Big Sky Tourney Attendance History: Reno 41st of 41 years

[weberwildcat]

Just some observations.

1. How does Reno compare regarding attendance of the 41 BSCT's held since 1976?
2015-16 BSCT was the lowest attendance tournament in Big Sky history.


2. How does Reno compare to past BSCT's that had a 1 seed in the final?
31 times in 41 years the 1 seed played in the final. Just once was there lower attendance than the Reno final.

2001:
CHAMPIONSHIP (1,783)
Cal State Northridge 73, Eastern Washington 58

2016:
Championship (2,516)
Weber State 62, Montana 59

Even as poorly attended as 2001 was the semifinal had 2,840.

QUARTERFINALS (984)
Weber State 86, Idaho State 67
Northern Arizona 65, Montana State 62
SEMIFINALS (2,840)
Eastern Washington 58, Northern Arizona 53
Cal State Northridge 91, Weber State 74
CHAMPIONSHIP (1,783)
Cal State Northridge 73, Eastern Washington 58

You could argue that Reno had better attendance than 2001 because of the fact that there were more games and 12 teams played. But before taking on this argument, please note you would be taking on the lowest attended BSCT championship in Big Sky history (2001). Not exactly bragging rights.


3. Did any of the 10 BSCT's where the 1 seed didn't get to the final have as poor attendance as Reno?
3: 1997, 2005, 2009. This means that schools hosting where their team choked, 7 of the 10 still had more than Reno, earlier rounds had significantly more attendance.

1997
CHAMPIONSHIP (2,390) - Flagstaff
Montana 82, Cal State Northridge 79
2005
CHAMPIONSHIP (1,825) - Portland
Montana 63, Weber State 61
2009
CHAMPIONSHIP (1,546) - Ogden
Portland State 79, Montana State 7


4. Reno Attendance Capacity: 7,000
2,516 / 7,000 = 36% or 4,484 empty seats.


5. Average attendance:
All 41 title games: 6,081
Title games where a 1 seed played (31): 6,824.
Almost 7,000 excluding Reno.
Title games where a 1 seed didn't play (10): 3,778
Average attendance of the 20 title games (over 7,000) that had attendance higher than Reno capacity: 8,300.
Lowest was 7,026 (2015, Missoula) and highest was 11,576 (1989, Boise).

 

[weberwildcat]

Title game Attendance / Year of championship
4,679 1976
7,583 1977
9,203 1978
8,864 1979
8,247 1980
8,300 1981
8,150 1982
5,425 1983
5,278 1984
5,700 1985
4,309 1986
3,752 1987
9,027 1988
11,576 1989
6,541 1990
7,156 1991
7,816 1992
4,800 1993
9,166 1994
7,189 1995
7,187 1996
2,390 1997
5,022 1998
9,683 1999
3,316 2000
1,783 2001
3,122 2002
10,121 2003
4,615 2004
1,825 2005
3,136 2006
9,178 2007
4,113 2008
1,546 2009
6,308 2010
3,182 2011
7,042 2012
7,172 2013
6,294 2014
7,026 2015
2,516 2016

Average:
6,081


Full attendance of the 10 tournaments that didn't feature a 1 seed + 2001:


1984
Weber State University - Host
Dee Events Center - Ogden, Utah

First Round
at Nevada 64, Idaho State 59 (3,286)
at Weber State 67, Idaho 58 (5,146)
at Montana 69, Northern Arizona 54 (5,010)
at Montana State 65, Boise State 64 (3,758)

SEMIFINALS (5,206)
Nevada 85, Weber State 68
Montana 76, Montana State 64

CHAMPIONSHIP (5,278)
Nevada 71, Montana 69


1985
Boise State University - Host
BSU Pavilion - Boise, Idaho

First Round (14,589)
Northern Arizona 69, Montana State 62
Idaho State 80, Weber State 78
Nevada 83, Idaho 80
Boise State 67, Montana 54

SEMIFINALS (9,153)
Idaho State 89, Northern Arizona 86
Nevada 79, Boise State 67

CHAMPIONSHIP (5,700)
Nevada 79, Idaho State 63



1986
University of Nevada - Host
Lawlor Events Center - Reno, Nevada

First Round (8,350)
Weber State 79, Boise State 76
Montana 68, Idaho 60
Montana State 81, Nevada 80

SEMIFINALS (4,309)
Montana State 80, Northern Arizona 74
Montana 72, Weber State 68

CHAMPIONSHIP (4,309)
Montana State 82, Montana 77



1987
Northern Arizona University - Host
Walkup Skydome - Flagstaff, Arizona

First Round (7,435)
Idaho 63, Montana 62
Idaho State 78, Boise State 77
Weber State 106, Montana State 101
Nevada 82, Northern Arizona 80

