Big Sky brass pleased with first Reno run

[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.....

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".

what you are missing is that the BSC would like higher attendance....but they are comfortable with the attendance they got.....and believe it will increase as opposed to decrease in the future......

 

[grizindabox]

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.

they all belong....they are members of the conference.....

 

[garizzalies]

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

So does your proposed algorithm for hosting the tournament only apply to UM and Weber, or would that be covered by factoring in attendance figures and number of hotdogs sold?

 

[EverettGriz]

Ummmm, what now again? I don't have an algorithm. Win the league and you host (except for psu and sac, who the league has already said cannot host. In the event they win, Hosting goes to the second place team). Not sure what hotdogs have to do with winning the league. Perhaps you can explain?

 

[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.

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.

No, most teams didn't bus to the tourneys in prior years. Depended on where the tourney was and the school.

Weber and Ida St, in addition to SS, bused to Reno this year. The UM dance team and band bused to the tourney. Other cheer squads and bands bused. Huge turnout of cheer squads and bands, and they had so much fun and were so well received that there will be more next year. 8 cheer squads and 6 bands this year. Having the men and women in the same location allows bands/cheer squads to come to one location, and cheer for both men and women. Cost saving.

Huge media attendance and attention in Reno, compared to prior years. Media loved the Reno location. Could plan ahead and cover both men and women at the same time.

 

[EverettGriz]

Did anyone else experience a "huge media attention"?

The local paper didn't even cover the tournament. The guys the bsc hand-picked to "televise" the games on the internet couldn't pronounce half the guys' names in their own damn league.

 

[UMGriz75]

Many teams can bus to other locations in the Conf. Only sac can bus to reNO.

UM took the bus.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/SundbergGreg/status/709212872430071808[/tweet]

 

[EverettGriz]

No, they didn't. They had flight issues. It was too windy in reNO to take off.

But their travel schedule was shitty. Would have been a whole lot better to Spokane, SLC, Billings or any of the other places that, you know, made sense to host a bsc tournament.

 

[votb]

I've watched this conversation from the thread's first page. Some pretty interesting back and forth. A lot of decent arguments made from both sides. Just an an observation, though, after watching the NCAA Tourney for three days now, it's obvious that having a "full house" isn't the priority in "The Dance". I just watched UConn and Kansas and they were lucky if the house was half-full. Before you go off about how "it's not the same"...i totally agree. It's not the same...money is not a problem for the NCAA with all of the TV revenue. It's about the experience...and I really believe that's what it's about right now in the Big Sky. It's a great experience for the players coaches and bands and cheer squads and for the fans that DO go. The AD's , Presidents and coaches wanted it for financial and travel reasons and "the experience", reasons other than fans in Missoula and Ogden want the top team to host for.
I remember when the league tried the God-awful "Friday/Saturday" schedule experiment. It flat-out failed. You couldn't get from Sacramento to Flagstaff on time for a game. I remember teams getting to Flagstaff with about an hour before they had to be at the gym for the game. The league (i.e., AD's and Presidents) saw the light and made the change. If this new format doesn't work after three years...they'll look at a change again. Bottom line...you can never please everyone. This may work...it may not. At least they're giving it a shot.

 

[grizzlyjournal]

Huge media attendance and attention in Reno, compared to prior years. Media loved the Reno location. Could plan ahead and cover both men and women at the same time.

PlayerRep: I'm not disagreeing with you or challenging you; would just like some verified info...

The info I heard (from a friend who attended every session @ Reno) was that the conference provided good facilities for press (both courtside AND in after-game press rooms) but that the tourney was nonetheless quite poorly covered otherwise. Some schools had staff from their own Sports Information Depts, but spotty media coverage otherwise. I know that the Missoulian had a staff writer at the conference. I did not, however, see any evidence that a Missoulian staff photographer covered the tourney, nor any evidence that a photographer from the UM Sports Information Services covered the tourney.

I would LOVE to hear any info that any or all of the points below are incorrect. Otherwise it's an indication that press coverage was significantly below the standards that existed during the last several Big Sky tourneys, hosted in Missoula, Ogden and Greeley.

1. An Associated Press stringer for only the final three nights of men's coverage;
2. NO Associated Press photo coverage at all;
3. NO story/photo coverage by the Reno Gazette Journal (besides possibly providing the AP stringer);
4. Game photo coverage by only two newspapers (Sacramento Bee and Ogden Standard Examiner);
5. Game streaming allowed for Big Sky Conference only.
6. No photo coverage by any school Sports Information services.
7. I received no info on TV coverage for Big Sky coverage markets, so I don't know how much coverage existed.

