Big Sky brass pleased with first Reno run

[PlayerRep]

We all understand why they've gone to a neutral site (although no one is buying the recruiting advantage argument; if you're getting a kid excited about playing in a tournament as a 3-24 team, you're recruiting the wrong player).

That doesn't excuse the poor choice of location. It doesn't excuse rewarding the 14th place team with a day off before they play a high seed. It doesn't excuse the obviously terrible job of marketing this thing to locals (who admittedly don't give two shits about the BSC). It doesn't excuse 97 foul calls in the semis, making those games virtually unwatchable. Any casual fan without a rooting interest certainly ain't coming back after that debacle. It doesn't excuse the failure of the league to get someone --anyone -- to televise the thing, or at least the semis.

Look, I agree the Tourny appeared to be smoothly run. Kudos to the conference for doing what they were paid to do. The fact that they're being praised for it, however, just goes to show how incredibly low the bar is set in this confence.

And finally, BG, yes, fans should go. But this league can't get 800 people to drive 7 miles across town to watch their home team play a game. Do you really expect those fans are going to reNO to do so??

The recruiting thing was actually an important reason for the coaches. If another conference takes away a kid because, among other reasons, the size of the conference tourney, then the Big Sky team has lost a recruit they (and other schools) wanted. Everett, it never ceases to amaze me how little your know about sports. That's fine, but don't act like you do when you don't. I'm told that you don't have an athletic bone in your body.

Las Vegas was the preferred location, but there was no room at the inn there. Maybe Reno isn't a great location, but it has some positives.

I agree on the 97 fouls, but I hope you don't think the location and format of the tournament led to 97 foul calls.

 

[marceagfan5]

I'm past the point of the neutral location and including all teams, I may not agree with it, but it has some advantages and it was eventually going to happen.

My issue is the location, Reno. If your going to have a destination location, Reno doesn't work, I think you could see that by the attendance. I believe Vegas was preferred but with 4 tourneys there, we were left out. WIth the addition of the new arena in Vegas next year, maybe that will be on the table at the end of Reno's 3 yeas. It may have been well run, but its probably easy to run a tourney that only has a couple hundred people show up. The only school that is close to Reno is Sac and they don't have a big fan base. The tourney location should have been Billings or Spokane. Close enough to more than 1 big sky school that can drive, a city that will get behind the tourney regardless of the teams, and still a neutral court...I guess i'm really curious to hear what Weber and UM's coaches and AD say about the Reno. Your going to hear the usual press speech in the paper, but it would be nice to have their honest opinions, because in reality those are the only two schools that are really getting affected by this.

I do find it funny that everyone keeps saying this helps with travel, how? You still don't know if you are playing on tuesday or thursday typically until the last weekend of the conference season anyways. The day off between the 1st round and qtr finals still makes it tough for travel. I guess you can risk going to the early games and if your team doesn't play until the qtrs you are stuck in Reno for a few days. Or you can risk getting there for the thursday games and hopefully your team doesn't play tuesday and lose. The womens bracket is even worse with two days of no games...

Hopefully this will work itself out and more fans will show up to Reno the next two years, if it doesn't, I hope the BSC takes a good look at other options...

 

[UMGriz75]

The decision to go to a neutral site wasn't the Big Sky staff's -- it was the Big Sky coaches, ADs and presidents. The Big Sky staff worked their butts off to make the tournament go as smoothly as possible. All the feedback I'm hearing from coaches, players and administrators is that the tournament was largely well-run and professional. That's a win.

As "a win" that presumes that the former tournaments were not largely well-run and professional. I thought UM did a fantastic job when it hosted both Men's and Women's a couple of years ago. Hosting "professionalism" hasn't been a problem.

Ideally, BSC would survey the coaches, players and fans, not the school presidents. I was glad to see Engstrom in the stands at Reno, but the genuine participating stakeholders seem to be somewhat left out of the process.

I'd be careful with "it wasn't Big Sky Staff's" decision. In organizations like this, most of the ideas come from the "staff" and are then pitched to "the Board." Then, the results become "the Board's decision." In my experience, this has its good points and its bad points. Staff-generated ideas then also have the institutional moral support of the business side of the operation, and there is little if any capability to generate critical analysis, while at the same time, that same staff is then seeking to validate its own initiatives by presenting favorable reports on the outcomes.

If the players and the coaches like it, I'd say that would be conclusive. If the "numbers" -- the financial side -- demonstrate that this is not a significant financial burden, draining important dollars from other perhaps more necessary needs, that's important to know as well.

