New Tourney location

[WILDCAT]

Having watched all the first round games but one yesterday, (missed UNC/PSU due to work) I noticed that the Reno Events Center was as predicted..... A ghost town. There could have been many factors involved like apathy, money, work leave and travel. To me travel and money are the biggest factors, some schools' fans have to travel quite a ways and the farther to travel the more money and time is needed to take, which is why I say the Big Sky should move the tournament to a more centralized location within the Big Sky, and in my opinion there is no better venue than the Maverick Center in SLC. The Mav Center is literally smack dab in the center of the conference and it does reward the biggest and most dedicated fan base with the least amount of travel. I'm sure I'm gonna get flack from non Weber posters, but is there any other place to play more centralized than SLC?

Here is a list of each school's travel time and miles away from both Reno and SLC

School / hours to Reno / miles to Reno / hours to SLC (difference) / miles to SLC (difference)

Eastern Washington / 12.17 / 783 / 10.49 (-2) / 738 (-45)
Idaho / 11.28 / 693 / 10.24 (-1) / 638 (-55)
Idaho State / 8.26 / 566 / 2.25 (-6) / 166 (-400)
Montana / 13.18 / 766 / 7.01 (-6) / 525 (-241)
Montana State / 12.27 / 808 / 6.31 (-6) / 419 (-389)
North Dakota / 23.55 / 1,620 / 17.50 (-6) / 1,170 (-450)
Northern Arizona / 10.43 / 697 / 8.20 (-2) / 516 (-181)
Northern Colorado / 14.29 / 1,000 / 7.14 (-7) / 487 (-513)
Portland State / 9.05 / 532 / 11.56 (+2) / 768 (+236)
Sacramento State / 2.14 / 132 / 9.23 (+7) / 650 (+518)
Southern Utah / 8.15 / 522 / 3.38 (-5) / 252 (-270)
Weber State / 7.53 / 553 / .40 (-7) / 40 (-513)

Granted Sac and PSU would have to travel farther, but is it more fair now when 10 schools have to travel farther to get to Reno? 2 schools having to travel farther to help 10 other schools from more travel is worth it alone, plus with less travel, more fans may be inclined to make the trip. What do you guys think?

 

[SWWeatherCat]

The numbers overwhelmingly speak for themselves. I'm still vehemently against a neutral site tournament and a all team inclusion, but West Valley would certainly be a thousand times more attractive than the biggest little piss hole in the west.

 

[Geo-Guy15]

I'd never considered the Maverick Center as an option but that would be awesome! Definitely makes a lot more sense than what is going on now. They are currently closest to two of the least dedicated fan bases in the big sky... Sac State and PSU... Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

 

[Tomcat]

Here goes nothing,I want the tourney hosted by the winner of the regular season and all schools that compete in the big sky should have facilities available and to have access to said facilities even if that means they have to host it somewhere else.Somewhere of their choosing.

 

[WILDCAT]

Here goes nothing,I want the tourney hosted by the winner of the regular season and all schools that compete in the big sky should have facilities available and to have access to said facilities even if that means they have to host it somewhere else.Somewhere of their choosing.

I agree with this 100%

I think the Mens tournament should be being played in Ogden right now, as should the women's tournament be hosted in Bozeman.

Doubt that the conference is going to go back to that format any time soon, if Reno fails they may try another city and I think the Maverick Center would be the best fit for it.

 

[bincitysioux]

I agree. I have never been there, but the Maverick Center just outside of SLC would be the best pre-determined location, save for maybe Las Vegas. I only say Vegas because it would be overall the cheapest travel for everybody involved. I like the concept of SLC because it is closest to the Big Sky's largest fan base. It is not unlike the conference hockey tournament that UND participates in every year. It is in Minneapolis every year, because that's easiest place for the fans that actually travel (UND hockey fans) to get to. Overall, SLC much easier for everyone to get to than is Reno.

 

[DeeWildcatTailgater]

Las Vegas! Flights to LV are 1/3rd the cost of Reno from pretty much anywhere. Also, you can catch other tournaments and enjoy the Vegas life. However, I do see SLC as viable option. A great way to trick tv cameras into thinking your conference is high major is to play packed neutral court games. SLC would certainly have the highest attendance. The issue is, no one in SLC is comping 5 days worth of hotel rooms like Reno has. I am all for a neutral court tournament; however, the first seed should have a double bye to make the regular season more relevant. Find a way to get the championship game on a channel people have. No one watches ESPN U.

