Big Sky Tournament Neutral Site Location

[bincitysioux]

Good discussion going on at Bobcatnation.com regarding the possibility of moving the Big Sky tourney to a neutral site. Both the Bozeman and Grand Forks newspapers have hinted that a change may be coming.

Las Vegas, Salt Lake, and Boise are the most mentioned possiblities. The papers also mention Denver, but I think that would be terrible.

My thoughts:

I was just looking at attendance numbers for the Big Sky tourney, although I can't find the figure for two of the games: Weber v. UND and Weber v. NAU.

Weber v. Montana: 7,172
Montana v. Northern Colorado: 6,919
Montana St. v. Northern Colorado: 3,333
North Dakota v. SUU: 1,737

I'm just going to use the number from the SUU game (1,737) for Weber's quarterfinal game and the number from the MSU game for the Weber-UND semi-final (3,333). Should be fairly close judging from watching the games.

Total attendance: 24,181
Avg per game: 4,030

I would bet those numbers would be fairly similar, give or take, if the Tourney were held in Ogden or Bozeman.

Now the question is if the current 7 team format remains, will 24,000 people show up at a neutral site? I personally don't think they would, except maybe if the site was SLC where Weber's fan base could converge.

The reason I keep coming back to SLC is because of my personal experience with the WCHA Final Five, which is the conference hockey tournament that North Dakota participates in. It is held in St. Paul, within spitting distance of the University of Minnesota, which is a big reason games usually draw 15,000+ spectators. Yes it gives the Gophers a huge advantage, but I guess that is one of the trade-offs that is made to have an outstanding event, which it is.

Personally, if the site were Vegas, I would make plans to attend it because there is cheap direct flights from Grand Forks. Would be a fun little get-a-way. But I seriously doubt there are enough hard-core fans like me from every fan-base to offset the loss of the casual home-team fans that will show up if the tourney were in Missoula, Ogden, or even Bozeman.

On the other hand, IMO attendance would be and has been terrible compared to this season and last if the tourney is hosted by any school other than Weber, UM, or MSU. My guess is that UND would put on the best tourney after those 3, and at best I think we could hope for only about 15,000 total attendance, and they'd mostly be locals. We will find out next year, because North Dakota will be hosting it!

It seems to be kind of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" type of situation.

 

[Webergrad02]

You really feel that attendance would be better in Vegas or Salt Lake? I think it would not be even close to as high. Most of the schools in the conference can't get 2,000 to a home game and you think that taking it to Vegas is going to be better. Two of the teams can't even hold 2,000 people.

Hosting the conference tournament makes the regular season mean something in this conference. The regular season champ deserves that advantage. Its not broken why fix it. Sorry, but the schools complaining should start filling their own arenas before worrying about where to hold the conference tournament. Better yet, lets get more Big Sky teams with winning records.

I am not going to complain until I have to go to Pocatello or Moscow for the BSC tournament.

 

[n.ogdencat]

Regular season champ should keep the right to host the tournament. The conference's best team should have the best chance to represent the conference in the NCAA Tournament, and that would be by having the games that determine that representative on their home floor. As a Weber State fan, I can only bitch about one time when Weber won the regular season and didn't get to the NCAAs. 1994!! Pre-determined location in Boise Idaho. Boise State, the 6 seed went to the NCAA's because they were at home. And they were the 6 seed!! How stupid it made the Sky look having the home team playing against an away team at their facility and having their fans in the seats.

Hell, in my opinion, the tournament is superflous and should be eliminated. The Sky, schools, and programs will all lose if the program is pre-determined in Vegas or Denver or Boise. Eventually, it could be as soon as next year, that the conference tournament could be played in Grand Forks, because UND won the regular season crown, think how idiotic it would be if the UND wins the regular season and had to travel to Vegas to play as the home team? Personally, the Sky should keep its format and not even toy with the idea.

 

[bincitysioux]

For the record, I am also in favor of keeping it the way it is for the reasons outlined in the last two posts. Just seems to be that there is some clamoring by coaches and ADs for a change.

 

[WILDCAT]

In my opinion, The only way I would be in favor of moving the tourney to a nuetral site would be if they invited all 11 teams, cause there are years, (like this year) where we didnt know for sure who was making it or not till the final week.


But I would prefer to keep it the way it is, it really makes the regular season worth fighting for, and it can become quite the battle, which it has the last few years.

 

[weberwildcat]

$$ would be the only reason coaches/AD's/presidents would complain or want a neutral site.

i say leave it as is. it works. its how it should be. 1994 is not a good example since we are discussing a neutral site that is a city with no big sky teams.

if cost is the issue to the other schools or the host school then pull an ivy league and dont have conf tourney.

if the big sky really picked a site i can think of only 2 options - LV or PHX. it needs to be a city that is inexpensive for everyone to fly to. slc, denver, spokane, boise are all bad ideas. they are all cold cities, they arent all cheap to get to. and how many people are going to want to travel to these colder cities in march than phx or lv? phx also has spring training going on so talhad can go watch his astros try and win a game. :lol:

but it has already been pointed out on this thread that the majority of the big sky cant get any attendance to home games, so who is going to travel out of state to see their team play?

i can see tweaking the current format but it appears to make more sense to leave it as is. why play in vegas in an empty arena in the title game like the wac tourney when missoula was sold out? maybe the big sky would like to test it out, give it a 1-2 yr test and see what happens.

i can tell you if its in vegas and we finish in the top 3 i would be attending. but thats one person.

