• 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!

BSC: Big Stupid Conference

citygriz

Well-known member
If I'm the commissioner of the Big Sky conference, here's my goal for basketball. Get one team into the Big Dance, a team good enough for a shot at the Sweet 16, a la Gonzaga or Wichita, who put their conferences on the map. This brings the conference some recognition. It brings the conference some bucks. It might in the future allow a second team to be considered for the dance. Remember, one great team in a conference lifts all boats, as we did in football.

So what does the Big Stupid do?

It puts all kinds of hurdles in the path of this ever happening. Here's how.

--A 20-game conference schedule. This shortens the non-conference schedule, where one team might have a chance to increase its RPI, or pull a major non-conference upset. Conference? No way. Twenty conference games assures a low RPI and a low seed.

--A post-season tournament at a neutral site. Sure, this makes sense for the larger conferences, who play in a major venue like New York or Las Vegas, get big TV bucks, and are assured several of their teams advance to the Big Dance. The while the Big Stupid picks a neutral site in a backwater city that doesn't want and never will support such a tournament, foregoing the one venue that would have great appeal--the home court of the conference champion.

--Ensures that the conference champion, for winning a 20-game conference schedule with all its brutal travel, then has to turn around and win another three games in consecutive nights on a NEUTRAL court. The near-disaster against Northern Colorado is just the kind of stinken game even a great team can have, especially against a lower seed that suddenly gets hot in the tournament.

If I'm the commissioner, I cut the post-season to six teams. If you can't make the top six over a 20-game conference schedule, why do you deserve to be in the post-season? Why should you get a participation trophy?

I move the tournament back to the champion's home court. If they've won the conference title, they deserve it. The top two get a first-round bye, meaning you can win the entire tournament in two games rather than three, leaving your champion fresh for the Big Dance.

If this favors Montana and Weber, so be it. They should be favored. Because right now, I don't see any other school performing well enough at the Big Dance to get this conference out of the rut its stuck in when it comes to basketball.
 
This is so obvious that it's painful. If the presidents want this then let Seth tell us.
 
This post-season conference disaster reminds me of a little kid clomping around in his Dad's shoes. See, we want to be just like the big conferences! Problem is, we'll never grow into those shoes.
 
citay said:
If I'm the commissioner of the Big Sky conference, here's my goal for basketball. Get one team into the Big Dance, a team good enough for a shot at the Sweet 16, a la Gonzaga or Wichita, who put their conferences on the map. This brings the conference some recognition. It brings the conference some bucks. It might in the future allow a second team to be considered for the dance. Remember, one great team in a conference lifts all boats, as we did in football.

So what does the Big Stupid do?

It puts all kinds of hurdles in the path of this ever happening. Here's how.

--A 20-game conference schedule. This shortens the non-conference schedule, where one team might have a chance to increase its RPI, or pull a major non-conference upset. Conference? No way. Twenty conference games assures a low RPI and a low seed.

--A post-season tournament at a neutral site. Sure, this makes sense for the larger conferences, who play in a major venue like New York or Las Vegas, get big TV bucks, and are assured several of their teams advance to the Big Dance. The while the Big Stupid picks a neutral site in a backwater city that doesn't want and never will support such a tournament, foregoing the one venue that would have great appeal--the home court of the conference champion.

--Ensures that the conference champion, for winning a 20-game conference schedule with all its brutal travel, then has to turn around and win another three games in consecutive nights on a NEUTRAL court. The near-disaster against Northern Colorado is just the kind of stinken game even a great team can have, especially against a lower seed that suddenly gets hot in the tournament.

If I'm the commissioner, I cut the post-season to six teams. If you can't make the top six over a 20-game conference schedule, why do you deserve to be in the post-season? Why should you get a participation trophy?

I move the tournament back to the champion's home court. If they've won the conference title, they deserve it. The top two get a first-round bye, meaning you can win the entire tournament in two games rather than three, leaving your champion fresh for the Big Dance.

If this favors Montana and Weber, so be it. They should be favored. Because right now, I don't see any other school performing well enough at the Big Dance to get this conference out of the rut its stuck in when it comes to basketball.

citay- I totally agree with giving the regular season champ the home-court and limiting the playoff field as you suggest. Those are valid points I stand behind. Hopefully the next Commissioner isn't a foreigner with ZERO understanding of the league's history (Andrea was from Texas and Ohio). Only somebody that wasn't around when Reno and Boise bailed, and has zero connection to how humiliatating it is to put the BSC tourney there, would even consider that. I would vote you Comissioner in a heartbeat if I had a vote.
 