My conclusion: if most or all of the above is true, then it signifies a huge proglem and is probably one of the first things that should be addressed by the Big Sky for next year.

 

[weberwildcat]

It was such an amazing tournament except the stands were empty for all 22 games.

 

[Umista]

I won't be going to Reno next season. If the conference is pleased I am semi OK with the location. If we could watch our team play on TV for all our Reno games that would be good in my view. Of course I'd pay for the privilage.

 

[EverettGriz]

One question which should address whether it was a success or not:

For those that didn't attend, did you see anything that would make you think, "Huh, that would be a lot of fun next year..."?

Personally, I haven't spoken with one person who plans to go next year. In fact, the opposite has been true. People have said, "Why would I want to go to a tournament no one else is at?"

 

[grizindabox]

One question which should address whether it was a success or not:

For those that didn't attend, did you see anything that would make you think, "Huh, that would be a lot of fun next year..."?

Personally, I haven't spoken with one person who plans to go next year. In fact, the opposite has been true. People have said, "Why would I want to go to a tournament no one else is at?"

What I would say is that most the people that you talked to probably wouldn't go if it was in Flagstaff, Grand Forks, Cedar City or most other locations.....UM, MSU, and Weber fans would probably attend if they hosted...and might catch the SF or Chipper if it were close.....but for the most locations the attendance argument against Reno is nonsense.....This has more to do with the waning popularity of college basketball than where the tournament is held......

 

[PlayerRep]

Did anyone else experience a "huge media attention"?

The local paper didn't even cover the tournament. The guys the bsc hand-picked to "televise" the games on the internet couldn't pronounce half the guys' names in their own damn league.

The local paper, the Reno Gazette Journal, had multiple and daily stories on the tournament. Google these headlines from the Reno paper. Do you just make up everything you post?

Big Sky tournament in full swing at Reno Events Center

Big Sky: Top-seed Weber State wins in OT - Reno Gazette-Journal

Idaho takes Big Sky women's championship - Reno Gazette-Journal

Big Sky women: Idaho State ousts Montana State

Big Sky: Idaho beats EWU, 77-73 - Reno Gazette-Journal

 

[PlayerRep]

Huge media attendance and attention in Reno, compared to prior years. Media loved the Reno location. Could plan ahead and cover both men and women at the same time.

PlayerRep: I'm not disagreeing with you or challenging you; would just like some verified info...

The info I heard (from a friend who attended every session @ Reno) was that the conference provided good facilities for press (both courtside AND in after-game press rooms) but that the tourney was nonetheless quite poorly covered otherwise. Some schools had staff from their own Sports Information Depts, but spotty media coverage otherwise. I know that the Missoulian had a staff writer at the conference. I did not, however, see any evidence that a Missoulian staff photographer covered the tourney, nor any evidence that a photographer from the UM Sports Information Services covered the tourney.

I would LOVE to hear any info that any or all of the points below are incorrect. Otherwise it's an indication that press coverage was significantly below the standards that existed during the last several Big Sky tourneys, hosted in Missoula, Ogden and Greeley.

1. An Associated Press stringer for only the final three nights of men's coverage;
2. NO Associated Press photo coverage at all;
3. NO story/photo coverage by the Reno Gazette Journal (besides possibly providing the AP stringer);
4. Game photo coverage by only two newspapers (Sacramento Bee and Ogden Standard Examiner);
5. Game streaming allowed for Big Sky Conference only.
6. No photo coverage by any school Sports Information services.
7. I received no info on TV coverage for Big Sky coverage markets, so I don't know how much coverage existed.

My conclusion: if most or all of the above is true, then it signifies a huge proglem and is probably one of the first things that should be addressed by the Big Sky for next year.

I was told that there was more media in attendance than at any previous tournament. Do you have contrary information?

It's my understanding that local radio did a remote outside the arena.

Conference officials were on local tv morning shows. Don't think that normally occurs at tourneys, including in SLC or Missoula.

Okay, Journal, I will see what I can find out regarding your questions. Not my area, but I will do some digging. Note that I made my post using the words "compared to". In the meantime, could you let us know what occurred at last year's men's and women's Big Sky conference tournaments? That is, in your nos. 1-7, what occurred last year? I want to be able to compare what I may, or may not, find, to what occurred last year.

Journal, where are you getting your information for your no. 3? By Googling, I found multiple stories from that newspaper. I didn't open them and read them, so maybe that is the problem.

