Future Big Sky Basketball Tournament

[Skippy]

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

Hopefully the league contacted a LOT of cities and urged them to bid.

 

[PBP]

Brad:

Probably. The results speak for themselves though, unfortunately, with only seven (or is it eight?) responses.

No Boise, no Phoenix, no Salt Lake City, no Denver (although I guess you could argue Ogden is part of SLC). Seton on the coaches show suggested Los Angeles, Seattle and Phoenix for whatever that's worth.

My own opinion is as long as it's a neutral site, fair to all athletes and doesn't give a particular school a real advantage I'm fine with it.

PBP

 

[PBP]

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.

Boise:

Have to agree. Kyle is doing a very good job. Not trying to be derogatory towards Chase but it was pretty clear his loyalties were directed towards Boise State. And there's nothing wrong with that... many BSU fans in Southeast Idaho but there were times when I got the clear impression that BSU was being given coverage at the expense of ISU and that I couldn't agree with given the location of the newspaper itself.

PBP

 

[SLCBengal]

Ogden's Standard-Examiner had an article this weekend on the subject. Even after the bidding, there's still a possibility nothing will change...

With all of the different elements, factors, and considerations to be made, it’s still possible that the university presidents will decide to forgo any changes at all, and continue will the current format of having the regular season champion host the tournament, as has been done since 1976.

“That’s very much a possibility,” said Loghry. “The presidents had us write into the RFP (request for proposal), however, there is no binding clause to any of this. They at any time could say, ‘No, we’re staying with what we have.’ They wanted that in there. The presidents were really centered in on the financial aspect of it.”

Standard-Examiner: WSU hopes to be the predetermined site for conference tournament

 

[PBP]

I understand the president's concerns but it's apparently hurting schools badly from a financial aspect as well when they have to try to get airplane tickets at the last moment to fly somewhere like North Dakota, or Flagstaff or Pocatello or Portland and the cost is outrageous. How do you strike that balance? Ron Loughry himself cited costs of 30,000-40,000 thousand dollars in the Billings newspaper story for some programs.

Another issue particularly regarding North Dakota (which can possibly host the women's tournament again this season). Last year after Sacramento State lost their first game on Thursday, some of their players / staff couldn't get out until Sunday because of the limited number of flights and limited spaces on said planes. Sac. State had the cost of hotel and meals for additional days for their folks. Another financial issue that has to be considered.

As bizarre as this sounds, from an economic standpoint it may be better for the schools themselves to play at a location they can get to easily, and can book far enough in advance to get good travel prices even if it means playing in front of only a few hundred fans at a really "neutral" site (say Reno), then have to shell out a lot more money to try to get to a location at the last minute and play in front of a thousand or 15 hundred fans (say for women's basketball in general save for Montana / Montana State...) I grant you it may not "look good" from a PR / TV standpoint for the conference but if the most important point is money, how can you justify the very costly additional expenses for a very limited number of additional fans? To me that cost doesn't equal the return.

Plus as Seton himself discussed on the coaches' show (and others have told me privately) it's simply to much of an advantage to give any current Big Sky program the right to host for the next three years. Montana in women's basketball and Weber State in men's basketball doesn't need any additional help to be successful.

PBP