This will never happen but since the supposed reasons for the neutral tourney site is difficulty and cost getting to a champion's court, what if the Big Sky had the conference games at the beginning of the year and out-of-conference games to finish the regular season before the tourney?



Pros:
-It would give about a month or so for participating teams and fans to schedule travel, etc. between end of conference and tourney time, allowing for the regular season champ to be rewarded with hosting rights.

-Champ gets hosting rights :arrow: greater chance of getting your best team into March Madness and better fan attendance :arrow: more money for conference, better atmosphere and exposure for the conference from tourney :arrow: possibility of higher seeding at the Dance :arrow: better chance of a favorable matchup and win :arrow: more $$$...and on and on....

-Because of the extra time to plan, it could be limited to a smaller pool of teams (maybe top half). Since cost is supposedly a reason to go to a neutral site, the university presidents of non-qualifying schools should all be ecstatic :roll: that they don't have to spend money to send their team that didn't have great odds of pulling off a upset, let alone three, to the tourney.

-By actually incentivizing the regular season through hosting rights and limited participation in the tourney, the conference games become much more important. This would lead to rivalry type atmospheres in the early part of the season when attendance is typically down.

-By having the important conference games first, it would give a school at least the option of resting or healing up key players as the regular season wears on before the tourney.

-Weird enough idea to get some media attention and people talking about and noticing the Big Sky


Cons:
-Obviously, the difficulty scheduling non-conference games later in the year. The Big Sky would need to spread this vision to at least a few other conferences (if not most/all) to have the ability to schedule OOC games.

-Long gap between end of conference and tourney could kill some teams momentum, depending on how they schedule OOC. (actually, maybe that would incentivize better scheduling?)

-Because of the gap and teams progressing at different times and speeds, the best team towards the beginning of the season won't always be the best team come conference tourney time.

-No participation ribbon for MSU. :cry:
 
DoubleNicks said:
This will never happen but since the supposed reasons for the neutral tourney site are difficulty and cost getting to a champion's court, what if the Big Sky had the conference games at the beginning of the year and out-of-conference games to finish the regular season before the tourney?



Pros:
-It would give about a month or so for participating teams and fans to schedule travel, etc. between end of conference and tourney time, allowing for the regular season champ to be rewarded with hosting rights.

-Champ gets hosting rights :arrow: greater chance of getting your best team into March Madness and better fan attendance :arrow: more money for conference, better atmosphere and exposure for the conference from tourney :arrow: possibility of higher seeding at the Dance :arrow: better chance of a favorable matchup and win :arrow: more $$$...and on and on....

-Because of the extra time to plan, it could be limited to a smaller pool of teams (maybe top half). Since cost is supposedly a reason to go to a neutral site, the university presidents of non-qualifying schools should all be ecstatic :roll: that they don't have to spend money to send their team that didn't have great odds of pulling off a upset, let alone three, to the tourney.

-By actually incentivizing the regular season through hosting rights and limited participation in the tourney, the conference games become much more important. This would lead to rivalry type atmospheres in the early part of the season when attendance is typically down.

-By having the important conference games first, it would give a school at least the option of resting or healing up key players as the regular season wears on before the tourney.

-Weird enough idea to get some media attention and people talking about and noticing the Big Sky


Cons:
-Obviously, the difficulty scheduling non-conference games later in the year. The Big Sky would need to spread this vision to at least a few other conferences (if not most/all) to have the ability to schedule OOC games.

-Long gap between end of conference and tourney could kill some teams momentum, depending on how they schedule OOC. (actually, maybe that would incentivize better scheduling?)

-Because of the gap and teams progressing at different times and speeds, the best team towards the beginning of the season won't always be the best team come conference tourney time.

-No participation ribbon for MSU. :cry:
 
DoubleNicks said:
This will never happen but since the supposed reasons for the neutral tourney site is difficulty and cost getting to a champion's court, what if the Big Sky had the conference games at the beginning of the year and out-of-conference games to finish the regular season before the tourney?



Pros:
-It would give about a month or so for participating teams and fans to schedule travel, etc. between end of conference and tourney time, allowing for the regular season champ to be rewarded with hosting rights.

-Champ gets hosting rights :arrow: greater chance of getting your best team into March Madness and better fan attendance :arrow: more money for conference, better atmosphere and exposure for the conference from tourney :arrow: possibility of higher seeding at the Dance :arrow: better chance of a favorable matchup and win :arrow: more $$$...and on and on....