One of my initial concerns is that I could not find a "business plan" for the Reno idea. No projections, no cost-benefit analysis, nothing to compare the actual results to because BSC created no standards to compare the project outcome to.

 

[UMGriz75]

I would say a little over 1500 at championship game which I agree is terrible. The fans were very loud though!

I was impressed with the crowd noise; that had to be great for the players.

 

[UMGriz75]

In the article they mention asking the fans who attended. I'm guessing fans that attended would agree with what marceagfan said in an earlier thread about the attendance.

"Reporting 1700+ for ewu game...no way there were 300 people there..."

I'd read the box score reports of attendance, and compare to what I was seeing, and just concluded that the cameras couldn't show, or weren't showing, the entire crowd. Even so, the front row seats looked pretty empty most of the time, and that's where I would be if I could find an empty seat.

 

[ISUguy]

As "a win" that presumes that the former tournaments were not largely well-run and professional. I thought UM did a fantastic job when it hosted both Men's and Women's a couple of years ago. Hosting "professionalism" hasn't been a problem.

Ideally, BSC would survey the coaches, players and fans, not the school presidents. I was glad to see Engstrom in the stands at Reno, but the genuine participating stakeholders seem to be somewhat left out of the process.

I'd be careful with "it wasn't Big Sky Staff's" decision. In organizations like this, most of the ideas come from the "staff" and are then pitched to "the Board." Then, the results become "the Board's decision." In my experience, this has its good points and its bad points. Staff-generated ideas then also have the institutional moral support of the business side of the operation, and there is little if any capability to generate critical analysis, while at the same time, that same staff is then seeking to validate its own initiatives by presenting favorable reports on the outcomes.

.[/quote]
I wouldn't presume to question the professionalism of the tournament when Montana or Weber State hosted it. I'm sure they did a fine job. But if anyone thinks putting on a 24-team tournament over 7 days should be "easy" just because there weren't a lot of fans attending, they are kidding themselves. The checklist of things "to do" would probably be several pages long. And nobody is putting the Big Sky staff in for medals of honor for running the tournament ("doing their jobs"), but it's crazy to suggest they only wanted the tournament in Reno so they could get "fat cat" treatment. I guarantee you they were working their butts off.

I can tell you that having spoken to Idaho State coaches, they were very vigorous in support of this change. It was ISU's women's team who couldn't get plane tickets for their entire team to Grand Forks a couple of years ago and had to take a two-day bus ride to and from the tourney. This year, the parents of ISU's Anna Policicchio (Canada) and Brooke Blair (New Zealand) got to attend the tourney because they knew the dates and place well in advance. (And Idaho's coach Jon Newlee told me his team went ahead and booked rooms in Reno starting Sunday night because they didn't know if they would be playing the first day or not -- so yes, there is still some uncertainty. But at least they knew they were going to be in Reno and they knew the earliest day they had to be there).

As to asking the Presidents' opinion? Well, it may not be the most informed opinion, but they are the ultimate decision-makers, so I'd assume you'd eventually want their input.

 

[EverettGriz]

We all understand why they've gone to a neutral site (although no one is buying the recruiting advantage argument; if you're getting a kid excited about playing in a tournament as a 3-24 team, you're recruiting the wrong player).

That doesn't excuse the poor choice of location. It doesn't excuse rewarding the 14th place team with a day off before they play a high seed. It doesn't excuse the obviously terrible job of marketing this thing to locals (who admittedly don't give two shits about the BSC). It doesn't excuse 97 foul calls in the semis, making those games virtually unwatchable. Any casual fan without a rooting interest certainly ain't coming back after that debacle. It doesn't excuse the failure of the league to get someone --anyone -- to televise the thing, or at least the semis.

Look, I agree the Tourny appeared to be smoothly run. Kudos to the conference for doing what they were paid to do. The fact that they're being praised for it, however, just goes to show how incredibly low the bar is set in this confence.

And finally, BG, yes, fans should go. But this league can't get 800 people to drive 7 miles across town to watch their home team play a game. Do you really expect those fans are going to reNO to do so??

The recruiting thing was actually an important reason for the coaches. If another conference takes away a kid because, among other reasons, the size of the conference tourney, then the Big Sky team has lost a recruit they (and other schools) wanted. Everett, it never ceases to amaze me how little your know about sports. That's fine, but don't act like you do when you don't. I'm told that you don't have an athletic bone in your body.

Las Vegas was the preferred location, but there was no room at the inn there. Maybe Reno isn't a great location, but it has some positives.

I agree on the 97 fouls, but I hope you don't think the location and format of the tournament led to 97 foul calls.

