Okay...so what do you all think? Where are we as a conference and most importantly as a school because of this decision?
-
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!
Six Years Later: Big Sky Neutral Site Tournament
- Thread starter n.ogdencat
- Start date
Well, I would say that the conference has not improved basketballwise in any measure. This decision has not helped any other team get into the NCAA Tournament, has decreased attendance, and helped lower fan interest. We have generally had lower seeds even in March Madness. Our school, well I think moving to a neutral site has only been a small portion of our problem. We are in no ways better off though. If anything, the program has gone backwards. Who has improved under this format? Maybe you could say Eastern Washington and Southern Utah are better, but it hasn't really done anything to help any of the schools progress. The Big Sky should be finding ways to improve the conference, and increase its brand. A neutral site tournament has done neither of those things, especially with locations that no one is excited to visit.
weberwildcat
Active member
all i know is i went to the final 2 in reno and the only one in boise and i was not a fan of either site. sure boise had more fans show up but i am not sure that mattered. the sky said it was the convenience and cost reduction of the predetermined site. if it was about fans or atmosphere it would still be at the reg season champ's arena.
reno got worse each yr but if you happen to go the 3rd year you won stuff or competed in the timeout promotions since u were 1 of the 10 there. it was like the purple and white game for every tourney game. it was so depressing when thinking about all the games weber used to host. reno at least had gambling which everyone there liked more than the games. i enjoyed the random non weber games because it was fun to bet on them all. but then in boise it was a bit less fun, more fans but still not a great atmosphere.
my assumption is boise will get extended another 3 years.
reno got worse each yr but if you happen to go the 3rd year you won stuff or competed in the timeout promotions since u were 1 of the 10 there. it was like the purple and white game for every tourney game. it was so depressing when thinking about all the games weber used to host. reno at least had gambling which everyone there liked more than the games. i enjoyed the random non weber games because it was fun to bet on them all. but then in boise it was a bit less fun, more fans but still not a great atmosphere.
my assumption is boise will get extended another 3 years.