• 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?

I love the idea of having an excuse to go to Vegas once in a while. Maybe they should propose having it down there only when the regular season champion has an arena that holds less than 10k people :-D IN all other situations, the regular season winner gets to host. Then we would have an excuse to go there about once every 3 years, which is plenty for me.
 
Tal;

I'm not sure that there is anything to stop. I looks like they, the BSC, are too far into this to change course. It seems to me that the best we can do is mitigate the damages. The news media can help with a good public debate and we need to make sure that all options are explored and that we make the best out of this situation. The article in the Bozeman paper was spot on. The insertion of UI into the league, and subsequent schedule changes, have really changed the landscape.

I don't like the idea of just jumping at Vegas as the solution. In the end, if that turns out to be the best solution, then OK. However, all options need to be explored. :coffee:
 
Big Sky presidents and ADs are meeting in North Dakota, beginning today. We should be hearing something official on this soon.
 
I tweeted Jerry Bovee with my :twocents: hopefully they come to their senses and keep the tournaments at the 1 seed, which hopefully remains at WSU for the foreseeable future :-D .
 
The Big Sky is asking fans how to make MBB & WBB better. Speak now or forever hold your peace.

https://www.facebook.com/bigskyconf?fref=nf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
webergrad02 said:
The Big Sky is asking fans how to make MBB & WBB better. Speak now or forever hold your peace.

https://www.facebook.com/bigskyconf?fref=nf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Click to expand...
Easy. Actually win some non conference games.
 
Require those teams still playing in Jr High gyms to upgrade to D1 facilities within the next five years or drop down to D2.

Good facilities + Good teams = Better fan support and more excitement in the games.

Hire refs who don't think the show is about them. :coffee:
 
oldrunner said:
Require those teams still playing in Jr High gyms to upgrade to D1 facilities within the next five years or drop down to D2.

Good facilities + Good teams = Better fan support and more excitement in the games.

If you do that, Oldrunner, you won't have any teams left in the conference besides Weber. Nobody in the league has built a new facility since your place in the 1970s. And unless I win the Powerball here soon, I don't see that changing, certainly not here in Pocatello. :-D
Click to expand...
 
Had a nice chat with a major booster the other day. I was told that Weber and Montana were the only schools against moving the tournament to Vegas. I guess this doesn't have to be a unanimous decision by the conference members.

Looks like they, the other members in the conference, feel it is their best chance of winning the tournament and making the Big Dance by playing at a neutral location.
 
talhadfoursteals said:
Had a nice chat with a major booster the other day. I was told that Weber and Montana were the only schools against moving the tournament to Vegas. I guess this doesn't have to be a unanimous decision by the conference members.

Looks like they, the other members in the conference, feel it is their best chance of winning the tournament and making the Big Dance by playing at a neutral location.
Click to expand...

I thought the coaches voted unanimously in favor of going to a pre-determined location?
 
I thought the vote was for the 12 team format.

I have also talked to a source that says Idaho has come right in and is demanding changes.
 
That is what caught me by surprise when it had been said that ALL coaches wanted it to be moved. Obviously weber and montana get pretty decent support so I wouldnt be surprised if Jerry puts up one hell of a fight at the meetings today
 
webergrad02 said:
I thought the vote was for the 12 team format.

I have also talked to a source that says Idaho has come right in and is demanding changes.
Click to expand...

Of course idaho comes in. They think they are the sh!t because they were in more "power" conferences than the sky and now they are downgrading to our conference. With whatever format comes down I hope we ram the ball down their throat because Im sure they are behind most of this.
 
talhadfoursteals said:
Had a nice chat with a major booster the other day. I was told that Weber and Montana were the only schools against moving the tournament to Vegas. I guess this doesn't have to be a unanimous decision by the conference members.

Looks like they, the other members in the conference, feel it is their best chance of winning the tournament and making the Big Dance by playing at a neutral location.
Click to expand...

Maybe they should instead focus on actually having a good team sometime and actually earning a right to go to thr dance! You don't cater to the deadweight carrying you down. Make them fix their problems instead of giving them a participation trophy and saying they're right.
 
Well, I guess we all have a new school to dislike the most.

I hope we curb stomp them, and everyone they recruited to push this agenda, every time we play them in any sport. Any coach that loses to them, more than once in two years time, should be fired. That used to happen with ISU. Now it should switched to UI. :coffee:
 
The Big Sky is nothing but Idaho's Non Football sports Crutch, I was never in favor of letting them back into the Sky unless it was for everything. I would rather thier basketball program die than be a cancer in our conference
 
From a university administrator...WEBER STATE is definitely against this move. We are hoping our fellow presidents in the conference are smart enough to vote this measure down. This is definitely a LOSE LOSE for the conference.
 
I just want to add my two cents to this discussion. For the women's tournament this past year, it cost us on the Sunday after the regular season ended, $3,000 per person round trip to book a flight to Grand Forks. We had a travel party of around 20 people. And that's before adding in hotel, transportation and per diem costs. Do the math.

With the unbalanced schedules, I think this is the best way to go. Besides, almost every other conference (sans the Ivies) have a neutral site tournament, even small conferences like ours. So you guys are bellyaching over potentially losing your home court advantage on the men's side. Cry me a river. Schools like EWU have even less money in the budget than Sac State does to fly to middle America. At least you live in a airline hub city where flights are cheaper.

Again, it comes back to schedules, we are trying to bump our collective RPI up. How do you do that? Schedule more non-conf games, especially against higher competition. How to get there? Dump as much conf games as possible.

You all should be upset that the league started expanding past 9 schools in the first place. That's where the blame for losing reg season champ hosting lies.
 
Sactohornetalum.....

Great post, trying to find a way to disagree and tell you that your nuts, but drawing a blank!

Neutral sites is the norm and probably best for the conference long term. Weber has enjoyed an advantage being the regulate season champs, but agree it's probably logistically easier to have a set venue with millions of rooms and a major airport. Las Vegas has quality low price hotels and can easily accommodate visitors.

Not sure this is a battle that deserves the effort we're putting behind it. Even more telling when the dissenters are the last two regulate season winners (weber and Montana)!
 
Sacalum - We have all had to book last minute trips for years and it isn't cheap from SLC either (mostly to Missoula). Our women rarely make they tournament so we only have to worry about it on one side.

Yes the unbalanced schedule does create some issues. But inviting all 12 schools may not be the answer. You cannot tell me that a 2 win SUU team deserved to play on this year. An empty arena in Vegas is not going to do crap to boost our conference.

Maybe the real problem is that we started letting crap teams that play in junior high gyms into the conference 15+ years ago. Sac would have a bigger budget if you had more than 600 fans at a game. You had the best game finish in all of mens basketball last year and it is a shame that the replays on national news had to show that poor excuse of a facility.

I am sorry but Montana and Weber have carried this conference for years in basketball. You would feel differently if you had the support of 7,000 fans at each home game. The current system on both the mens and womens side has done a decent job of sending the best team to the tournament.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top