poll: would you travel to the BSC predeterminedl site?

[SWeberCat02]

While I still think the best option is to discontinue the tournament altogether, I totally see the point of having a predetermined site. Arranging a tournament at the last minute is a logistical and costly nightmare, especially in a conference like the Big Sky that's spread out over half the country. The conference helped create this problem when they over-expanded. Plus, as has been mentioned, there are schools in the conference that are in no position to host (namely Sac St and PSU) and going to a predetermined site eliminates the possibility that one of these schools gets to host. As for me, if it's held in the right location (Reno for me), I'd happily make it a yearly vacation, something I can plan on and prepare for months in advance. I've never been tempted to travel at the last minute to places like Missoula or Sacramento.

 

[Da Bears]

While I still think the best option is to discontinue the tournament altogether, I totally see the point of having a predetermined site. Arranging a tournament at the last minute is a logistical and costly nightmare, especially in a conference like the Big Sky that's spread out over half the country. The conference helped create this problem when they over-expanded. Plus, as has been mentioned, there are schools in the conference that are in no position to host (namely Sac St and PSU) and going to a predetermined site eliminates the possibility that one of these schools gets to host. As for me, if it's held in the right location (Reno for me), I'd happily make it a yearly vacation, something I can plan on and prepare for months in advance. I've never been tempted to travel at the last minute to places like Missoula or Sacramento.

:clap: :clap:

I agree with you 100%! The school needs to do more to make the tourney an event..... But it's clear with our geographic expansion leaving the location up to a last minute decision is ill advised! We've gotten a little spoiled with hosting in Ogden,didn't realize how much it sucked to be less than an one seed until after an ill advised trip to this year's tourney.

 

[SDHornet]

A poll would totally work. It should be two simple questions: A. Keep it how it is or B. A neutral location at decided upon destination. We all know that the Sky is leaning towards Reno. Some type of payout or "support" is going to happen. No other location can really do what Reno does and Reno sooo badly wants to be like Las Vegas, that it'll do anything to get a tournament in its city; even if it is the Big Sky. But let's be honest for a second. Attendance will be paltry. Look at past tournaments. Only reason people show up is because the tournament is at somebody's home court. Other games are virtually empty. Fans can say what they want, at the end of the day we all know a neutral location will be sparsely, at best, attended. Look at regular season attendance as another variable, or if you'd like indicator of potential participation. Number of available seats at each location and how many paid for seats used could show the Conference the amount of interest in the activity. Next, how many tournament passes were purchased by opposing team fans at the past tournaments. Those numbers are pretty sad. This whole idea is going to be a bust. The conference really shouldn't change a good thing.

The problem with the attendance argument is that can happen in the current format and therefore is moot. You actually think lots of griz fans would have showed up the rest of the weekend had Weber pulled the upset in the first round? Hell no they wouldn’t have. Case and point is the attendance for the other first round games. So the reality is the current format DEPENDS on the host school to go to the final to generate good attendance since it prohibits access (due to short notice and poor logistics) to other fan bases who may be interested in attending.

Does a “neutral” site location solve the attendance problem? Of course not, but chances are people who are primarily traveling to see the BSCT are probably going to make it to other games as well…especially if the BSC goes with some podunk place like Billings. People keep saying neutral site attendance will be bad, but the reality is that it’s an unknown. (BTW you say the purchased tickets at other BSCT tournaments are bad, can you supply a source for those numbers?) The neutral location does solve the logistics problem.

Bottom line in this whole discussion is…well the bottom line. Does the BSC make any money on the BSCT or does the hosting school reap the rewards (or losses)? The BSC needs to take ownership of the BSCT and stop pawning it off on one of its member schools if they want it to be one of its main marketable events.

 

[weberwildcat]

almost every big sky tourney but i think 1 or 2 where the host school didnt make the final saw very very poor attendance in the title game. maybe good attendance for some reason isnt an important concern for the move to the neutral site. the best examples would be the most recent schools to choke - weber in 2009, psu 2005, MSU 2002, northridge in 2001.

2009: final, PSU vs MSU in Ogden, 1546
2009: semi, MSU vs WSU in Ogden, 5162

2005: final, WSU vs UM in Portland, 1,825
2005: semi, WSU vs PSU in Portland, 4,320

I cant find the below. ill add em later.

