• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

Big Sky already knows it's a bust

PlayerRep said:
Does it seem odd that there doesn't seem to be any press or public statements by the conference schools or AD's or presidents opposing the Reno tourney idea, from after the Reno tourney announcement a year ago or from during the year, but now, after some fan bases (like Weber of UM) have been complaining, there is chatter that those schools opposed the idea?

Does it seem odd that the conference would have decided to adopt this new format, if schools like Weber and Montana had been opposing it?

No.


No.


University Presidents and ADs (and even coaches -- although it's clear to me from your post above that neither UM head coach agrees with the decision) aren't like fans. They have to play the role of good solider sometimes.



The bsc does shit all the time that doesn't benefit its top programs. Why should this be any different?
 
I do not think the locals in Reno will come out to watch any games. One positive is the ticket prices are pretty good. Courtside seats for all mens games are only $160.00. There are also some good hotel deals close to the venue.
It is what it is and the conference will have three years to see how the Reno tournament goes and evaluate if changes need made. I hope some Griz fans show up so I can buy someone a drink and Talk Grizzly athletics!
 
Mousegriz said:
mtgrizrule said:
EverettGriz said:
And the vote was NOT unnanimous. Montana voted against it, as did Weber according to rumor.

Travis and Robin each have said on various radio interviews, the U of M voted against it.

Are you insinuating Travis and Robin are jackasses?

They obviously never played the game.

I guess we'll see fairly soon how much of an amazing success this new tournament format is. If it's a huge success and elevates the Big Sky to new levels then I guess PR can come here to tell us how we were all wrong after he's done explaining to Selvig and DeCuire that they were wrong too.
 
Potomac Griz said:
Mousegriz said:
mtgrizrule said:
EverettGriz said:
And the vote was NOT unnanimous. Montana voted against it, as did Weber according to rumor.

Travis and Robin each have said on various radio interviews, the U of M voted against it.

Are you insinuating Travis and Robin are jackasses?

They obviously never played the game.

I guess we'll see fairly soon how much of an amazing success this new tournament format is. If it's a huge success and elevates the Big Sky to new levels then I guess PR can come here to tell us how we were all wrong after he's done explaining to Selvig and DeCuire that they were wrong too.

I have never liked or supported the new tourney format, and certainly never said it would be a success.

I am coming to believe that you are a jackass, though. You seem to like to lie about what someone said, and then attack it. Very dishonest. And, you ought to learn more about a subject, before you start attacking people for what is mostly your own ignorance.
 
EverettGriz said:
PlayerRep said:
Does it seem odd that there doesn't seem to be any press or public statements by the conference schools or AD's or presidents opposing the Reno tourney idea, from after the Reno tourney announcement a year ago or from during the year, but now, after some fan bases (like Weber of UM) have been complaining, there is chatter that those schools opposed the idea?

Does it seem odd that the conference would have decided to adopt this new format, if schools like Weber and Montana had been opposing it?

No.


No.


University Presidents and ADs (and even coaches -- although it's clear to me from your post above that neither UM head coach agrees with the decision) aren't like fans. They have to play the role of good solider sometimes.



The bsc does shit all the time that doesn't benefit its top programs. Why should this be any different?

I don't know what DeCuire thinks or thought of the idea/plan, but how do you determine from these remarks of his that he didn't agree with the decision? Here are the quotes from him from the article:

"Griz coach Travis DeCuire said he sees positives and negatives."

"It’s hard for me to comment on because I’ve never experienced being part of a tournament that everyone wasn’t in at some point or that I was with a team that wasn’t in," said DeCuire, who was an assistant at Old Dominion and Cal before taking over at his alma mater last season. "It drags it out a little bit."

"The positive is that everybody feels a part of the postseason. It feeds into March Madness where there’s opportunities for upsets. It puts more pressure on teams that win their conferences because there’s potentially another game to be played, there’s a long week just after you’ve finished the season. It adds to the drama of the postseason within the conference."

DeCuire said he thinks Griz fans will embrace the new format.

"There’s a lot of positives to that for teams that have a good following," he said. "I think our fans will enjoy an opportunity to see more basketball, to have both tournaments in the same place. I think they will travel well. There’s a lot of benefits for schools like us that will be competitive on both sides, the men and the women."

DeCuire said Reno was a good choice for a host city.

"If it’s going to be a neutral site, it should be somewhere where they don’t have a professional team so there’s a demand for college basketball," he said. "Reno’s a location that most of the universities in our conference are used to traveling to. It’s not overly expensive and you can plan ahead.

"I think right now the biggest question mark is not knowing what day, so a lot of teams are going to have to plan for being there on Monday and if you’re on the road on the Saturday before, you probably have to plan to be gone from Wednesday through the following week. There will be teams that have a tough financial decision to make with their travel."
 
