• Hi Guest,

    We've updated the site to combine all the forums that were part of the Big Sky Fans Network into one location. This will make it easier to navigate and participate in all the discussions for each school without having to have multiple accounts, etc. We are still working out some tweaks but please let us know if you notice anything.

    With the migration, in some circumstances, your username could have been merged with one of your other usernames from the other forums. If this is the case, you can request to change your username in your account details page of your profile.
  • Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!
  • Guest, do want an ad free experience on BigSkyFans.com among other benefits? Upgrade your account today!

    Simply click your profile name > account upgrades > BigSky Club > choose between the year long subscription (two free months) or month to month

    Thanks for the continued support. Cheers!

#RoadtoReno - Funny Stuff

W

Webergrad02

Active member
So the theme of the Big Sky men's and women's basketball seasons is the Road to Reno. How original right? The final four has only been using road to the final four for 30+ years. The road to the final four means something because out of 300+ D1 programs only four teams make it to the final four. In the Big Sky this season, all roads will lead to Reno. Even a 0-25 team will get to play in the conference tourney Reno.

They want #roadtoreno to be the social media tag of the basketball season. However no one checked to see if #roadtoreno was being used as a social media campaign for a another organization. #Roadtoreno is being used by USA Weightlifting for the American Open in Reno. So if you search #roadtoreno in hopes of seeing some Big Sky hoops, you may be disappointed by a bunch of beefy weightlifters.

Road to Reno = Marketing fail!

 
YIKES!! Seriously?? There is an entire team working on this and they couldn't come up with something better? Oh wow...
 
Here are some ideas for next year:

Brothels, cheap whisky and dirty casinos, welcome to the road to Reno.
The Big Sky Conference Tournament - The littlest, little conference tournament in the world.
Big Sky Tournament - What's worse the attendance, the officiating or the buffets?
The Road to Reno - Who knows how many dead bodies are on this road?
The Road to Reno - From North Dakota that's one long ass road.
The Road to Reno - I missed the exit and went to Vegas instead.
The Road to Reno - Our coaches expressions say it all!

 
The Big Sky Conference Tournament - The littlest, little conference tournament in the world.

:thumb:


Man, I am not renewing my tix. I simply do not care with this new setup. I'm sure I'll go to a few games, but that's about it.
 
WeberSki said:
The Big Sky Conference Tournament - The littlest, little conference tournament in the world.

:thumb:


Man, I am not renewing my tix. I simply do not care with this new setup. I'm sure I'll go to a few games, but that's about it.
Click to expand...

:clap: :clap:

How about: Reno...Where the Big Sky isn't concerned about sending their best team.
 
I'm digging this one:
The Big Sky Conference Tournament - The littlest, little conference tournament in the world.
Click to expand...

or how about:
The Big Sky Conference Tournament - More inclusive than the P5!
 
Before anyone jumps my azz about it, I am against removing any BSC games from BSC floors, period. The problem we have with a BSC tournament including all 12 teams, is that there are many communities in our league that just can not support a thing that big. Also, if the BSC is going to run such a thing, they need contracts with providers, suppliers, media, and sponsors. I get all of that. Plus, it needs to be somewhat fair to all of the participants.

As it stands, there is a miniscule chance of a low (lower than the 4th seed) team making it to the championship game. They would have to win four games in four nights. Not too likely of a scenario. The top four seeds have a tremendous advantage. The regular season does mean something. The regular season champion is the BSC champion. The tournament is just to see who goes to the NCAA tournament and who might get a lesser bid, that's all. The tournament is going to favor teams with the most developed benches.

I understand why the coaches all wanted this. They don't like seeing their fellow coaches getting fired for not making the tournament. However, it could be done differently.

I don't know all of the alternatives that were considered by the committee. However, I can think of one where we keep the thing on BSC floors and still include all 12 teams. A solution that any of our communities could handle. This is how it would go:

Round 1) The bottom 8 teams play each other on the floors of the higher seeded teams.