Again, if that truly was a recruiting concern, then my point is made: this is the shittiest conference in the history of the world. If that's the kind of player teams in this league are recruiting, we're destined for a perpetual continuation of having 11 teams with sub-300 RPIs. Do you really think Montana or Weber has ever lost a kid because we didn't have 27 teams in our tournament? If the other teams want to recruit with those teams, here's a suggestion: GET BETTER, SCHEDULE BETTER, DRAW BETTER.

I know infinitely more about sports than you've forgotten. Which, based on your advanced age, I suspect is a rather voluminous amount. As for my athleticism or lack there of, good GOD you're a freaky dude if you're asking others about that. (Oh, and for what it's worth freaky boy, I'm currently ranked at the national level in a sport. How about you?).

There's plenty of room in vegas. What there wasn't in vegas was any interest in hosting the bsc tournament. You can see why.

No ,the 97 fouls were due to shitty bsc officials.

 

[EverettGriz]

BG, my posts are not to suggest that the guys at the bsc offices running the tournament didn't work hard. Hell, I saw Jon Kasper wiping sweat off the floor at one point. I'm fairly certain that's not in his regular job description.

But the point is, if they took on the responsibility for the tournament, I would think that the minimum expectation is that it run smoothly. As others have pointed out, UM ran both the men's and women's tournaments last year with one week's notice, and they were spectacular. Part of the problem as I see it is that there didn't seem to be a communicated pre-tournament measure of success. How do we really know how it went, if we've nothing to measure it against?

 

[AZGrizFan]

The Big Sky is not alone in this dilemma. I was channel surfing Saturday and came across the American Conference semifinal game matching Tulane (who finished 12-22 and 3-15 in league, but yet somehow managed to make it to the semifinals) and Memphis in Orlando. There was NOBODY in that arena for that game. But the American Conference, like the Big Sky, has made the determination that having a tournament experience for all its teams on a neutral court is best for the conference. They are willing to trade off live bodies in the stands for those values.

I understand nobody in Missoula or Ogden is going to like this trade-off, but remember, it wasn't the conference office that pushed this -- it was the coaches and ADs, and ultimately the presidents who accepted it. Try to understand this from the perspective of the athletes -- no more two-day bus rides from Pocatello to Grand Forks. The ability of their parents to plan ahead and be at the games, with an assurance that they will get to see their sons or daughters for at least one more game. And from the teams' perspectives, an ability to make travel arrangements well in advance. From the coaches' perspective -- an ability to tell a recruit, "We're no longer one of the few conferences in the nation that doesn't allow every school and athlete to participate in the post-season tournament. We go first class here -- we have a pre-determined site where your family can come and watch you play at the end of the season. And you won't have to take two-day bus ride to get there."

I'm sure the conference is hoping to grow this over time. That people in Missoula and Ogden will decide it's worth it to plan a couple of days every March to go to Reno and watch basketball. Nobody expects the early round games to draw many fans, but they don't usually when they are campus and don't involve the host team.
But if the fans don't come, I'm sure there will be another discussion about how to do this. I will say this: I applaud the conference for giving consideration to the needs and desires of the athletes and their families. I know everybody is targeting the Big Sky Conference staff for hate and discontent over this decision, but it was really driven by the coaches and ADS who wanted a better experience for their athletes.

That's all great. Then why not Spokane? You know, that city where fully HALF the teams/fans in the conference could get to within about 2-5 hour drive? PSU, EWU, Idaho, Montana & MSU (with Weber & ISU slightly further). The ONLY team remotely close to Reno is Sac, and we KNOW they don't have more than 300 fans total, because thats' all their gym holds. The league could have accomplished the SAME thing with probably 5 X the success.

WHY RENO?

 

[grizindabox]

Why Reno.....the package deal they gave the Conference/Schools was to good.....

 

[UMGriz75]

And nobody is putting the Big Sky staff in for medals of honor for running the tournament ("doing their jobs"), but it's crazy to suggest they only wanted the tournament in Reno so they could get "fat cat" treatment. I guarantee you they were working their butts off.

I don't think anyone said anything like that.

 

[UMGriz75]

That's all great. Then why not Spokane? You know, that city where fully HALF the teams/fans in the conference could get to within about 2-5 hour drive? PSU, EWU, Idaho, Montana & MSU (with Weber & ISU slightly further). The ONLY team remotely close to Reno is Sac, and we KNOW they don't have more than 300 fans total, because thats' all their gym holds. The league could have accomplished the SAME thing with probably 5 X the success.