2002:

2001:


also, another thing that wont be so great about the neutral site is there wont be any students at the games. if the typical host school can get 1,000 students the games how many will travel even if various schools provide student busses? 50? 100? that will make the atmosphere less exciting, which i personally care about. college basketball is more fun with a student section at the games.

i am not sure what to expect for neutral site attendance other than to assume it won't be good unless a regional team does well and goes to the final.

i dont care what it looks like on tv but i care what it looks like for me! why even participate in a sport if there is no one that cares to attend? we have baseball for that.

 

[PURPLEFORLIFE]

A poll would totally work. It should be two simple questions: A. Keep it how it is or B. A neutral location at decided upon destination. We all know that the Sky is leaning towards Reno. Some type of payout or "support" is going to happen. No other location can really do what Reno does and Reno sooo badly wants to be like Las Vegas, that it'll do anything to get a tournament in its city; even if it is the Big Sky. But let's be honest for a second. Attendance will be paltry. Look at past tournaments. Only reason people show up is because the tournament is at somebody's home court. Other games are virtually empty. Fans can say what they want, at the end of the day we all know a neutral location will be sparsely, at best, attended. Look at regular season attendance as another variable, or if you'd like indicator of potential participation. Number of available seats at each location and how many paid for seats used could show the Conference the amount of interest in the activity. Next, how many tournament passes were purchased by opposing team fans at the past tournaments. Those numbers are pretty sad. This whole idea is going to be a bust. The conference really shouldn't change a good thing.

The problem with the attendance argument is that can happen in the current format and therefore is moot. You actually think lots of griz fans would have showed up the rest of the weekend had Weber pulled the upset in the first round? Hell no they wouldn’t have. Case and point is the attendance for the other first round games. So the reality is the current format DEPENDS on the host school to go to the final to generate good attendance since it prohibits access (due to short notice and poor logistics) to other fan bases who may be interested in attending.

Does a “neutral” site location solve the attendance problem? Of course not, but chances are people who are primarily traveling to see the BSCT are probably going to make it to other games as well…especially if the BSC goes with some podunk place like Billings. People keep saying neutral site attendance will be bad, but the reality is that it’s an unknown. (BTW you say the purchased tickets at other BSCT tournaments are bad, can you supply a source for those numbers?) The neutral location does solve the logistics problem.

Bottom line in this whole discussion is…well the bottom line. Does the BSC make any money on the BSCT or does the hosting school reap the rewards (or losses)? The BSC needs to take ownership of the BSCT and stop pawning it off on one of its member schools if they want it to be one of its main marketable events.

No shit sherlock!! If the hosting school doesn't win, why would the local fans attend? You are right they don't and wouldn't. The point I'm making is that even with a predetermined site, attendance is going to be bad, at least with the regular season champ hosting, there is potential that at least a few games would have decent attendance, including the Championship if the host team were to make it. As proof of the commitment to viewing Big Sky Basketball, I would use current, regular season, attendance averages to show interest level. I would measure the number of purchased (Students at most places get in free and they wouldn't at a predetermined location. Weber and the Griz have had sponsors buy student passes at the past couple tournaments) seats against the number of available seats in the stadium (Weber averagess 6800 in a 12000 seats stadium, how many rationally of those 6800 purchased their tickets, and out of that group, how many would purchase travel, lodging, and tournament tickets in a predetermined location?) to prove my point. Most Big Sky schools, including Sac, don't fill even half of their stadiums (How on earth will Sac fans represent in Reno suddenly, when they have a hard time figuring out how to get to the Hornets Nest in the city they live in? 1200 available seats in a city of 500,000+?). My point is NOBODY will still go, even though it is in a predetermined location. The last time the Sky did this, the tournament was in Boise, only reason there was good attendance was because Boise State was the host and the Championship was against ISU. D'uh!! I'm sure people wanted to attend that game. Why? It was close, it was between two instate teams, and it was the Championship. The Sky's future Championships will be broadcast in poorly lit dungeons where only the band, a handful of parents and deep pocket boosters, will be watching a game. 1000 fans in a 10000 seat stadium. I love this idea. Oh, and on a final note. Adding UND meant that they could potentially win regular season championships, which meant the potential of having to travel to Grand Forks unexpectedly if they won. If the presidents didn't want that as a possibility, why the HELL did they let them join??