 

[Skippy]

You guys are swimming upstream. Las Vegas already has four college tournaments this week, and there is literally "no room at the inn" for a fifth. The reason the Big Sky skipped Missoula, Billings and Ogden's bids in the first place is they wanted a truly neutral venue, and they preferred a site that could take both men's and women's tourneys. I think everybody realized that the tradeoff for a truly neutral site is probably low attendance, especially in the early round games. But the conference was willing to make that tradeoff. As to "giving meaning to the regular season," that ship has sailed. I think there have been nine top seeds already eliminated from conference tournaments this year. The Big Sky, by contrast, has its top 3 still intact ( although its women's top seed is gone). Holy Cross won four true road games to win the Patriot League bid with a 14-19 record. If conferences truly wanted to protect the regular season champs, they'd do away with tournaments. Instead the last hold out, the Ivy League, announced yesterday they are going to a tournament next year.

 

[SWWeatherCat]

Oooh, let's do it because everyone else does. Let's be like the cool kids.

There is no reward for a conference like the Big Sky if the best team does not advance to the Dance. The only reward is for the teams that have proven throughout the season that their season should be over. Instead, the top team(s) are given no real advantage, the cellar dwellers are given an almost equal chance, and the students/fans/even players are given the bird.

Conferences like the Big Sky aren't even in a conversation such as "is there any chance the WCC can get 3 in (Gales-conf. champs, Zags-tourny champs, and BYU-strong resume)?" Few see the tournament, fewer attend. No one (except fans of the conference teams) gives a rat's backside about the BSC. This is the reason there is no T.V. coverage or real mention of it by anyone. No one wants to spend vacation money to go to the biggest little piss hole in the west; reNO <> Vegas. Even though a neutral site (and more so removing college sport from the college venue) really chaps my hide, let's take the madness even further and not choose a more geographically centered and/or desirable location for those willing to travel (i.e West Valley or LV.)

The ONLY way I'd warm up to this pile of :shit: is if the location was a more desirable destination AND both the conference and tournament champs get bids to the Dance. Make both the conference season and tournament mean something and ensure the best teams represent. This is how it should be for ALL conferences, March Madness is exciting and enjoyable to watch because of these teams, not the 6th-7th-8th seeds from (insert P5 conf. here).

 

[Skippy]

Oooh, let's do it because everyone else does. Let's be like the cool kids.

There is no reward for a conference like the Big Sky if the best team does not advance to the Dance. The only reward is for the teams that have proven throughout the season that their season should be over. Instead, the top team(s) are given no real advantage, the cellar dwellers are given an almost equal chance, and the students/fans/even players are given the bird.

Conferences like the Big Sky aren't even in a conversation such as "is there any chance the WCC can get 3 in (Gales-conf. champs, Zags-tourny champs, and BYU-strong resume)?" Few see the tournament, fewer attend. No one (except fans of the conference teams) gives a rat's backside about the BSC. This is the reason there is no T.V. coverage or real mention of it by anyone. No one wants to spend vacation money to go to the biggest little piss hole in the west; reNO <> Vegas. Even though a neutral site (and more so removing college sport from the college venue) really chaps my hide, let's take the madness even further and not choose a more geographically centered and/or desirable location for those willing to travel (i.e West Valley or LV.)

The ONLY way I'd warm up to this pile of :shit: is if the location was a more desirable destination AND both the conference and tournament champs get bids to the Dance. Make both the conference season and tournament mean something and ensure the best teams represent. This is how it should be for ALL conferences, March Madness is exciting and enjoyable to watch because of these teams, not the 6th-7th-8th seeds from (insert P5 conf. here).

Well my friend, I'm afraid you will have to enjoy this pile cold then, because I think the majority of the decision makers do not agree with your assessment. At least not now. Maybe if they have three straight years of poorly attended games in Reno they will rethink. But again, the goal of a conference tournament, by definition, IS NOT to protect the highest seeds. If that's all you want to do, then get rid of the tournament. Clearly the Big Sky decision makers wanted to be MORE inclusive, not less and that's why they headed this direction.

SW, didn't I see you post somewhere else that March Madness and Tournaments were the only thing fans care about these days anyway, and that's why leagues were going to the all inclusive approach? If not I apologize, but I think that's a very astute observation, whoever made it. The ISU's women's buzzer beater against MSU on Wednesday led Sports Center that afternoon. It was named by USA Today site as the best buzzer beater of March Madness so far. That was a nine seed taking out a one. That's the beauty of an all inclusive tourney.

 

[SWeberCat02]

Oooh, let's do it because everyone else does. Let's be like the cool kids.

There is no reward for a conference like the Big Sky if the best team does not advance to the Dance. The only reward is for the teams that have proven throughout the season that their season should be over. Instead, the top team(s) are given no real advantage, the cellar dwellers are given an almost equal chance, and the students/fans/even players are given the bird.

