Rethinking the Tournament

[CelticCat]

I think the Big Sky should go with how the WCC does it, which is basically ensuring that a 1 or a 2 seed will get into the championship game. This is especially good for a neutral site format.

[WYCAT]

Talk about incentive to finish 1 or 2. What a challenge to come all the way from the first round too. Puts a ton of importance on the regular season. I don't hate it.

[wapiti]

How would a format like this affect the business side of the tournament?

How many ticket sales would there be for the first few rounds?

[mslacatfan]

Absolutely. Makes sense to me.

[MSU01]

How would a format like this affect the business side of the tournament?

How many ticket sales would there be for the first few rounds?

This is a lot like the old Big Sky format except the 7-10 seeds were just excluded instead of being given a nearly impossible path to get to the finals like they are here.

The main downside I can see for fans is that it could result in very split schedules for the men's and women's teams from a given school. Take NAU this year, their men's team would be playing on day 1 but their women's team would get a bye all the way to day 4. Not that there are a ton of NAU fans going to Boise under the current format, of course.

[Rich K]

Food for thought:
Maybe the Big Sky Conference doesn't really care if the conference champion wins the automatic seed because if the champion doesn't get into the tournament they have a better of doing well in the lesser tournaments.
For example if Eastern Washington wins the auto-bid to the NCAA tournament they will get the same 14-16 seed as any other team would get. One and done for the Big Sky Conference. If they lose and end up with a bid to the NIT tournament, they might win a game or two.

[kmax]

Food for thought:
Maybe the Big Sky Conference doesn't really care if the conference champion wins the automatic seed because if the champion doesn't get into the tournament they have a better of doing well in the lesser tournaments.
For example if Eastern Washington wins the auto-bid to the NCAA tournament they will get the same 14-16 seed as any other team would get. One and done for the Big Sky Conference. If they lose and end up with a bid to the NIT tournament, they might win a game or two.

I don’t really think that is the case. The whole reason that the Big Sky hung in to regular season champ hosting the tourney for so long was trying to ensure that team had every advantage to get the auto bid.

If EWU or MSU get the bid they could get a 14 or maybe squeak out a 13. 3-5 in the BSC getting the bid likely a 16 or maybe if lucky 15. Anyone else is a definite 16 and maybe a playin. For the conference getting the best team with a chance for a tourney win and the money that comes along with that is way better than having that team in the NIT.

[Camo_Cat]

The EWU announcers were saying something similar to this last night. The 1 and 2 seeds should be put into semis right from the start, and only have to play two games in the league tournament. I kinda agree with them - winning the league or placing second should mean something. If you don't get to host the tournament as league champion, you should be rewarded with the easiest path possible to win the league tourney.

[BelgradeBobcat]

I think the WCC bracket is a solution in search of a problem. Gonzaga is going to win that tournament no matter the format 80% to 90% of the time. If they don't win it St. Mary's will...and both teams will go to the NCAA Tournament anyway.
For the Big Sky, the 1 or 2 seed usually go-whatever the format. Sometimes a 3 or 4 sneak in there but that's pretty rare. The Big Sky has never had to go to the first four since they started that because we've never had a low seed win the tournament in that time. Let's see how this new 10 team bracket works. The 1 and 2 seeds get a pretty nice advantage of having a day of between the quarterfinals and the semifinals.
Tournaments are supposed to fun and have some drama. Giving the 1 and 2 a free pass to semi's really sucks the fun out of it in my opinion.

[ilovethecats]

I think the Big Sky should go with how the WCC does it, which is basically ensuring that a 1 or a 2 seed will get into the championship game. This is especially good for a neutral site format.

Been banging this drum forever.

In a mid-major such as ours, you need your top 1-2 teams representing in March Madness. Even then getting a win or two is usually a longshot, but much better chances than if you're a 5 seed in the Big Sky that caught fire a couple days.

Also the same reason I'd like to see them go back to the regular season champ hosting the tourney and having their fans on their side.

[Cat Grad]

I think the WCC bracket is a solution in search of a problem. Gonzaga is going to win that tournament no matter the format 80% to 90% of the time. If they don't win it St. Mary's will...and both teams will go to the NCAA Tournament anyway.
For the Big Sky, the 1 or 2 seed usually go-whatever the format. Sometimes a 3 or 4 sneak in there but that's pretty rare. The Big Sky has never had to go to the first four since they started that because we've never had a low seed win the tournament in that time. Let's see how this new 10 team bracket works. The 1 and 2 seeds get a pretty nice advantage of having a day of between the quarterfinals and the semifinals.
Tournaments are supposed to fun and have some drama. Giving the 1 and 2 a free pass to semi's really sucks the fun out of it in my opinion.