SEMIFINALS (3,527)
Nevada 98, Weber State 90
Idaho State 82, Idaho 63

CHAMPIONSHIP (3,752)
Idaho State 92, Nevada 81


1990
Boise State University - Host
BSU Pavilion - Boise, Idaho

QUARTERFINALS (4,907)
Montana State 69, Montana 57
Weber State 75, Nevada 66

SEMIFINALS (6,680)
Idaho 80, Montana State 71
Eastern Washington 83, Weber State 67

CHAMPIONSHIP (6,541)
Idaho 65, Eastern Washington 62


1997
Northern Arizona University - Host
Walkup Skydome - Flagstaff, Arizona

QUARTERFINALS (2,966)
Cal State Northridge 74, Montana State 56
Weber State 68, Idaho State 58

SEMIFINALS (6,479)
Montana 81, Weber State 56
Cal State Northridge 93, Northern Arizona 84

CHAMPIONSHIP (2,390)
Montana 82, Cal State Northridge 79


2000
University of Montana - Host
Dahlberg Arena - Missoula, MT

QUARTERFINALS (3,522)
Cal State Northridge 73, Weber State 68
Northern Arizona 77, Portland State 75

SEMIFINALS (5,038)
Cal State Northridge 73, Montana 68
Northern Arizona 82, Eastern Washington 65

CHAMPIONSHIP (3,316)
Northern Arizona 85, Cal State Northridge 81 (OT)

2001
Cal State Northridge - Host
The Matadome - Northridge, CA

QUARTERFINALS (984)
Weber State 86, Idaho State 67
Northern Arizona 65, Montana State 62

SEMIFINALS (2,840)
Eastern Washington 58, Northern Arizona 53
Cal State Northridge 91, Weber State 74

CHAMPIONSHIP (1,783)
Cal State Northridge 73, Eastern Washington 58


2002
Montana State University - Host
Brick Breeden Fieldhouse - Bozeman, MT

QUARTERFINALS (2,511)
Weber State 84, Portland State 62
Montana 82, Northern Arizona 64

SEMIFINALS (6,644)
Eastern Washington 62, Weber State 57
Montana 70, Montana State 68

CHAMPIONSHIP (3,122)
Montana 70, Eastern Washington 66


2005
Portland State - Host
Rose Garden - Portland, OR

QUARTERFINALS (Missoula, MT)
Montana 58, Eastern Washington 48

QUARTERFINALS (Sacramento, CA)
Weber State 74, Sacramento State 71

SEMIFINALS (4,320)
Montana 79, Montana State 67
Weber State 71, Portland State 61

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


2009
Weber State - Host
Dee Events Center - Ogden, Utah

QUARTERFINALS (Missoula, MT)
Montana State 56, Montana 54

QUARTERFINALS (Pocatello, ID)
Idaho State 67, Northern Colorado 60

SEMIFINALS (5,162)
Portland State 61, Idaho State 53
Montana State 70, Weber State 61

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

Highest year of Big Sky tourney attendance:

1989
Boise State University - Host
BSU Pavilion - Boise, Idaho

QUARTERFINALS (7,323)
Montana 87, Montana State 84 (OT)
Weber State 69, Nevada 61

SEMIFINALS (10,643)
Idaho 77, Montana 56
Boise State 71, Weber State 60

CHAMPIONSHIP (11,576)
Idaho 59, Boise State 52

ALL TOURNAMENT TEAM
Riley Smith, Idaho - (MVP
Raymond Brown, Idaho
Wilson Foster, Boise State
Chris Childs, Boise State
Wayne Tinkle, Montana
Rico Washington, Weber State

 

[oldrunner]

If they double the attendance next year, it will still be poor. However, I think they would still call that a success. Attendance was not what this was all about. Better attendance would be nice, but this whole thing is not about the fans.

The two schools who travelled the best were Weber and Montana. You could argue that it was due to being #1 and #2 in the standings, but I think it goes deeper than that. If we ever want to grow our programs into something bigger and better, we will need to show that we can travel well. That is one of the reasons that I find it funny when posters from other schools come on our board and claim their schools are going bigger and better, and yet nobody travels with them. I'm sure that a power 5 conference will be calling them up soon. They should be sitting by the phone. :lol: :lol:

 

[weberwildcat]

One more stat to note...

Maybe the Big Sky was seeing an attendance drop off in title games for the past 8 years leading up to Reno and figured it wasn't much to lose to go neutral.