Round 2) The round one winners play on the home floors of the top 4 seeds.

Round 3 & 4) The 'Sky Four' can now be played at a pre-determined site or on the floor of the regular season champion. You could have a travel and rest day between rounds 2 & 3.

The BSC used to do absolutely nothing, but take in some money from the host school. It remains to be seen if they are able to do anything now. Are they working on sponsors? Media deals? Transportation packages? Are they doing anything for fans? It should all be done by now, and I haven't heard a peep out of the BSC.
Not a good sign.

#NoRoadInSight #LostOnTheRoad #LostMySavings #GoingToHell
 
oldrunner said:
Before anyone jumps my azz about it, I am against removing any BSC games from BSC floors, period. The problem we have with a BSC tournament including all 12 teams, is that there are many communities in our league that just can not support a thing that big. Also, if the BSC is going to run such a thing, they need contracts with providers, suppliers, media, and sponsors. I get all of that. Plus, it needs to be somewhat fair to all of the participants.

As it stands, there is a miniscule chance of a low (lower than the 4th seed) team making it to the championship game. They would have to win four games in four nights. Not too likely of a scenario. The top four seeds have a tremendous advantage. The regular season does mean something. The regular season champion is the BSC champion. The tournament is just to see who goes to the NCAA tournament and who might get a lesser bid, that's all. The tournament is going to favor teams with the most developed benches.

I understand why the coaches all wanted this. They don't like seeing their fellow coaches getting fired for not making the tournament. However, it could be done differently.

I don't know all of the alternatives that were considered by the committee. However, I can think of one where we keep the thing on BSC floors and still include all 12 teams. A solution that any of our communities could handle. This is how it would go:

Round 1) The bottom 8 teams play each other on the floors of the higher seeded teams.

Round 2) The round one winners play on the home floors of the top 4 seeds.

Round 3 & 4) The 'Sky Four' can now be played at a pre-determined site or on the floor of the regular season champion. You could have a travel and rest day between rounds 2 & 3.

The BSC used to do absolutely nothing, but take in some money from the host school. It remains to be seen if they are able to do anything now. Are they working on sponsors? Media deals? Transportation packages? Are they doing anything for fans? It should all be done by now, and I haven't heard a peep out of the BSC.
Not a good sign.

#NoRoadInSight #LostOnTheRoad #LostMySavings #GoingToHell
Click to expand...

Olds, your proposed solution is a lot like what the league had been doing until a couple of years ago. The reason it was changed was travel issues -- try buying airline tickets to Pocatello, Bozeman or Flagstaff on a week's notice, and if you win, then turn around and buy tickets to Ogden or Missoula on two or three days notice. Not to mention getting hotel rooms, a bus, etc. I know there is this perception that the Big Sky coaches were pushing the changes in format to "protect" their jobs, and their buddies. There was probably an element of that. But the biggest reason the coaches wanted format changes (the biggest being a pre-determined site) was to make travel predictable, fair and affordable.
 
Bengal visitor said:
oldrunner said:
Before anyone jumps my azz about it, I am against removing any BSC games from BSC floors, period. The problem we have with a BSC tournament including all 12 teams, is that there are many communities in our league that just can not support a thing that big. Also, if the BSC is going to run such a thing, they need contracts with providers, suppliers, media, and sponsors. I get all of that. Plus, it needs to be somewhat fair to all of the participants.

As it stands, there is a miniscule chance of a low (lower than the 4th seed) team making it to the championship game. They would have to win four games in four nights. Not too likely of a scenario. The top four seeds have a tremendous advantage. The regular season does mean something. The regular season champion is the BSC champion. The tournament is just to see who goes to the NCAA tournament and who might get a lesser bid, that's all. The tournament is going to favor teams with the most developed benches.

I understand why the coaches all wanted this. They don't like seeing their fellow coaches getting fired for not making the tournament. However, it could be done differently.