 

[sacstateman]

Like I said...... Selfish! There's always going to be an eight seed, they still should have decent accommodations, no matter where their seeded. Weber fans are perplexing...,, they want to get to the next level and improve, as long as their not inconvenienced in any way. The tourney is not broken as long as we are the host!

Cats, you are so right.....same attitude on Montana's board.....as long as it fits the scenario that is best for Montana, it must be the best for the whole conference.....Reno offers the best deal for the conference and the teams....funny no mention of Reno in WeberSki's analysis of room availability, what a joke grouping Ogden, Sac and Portland as the only places with sufficient room space......get real....one casino, any casino in Reno would have more room space than the whole city of Ogden.....oh well....you can't satisfy everyone, even if the final choice is actually (and logistically) the best for everyone overall....

 

[n.ogdencat]

Like I said...... Selfish! There's always going to be an eight seed, they still should have decent accommodations, no matter where their seeded. Weber fans are perplexing...,, they want to get to the next level and improve, as long as their not inconvenienced in any way. The tourney is not broken as long as we are the host!

Cats, you are so right.....same attitude on Montana's board.....as long as it fits the scenario that is best for Montana, it must be the best for the whole conference.....Reno offers the best deal for the conference and the teams....funny no mention of Reno in WeberSki's analysis of room availability, what a joke grouping Ogden, Sac and Portland as the only places with sufficient room space......get real....one casino, any casino in Reno would have more room space than the whole city of Ogden.....oh well....you can't satisfy everyone, even if the final choice is actually (and logistically) the best for everyone overall....

Sac if your team ever could ever win the regular season you'd understand why hosting the tournament is a big deal.

I've decided to join the, there is no need for a conference tournament crowd. It is a waste. Just send the regular season champ. If there is a tie have a playoff between the two schools. No conference tourny is better than what is being proposed.

 

[SDHornet]

Purple, what happened in the BSC 20 years ago is irrelevant. You don’t know that “nobody will go” to a predetermined site and you are basing your statements on a bunch of “ifs”. By your logic only Ogden and Missoula should host.

The BSC is bottom tier D1 hoops and the BSCT just doesn’t draw well aside from when the hosting school is in the final. If the BSC really wants to make the BSCT into something more than it already is then it has to put the event in a “destination” location and market the hell out of it to the fans. The schools are the ones pushing for the predetermined site due to logistics and costs so they also need to find ways to encourage people to go (travel packages, booster buses, etc.). Ultimately the BSC will make a decision based on what they think is best for the conference. We will know soon enough.

For fvck sakes we’re talking about a 3 year trial period, not a permanent change. Some of the comments on here (and other boards) are absolutely ridiculous. From one side of their mouths BSC fans bitch and moan about how poor and unappealing the BSC is and then when the BSC wants to try something different to elevate the product the same BSC fans bitch and moan about how bad of an idea it is and how nothing should change. It’s this “afraid of change” mentality that has caused the BSC to be where it is today. There is absolutely nothing to lose by trying a predetermined site for the BSCT for 3 fvcking years.

As far as your comment on Sac fans: I guarantee there will be a hell of a lot more Hornet fans in Reno then there ever will be at any BSCT (not in Sac) in its current format.

 

[SDHornet]

Sac if your team ever could ever win the regular season you'd understand why hosting the tournament is a big deal.

Oh no, we understand. There was a good amount of hype going on when we were in the throws of possibly hosting it this past year. The local press finally cared to cover Hornet hoops, students were looking forward to having the event on campus, our admin actually pulled together plans to get the think on campus. I think a lot of people realize what is at stake when you get to host the BSCT. There was definitely a "buzz" of excitement centered around hoops, and it was marvelous to finally see it.

 

[n.ogdencat]

Sac if your team ever could ever win the regular season you'd understand why hosting the tournament is a big deal.

Oh no, we understand. There was a good amount of hype going on when we were in the throws of possibly hosting it this past year. The local press finally cared to cover Hornet hoops, students were looking forward to having the event on campus, our admin actually pulled together plans to get the think on campus. I think a lot of people realize what is at stake when you get to host the BSCT. There was definitely a "buzz" of excitement centered around hoops, and it was marvelous to finally see it.