I talked briefly to Kyle Sample after he returned. I didn't ask him specific questions, but my impression is that he thought the tournament and Reno location was very good.

 

[PlayerRep]

One question which should address whether it was a success or not:

For those that didn't attend, did you see anything that would make you think, "Huh, that would be a lot of fun next year..."?

Personally, I haven't spoken with one person who plans to go next year. In fact, the opposite has been true. People have said, "Why would I want to go to a tournament no one else is at?"

I will try to go next year. Sounded like fun. Had a kid home on spring break this year, so couldn't do it. I haven't attended many conference tourneys outside of Missoula, but have attended a couple and have made all of the men's ncaa games in the last decade or so and one of the women's. Have you ever attended a conference tourney not in Missoula and not close to where you live?

 

[EverettGriz]

One question which should address whether it was a success or not:

For those that didn't attend, did you see anything that would make you think, "Huh, that would be a lot of fun next year..."?

Personally, I haven't spoken with one person who plans to go next year. In fact, the opposite has been true. People have said, "Why would I want to go to a tournament no one else is at?"

What I would say is that most the people that you talked to probably wouldn't go if it was in Flagstaff, Grand Forks, Cedar City or most other locations.....UM, MSU, and Weber fans would probably attend if they hosted...and might catch the SF or Chipper if it were close.....but for the most locations the attendance argument against Reno is nonsense.....This has more to do with the waning popularity of college basketball than where the tournament is held......

box, to a large extent you're probably correct. Although I certainly would have gone to Missoula and would be far more likely to have gone to Ogden that I would have to Reno. And I certainly would have gone to Spokane, Billings or SLC. And what's more, LOCALS would attend in those places. I just do not understand putting the tournament in a place where there isn't a bsc presence, and certainly no interest in the league.

Let's be perfectly frank: the bsc knows that fans in college towns WITH teams don't drive 7 miles to watch big sky basketball. They KNOW they're not going to get those fans to attend. So if attendance is a measure of success at all, they must attract locals. Will that happen in Reno? Let's just say that most of us have serious reservations.

 

[grizindabox]

One question which should address whether it was a success or not:

For those that didn't attend, did you see anything that would make you think, "Huh, that would be a lot of fun next year..."?

Personally, I haven't spoken with one person who plans to go next year. In fact, the opposite has been true. People have said, "Why would I want to go to a tournament no one else is at?"

What I would say is that most the people that you talked to probably wouldn't go if it was in Flagstaff, Grand Forks, Cedar City or most other locations.....UM, MSU, and Weber fans would probably attend if they hosted...and might catch the SF or Chipper if it were close.....but for the most locations the attendance argument against Reno is nonsense.....This has more to do with the waning popularity of college basketball than where the tournament is held......

box, to a large extent you're probably correct. Although I certainly would have gone to Missoula and would be far more likely to have gone to Ogden that I would have to Reno. And I certainly would have gone to Spokane, Billings or SLC. And what's more, LOCALS would attend in those places. I just do not understand putting the tournament in a place where there isn't a bsc presence, and certainly no interest in the league.

Honestly....there is not much interest in BSC basketball anywhere.....

 

[fanofzoo]

One question which should address whether it was a success or not:

For those that didn't attend, did you see anything that would make you think, "Huh, that would be a lot of fun next year..."?

Personally, I haven't spoken with one person who plans to go next year. In fact, the opposite has been true. People have said, "Why would I want to go to a tournament no one else is at?"

What I would say is that most the people that you talked to probably wouldn't go if it was in Flagstaff, Grand Forks, Cedar City or most other locations.....UM, MSU, and Weber fans would probably attend if they hosted...and might catch the SF or Chipper if it were close.....but for the most locations the attendance argument against Reno is nonsense.....This has more to do with the waning popularity of college basketball than where the tournament is held......

box, to a large extent you're probably correct. Although I certainly would have gone to Missoula and would be far more likely to have gone to Ogden that I would have to Reno. And I certainly would have gone to Spokane, Billings or SLC. And what's more, LOCALS would attend in those places. I just do not understand putting the tournament in a place where there isn't a bsc presence, and certainly no interest in the league.

Honestly....there is not much interest in BSC basketball anywhere.....

Sadly you are right, to an extent. Weber and the Griz are the two powers in BB right now and looks that way for the future . I see the two programs only getting better.
However the "waning of college BB", I disagree. The Mid-majors in the bracket are ripping it up and that's where the groundswell of fan support comes from, UNI, SFA and SDSU are all making noise and all our contemporaries. That's us with the way TD is headed.
Read Robin's assessment of the tournament, nice but---- too long.