I don't know all of the alternatives that were considered by the committee. However, I can think of one where we keep the thing on BSC floors and still include all 12 teams. A solution that any of our communities could handle. This is how it would go:

Round 1) The bottom 8 teams play each other on the floors of the higher seeded teams.

Round 2) The round one winners play on the home floors of the top 4 seeds.

Round 3 & 4) The 'Sky Four' can now be played at a pre-determined site or on the floor of the regular season champion. You could have a travel and rest day between rounds 2 & 3.

The BSC used to do absolutely nothing, but take in some money from the host school. It remains to be seen if they are able to do anything now. Are they working on sponsors? Media deals? Transportation packages? Are they doing anything for fans? It should all be done by now, and I haven't heard a peep out of the BSC.
Not a good sign.

#NoRoadInSight #LostOnTheRoad #LostMySavings #GoingToHell
Click to expand...

Olds, your proposed solution is a lot like what the league had been doing until a couple of years ago. The reason it was changed was travel issues -- try buying airline tickets to Pocatello, Bozeman or Flagstaff on a week's notice, and if you win, then turn around and buy tickets to Ogden or Missoula on two or three days notice. Not to mention getting hotel rooms, a bus, etc. I know there is this perception that the Big Sky coaches were pushing the changes in format to "protect" their jobs, and their buddies. There was probably an element of that. But the biggest reason the coaches wanted format changes (the biggest being a pre-determined site) was to make travel predictable, fair and affordable.
Click to expand...

And POSSIBLE!!!!!
 
Personally, if the host can't be the regular season champ, then what is the purpose of having a tournament? The Sky should be most concerned, being a 1 bid conference, to getting their best team to the Big Dance every year. Until the Sky starts winning some games in the Dance consistently, improves its SOS, and overall RPI, it will stay a 1 bid conference.

To me, this whole "predetermined location," only hurts the efforts of the conference to become a conference that can get more than 1 team into the Dance. Let's be honest...that is probably never going to happen, but we can all dream. And the best way to ensuring that the conference is sending its best team year in and year out is to ensure that the best team have ALL of the advantages. I say, forget about a conference tournament, if the regular season champ can't host. If two teams tie, there are tie breakers, if not have the game played at a neutral site between the two schools. If one can't make it for travel reasons, then they forfeit. Easy...looool
 
The BSC does not travel. Never has. Never will. :coffee:

OK. The schedule has been out for a while. How many Pokotelians have booked their travel to Ogden? To Moscow? To Cheney? How many No Daks are planning a trip to UNCO? How many Sacatillians have booked Flaggstaff?

The BSC does not travel. :wall: Stop talking about travel being such a big deal for fans. Only the teams themselves. You could stage it at the South Pole and the attendance would be quite similar. If attendance is an issue at all, stage it on BSC floors. Let the home teams profit from it, until the final 4. :tothehand:
 
Maybe things will change. The discussion needs to continue over the next few years. Maybe dropping it altogether is the best solution. Who knows?
 
To me it is not worth arguing the change anymore. The tournament is in Reno for three years.

My problem is how the conference is trying to generate buzz and excitement for this tournament. The dog and pony show started when they held a press conference two have a draft between the two host hotels on who got to stay where. Really who cares? Next we bring the coaches in for this media day. Again who cares. Then we have the road to Reno, which makes no sense at all. To me it is all misappropriated funds.

The conference tournament wasn't and isn't the biggest issue facing the conference. These funds and the conferences time and energy would be better spent:

A: Helping schools with scheduling by securing an agreement with another lower D1 conference to ensure that member schools can get a few home games against D1 opponents. If most of our coaches are saying that they are having a hard time scheduling D1 opponents, why isn't the conference supporting them.

B: Investing in better officiating for mens and womens basketball. The officiating at the conference tournaments last year was very poor. It needs to be better.

