poll: would you travel to the BSC predeterminedl site?

[SWeberCat02]

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:

Also, without a tournament the conference could probably fit in a full home-and-home conference schedule. I'd welcome two more D-1 home games, especially if it meant having to drop the two non-D1 games Weber plays every year.

 

[oldrunner]

One thing that we are not privy to is the details of each bid. For all we know, Armpit, Montana could be offering to foot the bill for the whole thing and Reno could have high costs. In the end, each school will favor the one that makes the most financial sense to them. The BSC will simply do what the schools tell them to do. The fact that Billings and Spokane are even in the running tells me that their Chambers of Commerce are chipping in some money to attract the event. I would guess that Ogden is doing the same. The only thing against Ogden doing it is the lack of neutrality. The fact that Ogden is still in the discussion tells me that neutrality is not the biggest thing on their minds.

 

[weberwildcat]

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:

Also, without a tournament the conference could probably fit in a full home-and-home conference schedule. I'd welcome two more D-1 home games, especially if it meant having to drop the two non-D1 games Weber plays every year.

all the changes over the past 4-5 yrs because of all the conference realignment mostly it hasn't provided any benefit to me as a fan although i do like having suu in the big sky.

for me i would much rather just play everyone. a 22 game conf schedule would be an improvement. im kind of sick of ooc games. we waste 2 on non d1's, we use 2 more on good in-state matchups against byu and usu. then the rest are just random and i dont care about them and we struggle to get a decent one at home.

22 + 2 non's + byu/usu + 2-3 games @ a tourney = 28 games with 14 at home.

i have the same view in football. i dont like ooc. i hate vs fbs and dII. its hard to find an fcs opponent to play. i would much rather watch us play 10 big sky games and the 1 money game the school won't get rid of.

if the conf tourney isn't about playing games for fans to enjoy/buy tkts to then get rid of it. if we are too poor of a conf, get rid of the bsct.

 

[PURPLEFORLIFE]

... All those years of winning and proud moments and one down year drives almost all of you guys off the bandwagon. hno:

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.

These figures are for last season 2013-2014. Regardless it is pretty neat seeing these numbers.

What I really liked looking at were the figures for the tournaments. I did some research and found a number of conferences, at the Big Sky level (low-major), who do "predetermined" or "neutral" location tournaments and saw how their numbers were for their tournaments. Yes, the Sky's weren't amazing. I think we averaged 4998 for the 3 sessions. But compared with the other conferences, like the WAC, those are great averages. To me, this is additional proof to why the Sky should not change the format. I really feel that this is going to be a huge bust and make the Sky look worse than what it really appears right now.

 

[SWWeatherCat]

Purple, I noticed that too and agree that if tournament attendance is important then pulling the plug on the current format will be a colossal bust. Hell, they've tried this experiment before and one only need look at existing tournaments, numbers, and conference interest level, with half a brain (like mine,) and know it would make the most sense to try and address the problems the best you can without flushing an existing, popular format down the crapper.

I'm quite certain "Marketing the hell" out of a BSCT in Reno or Billings will not draw even half of what Ogden or Missoula can draw. No one in their right mind can think if the BSC doesn't travel well to a host school site that they will to a neutral site. I get that the issue is much more than attendance but it really can't be considered a factor for the decision because this change will kill the respectable attendance the BSCT has enjoyed. Furthermore, it will kill student/fan excitement, even support.

 

[SDHornet]

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. If the BSC can make some money off of the BSCT then it should be done. If anything the title game on ESPN is worth the exposure. Under no other circumstance is a BSC game getting nationally televised.
2. If that was really the case they would sit out the entire NCAAT...like they do with the FCS playoffs.
3. Agree, however a predetermined site significantly reduces or eliminates those concerns, and those concerns are what is driving the BSC to this decision.
4. A conference like the BSC needs all the exposure they can get, even if it is a curb stomping on the Ocho against the 8th place SEC team.
5. The biggest issues associated with the BSCT will go away or be significantly reduced (from an athletics department perspective) with a predetermined site.

 

[SDHornet]

Purple, I noticed that too and agree that if tournament attendance is important then pulling the plug on the current format will be a colossal bust. Hell, they've tried this experiment before and one only need look at existing tournaments, numbers, and conference interest level, with half a brain (like mine,) and know it would make the most sense to try and address the problems the best you can without flushing an existing, popular format down the crapper.

I'm quite certain "Marketing the hell" out of a BSCT in Reno or Billings will not draw even half of what Ogden or Missoula can draw. No one in their right mind can think if the BSC doesn't travel well to a host school site that they will to a neutral site. I get that the issue is much more than attendance but it really can't be considered a factor for the decision because this change will kill the respectable attendance the BSCT has enjoyed. Furthermore, it will kill student/fan excitement, even support.

But the fans don’t support it unless THEIR team is hosting. Lots of different factors to take into account, and they can be spun either way. Logistics and costs are what got the BSC to this point, cost and logistics are probably going to determine where this thing is played.

 

[SDHornet]

Didn't realize I wielded that kind of power.....

Apparently you do. :lol:

 

[n.ogdencat]

Purple, I noticed that too and agree that if tournament attendance is important then pulling the plug on the current format will be a colossal bust. Hell, they've tried this experiment before and one only need look at existing tournaments, numbers, and conference interest level, with half a brain (like mine,) and know it would make the most sense to try and address the problems the best you can without flushing an existing, popular format down the crapper.

I'm quite certain "Marketing the hell" out of a BSCT in Reno or Billings will not draw even half of what Ogden or Missoula can draw. No one in their right mind can think if the BSC doesn't travel well to a host school site that they will to a neutral site. I get that the issue is much more than attendance but it really can't be considered a factor for the decision because this change will kill the respectable attendance the BSCT has enjoyed. Furthermore, it will kill student/fan excitement, even support.

