Should all 12 compete in the BSCT?

[weberwildcat]

 

[oldrunner]

I don't care about all the teams playing, but the site selection sucked, and Reno as the site sucks.

I don't see it as everyone gets a ribbon. I see it as a second championship to sort out the NCAA bid, only.

Because I feel that way about it, I see it as a waste of time and money. Just crown a champion in the regular season and leave it at that. Let all the rest of the teams have a playoff to see who goes to the CIT, CBA, AZT, NIT, or whatever TH booby prize they want to award. hno: hno:

 

[WILDCAT]

In a conference like the Big East where 90% of the teams in that Conf make the dance regardless of how they do in the tournament, 12 teams work. But the Big Sky who always has and always will only get one team, the conference needs to do whatever they can to help get the best team or at least a top team into the dance. Nobody wants to see a 12 seed from the Big Sky get hot and win the whole thing after winning 3 or 4 games all year. To eliminate that you make sure the bottom half 7-12 don't get in. The top 6 should be the only ones invited, not to mention it makes the regular season worth playing for

 

[Geo-Guy15]

In a conference like the Big East where 90% of the teams in that Conf make the dance regardless of how they do in the tournament, 12 teams work. But the Big Sky who always has and always will only get one team, the conference needs to do whatever they can to help get the best team or at least a top team into the dance. Nobody wants to see a 12 seed from the Big Sky get hot and win the whole thing after winning 3 or 4 games all year. To eliminate that you make sure the bottom half 7-12 don't get in. The top 6 should be the only ones invited, not to mention it makes the regular season worth playing for

I completely agree. As a conference, we want to put our very best team into the NCAA tournament. It should be a six team tournament, hosted at the site of the regular conference champion. First two seeds get a bye in the first round.
I can see what the conference is trying to do by creating a destination event, but besides us and Montana, do any other schools have a large enough fan base that is expected to travel? I wouldn't think so...

 

[ajwildcat]

Short answer is NO! If you aren't good enough to earn your way into the Big Sky Tourney then you shouldn't be rewarded with post season. Lets face it, this is a pretty terrible league, and if you cant get into the top 8 then you are a really terrible team. If you want to get to the tourney then earn it.
If anyone besides WSU or Montana wins the Tourney this year they will be in the play in game and get curb stomped. How good of a look is that for the Conference?

 

[baller]

I've got news for you AJ, its been a long time since any Big Sky schools who went to the NCAA tournament has done anything but get curb stomped!

Geo-guy they are doing this with the tournament to try and build a stronger fan base for all the BSC schools. I applaud them for trying rather that just accepting the attendance embarrassment that the Big Sky is.

It seems to me that most here don't give a hoot about the Conference (and Weber) getting better. They are happy with being the biggest little fish in the muddy little hole called the BSC. Maybe that is the very reason that the BSC has become such an embarrassment...

 

[ajwildcat]

I've got news for you AJ, its been a long time since any Big Sky schools who went to the NCAA tournament has done anything but get curb stomped!

Geo-guy they are doing this with the tournament to try and build a stronger fan base for all the BSC schools. I applaud them for trying rather that just accepting the attendance embarrassment that the Big Sky is.

It seems to me that most here don't give a hoot about the Conference (and Weber) getting better. They are happy with being the biggest little fish in the muddy little hole called the BSC. Maybe that is the very reason that the BSC has become such an embarrassment...

So you are saying it's all the fans fault that the Big Sky's RPI has been falling like a rock for the last 10+ years? Ok yeah makes sense. :doh:

 

[weberwildcat]

it is correct sky teams typically get served in the big dance but that is expected for 13-16 seeds. weber losing by 9 to a 1 seed was far from the typical sky result of the past 20 years. but aj point i think is that it actually could get worse if we send one of our middle of pack or lower half teams.

 

[STGWildcat]

It seems to me that most here don't give a hoot about the Conference (and Weber) getting better. They are happy with being the biggest little fish in the muddy little hole called the BSC. Maybe that is the very reason that the BSC has become such an embarrassment...

I don't get that impression. Weber State administration might be content with the status quo, but the people on this message board are some of the biggest fans you'll find. Most fans on this board are pissed that Randy Rahe can't seem to win an any meaningful in-state games, let alone beat UVU (and only beat SUU by four who has one of the worst RPIs in the nation).