Instead of tackling the real problems, we are pumping time, energy and money into a conference tournament that will do little to boost the conference up and may be an embarrassment on a national level. If I was a coach I would much rather be with my team than holding a basketball in front of the Reno sign for a photo op. I propose That Doug, Ron, and the clever marketing person that came up with "Road to Reno", all have to stay in Winnemucca during the Big Sky Conference Tournament.
 
oldrunner said:
The BSC does not travel. Never has. Never will. :coffee:

OK. The schedule has been out for a while. How many Pokotelians have booked their travel to Ogden? To Moscow? To Cheney? How many No Daks are planning a trip to UNCO? How many Sacatillians have booked Flaggstaff?

The BSC does not travel. :wall: Stop talking about travel being such a big deal for fans. Only the teams themselves. You could stage it at the South Pole and the attendance would be quite similar. If attendance is an issue at all, stage it on BSC floors. Let the home teams profit from it, until the final 4. :tothehand:
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if this was directed at my comment, Olds, but if so, I was not referring to fans travelling -- I was referring to TEAMS travelling. At ISU and Pocatello, this whole issue reached a crescendo two years ago, when North Dakota was hosting the women's basketball tournament and the ISU women wound up taking a two-day bus trip to get there because they couldn't find enough seats on a plane to get the whole team there on one flight. (Not to mention the large cost of booking tickets there without two weeks notice). I think the concern of a lot of coaches and ADs really reached a peak that year, when everybody had to figure out how to get to North Dakota on short notice.

I agree with you, Big Sky FANS do not travel, and won't probably won't travel to Reno. I think the Big Sky ADs and Presidents are willing to make the trade-off of very few fans in the stands for the tournament in return for travel certainty and cost reduction.

As to the question of, "Why have the tournament in the first place?", I think that is a very fair question. The Big Sky was the second conference in the nation to go to a tournament format to select their NCAA tournament representative, back in the 1970s. I don't know why the conference chose that route back then (probably got them more publicity and attention), but you have to ask the question now, "What is the value of the tournament?" It certainly doesn't make any money, and it puts the regular season champion, the assumed "best team in the conference" at risk. I don't think the Big Sky will EVER have more than one team in the NCAA, so I'm not sure why the league is still playing the tournament.
 
webergrad02 said:
A: Helping schools with scheduling by securing an agreement with another lower D1 conference to ensure that member schools can get a few home games against D1 opponents. If most of our coaches are saying that they are having a hard time scheduling D1 opponents, why isn't the conference supporting them.

My understanding is the Big Sky has approached other D-1 leagues about scheduling agreements and a pre-season challenge, and got no interest. Other leagues are not interested in trying to figure out how to get to Pocatello, Flagstaff or North Dakota, or so I'm told. I would think Weber would have the BEST situation to get a decent home schedule, because they are located near a major airport. But your past success probably works against you, in that D-1 teams that are willing to travel are more interested in playing teams they have a decent chance to beat.
Click to expand...
 
Bengal visitor said:
webergrad02 said:
A: Helping schools with scheduling by securing an agreement with another lower D1 conference to ensure that member schools can get a few home games against D1 opponents. If most of our coaches are saying that they are having a hard time scheduling D1 opponents, why isn't the conference supporting them.

My understanding is the Big Sky has approached other D-1 leagues about scheduling agreements and a pre-season challenge, and got no interest. Other leagues are not interested in trying to figure out how to get to Pocatello, Flagstaff or North Dakota, or so I'm told. I would think Weber would have the BEST situation to get a decent home schedule, because they are located near a major airport. But your past success probably works against you, in that D-1 teams that are willing to travel are more interested in playing teams they have a decent chance to beat.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Yes it is going to take work, time and energy to make this happen. What does it tell you when Weber is having a very difficult time getting home games? That is why teams need the support from the conference. I would much rather see an effort behind this concept than something in Reno that is set up to fail.
 
You are right, Bengal, the BSC gave little consideration to the fans in making their choice. This was all about coaches, schools, and money. Everybody has complained about traveling to the frozen tundra, and Reno was the best alternative for saving money.

Most BSC schools have airports close by. We are only talking about a few that don't.

In the next round of considerations, my vote would be to scrap it all together. :coffee:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top