1 4,113 2008 - PSU hosted
2 1,546 2009 - Weber hosted and lost in semi
3 6,308 2010
4 3,182 2011 - UNC hostted
5 7,042 2012
6 7,172 2013
7 6,294 2014
8 7,026 2015
Average: 5,335

Realistically the only way to guarantee high attendance in the final per the trend is if it is in Missoula or Ogden and the host team is in the game. Otherwise the attendance will be piss poor like Reno.

One other random fact...

The BSCT has only been at a "Predetermined" site twice, 1994 (Boise) and 2016. Coincidentally Weber was the regular season champ both times.

 

[SWWeatherCat]

Attendance was not what this was all about. Better attendance would be nice, but this whole thing is not about the fans.

If we ever want to grow our programs into something bigger and better, we will need to show that we can travel well.

Am I the only one confused the the seeming contradiction here? You see nothing wrong with d1cking the average fan and then put it on them traveling as what will grow the program? :wtf:

I keep hearing that the BSC could care less about the fans, what a great sentiment. I don't disagree, that's exactly why they and WSU has lost the majority of my $$$ support. I'm still having a hard time understanding how playing an all-in, neutral tournament (with no one watching, mind you) improves programs or the conference. It does seem like a fantastic, somewhat exclusive, good-ol'-boys club as far as students/fans go. :thumbdown:

 

[WeberSki]

Come on SWweather, there were almost 250 strong there. That's big numbers

 

[SWWeatherCat]

One other random fact...

The BSCT has only been at a "Predetermined" site twice, 1994 (Boise) and 2016. Coincidentally Weber was the regular season champ both times.

I'm pretty sure they went to Denver for a year or two. I was going to ask if you included this into your stats. Additionally, there was a period they tried hosting it the school who won it the previous year. Those numbers would surely figure in differently to the stats.

 

[SWWeatherCat]

Come on SWweather, there were almost 250 strong there. That's big numbers

Yeah, and from what I understand they had the best time at the casinos, taking long river walks, and spooning with other team's fans. That beats a packed house, awesome game atmosphere, and economic stimulation of a community actually tied to the BSC any day, or so we're led to believe.

 

[oldrunner]

I can understand your being upset with the BSC. I can understand your not wanting to support the BSCT as well. What I have a hard time with is your refusal to support your school and team because of what the BSC has done. That makes no sense to me. I can see you being upset with a poor home OOC schedule and complaining to the school about it. Once again, I don't see the logic in pulling support from your team due to any of that and yet still come on this site and pretend to be a fan and complain to the rest of us, who, BTW, have no ability to change anything you are upset about. And, YES, if you are a proponent of WSU growing or moving to a bigger conference, how in the world is your pulling support going to further that cause. I'm not the smartest man in the world, Maybe you can explain that logic to me. :wall: :wtf: :willybs: :yikes:

 

[n.ogdencat]

If college athletics isn't for the fans? Then what is it purpose?

I don't like reading things that claim the purpose for these all inclusive super tournaments are solely for athletes and their families. First, that solidifies the fact that we are merely having them for the sake of ensuring everyone gets a participation ribbon. That defeats the entire reason behind the idea of competition. Why compete? Why build team unity, exemplify sportsmanship, learn how to work as a team, and build academic character and integrity? You can just kinda give it your best and try a bit for four months because it doesn't even matter. The season only depends on a week. Or, you can give it your all everyday, build lasting relationships of trust that bridge diversity and culture, and learn how to work honestly, which leads to rewards. That reward is the opportunity to keep competing. Top teams receive the best benefits due to their success. Everyone starts out equal and at the end the strongest prevails.

But, we are an enabling culture. Everyone deserves to try again and again. If that's the case, time to stop funding athletics with state monies, student fees, and community dollars. Let them have a bake sale or car wash to raise funds. We only have events for the athletes. To hell with the idea of community. screw the fans, they don't matter...you are only representing their school, their family. Students don't deserve to participate, they aren't important other than the fact we only have athletics because we have schools that are dedicated to scholastic endeavors and success. Not just for athletics...they represent the student body. I think they definitely matter. But we only care about 13 guys and their related peers in 11 other institutions. Not those thousands who support them.

I won't ever pull support. I love Weber State. It is a defining aspect of who I am. I get angry with the lethargy and incompetence of athletic administrators and their limited ideas, vision, and poor execution. No idea is good because none will be tried. Better to shot them down than to try. Just do enough. No matter, I'm a Cat and proud of it.

