Future Big Sky Basketball Tournament

[sasquatch]

Heard tonight that the Big Sky accepted bids from cities about hosting the future tournament for 3 years. It sounds like Reno and Billings are the only two neutral cities to bid, the rest are Big Sky cities.

http://mtstandard.com/sports/college/big-sky-conference/montana-state-university/billings-rimrock-auto-arena-chasing-big-sky-conference-tournament/article_dc3ab2ca-f199-59d8-bba3-165820460ca8.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[Skippy]

Heard tonight that the Big Sky accepted bids from cities about hosting the future tournament for 3 years. It sounds like Reno and Billings are the only two neutral cities to bid, the rest are Big Sky cities.

http://mtstandard.com/sports/college/big-sky-conference/montana-state-university/billings-rimrock-auto-arena-chasing-big-sky-conference-tournament/article_dc3ab2ca-f199-59d8-bba3-165820460ca8.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Too bad the new events center is delayed, we could have bid too.

 

[clawsout]

.....yes that's too bad...oh wait I forgot....you're just teasing us... :rofl: :rofl: .. dang it...... :roll:

 

[PBP]

Very surprised that Boise didn't put in a bid.

PBP

 

[Skippy]

Story about Reno's bid. I would think they'd draw very poorly in Reno, which is a long way from every Big Sky school other than Sac. And Sac doesn't draw at its home arena.

http://www.rgj.com/story/sports/2015/01/26/reno-bids-host-big-sky-basketball-tournaments/22360333/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[PBP]

Just wanted to weigh in with my thoughts on this.

I’ve spent some time thinking about this issue over the years and I’m glad the conference has now decided they have to move on the situation and get some stability and resolution to it. That’s a good thing.

I hope though that there is a ‘third option’ being looked at…one that strikes a compromise between “travel certainly” (which is VERY important in my mind) and fan support (i.e. ticket sales – which is also important.)

I say, “Just look at history and work from there…”

Here's what I mean.

Historically Weber State and Montana, over time have shown they have the best support / community interest in men’s basketball. Historically over time Montana, Montana State and Idaho State have shown the best support / community interest in women’s basketball. North Dakota, although a newer member of the conference, has also shown great support in women’s basketball.

So what I would do would be to award on a rotating basis, starting in March 2016 the men’s tournament to Weber State and then Montana for men’s play. I’d do the same thing for the women’s tournament…Montana State, Montana, Idaho State, North Dakota over a four year cycle starting in March 2016.

After the two year cycle for the men and four year cycle for the women, the situation would be re-evaluated. If any other school in the conference shows that they are beginning to draw well, have great community support, they can be placed in the respective rotation. If no other school shows this, the respective cycle continues, then is looked at again after the cycle plays out.

This certainly gives everyone “travel certainty” while also giving the conference the best chance to draw fans and generate income. I mean schools would know well ahead of time, "OK, this March it's in Bozeman for the women...Odgen for the men. Next year it's in...ect."

If I had to choose between as the newspaper story says, “neutrality” or “fan support” (i.e. ticket revenue); I’d choose neutrality every time. Hello Reno!!!!!

I simply think giving a school like Weber (men’s basketball) or Montana (women’s basketball) the ability to host every year is giving them far too much of an advantage…you have to make it as fair as possible for the athletes.

Some other thoughts…

Part of the decision making, if certain schools are awarded the post season tournament on a regular continual basis (the newspaper story mentioned Odgen, Missoula, Spokane / Cheney for example), could be that the conference wants to minimize the chance of a bad team getting hot for three days and grabbing the automatic NCAA berth. In that case the conference wouldn’t be sending their best representative. That can happen of course, so what I’d do would be to award the NCAA berth to the regular season champion.

But what about the conference tournament you ask?

Well you could do two things.

Option #1 – Eliminate it completely.

Option #2 – Still hold a post season tournament, only the teams are playing for the NIT and WNIT automatic berths! If the regular season champ happens to win the post season tournament than the bid is given to the runner-up team that lost in the finals. You would still have motivation and something to play for. Regarding the regular season champ, would they have any motivation then? They actually could. Winning the post season title could get them a higher seed in the NCAA’s.

Final thought, the newspaper story said the conference is going to invite all teams to the post season tournaments starting next March. I don’t know if that’s a good idea... that could really hurt motivation during the regular season (i.e. hey…we lost three straight but we’re going anyway so big deal…) I always thought the post season tournament, be it a conference or the NCAA’s should be a reward for doing well. This isn’t “everyone gets a trophy day” or a “participation ribbon award…” LOL.

My scenarios aren’t perfect but I think they have some merit. We will see what happens next month.

Also I’ll have a representative from the conference joining me at halftime of the ISU-Weber State women’s game on Saturday, February 7. I’ll be sure to ask the person about all this that’s now coming out. Game will be broadcast on KISU radio FM 91.1 (and yes they stream on their web site) or available via the internet at http://www.isubengals.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

PBP

 

[spudbowl]

Jon Newlee indicates that without a tournament site, players are denied a tourney experience. Yet, I wonder what type of tourney experience a player has playing in front of a few hundred fans at a neutral site instead of a sold out home court of a regular season champion (like ISU in 2012). It is likely, I have seen my last Big Sky championship in person (I saw two women's championships 2001 and 2012 and one men's championship, 1977). Oh well, times change.

