• Hi Guest,

    We've updated the site to combine all the forums that were part of the Big Sky Fans Network into one location. This will make it easier to navigate and participate in all the discussions for each school without having to have multiple accounts, etc. We are still working out some tweaks but please let us know if you notice anything.

    With the migration, in some circumstances, your username could have been merged with one of your other usernames from the other forums. If this is the case, you can request to change your username in your account details page of your profile.
  • Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!
  • Guest, do want an ad free experience on BigSkyFans.com among other benefits? Upgrade your account today!

    Simply click your profile name > account upgrades > BigSky Club > choose between the year long subscription (two free months) or month to month

    Thanks for the continued support. Cheers!

Big Sky Tournament Moving?

Bengal visitor said:
Boise for next 3 years, beginning in 2019, I'm hearing.
Click to expand...

That move would shave about 3 hours and 18 minutes and about 227 miles of travel time for me.


Good start if true.
 
the only reason those of us who went to reno didn't call it a blunder was because we all enjoyed the casinos all day and night when weber wasn't playing. most of us didn't even attend the other games. :lol:

boise doesn't seem like a good idea. it would just be a more boring version of reno. i see no reason why it would get more fans to show up. fans don't drive to isu ever and its less than 2 hrs excluding the time we hoisted the football trophy after 40 yrs of none (sorry 1987).

is the goal to be closer to ogden and missoula? no choice is going to be better than the old format. any city is too far away for almost all the schools. vegas is the best choice for a neutral. i dont think it matters where the games are held even if its at nevada high.
 
Sir Velo said:
the only reason those of us who went to reno didn't call it a blunder was because we all enjoyed the casinos all day and night when weber wasn't playing. most of us didn't even attend the other games. :lol:

boise doesn't seem like a good idea. it would just be a more boring version of reno. i see no reason why it would get more fans to show up. fans don't drive to isu ever and its less than 2 hrs excluding the time we hoisted the football trophy after 40 yrs of none (sorry 1987).

is the goal to be closer to ogden and missoula? no choice is going to be better than the old format. any city is too far away for almost all the schools. vegas is the best choice for a neutral. i dont think it matters where the games are held even if its at nevada high.
Click to expand...

:nod: The next step in a futile effort before realizing the reality of it all. Maybe a few more fans, if the Idaho-s are having success & for the diehard WSU - Montana - Eastern Washington fans, but not much interest from the casual fans that will likely be turned off. :coffee:
 
I'm sure that the attendance will double in Boise. Is that enough? I really don't know.

Next time they review or reconsider sites, they should think about all of the options. They should consider not having a tournament, having a smaller affair, or any other option that may come to their minds.

I'm planning to go to Reno next spring and Boise the year after. I don't consider either one a bad drive. I have visited Boise several times and like the city. I'm not a big gambler, so casinos are not a big draw for me.

I like the tournament for only a few reasons. It gives most teams a few more D1 games and we certainly can use that. It gives you a chance to redeem yourself if you happened to slip up in the regular season. I don't like it for very similar reasons. The problem is that the BSC only gets one bid to the dance anyway. Maybe we should change it to a preseason affair and give everyone a guaranteed 4 games, crown a preseason champ and let the regular season determine who goes to the dance.
 
oldrunner said:
I'm sure that the attendance will double in Boise. Is that enough? I really don't know.

Next time they review or reconsider sites, they should think about all of the options. They should consider not having a tournament, having a smaller affair, or any other option that may come to their minds.

I'm planning to go to Reno next spring and Boise the year after. I don't consider either one a bad drive. I have visited Boise several times and like the city. I'm not a big gambler, so casinos are not a big draw for me.

I like the tournament for only a few reasons. It gives most teams a few more D1 games and we certainly can use that. It gives you a chance to redeem yourself if you happened to slip up in the regular season. I don't like it for very similar reasons. The problem is that the BSC only gets one bid to the dance anyway. Maybe we should change it to a preseason affair and give everyone a guaranteed 4 games, crown a preseason champ and let the regular season determine who goes to the dance.
Click to expand...

