Current Status of the Post-Season Tournament

[Skippy]

So I went to the "horse's mouth," Big Sky Assistant Commissioner Jon Kasper, and asked him what was going on with the post-season tournaments. Here is his very thorough response, which I greatly appreciate. Jon is a good man:

We are exploring moving our men's and women's basketball championships to Las Vegas. We are very early in the process, and nothing has been finalized. We are gathering information, looking for a venue, analyzing costs, etc.. We need the approval of the Big Sky Presidents to move forward. They will meet in a couple of weeks in Grand Forks. The men's coaches have asked that all teams be included in the tournament, and that it be held in Las Vegas. The plan has also been discussed with the women's coaches. The Presidents, after receiving input from men's and women's coaches, athletic directors, SWAs, and conference staff, will have to give us the OK to continue the process. Some of our Presidents really like the current model because we normally make money, it provides excitement for their fans and students, and ESPN produces a nationally-televised event from their campus.

Reasons this is being considered, in no particular order:

1. We will no longer play double round-robin schedule since we have 12 teams with the addition of Idaho. Coaches feel since the schedules won't be equal across the board, we need to include all 12 teams in the tournament.

2. There are some nice things about our current format, especially allowing the regular-season champion to host. In a one-bid league, it is important to try to send your top team to the NCAA Tournament. Most times, we draw very well. In fact, our attendance at our men's championship is very strong compared to many similar conferences our size across the nation. Our attendance is also strong at our women's tournaments in venues like Pocatello, Missoula and Grand Forks, which have all hosted recently. However, travel costs are a big issue. Many of our teams faced difficult travel to Grand Forks and Ogden this past year. There is also the issue of our men's and women's tournaments being played on the same days. Some of our Big Sky cities would be hard pressed to handle 12 teams in terms of hotels, etc. on short notice. In 2013, Montana hosted both men's and women's tournaments, and it was logistically hard to pull off. Potentially, we're looking at 24 teams in one city on short notice. Can that be done in places like Greeley, Cedar City, Pocatello, Grand Forks, Missoula, or Bozeman? It's not just hotels, but facilities for practice, restaurants, etc.

3. Under our current format, it puts a strain on the conference staff, but more importantly the staffs at the schools that can potentially host. Often times, we're planning with three or four different schools just in case. Knowing when and where the tournament will be a year out is huge for planning.

4. Moving to a neutral, destination site such as Las Vegas will allow for advanced travel plans for our teams and our fans. It's hard for fans to travel on short notice right now.

5. Moving to a neutral, destination site can also help with marketing dollars.

6. This event would bring the conference together and improve the student-athlete experience.

7. Las Vegas has become a mecca for postseason college basketball tournamens. March Madness starts in Las Vegas in the West with the Pac-12, WCC, Mountain West and WAC tournaments there. Even the Missouri Valley is exploring moving to Las Vegas. The coaches expressed a strong desire to be part of that.

 

[bengalguy]

Thanks Skippy, as you noted great response, thanks for asking.

I like #7. I think that there are a lot of Bengal fans that would like to be included in "March Madness" taking place in Vegas every year. We don't make the big dance very often but a venue like Vegas, for the Big Sky Tourny, would give us something to look forward to if all 12 teams were included.

 

[PBP]

My feelings are clear on this, move it to Vegas (or another neutral site) and level the playing field for athletes having to travel and play.

Also if it is considered important to have the "best" team represent the conference in the NCAA's then why have a tournament at all? why not just award the regular season champ the automatic bid?

You can still have a tournament, remember there are NIT and WNIT bids available.

Another point, if you want the "best" and part of the rational for having it at a 'home' site is to try to give the best team advantages then why is the conference eliminating byes starting this year for all teams including the regular season (hosting) champ? Seems contradictory doesn't it?

Props to Brad for a well written post and to Jon for being honest and forthcoming. I didn't know that all the men's coaches want this, I personally know some of the women's coach do to from conversations with them on this subject.

We'll see how it all shakes out.

