• 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!

The Big Sky Tournament: A Trail of Tears

citygriz

Well-known member
And so, like Syrian refugees, the Big Sky tournament hits the road again--Boise? Salt Lake? Spokane? Billings?--desperate to find a venue, an audience, some respect, just like the big conferences get when THEY hold a postseason tournament. Won't somebody take us? Doesn't anybody want us? A trail of tears, indeed.

So once again, as when our football team schedules a Power Five team, or our conference tries to emulate what the big schools have done in basketball, we're faced with the obvious: We are not them; we don't belong with them. They did it for the money, of course, but the money in turn depended on elements they had, and we don't:

1. Fan Base: The original model for a basketball tournament was the Big East tournament at Madison Square Garden. The ACC, the Pac 12 and other large conferences soon emulated that success. But those schools have huge fan bases. Think Griz football, then multiply that by a factor of 50 or 100. I happened to be strolling by Madison Square Garden once during one of those Big East tournaments, and witnessed first-hand the throngs and throngs of Syracuse basketball fans, combined with the throngs and throngs of St. John's fans. Put eight Big East teams in one tournament at Madison Square Garden, and they alone would fill that arena, let alone the sports nuts and casual fans who would attend as well. Ditto a Pac 12 tournament in Las Vegas. Those fan bases are huge.
But the Big Sky fan base? Non-existent! Have you gone to the basketball boards at Montana State or Sac State or even Weber State? You've got a handful of die-hard nuts like myself on each board, little more. In the entire Big Sky Conference, there is only one fan base you can take seriously, and that is Montana for football. And our numbers pale in comparison to the larger schools in the bigger conferences. So when you attempt to hold a postseason tournament at a NEUTRAL site in the far-flung Big Sky conference, don't depend on the fan bases to show up. They don't exist.

2. TV: The Golden Goose of college athletics. Once again, the Big East was the first basketball conference to exploit this Goose, thanks to that tournament, and the incredible population density that is the northeast quadrant of this country. Mix in the aura of Madison Square Garden, the quality of the athletes, and the characters that emerged such as Dick Vitale, Rollie Massimino, or the all-black villains from Georgetown, and you had what TV craves: live, spontaneous drama. The bucks rolled in.
But the Big Sky? NO TV coverage. Used to be we'd get our championship game on ESPN. Then it was ESPN2. Now it's ESPN3. And this will persist, unless and until we have one or two teams emerge as powers in the Big Sky, as Gonzaga did in their conference. We need to be on TV. Until that happens, do you want to know the sound of a tree falling over in the forest? It's the Big Sky Tournament in Reno. Or Boise. Or Spokane, Or Salt Lake.

3. Seeding at the Big Dance: Another case for conference tournaments is the same argument that is made for the wild card in baseball: It creates interest among the teams that are out of the race. Thus a seventh-place team can get hot at the tournament, and win a spot at the Big Dance, keeping that fan base energized through a losing season. It's a great argument, it's done wonders for baseball and the larger conferences, but once again, there is a critical difference. The larger conferences generally get four, five or six teams into the Big Dance, regardless of the outcomes in the conference tournament.
The Big Sky? One and done. And if that is a fourth-place team, the seeding will be horrible, and the team that might have made a difference to the conference, will wind up playing on the road in an empty arena is some lesser unknown postseason tournament, likely not even the NIT. Again, the sound of a tree falling in the forest.

My conclusion?

I'm tempted to say, scrap the tournament altogether. The only hope for the Big Sky is for a bona fide conference champion to make a run to the Sweet 16. This is where the conference needs to make its reputation; where it needs to garner some respect by earning more favorable seedings and eventually getting a team through to the Sweet 16. That too is where the conference stands to make some serious money, because each win at the Big Dance is worth a lot of bucks to the conference. We need always always for the best team to represent us, and that is most generally the regular-season conference champion. Don't ruin our chances here with a postseason tournament.

But if you have to have one, keep it at the home of the regular season champion. They've earned it; they deserve it. And limit it to the top four teams, period. I mean, if during the regular season you've finished fifth or worse in the conference, do you really deserve a berth in a postseason tournament, a participation trophy?

