Questions

[sasquatch]

Just how bad is Big Sky basketball, and how do you fix it? Is it a cyclical thing, and it's just a matter of time for it to improve?

Watching Montana get absolutely slaughtered last night was painful, even if it was the Griz. Is one of the answers to bring back the neutral court to the Big Sky tournament? I get that the process is set up to favor the Big Sky's best team and advance the best team possible. But don't you think Weber was the best team at the end of the season? What's wrong with a neutral court, maintaining seeding like it's done now, but also lending some credence to those teams which are peaking and/or playing its best basketball of the season?

Is too much emphasis being given to RPI? I heard more than one set of announcers over the past couple of days make such a case, especially as it concerned the Mountain West. During one game, they even said that Oregon was penalized with a lower seeding because they played Idaho State, while Boise State, who isn't as good as Oregon, was favored with an at-large berth because they chose to play two non division I schools. That just doesn't make much sense.

How in the world was BYU chosen to host two WNIT games? They drew less than 700 a game during the regular season, and drew less than 500 for the game against us.

 

[biobengal]

The RPI could easily be extended to NAIA and D2.... easy fix there.

 

[PBP]

To answer your final question the answer is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

They were willing to pay the fee to host games.

I assume it's more than in the WBI for example and if ISU was chosen for that tournament and wanted to host a game they would have had to pay 10 thousand dollars.

Money talks friends and neighbors, pure and simple.

As far as the men's issues, Brad had a conversation with Jon Kasper of the Big Sky office, there are a lot of problems facing men's basketball. I'll let him tell you about the conversation.

PBP

 

[Skippy]

Good questions,I'll throw my two cents worth in. I would not like to see the Big Sky go to a neutral court for the tournament for the simple reason that I don't think you would draw any fans to Vegas or Boise or Reno, some of the sites I've heard mentioned. And Salt Lake would be like a Weber home game. How do you fix Big Sky basketball? Better facilities, bigger commitment to the sport, better coaches and better players. I don't think there any easy fixes. If Weber couldn't beat a Montana team that was playing without its leading scorer, even though it was in Missoula, I would not give the Wildcats much chance against Syracuse. And truly a lot of it is matchups. Montana actually got a decent seed @ 13, but they drew the wrong 4 in Syracuse. They would have matched up much better with a smaller, less athletic St Louis, who was also a 4. But no question about it Big Sky men's baskeball hasn't been very good the last couple of years. Other than Weber and Montana, I think there are too many schools in the league who lack decent facilites, strong coaches and institutional commitment to the programs and until that changes I don't expect the quality of play to improve dramatically.

 

[PBP]

This is one time I’m going to have to disagree with my friend Brad at least as far as the women’s basketball tournament is concerned.

I think his points regarding men’s attendance are valid but I don’t think that applies to the women. Only four schools in the Big Sky… Montana, Montana State, Idaho State and North Dakota draw anyway. I don’t see the financial impact of having the tournament in a neutral site because there isn’t a lot of money at stake in the first place…we’re not talking millions of dollars here. The cities I heard over the past few weeks were Portland, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Spokane, and Salt Lake City.

The biggest reason though I feel it needs to go to a neutral site (or like in volleyball is hosted by the previous year’s champion) is because of fairness to the athletes themselves and cost certainty regarding travel arrangements. That’s what this is supposed to be about, putting the players in the best position to succeed.

Some schools are able to afford say 600 dollars a ticket for airplane flights to a location at almost literally the last minute. Others can’t and have to bus to the site which puts their athletes I feel at a disadvantage. Not saying those schools want to do this…they are having their hand forced by trying to make travel arrangements only a few days in advance of when they have to leave. Plus there is the fact that some airports in Big Sky citites simply don't have the number of flights to different locations every day. Schools may want to fly, may be able to afford the last minute cost, but can't get last minute flights. Having the tournament in a neutral site for example, gives everyone time...certainly more than usually a few days to try to figure out what to do. It could give schools two or three weeks more time...as soon as they clinch a spot in the post season tournament.

Some examples for whatever that may be worth. This past tournament Sacramento State and Northern Colorado flew to Spokane and then made the shorter bus trip to Missoula. ISU bussed the 4 1/2 hours. Southern Utah (I think) had to bus up from Cedar City which is a long, long bus ride.

A few years ago when ISU beat No. Colorado at Reed Gym, giving Portland State the right to host, ISU just couldn’t get reasonable airplane tickets. They practiced at Reed Gym, left that night by bus to Pendleton, Oregon. Stayed the night, got up the next morning, then bussed the rest of the way to Portland, practiced that night and played the next day.

Had No. Colorado hosted the tournament this year it looked like ISU was going to have to bus 9 ½ hours to Greeley. Then they’d have to play… possibly the next day. Had ISU beat BYU in the WNIT last Wednesday night there was a chance they were going to have to bus to San Diego for the next game…think about that one for a moment. (In fairness nobody knew for sure what the travel situation would be had they won - there was also a chance they would have flown) That’s just difficult for the players. I know they are young and they are in great shape but it still takes something out of you. Other schools don’t have to worry as much about these things because of their financial conditions.

I just think it should be fair for everyone as much as possible. The loss of a few thousand (at best) paying fans just doesn’t make that much of a difference in my eyes when you compare it to how some travel conditions are harder for some than others.

I’ve heard that there is supposedly a consensus among some coaches and A.D.’s that the best way to go is a neutral site, but how accurate those comments are or what is really going on, I have no idea. Anyway that’s just my opinion on Brad’s comments for whatever it’s worth.

The powers that be will figure out what's best over time and as situations evolve.

PBP

 

[mvem]

I just think it should be fair for everyone as much as possible. The loss of a few thousand (at best) paying fans just doesn’t make that much of a difference in my eyes when you compare it to how some travel conditions are harder for some than others.

Should it, though? I know that ISU has some unique travel issues, but hopefully the Big Sky won't make the mistake of rendering the regular season worthless like so many other conferences do. A one-bid league has every incentive to protect its regular-season champion, & hosting the tournament is the best way of doing that.

I guess it's just, "win the regular season & you won't have these problems." You can take solace that Missoula is relatively easy to travel to for you guys, and that the women's tourney is in Missoula at least half the time anyway.

 

[PBP]

MVEN:

Then explain to me why they do the postseason tournament the way they do it in volleyball. In that circumstance having the travel certainty makes things so much easier for everyone no?

The bottom line again to me is the ATHLETES themselves. Everything should be done for their benefit in these circumstances in my opinion and because of situations outside of their control having some of them have to undertake more difficult travel arrangements is unfair and I suspect impacts performance.

Just my opinion.

PBP

 

[JJB]

The volleyball tournament usually falls on Thanksgiving weekend, the busiest travel weekend of the year. It also tends to be one of the most expensive times of the year to travel. Because of this, the conference decided a pre-determined site would allow teams ample opportunity to arrange travel plans.

You only need look at this past volleyball season to see the downside of this, however. Portland State and ISU were the best two teams in the conference, but 4th place Northern Colorado hosted based on winning the previous season. Home court carried them to a win. Great for them. Not so great for the conference. I wouldn't say that was fair to PSU nor ISU.

If you go to a pre-determined site, it needs to be neutral. Go neutral, and you also sacrifice attendance and environment. Pick your poison.

That said, look at the Big Sky over the past 25 or 30 years. How many wins does the conference have in the NCAA tournament? 3? At what point do the AD's and Big Sky office stop worrying about sending the best of the worst to the NCAA's, and start worrying about improving the conference as a whole?

This is an interesting thread with some unique insight and opinion. Thank you to all.

 

[biobengal]

I just think it should be fair for everyone as much as possible. The loss of a few thousand (at best) paying fans just doesn’t make that much of a difference in my eyes when you compare it to how some travel conditions are harder for some than others.

I agree, it should be fair. The only way to make it truly fair is to get rid of the conference tournaments. How "fair" is it to play 20 conference games and then have the conference title come down to a few games at a neutral site? Regular season conference games should mean something.

No more conference tournaments, right? Of course, coaches wouldn't go for it; why have 1 conference champion when you can potentially have two. It probably helps a bit with job security.

 

[PBP]

Bio:

That is an excellent point and I agree 100%. However with Idaho coming in, in two seasons they will no longer be playing 20 games.

16 is the most likely, maybe...maybe 18.

It will be interesting to see what happens over time. Like I said I was told that some coaches and A.D.'s are now agreed upon the neutral site format. How many, if that's a majority, if that's enough to convince everyone else...I don't know.

JJB:

Like I said earlier, I can understand the attendance point of view for the men, not for the women with only four schools that historically have drawn a sizable number of fans.

When the tournaments were recently held at Portland State and at Eastern Washington, attendance was poor even when the home teams were playing. I don't see any "sacrifice" involved from that stand point. And if somehow the tournament is ever hosted by Sacramento State or Northern Arizona they'll be more people on the benches than in the stands. In those cases you'll have just as much "atmosphere" as if you were playing in a neutral site to me.

The difference is, my central point, teams aren't being forced to try to make travel arrangements with three or four days notice.

PBP

 

[mvem]

MVEN:

Then explain to me why they do the postseason tournament the way they do it in volleyball. In that circumstance having the travel certainty makes things so much easier for everyone no?

Because no-one gets big attendance for volleyball games & the sport only has a niche interest, even relative to women's basketball. I'm guessing the schools mainly care about cutting costs & not much else.

The bottom line again to me is the ATHLETES themselves. Everything should be done for their benefit in these circumstances in my opinion and because of situations outside of their control having some of them have to undertake more difficult travel arrangements is unfair and I suspect impacts performance.