Logistically, "Spokane" cures many of the problems with fewer obvious handicaps.

 

[Mavman]

I realize that many people are not happy with the location and idea of a neutral court for the tournament.
I would however strongly encourage all of you to try and attend next year if you can swing it. The quality of play and the competitive games made it all worth it.

 

[grizindabox]

I realize that many people are not happy with the location and idea of a neutral court for the tournament.
I would however strongly encourage all of you to try and attend next year if you can swing it. The quality of play and the competitive games made it all worth it.

they would rather sit home and bitch about it....

 

[maroonandsilver]

The conference wanted to have both women's and men's tourney at the same venue. The Spokane/EWU bid was to have the men in Spokane and the women in Cheney.

 

[garizzalies]

I like Reno and I think if fits the bill perfectly. As a former member, UNR has some relevance. We're never going to compete with the big dogs so why try (LV). Reno is in the west, relatively small, but fun, just like our conf. There is nothing "neutral" about Spokane, SLC, or Billings. There are multiple schools in (most of) those states (or very close thereby), and those locations are not as "central" as Reno, nor as accessible. I get that attendance may be higher in those cities but that defeats the purpose as Reno truly is neutral compared to the others, and has much more of a resort/destination/vacation aspect to it.

 

[PlayerRep]

We all understand why they've gone to a neutral site (although no one is buying the recruiting advantage argument; if you're getting a kid excited about playing in a tournament as a 3-24 team, you're recruiting the wrong player).

That doesn't excuse the poor choice of location. It doesn't excuse rewarding the 14th place team with a day off before they play a high seed. It doesn't excuse the obviously terrible job of marketing this thing to locals (who admittedly don't give two shits about the BSC). It doesn't excuse 97 foul calls in the semis, making those games virtually unwatchable. Any casual fan without a rooting interest certainly ain't coming back after that debacle. It doesn't excuse the failure of the league to get someone --anyone -- to televise the thing, or at least the semis.

Look, I agree the Tourny appeared to be smoothly run. Kudos to the conference for doing what they were paid to do. The fact that they're being praised for it, however, just goes to show how incredibly low the bar is set in this confence.

And finally, BG, yes, fans should go. But this league can't get 800 people to drive 7 miles across town to watch their home team play a game. Do you really expect those fans are going to reNO to do so??

The recruiting thing was actually an important reason for the coaches. If another conference takes away a kid because, among other reasons, the size of the conference tourney, then the Big Sky team has lost a recruit they (and other schools) wanted. Everett, it never ceases to amaze me how little your know about sports. That's fine, but don't act like you do when you don't. I'm told that you don't have an athletic bone in your body.

Las Vegas was the preferred location, but there was no room at the inn there. Maybe Reno isn't a great location, but it has some positives.

I agree on the 97 fouls, but I hope you don't think the location and format of the tournament led to 97 foul calls.

Again, if that truly was a recruiting concern, then my point is made: this is the shittiest conference in the history of the world. If that's the kind of player teams in this league are recruiting, we're destined for a perpetual continuation of having 11 teams with sub-300 RPIs. Do you really think Montana or Weber has ever lost a kid because we didn't have 27 teams in our tournament? If the other teams want to recruit with those teams, here's a suggestion: GET BETTER, SCHEDULE BETTER, DRAW BETTER.

I know infinitely more about sports than you've forgotten. Which, based on your advanced age, I suspect is a rather voluminous amount. As for my athleticism or lack there of, good GOD you're a freaky dude if you're asking others about that. (Oh, and for what it's worth freaky boy, I'm currently ranked at the national level in a sport. How about you?).

There's plenty of room in vegas. What there wasn't in vegas was any interest in hosting the bsc tournament. You can see why.

No ,the 97 fouls were due to shitty bsc officials.

I haven't asked anyone about you, but some people have said some things about you. One senior administrator type said you were a fairly nice guy, drank the UM cool aid, didn't appear to have and athletic bone in your body, and said some things that made me think you were somewhat of a lightweight. Okay, what sport are you nationally ranked in?

 

[PlayerRep]

We all understand why they've gone to a neutral site (although no one is buying the recruiting advantage argument; if you're getting a kid excited about playing in a tournament as a 3-24 team, you're recruiting the wrong player).

That doesn't excuse the poor choice of location. It doesn't excuse rewarding the 14th place team with a day off before they play a high seed. It doesn't excuse the obviously terrible job of marketing this thing to locals (who admittedly don't give two shits about the BSC). It doesn't excuse 97 foul calls in the semis, making those games virtually unwatchable. Any casual fan without a rooting interest certainly ain't coming back after that debacle. It doesn't excuse the failure of the league to get someone --anyone -- to televise the thing, or at least the semis.

