More emphasis on basketball

[Skippy]

After getting the Big Sky release on the football TV schedule, I asked Jon Oglesby of the conference office about the possibility of broadcasting Big Sky basketball. Here is his reply:

"There have been multiple discussions between the Big Sky Conference and Root Sports to broadcast basketball, and these have been ongoing. Unfortunately, the two sides have not been able to come up with a mutually-beneficial agreement on that issue.

Since returning from the conference championships in Reno, there have been multiple discussions in the league office, led by deputy commissioner Ron Loghry, on ways to improve basketball and television remains a part of that discussion.

Improving basketball is one of the primary initiatives in our league right now, and televising basketball remains an avenue the conference office is pursuing."

The fact the conference office is putting more emphasis on improving basketball is a good thing in my view. I think there is a lot of low hanging fruit that could be picked in this area, including scheduling, officiating and marketing. I'm looking forward to seeing what comes of this new emphasis.

 

[PBP]

Well we'll see if anything comes to pass. And I hope the women have some games televised as well if this situation ever comes to pass. In many respects, the women have been putting on a better product than the men the past few years they certainly have a lot better balance with more teams that I'd categorize as pretty good.

As far as the scheduling I must disagree with my broadcast partner. Simply put unless they are paid very, very well other mid majors aren't going to want to travel to any schools in the conference. Coaches do not want to put up with say flying into Salt Lake and having to bus to Pocatello or flying into Phoenix and having to bus to NAU or So. Utah and everyone knows the issues simply getting to North Dakota from just about anywhere other than Minneapolis. I have been told by an individual in the conference office that the conference for example, can't help individual schools pay to get better teams to come to their places because "the conference doesn't have the money to do it."

The 'big boys' want only home games or neutral sites...the mid-majors basically only want home games. It's going to be very tough for the Big Sky to get a equitable break when it comes to scheduling.

Now if Brad is talking about basically playing road money games that is probably do-able and many Big Sky schools are forced to rely on that already.

For right or wrong you also have the perception of the Big Sky men's league as a poor basketball league. I've been told for example by folks who should know that the Big Sky has reached out to the Big West trying to develop a situation like the SEC/Big 12 challenge or the ACC/Big 10 challenge and have been rebuffed.

You don't have a lot of options west of the Mississippi that you can work with from a league stand point. And if you start thinking about the Midwest or the South for example you've got the same situation regarding travel issues that coaches don't want to deal with.

I hope something can be worked out for the league but right now I'm not that optimistic.

PBP

 

[SLCBengal]

I wonder if Eversport and/or the Big Sky are looking at making the games available through a streaming device (i.e. Roku, Apple TV, Amazon Fire TV, Chromecast...)? I know some cable companies and satellite TV providers have seen a decrease in subscribers, because there are so many other options available for programming (and at a lower cost).

I haven't cut the cord completely, but I trimmed it quite a bit last year. It didn't make sense paying for 200+ channels, and only regularly watching ~15 of them. I don't get quite the number of sports stations which I used to get, but because I still receive ESPN, ESPN2..., I can use the "Watch ESPN" app on my Amazon Fire TV and get those games and many others (through what used to be referred to as ESPN3).

I'd love to see Big Sky basketball games on a regular cable station, but there's a whole new platform out there to explore as well...

 

[PBP]

I wonder if Eversport and/or the Big Sky are looking at making the games available through a streaming device (i.e. Roku, Apple TV, Amazon Fire TV, Chromecast...)? I know some cable companies and satellite TV providers have seen a decrease in subscribers, because there are so many other options available for programming (and at a lower cost).

I haven't cut the cord completely, but I trimmed it quite a bit last year. It didn't make sense paying for 200+ channels, and only regularly watching ~15 of them. I don't get quite the number of sports stations which I used to get, but because I still receive ESPN, ESPN2..., I can use the "Watch ESPN" app on my Amazon Fire TV and get those games and many others (through what used to be referred to as ESPN3).

I'd love to see Big Sky basketball games on a regular cable station, but there's a whole new platform out there to explore as well...

Very interesting point but what kind of numbers are you talking about... as in how many homes would have the potential to watch these games if your suggestion came to pass.

I'd venture to say not many and that is one of a real driving force behind conferences trying to work out a deal with television...how many eyeballs could possibly watch our product?

PBP

 

[Skippy]

Very true, SLC. I don't have cable or Satellite at my place in Bear Lake, but with Roku I can still see a lot of sports programming. Old fashioned over the air or cable television is no longer the only way to skin a cat.

As to scheduling, Mark I largely agree with your assessment of how tough it is to get non-conference games in the Big Sky. One of the first things I would do is go to a completely balanced conference schedule. Everybody plays everybody else home and home. That's four extra, quality games for everybody. Then I'd continue to explore scheduling agreements, pre-season challenges and tournaments, etc. no silver bullets out there, but opportunities to work the phones hard and see what you can come up with.

Every Big Sky team has to play money games -- that's a given. Trying to find decent D-1 home games is the challenge.

