Big Sky Tourney to Vegas?

[Skippy]

It is being reported on the Idaho Vandal message board that the Big Sky basketball tournament will move to Las Vegas in 2016. I can't find any links and there is no official announcement, so this could be just a preliminary vote. We shall see. There has been a lot of concern about the last minute travel costs incurred when schools can't book ahead for the tournament. The trade off will likely be lousy attendance, as Big Sky schools don' t exactly travel well.

Oh, and I'm assuming this is the men's tournament, but again, this is just an assumption.

 

[PBP]

Based on what Ron told me in the halftime interview when ISU was at Weber this past year I know they were doing a "white paper" study on the possibility of moving both the men and women to a neutral site but I'm surprised a decision might have been reached so quickly.

If this is true, I give it a rousing two thumbs up.

I'll say it again, an unfair advantage is provided to schools who can afford to fly at almost literally the last minute to get to a location for the tournament under the current structure as opposed to those who can't. It impacts the players performance according to what I've been told by players themselves.

To me having a level playing field for the most important people involved in this, the players, is far more important than anything else.

If going to a neutral site does that because everyone knows ahead of time where it's going to be, than I'm all for it. Schools will have enough time to make good travel arrangements and can certainly do so at a better cost.

Oh, I was told by a Big Sky coach this past season (not Seton) a little fact that I didn't realize. According to the coach, the Big Sky is the only conference west of the Mississippi river that still has tournaments at the home court of the regular season champ.

If this report is true, it seems the Big Sky is simply going to be doing what everyone else is doing.

PBP

 

[SLCBengal]

In a one-bid league like the Big Sky, is it more important to make it fair for everyone, or is it more important to reward and try to send the best team (regular season champ)?

This past season, Sports Illustrated ran an article about the subject...

There are ways to set up conference tournaments so that they are in favor of the top seed. One: Have every game at the home site of the higher seed, reseeding after the first round of games to ensure the most favorable match-ups for the best teams. Two: Have the tournament at a neutral site and give the top seeds one or two byes.

Read more: SI.com: How can one-bid leagues get their best teams into the NCAA Tournament?

 

[PBP]

SLC:

The absolute best way to ensure the best team gets the bid is to award the NCAA bid to the REGULAR season champ. But conferences won't do this (at least the power conferences ) because they can make more money, pure and simple.

Nothing stopping the Big Sky or other smaller conferences from simply giving the bid to the regular season winner. Would be a good question for Fullerton, why have the post season tourney at all?

As Brad said they don't travel well (i.e. fans) even to a regular season champ hosting and the money can't possibly be that great and the Big Sky tournaments aren't even televised anymore by a regional network save for the men's final on ESPN.

But getting back to your question, sports is supposed to be about fair play. When certain schools can fly anyplace they need to at the last minute and others have to bus, that's a big disadvantage. That either needs to be corrected or eliminate the problem by not having a post season tournament and giving the bid to the regular season champ.

In the short term just FYI, the Big Sky has announced next year with Idaho coming in, eight teams will go to the post season tournament for both men and women and there will be no first round bye's.

PBP

 

[sasquatch]

If it is in Vegas, whoever is hosting will probably throw some money the Big Sky's way, although it may be in the form of free rooms or something like that.