 

[SWeberCat02]

Hell, in my opinion, the tournament is superflous and should be eliminated.

:+1: Why do one bid conferences take any chance at all of sending anyone other than their best team to the tournament? Only reason would be for the money the conference tournament generates, which I doubt is much, if any, for most one bid conferences. Just look at the Big South. They are sending Liberty, a team that went 15-21, and 6-10 in conference. What an embarrassment to that conference.

 

[weberwildcat]

Hell, in my opinion, the tournament is superflous and should be eliminated.

:+1: Why do one bid conferences take any chance at all of sending anyone other than their best team to the tournament? Only reason would be for the money the conference tournament generates, which I doubt is much, if any, for most one bid conferences. Just look at the Big South. They are sending Liberty, a team that went 15-21, and 6-10 in conference. What an embarrassment to that conference.

this is just pointing out the obvious to say it should be eliminated. we all know the conf tourney is a waste of time and was created to make money but its going to be played and has been since 1976.

what are the chances the big sky would eliminate the conf tourney? if there is a chance then maybe its not pointing out the obvious.

 

[SWeberCat02]

Fans in this conference are not going to travel to any neutral site. Other than Montana fans and a couple hundred Weber fans, where there more than a dozen fans from any other school at this year's conference tournament?

 

[SWeberCat02]

Hell, in my opinion, the tournament is superflous and should be eliminated.

:+1: Why do one bid conferences take any chance at all of sending anyone other than their best team to the tournament? Only reason would be for the money the conference tournament generates, which I doubt is much, if any, for most one bid conferences. Just look at the Big South. They are sending Liberty, a team that went 15-21, and 6-10 in conference. What an embarrassment to that conference.

this is just pointing out the obvious to say it should be eliminated. we all know the conf tourney is a waste of time and was created to make money but its going to be played and has been since 1976.

what are the chances the big sky would eliminate the conf tourney? if there is a chance then maybe its not pointing out the obvious.

But it doesn't make money.

 

[weberwildcat]

Fans in this conference are not going to travel to any neutral site. Other than Montana fans and a couple hundred Weber fans, where there more than a dozen fans from any other school at this year's conference tournament?

true. plus even in missoula, no game was actually sold out between all 6 games played.

2013 CHAMPIONSHIP (7,172)
Montana 67, Weber State 64
(Missoula)

last 10:

2012 CHAMPIONSHIP (7,042)
Montana 85, Weber State 66
(Missoula)

2011 CHAMPIONSHIP (3,182)
Northern Colorado 65, Montana 60
(Greeley)

2010 CHAMPIONSHIP (6,308)
Montana 66, Weber State 65
(Ogden)

2009 CHAMPIONSHIP (1,546)
Portland State 79, Montana State 77
(Ogden)

2008 CHAMPIONSHIP (4,113)
Portland State 67, Northern Arizona 51
(Portland)

2007 CHAMPIONSHIP (9,178)
Weber State 88, Northern Arizona 80
(Ogden)

2006 CHAMPIONSHIP (3,136)
Montana 73, Northern Arizona 60
(Flagstaff)

2005 CHAMPIONSHIP (1,825)
Montana 63, Weber State 61
(Portland)

2004 CHAMPIONSHIP (4,615)
Eastern Washington 71, Northern Arizona 59
(Cheney)

2003 CHAMPIONSHIP (10,121)
Weber State 60, Eastern Washington 57
(Ogden)

 

[weberwildcat]

Hell, in my opinion, the tournament is superflous and should be eliminated.

:+1: Why do one bid conferences take any chance at all of sending anyone other than their best team to the tournament? Only reason would be for the money the conference tournament generates, which I doubt is much, if any, for most one bid conferences. Just look at the Big South. They are sending Liberty, a team that went 15-21, and 6-10 in conference. What an embarrassment to that conference.

this is just pointing out the obvious to say it should be eliminated. we all know the conf tourney is a waste of time and was created to make money but its going to be played and has been since 1976.

what are the chances the big sky would eliminate the conf tourney? if there is a chance then maybe its not pointing out the obvious.

But it doesn't make money.

i meant the ncaa starting the conference tournaments, not the big sky tournament.

 

[SWeberCat02]

When Idaho joins, I would favor a longer 22 game conference schedule and no tournament. At the most, have one championship game between the two top teams, or the two division winners if you divide the conference into divisions.