Issues:
1. The vast majority of fans cannot participate. Cost, time, distance usually prevail.
2. The reward of hosting isn't just for the team, but community, school, student body, and alumni. We all take pride in the successes and want to participate in greater mass. Sucks, that there weren't student flooding the floor Saturday night. It is from those experiences that students become lifelong supporters.
3. Athletics is measured on success. Participation ribbons are for kindergarten, we are a talking about college athletics for crying out loud.
4. A one-bid conference, in an effort to increase notoriety needs to protect its best team each season (mind you wach starts out as equals in January and over two months through athletic competition we find out who is best, they should be the ones rewarded, the worst...well, better luck next year). Your best team is your best chance for success at the higher level.
5. The chosen destination is hard to get to. This will continue to ensure bad support and even worse, terrible atmosphere at the event.

 

[ajwildcat]

opcorn: opcorn: :dead: :dead: opcorn: opcorn: Oh and to all of the numb nuts that made the stupid decision to move the tourney to Reno :finger: :finger: :thumbdown:

 

[WILDCAT]

I'm not going to lie, the whole reason I didn't go to Reno was because I didn't have an entire weeks worth of leave to use. I think they should at least change up the schedule a little bit. I don't care for women's basketball, never had (but still hope Weber's win) so I would only go down for the men's tourney, and since tournament championships can be played Sunday morning why not move to this schedule?

Monday- Women's first round
Tuesday- Women's qtr finals
Wednesday- Women's semi finals
Thursday morning- Women's championship
Thursday afternoon/night- Men's first round
Friday- Men's Qtr finals
Saturday- Men's Semi finals
Sunday Morning- Men's championship

This way those who only want to see the men play, like myself, only need to take 2 days off from work and won't have to spend an entire week from home and my job, plus nobody outside of Big Sky fans watch the Big Sky championship, so I see no problem with playing it in the morning.

Just my two cents

 

[Skippy]

Read Greg Rachac's column in the Billings paper "give Big Sky tournament the credit it is due." (Sorry can't link on my phone). Here's the key sentence: "As one Big Sky official told me: the only criticism we've had is from people who aren't here."

Here's the point: the Big Sky tournament is NOT going back to the regular season winner's court in the forseeable future. The Big Sky coaches, ADs and teams like a pre-determined neutral floor. Those who did attend this year liked the experience. The Big Sky is hoping that more fans will choose to come to Reno in the future, in fact they are counting on it. And repeat: they are not coming back to Ogden or Missoula in the near future.

 

[SWeberCat02]

Here's the point: the Big Sky tournament is NOT going back to the regular season winner's court in the forseeable future. The Big Sky coaches, ADs and teams like a pre-determined neutral floor.

And bad attendance isn't going to change that. Several things are more important to them than fan attendance.

 

[oldrunner]

I realize that not everyone can afford to travel or can not get off work. However, to think that you needed to take a whole week off and have 5 or 6 nights in a hotel, is totally inaccurate. I drove over on Wednesday and had two nights stay reserved. When we won on Friday, I picked up another nights stay. I saw others who flew in on Friday and had one nights stay for two games. Others only came in for the championship game. I didn't see any tournament police arresting people who didn't book an entire weeks vacation. Also, when I was looking for rooms in town, I found them from $30 per night and up. I stayed in the Eldorado 2 nights at $69. One block away was the Sands for $44 a night. Students could split rooms on the cheap if they wanted. There are many ways to travel cheaply. Student organizations could start budgeting and planning for next years excursion now. My guess is that they don't even talk about it. They could have had some busses leave Friday night and come back Saturday night if they didn't want to pay for any lodging. They could even pack sack meals if they wanted. If there is a will there is a way. If there is no will, then you make excuses.

 

[SactoHornetAlum]

Here's the point: the Big Sky tournament is NOT going back to the regular season winner's court in the forseeable future. The Big Sky coaches, ADs and teams like a pre-determined neutral floor.

And bad attendance isn't going to change that. Several things are more important to them than fan attendance.

Stop you whining and complaining and get your rear to Reno next year. Christ, file your taxes early, get your return and make your reservations. You sound like Montana people, must not be a CAN-do American!

 

[n.ogdencat]

Read Greg Rachac's column in the Billings paper "give Big Sky tournament the credit it is due." (Sorry can't link on my phone). Here's the key sentence: "As one Big Sky official told me: the only criticism we've had is from people who aren't here."

Here's the point: the Big Sky tournament is NOT going back to the regular season winner's court in the forseeable future. The Big Sky coaches, ADs and teams like a pre-determined neutral floor. Those who did attend this year liked the experience. The Big Sky is hoping that more fans will choose to come to Reno in the future, in fact they are counting on it. And repeat: they are not coming back to Ogden or Missoula in the near future.