If this board were content, they wouldn't be calling for Randy's job to be taken away from him (or at least a pay cut) when he loses to the likes of UVU and Denver, and blows yet another chance to beat a USU team that is arguably weaker than Weber right now.

The Big Sky is certainly an embarrassment, but to place blame on Weber for that is off-base in my opinion. Weber is consistently in the top two in the conference. What are they supposed to do, start recruiting for the other schools so they'll be more competitive? If anything, Weber and Montana typically get the other schools' in the conference best shots, even when the other schools are horrible. I'd give Weber credit for improving the conference in that regard. If Weber sucked too, other Big Sky schools wouldn't be motivated to bring their A game when on the court against Weber/Montana.

Weber certainly isn't perfect, and I wish they could improve their out of conference schedule and win some in-state games, but hardly anybody on this board is content with those weaknesses.

 

[baller]

No "AJ" I was not saying its the fans fault. I was saying that it is a good thing that the Conference is trying to do something to improve the Conference. Not everyone see Reno as you do. I applaud them for trying to make something better. Time will tell if it works or not, but I am glad they they are trying.

Although the Arizona/Weber final score showed only a 9 point differential there was a point midway through the second half that Weber was down almost 20. No, it was not a true "curb-stomping" but still not exactly competitive. But every other Big Sky NCAA appearance in recent time has been a "curb-stomping", including some that Weber has participated in.

Maybe the best way for Weber to help to improve the conference is to do like Gonzaga and play tough schedules "anywhere, anytime" win a few and gradually gain national respect. That would pull all the other teams up with them I believe.

Telling people not to go to Reno so that they will move the tournament back to the old format is insanity. Maybe those of you who support this approach should spend your energy on interacting with Bovee and Chuck Wight to force (1)Rahe to upgrade the schedule; (2) to get the athletic department to raise more funds to pay better schools to visit the Dee; and (3) convince Rahe to hire some a real assistant coach instead of a bunch of trainees. Rahe needs help to become a better X's & O's and game strategy coach, to expand his repertoire and to open up his mind to new ideas...

 

[n.ogdencat]

My opinion...

NO...all 12 shouldn't be invited and no it shouldn't be at a neutral location but at the Regular Season Champs place. Makes the season far more exciting. The conference needs to protect the best team so that it has the best chance of getting a W in the Big Dance. You don't play to get a participation ribbon, but a reward. Athletic competition is about rewarding the best. If you aren't top 8 your season should end. If you are #1 you should host. Every year 12 teams have the chance to host. That to me is equal and fair. If you can't get the wins, you don't have the right to host. The best should be rewarded for their efforts and successes.

ROAD TO RENO = TOTALLY STUPID.

 

[SWWeatherCat]

No "AJ" I was not saying its the fans fault. I was saying that it is a good thing that the Conference is trying to do something to improve the Conference. Not everyone see Reno as you do. I applaud them for trying to make something better. Time will tell if it works or not, but I am glad they they are trying.

Please explain how removing the best part of the season from the conference and introducing a greater chance of advancing a worse talent improves it and makes it better. I can't make ANY sense of that thought process.

Maybe the best way for Weber to help to improve the conference is to do like Gonzaga and play tough schedules "anywhere, anytime" win a few and gradually gain national respect. That would pull all the other teams up with them I believe.

That seems the best/only way to improve Weber, not the conference. However, if Weber can't sustain the talent/success to snag an occasional win and is continually blown out, that could end up having a negative effect in the long run.

Telling people not to go to Reno so that they will move the tournament back to the old format is insanity. Maybe those of you who support this approach should spend your energy on interacting with Bovee and Chuck Wight to force (1)Rahe to upgrade the schedule; (2) to get the athletic department to raise more funds to pay better schools to visit the Dee; and (3) convince Rahe to hire some a real assistant coach instead of a bunch of trainees. Rahe needs help to become a better X's & O's and game strategy coach, to expand his repertoire and to open up his mind to new ideas...

What's truly insane is suggesting that fans and customers should be trying to convince these employees how to best do their jobs, how to generate better interest, support, and revenue.

 

[WeberSki]

No "AJ" I was not saying its the fans fault. I was saying that it is a good thing that the Conference is trying to do something to improve the Conference. Not everyone see Reno as you do. I applaud them for trying to make something better. Time will tell if it works or not, but I am glad they they are trying.

Please explain how removing the best part of the season from the conference and introducing a greater chance of advancing a worse talent improves it and makes it better. I can't make ANY sense of that thought process.