Posted from a diehard fan...maybe there are that many out there that will jump on the band wagon to Boise or should we say "Nampa or Bust!" Reno was a bust. Boise/Nampa, we will see, & since your not a big gambler, but sure of it, you just might want to wager on it... but then there are no casinos in Boise. ;-)

Depends on the promotions, packages... got to have something along that way from the sponsors to interest the casual fan. Maybe they could have a Big Sky Bingo night during the week for those fans not interested in the game at hand going on? :lol:
 
The announcement isn't a huge shock. We have known it was Boise for over a month now. What needs to be asked is, why does the conference feel this is a good format?

Issues with Reno?
1. Hard to travel to. Flying into Reno is extremely expensive and driving can be a nightmare.
2. Geographically it is an outlier. Only school close to Reno was Sac and we know how committed their fan base is. Look at their stadium and average attendance.
3. Nevada doesn't have a Big Sky School. The tournament isn't directly assisting a Big Sky community.
4. Community isn't interested in Big Sky Athletics.
5. To far for students to travel to.
6. Too much smoke in the buildings or Reno. LOL That one was for the member formerly known as Catcat.
7. It isn't really a destination city. Even when it is warm.

Issues with Boise?
1. Other than watching basketball, nothing else to do. I guess we can go on a tour of the former women's prison or walk down what once was the Bon Marche.
2. Closer to Big Sky schools, but the issue is interest. Will attendance really improve?
3. Stadium isn't really that close to the action of the "big" city of Boise.
4. This is great for Idaho or Idaho State, but how does it help either's direct community? TO me, the biggest winner would be Boise State University. Does the conference really want to help a MW school or the MW conference?
5. It isn't a destination city and it definitely isn't warm in March. Why would anyone want to travel to Boise?
6. Travel to Boise is better driving, but still a lengthy trip for most fans. Yes, Weber, ISU, UI, UM, Eastern, PSU and MSU can get there easier, but still it is too far to drive for most and it is still winter. Flying is as expensive or more expensive than flying to Reno.

GO back to the former format. This has become absolutely ridiculous.
 
talhadfoursteals said:
The announcement isn't a huge shock. We have known it was Boise for over a month now. What needs to be asked is, why does the conference feel this is a good format?

Issues with Reno?
1. Hard to travel to. Flying into Reno is extremely expensive and driving can be a nightmare.
2. Geographically it is an outlier. Only school close to Reno was Sac and we know how committed their fan base is. Look at their stadium and average attendance.
3. Nevada doesn't have a Big Sky School. The tournament isn't directly assisting a Big Sky community.
4. Community isn't interested in Big Sky Athletics.
5. To far for students to travel to.
6. Too much smoke in the buildings or Reno. LOL That one was for the member formerly known as Catcat.
7. It isn't really a destination city. Even when it is warm.

Issues with Boise?
1. Other than watching basketball, nothing else to do. I guess we can go on a tour of the former women's prison or walk down what once was the Bon Marche.
2. Closer to Big Sky schools, but the issue is interest. Will attendance really improve?
3. Stadium isn't really that close to the action of the "big" city of Boise.
4. This is great for Idaho or Idaho State, but how does it help either's direct community? TO me, the biggest winner would be Boise State University. Does the conference really want to help a MW school or the MW conference?
5. It isn't a destination city and it definitely isn't warm in March. Why would anyone want to travel to Boise?
6. Travel to Boise is better driving, but still a lengthy trip for most fans. Yes, Weber, ISU, UI, UM, Eastern, PSU and MSU can get there easier, but still it is too far to drive for most and it is still winter. Flying is as expensive or more expensive than flying to Reno.

GO back to the former format. This has become absolutely ridiculous.
Click to expand...


:+1:
 
It is my opinion that the BSC will never go back to the old format. They may change sites or change the format or drop it altogether, but going back will never be on the list of options. As much as Weber and Montana would like that, the rest of the schools will never support it. :coffee:

We should, at least, give the league some credit for improving things, even if it is just baby steps. It will be a better league if some fans start to travel a bit more. Just sayin'. :nod:
 
WILDCAT said:
talhadfoursteals said:
The announcement isn't a huge shock. We have known it was Boise for over a month now. What needs to be asked is, why does the conference feel this is a good format?

Issues with Reno?
1. Hard to travel to. Flying into Reno is extremely expensive and driving can be a nightmare.
2. Geographically it is an outlier. Only school close to Reno was Sac and we know how committed their fan base is. Look at their stadium and average attendance.
3. Nevada doesn't have a Big Sky School. The tournament isn't directly assisting a Big Sky community.
4. Community isn't interested in Big Sky Athletics.
5. To far for students to travel to.
6. Too much smoke in the buildings or Reno. LOL That one was for the member formerly known as Catcat.
7. It isn't really a destination city. Even when it is warm.

