• 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 Tourney to Vegas?

With all due respect Bengal Visitor, this proposal sucks. Five of the 7 points aren't that valid. More than half of the teams in the conference can't get 1,500 fans to a home game. This is a recipe for disaster. There will be less than 50 fans from each team that make plans a year out. I hate the idea that everyone has to have a seat at the table. SUU didn't deserve to play on this year. I love watching college basketball but I am not going to take a bunch of time off work so I can see sub-500 teams battle it out for a chance to get slaughtered in the quarter finals. I love they always talk about doing what is "best for the student athlete". Bull crap! This isn't good for the players and it isn't good for the fans.

I love how he says it is going to help with marketing dollars. That makes as much sense as having Red Lion Hotels be the title sponsor in Ogden. Attendance will suffer greatly if you move it Vegas. Attendance is high because the home team cares.

What venue would you even be able to secure? You wouldn't need more than a 2,000 seat arena. Here are some possible ideas:

The jousting arena at the Excalibur. (Several Big Sky towns have the same horse crap smell)
The Thunder from Down Under Showroom. (Watch out, the tables are a little sticky.)
Cesar's Palace. Play the games on Elton John's special spinning stage. ( BJ Hill likes this idea)
Play the games right in the middle of Fremont Street. You could borrow Northern Colorado's bleachers, they are on rollers.
The old lion habitat at MGM. You could count all the people walking by and looking through the glass as fans.
Poolside at Mandalay Bay. Each team would be allotted prime cabana seating.
Under the Big Top at Circus Circus. The conference has plenty of clowns wearing black and white stripes already.
 
Tal and Weber Grad, no offense taken, it's not my proposal. Frankly, I like having the regular season champ host, and I agree that there probably won't be much attendance, especially for the early round games. But (there's always a but), I understand the main driver behind this. Last year, Idaho State's women's team had to a take an 18-hour bus ride to the tournament in North Dakota because the athletic department couldn't/wouldn't spend the money to book last-minute plane fare to North Dakota. It's extremely expensive to try to fly to most Big Sky cities, especially if you don't book 14 days in advance.

So there are tradeoffs any way you look at it. I really liked the system where schools were playing for something all the way to the end of the season, whether it was hosting, a first-round bye, a first-round home game, etc. If you put everybody in the tournament and at a pre-determined site, the only thing you're playing for is seeding.

But I'm willing to bet this will be the outcome. The Big Sky has tried a half-dozen different approaches to a post-season tournament and still haven't found the "perfect"' answer. I don't expect this one to be "perfect," either.
 
I quite liked my $800 plane ticket to Missoula for the conference Tourney 2013. I just pretended in my mind that it was a distant tropical location.
 
This brings back to mind a couple of articles which came out of Missoula about 3 years ago. When the WAC first decided to move its tournament to Vegas, the Orleans Hotel/Casino/Arena offered a base guarantee and took care of all travel, rooms, and food. The South Point Hotel/Casino/Arena said at the time they weren't sure they could make the same kind of deal with the Big Sky, but they would do something to make it work.

http://missoulian.com/college/griz/could-the-big-sky-find-a-home-in-las-vegas/article_642e3f6e-569b-11e0-b1f7-001cc4c03286.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://missoulian.com/college/griz/big-sky-tournament-an-end-to-march-fiscal-madness/article_fb14778c-569a-11e0-a0bc-001cc4c03286.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
Seems like the losing teams are most concerned about expenses and that is a legitimate concern when they are not creating a revenue stream through ticket sales and booster donations. Personally, I feel they should be more focused on getting more income and less worried about cutting costs. The BSC should be more concerned about getting our teams to win more at the NCAAs. That, in turn, will create more revenue for everyone.

Seems to me like the losers are wanting to shrink everything and the winners are wanting to grow the league into something better. Hopefully, some progressive leadership steps forward. :coffee:
 
oldrunner said:
Seems like the losing teams are most concerned about expenses and that is a legitimate concern when they are not creating a revenue stream through ticket sales and booster donations. Personally, I feel they should be more focused on getting more income and less worried about cutting costs. The BSC should be more concerned about getting our teams to win more at the NCAAs. That, in turn, will create more revenue for everyone.

Seems to me like the losers are wanting to shrink everything and the winners are wanting to grow the league into something better. Hopefully, some progressive leadership steps forward. :coffee:
Click to expand...

Well not exactly Oldrunner. Reportedly the coaches voted unanimously for a 12 team tournament at a fixed site. I like the current set up myself, but you can't really make this a good program vs bad argument. At least not where the coaches are concerned.
 
So if all 12 teams make it, what is the point of the regular season? To be seeded and then what? If we move to vegas, whatever the idea sucks but put all 12 teams in so coaches dont get canned? Seems a little off to me..
 
When Nevada was in the Sky, the tournament was there a few times. I don't think it has the wow factor that Vegas does. I bet you would get less total fans in Reno than Vegas. I am sure Sac State would be well represented in Reno though.

But then again, if the conference aligns with the Southpoint, it so far away from the strip you might as well have it in Reno. This proposal is a sure fire way to 1,000 fans or less at our conference championship.
 