Is it good for the athletes to take away the incentive of playing the Big Sky Tournament on their home floor? You could do it the volleyball way, but that also risks having a 5-seed or something host the tournament the following year, get a 16-seed, and lose to UConn by 70 points.

 

[mvem]

I just think it should be fair for everyone as much as possible. The loss of a few thousand (at best) paying fans just doesn’t make that much of a difference in my eyes when you compare it to how some travel conditions are harder for some than others.

I agree, it should be fair. The only way to make it truly fair is to get rid of the conference tournaments. How "fair" is it to play 20 conference games and then have the conference title come down to a few games at a neutral site? Regular season conference games should mean something.

No more conference tournaments, right? Of course, coaches wouldn't go for it; why have 1 conference champion when you can potentially have two. It probably helps a bit with job security.

Having no conference tournament is an even worse idea than a neutral, 8-team crapshoot. Attendance would plummet down the stretch because only a handful of teams would still have something to play for.

 

[Spudhead]

I was trolling some of the other conference members boards. MSU had some pretty good posts about a neutral site.

http://bobcatnation.com/bobcatbb/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=30177" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Somebody threw the idea out there of hosting in a city like Butte or even Idaho Falls, if and when they build an events center. Butte SCREAMS UM/MSU advantage, but to just think outside the box here, why not look at some small to mid-size cities if the conference ever does decide to go neutral? Why not look at cities which may not have an NCAA division I school, or a city which would be hungry to attract such an event for its local economy and would offer some incentives?

Remember way back when and Pocatello hosted the I-AA championship for a couple of years? They pre-sold tickets and had a good turnout to get the event both years. The JC bowl which the dome hosted for a few years when Ricks existed had ok turnout. Point is, some small to mid sized communities might bend over backward to attract such an event.

It may not be as central, and I don't know how flights would work. Idaho Falls would be limited, for example. But here's a few towns within close proximity to Big Sky schools which I can think of.

Tri-Cities, Washington (Kennewick)
http://www.yourtoyotacenter.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yakima, Washington
http://www.yakimasundome.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Saint George, Utah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burns_Arena" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Billings, Montana
http://www.metrapark.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bismarck, North Dakota
http://www.bismarckciviccenter.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And I wouldn't rule out Reno. They have been hurting for a while, and they are hungry to bring in conventions and events. The NBA DLeague team draws over 2,000, so there is probably some interest there. I bet you could talk with the Reno CVB and get some good sponsorships from local hotels and casinos. Some hotels would probably buy some blocks of tickets, so even if the crowd isn't there, the revenue would be.
http://www.visitrenotahoe.com/meetings-conventions/facilities/reno-events-center" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Like I said, I don't know if these would work or not, but it's kind of fun to think outside the box.

 

[PBP]

Interesting idea. I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand but I suspect you'd have a hard time convincing the schools to agree to anything in North Dakota. Difficult to get to and expensive even with an advanced time frame.

I know the trip ISU made to ND this year was the most expensive trip of the season.

PBP

 

[bengalcub]

The Idaho Center in Nampa, ID would be neutral enough for me. Plus, you have the Boise Airport for travel purposes.

 

[E5Bengal]

This is a chicken or the egg question. Basketball needs money to be successful however you have to have good teams to make money.

How the NCAA tourney works is the farther you advance the more money you get. The money is split up usually among the conference. Heck on a good year the money can be spread out for multiple years. Florida Gulf Coast isn't going to keep all that money, they whole conference will get 6 figures for multiple years. Thats why the missouri valley has grown and the mountain west. 3-5 schools in every year with usually 2 winning a game or two.

Problem is the Big Sky not only isn't going to send multiple teams, they are not more importantly winning games. So no extra money will come to the schools. Add low attendance, bad schedules before x-mas due to having to play an outragous amount of money games, and possibly the hardest travel of any teams in Div I and you have a bad recipe.

I like neutral sites as a fan of Idaho State cause it gives ISU the best chance to get in. But for the betterment of the school long term you have to make sure that the the top team in the league goes which means a tournament at the top seed. Unfortunatley thats Montana or Weber usually.

Gonna take money to get better, but can't get better until a team goes on a Cinderella Run or the Presidents and AD's stop treating this league like NAIA schools and put some money into it.

 

[E5Bengal]

Little data to back up what I Said...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2013/03/21/a-single-ncaa-tournament-victory-is-worth-1-5-million/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Payouts are over a 6 year Period.
Team that wins the first game earns that Conference 1.5 Million
Go to the Sweet 16- 3 Million
Final Four- 7.7 Million
One team wins one game and you get over 22K a year. 45K if they go to the sweet 16. Add up the mountain west over the last six years (insert long whistle and a "wow" here). Just keeps growing and growing for the big conference schools along with the TV Revenue Contracts.

NCAA Money Payout is like the APR for athletics. One bad year won't hurt ya but have 5 or 6 in a row and you will have a world of hurt.