Sure there are problems with scheduling, hotels, et. al. So be it. The top four teams generally are known halfway through the season, giving them time to prepare.

And one other advantage: If the host teams are Montana or Weber State or even Montana State, you are playing in arenas far classier than the barns in shithole nowhere. It's time the Big Sky Conference stopped this sad road show, and came back home where it belongs.
 
But if you have to have one, keep it at the home of the regular season champion. They've earned it; they deserve it. And limit it to the top four teams, period. I mean, if during the regular season you've finished fifth or worse in the conference, do you really deserve a berth in a postseason tournament, a participation trophy?

I will vote for this statement. I don't think it fly's in the face of the current media trend because as Citay said we have no face.
 
I agree. If the commish really wants to turn this around keep the tournament at the regular season champs home gym. Get on the phone and negotiate some airfares to get people to come. When the Griz made their football NC trips I remember multiple travel agencies booking charters. Why can't the conference do this? They already know who will be going just not where. If they have pre-negotiated rates with airlines they may get some people to hop on board. The airlines will do it as they know that the teams will be travelling so they can fill a plane.
 
If UM or any other Big Sky School would begin to win their out of conference games, which include teams from the top conferences, things could be far different. Until that happens all the tournaments, locales, etc mean nothing, really, except a forced invite to the NCAAs...If Montana could win 4 of their top out of conference games, and Weber do the same, they both would get invites if they finished 1 and 2 in the conference.
 
The current issue of unbalanced league schedule is a killer for the no tournament format. I doubt even with the departure of UND in the near future that conference coaches will sign off on a 20 game league schedule again. Just absurd.

The other part of it for me, is the fact that Reno while a 'glitzy' choice, was a terrible choice to commute to. Yes Boise isn't much better, but the centralized element to UM, MSU, UI, ISU, WSU, SUU, EWU and PSU had to be a 'driving' decision. Plus for Sac, NAU, UNC, and UI/EWU it has the added bonus of being a Southwest airline locale, so that makes the potential for getting cheap advance tickets.

Moreover, I'll take Boise over Reno in a heartbeat. Boise's down town is excellent (great beer), there are plenty of cheap accomodations, and the facility is far superior to Reno's convention center. Boise is a great sports town and with alumni from all the regional teams who live there, it creates a much better base than Reno ever had. I think most people would love the feel of the Centurylink Arena once they are inside of it. If you are going to look at the other facilities in the running, only Spokane Arena is comparable.

The only disappointing thing for me, is that I don't live in Southern Idaho anymore. I get and understand the frustration over the deal, but Boise isn't the worst choice in the world. Reno was.
 
I remain highly dubious of the value of a tournament at ANY neutral site. As stated, we simply do not have the fan base, the TV coverage or the conference brand appeal to make any tournament a success away from any of our own venues.

Bad decisions have consequences, and any tournament at ANY neutral site is a bad idea. The Big Sky conference reminds me of what my second grade teacher wrote on a report card to my parents: "Your son will learn everything the hard way."
 
citay said:
I remain highly dubious of the value of a tournament at ANY neutral site. As stated, we simply do not have the fan base, the TV coverage or the conference brand appeal to make any tournament a success away from any of our own venues.

Bad decisions have consequences, and any tournament at ANY neutral site is a bad idea. The Big Sky conference reminds me of what my second grade teacher wrote on a report card to my parents: "Your son will learn everything the hard way."

I don't disagree with the assessment. having heard some stuff over the years from Athletic department types from a few BSC institutions, I think in regards to cost certainty and increasing concerns about the viability of on campus basketball facilities, you have arrived at the logic outcome in my opinion.

But you are right, BSC doesn't really merit a neutral court concept from a basketball standpoint when there are three or four school annually who average north of 2,000 fans per game. You just want the home court effect for championship games, but outside of Missoula and WSU who can be guaranteed to show up for tournament games, regardless of location? Not many.

I dunno, the outcome that is most logical is balancing the schedule and not playing a championship of that is where you are right.
 
Back
Top