Finally as to televising women's games, I'd love to see it too, but I'm not optimistic for a league wide contract. Some schools, like North Dakota and NAU, are able to get some of their women's games broadcast, but it would be difficult to get a league wide deal for broader exposure. Not impossible, though, and I'd love to see the league put in the effort to try to make it happen.

 

[Skippy]

I wonder if Eversport and/or the Big Sky are looking at making the games available through a streaming device (i.e. Roku, Apple TV, Amazon Fire TV, Chromecast...)? I know some cable companies and satellite TV providers have seen a decrease in subscribers, because there are so many other options available for programming (and at a lower cost).

I haven't cut the cord completely, but I trimmed it quite a bit last year. It didn't make sense paying for 200+ channels, and only regularly watching ~15 of them. I don't get quite the number of sports stations which I used to get, but because I still receive ESPN, ESPN2..., I can use the "Watch ESPN" app on my Amazon Fire TV and get those games and many others (through what used to be referred to as ESPN3).

I'd love to see Big Sky basketball games on a regular cable station, but there's a whole new platform out there to explore as well...

Very interesting point but what kind of numbers are you talking about... as in how many homes would have the potential to watch these games if your suggestion came to pass.

I'd venture to say not many and that is one of a real driving force behind conferences trying to work out a deal with television...how many eyeballs could possibly watch our product?

PBP

Just about every home Mark. All you need is WIFI and a device like Apple TV or ROKU (which costs about $80). Sure there is going to be a very narrow audience for Big Sky basketball, but that's probably the reason Root Sports has decided not to carry it in the first place.

 

[SLCBengal]

As of September of 2014:

Roku has sold 10 million streaming players in the US, says CEO Anthony Wood in a blog post today. The milestone is a significant one for the California-based company in a market that by all accounts has tremendous growth potential. The NPD Group in a recent report estimates that 17% of US Internet households owned a streaming media player as of Q2 2014, a figure they predict will rise to 39% by 2017. The two dominant players have long been Apple and Roku, though recently both Google and Amazon have joined the fray with streaming options of their own.

Sales of 10 million units still places Roku well behind Apple, who this summer boasted of having sold twice that many Apple TVs, even with minimal marketing efforts.

Forbes: Roku Passes 10 Million Mark as Streaming Competition Heats Up

 

[SLCBengal]

As to scheduling, Mark I largely agree with your assessment of how tough it is to get non-conference games in the Big Sky. One of the first things I would do is go to a completely balanced conference schedule. Everybody plays everybody else home and home. That's four extra, quality games for everybody. Then I'd continue to explore scheduling agreements, pre-season challenges and tournaments, etc. no silver bullets out there, but opportunities to work the phones hard and see what you can come up with.

Every Big Sky team has to play money games -- that's a given. Trying to find decent D-1 home games is the challenge.

Boise lost its NBA D-League team this week (the Jazz moved it to SLC), so that's going to leave a lot of open dates at the downtown Century Link Arena. How about Idaho and ISU working together to host a 4 team D1 tournament, switching opponents on day 2, and getting some exposure for both schools in the Boise area..?

 

[PBP]

As to scheduling, Mark I largely agree with your assessment of how tough it is to get non-conference games in the Big Sky. One of the first things I would do is go to a completely balanced conference schedule. Everybody plays everybody else home and home. That's four extra, quality games for everybody. Then I'd continue to explore scheduling agreements, pre-season challenges and tournaments, etc. no silver bullets out there, but opportunities to work the phones hard and see what you can come up with.

Every Big Sky team has to play money games -- that's a given. Trying to find decent D-1 home games is the challenge.

Boise lost its NBA D-League team this week (the Jazz moved it to SLC), so that's going to leave a lot of open dates at the downtown Century Link Arena. How about Idaho and ISU working together to host a 4 team D1 tournament, switching opponents on day 2, and getting some exposure for both schools in the Boise area..?

Again a very interesting idea. ISU both men and women have played games in Boise (and they weren't playing BSU) so that could be considered a neutral site.

I also know the ISU women at one time hosted a Thanksgiving tournament, I broadcast it one year...ISU, Air Force, Cal Poly and Toledo were the teams and I've asked about why this hasn't been brought back. As with most other things it's about money. You have to pay something to the teams to come to Pocatello and sponsors have to be forthcoming. The Red Lion back in the day was the tournament hotel host for the women's one for example. I don't know if the men ever had a holiday tournament, maybe Jerry or Brad can answer that one.

Part of the reason the Montana women play 16 or 17 home games a season (which is a huge advantage) is because they've had a Thanksgiving tournament for years...of course they can also afford to pay teams to come to Missoula and most often get beat pretty good.

PBP

 

[Skippy]

Utah State just dropped its four team tournament that ISU has participated in many times. They said they were having a hard time attracting good teams. With all the problems everybody is having scheduling, you'd think creating some kind of clearinghouse would be a good approach to helping teams schedule.

 

[mvem]

Part of the reason the Montana women play 16 or 17 home games a season (which is a huge advantage) is because they've had a Thanksgiving tournament for years

December tournament. It was between Christmas & New Year's until the recent conference expansions. It's currently at around the weekend before Christmas.