PlayerRep said:
Does it seem odd that there doesn't seem to be any press or public statements by the conference schools or AD's or presidents opposing the Reno tourney idea, from after the Reno tourney announcement a year ago or from during the year, but now, after some fan bases (like Weber of UM) have been complaining, there is chatter that those schools opposed the idea?

Does it seem odd that the conference would have decided to adopt this new format, if schools like Weber and Montana had been opposing it?

Since a majority of the schools voted for the change....why would they talk negatively about it.....and for any school that voted against it....what would they have to gain by speaking poorly of the idea.....and as for why would the BSC adopt a format because UM and WSU oppose it...because there are 7 other schools....it is the BSC tourney....not the UM/WSU tourney......majority rules.....
 
grizindabox said:
PlayerRep said:
Does it seem odd that there doesn't seem to be any press or public statements by the conference schools or AD's or presidents opposing the Reno tourney idea, from after the Reno tourney announcement a year ago or from during the year, but now, after some fan bases (like Weber of UM) have been complaining, there is chatter that those schools opposed the idea?

Does it seem odd that the conference would have decided to adopt this new format, if schools like Weber and Montana had been opposing it?

Since a majority of the schools voted for the change....why would they talk negatively about it.....and for any school that voted against it....what would they have to gain by speaking poorly of the idea.....and as for why would the BSC adopt a format because UM and WSU oppose it...because there are 7 other schools....it is the BSC tourney....not the UM/WSU tourney......majority rules.....

I don't know what you mean by saying there are 7 other schools. It's not majority rule; it takes more than that. At the time of adoption, I was told that all schools supported it. In addition, I don't think it would have been adopted if Montana and Weber had objected. I'm filing my FOIA request tomorrow to get all of the emails, reports and votes. Then we'll know. Or, maybe I'll ask Krakauer to investigate. Ha.
 
PlayerRep said:
grizindabox said:
PlayerRep said:
Does it seem odd that there doesn't seem to be any press or public statements by the conference schools or AD's or presidents opposing the Reno tourney idea, from after the Reno tourney announcement a year ago or from during the year, but now, after some fan bases (like Weber of UM) have been complaining, there is chatter that those schools opposed the idea?

Does it seem odd that the conference would have decided to adopt this new format, if schools like Weber and Montana had been opposing it?

Since a majority of the schools voted for the change....why would they talk negatively about it.....and for any school that voted against it....what would they have to gain by speaking poorly of the idea.....and as for why would the BSC adopt a format because UM and WSU oppose it...because there are 7 other schools....it is the BSC tourney....not the UM/WSU tourney......majority rules.....

I don't know what you mean by saying there are 7 other schools. It's not majority rule; it takes more than that. At the time of adoption, I was told that all schools supported it. In addition, I don't think it would have been adopted if Montana and Weber had objected. I'm filing my FOIA request tomorrow to get all of the emails, reports and votes. Then we'll know. Or, maybe I'll ask Krakauer to investigate. Ha.

I spaced it...meant 10 other schools......
 
That may lead to the fewest beers sold at a basketball game since Mr. Oral Roberts challenged Mr.Brigham Young to a game of one on one in his backyard.
 
Ogden

In March, men's and women's basketball players will enjoy winning Big Sky Conference championships on the court in Reno, Nev.

Ron Loghry already enjoyed his own celebratory moment with that floor, when it was only partly painted. Just seeing the Big Sky logo being applied in the middle of the court "gave me chills," the conference's deputy commissioner said.

As the specially-made floor itself illustrates, the Ogden-based Big Sky at last will stage a tournament that looks and feels like its own production.

After more than two decades of holding conference tournaments at host schools and many years of discussion, the Big Sky is moving to the 5,000-seat Reno Events Center. Some unknowns accompany the plan — specifically, how many fans from Weber State, Southern Utah and the other 10 schools will attend the event? Yet conference administrators welcome the neutral venue and the opportunity to bring 12 men's and 12 women's teams to one site. The "Road to Reno" will give athletes more of a genuine tournament experience, outside of a campus arena.

The three-year contract with Reno, beginning with the March 7-12 event, came after studies of five finalists, including Ogden. Weber State's Dee Events Center had some advantages, including the fact the Wildcats lead the Big Sky in men's basketball attendance, providing some assurance of fan support. But that's not a neutral site, and hotels are not nearby, as in Reno.

The tradeoff with Reno is there's obviously no built-in fan base as in the past, when the men's and women's regular-season champions hosted separate tournaments. So the challenge is to get fans to Reno via a major marketing effort. The predetermined site has its pluses, though, in contrast to previous years when the host school often was not determined until the final week of the season.