It is that excitement and opportunity, to host the BSCT, that makes the regular season so much fun. The Sky is one of the last conferences that has some vestiges of why college athletics were started in the first place. That excitement that a community can back and a school can be proud in earning the right to host its conference tournament giving them the best chance to represent at the bigger tournament. Students are suppose to be the biggest benefactors in the arrangement after the team. It is theirs after all. We lose that with a predetermined site. For once I actually agree with PFL.

 

[SWWeatherCat]

.....oh well....you can't satisfy everyone, even if the final choice is actually (and logistically) the best for everyone overall....

Did you just contradict yourself with the word everyone in one sentence? Taking college sport out of college venues is not good for the majority of those with vested interest. March Madness is one of the greatest sporting events there is but it's not the best for everyone, especially when everyone is inclusive of the fan and/or customer.

A million years ago when the DEC would occasionally host some early round games, it was an incredible event for local fans and the community as a whole. When Weber wasn't logistically cool enough to host anymore and it would end up at the University of Utah, I would still attend because it was close but also because the college tie still provided a certain level of interest and excitement. Now, the only way for it to come to "town" is in the ESA (the Utah Jazz's professional arena.) Chances are, most aren't like me in that it killed the level of excitement and interest. It's not the same feel for me and I will no longer attend.

March Madness has become a television event and for the most part just like professional basketball. When the tie to the colleges, my community, and me on a more personal level existed, I couldn't pass up the opportunity, but now, do not attend in person and can really take or leave much of the televised event. I know the NCAA could care less about me and my $$$, they are making bank and that is really what it is all about. This is exactly what a neutral site BSCT will amount to, and in no way will it be best overall for "everyone!"

 

[SWWeatherCat]

Sac if your team ever could ever win the regular season you'd understand why hosting the tournament is a big deal.

I've decided to join the, there is no need for a conference tournament crowd. It is a waste. Just send the regular season champ. If there is a tie have a playoff between the two schools. No conference tourny is better than what is being proposed.

You're absolutely right, tal, "you'd understand why hosting the tournament is a big deal. " Having no BSCT is every bit as bad as having one at a neutral site; both remove the excitement during the regular season of the chance for the entire community to be rewarded with a great college event. Sending your team to a televised, often one-and-done tournament will never hold a candle to the excitement of hosting a conference tournament.

 

[SWWeatherCat]

For eph sakes we’re talking about a 3 year trial period, not a permanent change. Some of the comments on here (and other boards) are absolutely ridiculous. From one side of their mouths BSC fans beotch and moan about how poor and unappealing the BSC is and then when the BSC wants to try something different to elevate the product the same BSC fans beotch and moan about how bad of an idea it is and how nothing should change. It’s this “afraid of change” mentality that has caused the BSC to be where it is today. There is absolutely nothing to lose by trying a predetermined site for the BSCT for 3 ephing years.

I guess if Sac had been in the BSC long enough, they'd know a neutral site was tried before and attendance-wise was a flop, as can be easily predicted. For me this has absolutely nothing to do with being "afraid of change" and everything to do with taking college sport out of the college venue, pure and simple. All this "change" is about is money and I'm guessing Reno sponsorships will be more attractive than Billings. Reno would certainly be a better draw and maybe Sac will finally get to "host."

 

[oldrunner]

If a trial change is inevitable, then I am certainly willing to give Reno a try. Reno is a great town, it is somewhat centrally located, it has easy travel and lodging, they want the event, and it was a former BSC town.

What is happening with this, anyway? I thought we were supposed to know by now. :wall:

 

[SDHornet]

Sac if your team ever could ever win the regular season you'd understand why hosting the tournament is a big deal.

Oh no, we understand. There was a good amount of hype going on when we were in the throws of possibly hosting it this past year. The local press finally cared to cover Hornet hoops, students were looking forward to having the event on campus, our admin actually pulled together plans to get the think on campus. I think a lot of people realize what is at stake when you get to host the BSCT. There was definitely a "buzz" of excitement centered around hoops, and it was marvelous to finally see it.

It is that excitement and opportunity, to host the BSCT, that makes the regular season so much fun. The Sky is one of the last conferences that has some vestiges of why college athletics were started in the first place. That excitement that a community can back and a school can be proud in earning the right to host its conference tournament giving them the best chance to represent at the bigger tournament. Students are suppose to be the biggest benefactors in the arrangement after the team. It is theirs after all. We lose that with a predetermined site. For once I actually agree with PFL.