This right here is why I'd be against putting the first and second place conference finishers in the semifinals and only play two games in the tournament.

https://bigskyconf.com/news/2013/9/25/M ... 32819.aspx

If you do that, then why the hell bother having a conference tournament? Especially if you're going to keep having the tournaments in a place that could care less about the conference such as Reno or Boise. Go to Phoenix, Denver, Salt Lake, Portland or Vegas. Someplace with a few fans of the conference and a few decent activities for the families.

[CelticCat]

History of championship game matchups, seed listed first was the winner:

2022: 1 v 3
2021: 2 v 5
2019: 1 v 3
2018: 1 v 3
2017: 1 v 3
2016: 1 v 2
2015: 2 v 1
2014: 1 v 2
2013: 1 v 2
2012: 1 v 2
2011: 1 v 2
2010: 4 v 1

So yes it appears it hasn't mattered.

[CelticCat]

A better solution perhaps would to only invite the top 6 teams. No reason a league this big needs everybody going.

[BelgradeBobcat]

A better solution perhaps would to only invite the top 6 teams. No reason a league this big needs everybody going.

What's the harm? Coaches use the conference tournament as a recruiting tool. It's fun. As a fan I'm at least guaranteed I will see my school play twice (one men's and one women's game). Even silly things like all the mascots getting together is fun. Parents of the players can plan ahead to see their kids play. Interacting with parents is one of most fun things about the tournament.

I've been an unashamed Big Sky in Boise apologist. Even the year it got cancelled part way through ended up being a fun time even though that was a huge bummer. Of course last year with both my teams winning was a lifetime memory I will always cherish.

Under the old system all women's teams would be scrambling to figure out how to get to Flagstaff on less than a week's notice and the men's tournament would be in, ugh, Cheney. In my view it's much more fun to have both our teams in the same location so we can go and cheer them both on and also have plenty of time to plan how to get there.

[Team10]

I think the Big Sky should go with how the WCC does it, which is basically ensuring that a 1 or a 2 seed will get into the championship game. This is especially good for a neutral site format.

I do like that this give the 1 and 2 seeds an advantage to making the championship. I like bracket below better. If seeds 3-10 are gonna win they have to win 4 games, whiles the 1 and 2 seeds only have to win two times. Hope this mini bracket translates

9seed
......4 winner
4seed
...............................4 winner
5seed...........................................1winner
......5 winner...............1seed
8seed
..................................................................1----winner champion
7seed
......6 winner...............2seed
6seed............................................2 winner
...............................3 winner
3seed
......3winner
10seed

[Bobcat4Ever]

@Team10 I like your two-mini-tournaments idea to create matchups for the 1 and 2 seeds better than the WCC thing. Yours is more compact, and it maps perfectly for a 10-team conference with groups of 4, 4 and 2.

[rfischer94]

I am 100% on board with anything that protects the top 2 BSC teams. Let's all flood the Big Sky socials and Tom Wistrcill's as well.

[rfischer94]

I went to the BSC Tournament for the first time last year. Granted, that was a special year given that both the men and women Bobcats won. However, I still think I would have had a helluva good time regardless. Boise is such a fun town. Knowing where and when the tournament's going to be ahead of time makes it really easy to plan.

[WalkOn79]

I think the WCC bracket is a solution in search of a problem. Gonzaga is going to win that tournament no matter the format 80% to 90% of the time. If they don't win it St. Mary's will...and both teams will go to the NCAA Tournament anyway.
For the Big Sky, the 1 or 2 seed usually go-whatever the format. Sometimes a 3 or 4 sneak in there but that's pretty rare. The Big Sky has never had to go to the first four since they started that because we've never had a low seed win the tournament in that time. Let's see how this new 10 team bracket works. The 1 and 2 seeds get a pretty nice advantage of having a day of between the quarterfinals and the semifinals.
Tournaments are supposed to fun and have some drama. Giving the 1 and 2 a free pass to semi's really sucks the fun out of it in my opinion.

I agree with this. The BSC tourney is our March Madness for a week. Let’s give this format some time. I’ve enjoyed the ride being here all week.

[PapaG]

History of championship game matchups, seed listed first was the winner:

2022: 1 v 3
2021: 2 v 5
2019: 1 v 3
2018: 1 v 3
2017: 1 v 3
2016: 1 v 2
2015: 2 v 1
2014: 1 v 2
2013: 1 v 2
2012: 1 v 2
2011: 1 v 2
2010: 4 v 1

So yes it appears it hasn't mattered.

Wow, seed-wise 2 v 9 is a huge outlier. Combined number of 11. Next highest is 7. Format works for me.