Big Sky brass pleased with first Reno run

[grizzlyjournal]

None, PlayerRep. I've been pretty upfront about that. BUT, I estimate I've missed between 7-10 home games total since 1970 when I returned to UM after my military obligation.

That is an extremely impressive attendance record. Wow! Can't imagine that anyone has seen more home games during that period than you have. Did you go to Viet Nam?

Not technically "in" Vietnam, but "over..." Was with the USAF Strategic Air Command (B52s & KC 135s).

USAF SAC 1850th Airborne Division here. :thumb:

I was with 4042d Strategic Wing, but some of the longtime support group also said it was actually the 410th Bombardment group of the said above... All at K I Sawyer AFB. It also housed the 923rd refueling squadron & I served with both because I was a dispatcher. :thumb:

 

[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.

So the objective is to get the tourney as far away from ANY CONCENTRATION of fans to the point where NOONE attends???

Yea that's the objective :roll:
And who the hell is Mr. Noone and why should I care if he attends?

 

[fanofzoo]

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.

So the objective is to get the tourney as far away from ANY CONCENTRATION of fans to the point where NOONE attends???

Yea that's the objective :roll:
And who the hell is Mr. Noone and why should I care if he attends?

I don't think he is going, too much of a hassle to get there and they don't want him, unless he is capable of schmoozing.

 

[PlayerRep]

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.

So the objective is to get the tourney as far away from ANY CONCENTRATION of fans to the point where NOONE attends???

Yea that's the objective :roll:
And who the hell is Mr. Noone and why should I care if he attends?

I don't think he is going, too much of a hassle to get there and they don't want him, unless he is capable of schmoozing.

Noone apparently didn't have enough money for gas.

 

[AZGrizFan]

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.

So the objective is to get the tourney as far away from ANY CONCENTRATION of fans to the point where NOONE attends???

Yea that's the objective :roll:
And who the hell is Mr. Noone and why should I care if he attends?

Well if they're looking for a "neutral" location, that would directly imply they're looking for a site not near ANY school. Which deprives 99% of the collective fan bases of the opportunity to attend. Sorry, but that just seems like a completely retarded approach. Unless of course you're happy with 800 people at the championship game. Ah but what the hell....the BSC is so loaded they can wait 10-15 years for this thing to "mature" and become "kind of a big deal" to the Reno population, I'm sure.

 

[mtgrizrule]

This is just another example of a conference being happy and content with mediocrity, and that is likely a compliment. Sorry, but a small conference where football is king, in a sparsely populated area, a neutral tournament site makes absolutely no senses financially.

If it were up to me, I'd reward the fan bases who actually consistently support their program with decent or better attendance. I'd have attendance factors built into determining who is eligible to host the conference tournament. Making attendance a factor may actually get fans and communities to realize the importance of attending games at every venue. There is no way the likes of PSU or Sac State would be in contention to host a conference tournament, at least until they have DIV 1 facilities. There is also no way I would accept or be happy with the results of a conference tournament like we witnessed this season.

Like it or not, everyone associated with this conference: teams, schools, fans, and conference officials need to step up their efforts in so many ways. Right now, this conference is an absolute joke concerning basketball!!! I pray the new commissioner will be much more proactive than Fullerton. If not, we will continue to be part of a dead end conference and watch many other conference pass us by and leave us behind. Worse yet, the same may happen in football as well.

If the conference cannot do enough to be better, maybe the GRIZ brass will have the balls to do everything they can do to make things better for the U of M.

 

[grizindabox]

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.

So the objective is to get the tourney as far away from ANY CONCENTRATION of fans to the point where NOONE attends???

Yea that's the objective :roll:
And who the hell is Mr. Noone and why should I care if he attends?

Well if they're looking for a "neutral" location, that would directly imply they're looking for a site not near ANY school. Which deprives 99% of the collective fan bases of the opportunity to attend. Sorry, but that just seems like a completely retarded approach. Unless of course you're happy with 800 people at the championship game. Ah but what the hell....the BSC is so loaded they can wait 10-15 years for this thing to "mature" and become "kind of a big deal" to the Reno population, I'm sure.

You do realize that the BSC tourney is not about making money....it is about minimizing the cost for each school....having a predetermined site allows them to shop the site and get the best breaks for the schools....it is not about allowing UM, MSU, and WSU fans having a 25 minute drive to the game.....would the BSC like more people in attendance....you bet....but that is far down the list....

 

['68griz]

So the objective is to get the tourney as far away from ANY CONCENTRATION of fans to the point where NOONE attends???

Yea that's the objective :roll:
And who the hell is Mr. Noone and why should I care if he attends?