It's not a perfect scenario, because four teams receiving byes into the quarterfinals, so some schools won't know what day they'll play their first tournament games until the schedule is set. So fans either must drive to Reno, commit to flights early in the week or guess where their teams will finish — in or out of the top four. "We hope the standings figure themselves out early," Loghry said.

The Big Sky also hopes that during these three years (or longer), fans will come to think of Reno as an annual destination and join in a conference-wide celebration. Such a feeling is generated in Las Vegas, where four conferences that include Utah schools — the West Coast, Mountain West, Pac-12 and Western Athletic — hold their tournaments.

The MW case is slightly different, being played at UNLV's Thomas & Mack Center. Staged in hotel-connected arenas, the other conferences have more intermingling among fans. That's one of the Big Sky's hopes, with its two hotel partners very close to the convention center.

Loghry labels the move to Reno "an abrupt change" for the conference office, because Big Sky employees had just an oversight role at the campus venues, where the schools were used to staging basketball games. Now, the conference is in charge of everything, right down to the music and videos in the arena. They're also staging one of the biggest tournaments in the world with 24 teams — topping the MW's 22, and that league is downsizing after this year.

Naturally, Loghry is eager to experience the first year in Reno, where "we'll find out a lot of what we didn't know we had to do," he said.

It is a big undertaking, but the Big Sky is driven to make it work. Everybody wants to know what criteria the conference is using for judging the event's success. Attendance is one factor, but the rest is more difficult to quantify. Maybe it is merely the fact that the No. 12 men's or women's team in the league gets to play another game, in a championship environment.

[email protected]
 
Buttegrizzle said:
Loghry labels the move to Reno "an abrupt change" for the conference office, because Big Sky employees had just an oversight role at the campus venues, where the schools were used to staging basketball games. Now, the conference is in charge of everything, right down to the music and videos in the arena. They're also staging one of the biggest tournaments in the world with 24 teams — topping the MW's 22, and that league is downsizing after this year.

Naturally, Loghry is eager to experience the first year in Reno, where "we'll find out a lot of what we didn't know we had to do," he said.

It is a big undertaking, but the Big Sky is driven to make it work.

This thing could get very ugly.
 
SWeberCat02 said:
Buttegrizzle said:
Loghry labels the move to Reno "an abrupt change" for the conference office, because Big Sky employees had just an oversight role at the campus venues, where the schools were used to staging basketball games. Now, the conference is in charge of everything, right down to the music and videos in the arena. They're also staging one of the biggest tournaments in the world with 24 teams — topping the MW's 22, and that league is downsizing after this year.

Naturally, Loghry is eager to experience the first year in Reno, where "we'll find out a lot of what we didn't know we had to do," he said.

It is a big undertaking, but the Big Sky is driven to make it work.

This thing could get very ugly.

Wes should start s pool for people to predict the largest, most embarrassing eff up.
 
A couple of concerning things. This is a 3 year contract and I am sure the conference hopes for growth from year to year yet we have only a 5000 seat arena. We had about 6500 to the cat griz game in Missoula. If the cats and griz were to meet in Reno during the tournament why shouldnt we expect a crowd to exceed 5000? The conference officials already know that it wont come close to that attendance in Reno which is why 5000 seats is far more than enough. Sad really. Also the author suggests that success may be as simple as all 12 teams get to play another game? So basically that would make the tournament a success back in a big sky conference room when the decision was made to include all teams. I sure hope the conference would not consider the mere participation of all teams a measure of success. I hope measures of attendance and satisfaction of the players and coaches with the experience in Reno are more important measures to BSC admin.
 
Also the author suggests that success may be as simple as all 12 teams get to play another game? So basically that would make the tournament a success back in a big sky conference room when the decision was made to include all team

It's the bsc. The bar for measuring success has always been extremely low. That way everybody feels good about themselves, even the 4-24 teams. Making the league successful and doing what's best for its fans have never been a consideration. But hell, unc and Southern Utah feel good about themselves so all is well!!!! Give Foolerton a huge bonus for the success as he departs!!!
 
cmtgrizzly said:
We had about 6500 to the cat griz game in Missoula. If the cats and griz were to meet in Reno during the tournament why shouldnt we expect a crowd to exceed 5000?
Even for a hot game like Griz-Cats, in Missoula, the "visitors" probably number less than 500. Same if the game is played in Bozeman. The rest are the locals.

So, what happens when ALL of the game fans are "visitors" and there is no home crowd, and the distance is five times farther and costs ten times as much because of air fare and overnights?

THAT's why you can't expect a game crowd of 5,000 in Reno.
 
Back
Top