Big Sky Tournament headed to Reno

[EverettGriz]

Incredible, the Big Sky found a way to simultaneously make the regular season and tournament worse. But hey, at least they saved a couple bucks.

But DP, the league must protect those programs who draw 2,124 to football games, 621 to BB games, and 72 to women's games and don't generate enough revenue to buy new shoelaces. I mean, a league would NEVER do something to support its successful programs.....

 

[grizindabox]

Incredible, the Big Sky found a way to simultaneously make the regular season and tournament worse. But hey, at least they saved a couple bucks.

But DP, the league must protect those programs who draw 2,124 to football games, 621 to BB games, and 72 to women's games and don't generate enough revenue to buy new shoelaces. I mean, a league would NEVER do something to support its successful programs.....

Everett, you just really don't get it do you. A Conference isn't about doing what is best for 2-3 teams, it is about doing what is best for all the teams. If Montana is getting such a raw deal from the Conference, then they are in the wrong Conference and should do something about it. If Montana thinks they deserve more, then they have to so something about it...but instead they voted with every other school to move the tournament to Reno...sounds like you are bitching up the wrong tree.

 

[EverettGriz]

Incredible, the Big Sky found a way to simultaneously make the regular season and tournament worse. But hey, at least they saved a couple bucks.

But DP, the league must protect those programs who draw 2,124 to football games, 621 to BB games, and 72 to women's games and don't generate enough revenue to buy new shoelaces. I mean, a league would NEVER do something to support its successful programs.....

Everett, you just really don't get it do you. A Conference isn't about doing what is best for 2-3 teams, it is about doing what is best for all the teams. If Montana is getting such a raw deal from the Conference, then they are in the wrong Conference and should do something about it. If Montana thinks they deserve more, then they have to so something about it...but instead they voted with every other school to move the tournament to Reno...sounds like you are bitching up the wrong tree.

YES!!!! FINALLY SOMEONE GETS IT!!!!!!

Although the rest of your post is off base. Good conferences do ALL they can to support their top teams, knowing that's the best for the conference long term. They tell the under-performing teams to either get better and catch up or get out. The problem is, there are 9 or 10 of those in the BSC.

 

[grizindabox]

Incredible, the Big Sky found a way to simultaneously make the regular season and tournament worse. But hey, at least they saved a couple bucks.

But DP, the league must protect those programs who draw 2,124 to football games, 621 to BB games, and 72 to women's games and don't generate enough revenue to buy new shoelaces. I mean, a league would NEVER do something to support its successful programs.....

Everett, you just really don't get it do you. A Conference isn't about doing what is best for 2-3 teams, it is about doing what is best for all the teams. If Montana is getting such a raw deal from the Conference, then they are in the wrong Conference and should do something about it. If Montana thinks they deserve more, then they have to so something about it...but instead they voted with every other school to move the tournament to Reno...sounds like you are bitching up the wrong tree.

YES!!!! FINALLY SOMEONE GETS IT!!!!!!

Although the rest of your post is off base. Good conferences do ALL they can to support their top teams, knowing that's the best for the conference long term. They tell the under-performing teams to either get better and catch up or get out. The problem is, there are 9 or 10 of those in the BSC.

I believe they have told the under-performers to catch up...and see how that worked. And there is not a get-out threat because the Conference has no options to replace them and they know it.

 

[EverettGriz]

But DP, the league must protect those programs who draw 2,124 to football games, 621 to BB games, and 72 to women's games and don't generate enough revenue to buy new shoelaces. I mean, a league would NEVER do something to support its successful programs.....

Everett, you just really don't get it do you. A Conference isn't about doing what is best for 2-3 teams, it is about doing what is best for all the teams. If Montana is getting such a raw deal from the Conference, then they are in the wrong Conference and should do something about it. If Montana thinks they deserve more, then they have to so something about it...but instead they voted with every other school to move the tournament to Reno...sounds like you are bitching up the wrong tree.

YES!!!! FINALLY SOMEONE GETS IT!!!!!!

Although the rest of your post is off base. Good conferences do ALL they can to support their top teams, knowing that's the best for the conference long term. They tell the under-performing teams to either get better and catch up or get out. The problem is, there are 9 or 10 of those in the BSC.