 

[hawkssb04]

This topic seems to come up at least once a year and my opinion has not changed. Common sense dictates that the tournament can only make real money by keeping it in the current format. Do you really think fans will travel to a neutral site, year-in and year-out enough to justify the move. Although the current tourneys don't exactly generate "huge" numbers in every game, they are virtually guaranteed to get at least two "big" crowds from the hosting team's fans when they play. You don't get that guarantee at a neutral site for even one game, especially with the uncertainty of who will be playing in the tournament each year.

For example: If the neutral site is in Las Vegas, and neither NAU or Southern Utah qualify for the tournament, it's doubtful the Big Sky would generate enough fans in any single game to make real money. Unless, of course, big money contracts come from sponsors/venues in Vegas. Then everything changes...

 

[Skippy]

The Big Sky tournament doesn't make money, that's why they require the host team to front $180 K to cover the expenses of the visiting teams. And if the host team happens to get upset in the semis, then they take a huge financial bath.

The tournament exists solely for this reason -- competing to get into the tournament is the only inducement for most teams not named Weber State or Montana to stay engaged in the last half of the conference schedule. It gives those teams something to play for, and their fans something to care about when it's obvious their teams are no longer in the running for the regular season championship. I, for one, liked the old format even better -- it gave everybody something to play for down the stretch. The top team got to host semis and finals; the No. 2 got a bye; Nos. 3 and 4 got a first-round host; and 5 and 6 were competing to get in the tourney.

Be that as it may, a neutral site would be an invitation to an empty arena, and a financial disaster unless somebody stepped up and guaranteed the conference $250 K to cover travel expenses. And who wants to watch the championship game in an empty arena? (Of course, if Montana had lost in the semis this year, you could very well have had a near empty arena in Missoula for this year's championship game).

 

[hawkssb04]

The Big Sky tournament doesn't make money, that's why they require the host team to front $180 K to cover the expenses of the visiting teams. And if the host team happens to get upset in the semis, then they take a huge financial bath.

The tournament exists solely for this reason -- competing to get into the tournament is the only inducement for most teams not named Weber State or Montana to stay engaged in the last half of the conference schedule. It gives those teams something to play for, and their fans something to care about when it's obvious their teams are no longer in the running for the regular season championship. I, for one, liked the old format even better -- it gave everybody something to play for down the stretch. The top team got to host semis and finals; the No. 2 got a bye; Nos. 3 and 4 got a first-round host; and 5 and 6 were competing to get in the tourney.

Be that as it may, a neutral site would be an invitation to an empty arena, and a financial disaster unless somebody stepped up and guaranteed the conference $250 K to cover travel expenses. And who wants to watch the championship game in an empty arena? (Of course, if Montana had lost in the semis this year, you could very well have had a near empty arena in Missoula for this year's championship game).

I couldn't agree more. :kisswink: I'm also glad you mentioned the previous format before this season where the Nos. 3 and 4 got to host a game in the first round. I wonder why the Big Sky decided to go in a different direction with that? What pros of the new format outweigh the ones you just listed?

 

[weberwildcat]

site locations pros, cons

denver and salt lake city:
good location, cold, how many will really travel there via flight/drive? decent price to get to. what arena in either town?

reno:
decent location, cold, how many will really travel there via flight/drive? more expensive to get to than slc/denver. nevada's arena is 12,000.

spokane:
decent location, cold, how many will really travel there via flight/drive? probably the most expensive to get to. they do have a good arena to host it, 12,000 seats. also, gonzaga is there and has 6,000 seats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spokane_Veterans_Memorial_Arena" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

phx:
great location, warm, possibly one of the lowest fare destinations to get to? spring training also going on. where would the tourney be held? grand canyon univ arena? 5,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GCU_Arena" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

arizona state? 10,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wells_Fargo_Arena_(Tempe" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false

las vegas:
best location, warm, cheapest to get to, many things to do, not too many people dont like vegas

la:
no schools with in 5 hours or 400 miles. anaheim convention center (5,000) is great for big west but just about every school can bus there in a few hrs or less. it is by disneyland too.

ogden:
could that really happen? is it fair? big sky hq is in ogden, wsu has highest attendance every yr and largest crowds and largest arena and maybe the best school to get to via air travel of the big sky.


if the big sky is actaully serious this time around what is most realistic IF there really would be a neutral site?

 

[weberwildcat]

bid to play host?
who ever pays the most gets to host. the wac did this from i think 2005-2009, at least the years i noticed. so nevada and nmsu were the only schools hosting. it went back and forth. usu never hosted supposedly logan didnt have sufficient hotel space but part of it could have been they couldnt afford to out bid.

as an example, my in-laws went every yr for maybe 10 yrs including some big west tournaments before usu went to the wac. they loved going to the big west the most, the place would fill up even though neutral and it was in LA and next to disneyland and always warm. in the wac they didnt like going to reno or las cruces and nmsu being the worst place to go. as well some of these tourneys were cold weather. they still always went regardless of location. they did like the vegas neutral tourneys too.

its hard to say i would show up every year especially if we have some down years. big sky neutral might be worth trying a few yrs then if it fails you could always go back to how it is now. maybe it would succeed.