Maybe the best way for Weber to help to improve the conference is to do like Gonzaga and play tough schedules "anywhere, anytime" win a few and gradually gain national respect. That would pull all the other teams up with them I believe.

That seems the best/only way to improve Weber, not the conference. However, if Weber can't sustain the talent/success to snag an occasional win and is continually blown out, that could end up having a negative effect in the long run.

Telling people not to go to Reno so that they will move the tournament back to the old format is insanity. Maybe those of you who support this approach should spend your energy on interacting with Bovee and Chuck Wight to force (1)Rahe to upgrade the schedule; (2) to get the athletic department to raise more funds to pay better schools to visit the Dee; and (3) convince Rahe to hire some a real assistant coach instead of a bunch of trainees. Rahe needs help to become a better X's & O's and game strategy coach, to expand his repertoire and to open up his mind to new ideas...

What's truly insane is suggesting that fans and customers should be trying to convince these employees how to best do their jobs, how to generate better interest, support, and revenue.

Baller, quit pulling a Rubio & answer the question, you keep dodging..

 

[n.ogdencat]

The Big Sky is its worst enemy. However, like I have said before they are merely facilitating the decision of the conference presidents and AD's. 10 schools don't like the fact that 2 schools constantly host. To me, all 12 have a chance to host every year. I don't see where the issue is? Every January every school starts conference 0-0. That is fair and equal. All the athletes are competing for the right to host. By the end...the best school, the conference champion, has EARNED the right to host. The next 7 teams, have EARNED the right to keep playing the worst 4 are done. I don't see how this is a bad system? It is the conference's fault for not getting better TV deals, maximizing media coverage, and "pimping" the conference.

What I don't like or understand, is that now we have to give a participation ribbon to collegiate athletes. What the hell? Are we in kindergarten? This isn't grade school, but a division I conference. Next, being a college coach is a JOB. If you aren't good at your job, you don't keep it. That is a major aspect of our society. We work hard to be the best that we can be. If we are good, we get promotions. If not, we usually get a pink slip. Creating a conference tournament, or using the excuse that we need a neutral conference tournament that everyone is invited to, so that coaches don't get fired, is very LOOOOOOOL (as sir Velo would say). Lastly, UNCO was the last team to host other than Weber and Montana. They don't have the biggest facility, but from what I can remember, it was packed for both of the cubbies games. It looked great on ESPN and that is what we really want, isn't it. Too see the best program, get the best chance of advancing to the round of 68.

ROAD to RENO = Insanity and really poor decision. This isn't the way to build a conference. Better refs, coaches, winning OCC games, and get a win in the dance builds the conference. WCC would be nothing without Gonzaga. But Gonzaga got it going because they won in the Dance. That is the line. You need to win in the dance and advance. That will help the conference more than anything else. Oh, marketing and generating more revenue wouldn't be a bad idea either. That would really help us. That is for damn sure.

Thank you and good night!!!

 

[WeberSki]

The Big Sky is its worst enemy. However, like I have said before they are merely facilitating the decision of the conference presidents and AD's. 10 schools don't like the fact that 2 schools constantly host. To me, all 12 have a chance to host every year. I don't see where the issue is? Every January every school starts conference 0-0. That is fair and equal. All the athletes are competing for the right to host. By the end...the best school, the conference champion, has EARNED the right to host. The next 7 teams, have EARNED the right to keep playing the worst 4 are done. I don't see how this is a bad system? It is the conference's fault for not getting better TV deals, maximizing media coverage, and "pimping" the conference.

What I don't like or understand, is that now we have to give a participation ribbon to collegiate athletes. What the hell? Are we in kindergarten? This isn't grade school, but a division I conference. Next, being a college coach is a JOB. If you aren't good at your job, you don't keep it. That is a major aspect of our society. We work hard to be the best that we can be. If we are good, we get promotions. If not, we usually get a pink slip. Creating a conference tournament, or using the excuse that we need a neutral conference tournament that everyone is invited to, so that coaches don't get fired, is very LOOOOOOOL (as sir Velo would say). Lastly, UNCO was the last team to host other than Weber and Montana. They don't have the biggest facility, but from what I can remember, it was packed for both of the cubbies games. It looked great on ESPN and that is what we really want, isn't it. Too see the best program, get the best chance of advancing to the round of 68.

ROAD to RENO = Insanity and really poor decision. This isn't the way to build a conference. Better refs, coaches, winning OCC games, and get a win in the dance builds the conference. WCC would be nothing without Gonzaga. But Gonzaga got it going because they won in the Dance. That is the line. You need to win in the dance and advance. That will help the conference more than anything else. Oh, marketing and generating more revenue wouldn't be a bad idea either. That would really help us. That is for damn sure.

Thank you and good night!!!

Baller would tell you that Gonzaga got where it's at today because the WCC tourney is neutral tourney in Vegas.

 

[STGWildcat]

The Big Sky is its worst enemy. However, like I have said before they are merely facilitating the decision of the conference presidents and AD's. 10 schools don't like the fact that 2 schools constantly host. To me, all 12 have a chance to host every year. I don't see where the issue is? Every January every school starts conference 0-0. That is fair and equal. All the athletes are competing for the right to host. By the end...the best school, the conference champion, has EARNED the right to host. The next 7 teams, have EARNED the right to keep playing the worst 4 are done. I don't see how this is a bad system? It is the conference's fault for not getting better TV deals, maximizing media coverage, and "pimping" the conference.

What I don't like or understand, is that now we have to give a participation ribbon to collegiate athletes. What the hell? Are we in kindergarten? This isn't grade school, but a division I conference. Next, being a college coach is a JOB. If you aren't good at your job, you don't keep it. That is a major aspect of our society. We work hard to be the best that we can be. If we are good, we get promotions. If not, we usually get a pink slip. Creating a conference tournament, or using the excuse that we need a neutral conference tournament that everyone is invited to, so that coaches don't get fired, is very LOOOOOOOL (as sir Velo would say). Lastly, UNCO was the last team to host other than Weber and Montana. They don't have the biggest facility, but from what I can remember, it was packed for both of the cubbies games. It looked great on ESPN and that is what we really want, isn't it. Too see the best program, get the best chance of advancing to the round of 68.

ROAD to RENO = Insanity and really poor decision. This isn't the way to build a conference. Better refs, coaches, winning OCC games, and get a win in the dance builds the conference. WCC would be nothing without Gonzaga. But Gonzaga got it going because they won in the Dance. That is the line. You need to win in the dance and advance. That will help the conference more than anything else. Oh, marketing and generating more revenue wouldn't be a bad idea either. That would really help us. That is for damn sure.

Thank you and good night!!!

I certainly don't disagree with this. I'm biased because I'm a fan of one of the top two teams in the conference (Weber State), but the other schools certainly can't argue with your logic. Now, I don't really want this to happen, because I'll cheer for any Big Sky team who makes it to the NCAA Tournament, but the vindictive side of me kind of wants one of the lower-level Big Sky teams to make it to the NCAA Tournament and lose by 50+ points and get the Big Sky executives thinking, "Yeah. Yeah...that was a pretty poor plan, wasn't it? Let's not do that again after the Reno contract is over."

Of course, in reality, I want Weber to blast everyone in the conference tournament out of the water and have it be a moot point other than not being able to see them play in person since I'm not going to make a special trip to Reno in the middle of March when I have a career to worry about.

 

[baller]

Tal, where is the ribbon if a team doesn't win the tournament? Yes, they all get to play in the tournament but the winner is the only one who comes home with anything. What participation ribbon? Its a ridiculous notion... not the same at all as what you are calling it! Yes, I know, you will respond that getting to participate is the ribbon. If that is accurate then there should be no tournament at all. The fact is that no matter how many teams are invited to play in the tournament, under your claim all but one would be getting a participation ribbon since they didn't win the regular season. My guess is that you echo the sentiments of most of the poster's here; that we should hold the tournament at the regular season's champs home floor. And that is because most Weber fans understand that it means that almost all of the tournaments would be played at either Montana or Weber. However, it seems to me that the real explanation is in two parts; 1) that the fans here do not want to travel to support the team or cannot afford to travel; and 2) most want the home court advantage. Those are the only real arguments that emerge under scrutiny. As I have stated before, maybe its time the fans here expand their horizons just as they want Weber to do with its basketball and football programs.

 

[n.ogdencat]

Tal, where is the ribbon if a team doesn't win the tournament? Yes, they all get to play in the tournament but the winner is the only one who comes home with anything. What participation ribbon? Its a ridiculous notion... not the same at all as what you are calling it! Yes, I know, you will respond that getting to participate is the ribbon. If that is accurate then there should be no tournament at all. The fact is that no matter how many teams are invited to play in the tournament, under your claim all but one would be getting a participation ribbon since they didn't win the regular season. My guess is that you echo the sentiments of most of the poster's here; that we should hold the tournament at the regular season's champs home floor. And that is because most Weber fans understand that it means that almost all of the tournaments would be played at either Montana or Weber. However, it seems to me that the real explanation is in two parts; 1) that the fans here do not want to travel to support the team or cannot afford to travel; and 2) most want the home court advantage. Those are the only real arguments that emerge under scrutiny. As I have stated before, maybe its time the fans here expand their horizons just as they want Weber to do with its basketball and football programs.

So, in essence, you agree with my original position (please see other threads for more details) that there shouldn't even be a tournament. The regular season should be the defining measure; the line. Whoever wins the regular season wins the biggest prize, the right to play in The Dance. We don't need a tournament, in actuality another week long season to re-crown a team. You really believe that is a good option? You think that is fair? You think that is the best option? Oh, we've already played 16, 18, or what I think should happen 22 games (home and homes for everyone) over two months and we have a champion, but now we need to erase those results, have a tournament at a neutral location, with everyone there even the 2 win team and start over. How is this a good thing? One week can erase two months? To me, it is not the best option or that it should even be an option. And yes, by inviting everyone you are giving everyone a "participation ribbon" does SUU and NAU really deserve the chance to keep playing after their lackluster seasons? Besides, the conference already used that excuse for the tourny being changed and held in Reno...everyone needs another chance. That's stupid and you know. Why have a regular season? You should only play 3/4 games and that's it. Winner takes all because of one week in March. Not because of the previous four months!

By the way baller...your rebuttal doesn't match or even challenge my original posts. You went around the outside and just tried to spin your conference line position another way. I know you have to, but it isn't a winning argument. I don't care who hosts as long as it ensures that the best team, from that season, has the best chance to represent. My favorite all time championship was in Missoula and UM won but it was an amazing game and atmosphere that you will never experience in Reno. So...time to get rid of the tourny and play 22 games. Best team gets the prize.

 

[wsucatfan]

If the BSC must have an everyone included neutral site tournament let's change it to be a pre-season tournament to kick off the regular season in Las Vegas. The regular season determines the champion and NCAA selection. Every team gets their "tournament" feel good experience aka participation ribbon.

 

[SWWeatherCat]

... My guess is that you echo the sentiments of most of the poster's here; that we should hold the tournament at the regular season's champs home floor. And that is because most Weber fans understand that it means that almost all of the tournaments would be played at either Montana or Weber. However, it seems to me that the real explanation is in two parts; 1) that the fans here do not want to travel to support the team or cannot afford to travel; and 2) most want the home court advantage. Those are the only real arguments that emerge under scrutiny. As I have stated before, maybe its time the fans here expand their horizons just as they want Weber to do with its basketball and football programs.

Yes, the tourny should be held at the regular season champ's home, that is validation for being the best team during the regular season. As a Weber fan, it's not because I only want it hosted at Ogden or Missula, I want the tournament held at the CONFERENCE SITE of the team that EARNS the advantage instead of "participation awards" being handed out to everyone. I want a home court advantage for the team that went out and earned it. I want the fans and supporters of that team to be rewarded with a great atmosphere in which to enjoy the most exciting time of the season. I want the BSC and BSC communities supported economically by the team who earned it for them, as opposed to some whore house out in the desert.

I would travel to certain BSC venues within a certain price point and depending how the team/conference is playing. I WILL NOT travel to reNO, ever, despite it being relatively easy and affordable to get to. Why in the world would I want to support an out-of-conference venue and teams that have no business being in the tournament? I'm a Weber State fan and supporter first and foremost, then I'm a fan of many of the other BSC teams who advance, but not all of them. I'm certainly not a BSC first fan or supporter. I suspect most BSC supporters are team first, I mean we're not the sec or pacX.

You've never explained how holding a non-televised neutral site tournament that no one is interested in attending makes the conference better or makes the conference teams better. Why is it expanding horizons to change from something that has been exiting and has been supported well in local venues, to the joke formally to be known as reNO? This has been tried before in Denver and it worked as well then as I suspect it's going to in reNO. Don't just say NO, say reNO!