PBP

 

[spudbowl]

Watching the ISU women play the Big Sky tournament championship game in Pocatello in 2012 was a great event and the fans turned out and had fun. It is not every day that we get to see the Bengals play a championship game in Pocatello (I missed the men playing Weber State in 1977 in one of the first Big Sky championship games). I did enjoy the Big Sky softball championship last week, though the Bengals lost.

I understand the reasoning behind moving to a neutral court but thinking that I will never see another Big Sky championship game in Pocatello does make me happy as a fan. I also think that inviting all 12 teams makes no sense. What is the purpose of the season then? (sure seeding would still matter but if everyone makes the tournament, I wonder how this will impact attendance at regular season games?). Even the NBA does not invite all teams to the tournament.

Big Sky fans are not necessarily the wealthiest fans in the world, most have jobs, and they won't travel to Las Vegas in great numbers. Playing in front of 500 people in Las Vegas (and showcasing this to ESPN) does not make sense to me. At some point, maybe the fans should matter. I have retained my interest in the Big Sky while I no longer have any interest in big time college sports. Moves like this will probably move me away from following the Big Sky.

 

[mvem]

Also if it is considered important to have the "best" team represent the conference in the NCAA's then why have a tournament at all? why not just award the regular season champ the automatic bid?

Because half the teams would be out of the race with at least a month left and attendance would tank. Having most, but not all, teams make the tournament keeps interest up without really turning things into a championship crapshoot.

Another point, if you want the "best" and part of the rational for having it at a 'home' site is to try to give the best team advantages then why is the conference eliminating byes starting this year for all teams including the regular season (hosting) champ? Seems contradictory doesn't it?

Is that what they're doing? The 18-game schedule was publicly released a while ago, but I hadn't seen anything about next year's tournament. No byes is a stupid idea regardless of where/how the tournament is done. My preferred option would be an 8-team double bye format (#3 & #4 get byes, #1 & #2 get two byes). That would also limit it to two games per day (per gender). If you're gonna finish in the bottom tier of the conference, you should have to go through a relative marathon to get the auto-bid.

 

[PBP]

MVEM:

Yep, eight teams go both men and women. #1 plays #8, 2 plays 7, 3 plays 6, 4 plays 5 in the opening round starting this year.

MVEM and Spud:

Both of you bring up attendance issues to various degrees. I understand where you are coming from in theory but the reality is very few schools in the Big Sky draw well period. It's not like moving to a neutral site is going to cost say 10 thousand fans for an opening round game is it? With respect we aren't talking the Pac-12, SEC or ACC here are we?

One example. This past March at the women's tournament in Grand Forks, the announced attendance for the Eastern - ISU game was 900. In fact there were barely 200 in the stands. History shows that for both the men and women's tournaments unless they are in Ogden or Missoula (men) or Missoula, Pocatello, Bozeman or now Grand Forks (women) you aren't drawing anything anyway. And if the home team loses before the championship game, attendance falls to nothing. Another example, in 2007 when ISU was upset by Weber (if I remember correctly) in the women's semi's the finals played at Reed Gym was basically an empty gym. The game was televised back then Fox Sports Northwest. I watched it at home in Chubbuck. There was almost literally no one in the gym. What really are you losing by going to a neutral site?

In my opinion the needs of the athletes (the most important group of people involved in these things) are more important that any other group...broadcasters, coaches, fans. The ability to get everyone to a site the same way (i.e. flying) because all schools can actually book reasonable travel schedules is paramount and the deciding factor. Again that's just my opinion. And you simply can't do so when you don't know where you are supposed to go until a week or five days before the tournament starts. Can't be done for many schools as Jon from the conference pointed out.

One final point about attendance that was brought up, i.e. regular season attendance would tank if they simply awarded the automatic bid to the regular season winner because half the schools would be out of the race by February. All I can say is that you haven't been to NAU, Sac. State, Eastern or Portland State for games have you? Attendance is basically nothing (especially for the women) under the current situation, so again I go back to my original point... what are you really losing compared to making things fairer for the athletes?

PBP

 

[Spudhead]

I still think it gets lost in Vegas and should be somewhere smaller, but with regional or local interest. I guess we'll see.