...of course they can also afford to pay teams to come to Missoula and most often get beat pretty good.

:?:

 

[mvem]

Utah State just dropped its four team tournament that ISU has participated in many times. They said they were having a hard time attracting good teams. With all the problems everybody is having scheduling, you'd think creating some kind of clearinghouse would be a good approach to helping teams schedule.

This has been a problem for Montana as well. In 2004, the Lady Griz Classic had a Florida State team that ended up getting a #6-seed, as well as Louisville and defending America East champ Maine. Recent years have largely been filled with teams with less notoriety. They haven't all been bad teams, of course, but no major conference teams that I recall. I'm kinda surprised these 4-team tourneys are still so predominant on the women's side since they aren't schedule-exempt (you need 3 games to count as an "exempt" tournament). They're almost non-existent now for men's basketball.

 

[PBP]

...of course they can also afford to pay teams to come to Missoula and most often get beat pretty good.

:?:

Don't see what is to question. Look how many times Montana has lost that tournament... it's because of two reasons...1) Montana is usually pretty good. 2) Like all schools that host a tournament they hand pick the opponents coming to Missoula. You pointed that out and its a correct assumption especially recently with the quality of the opponents coming in for the tourney. Let's put it this way, UM will probably never schedule UConn or say Baylor or Maryland to just throw some names out there, even if those schools would come. It's never a good thing to lose at home or even worse lose badly at home.

As an aside just in case I'm misrepresenting your question mark, many schools in the Big Sky simply can't afford to get teams to come to their place even if said schools would. To put up with the difficulty in travel you'd have to make it worth their while. See my above post in the thread where I talk about the person from the Big Sky Conference saying even they can't help teams pay to get schools to come to improve their home schedules.

PBP

 

[mvem]

...of course they can also afford to pay teams to come to Missoula and most often get beat pretty good.

:?:

Don't see what is to question. Look how many times Montana has lost that tournament... it's because of two reasons...1) Montana is usually pretty good. 2) Like all schools that host a tournament they hand pick the opponents coming to Missoula. You pointed that out and its a correct assumption especially recently with the quality of the opponents coming in for the tourney. Let's put it this way, UM will probably never schedule UConn or say Baylor or Maryland to just throw some names out there, even if those schools would come. It's never a good thing to lose at home or even worse lose badly at home.

As an aside just in case I'm misrepresenting your question mark, many schools in the Big Sky simply can't afford to get teams to come to their place even if said schools would. To put up with the difficulty in travel you'd have to make it worth their while. See my above post in the thread where I talk about the person from the Big Sky Conference saying even they can't help teams pay to get schools to come to improve their home schedules.

PBP

No, I just thought your statement meant things the other way around (that the Lady Griz were getting beat pretty good).

And I'm sure UM would get better teams in that that thing if they could. They used to get major conference teams in that tournament all the time, but that dried up about a decade ago. I really can't imagine the Lady Griz would say no if UConn or Baylor actually agreed to do it. The attendance would likely double the usual number.

 

[JJB]

There's no way UM or any other Big Sky women's program turns away a UCONN or Baylor.

 

[PBP]

There's no way UM or any other Big Sky women's program turns away a UCONN or Baylor.

Well it's kind of a moot point because they'll never come to a Big Sky school but just for discussion purposes look at this way.

Given Montana's athletic budget and the money they have overall is it worth it to them (or more specifically Robin Selvig) to get embarrassed at home by a UConn or Baylor simply to draw four thousand more fans for a single game?

I've talked to a number of coaches along these lines and the vast majority of those I asked said they'd want no part...zero on hosting a team like that and getting drilled by 30 or 40 points.

Home fans don't take to kindly to that is the sense I'm getting and ultimately that starts to reflect back on the head coach.

Like I said it's an interesting discussion but the odds of us seeing a national power play in Missoula or Pocatello or Greeley or Cedar City today is practically zero.

PBP

 

[mvem]

There's no way UM or any other Big Sky women's program turns away a UCONN or Baylor.

Well it's kind of a moot point because they'll never come to a Big Sky school but just for discussion purposes look at this way.

Given Montana's athletic budget and the money they have overall is it worth it to them (or more specifically Robin Selvig) to get embarrassed at home by a UConn or Baylor simply to draw four thousand more fans for a single game?

I've talked to a number of coaches along these lines and the vast majority of those I asked said they'd want no part...zero on hosting a team like that and getting drilled by 30 or 40 points.

Home fans don't take to kindly to that is the sense I'm getting and ultimately that starts to reflect back on the head coach.

Like I said it's an interesting discussion but the odds of us seeing a national power play in Missoula or Pocatello or Greeley or Cedar City today is practically zero.

PBP

Lady Griz fans aren't very fickle, so I don't think that would matter too much. Besides, losing to UConn by just 30 means you're a top-25 caliber team now.

 

[PBP]

Lady Griz fans aren't very fickle, so I don't think that would matter too much. Besides, losing to UConn by just 30 means you're a top-25 caliber team now. [/quote]

Point well taken! LOL!

PBP