Well if they're looking for a "neutral" location, that would directly imply they're looking for a site not near ANY school. Which deprives 99% of the collective fan bases of the opportunity to attend. Sorry, but that just seems like a completely retarded approach. Unless of course you're happy with 800 people at the championship game. Ah but what the hell....the BSC is so loaded they can wait 10-15 years for this thing to "mature" and become "kind of a big deal" to the Reno population, I'm sure.

You do realize that the BSC tourney is not about making money....it is about minimizing the cost for each school....having a predetermined site allows them to shop the site and get the best breaks for the schools....it is not about allowing UM, MSU, and WSU fans having a 25 minute drive to the game.....would the BSC like more people in attendance....you bet....but that is far down the list....

If it's all about minimizing costs, then why have a tournament at all? Just send the regular season champ to the NCAA's and call it good.

 

[grizindabox]

Yea that's the objective :roll:
And who the hell is Mr. Noone and why should I care if he attends?

Well if they're looking for a "neutral" location, that would directly imply they're looking for a site not near ANY school. Which deprives 99% of the collective fan bases of the opportunity to attend. Sorry, but that just seems like a completely retarded approach. Unless of course you're happy with 800 people at the championship game. Ah but what the hell....the BSC is so loaded they can wait 10-15 years for this thing to "mature" and become "kind of a big deal" to the Reno population, I'm sure.

You do realize that the BSC tourney is not about making money....it is about minimizing the cost for each school....having a predetermined site allows them to shop the site and get the best breaks for the schools....it is not about allowing UM, MSU, and WSU fans having a 25 minute drive to the game.....would the BSC like more people in attendance....you bet....but that is far down the list....

If it's all about minimizing costs, then why have a tournament at all? Just send the regular season champ to the NCAA's and call it good.

It is about minimizing the cost of the tourney for each participating school...not for having the cheapest conference tournament....

 

['68griz]

And perhaps it results in that too....

 

[grizindabox]

And perhaps it results in that too....

the tournament is never going away.....even the Ivy is going to a conference tournament...

 

[mtgrizrule]

And perhaps it results in that too....

the tournament is never going away.....even the Ivy is going to a conference tournament...

At least they are smart enough to not have the conference bottom feeders in the tournament. They are not risking a bottom feeder getting hot at the right time. I could be wrong, but think the top 4 in their conference will be playing in the conference tournament. I feel that is a great compromise.

Sorry, but I am not one for rewarding a team for sucking in their conference. Anything less than a .500 conference record should be ineligible for the Big Dance.

 

[grizindabox]

And perhaps it results in that too....

the tournament is never going away.....even the Ivy is going to a conference tournament...

At least they are smart enough to not have the conference bottom feeders in the tournament. They are not risking a bottom feeder getting hot at the right time. I could be wrong, but think the top 4 in their conference will be playing in the conference tournament. I feel that is a great compromise.

Sorry, but I am not one for rewarding a team for sucking in their conference. Anything less than a .500 conference record should be ineligible for the Big Dance.

the underdog is what makes the Big Dance great.....I have no problem including everyone....I would have no problem only allowing the top 8 or 6.....but if a team from the BSC is good enough to win games in the tournament, they won't lose to a bottom feeder in the tournament.....

 

[garizzalies]

I'd have attendance factors built into determining who is eligible to host the conference tournament.

What?!?! This is starting to get downright ridiculous.
Yeah, lets have some crazy algorithm that will help us load the deck to ensure an advantage to some team, based on stats that literally have nothing to do with the game itself. Why stop there? Why not factor in the number of hotdogs sold?
Are you people even listening to yourselves?

 

[EverettGriz]

I'd have attendance factors built into determining who is eligible to host the conference tournament.

What?!?! This is starting to get downright ridiculous.
Yeah, lets have some crazy algorithm that will help us load the deck to ensure an advantage to some team, based on stats that literally have nothing to do with the game itself. Why stop there? Why not factor in the number of hotdogs sold?
Are you people even listening to yourselves?

Garizz, I'm not sure I agree with the attendance argument (although the bsc simply MUST address its shitty attendance and the venues which can only hold 850 people, but that's a discussion for another day). But are you suggesting that the deck shouldn't be stacked to ensure advantages for teams who have been more successful during the year? If so, I presume you must HATE the FCS playoff system.

We're simply suggesting that the bsc tournament be run more like the FCS playoffs, where the top teams are given every advantage, because they've earned them.