 

[PBP]

Sin:

I agree with you there, I know some have suggested a smaller more regional site that would appreciate having the Big Sky there, names I heard were Fresno, Billings, Great Falls places like that that have smaller arenas.

PBP

 

[spudbowl]

I agree with what PBP is saying about low attendance at tourney games where the home team is not playing (though I was one of the few that attended the WSU-NAU championship game in Pocatello). But championship games are well attended if the home team is there on the men's side and they are well attended at some schools on the women's side (if the home team is playing). But now I can imagine 500 people watching the Big Sky men's championship in Las Vegas instead of 8,000 in Ogden, Missoula, Bozeman, Pocatello, Fargo (though the Bengals last hosted home a BSC tournament in 1977, I would still expect a big crowd if it were to happen again). Part of the appeal of watching your team fight through the regular season is the hope that they will host the tournament. I have not had that hope for nearly 20 years with the men's team (but I expect that it could happen again with Bill Evans) but I regularly have that hope with the women's team. So that is what the fan is losing and I think that teams that win the regular season should have a distinct advantage in the tournament by hosting. Of course, while I like North Dakota as a team in both women's and men's bb, I don't understand why the Big Sky wanted to expand the geography of the conference so much. The trip to Fargo seems to be driving this from the women's side at least.

 

[mvem]

MVEM:

Yep, eight teams go both men and women. #1 plays #8, 2 plays 7, 3 plays 6, 4 plays 5 in the opening round starting this year.

Damn, that sucks. At least the champ is still hosting in 2015, so the regular season isn't completely worthless.

MVEM and Spud:

Both of you bring up attendance issues to various degrees. I understand where you are coming from in theory but the reality is very few schools in the Big Sky draw well period. It's not like moving to a neutral site is going to cost say 10 thousand fans for an opening round game is it? With respect we aren't talking the Pac-12, SEC or ACC here are we?

One example. This past March at the women's tournament in Grand Forks, the announced attendance for the Eastern - ISU game was 900. In fact there were barely 200 in the stands. History shows that for both the men and women's tournaments unless they are in Ogden or Missoula (men) or Missoula, Pocatello, Bozeman or now Grand Forks (women) you aren't drawing anything anyway. And if the home team loses before the championship game, attendance falls to nothing. Another example, in 2007 when ISU was upset by Weber (if I remember correctly) in the women's semi's the finals played at Reed Gym was basically an empty gym. The game was televised back then Fox Sports Northwest. I watched it at home in Chubbuck. There was almost literally no one in the gym. What really are you losing by going to a neutral site?

The problem with your argument is that the good-drawing teams you do cite are the ones that host the tournament the vast majority of the time. Moving to a neutral site screws over the teams with consistently good programs that get good fan support. This especially applies to the Weber men & the Lady Griz.

In my opinion the needs of the athletes (the most important group of people involved in these things) are more important that any other group...broadcasters, coaches, fans. The ability to get everyone to a site the same way (i.e. flying) because all schools can actually book reasonable travel schedules is paramount and the deciding factor. Again that's just my opinion. And you simply can't do so when you don't know where you are supposed to go until a week or five days before the tournament starts. Can't be done for many schools as Jon from the conference pointed out.

The conference title situation is usually pretty crystalized with at least a week to go, though, so most teams can at least get some of the logistics worked out. It's not like they have to plan for 12 different hosting possibilities. I know last-minute travel arrangements can be a bitch, but that seems like a relatively minor consideration compared to ticket sales and competitive fairness/making the regular season worthwhile.

One final point about attendance that was brought up, i.e. regular season attendance would tank if they simply awarded the automatic bid to the regular season winner because half the schools would be out of the race by February. All I can say is that you haven't been to NAU, Sac. State, Eastern or Portland State for games have you? Attendance is basically nothing (especially for the women) under the current situation, so again I go back to my original point... what are you really losing compared to making things fairer for the athletes?

Well fair enough, but quality of play for eliminated teams is also a concern. How much would it suck for players from multiple teams to go multiple weeks with nothing concrete to play for?

