Big Sky brass pleased with first Reno run

[EverettGriz]

I have no doubt the expenses to the average bsc team were lower for this tournament they were for last year's in Missoula.

But seriously, if that's the primary reason for the decision as to WHERE to hold the tournament in this two-bit conference, maybe the discussion should be to ELIMINATE the tournament. I mean, if it makes a substantial difference to some programs to save -- and here I'm just guessing -- $3000 to $5000, it's sad, and emblematic of the real problem that needs to be addressed: that Montana has NO business being in the bsc.

One of these things is not like the others....

 

[grizindabox]

I have no doubt the expenses to the average bsc team were lower for this tournament they were for last year's in Missoula.

But seriously, if that's the primary reason for the decision as to WHERE to hold the tournament in this two-bit conference, maybe the discussion should be to ELIMINATE the tournament. I mean, if it makes a substantial difference to some programs to save -- and here I'm just guessing -- $3000 to $5000, it's sad, and emblematic of the real problem that needs to be addressed: that Montana has NO business being in the bsc.

One of these things is not like the others....

Too bad that they have no where else to go.....ya know....to meet your lofty goals......the BSC is a podunk conference......when you have a majority of schools that struggle to balance their athletic budget...anything helps....

 

[EverettGriz]

Yes it is too bad. On that point we agree.

But that won't stop from me calling out stupid-assed decisions while we're still a member of the conference.

 

[grizindabox]

Yes it is too bad. On that point we agree.

But that won't stop from me calling out stupid-assed decisions while we're still a member of the conference.

seems a majority of the schools disagree with you...

 

[AZGrizFan]

The point is....there was nothing wrong with the tournament...you just want to bitch about something....the games were good....the chipper was a good game between the 2 best teams......I heard of no issues with how it was run......so just keep bitching to bitch.....

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it.....

you act like there was no one there......and if the tournament was in Sacramento or Grand Forks with a week notice do you think the attendance would be far superior...

No. I've resigned my self to the fact that the old way only works if UM or Weber win the conference every year. But it just seems to me they took the worst possible option in the new approach.

And would someone please tell me why both tournaments HAD to be at the same site? Does THAT save teams/schools money too? I mean, what would have been wrong with Spokane/Cheney? Honestly?

 

[AZGrizFan]

Anyway you can guarantee SOME built-in fans in places like Ogden, Missoula, Bozeman. That just ain't the case in Reno, and I sincerely doubt there ever would be. Just sayin'....

Once again....it is more about saving each individual school money while having all participate....that just won't work if you don't know where the tournament might be until the final weekend of the season....

Perhaps they wouldn't have to "save so much money" if they'd have the tournament in a place where fans of the schools could actually get to the f***[*] tournament and pay for tickets.

The way it's run now it's ENTIRELY an expense, with basically ZERO revenue to offset it. And no real hope that that will change any time soon.

It is not about the fans saving.......it is about the member schools saving money....and why do you think having 2 separate tournaments on short notice at a member institution is cheaper than a combined tournament that you can shop for the best deal.....

I realize it's not about the fans saving. But apparently it's not about the fans actually GOING either. Because let's be honest, that's NEVER going to happen in Reno.

 

[grizzlyjournal]

I realize it's not about the fans saving. But apparently it's not about the fans actually GOING either. Because let's be honest, that's NEVER going to happen in Reno.

Well... THIS is the crux of it. A lot of moves were made with disregard to fans.

 

[PlayerRep]

The point is....there was nothing wrong with the tournament...you just want to bitch about something....the games were good....the chipper was a good game between the 2 best teams......I heard of no issues with how it was run......so just keep bitching to bitch.....

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it.....

you act like there was no one there......and if the tournament was in Sacramento or Grand Forks with a week notice do you think the attendance would be far superior...

No. I've resigned my self to the fact that the old way only works if UM or Weber win the conference every year. But it just seems to me they took the worst possible option in the new approach.

And would someone please tell me why both tournaments HAD to be at the same site? Does THAT save teams/schools money too? I mean, what would have been wrong with Spokane/Cheney? Honestly?

The reason for the men and women at the same site was because Reno wanted them together and was willing to make a higher bid/guarantee (think, for example, more hotels rooms booked, more people eating, and economies of scale for hosting); it would make the overall experience for players and fans better; cost savings for athletic department, dance team and band (only having to go to one location); and it would have at least a some positive impact on attendance. For example, had I been able to go, I would have gone to both tournaments.