Conferences like the Big Sky aren't even in a conversation such as "is there any chance the WCC can get 3 in (Gales-conf. champs, Zags-tourny champs, and BYU-strong resume)?" Few see the tournament, fewer attend. No one (except fans of the conference teams) gives a rat's backside about the BSC. This is the reason there is no T.V. coverage or real mention of it by anyone. No one wants to spend vacation money to go to the biggest little piss hole in the west; reNO <> Vegas. Even though a neutral site (and more so removing college sport from the college venue) really chaps my hide, let's take the madness even further and not choose a more geographically centered and/or desirable location for those willing to travel (i.e West Valley or LV.)

The ONLY way I'd warm up to this pile of :shit: is if the location was a more desirable destination AND both the conference and tournament champs get bids to the Dance. Make both the conference season and tournament mean something and ensure the best teams represent. This is how it should be for ALL conferences, March Madness is exciting and enjoyable to watch because of these teams, not the 6th-7th-8th seeds from (insert P5 conf. here).

Well my friend, I'm afraid you will have to enjoy this pile cold then, because I think the majority of the decision makers do not agree with your assessment. At least not now. Maybe if they have three straight years of poorly attended games in Reno they will rethink. But again, the goal of a conference tournament, by definition, IS NOT to protect the highest seeds. If that's all you want to do, then get rid of the tournament. Clearly the Big Sky decision makers wanted to be MORE inclusive, not less and that's why they headed this direction.

SW, didn't I see you post somewhere else that March Madness and Tournaments were the only thing fans care about these days anyway, and that's why leagues were going to the all inclusive approach? If not I apologize, but I think that's a very astute observation, whoever made it. The ISU's women's buzzer beater against MSU on Wednesday led Sports Center that afternoon. It was named by USA Today site as the best buzzer beater of March Madness so far. That was a nine seed taking out a one. That's the beauty of an all inclusive tourney.

I made the statement about tournaments. Casual fans don't care about college basketball until March. The NCAA Tournament is huge, but regular season college basketball hardly gets a mention anymore. My attitude is changing as I realize that tournaments are the biggest and most important thing to college basketball, and to basketball in general, and that they aren't going away or changing. So if I'm going to continue to be a fan, I'll need to accept tournaments and the way they're organized. It's not changing so either accept it and try to enjoy it or find something else to be a fan of.

 

[SWWeatherCat]

It's proving to be a difficult transition to a "casual fan." Luckily football is on the rise. Too bad for my school, my team, and my sport that the conference is driving me and the like away. I realize what's happening, Bengal, but I'm not willing to support the very people/organization spoiling a good thing. I didn't start this thread but the information posted is just another example of the stupidity of reNO. What's crystal clear is that the Big Sky decision makers don't want the odds in their favor to showcase their best offering on the biggest stage. What's difficult to understand is how making sure everyone getting a participation award is better for the conference than potentially showcasing a team that has no business being there. That's not going to happen this first year but it will be an eyesore and embarrassment when it does. The conferences playing in Vegas don't have to worry about this since they are protected with multiple bids; clearly, the BSC isn't worried about this either, however, I don't know why.

 

[sapokama]

I recently learned how the American East Conference does their tourney. The American East is another low-major conference with the likes of UMaine, Stoney Brook, and UAlbany in it. Ita current conference RPI of 23. Their way of managing a conference tourney is to select a pre-arranged site, like at one of the schools in the conference, and play through the semi-final games. At that point there is a week time between the semi-final game and the championship game. The two remaining teams play the championship game at the higher seed's arena.

I know we are stuck with Reno for 2 more years, but if the Big Sky is going to continue to invite all teams in the future, I would love to see the conference move to a system similar to this. It would still keep travel costs down and would ensure a better championship environment for the final game.

 

[Skippy]

It's proving to be a difficult transition to a "casual fan." Luckily football is on the rise. Too bad for my school, my team, and my sport that the conference is driving me and the like away. I realize what's happening, Bengal, but I'm not willing to support the very people/organization spoiling a good thing. I didn't start this thread but the information posted is just another example of the stupidity of reNO. What's crystal clear is that the Big Sky decision makers don't want the odds in their favor to showcase their best offering on the biggest stage. What's difficult to understand is how making sure everyone getting a participation award is better for the conference than potentially showcasing a team that has no business being there. That's not going to happen this first year but it will be an eyesore and embarrassment when it does. The conferences playing in Vegas don't have to worry about this since they are protected with multiple bids; clearly, the BSC isn't worried about this either, however, I don't know why.

I believe there are three main drivers behind the decision to have a neutral site and all 12 teams participate: travel certainty, the desire on the part of coaches for a neutral floor, and the tournament experience for all the athletes and their families. I believe the conference knew in advance that a neutral site would significantly impact attendance, but the coaches, ADs and presidents were willing to make that tradeoff, with the hope they would build a following and tradition in the out years. I would think that great games like last night's overtime win over UND, and the prospect of another Weber-Montana showdown for the title might motivate some fans to say, in the future, "Hey let's go Reno for the weekend."