-Because of the extra time to plan, it could be limited to a smaller pool of teams (maybe top half). Since cost is supposedly a reason to go to a neutral site, the university presidents of non-qualifying schools should all be ecstatic :roll: that they don't have to spend money to send their team that didn't have great odds of pulling off a upset, let alone three, to the tourney.

-By actually incentivizing the regular season through hosting rights and limited participation in the tourney, the conference games become much more important. This would lead to rivalry type atmospheres in the early part of the season when attendance is typically down.

-By having the important conference games first, it would give a school at least the option of resting or healing up key players as the regular season wears on before the tourney.

-Weird enough idea to get some media attention and people talking about and noticing the Big Sky


Cons:
-Obviously, the difficulty scheduling non-conference games later in the year. The Big Sky would need to spread this vision to at least a few other conferences (if not most/all) to have the ability to schedule OOC games.

-Long gap between end of conference and tourney could kill some teams momentum, depending on how they schedule OOC. (actually, maybe that would incentivize better scheduling?)

-Because of the gap and teams progressing at different times and speeds, the best team towards the beginning of the season won't always be the best team come conference tourney time.

-No participation ribbon for MSU. :cry:

Cats have finished 7th, 6th, 8th the last 3 years....So Cats would have been in it 2 times in last 3 years....I like your thinking on this.
 
Good Idea? Bad idea? Not sure what I think at first glance but I do think the Big Sky Conference has zero chance of convincing the Pac 12, Mountain West, or WCC of changing their schedule to have OOC games before their tournament. Unfortunately, the Big Sky has no influence within college basketball.

Another con to add would be that a team could run through the conference unbeaten then have a tough OOC schedule and loose a majority of them and then come back and win the conference tournament. The committee would look at this and say that either they are a good team but don't compete very well nationally or the Big Sky must be a bad conference. #16 seed

Another con and probably one of the factors in going to a neutral site is that there are a couple schools that don't have very good facilities to host the tournament. Five or so years ago Sac State was challenging for the conference championship and people were talking about how poor their facilities are. Luckily they didn't win and host the tournament. NCU is another place that would not be good.

The way I look at it is that we are in this format for at least three more years. The conference has a contract to hold the tournament in Boise for that three years. I might as well accept that it is what it is and see what the next commissioner wants to do. I personally like the predetermined neutral site for the tournament. I can get my plane tickets in September or October for a couple hundred dollars rather than double that or more buying them the week before. I don't have an endless supply of $ so the cost can determine if I go or not. I went to Reno in 2017 and had a good time even though UM lost their first game on Thursday and we were there until Sunday.
 
debellatio said:
Good Idea? Bad idea? Not sure what I think at first glance but I do think the Big Sky Conference has zero chance of convincing the Pac 12, Mountain West, or WCC of changing their schedule to have OOC games before their tournament. Unfortunately, the Big Sky has no influence within college basketball.

Another con to add would be that a team could run through the conference unbeaten then have a tough OOC schedule and loose a majority of them and then come back and win the conference tournament. The committee would look at this and say that either they are a good team but don't compete very well nationally or the Big Sky must be a bad conference. #16 seed

Another con and probably one of the factors in going to a neutral site is that there are a couple schools that don't have very good facilities to host the tournament. Five or so years ago Sac State was challenging for the conference championship and people were talking about how poor their facilities are. Luckily they didn't win and host the tournament. NCU is another place that would not be good.

The way I look at it is that we are in this format for at least three more years. The conference has a contract to hold the tournament in Boise for that three years. I might as well accept that it is what it is and see what the next commissioner wants to do. I personally like the predetermined neutral site for the tournament. I can get my plane tickets in September or October for a couple hundred dollars rather than double that or more buying them the week before. I don't have an endless supply of $ so the cost can determine if I go or not. I went to Reno in 2017 and had a good time even though UM lost their first game on Thursday and we were there until Sunday.

I fully understand the argument that the neutral court site gives more fans the opportunity to make plans and get to the tournament. But should this be the MAIN purpose of a neutral-court playoff?

I see the main goal as getting the conference's best representative into the tournament, with the highest seed possible. That's where the bucks are. That's what will eventually put our conference on the map. That's our last best hope.

And it's not just us I am thinking about. Weber is recruiting lights-out, as Damien Lillard has helped put that school on the map, and continues to support their recruiting efforts. Portland State made a lot of national noise pre-season last year, and not only retains an up-and-coming coach, but has a new facility. Even Southern Utah seems to be recruiting well, with a higher "star average" on Verbal Commits that even us. If any of these teams breaks out, I'm all for giving them home-court advantage for the playoffs.

Besides which, the travel advantage of the neutral court has hardly paid off in attendance, at least at Reno. The most attendees for most games was empty seats--else we'd still be playing at Reno.

One other note. By limiting the tournament to six teams, you'd essentially create a real incentive for the lower teams--their equivalent of a championship. I think it'd make the regular conference even more interesting. Only the very last teams would be out of it early, but they're probably rebuilding anyway--not the schools you want representing the conference in any case.
 
Zirg said:
citay said:
If I'm the commissioner of the Big Sky conference, here's my goal for basketball. Get one team into the Big Dance, a team good enough for a shot at the Sweet 16, a la Gonzaga or Wichita, who put their conferences on the map. This brings the conference some recognition. It brings the conference some bucks. It might in the future allow a second team to be considered for the dance. Remember, one great team in a conference lifts all boats, as we did in football.

So what does the Big Stupid do?

It puts all kinds of hurdles in the path of this ever happening. Here's how.

--A 20-game conference schedule. This shortens the non-conference schedule, where one team might have a chance to increase its RPI, or pull a major non-conference upset. Conference? No way. Twenty conference games assures a low RPI and a low seed.

--A post-season tournament at a neutral site. Sure, this makes sense for the larger conferences, who play in a major venue like New York or Las Vegas, get big TV bucks, and are assured several of their teams advance to the Big Dance. The while the Big Stupid picks a neutral site in a backwater city that doesn't want and never will support such a tournament, foregoing the one venue that would have great appeal--the home court of the conference champion.

--Ensures that the conference champion, for winning a 20-game conference schedule with all its brutal travel, then has to turn around and win another three games in consecutive nights on a NEUTRAL court. The near-disaster against Northern Colorado is just the kind of stinken game even a great team can have, especially against a lower seed that suddenly gets hot in the tournament.

If I'm the commissioner, I cut the post-season to six teams. If you can't make the top six over a 20-game conference schedule, why do you deserve to be in the post-season? Why should you get a participation trophy?

I move the tournament back to the champion's home court. If they've won the conference title, they deserve it. The top two get a first-round bye, meaning you can win the entire tournament in two games rather than three, leaving your champion fresh for the Big Dance.

If this favors Montana and Weber, so be it. They should be favored. Because right now, I don't see any other school performing well enough at the Big Dance to get this conference out of the rut its stuck in when it comes to basketball.

citay- I totally agree with giving the regular season champ the home-court and limiting the playoff field as you suggest. Those are valid points I stand behind. Hopefully the next Commissioner isn't a foreigner with ZERO understanding of the league's history (Andrea was from Texas and Ohio). Only somebody that wasn't around when Reno and Boise bailed, and has zero connection to how humiliatating it is to put the BSC tourney there, would even consider that. I would vote you Comissioner in a heartbeat if I had a vote.

Zirg: Given the power of your argument, and the evident pull you have given the force of your posts on this board, I know this is a very real possibility. What's the salary again?
 
citay said:
I fully understand the argument that the neutral court site gives more fans the opportunity to make plans and get to the tournament. But should this be the MAIN purpose of a neutral-court playoff?

I see the main goal as getting the conference's best representative into the tournament, with the highest seed possible. That's where the bucks are. That's what will eventually put our conference on the map. That's our last best hope.
I hear you, Citay, but obviously our Big Sigh Conference higher ups don't have that same goal.
 
citay said:
debellatio said:
Good Idea? Bad idea? Not sure what I think at first glance but I do think the Big Sky Conference has zero chance of convincing the Pac 12, Mountain West, or WCC of changing their schedule to have OOC games before their tournament. Unfortunately, the Big Sky has no influence within college basketball.

Another con to add would be that a team could run through the conference unbeaten then have a tough OOC schedule and loose a majority of them and then come back and win the conference tournament. The committee would look at this and say that either they are a good team but don't compete very well nationally or the Big Sky must be a bad conference. #16 seed

Another con and probably one of the factors in going to a neutral site is that there are a couple schools that don't have very good facilities to host the tournament. Five or so years ago Sac State was challenging for the conference championship and people were talking about how poor their facilities are. Luckily they didn't win and host the tournament. NCU is another place that would not be good.

The way I look at it is that we are in this format for at least three more years. The conference has a contract to hold the tournament in Boise for that three years. I might as well accept that it is what it is and see what the next commissioner wants to do. I personally like the predetermined neutral site for the tournament. I can get my plane tickets in September or October for a couple hundred dollars rather than double that or more buying them the week before. I don't have an endless supply of $ so the cost can determine if I go or not. I went to Reno in 2017 and had a good time even though UM lost their first game on Thursday and we were there until Sunday.

I fully understand the argument that the neutral court site gives more fans the opportunity to make plans and get to the tournament. But should this be the MAIN purpose of a neutral-court playoff?

I see the main goal as getting the conference's best representative into the tournament, with the highest seed possible. That's where the bucks are. That's what will eventually put our conference on the map. That's our last best hope.

And it's not just us I am thinking about. Weber is recruiting lights-out, as Damien Lillard has helped put that school on the map, and continues to support their recruiting efforts. Portland State made a lot of national noise pre-season last year, and not only retains an up-and-coming coach, but has a new facility. Even Southern Utah seems to be recruiting well, with a higher "star average" on Verbal Commits that even us. If any of these teams breaks out, I'm all for giving them home-court advantage for the playoffs.

Besides which, the travel advantage of the neutral court has hardly paid off in attendance, at least at Reno. The most attendees for most games was empty seats--else we'd still be playing at Reno.

One other note. By limiting the tournament to six teams, you'd essentially create a real incentive for the lower teams--their equivalent of a championship. I think it'd make the regular conference even more interesting. Only the very last teams would be out of it early, but they're probably rebuilding anyway--not the schools you want representing the conference in any case.

I don't totally disagree with you argument but there is also another way to look at it. Does the conference really have it's best representative if they have to have home court advantage to win the conference tournament to get the birth to the Dance. I would rather have a team that shows they can win the conference tournament on a neutral floor since they will more than likely be playing at a neutral site in the Dance.

In all honesty we should have lost to UNC in the semi's last year and I would have been upset. Not because we had to play at a neutral site but because the #1 seed lost to the #5 seed which they beat twice in the regular season by 9 points on our floor and their floor.
 
I think it is obvious that Travis was attempting to follow the formula which Gonzaga used to become a national power. That is, agreeing to play any team, any time, at their place. The past two years Travis has schedule a very strong non-conference schedule, and the team performed admirably against some highly-ranked opponents.

But, as you stated, City, the new Big Sky Conference schedule virtually eliminates us continuing to play these strong teams. We now get to play additional games against such powers as Northern Colorado, NAU, and idaho State, instead of UCLA and Stanford. This will only make recruiting more difficult, but will also probably hasten the departure of DeCuire.

The big Sky Conference has become a total cluster-fcuk, both in BB and FB, with too many teams and zero vision for a changing world of NCAA athletics. I wish about 8 of the schools left and formed their own conference.
 
As much as I do empathize and agree with the points made by citay, I just don't see the conference going back to a site host scenario.

The athletic departments by large supported this move as did the University presidents. From a financial standpoint, there is cost certainty and the avoidance logistical issues that created significant problems under the old site host model. I said this before, the risk of having a 4 team conference tournament in a few of the conferences home gyms is what pushed this over the top. That is water under the bridge at this point.

I am a fan of a grouped conference schedule. Split the conference in half, play 14 or 15 conference games with 8-10 coming within your own group and the other 5 or 6 coming with one game against the other group. You determine league group winner with common records within the pod and use the 5 or 6 game grouping to determine tie breaks. Each group winner would top each side of the bracket and you either bring 4 or 6 more teams. I don't know that you need the bottom three teams, and frankly I would be happy with a 8 team tournament.

I don't think the new model was pushed by anything more than Boise also needing to use the facility for the Steelheads. Going Tuesday until Saturday with the Steelheads likely being out of their arena for at least a week and a half probably pushed the Boise Arena folks to push a different or alternate schedule, that is at least the rumor I had heard.

I think the fans who do attend in Boise are going to be really happy with the facilities. I like the place, great down town setting with everything.A vast improvement over Reno from a basketball watching standpoint.
 
Grizfan-24 said:
As much as I do empathize and agree with the points made by citay, I just don't see the conference going back to a site host scenario.

The athletic departments by large supported this move as did the University presidents. From a financial standpoint, there is cost certainty and the avoidance logistical issues that created significant problems under the old site host model. I said this before, the risk of having a 4 team conference tournament in a few of the conferences home gyms is what pushed this over the top. That is water under the bridge at this point.

I am a fan of a grouped conference schedule. Split the conference in half, play 14 or 15 conference games with 8-10 coming within your own group and the other 5 or 6 coming with one game against the other group. You determine league group winner with common records within the pod and use the 5 or 6 game grouping to determine tie breaks. Each group winner would top each side of the bracket and you either bring 4 or 6 more teams. I don't know that you need the bottom three teams, and frankly I would be happy with a 8 team tournament.

I don't think the new model was pushed by anything more than Boise also needing to use the facility for the Steelheads. Going Tuesday until Saturday with the Steelheads likely being out of their arena for at least a week and a half probably pushed the Boise Arena folks to push a different or alternate schedule, that is at least the rumor I had heard.

I think the fans who do attend in Boise are going to be really happy with the facilities. I like the place, great down town setting with everything.A vast improvement over Reno from a basketball watching standpoint.

If being a nice town is enough to be the neutral site host, I think they should hold the tourney in Whitefish. Nice town, and the high school gym will be more than large enough to hold the expected “crowds”.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
UM really doesn't have any good options changing conference affiliation for Football in the FCS....Why not go Independent...
Big West who usually has a little higher Conference rating than the Big Sky, might be interested with Montana for Basketball but I believe they have almost as many Basketball-playing members as the Big Sky does so that point is a bit moot.......Travel expenses for the entire Big West Conference would also go up for every member of that Conf., including Montana.

No good solutions, just Wank :cry: ...Ogden for the foreseeable future will continue to be UM's Daddy :oops:
 
The first list of cities that put in for the bid should the first time around tell you all that you need to know about the interest in Big Sky Conference basketball. Two were conference members (Montana, Weber State) and the rest were second tier or third tier urban centers. Spokane, Reno, Boise but none of the larger urban centers that the conference desired (Las Vegas, Portland, Denver or Seattle).

I don't think you are going to sell other teams in the conference that traveling to Missoula or Ogden is preferable to Reno or Boise unless you are Montana or Weber State. Reno in retrospect was a bad choice, because it was well...Reno. Billings is or was just as much as an outpost as Reno and as much as it would have appealed to Montanans, it was even more remote to the rest of the conference. There were a lot of factors that went into that choice.

It is of my opinion, had the conference tournament started out in a place like Boise at the Boise Arena, people might have a far more positive opinion of it. I don't know how much support Boise will give the tournament, but it from a high school perspective is a pretty good basketball community. There are a ton of Montana-ex pats there, and had the tournament been there when I was in Idaho, I would have gone as much as I could have.

That being said, it is the conference as a whole that has an image problem. It is most years a third tier conference and doesn't generate much national conversation. The WCC got there because teams eventually got tired (they are still very tired of) getting flogged by Gonzaga every year, but it is essentially two teams (Gonzaga and St. Marys) with a far more visible national presence. A move out of the BSC for basketball would be a death knell as an independent. Montana is a middle third program, and no matter the wins, come selection time it is better to be in a conference with an autobid versus being available for an at-large selection. An at large selection pretty much requires you to be in teh top 50 nationally by most computer rankings and that is super difficult to achieve as a middle 100 team without a conference.
 
4theluvofgriz said:
I think it is obvious that Travis was attempting to follow the formula which Gonzaga used to become a national power. That is, agreeing to play any team, any time, at their place. The past two years Travis has schedule a very strong non-conference schedule, and the team performed admirably against some highly-ranked opponents.

But, as you stated, City, the new Big Sky Conference schedule virtually eliminates us continuing to play these strong teams. We now get to play additional games against such powers as Northern Colorado, NAU, and idaho State, instead of UCLA and Stanford. This will only make recruiting more difficult, but will also probably hasten the departure of DeCuire.

The big Sky Conference has become a total cluster-fcuk, both in BB and FB, with too many teams and zero vision for a changing world of NCAA athletics. I wish about 8 of the schools left and formed their own conference.

More Big Sky games does NOTHING to prevent Travis from continuuining to upgrade the NC schedule. It just means no more, or at least fewer, games against Montana Tech and College of Great Falls/Providence.
 
University of South Carolina was looking for an early road game as the fieldhouse is being used for something else. and Wyoming agreed to host them. I'd have loved to have seen the Gamecocks play the Griz in Missoula. Maybe UM missed a chance for a signature win?
 
Back
Top