As for athlete "fairness": if you're team doesn't earn hosting rights, they don't really have a right to complain about a hectic schedule IMO. That's part of the race: the best team gets to play in their arena, be comfortable, and sleep in their own beds… while the others have to overcome more adversity if they want the bid. I've never seen that issue really affect the quality of play in the tourney, either. For example: the Lady Griz probably had the worst travel experience of all the tourney teams this year—getting flight-bumped at the last second in favor of the Bobcats—and they still managed to upset the #2-seed & make the title game.

 

[PBP]

MVEN:

Point of clarification. In my opinion Eastern had the roughest trip to No. Dakota getting in around 11PM the night before they had to play ISU. Montana was in No. Dakota in plenty of time to practice and rest this past tournament. And from speaking with some Eastern people they were pretty upset about their situation.

In the six years I've been doing women's play by play in this stretch, by my recollection, four times the tournament host hasn't been decided until the final week, unless a school can pay say 600 per ticket to fly at the last moment some place it's an issue. Again I can only repeat what I've been told by some athletes themselves, riding a bus for 10 hours or 15 hours while another team gets to fly to a location does make a difference in performance especially if they happen to draw that team that can make those arrangements and pick up the cost. (like say Montana...nudge, nudge, wink, wink).

I'm not talking about the host team, I'm talking about a situation where both teams have to travel...one has to take the bus, one can fly at their leisure. It's not like I'm pulling these comments out of thin air...this is what I've been told. Take it for what that may be worth to you.

Our difference of opinion seems to come down, in my opinion to one thing. You feel that the fans' needs should be heard and receive a priority. I don't...to me the athletes have the priority over everything and everyone else.

That doesn't mean necessarily that I'm right and you're wrong or visa versa, we just have a difference of opinion.

And I agree with you that the past women's tournament situation is playing a big factor in this (and can you imagine if Alaska-Anchorage eventually joins the Big Sky and THEY'D get to host????? ) but don't overlook or minimize the fact that Jon Kasper told Brad that every single one of the men's coaches wants the tourney moved to a neutral site. That includes the two schools (Weber and Montana) that as you say seem to host this the majority of times.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out...apparently we should know something in a month. Based on Jon's comments to Brad and the opinions I've gotten from some women's coaches, it's safe to say the coaches in general want it moved to Vegas. Jon seems to imply the presidents are leaning towards the status quo. What might eventually make the difference is how the athletic director's feel and if that could sway the presidents of the schools. I know of one women's coach for example that told me they were going to start lobbying both their A.D. and president to move to a neutral site.

Enjoy the discussion as always.

PBP

 

[mvem]

MVEN:

Point of clarification. In my opinion Eastern had the roughest trip to No. Dakota getting in around 11PM the night before they had to play ISU. Montana was in No. Dakota in plenty of time to practice and rest this past tournament. And from speaking with some Eastern people they were pretty upset about their situation.

In the six years I've been doing women's play by play in this stretch, by my recollection, four times the tournament host hasn't been decided until the final week, unless a school can pay say 600 per ticket to fly at the last moment some place it's an issue. Again I can only repeat what I've been told by some athletes themselves, riding a bus for 10 hours or 15 hours while another team gets to fly to a location does make a difference in performance especially if they happen to draw that team that can make those arrangements and pick up the cost. (like say Montana...nudge, nudge, wink, wink).

I'm not talking about the host team, I'm talking about a situation where both teams have to travel...one has to take the bus, one can fly at their leisure. It's not like I'm pulling these comments out of thin air...this is what I've been told. Take it for what that may be worth to you.

Our difference of opinion seems to come down, in my opinion to one thing. You feel that the fans' needs should be heard and receive a priority. I don't...to me the athletes have the priority over everything and everyone else.

That doesn't mean necessarily that I'm right and you're wrong or visa versa, we just have a difference of opinion.

