will never be. It's a horrible plan that has already failed before! I can already hear the complaints of favoritism despite where it's held. If it were held in Ogden, which I think is highly unlikely, I would hate it every bit as much as it being held elsewhere, with the exception of the years the Weber would be hosting anyway.
 
The best team should represent the Sky. If you have to have a tournament, then the team who wins the regular season should always host. Get big money out of college sports and focus on the competition. Cancel the tournament before creating a predetermined site. 94 is the best example of a team representing the Sky who shouldn't have because the tournament was predetermined at their stadium. Why redesign the wheel? The system has worked for almost four decades with one exception 94 when the site was predetermined.
 
If they're determined to go to a predetermined site I hope they at least make it a truly neutral site. Since Vegas doesn't seem to be an option, my vote would be Reno.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top