 

[cmtgrizzly]

It would be nice to pump all of the money into some of our BSC university communities as well. All the hotel rooms, food, shopping etc

 

[PlayerRep]

I have no doubt the expenses to the average bsc team were lower for this tournament they were for last year's in Missoula.

But seriously, if that's the primary reason for the decision as to WHERE to hold the tournament in this two-bit conference, maybe the discussion should be to ELIMINATE the tournament. I mean, if it makes a substantial difference to some programs to save -- and here I'm just guessing -- $3000 to $5000, it's sad, and emblematic of the real problem that needs to be addressed: that Montana has NO business being in the bsc.

One of these things is not like the others....

The savings must have been way larger than that. $66 hotel rooms for fans, and schools probably paid less. How many team, managers, trainers, and athletic department people fly? 25. 25 times say $400 is $10,000, for just the men's team. So, $20,000 for 2 teams. I just checked Delta, for booking tonight and flying SLC to Missoula on Tuesday and returning on Saturday. Lowest fare is $930. Portland to Missoula is $610 to $1172. Grand Forks is $923. How many rooms are needed for team, athletic dept, dance team, band? Maybe $50 times 50 rooms? So $2,500 savings per night, or $12,500 for average of 5 nights. Depending on the school, there must be savings of $20,000 to $40,000.

And Everett, you think you are a numbers guy? Wow. You appear to have totally blow that guess.

 

[grizindabox]

The point is....there was nothing wrong with the tournament...you just want to bitch about something....the games were good....the chipper was a good game between the 2 best teams......I heard of no issues with how it was run......so just keep bitching to bitch.....

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it.....

you act like there was no one there......and if the tournament was in Sacramento or Grand Forks with a week notice do you think the attendance would be far superior...

No. I've resigned my self to the fact that the old way only works if UM or Weber win the conference every year. But it just seems to me they took the worst possible option in the new approach.

And would someone please tell me why both tournaments HAD to be at the same site? Does THAT save teams/schools money too? I mean, what would have been wrong with Spokane/Cheney? Honestly?

They wanted the tournament on a neutral floor....hence Cheney didn't work....

 

[mtgrizrule]

2 things I hate about the current tournament format.
(1) Participation ribbons to bottom dwelling teams. By the way, I have always believed a sub .500 record in conference play should not be eligible for the NCAA tournament. The reason most of the conference supports the current format is because outside of Montana, Weber State, and recently EWU rest of the conference schools are inconsistent and suck!! Just like football, rest of the conference is earning money and riding the coat tails of the GRIZ and a few other teams!!! For those of you saying the better teams just need to win to get the tournament. That is correct, but the same argument applies for the cellar dwelling teams as well. They should have to win in the regular season to "EARN" the right to participate in the conference tournament.!!!!

(2) I can buy the neutral site if it were in an area with more interest in Big Sky conference teams. Spokane, Billings, Seattle etc would be fine by me. That would better attendance. Another way to improve attendance is to have the tournament played in 3 days!!! The current format is way too long for an average fan to afford lodging for that length of time. I could have actually attended in Reno had it been 3 days. Also if they want fans to attend in the current format at the current location, how about some significant lodging savings for fans of each team?

Sorry, but I feel the current format screws over the majority of fans of the programs with good following, such as Weber State and Montana. Rather it be football or basketball, with the exception of a few bases, the fan bases suck in supporting their programs!!! How much money would the conference lose if the GRIZ were to leave the conference?? Is it asking too much of the other fan bases to step the hell up and support your teams????? Apparently so, because GRIZ NATION is the only fan base that adequately supports both football and basketball.

We are in such a piss poor conference. I pray for a proactive, high expectations conference commissioner to replace Fullerton. This conference has become stale and stagnant the last decade. That goes for both basketball and football.

 

[fanofzoo]

2 things I hate about the current tournament format.
(1) Participation ribbons to bottom dwelling teams. By the way, I have always believed a sub .500 record in conference play should not be eligible for the NCAA tournament. The reason most of the conference supports the current format is because outside of Montana, Weber State, and recently EWU rest of the conference schools are inconsistent and suck!! Just like football, rest of the conference is earning money and riding the coat tails of the GRIZ and a few other teams!!! For those of you saying the better teams just need to win to get the tournament. That is correct, but the same argument applies for the cellar dwelling teams as well. They should have to win in the regular season to "EARN" the right to participate in the conference tournament.!!!!

(2) I can buy the neutral site if it were in an area with more interest in Big Sky conference teams. Spokane, Billings, Seattle etc would be fine by me. That would better attendance. Another way to improve attendance is to have the tournament played in 3 days!!! The current format is way too long for an average fan to afford lodging for that length of time. I could have actually attended in Reno had it been 3 days. Also if they want fans to attend in the current format at the current location, how about some significant lodging savings for fans of each team?

Sorry, but I feel the current format screws over the majority of fans of the programs with good following, such as Weber State and Montana. Rather it be football or basketball, with the exception of a few bases, the fan bases suck in supporting their programs!!! How much money would the conference lose if the GRIZ were to leave the conference?? Is it asking too much of the other fan bases to step the hell up and support your teams????? Apparently so, because GRIZ NATION is the only fan base that adequately supports both football and basketball.

We are in such a piss poor conference. I pray for a proactive, high expectations conference commissioner to replace Fullerton. This conference has become stale and stagnant the last decade. That goes for both basketball and football.

Come on don't sugar coat it. :thumb:
Hopeful BB gets more attendance though.

SLC woud be good place.

 

[grizindabox]

2 things I hate about the current tournament format.
(1) Participation ribbons to bottom dwelling teams. By the way, I have always believed a sub .500 record in conference play should not be eligible for the NCAA tournament. The reason most of the conference supports the current format is because outside of Montana, Weber State, and recently EWU rest of the conference schools are inconsistent and suck!! Just like football, rest of the conference is earning money and riding the coat tails of the GRIZ and a few other teams!!! For those of you saying the better teams just need to win to get the tournament. That is correct, but the same argument applies for the cellar dwelling teams as well. They should have to win in the regular season to "EARN" the right to participate in the conference tournament.!!!!

(2) I can buy the neutral site if it were in an area with more interest in Big Sky conference teams. Spokane, Billings, Seattle etc would be fine by me. That would better attendance. Another way to improve attendance is to have the tournament played in 3 days!!! The current format is way too long for an average fan to afford lodging for that length of time. I could have actually attended in Reno had it been 3 days. Also if they want fans to attend in the current format at the current location, how about some significant lodging savings for fans of each team?

Sorry, but I feel the current format screws over the majority of fans of the programs with good following, such as Weber State and Montana. Rather it be football or basketball, with the exception of a few bases, the fan bases suck in supporting their programs!!! How much money would the conference lose if the GRIZ were to leave the conference?? Is it asking too much of the other fan bases to step the hell up and support your teams????? Apparently so, because GRIZ NATION is the only fan base that adequately supports both football and basketball.

We are in such a piss poor conference. I pray for a proactive, high expectations conference commissioner to replace Fullerton. This conference has become stale and stagnant the last decade. That goes for both basketball and football.

well Rule....I think you are fighting a losing battle.....I could see the site being moved....but it will probably be difficult for Spokane or Billings to meet the financial package that Reno can offer.....as for the format...I don't see it changing....with all 24 teams at the same site......6 days will be the norm.....

 

[EverettGriz]

I have no doubt the expenses to the average bsc team were lower for this tournament they were for last year's in Missoula.

But seriously, if that's the primary reason for the decision as to WHERE to hold the tournament in this two-bit conference, maybe the discussion should be to ELIMINATE the tournament. I mean, if it makes a substantial difference to some programs to save -- and here I'm just guessing -- $3000 to $5000, it's sad, and emblematic of the real problem that needs to be addressed: that Montana has NO business being in the bsc.

One of these things is not like the others....

The savings must have been way larger than that. $66 hotel rooms for fans, and schools probably paid less. How many team, managers, trainers, and athletic department people fly? 25. 25 times say $400 is $10,000, for just the men's team. So, $20,000 for 2 teams. I just checked Delta, for booking tonight and flying SLC to Missoula on Tuesday and returning on Saturday. Lowest fare is $930. Portland to Missoula is $610 to $1172. Grand Forks is $923. How many rooms are needed for team, athletic dept, dance team, band? Maybe $50 times 50 rooms? So $2,500 savings per night, or $12,500 for average of 5 nights. Depending on the school, there must be savings of $20,000 to $40,000.