Maybe not. If attendance continues to flag after three years, then it's back to the drawing board. But I think it's a risk worth taking. And if a lower seeds pulls a Holy Cross and gets into the Dance, so what? They will be celebrated as a Cinderella by the national media, play on on national TV in the play-in game, and probably get beat in the first round, like the Big Sky rep has done every year for the last 10.

 

[sacstateman]

It's proving to be a difficult transition to a "casual fan." Luckily football is on the rise. Too bad for my school, my team, and my sport that the conference is driving me and the like away. I realize what's happening, Bengal, but I'm not willing to support the very people/organization spoiling a good thing. I didn't start this thread but the information posted is just another example of the stupidity of reNO. What's crystal clear is that the Big Sky decision makers don't want the odds in their favor to showcase their best offering on the biggest stage. What's difficult to understand is how making sure everyone getting a participation award is better for the conference than potentially showcasing a team that has no business being there. That's not going to happen this first year but it will be an eyesore and embarrassment when it does. The conferences playing in Vegas don't have to worry about this since they are protected with multiple bids; clearly, the BSC isn't worried about this either, however, I don't know why.

I believe there are three main drivers behind the decision to have a neutral site and all 12 teams participate: travel certainty, the desire on the part of coaches for a neutral floor, and the tournament experience for all the athletes and their families. I believe the conference knew in advance that a neutral site would significantly impact attendance, but the coaches, ADs and presidents were willing to make that tradeoff, with the hope they would build a following and tradition in the out years. I would think that great games like last night's overtime win over UND, and the prospect of another Weber-Montana showdown for the title might motivate some fans to say, in the future, "Hey let's go Reno for the weekend."

Maybe not. If attendance continues to flag after three years, then it's back to the drawing board. But I think it's a risk worth taking. And if a lower seeds pulls a Holy Cross and gets into the Dance, so what? They will be celebrated as a Cinderella by the national media, play on on national TV in the play-in game, and probably get beat in the first round, like the Big Sky rep has done every year for the last 10.

No, no, no....don't you know we have to do all we can to insure that our team with the best conference record gets beat down in the NCAA....we have a long, proud tradition of beat downs in the NCAA's to preserve...

 

[sapokama]

No, no, no....don't you know we have to do all we can to insure that our team with the best conference record gets beat down in the NCAA....we have a long, proud tradition of beat downs in the NCAA's to preserve...

Wow.....pretty bold talk for a person who's team has never made it to the dance. It's okay though, you did have that one season with a winning record....

It's like Jerry Bovee said. The bottom of the Big Sky really needs to invest in getting better. Playing in a conference where you will play multiple teams twice with RPI's of 300 and lower makes it very hard to get a favorable match-up in the NCAA tourney. If the bottom half improves, you might actually see tourney wins again.

 

[Siouxfan2]

You guys are swimming upstream. Las Vegas already has four college tournaments this week, and there is literally "no room at the inn" for a fifth. The reason the Big Sky skipped Missoula, Billings and Ogden's bids in the first place is they wanted a truly neutral venue, and they preferred a site that could take both men's and women's tourneys. I think everybody realized that the tradeoff for a truly neutral site is probably low attendance, especially in the early round games. But the conference was willing to make that tradeoff. As to "giving meaning to the regular season," that ship has sailed. I think there have been nine top seeds already eliminated from conference tournaments this year. The Big Sky, by contrast, has its top 3 still intact ( although its women's top seed is gone). Holy Cross won four true road games to win the Patriot League bid with a 14-19 record. If conferences truly wanted to protect the regular season champs, they'd do away with tournaments. Instead the last hold out, the Ivy League, announced yesterday they are going to a tournament next year.

The PAC 12 is moving their tournament from the 12k MGM Grand Garden to the new 18.5k T-Mobile Arena that will be home to an NHL teams. Conferences love Vegas as its a great place to schmooze big donors. Campus arenas aren't good places to do schmoozing except for the home team. There will probably be movement among Vegas tournaments into another venue, but the bottom line is a big venue is now open. Reno for two more years and then it will be Vegas.

 

[oldrunner]

I know we are stuck with Reno for 2 more years, but if the Big Sky is going to continue to invite all teams in the future, I would love to see the conference move to a system similar to this. It would still keep travel costs down and would ensure a better championship environment for the final game.

I no longer see it as 'stuck with Reno'. It was far better than I thought it would be. It will be re-bid in a couple of years, but Reno put on a fairly good showing. If SLC, Boise, Vegas, or anybody else wants to put a bid in that's great, but Reno did a really good job of hosting and we all pumped a little money into their economy. :doh: