Big Sky Strategic Plan

[GrizBall]

As GrizzlyJournal pointed out in his KenPom thread, the Big Sky is rated significantly lower than the WAC and Big West. The Big West I can understand more than the WAC because of the location of a lot of their schools. But the WAC was a little shocking to me. The only reasoning I can think of with the WAC is possibly academics. I know Grand Canyon is one of just a few for-profit universities nations wide and generally has issues with keeping its accreditation. I am also going to assume Chicago St and Texas Rio Grande are not that academically challenging. Probably can get anyone in with a pulse (no proof of this but just me guessing).

The Big Sky recently came up with this plan for improvement. Wonder if it helps?

https://www.standard.net/sports/weber-state/2022/oct/12/big-sky-conference-strategic-plan-outlines-athlete-aid-basketball-scheduling-requirements/

 

[GrizBaba]

Of note, the sport-specific plans will require Big Sky men’s and women’s basketball teams to schedule no less than three Division I opponents at home each season.

Is it workable for all Big Sky Conf teams?

 

[citygriz]

I was and remain a "move-up" guy. I always said, "Not to grow is to die."
I felt a move up would have brought better teams to Missoula, and sent Griz Nation to better venues throughout the country.
Improved recruiting.
Won us more TV time.
Been much better for our other sports, especially Men's and Women's basketball.
But all was sacrificed at the altar of "a national championship" which was always played in a shithole venue to meager TV ratings.
Also to the experience of Idaho the while ignoring Boise State.
But I'm seeing glimmers of hope with the BSC.
We're getting on TV, a little.
The Bobs are becoming an FBS quality program in all sports.
Idaho is back and Weber is Weber, a solid program in all sports.
And now the BSC is actually doing some...planning.
Imagine that!
But it is what it is.

 

[oldrunner]

Of note, the sport-specific plans will require Big Sky men’s and women’s basketball teams to schedule no less than three Division I opponents at home each season.

Is it workable for all Big Sky Conf teams?

Yes, it is workable. What this means is that each team will have to juggle 6 HnH contracts each year. that will produce 3 home games and 3 road games each year against like teams. It means that coaches are now going to travel to places they never wanted to before. It also means that they will stand the chance of 2 or 3 additional losses each year. This will work much better if neighboring leagues follow suit. It would help even more if the NCAA would get involved in this issue as well. The NCAA could, for instance, deny additional bids to any conf. who's teams didn't schedule at least 4 D1 road games in their non conf. schedule. Things would change in a hurry if rules like that were put in place. You wouldn't have PAC12 teams sitting home with 10-15 buy games, or mid majors sitting home with a like number of D11 and bellow games. Or, the NCAA could pass a rule that there can only be HnH contracts for games, no buy games at all. Wouldn't that be interesting.

 

[grizzlyjournal]

Support this 100% Would love to engage in home/home series vs. Big West, Mountain West, WAC & WCC schools that quit coming to Missoula.

 

[GrizBall]

Is it workable for all Big Sky Conf teams?

Yes, it is workable. What this means is that each team will have to juggle 6 HnH contracts each year. that will produce 3 home games and 3 road games each year against like teams. It means that coaches are now going to travel to places they never wanted to before. It also means that they will stand the chance of 2 or 3 additional losses each year. This will work much better if neighboring leagues follow suit. It would help even more if the NCAA would get involved in this issue as well. The NCAA could, for instance, deny additional bids to any conf. who's teams didn't schedule at least 4 D1 road games in their non conf. schedule. Things would change in a hurry if rules like that were put in place. You wouldn't have PAC12 teams sitting home with 10-15 buy games, or mid majors sitting home with a like number of D11 and bellow games. Or, the NCAA could pass a rule that there can only be HnH contracts for games, no buy games at all. Wouldn't that be interesting.

I also think it's workable, but without the type of scheduling rules you suggest, I am not sure it will have the intended consequences. As a matter of fact it could be even worse from both a ranking and financial perspective. The haves and have-nots in D-1 basketball are about to get even wider due to more conference re-alignment and TV contracts. Currently bigger schools already have zero incentive to come to Missoula (or any other BSC school). They can continue with the buy games that lower D-1 schools are desperate for without having to guarantee a return game.

If you look at this year's schedule and take away the South Dakota State home game (which I believe is a mandatory BSC/Summit game) you have St. Thomas (pre-season KenPom #274), Merrimack (#290) and Troy (#199). Is beating Merrimack and St. Thomas changing anything in regards to SOS? If I am not mistaken, a non-D1 game like Montana State- Northern isn't used in any sort of SOS or NET Ranking. So is a win over Merrimack all that better than a win over MS-Northern? With Merrimack, you would pick up a NCAA NET Ranking Quadrant-4 win which is basically worth nothing, but you are also paying much more to Merrimack than you are to MS-Northern (or having to pay for a return Merrimack trip). My guess is your gate would essentially be the same (maybe even slightly more for Montana Non-D1 schools because of local ties). So in the end, you are getting another home game which may be a financial negative (obviously an issue for many BSC schools) with about zero ranking upside. If the choice comes down to Merrimack at home for a third D-1 home game, versus an additional road game against Washington State (for example) how is it in the best interest of Montana to schedule Merrimack? Ultimately you are making more money and have a shot at a real resume boosting win at WSU.

 

[oldrunner]

I agree with all of that. That is why I feel that the NCAA has to step in here and earn their money. They won't do anything, because they are gutless. The big money programs push everyone else around. The NCAA definately does not create a level playing ground. It tilts the table towards the money. :roll:

 

[fanofzoo]

I agree with all of that. That is why I feel that the NCAA has to step in here and earn their money. They won't do anything, because they are gutless. The big money programs push everyone else around. The NCAA definately does not create a level playing ground. It tilts the table towards the money. :roll:

I'm shocked I tell you just shocked.