And I agree with you that the past women's tournament situation is playing a big factor in this (and can you imagine if Alaska-Anchorage eventually joins the Big Sky and THEY'D get to host????? ) but don't overlook or minimize the fact that Jon Kasper told Brad that every single one of the men's coaches wants the tourney moved to a neutral site. That includes the two schools (Weber and Montana) that as you say seem to host this the majority of times.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out...apparently we should know something in a month. Based on Jon's comments to Brad and the opinions I've gotten from some women's coaches, it's safe to say the coaches in general want it moved to Vegas. Jon seems to imply the presidents are leaning towards the status quo. What might eventually make the difference is how the athletic director's feel and if that could sway the presidents of the schools. I know of one women's coach for example that told me they were going to start lobbying both their A.D. and president to move to a neutral site.

Enjoy the discussion as always.

PBP

My arguments weren't so much for the fans' sake as the competitive integrity of the conference (from a national perspective) & the money it can make. Unless Vegas (or wherever) heavily subsidizes the tournament—which may not last long if the fans don't show up—I'm guessing the league can pull in more revenue with a regular-season champ host. It also protects the regular-season champ better than a neutral site. If the best Big Sky team makes the tourney, that means a better chance to win games & advance further in the NCAAs. Advancing further in the NCAAs means the Big Sky gets a bigger share of the NCAA Tournament TV contract money, which is a big deal from what I understand. My concern is that a neutral site will up the likelyhood of something like a title game between two teams with losing records—I believe that happened in at least a couple conferences this past season.

At any event, a totally neutral site is preferable to having a conference school be a random, predetermined host. A Weber fan on their board pointed out that Boise won the whole thing that way when they hosted as a #6 seed (1994, I think).

I am surprised all the men's coaches want it moved neutral, especially Rahe. Then again, the coaches probably aren't as concerned about revenue as the presidents & ADs.

 

[spudbowl]

MVEM

Boise State hosted in 1994? even though ISU won the regular tournament championship. I believe it was Potter's junior year (1994?). BSU was the permanent site. They knocked off the Bengals and ISU fans were outraged that the Broncos hosted as the permanent site as a #6 seed. Not long after that, they returned to the top team in the regular season hosting. The proposed new format would have a neutral site of course in Las Vegas.

 

[mvem]

MVEM

Boise State hosted in 1994? even though ISU won the regular tournament championship. I believe it was Potter's junior year (1994?). BSU was the permanent site. They knocked off the Bengals and ISU fans were outraged that the Broncos hosted as the permanent site as a #6 seed. Not long after that, they returned to the top team in the regular season hosting. The proposed new format would have a neutral site of course in Las Vegas.

Yeah, I was just saying that a neutral site—though not as good as the current format IMO—isn't the worst option available.

And, from checking wikipedia just now, it was 1994. I think that was the only year the Big Sky Tourney has had a predetermined site, though I'm not certain.

 

[sacstateman]

Wouldn't Reno be a logical location. You wouldn't be competing with the pac12, wac, wcc and whoever else plays their tourney in Vegas. Reno would also be closer to almost every team except NAU and SUU.

 

[Spudhead]

Wouldn't Reno be a logical location. You wouldn't be competing with the pac12, wac, wcc and whoever else plays their tourney in Vegas. Reno would also be closer to almost every team except NAU and SUU.

I hope they are at least looking into Reno. I don't think the Big Sky would get as great a deal in Vegas, since now they are an also-ran when compared to the MWC, Pac 12, WCC and so on. I think Reno would jump at the chance to draw a tournament, and the hotels would make some sweet deals. You'd also be close to Tahoe and all the resorts like Squaw Valley. The Reno Events Center is right downtown, close to the major hotels, and it seats around 5,000 to 7,000 for basketball, so it wouldn't look so cavernous on TV.

http://www.visitrenotahoe.com/meetings-conventions/facilities/reno-events-center" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://renoregencyapartments.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Reno-Regency-Aerial-Map.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[PBP]

Reno would be an excellent choice in my opinion.

PBP

 

[bill_idaflls]

Reno's a good choice, but I'd vote for Lawlor Events Center at UNR. There's not a bad seat in the house and it seats 11,600. The University is a short distance north of city center, just off the interstate.

http://www.gotickets.com/venues/nv/lawlor_event_center.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[pocatato]

I spent a year in Reno one week.