 

[PBP]

Spud:

Of course (playing devil's advocate here only), what happens when the host team gets knocked out before the finals? How many folks were in the stands for example at Reed Gym for the finals involving Northern Arizona and (I think) Weber State in the women's tournament after the Wildcats upset ISU in the semi-finals? That game was on Fox Sports Northwest, watched it at my house and Reed Gym was a ghost town.

Not saying Jon is right but the same situation, playing in front of a few hundred fans at best happens even at "home venues" and happens often enough so that it has to be factored in when a final decision is made, in my opinion.

I think Jon's point may be, that even if it is in front of a few hundred fans only, the circumstances surrounding the event...being in a new city, getting whatever gifts the conference hands out to participants...things like that, may make up for lack of attendance.

I know when ISU went to Cancun the championship year, there were maybe 50 people in the stands when they played Tennessee-Chattanooga and Tulane...but that didn't stop the players and coaches from enjoying the experience and last year in the first round game against Eastern at North Dakota, there were maybe 250 people in the stands since UND wasn't playing. That didn't stop ISU from playing hard and enjoying the overtime win.

PBP

 

[spudbowl]

Spud:

Of course (playing devil's advocate here only), what happens when the host team gets knocked out before the finals? How many folks were in the stands for example at Reed Gym for the finals involving Northern Arizona and (I think) Weber State in the women's tournament after the Wildcats upset ISU in the semi-finals? That game was on Fox Sports Northwest, watched it at my house and Reed Gym was a ghost town.
PBP

Yes, I totally see the point. A championship game in Pocatello is pretty rare but pretty darn exciting and I will miss those (though, there have been only 3 bb's championships in Poky). Believe it or not, I did attend the Weber-NAU championship game in Reed. I remember that there was a loud anti-Weber person in the stands (all 50 of us) and he was embarrassing with such a small crowd.

 

[PBP]

Just realized that the newspaper story didn't mention Vegas. Heard it was off the table months ago because the conference couldn't find an interested venue to host.

PBP

 

[JJB]

But what about the conference tournament you ask?

Well you could do two things.

Option #1 – Eliminate it completely.

Option #2 – Still hold a post season tournament, only the teams are playing for the NIT and WNIT automatic berths! If the regular season champ happens to win the post season tournament than the bid is given to the runner-up team that lost in the finals. You would still have motivation and something to play for. Regarding the regular season champ, would they have any motivation then? They actually could. Winning the post season title could get them a higher seed in the NCAA’s.

Final thought, the newspaper story said the conference is going to invite all teams to the post season tournaments starting next March. I don’t know if that’s a good idea... that could really hurt motivation during the regular season (i.e. hey…we lost three straight but we’re going anyway so big deal…) I always thought the post season tournament, be it a conference or the NCAA’s should be a reward for doing well. This isn’t “everyone gets a trophy day” or a “participation ribbon award…” LOL.
PBP

Option #1 - Not realistic and not going to happen. Also, does the Big Sky want to lose the exposure of its only basketball game played between two members on ESPN go away?

Option #2 - Unless things have changed, there is no auto-berth for the NIT - other than the regular season conference champ qualifying IF they lose the conference tournament. You might work a deal with one of the other lesser tournaments (CIT?), but what's the point?

The coaches want all 12 teams. True, it could hurt motivation during the season. But on the flip side, how many times have we seen teams mathematically eliminated weeks before the tournament? Does that mean their motivation to win is gone? Teams will still play hard. Nobody likes to lose. You're still playing for seeding. I agree that the regular season should mean something, and if they decide to continue with 8, for example, I'd still have no problem.

If the Big Sky is going to try the pre-determined site, it needs to be NEUTRAL. Rotating between only 3 or 4 school sites is not fair, regardless of what their regular season attendance is. You don't think there's a recruiting advantage for a school knowing it will be hosting the tournament for 2 or 3 years at a time?

Give Reno a shot. I'm warm to the Billings deal. I don't think Spokane would support the Big Sky. Loveland has a great arena, but it sits right between Colorado and Colorado State - probably hard to get that fan base interested.

 

[PBP]

JJB:

Again just playing devil's advocate, I've seen for the past few years teams that basically have been eliminated in February simply going through the motions... some individual players keep playing hard but overall if you are say, Weber State in women's basketball the past four years, by the time Valentine's Day has arrived those players have basically checked out.

Totally agree with you on a neutral site, but that's not completely how the conference is thinking. Ticket sales, attendance, the ability to turn a profit is going to play a big part in the final determination.

I'm simply saying that given a choice, I'd rather rotate the tournament among schools that historically have shown they support the sport than give it completely to a SINGLE school for "X' number of years, if going to a neutral site isn't an option. That's totally unfair to the athletes and the other programs and if you read the newspaper article it lists three or four cities right in a particular Big Sky schools backyard. That's why I suggested the "rotation" policy as a viable third option to split the difference as it were.