And Everett, you think you are a numbers guy? Wow. You appear to have totally blow that guess.

While I believe your numbers are highly suspect, I won't argue them because I just care enough. However you've overlooked two important factors: Many teams can bus to other locations in the Conf. Only sac can bus to reNO. Also for many, the tournament went from 3 days to 6. That doubles hotel room costs, meeting room costs, meal costs, etc. it also adds non economic costs, like costing the student athletes a week or more of classes.

I'd say overall savings of 3 to 5k is more accurate.

 

[fanofzoo]

2 things I hate about the current tournament format.
(1) Participation ribbons to bottom dwelling teams. By the way, I have always believed a sub .500 record in conference play should not be eligible for the NCAA tournament. The reason most of the conference supports the current format is because outside of Montana, Weber State, and recently EWU rest of the conference schools are inconsistent and suck!! Just like football, rest of the conference is earning money and riding the coat tails of the GRIZ and a few other teams!!! For those of you saying the better teams just need to win to get the tournament. That is correct, but the same argument applies for the cellar dwelling teams as well. They should have to win in the regular season to "EARN" the right to participate in the conference tournament.!!!!

(2) I can buy the neutral site if it were in an area with more interest in Big Sky conference teams. Spokane, Billings, Seattle etc would be fine by me. That would better attendance. Another way to improve attendance is to have the tournament played in 3 days!!! The current format is way too long for an average fan to afford lodging for that length of time. I could have actually attended in Reno had it been 3 days. Also if they want fans to attend in the current format at the current location, how about some significant lodging savings for fans of each team?

Sorry, but I feel the current format screws over the majority of fans of the programs with good following, such as Weber State and Montana. Rather it be football or basketball, with the exception of a few bases, the fan bases suck in supporting their programs!!! How much money would the conference lose if the GRIZ were to leave the conference?? Is it asking too much of the other fan bases to step the hell up and support your teams????? Apparently so, because GRIZ NATION is the only fan base that adequately supports both football and basketball.

We are in such a piss poor conference. I pray for a proactive, high expectations conference commissioner to replace Fullerton. This conference has become stale and stagnant the last decade. That goes for both basketball and football.

well Rule....I think you are fighting a losing battle.....I could see the site being moved....but it will probably be difficult for Spokane or Billings to meet the financial package that Reno can offer.....as for the format...I don't see it changing....with all 24 teams at the same site......6 days will be the norm.....

The BSC knows the liabilities of having the tournament in reno, let us see if they take any of the fans suggestions or to hell with them. If they choose to ignore the fans (except for the select few that could make it) well they are only killing themselves but then "stupid is as stupid does".

 

[garizzalies]

Remember the sac state debacle? They were talking about bringing in mobile hoops, folding chairs, etc. and there was an uproar. I bet if we bumped that thread, some of the same complainers on here were complaining then, too. I know I was. That's why I'm supporting the change. You can't have it both ways. That's how change works

 

[EverettGriz]

Oh I was the leader of that band, garizz. But isn't that just another example of the BSC catering to the lowest common denominator? Why effectively punish your top teams because the league allowed in a school with a gym that holds 690 people? Thats been my argument all along: the BSC does it BACKWARD. They need to promote the Webers and the Montanas. Not thr southern Utahs

 

[fanofzoo]

Remember the sac state debacle? They were talking about bringing in mobile hoops, folding chairs, etc. and there was an uproar. I bet if we bumped that thread, some of the same complainers on here were complaining then, too. I know I was. That's why I'm supporting the change. You can't have it both ways. That's how change works

All the teams (even ones that don't belong) , a million miles from nowhere and nine days long, not what I would call responsible change.

 

[grizindabox]

Oh I was the leader of that band, garizz. But isn't that just another example of the BSC catering to the lowest common denominator? Why effectively punish your top teams because the league allowed in a school with a gym that holds 690 people? Thats been my argument all along: the BSC does it BACKWARD. They need to promote the Webers and the Montanas. Not thr southern Utahs

If the Webers and Montanas had leverage they would....but they don't....so the Southern Utahs can dictate......life in the BSC....