I believe they have told the under-performers to catch up...and see how that worked. And there is not a get-out threat because the Conference has no options to replace them and they know it.

Now we're getting somewhere in this conversation. So, they've told the losers to catch up and they haven't, yet they continue to take action that benefit them. Can anyone explain why that makes sense? Shit, bring Denver U into the Conf. At least they won't bitch about a few bucks for airfare for a tournament they're fortunate to be in to begin with.

 

[grizindabox]

Everett, you just really don't get it do you. A Conference isn't about doing what is best for 2-3 teams, it is about doing what is best for all the teams. If Montana is getting such a raw deal from the Conference, then they are in the wrong Conference and should do something about it. If Montana thinks they deserve more, then they have to so something about it...but instead they voted with every other school to move the tournament to Reno...sounds like you are bitching up the wrong tree.

YES!!!! FINALLY SOMEONE GETS IT!!!!!!

Although the rest of your post is off base. Good conferences do ALL they can to support their top teams, knowing that's the best for the conference long term. They tell the under-performing teams to either get better and catch up or get out. The problem is, there are 9 or 10 of those in the BSC.

I believe they have told the under-performers to catch up...and see how that worked. And there is not a get-out threat because the Conference has no options to replace them and they know it.

Now we're getting somewhere in this conversation. So, they've told the losers to catch up and they haven't, yet they continue to take action that benefit them. Can anyone explain why that makes sense? Shit, bring Denver U into the Conf. At least they won't bitch about a few bucks for airfare for a tournament they're fortunate to be in to begin with.

First, because every member votes on issues...the Conference is not a dictatorship.
Second, It is not only because of money, it is a case of convenience...it is much easier to make arrangements 10 months early as opposed to 7-10 days.

 

[EverettGriz]

And yet none of those actions strengthen the Conference.
Which is why the BSC is the 29th rated conference in the nation while they've watched what should be inferior conferences like the WCC become legitimate multi bid DI conferences.

 

[mtgrizrule]

And yet none of those actions strengthen the Conference.
Which is why the BSC is the 29th rated conference in the nation while they've watched what should be inferior conferences like the WCC become legitimate multi bid DI conferences.

That is the benefit of conference members being basketball only schools. Their focus and money is on basketball. Very wise planning and decision making on their part too. Basketball is a much more affordable sport due to less equipment and a lot less players to scholarship.

At the rate NCAA football is going, it is a matter of time before more schools are cutting football.

 

[grizindabox]

And yet none of those actions strengthen the Conference.
Which is why the BSC is the 29th rated conference in the nation while they've watched what should be inferior conferences like the WCC become legitimate multi bid DI conferences.

Everett, comparing the BSC to the WCC is comparing apples to oranges. Secondly, what basis do you have to assume that the WCC should be an inferior basketball Conference.

 

[DPGriz]

How does this work for other small to mid sized conferences with neutral sites? How did this work pretty well before when the BSC have a predetermined site? Give it the benefit of your doubts, at the very least.

It takes the event away from fans and puts in a sterile environment while simultaneously cheapening the regular season. It's a penny-pinching move that hurts fans so there's not much leeway for benefit of the doubt.

If the league absolutely must have more notice for travel here are 3 options that I'd prefer:
1) The right to host goes to the regular season champs of the previous year. Keeps regular season meaningful but allows travel time. Makes it more likely that a host loses early but would be fine most years.
2) Conference schedule starts as a round-robin, winner of the 11 game round-robin hosts tournament that year. This year we played out 11th BSC game Feb 7, tourney started March 12. Less travel time with this option but more likely that the best team hosts. Would solve some of this issues with the current unbalanced schedule but it would be weird to reward teams in early February.
3) Just give the bid to the regular season champ. Ensures 18 meaningful games and rewards the best team. No additional costs for teams and ensures good seeding in the NCAA. Obviously it's nice to have the season end with a tournament where a team can get hot and win it but what good is that tournament if no fans go?