 

[garizzalies]

The top teams do get advantages. They get to play lower seeded teams and possibly a bye. Why do they deserve more than that?
You guys are always saying the deck needs to be loaded to ensure the best team makes it to the big dance, so the conference as a whole gets the best opportunity to win a big dance game. Well guess what, that is exactly what a neutral tournament does. I believe your approach could result in the opposite--a weaker team might actually make it because the deck was loaded in their favor, and when those advantages are gone, the true team is revealed later in the big dance. The strongest team is usually the one that overcame the most adversity, not the one that had it handed to them.
Instead of comparing it to football, why not compare it to something that makes sense, you know, like basketball? E.g., you can't even play 3 FB games in 4 days. You are constantly griping about our lowly conference but then you don't want to do it like most of the big dogs. Makes no sense at all.
Seems like you're really not afraid of a crappy team getting steamrolled in the big dance--that happens almost every year. What you're really afraid of is losing to a crappy team in our own tourney. If that happens, then they didn't "earn" shit. Its a fanboy mentality and I can guarantee you that is not how the players see it, because they're competitors and not afraid to settle it on the floor.

 

[PlayerRep]

The top teams do get advantages. They get to play lower seeded teams and possibly a bye. Why do they deserve more than that?
You guys are always saying the deck needs to be loaded to ensure the best team makes it to the big dance, so the conference as a whole gets the best opportunity to win a big dance game. Well guess what, that is exactly what a neutral tournament does. I believe your approach could result in the opposite--a weaker team might actually make it because the deck was loaded in their favor, and when those advantages are gone, the true team is revealed later in the big dance. The strongest team is usually the one that overcame the most adversity, not the one that had it handed to them.
Instead of comparing it to football, why not compare it to something that makes sense, you know, like basketball? E.g., you can't even play 3 FB games in 4 days. You are constantly griping about our lowly conference but then you don't want to do it like most of the big dogs. Makes no sense at all.
Seems like you're really not afraid of a crappy team getting steamrolled in the big dance--that happens almost every year. What you're really afraid of is losing to a crappy team in our own tourney. If that happens, then they didn't "earn" shit. Its a fanboy mentality and I can guarantee you that is not how the players see it, because they're competitors and not afraid to settle it on the floor.

I pretty much line up with you on this one. That isn't to say I didn't love having the tourneys in Missoula. Both times the men and women hosted, I went to every single game.

 

[garizzalies]

I enjoyed the tourney when it was in MSLA, too, but I'd enjoy it even more in Reno. I can make games in MSLA every year, but Reno offers much more.

I don't get most of this board. They always want UM (or the BSC) to grow, get more national exposure, etc, but when that happens, it's gripe city on here. They are 100% in favor of progress but 1000% against change.

 

[PlayerRep]

I enjoyed the tourney when it was in MSLA, too, but I'd enjoy it even more in Reno. I can make games in MSLA every year, but Reno offers much more.

I don't get most of this board. They always want UM (or the BSC) to grow, get more national exposure, etc, but when that happens, it's gripe city on here. They are 100% in favor of progress but 1000% against change.

Some posters are very inconsistent on this issue, as you point out. We need to improve and become more like the big boys and good conferences. Then the conference creates a tourney format just like most of the big conferences, and now we need to our best team to the Big Dance. Why? No we don't. Our representative gets crushed much of the time anyway. But coaches say that including all teams will help with recruiting and make teams and the conference stronger. They don't know what they're taking about and we need to get our best team to the ncaa tourney. The conference sucks and we need to make it better or get out of it.

 

[EverettGriz]

The top teams do get advantages. They get to play lower seeded teams and possibly a bye. Why do they deserve more than that?
You guys are always saying the deck needs to be loaded to ensure the best team makes it to the big dance, so the conference as a whole gets the best opportunity to win a big dance game. Well guess what, that is exactly what a neutral tournament does. I believe your approach could result in the opposite--a weaker team might actually make it because the deck was loaded in their favor, and when those advantages are gone, the true team is revealed later in the big dance. The strongest team is usually the one that overcame the most adversity, not the one that had it handed to them.
Instead of comparing it to football, why not compare it to something that makes sense, you know, like basketball? E.g., you can't even play 3 FB games in 4 days. You are constantly griping about our lowly conference but then you don't want to do it like most of the big dogs. Makes no sense at all.
Seems like you're really not afraid of a crappy team getting steamrolled in the big dance--that happens almost every year. What you're really afraid of is losing to a crappy team in our own tourney. If that happens, then they didn't "earn" shit. Its a fanboy mentality and I can guarantee you that is not how the players see it, because they're competitors and not afraid to settle it on the floor.

Why doesn't it make sense to compare it to football? Because what they do there is what we're asking for here: Reward those teams who were successful all year long with home games. Would you support neutral site games for the FCS playoffs?

And you're correct. I do NOT want to do it like the big boys, because, we are absolutely most definitely NOT a big boy. That's the entire point. We need to do all we can to COMPETE with the big boys, not emulate them. That's how the league gets better. That's how it grows. There's nothing inconsistent in that argument at all. But again, I suspect your and playa fully understand that.

As for your competition argument, it's a complete red herring, and I suspect you know that. The competition is still there. Teams still have to play, and they have to win.