Issues with Boise?
1. Other than watching basketball, nothing else to do. I guess we can go on a tour of the former women's prison or walk down what once was the Bon Marche.
2. Closer to Big Sky schools, but the issue is interest. Will attendance really improve?
3. Stadium isn't really that close to the action of the "big" city of Boise.
4. This is great for Idaho or Idaho State, but how does it help either's direct community? TO me, the biggest winner would be Boise State University. Does the conference really want to help a MW school or the MW conference?
5. It isn't a destination city and it definitely isn't warm in March. Why would anyone want to travel to Boise?
6. Travel to Boise is better driving, but still a lengthy trip for most fans. Yes, Weber, ISU, UI, UM, Eastern, PSU and MSU can get there easier, but still it is too far to drive for most and it is still winter. Flying is as expensive or more expensive than flying to Reno.

GO back to the former format. This has become absolutely ridiculous.
Click to expand...


:+1:
Click to expand...

:+1: :+1:

If they gave a rat's @$$ about the fan's interest and subsequent $upport they never would have changed the format and would consider going back, but Olds is correct-- they won't. If I wasn't fundamentally opposed to taking a college conference tournament out of the college conference venue, I would travel to Boise over Reno and it would be an easy decision. It doesn't really matter for me and family/friends, though, the BSC essentially gave us the bird making this "absolutely ridiculous" change, and now we're giving it back :finger:
 
Weber's first home game last yr vs Antelope High had 6,140 in attendance.

The Big Sky title game in Reno on ESPN had 2,025 but I can tell you there likely wasn't even 1,000. I was there. Probably many bought the tournament package hoping their team would go the distance.
 
Sir Velo said:
Weber's first home game last yr vs Antelope High had 6,140 in attendance.

The Big Sky title game in Reno on ESPN had 2,025 but I can tell you there likely wasn't even 1,000. I was there. Probably many bought the tournament package hoping their team would go the distance.
Click to expand...
I think they were counting people walking up and down the street.

I was there for the first one and the attendance was a bit better. I'll go this year if Weber is in the top 2 or 3. We should be. I'll go to Boise/Nampa. If nothing else, I can stock up on my Idaho supplies for the coming summer. :coffee:
 
why do they keep moving the neutral site to towns of former big sky members? will the location in 2023 be Spokane or Northridge then?
 
I still can't figure out why they are not seeking out bids for venues in SLC. It's centrally located, has a huge basketball fan presence, Is used to hosting quality athletic events, has plenty to do outside of the venues, and is a stones throw from the largest fan base in the BSC. Maybe that last one is why other BSC schools don't support it. Seriously, why does WSU and UM stay in a league that seems to hate them so much? Maybe it is time for some schools to consider breaking ranks with the BSC. Too many schools anyway, too watered down.

I can see a league with WSU, UM, MSU, PSU, UI, ISU, SAC, and NAU breaking away. CPSO and UCD could throw in with the rest of the lot. You could swap out EWU for Sac to allow them their natural rivalries.
 
It is obvious to me that the league was considering travel, fans, hotel rooms, and expenses to the league, when making this decision. I would have to see all the bids to make any kind of comparison. However, because SLC was not even mentioned in any of the conversations on the subject, I would have to say that it was never a thought in anybody's minds. Either nobody asked any of the venues in SLC or too many of the schools in the league let it be known that they wouldn't support SLC in any circumstance. It could also be that SLC venues were vetted and the costs were simply too high. None of us really know because the BSC has kept everything a big secret. There needs to be a little more transparency. Come on BSC, what are you hiding?
 
Why even get a facility? Just have Jerry talk to one of the stake presidents in Nampa to schedule their gym. That is all the conference needs. We can add chairs if more fans show up and the local relief society can sell cookies, root beer, and boiled hot dogs for concessions.
 
talhadfoursteals said:
Why even get a facility? Just have Jerry talk to one of the stake presidents in Nampa to schedule their gym. That is all the conference needs. We can add chairs if more fans show up and the local relief society can sell cookies, root beer, and boiled hot dogs for concessions.
Click to expand...
:rofl: This tournament has become a big joke!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top