There are a few more alternatives, if having a predetermined site is so important. You could have the regular season winner host it the following year. That way, everybody would know where it would be, a year in advance. If some teams have a problem with facilities or community resources, they could opt out, but still have the right to select the appropriate venue from a list of willing members. That way they could choose where they thought they might have the best chance. Everyone would still know a year in advance, where the thing would be. The league could ask each member to bid if they want to, select the qualified bids, and then rotate where it will be each year. That way, planning could be done years in advance.

Maybe the best thing is to just do away with the thing all together, unless the BSC suddenly starts to get more than one team into the dance. :coffee:
 
I'm sure this is the minority opinion around the Big Sky, but from here in Bozeman a flight and hotel package for Vegas is about $500. If all of these tournaments are going on at once, there's going to be some great games to take in. I would love to see an event package of some kind where a person could get a day pass for any of the four conferences' games leading up to the finals.
 
It wouldn't be horrible in Vegas. From Ogden, its a day's drive and freeway all the way. Although, the airfare from SLC is often quite cheap and a rental car wouldn't cost much. The hosts would be, totally, counting on fans dropping a bundle in the casinos in between games.

If it does go to this, I don't think it would be this coming season anyway. Although, you never know. All 12 teams going could be this year. I don't think they had finalized a format for the tournament yet. :twocents:
 
As far as the regular season being played for seeding only, I really don't think that would be the case. The regular season champ, is the champion. Losing in the tournament doesn't change that. The tournament is only for the auto bid to the dance. That is important, but not nearly as important as the championship itself.

Making a little noise in the post season is helpful to any program. Going to the post season and flopping doesn't help anyone. :coffee:
 
oldrunner said:
As far as the regular season being played for seeding only, I really don't think that would be the case. The regular season champ, is the champion. Losing in the tournament doesn't change that. The tournament is only for the auto bid to the dance. That is important, but not nearly as important as the championship itself.

Making a little noise in the post season is helpful to any program. Going to the post season and flopping doesn't help anyone. :coffee:
Click to expand...

I would have to disagree. There is no point to being the champion. Now the regular season champ gets to host and that is what you play for. With going to Vegas and all 12 teams making it, there is no point in winning it all except to get seeded. Saying your the champion doesnt mean jack if you lose first round.
All the sky needs is the 12th seeded team to some how win it all and get destroyed in the NCAA tournament. Then we will really be represented well. Not..
 
It's not very likely that a lower seeded team would win in the format that I described for a 12 team tournament. They would have to win 4 games in four nights, against better teams. Even the second place team would have to win three games in three nights. While the first place team would need to win two games in two nights. It would be heavily weighted in favor of the first place team. There are already guarantees in place for post season play for the regular season champion.

Yes. I like and prefer the format that is currently in place. I just think that the neutral floor concept has some merit. :coffee:

If it truly keeps some coaches from being canned, it makes me like it a little more.
 
Baller2014 said:
Horible idea. I don't know why this is happening. :wall:
Click to expand...

Agreed. I'm pretty sure the BSC tried something similar for a year or two with the neutral site being in Denver. I'm also pretty sure they've gone the champ this season is the host site next season route too. Both were received and attended poorly from what I recall. This type of change will destroy the excitement and fan support that has existed, especially the past several years. I don't mind a visit to Vegas on a semi-regular basis and the drive is not too bad from Ogden, but I don't see myself attending this tournament since it removes itself from the conference, schools, and hometowns; that is where the excitement and entertainment value is. I absolutely HATE this plan.
 
If this thing is taken to a vote of the 12 schools, Does it have to be unanimous, or how much of a majority does it take to make a change? It was said earlier that all of the coaches wanted this. I don't believe this to be true. I believe that the coaches wanted all 12 teams, but not a neutral site. However, I do believe there are some schools that want a neutral site, and I believe that those are mostly schools who believe that they will never host or, if they were to get lucky and earn the right to host, wouldn't really want to do it for monetary reasons. If it is a simple majority required to make this change, it will probably happen. If it requires a super majority or a unanimous vote, it probably will not happen. :coffee:
 
Count me in as one who thinks this is a terrible idea.

Average attendance at the WAC tournament this year was 1,284. I think something like that or quite possibly even less is what we would see. That would be a great environment for the players and fans to experience and for ESPN to showcase to the country.

Let's not forget the women's side of the tourney either. Can you imagine the cavern of the arena for the women's games? I attended the championship game in Grand Forks this year and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I watched the one in Missoula last year and it looked like they had a wonderful turnout.

I really like the current format because it makes the race in the regular season very exciting. I love the idea that my favorite school can host the tournament.

Hey SUU saved a lot of money by not having to go to the tournament this year. If this plan were in place they would have had to make the trip to Vegas.

I understand getting to remote locales on short notice is a problem in the Big Sky under the current format. In an effort mitigate some of that, is there any reason the regular season could not end a week earlier than it does now allowing for twice as much more time for preparations for all parties involved? It seems with 4 fewer conference games going forward, this should be doable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top