I attended the Sweet 16 in Phoenix a few years ago and there were good crowds on hand (not sell outs), good excitement, and good community support. Most students aren’t going to afford those tickets (it’s really not an event that hinges on student involvement) unless there is a student discount. The NCAAT is the biggest money maker for the NCAA, and that revenue is what supports all the other money losing championship events (FB playoffs & Oly sport championships across all divisions). It’s a business decision plain and simple.

I agree that the student factor will be lost if the BSCT is moved to a predetermined site, but again if the host school isn’t in the finals then that atmosphere the students bring won’t be there anyways so the whole point is moot.

LOL at the idea of not having a BSCT being better than the BSCT at a predetermined site. What bizarro world logic is this from? So the BSC shouldn’t showcase a revenue sport like every other conference not named the Ivy League does? Laughable business strategy right there guys. :lol:

 

[SDHornet]

If a trial change is inevitable, then I am certainly willing to give Reno a try. Reno is a great town, it is somewhat centrally located, it has easy travel and lodging, they want the event, and it was a former BSC town.

What is happening with this, anyway? I thought we were supposed to know by now. :wall:

Saw an article stating that the recommendation is going to the member presidents in early April and that the vote is happening on April 17th.

 

[sapokama]

LOL at the idea of not having a BSCT being better than the BSCT at a predetermined site. What bizarro world logic is this from? So the BSC shouldn’t showcase a revenue sport like every other conference not named the Ivy League does? Laughable business strategy right there guys. :lol:

You know that a that your team makes a lot of money just for showing up to the NCAA tourney, right? Money that is usually shared among the conference. And if you team actually wins, it brings home more money. A lot more money than any Big Sky conference tourney will. So why not always have your best team represent at the NCAA, instead of possibly have a bad team get hot for one weekend only to draw a bad seed with a bad matchup? And if the best team goes every year and occasionally wins, it will raise the profile of the conference.

Although not having a conference tourney may be a more risky business strategy, it might have a higher ceiling.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/sports/ncaa-money/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[SWWeatherCat]

LOL at the idea of not having a BSCT being better than the BSCT at a predetermined site. What bizarro world logic is this from? So the BSC shouldn’t showcase a revenue sport like every other conference not named the Ivy League does? Laughable business strategy right there guys. :lol:

You know that a that your team makes a lot of money just for showing up to the NCAA tourney, right? Money that is usually shared among the conference. And if you team actually wins, it brings home more money. A lot more money than any Big Sky conference tourney will. So why not always have your best team represent at the NCAA, instead of possibly have a bad team get hot for one weekend only to draw a bad seed with a bad matchup? And if the best team goes every year and occasionally wins, it will raise the profile of the conference.

Although not having a conference tourney may be a more risky business strategy, it might have a higher ceiling.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/sports/ncaa-money/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's not uncommon for a couple of teams to be at the top of the conferences at the end of BSC play. It is uncommon for a low seed to "get hot" and win the BSCT. If the #1 seed can't win the tourney, especially when there are advantages like home court or byes, then maybe the the lower seeded BSCT winner is the best to represent the conference. It's kind of a crap-shoot anyway with the NCAA seed you get and the match-up you draw.

I don't know how much of a business strategy is going to benefit the Big Sky. Getting more than one team in the tournament and having some kind of T.V. contract would be the key to real financial benefits for the conference. I have to shake my head at those who would support either a neutral site or no BSCT instead of supporting what's best for the majority of the fans, students, and community.

 

[n.ogdencat]

Don't get me wrong...in its current format, I love the tournament. The Big Sky is a low-major conference, for where we are at, the current format works. If we were a two bid conference that had excellent fan support all around then I feel a predetermined site would work. But we aren't and I personally feel moving away from something that works and works well, is the wrong move.

By the way SD, thats a relieving feeling knowing that 10 more Sac State fans will make the three hour drive to watch basketball in Reno than the normal 5-6 contingent. We are saved! Great to hear. That'll keepthe tournament afloat!

 

[oldrunner]

I think that the BSC is close to becoming a two bid conf. Our top team needs to be ranked in the top 25 on a regular basis and it will happen. We just have to keep working at it. Is it easy? Heck NO! However, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't keep working at it. Not that long ago, I can remember being raked 13th in the country. We can do it again. I have faith. :thumb: :thumb: