SWeberCat02
Active member
:rofl: Wait, are you serious?oldrunner said:
-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts, upgrade to remove ads and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your BigSkyFans.com experience today!
poll: would you travel to the BSC predeterminedl site?
- Thread starter weberwildcat
- Start date
SWWeatherCat said:
I agree that there are usually a few good teams at the top, and maybe I am wrong in thinking this but I don't see anyone but the top team getting a 12 to 14 seed. Any team lower that the top Big Sky team will get a 15 or lower.
Olds, I love your enthusiasm, but i respectfully disagree that the Big Sky is close to being a 2 bid conference. Even if the conference did raise its RPI into the teens, it would still be a 1 bid conference.
PurpleBlood
Active member
No need to reinvent the wheel, there are a couple arenas being build right now in Vegas. Vegas should be the long term solution if Reno doesn't work out.
bincitysioux
Active member
The more I analyze this, the more and more I think that Billings is going to be awarded the tournament.
If the point of this exercise is to contain costs, then avoiding airports for team travel is the #1 way to do that I think. I count 8 teams that would likely bus to Billings. I could be wrong but I think that includes Weber who is probably right on the line as to whether they would fly or bus that distance of 525 miles.
If they do fly, Billings has direct flights not only to SLC, but also to Portland. I'm not sure if althletic departments are able to use an airline like Allegiant very often, but if they can Billings has service to both Vegas and Phoenix which SUU and NAU could both theoretically utilize if they were creative.
I am going to guess that attendance would be similar to what it has been in Missoula in recent years ranging between 4,000-7,000 for any game that either UM or MSU participated in. If the Griz and Cats met during the tournament, there would be the potential for 10,000+ at that game.
Lastly, if the presidents are set on making this change, I think Fullerton is going to push for Billings. He is on record as preferring to keep the current format, but as native of Montana, former MSU A.D., my gut tells me he'll probably think it is better off in Cat-Griz land if it has to change.
I'm guessing that Reno is going to offer the best hotel package to the conference members as a whole, but really only Sac is very easily accessible, and they bring nothing to the table fan/attendance wise. 5 schools would likely bus to Reno and there are direct flights from Denver, Phoenix and Portland. Still I have a hard time assuming there are many potential ticket buyers in the Reno area. Certainly not as many as there are in Billings, and probably not as many as in Spokane either.
Spokane is still kind of interesting. I assume quite a few UM, MSU, EWU, and UI grads end up living in the Spokane area, so there may be a decent local base for ticket sales. I count six schools that would bus here and the airport has direct flights to SLC, Denver, Vegas, and Phoenix. I think attendance would be better in Spokane than it would in Reno.
Ogden is the last option. Attendence would be great for any game that Weber is involved in. There must be some ISU and SUU fans in the SLC area as well. A bus ride for 7 or 8 schools. Great air service. I think the SLC area would have been the #1 option if Weber could have found a different venue to host it, like maybe the Maverik Center. I just don't see the rest of the conference agreeing to put it in the DEE for the next 3 years.
If the point of this exercise is to contain costs, then avoiding airports for team travel is the #1 way to do that I think. I count 8 teams that would likely bus to Billings. I could be wrong but I think that includes Weber who is probably right on the line as to whether they would fly or bus that distance of 525 miles.
If they do fly, Billings has direct flights not only to SLC, but also to Portland. I'm not sure if althletic departments are able to use an airline like Allegiant very often, but if they can Billings has service to both Vegas and Phoenix which SUU and NAU could both theoretically utilize if they were creative.
I am going to guess that attendance would be similar to what it has been in Missoula in recent years ranging between 4,000-7,000 for any game that either UM or MSU participated in. If the Griz and Cats met during the tournament, there would be the potential for 10,000+ at that game.
Lastly, if the presidents are set on making this change, I think Fullerton is going to push for Billings. He is on record as preferring to keep the current format, but as native of Montana, former MSU A.D., my gut tells me he'll probably think it is better off in Cat-Griz land if it has to change.
I'm guessing that Reno is going to offer the best hotel package to the conference members as a whole, but really only Sac is very easily accessible, and they bring nothing to the table fan/attendance wise. 5 schools would likely bus to Reno and there are direct flights from Denver, Phoenix and Portland. Still I have a hard time assuming there are many potential ticket buyers in the Reno area. Certainly not as many as there are in Billings, and probably not as many as in Spokane either.
Spokane is still kind of interesting. I assume quite a few UM, MSU, EWU, and UI grads end up living in the Spokane area, so there may be a decent local base for ticket sales. I count six schools that would bus here and the airport has direct flights to SLC, Denver, Vegas, and Phoenix. I think attendance would be better in Spokane than it would in Reno.
Ogden is the last option. Attendence would be great for any game that Weber is involved in. There must be some ISU and SUU fans in the SLC area as well. A bus ride for 7 or 8 schools. Great air service. I think the SLC area would have been the #1 option if Weber could have found a different venue to host it, like maybe the Maverik Center. I just don't see the rest of the conference agreeing to put it in the DEE for the next 3 years.
catscratched
Active member
Bin;
I don't see Billings making the final three, let alone winning the bid. The only strong point would be the number of schools that may be able to bus. I don't see that factor as a primary decision point. Billings is not an easy destination for anyone, it is an armpit of a town, and when I was there last, the hotels were mediocre. It wouldn't be a place that major media would want to cover. You just like it and want to find good things about it because it is closest to you.
I agree that the Maverick Center in SLC would have been good, but I still think that Reno has it all and may make the most financial sense for all of the parties involved.
I would love it if they picked Ogden, I just don't think it will happen.
I would be shocked if they pick Billings. :roll:
I don't see Billings making the final three, let alone winning the bid. The only strong point would be the number of schools that may be able to bus. I don't see that factor as a primary decision point. Billings is not an easy destination for anyone, it is an armpit of a town, and when I was there last, the hotels were mediocre. It wouldn't be a place that major media would want to cover. You just like it and want to find good things about it because it is closest to you.
I agree that the Maverick Center in SLC would have been good, but I still think that Reno has it all and may make the most financial sense for all of the parties involved.
I would love it if they picked Ogden, I just don't think it will happen.
I would be shocked if they pick Billings. :roll:
bincitysioux
Active member
You're wrong about me liking it because it is the closest to me. I agree it is an armpit of a town. I can drive an hour and a half in any direction of my home and find a similar sized town that offers more than Billings. Trust me, I am not yearning for spring weekend in beautiful Billings.
I just don't see any other venue that is going to have as good attendance, except Ogden but that will only be for games that Weber is in. I have said from the very beginning that SLC was my favorite option. If were to go, I would much rather spend 2 hours in a plane on my way to SLC than 8 hours in a car to oh so lovely Billings.
Perhaps I am wrong, but my opinion is that Reno is the most difficult to travel to and would also have the worst attendance. I agree though that financially they may have the most to offer.
I said early on that any pre-determined site needs to be near either Weber's fan base or Montana's fan base. I really think Weber made a mistake by not finding a different venue in the SLC area. If they had I think it would have been a slam dunk.
I won't be surprised no matter where it lands.
I just don't see any other venue that is going to have as good attendance, except Ogden but that will only be for games that Weber is in. I have said from the very beginning that SLC was my favorite option. If were to go, I would much rather spend 2 hours in a plane on my way to SLC than 8 hours in a car to oh so lovely Billings.
Perhaps I am wrong, but my opinion is that Reno is the most difficult to travel to and would also have the worst attendance. I agree though that financially they may have the most to offer.
I said early on that any pre-determined site needs to be near either Weber's fan base or Montana's fan base. I really think Weber made a mistake by not finding a different venue in the SLC area. If they had I think it would have been a slam dunk.
I won't be surprised no matter where it lands.
catscratched
Active member
Reno has a full service airport, and a multitude of hotel/casinos. It has a relatively mild climate in March and has a fairly large population within a stones throw. It is a former BSC town with some interest in BSC schools. It is a good sports town in general. Media would go there willingly. There is more to do there than just basketball, so people just might plan a little mini vacation around the BSCT. SLC has all of that, minus the casinos.
Likely fan attendance isn't the first priority...again, it seems posters, as fans, are understandably speaking from that point of view. The Presidents may surprise with their votes, but you can guess that from EWU (maybe Portland St. & Idaho) the vote = Spokane (& Cheney for women's); Montana/Montana St the vote= Billings (Missoula for women's); Sacramento St = Reno; Weber St. = Ogden; so that leads to what the other 5 votes will be? I could see ISU & SUU going with Ogden. How will NAU, UNC & UND vote is the question. That may be the swing votes on April 17?? :twocents:
bincitysioux
Active member
When you put it like that I really can't see anybody voting for Reno other than Sac St unless their financial incentives just blow everybody else away.
Maybe NAU and UNC if they really value neutrality. I think North Dakota probably favors Spokane. Lots of alumni in Washington.
Maybe NAU and UNC if they really value neutrality. I think North Dakota probably favors Spokane. Lots of alumni in Washington.
oldrunner
Active member
It is, somewhat, about attendance and accessibility. This thing must be financially feasible or it will not happen. Nobody will want to host if no money is coming in. That money can either be people or media. All of these sites are banking on people coming and media highlighting their communities. Without media, sponsorships, and people money this thing won't fly. Reno has the unique ability to grab a little more money out of fan and media pockets than the rest of the bidders and can probably offer a better financial package to the BSC than the others because of it.
One of the positive aspects of having a predetermined site is the ability to attract sponsors and media, and work on it over a years time. Of course, that is only a plus if you have a marketing branch that will actually do marketing.
In the beginning of the BSCT, Coors was our sponsor. We played it with a Coors silver ball.
One of the positive aspects of having a predetermined site is the ability to attract sponsors and media, and work on it over a years time. Of course, that is only a plus if you have a marketing branch that will actually do marketing.
In the beginning of the BSCT, Coors was our sponsor. We played it with a Coors silver ball.
Yes I’m aware of this, and it has no bearing on the decision at hand. In theory the best team will win the BSCT, whether it’s the top seed or a low seed that get hot for one week. The reality is it’s beneficial for the BSC to land a play in game since that win (assuming the BSC team wins) would net the BSC more cash via an additional NCAAT credit for that year. However that should not be the goal of the BSC…it creates a “race to the bottom” scenario.pawildcat said:
The ugly truth is we are seeing the P5 conference destroy the mid-majors in hoops mainly due to massive amounts of cash those schools are getting from top notch football. It's only going to get worse, especially for conferences like the BSC where football drives the bus (and rightfully so).The BSC will never see a 2nd seed in the NCAAT, nor will any other small time conferences. BW has a tiny shot at it and even when you look at the numbers they are pretty far from being in contention for a 2nd NCAAT berth.
They've got rooms to practically give away, and that is what would sway this decision.bincitysioux said:
Attendance argument aside, it's not the attendance issues/concerns that are drove the BSC Presidents to look into a predetermined site. It was costs and logistics.
SDHornet said:
This mentality is exactly why I hate the conference tournament for a one bid league. Why does the play of one weekend negate two or three months of basketball? If Weber would have pulled out that game in the opening round of the Big Sky tourney against Montana, they would have had as good of chance as anyone to win the tournament. Does that mean they were the best team in the Big Sky this year? Absolutely not. Even with Sac St and EWU stumbling down the stretch, they were still better basketball teams than Weber. And just because an inconsistent team like Weber is hot for one weekend, that doesn't mean they are going to be hot the next weekend when it really matters.
I like they tournament the way it is, but even in the current format, 35% of the time the regular season champion losses the tournament. It will be worse with a predetermined site.
BTW, it makes you look like a tool when you come onto our board and call our members douchebags,,,even if you are joking. I know that even in your best year ever your bball board is dead, and we like having other opinions here, but at least try to have some courtesy. Sacstateman already drove off one of our smarter posters (Utahpirate).
SDHornet said:Just calling it like I see it. Good call by ragging on our board. BTW, this place was nothing but crickets earlier in the year. All those years of winning and proud moments and one down year drives almost all of you guys off the bandwagon.pawildcat said:hno:
At least we have a bandwagon....
SWWeatherCat
Active member
SDHornet said:... All those years of winning and proud moments and one down year drives almost all of you guys off the bandwagon.
Bandwagon Weber fans? :rofl: Weber couldn't even get bandwagon fans when it appeared Lillard was a legit NBA prospect.
Speaking of attendance....
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/m_bas...PSID=39376&SPID=3470&DB_LANG=C&DB_OEM_ID=8600
Weber 68th out of what? 320? In a down year. I didn't notice UM or MSU in the top 100.
weberwildcat
Active member
im still a fan of the prospect of having no tourney at all even though it isn't even a possibility at least in the near future. just send the champion to the dance.
1. small conferences get one team in no matter what happens. dont need the tourney.
2. ivy league has been just fine with no conf tourney. isnt focusing on class work a valid reason?
3. we hear so much about the cost/pain of the tourney and hosting and last minute arrangements. that'd no longer be an issue.
4. there is no good reason to send our champ to the NIT.
5. most of the big sky tourney issues wont go away with a predetermined site but having no tourney will fix it all. :mrgreen:
1. small conferences get one team in no matter what happens. dont need the tourney.
2. ivy league has been just fine with no conf tourney. isnt focusing on class work a valid reason?
3. we hear so much about the cost/pain of the tourney and hosting and last minute arrangements. that'd no longer be an issue.
4. there is no good reason to send our champ to the NIT.
5. most of the big sky tourney issues wont go away with a predetermined site but having no tourney will fix it all. :mrgreen:
sacstateman
Active member
pawildcat said:
Didn't realize I wielded that kind of power.....