But the fans don’t support it unless THEIR team is hosting. Lots of different factors to take into account, and they can be spun either way. Logistics and costs are what got the BSC to this point, cost and logistics are probably going to determine where this thing is played.

Dude...you aren't getting the point. Are you one of those Californians who keeps watering his grass four times a week saying, "as long as I can water, there isn't a drought?"

Let me spell this out for you. The best team in the conference SHOULD always represent the Sky in the Big Dance. That is determined during the regular season conference which currently is 18 games. The champion is the team with the most wins. Are you following?? That is the best team and the team that should represent the Sky in the post season. If the conference has to have a post season tourny then the best team should always have the easiest route to the championship. Meaning...games on their home floor and having their fans there to support them. Which also means that fans and students, the ENTIRE reason we have sports teams, can watch and support their team which is the best that respective season. This is college basketball! The current paradigm is flawed by having predetermined sites and even having tournaments. What is the purpose of the regular season if the 6th seed can win the tourny? Is that the type of exposure you want? Play in games? Also, nobody will go, no matter how marketed the event is because the Sky will over charge tickets and it'll be too expensive and finally most fans aren't going to travel anyway. Why sponsor something if nobody is there to see the sponsorships. The sessions will, at best average 2k. Final thought...ESPN will continue to travel to where ever the tournament is. They want to keep the market. People love watching good games played in good atmospheres. It is exciting and fun. If their isn't fans at the game and it is on tv I would change the channel and you would to.

 

[weberwildcat]

I say skip the regular season and just play a big sky tourney from Jan to Mar. in the tourney all 12 teams play each other twice. Then the tourney winner is the team with the most total wins.

It's not a bad way to save money. Winner plays 22 games instead of playing an 18 game reg season plus 4 big sky tourney games equalling 22.

 

[SDHornet]

Dude...you aren't getting the point. Are you one of those Californians who keeps watering his grass four times a week saying, "as long as I can water, there isn't a drought?"

There’s a drought in CA? When did this happen? Moonbeam just bribed the drought away with another spending package. We’re good.

Let me spell this out for you. The best team in the conference SHOULD always represent the Sky in the Big Dance. That is determined during the regular season conference which currently is 18 games. The champion is the team with the most wins. Are you following?? That is the best team and the team that should represent the Sky in the post season.

Doesn’t the BSCT do this too?

 

[sapokama]

Didn't realize I wielded that kind of power.....

Apparently you do. :lol:

Californians should never underestimate their ability to annoy the HELL out of everyone around them! Utahn's have the same problem...but a lot of them are transplants from California. I use to think this only applied to Southern Californians, but I might have to re-evaulate that.

I apologize of the delayed post, but it my post doesn't bring anything to the discussion and, you know, some of us have jobs.

 

[sacstateman]

Didn't realize I wielded that kind of power.....

Apparently you do. :lol:

Californians should never underestimate their ability to annoy the HELL out of everyone around them! Utahn's have the same problem...but a lot of them are transplants from California. I use to think this only applied to Southern Californians, but I might have to re-evaulate that.

I apologize of the delayed post, but it my post doesn't bring anything to the discussion and, you know, some of us have jobs.

I agree about SoCalifornians.....no need for an apology.....I used to have a job too, then I retired, my condolences.....I was rather flattered to think I had any power at all on this board, but I know I really don't...any way I will be keeping it real as good as I can....I know that annoys some but others here seem to agree with a lot of what I have to add to the conversation.....

 

[sapokama]

I used to have a job too, then I retired, my condolences.....

Good for you. I'm certainly going to chase that dream.

 

[SWWeatherCat]

Purple, I noticed that too and agree that if tournament attendance is important then pulling the plug on the current format will be a colossal bust. Hell, they've tried this experiment before and one only need look at existing tournaments, numbers, and conference interest level, with half a brain (like mine,) and know it would make the most sense to try and address the problems the best you can without flushing an existing, popular format down the crapper.

I'm quite certain "Marketing the hell" out of a BSCT in Reno or Billings will not draw even half of what Ogden or Missoula can draw. No one in their right mind can think if the BSC doesn't travel well to a host school site that they will to a neutral site. I get that the issue is much more than attendance but it really can't be considered a factor for the decision because this change will kill the respectable attendance the BSCT has enjoyed. Furthermore, it will kill student/fan excitement, even support.

But the fans don’t support it unless THEIR team is hosting. Lots of different factors to take into account, and they can be spun either way. Logistics and costs are what got the BSC to this point, cost and logistics are probably going to determine where this thing is played.

Fans support their team even if they're not hosting but you're right, fans wont travel with that support and it will be even worse with a neutral site since they lose the however many fans they would have gotten at a host school site. The communities of the schools lose $$$, pride, and excitement. The students lose the chance to unite and get crazy for their school and team. The non-student fans lose a chance to put even more money into the program, are cheated out of any chance at the excitement of hosting the conference, and many will lose some interest. What makes watching smaller conference tournament championships on ESPN is the packed stands and energy as two conference foes go at each other for usually the third time. Empty, unenthusiastic areas playing games that don't matter (because of multi-bid conferences) is not something that grabs my interest. What is more entertaining to the casual viewer? The championship atmospheres recently seen in Missoula and Ogden, or an empty arena in Reno?

I know it's about cost and logistics, too bad it should be about the students, fans, communities, and best possible representation of the schools, teams. I'm beyond disappointed that they aren't looking at ways to help the cost and logistics without destroying an aspect of college sport that is very entertaining and exciting, and, frankly, a reward to the students, fans, and communities for their support.