I spoke Tuesday morning with a person who works for another Big Sky school and they were telling me if Montana say gets the women's tournament for the next three years, their administration is going to be very, very angry. That UM already has a number of advantages over other Big Sky schools...they don't need to be given more.

If it was up to me I'd choose Reno, but it isn't up to me. As the story said it looks like it's coming down to those who feel neutrality is the main point and those who think it's ticket sales, attendance...call it whatever you choose to call that by.

We'll know soon enough which way the wind blew in all this.

PBP

 

[FormerISUSID]

There's enough places near Ogden and SLC that aren't the Dees Events Center that you could play the thing in. Centrally located, easy to fly to, and then you have a neutral court that isn't away from the fans.

If you are going to Reno, just go all out and go to Vegas...make it a destination at least.

Former ISUSID

 

[Skippy]

There's enough places near Ogden and SLC that aren't the Dees Events Center that you could play the thing in. Centrally located, easy to fly to, and then you have a neutral court that isn't away from the fans.

If you are going to Reno, just go all out and go to Vegas...make it a destination at least.

Former ISUSID

The problem with Vegas is there is no available venue at that time of the year. That's why Vegas didn't bid. Reno's a dump, but it really doesn't matter, because a truly "neutral site" won't draw any fans anyway. The only way you're going to get any kind of attendance is to have it someplace like Billings or Spokane, which is within driving distance of at least a couple of Big Sky schools.

 

[bengalcub]

Utah Valley State gets my vote.

 

[PBP]

On the coaches show tonight I asked Seton his thoughts on the newspaper story. Boiled down he feels that if you are going to do this, you simply have to go to a completely neutral site like Reno.

He said that holding the tournament in Missoula, Flagstaff, Billings, Cheney is simply giving a particular school and their fan base to much of an advantage. He said if Montana were to host the women's tournament, as long they finished in the top five in the conference, they'd have a great chance of winning the thing because they rarely lose at home.

He said if you aren't going to have it at a neutral site, "why bother doing it in the first place?"

He said he hopes the conference doesn't get caught up in the fact that they are more worried about ticket sales (i.e. attendance / money) than doing what's fair for the athletes.

PBP

 

[spudbowl]

Many of us can remember when ISU men's bb team had a great year (about 1994? -Jim Potter's junior year). The Bengals won the Big Sky regular season but the tourney was permanently in Boise. Boise State (the four seed, I believe) then knocked the Bengals (the #1 seed) off in the championship game of the tournament (I think we beat Idaho in the first game). The game was played at the BSU Pavilion where a four seed had a home court advantage against a 1 seed. ISU fans were outraged and after that it went back to the team that won the regular season hosting the tournament.

 

[Skippy]

Many of us can remember when ISU men's bb team had a great year (about 1994? -Jim Potter's junior year). The Bengals won the Big Sky regular season but the tourney was permanently in Boise. Boise State (the four seed, I believe) then knocked the Bengals (the #1 seed) off in the championship game of the tournament (I think we beat Idaho in the first game). The game was played at the BSU Pavilion where a four seed had a home court advantage against a 1 seed. ISU fans were outraged and after that it went back to the team that won the regular season hosting the tournament.

Spud, I remember that well. It was 1993. The Big Sky had made the decision to put the tournament at the site of the team that won the conference championship the previous year -- which was Boise. So even though ISU and Weber shared the conference championship, they never got to host it. Then, after Boise won the title, they made the decision to change the format, shafting ISU once again.

We have seen multiple different approaches to the post-season tournament over the past 20 years. The one I enjoyed the most was taking the top six teams, giving 1 and 2 a bye, and allowing 3 and 4 to host a first-round game. Then the survivors and 1 and 2 meet on the home floor of the top seed. It created a lot more interest in late season games -- teams were playing for the right to host first-round games, as well as trying to just get into the tournament, and to host the "final four." Now that the conference is up to 12 teams, I can see why that won't work.

But the only "sure" thing is that no matter what format the league decides on for next year, it will change it shortly thereafter, because SOMEBODY is going to be unhappy with it.

 

[PBP]

In the Friday Journal, Kyle Franco has a story on the potential changes to the tournament format.

He has some interesting quotes in it from a Reno individual associated with their convention and visitors bureau. Apparently Reno has a person who works solely on bringing sports to that city.

Reno has hosted 11 division-1 basketball tournaments over the years.

What got me was the quote from that person who said that the Big Sky themselves actually contacted Reno and said, "we'd really like to see you guys bid."

Is that a hint on where this is going?

PBP

 

[boisebengal]

You've got to hand it to Kyle Franko -- he's doing a much better job covering ISU sports for the Journal than Chase Glorfield did (I subscribe to the Journal online and it's only 5 bucks per month). I wouldn't mind going to Reno every now and then for the Big Sky tourney -- even if Reno is an older, dumpy town. At least there's a lot of things to do down there.