I really hope that ISU finally has a team that could vie for the conference championship. I'd love to see Bengal reactions to having to play 10 hours away from their home court after winning the regular season title (hasn't happened for some time, hence why you like Reno). Hell, after the showing in Reno, I would think ISU would never want to set foot on that court again. Nice job!! That is what I get for rooting for the Bungles.

By the way, you are too smart for the above comment. Brandon Garside of the Sub-Standard Exaggerator wrote a very similar article to Greg's, and for what it is, they are writing the truth. Was it a bad tournament? No... Did those who travel enjoy their experience? Yes... Would I, a huge opponent to the tournament, probably enjoy Reno...YES. The point is, is this the RIGHT thing. The BEST format? I applaud the conference's work and approve of what they were able to accomplish. For what was chosen, and I believe that is the key here and feel it is the WRONG option, it was done very well and the conference deserves, and has earned, appreciation for what they were able to get done in Reno. Reno, was a gracious host and will be the next two years.

The problem with these articles is that they aren't asking the questions that need to be asked. IS THIS THE BEST OPTION or IS THIS OPTION BETTER THAN THE PAST? To me it is mere propaganda. They are frosting on a turd. Sir Velo and I both agree that fan participation, especially student participation, is a key aspect to the success of past tournaments. I believe that the Sky, being a one-bid conference, needs to reward the best participant of the regular-season with the most direct path towards the Big Dance...that is where the conference will generating the quickest and most succinct national recognition and respect. I also feel in the interest of athletic competition on this LEVEL, that teams, who all start out as equals, who have been the most successful deserve to keep playing and those that haven't, season's should end. It isn't right to start a season over again, after two months of equal conference play, for a one-week tournament. SUU and NAU did not deserve to keep playing this year. They were atrocious, but the new format grants them another chance...EVERYONE DESERVES A RIBBON!! So, I ask you, in the interest of true athletic competition, the idea of community, and that option, which would be best for students, alumni, and fans alike....what is the right option?

 

[SWeberCat02]

Here's the point: the Big Sky tournament is NOT going back to the regular season winner's court in the forseeable future. The Big Sky coaches, ADs and teams like a pre-determined neutral floor.

And bad attendance isn't going to change that. Several things are more important to them than fan attendance.

Stop you whining and complaining and get your rear to Reno next year. Christ, file your taxes early, get your return and make your reservations. You sound like Montana people, must not be a CAN-do American!

I wasn't complaining, you ass. I'm past complaining about it. I was stating a fact. The conference has made it pretty clear that fan attendance isn't that important. So regardless of how it's attended, it's not changing. So people either need to accept it and try to enjoy it, or find something else to be a fan of. But I will complain all day about the shitty state of the conference thanks mostly to every program in conference not named Weber or Montana.

 

[WILDCAT]

Maybe the conference should start the regular season one week earlier that way you would have the reg season end, a week to get there and then the next week would be the tournament at host site. Would make planning easier and not last second, I also think the conference needs to reconsider all 12 going, there were several teams in this conference that didn't even deserve a sniff at any kind of post season, take it back to 6 or 8 teams. Or if your gonna keep it at 12 make the format a little more friendly.

My biggest gripe with Reno is it's 500 + miles away from 11 of the 12 schools, and lack of any Big Sky presence within the state. After Reno is up, the Big Sky needs to explore other locations that are more centralized and are in a state with an actual Big Sky presence. Heck the second closest school to Reno is Weber and they are still 8 hours away and 550 miles away. That's the biggest problem, fans might be more willing to travel when they can shave a few hours and a few hundred miles of travel and a few hundred bucks in fuel to get to their destination.

Like I also said, I'm probably going next year, but only Thursday-Saturday it's all the leave I can afford for it when I use leave for other important things, like the hunts.

 

[weberwildcat]

Read Greg Rachac's column in the Billings paper "give Big Sky tournament the credit it is due." (Sorry can't link on my phone). Here's the key sentence: "As one Big Sky official told me: the only criticism we've had is from people who aren't here."

Here's the point: the Big Sky tournament is NOT going back to the regular season winner's court in the forseeable future. The Big Sky coaches, ADs and teams like a pre-determined neutral floor. Those who did attend this year liked the experience. The Big Sky is hoping that more fans will choose to come to Reno in the future, in fact they are counting on it. And repeat: they are not coming back to Ogden or Missoula in the near future.

Here is the article you are referencing.

http://billingsgazette.com/sports/college/big-sky-conference/montana-state-university/basketball-mens/rachac-column-give-the-big-sky-tournament-the-credit-it/article_e14e0b7c-502a-5251-9550-b719b95856e7.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=user-share

I find it strange that by us pointing out the obvious we are considered haters. :roll: