Serious Question: Why Does the Big Sky have a tournament?

aucat · Post by **aucat** » Tue Mar 06, 2018 4:32 pm

I'm not trying to be negative, I'm just trying to understand why the Big Sky even plays a tournament? It HAS to be a big
money loser. Just think, all the teams have to fly/bus their players to Reno, not to mention bands, cheerleaders, etc.

The hotel room expenses. Meals. This thing surely makes no money. There are no fans in the arena. There is not television,
just the Pluto, which at least on my computer with high speed internet is a joke, with stop and go action.

If my memory serves me correctly, it was the ACC --the mighty basketball conference with the NCs, Dukes, NC State, Maryland,
etc. that started having a conference tournament. But that was a huge money maker. Given the close proximity of most of
the schools, the tournament games were sold out, plus you had TV.

Why not just have the Big Sky designate the regular season winner as the team that gets to go to the NCAA? Look at this year.
UM is the hands down champ. So why go through all of the money losing venture to play a tournament at a location where no
one attends?

At least when the tournament was hosted by the regular season champ, attendance was outstanding at least when the home
team played. But no one goes to Reno. And they won't go to Boise either.

I went to Reno the first year. It was not easy to get there. To far to drive for me anyway. Had to fly to SLC then to Reno. Booked
roundtrip tix. Then both men and women"s teams were one and done. I made the best of the trip, but decided not to do that again.

Just wondering. Maybe some of you folks out there who are way more knowledgeable about the finances of college athletics
in the Big Sky can explain to me why we bother to have this tournament?

aucat · Post by **aucat** » Tue Mar 06, 2018 4:34 pm

I meant to also mention how much class time the student athletes and band and cheerleaders miss also.

It is tough enough on the players during the regular season. Why add on more missed classes for them?

CatBlitz · Post by **CatBlitz** » Tue Mar 06, 2018 4:36 pm

Reno is a debacle. No fan gives a ****** enough to go there for it (a bit of hyperbole).

mslacatfan · Post by **mslacatfan** » Tue Mar 06, 2018 4:37 pm

I agree with ya.

Regular season champ should get the auto tourney bid... end of story.

NorthernPlains · Post by **NorthernPlains** » Tue Mar 06, 2018 5:48 pm

Well a Big Sky tournament pre-dates the current conference configuration. Yet today's unbalance conference schedule makes a tournament a very useful tool to ensure your best (or at least hottest) team advances. Montana was clearly the best team during the season yet they only played Idaho & E. WA once.

Though I see no reason it needs to include all the teams. You could exclude the bottom third of the conference and not change the outcome (and probably not even notice their absence).

4everacatfan · Post by **4everacatfan** » Tue Mar 06, 2018 6:40 pm

Didn't the Big Sky use to give the tournament to the team that won the championship the year before and then you knew where you were giong a year in advance and even if that team did not make the tournament because back then only 6 teams made it all the money was still going to a town part of the Big Sky Conference?

84CatGrad · Post by **84CatGrad** » Tue Mar 06, 2018 9:05 pm

I have no idea why the Big sky has a tournament. I think we should always send our best team to the NCAA's which in my opinion is the regular season champ. Let's face it, the Big sky has little chance of winning a game in the NCAA's. Send our best hope, the regular season champ.

griz5700 · Post by **griz5700** » Tue Mar 06, 2018 10:27 pm

I hear from guys who go to Reno that it’s a lot of fun.

Boise? Yawn. Zero interest.

Potomac Griz · Post by **Potomac Griz** » Tue Mar 06, 2018 11:48 pm

84CatGrad wrote:I have no idea why the Big sky has a tournament. I think we should always send our best team to the NCAA's which in my opinion is the regular season champ. Let's face it, the Big sky has little chance of winning a game in the NCAA's. Send our best hope, the regular season champ.

FWIW, the last Big Sky team that won a tournament game wasn't the regular season champion. I think having a tournament is a good thing but really wish it was limited to the top half of the conference & hosted on campus sites (whoever won the regular season title). I thought it was perfect when there were 6 teams in the tournament. Often in the Big Sky there are at least a few teams that could have a pretty good showing in the NCAA tournament. This year I'd say there are 5 and it's been a good year for the Big Sky. Whoever is hot at the end of the year and wins the tournament deserves to go.

Look at some of the great memories from past tournaments. Bynum's dunk on Daviin Davis (who was defensive player of the year that year) for example which set the tone for a big upset for the cats after they dropped the Griz in the previous game (also an upset). The put-back dunk by Trammel in 2002 (sorry for bringing that up but it was pretty damn awesome!). The AJ performance @Weber and all the other great moments in Big Sky tournament history. I'd hate to see the tournament go away and the end of the season be kind of "blah" abruptly ending like that. Conference tournaments are a huge part of the fun of March Madness!

On the other hand what we have right now with this Reno debacle is absurd and needs to be fixed. Unfortunately the debacle is just going to be moved to Boise next year and not fixed. Maybe after the Boise contract is up the Big Sky will go back to a more sane approach. If they're worried about a team like Sac hosting they should just say if you win the regular season title and don't have the facilities to host then the 2nd place team hosts. Simple fix. There are enough teams in the Big Sky with the facilities and fan support to host that they can make this work and not look like an absolute joke on TV like the Reno crowds do.

aucat · Post by **aucat** » Wed Mar 07, 2018 12:36 am

I like the idea of rewarding the regular season champ from the previous season. I can certainly understand the
logistical problems of playing the tournament at the current regular season champ, since you may not know who
the champ is until only a few days prior to the tournament. At least in this manner you would have decent
attendance plus I see nothing wrong with rewarding the regular season champ, even if it is a year later.

Also, I like the idea of only taking the top echelon of the regular season records for the tournament, rather
than having ALL the teams play. Anyway, Reno is a disaster and so will Boise. Come on ADs you can do better than this!

CatBlitz · Post by **CatBlitz** » Wed Mar 07, 2018 12:25 pm

aucat wrote:I like the idea of rewarding the regular season champ from the previous season. I can certainly understand the
logistical problems of playing the tournament at the current regular season champ, since you may not know who
the champ is until only a few days prior to the tournament. At least in this manner you would have decent
attendance plus I see nothing wrong with rewarding the regular season champ, even if it is a year later.

Also, I like the idea of only taking the top echelon of the regular season records for the tournament, rather
than having ALL the teams play. Anyway, Reno is a disaster and so will Boise. Come on ADs you can do better than this!

Neutral site tournaments in places like Boise or Reno for the BSC will never work. Fullerton needs to take a long, hard look at what he's doing.

Hawks86 · Post by **Hawks86** » Wed Mar 07, 2018 12:33 pm

Fullerton? Actually the Presidents Council decide on things like this not the Commish.

CatBlitz · Post by **CatBlitz** » Wed Mar 07, 2018 12:58 pm

Hawks86 wrote:Fullerton? Actually the Presidents Council decide on things like this not the Commish.

I was under the impression that Fullerton still has the final say. I thought I read it was his decision to have it in Reno but I can't remember 100%.

Cats15 · Post by **Cats15** » Wed Mar 07, 2018 1:07 pm

Fullerton? I believe the commissioner is Andrea Williams.

CatBlitz · Post by **CatBlitz** » Wed Mar 07, 2018 1:09 pm

Cats15 wrote:Fullerton? I believe the commissioner is Andrea Williams.

Right but wasn't the Reno thing taken care of before he retired?

BelgradeBobcat · Post by **BelgradeBobcat** » Wed Mar 07, 2018 1:26 pm

CatBlitz wrote:
Hawks86 wrote:Fullerton? Actually the Presidents Council decide on things like this not the Commish.
I was under the impression that Fullerton still has the final say. I thought I read it was his decision to have it in Reno but I can't remember 100%.

Fullerton is long gone. Andrea Williams is the Commissioner. It's the President's decision.

This will come up every year for eternity.

Every conference holds a tournament. Even the Ivy League. It's tradition. It's March Madness. Not having a tournament would hurt recruiting league wide.

The reasons for the pre-determined site-everybody goes, men and women in the same place tournament are many. A large crowd on championship night is not the top consideration. Coaches said a guaranteed tournament experience helps recruiting. Weber, Montana, and Idaho would always go, but if you leave out the bottom feeders like NAU, SUU and MSU (on the men's side) it holds them down even further because kids want a tournament. Then there's the predictable travel arrangements. If you don't know if you are going until the last weekend of the season you can't arrange travel. Getting a flight out of Bozeman for an entire basketball team on less than week's notice would be impossible. Women and men in the same location allows the bands, cheerleaders, administrators, and big boosters who travel the ability to support both teams and guarantees at least two games to cheer for. Skyline sports wrote a long article about this with lots of quotes. Maybe Colter will post it. It should be required reading before anyone posts that we should go back to doing it the old way.

I think they'll continue to tweak it. Boise will probably be better attended because the Idaho schools are involved, it's closer to most of the schools, and there are more grads from most of the Big Sky schools in Boise than there are in Reno I believe-certainly more MSU grads in Boise than Reno. But crowds will probably still be disappointing unless Idaho is in the championship game-which they probably will be on a regular basis. Boise is boring though. It'd be more fun in Vegas, Seattle, Denver, Phoenix.