Look, I agree the Tourny appeared to be smoothly run. Kudos to the conference for doing what they were paid to do. The fact that they're being praised for it, however, just goes to show how incredibly low the bar is set in this confence.

And finally, BG, yes, fans should go. But this league can't get 800 people to drive 7 miles across town to watch their home team play a game. Do you really expect those fans are going to reNO to do so??

The recruiting thing was actually an important reason for the coaches. If another conference takes away a kid because, among other reasons, the size of the conference tourney, then the Big Sky team has lost a recruit they (and other schools) wanted. Everett, it never ceases to amaze me how little your know about sports. That's fine, but don't act like you do when you don't. I'm told that you don't have an athletic bone in your body.

Las Vegas was the preferred location, but there was no room at the inn there. Maybe Reno isn't a great location, but it has some positives.

I agree on the 97 fouls, but I hope you don't think the location and format of the tournament led to 97 foul calls.

Again, if that truly was a recruiting concern, then my point is made: this is the shittiest conference in the history of the world. If that's the kind of player teams in this league are recruiting, we're destined for a perpetual continuation of having 11 teams with sub-300 RPIs. Do you really think Montana or Weber has ever lost a kid because we didn't have 27 teams in our tournament? If the other teams want to recruit with those teams, here's a suggestion: GET BETTER, SCHEDULE BETTER, DRAW BETTER.

I know infinitely more about sports than you've forgotten. Which, based on your advanced age, I suspect is a rather voluminous amount. As for my athleticism or lack there of, good GOD you're a freaky dude if you're asking others about that. (Oh, and for what it's worth freaky boy, I'm currently ranked at the national level in a sport. How about you?).

There's plenty of room in vegas. What there wasn't in vegas was any interest in hosting the bsc tournament. You can see why.

No ,the 97 fouls were due to shitty bsc officials.

You apparently don't understand how competitive recruiting is. Ask some coaches. Call the Big Sky conference and ask them. Don't identify yourself as Everett Griz, tho, or they will just laugh at you.

 

[PlayerRep]

The decision to go to a neutral site wasn't the Big Sky staff's -- it was the Big Sky coaches, ADs and presidents. The Big Sky staff worked their butts off to make the tournament go as smoothly as possible. All the feedback I'm hearing from coaches, players and administrators is that the tournament was largely well-run and professional. That's a win.

As "a win" that presumes that the former tournaments were not largely well-run and professional. I thought UM did a fantastic job when it hosted both Men's and Women's a couple of years ago. Hosting "professionalism" hasn't been a problem.

Ideally, BSC would survey the coaches, players and fans, not the school presidents. I was glad to see Engstrom in the stands at Reno, but the genuine participating stakeholders seem to be somewhat left out of the process.

I'd be careful with "it wasn't Big Sky Staff's" decision. In organizations like this, most of the ideas come from the "staff" and are then pitched to "the Board." Then, the results become "the Board's decision." In my experience, this has its good points and its bad points. Staff-generated ideas then also have the institutional moral support of the business side of the operation, and there is little if any capability to generate critical analysis, while at the same time, that same staff is then seeking to validate its own initiatives by presenting favorable reports on the outcomes.

If the players and the coaches like it, I'd say that would be conclusive. If the "numbers" -- the financial side -- demonstrate that this is not a significant financial burden, draining important dollars from other perhaps more necessary needs, that's important to know as well.

One of my initial concerns is that I could not find a "business plan" for the Reno idea. No projections, no cost-benefit analysis, nothing to compare the actual results to because BSC created no standards to compare the project outcome to.

Bengal is right that the coaches and AD's pushed for this. Fullerton has actually opposed the neutral site, etc. for years. He stood aside this time.

 

[UNDfan]

It's amazing that the collective brain trust here can't figure out why the Big Sky likes Reno. Weber St and egriz are out voted by the 10 other teams: that's why. But more than that, each school wants to schmooze their high donors, and those donors don't want to bother with Missoula or Ogden or even Billings. They will show for Reno or Vegas or maybe even Denver, but not popunk towns. The AD's and Presidents went to Reno for their own schmoozing, and they wouldn't dream of schmoozing their alumni in Missoula. The parties are already being planned for next year in Reno. Vegas opens up a new venue next year, as the PAC12 moves to the 18.5k seat T-Mobile Arena from the 12k MGM Grand Garden. The Sky will move to Vegas in 2018, as Vegas offers world class schmoozing opportunities.