The tournament is too long. They need to figure out how to squeeze it down by a couple of days. Maybe some of the early games can be played in an alternate venue? The early games are particularly poorly attended so they could probably rent out a local high school or something in the tournament City. Or have more sessions in the day which would result in morning games. Also, giving the lower seeds a day of rest in between games gives them an advantage they don't deserve.

UND92 · Post by **UND92** » Wed Mar 07, 2018 1:41 pm

This is the final year for UND in the Big Sky. As I have enjoyed our time in the Big Sky, I am looking forward to joining the Summit League next year. Could the BS do something like the Summit and host the BB tournaments in a city like Missoula, in an arena that would be considered neutral. The Summit is held in Sioux Falls, SD, a neutral city and arena, but with advantages to the SD schools, but they had over 9,000 in attendance last night for the championship game. The majority of the BS schools could bus, not fly and fans could also drive. The atmosphere would most certainly improve.

Well thanks for the past 6 or so years in the BS and hope UND can get by Montana tomorrow. But I can't bet on it.

CatBlitz · Post by **CatBlitz** » Wed Mar 07, 2018 1:59 pm

BelgradeBobcat wrote:
CatBlitz wrote:
Hawks86 wrote:Fullerton? Actually the Presidents Council decide on things like this not the Commish.
I was under the impression that Fullerton still has the final say. I thought I read it was his decision to have it in Reno but I can't remember 100%.
Fullerton is long gone. Andrea Williams is the Commissioner. It's the President's decision.

I know, see my above reply. I should've clarified.

BelgradeBobcat · Post by **BelgradeBobcat** » Wed Mar 07, 2018 2:14 pm

UND92 wrote:This is the final year for UND in the Big Sky. As I have enjoyed our time in the Big Sky, I am looking forward to joining the Summit League next year. Could the BS do something like the Summit and host the BB tournaments in a city like Missoula, in an arena that would be considered neutral. The Summit is held in Sioux Falls, SD, a neutral city and arena, but with advantages to the SD schools, but they had over 9,000 in attendance last night for the championship game. The majority of the BS schools could bus, not fly and fans could also drive. The atmosphere would most certainly improve.

Well thanks for the past 6 or so years in the BS and hope UND can get by Montana tomorrow. But I can't bet on it.

That's kinda what they're trying by moving it to Boise next season-although Boise is a lot farther from ISU and UI than Sioux Falls is to their schools. Idaho especially is going to have a big advantage because most UI grads come from and move back to Boise. But it will also mean larger crowds. The Summit league looks great on TV, but how often does a non-South Dakota school win it? I suppose the rest of the Summit teams put up with it because its lucrative, but the SD's have huge home court advantage in that thing. I'm not sure the other Big Sky presidents are willing to concede that.

North Dakota has been a classy member of the Big Sky and they've done well in all sports. The geography was just too tough to overcome. Good luck going forward and I'm sure our teams will meet up in non-conference in various sports frequently.

John K · Post by **John K** » Wed Mar 07, 2018 10:59 pm

griz5700 wrote:I hear from guys who go to Reno that it’s a lot of fun.

Boise? Yawn. Zero interest.

Serious question...what is it that you don't like about Boise? I've spent quite a bit of time there for business over the last 15 years or so, and I think it's a great city. A couple of other people have posted disparaging comments about it too, and I truly don't get it.

As for the BSC tourney, I don't like the pre-determined neutral site format at all. No one goes, and it seems like the crowds have gotten worse every year. Boise seems to be a better fit geographically, and I think the crowds may be slightly better there, but probably not much. To me, there are only two viable options. I like the idea of awarding the tourney to the previous year's regular season champ. As someone else mentioned, better to get rewarded a year late than not at all. And of course you then gain the benefit of having a full year to make travel arrangements. I also like idea that if the champion can't provide an acceptable venue, then it goes to the 2nd place finisher.

The other option would be to have the tourney in a city that is located within the BSC footprint, such as Billings, Bozeman, Missoula, Ogden/SLC or Spokane. I know you'd get complaints from some schools about the "host" school(s) being unfairly advantaged, but I honestly don't care. If those communities don't support their programs and/or the schools aren't willing to make an investment in better facilities, then they really don't have much of a right to bitch about it in my opinion. I recognize that neither of these solutions are ideal, but I think they are both better than any of the other options.

If you decided to go with my 2nd idea, why couldn't you have several schools "audition" for the opportunity to host it on a multi year basis. The cities that I mentioned above (or any cities that had an interest in hosting, and which were deemed to be a viable option) could host for one year each, and then once all of them had their chance, you could assess which site was the most successful, and then award them a multi-year contract to host. I know that's sort of an unconventional idea, but why not? Actually, maybe it would be even better to just rotate it among several cities on a long term basis. If any of them were complete duds, then they could be removed from the rotation. That way, the same school(s) wouldn't have a home court advantage every year.