 

[citygriz]

excellent post.

of course, the big issue for the griz and for the conference is tv. in today's media universe, if it's not on tv, it's just not relevant. recruits want to be on tv, and schools need the revenue from tv. unless the griz can get to a conference with a tv contract, or the big sky can figure out a way to get on national tv, this move to reno is just another meaningless gesture for an aimless conference going nowhere.

i personally think tv is even more important today than it was ten years ago, because of the amplification provided by social media and mobile technology.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

How does this work for other small to mid sized conferences with neutral sites? How did this work pretty well before when the BSC have a predetermined site? Give it the benefit of your doubts, at the very least.

It takes the event away from fans and puts in a sterile environment while simultaneously cheapening the regular season. It's a penny-pinching move that hurts fans so there's not much leeway for benefit of the doubt.

If the league absolutely must have more notice for travel here are 3 options that I'd prefer:
1) The right to host goes to the regular season champs of the previous year. Keeps regular season meaningful but allows travel time. Makes it more likely that a host loses early but would be fine most years.
2) Conference schedule starts as a round-robin, winner of the 11 game round-robin hosts tournament that year. This year we played out 11th BSC game Feb 7, tourney started March 12. Less travel time with this option but more likely that the best team hosts. Would solve some of this issues with the current unbalanced schedule but it would be weird to reward teams in early February.
3) Just give the bid to the regular season champ. Ensures 18 meaningful games and rewards the best team. No additional costs for teams and ensures good seeding in the NCAA. Obviously it's nice to have the season end with a tournament where a team can get hot and win it but what good is that tournament if no fans go?

DP, but the point you overlook is that the Conference wants a "NEUTRAL" site for the tournament. This is why Missoula, Odgen, and Spokane (some women's games were to be at EWU) didn't have a chance.

 

[EverettGriz]

Good posts. The only ones who benefit from this decision are the league officials who no doubt got some "incentives" for choosing Reno, and the shittiest teams in the league.

Everyone else is a loser, particularly the fans. But as I've said, this league has never cared about its fans.

 

[ISUguy]

Good posts. The only ones who benefit from this decision are the league officials who no doubt got some "incentives" for choosing Reno, and the shittiest teams in the league.

Everyone else is a loser, particularly the fans. But as I've said, this league has never cared about its fans.

Everett you continually ignore the fact that most coaches and ADs wanted this move. Not because they were getting free tickets to third-rate shows in Reno, or free access to a lousy buffet...but because they wanted travel and cost certainty, they wanted a neutral ("fair") environment, and the coaches, in particular, wanted everyone to participate.

I understand the fans are upset by this, particularly fans in Missoula and Ogden, who typically have the best opportunity to host the tournament. Heck, I wanted the league to keep the existing format because I've enjoyed watching ISU host the women's tournament three times in the last 15 years. But these are the trade-offs the league has made over the past 25 years of tweaking formats. There is no perfect solution to these competing values, and I suspect we'll continue to see changes over the years because of that.

 

[statler & waldorf]

......this move to reno is just another meaningless gesture for an aimless conference going nowhere.

Pretty much sums it up. :thumb:

 

[mtgrizrule]

Do I prefer the old format, having the conference regular season champ host? I do prefer it. Am I going to be close minded and judge this for the worse before seeing how it plays out? Hell no. Will this decision impact my love for the GRIZ and BSC? NEVER.

As for tv coverage, yes that is 100% true and you hit the nail on the head!!!! That is another "POSSIBLE" benefit of having a predetermined hosting site. ESPN can better accommodate the conference due to savings on their travel, lodging, etc. That would increase the chances of the Conference Tournament getting better and more coverage than currently. Unfortunately, for Montana and Montana State, the expenses for anyone or any group to travel into Missoula and/or Bozeman is very costly.

However, I don't have much faith in Fullerton closing a better TV coverage deal with anyone, let alone ESPN. So, if he cannot do that, then this change makes a lot less sense, in my opinion. If it fails miserably, then the conference goes back to the season champion hosting.

The other option is the GRIZ have prepared properly for a move to a better conference, then we can finally put this miserable conference behind us.

 

[statler & waldorf]

What could possibly go wrong in three years?
What are the odds of Fullerton retiring by 2018?

 

[DPGriz]

How does this work for other small to mid sized conferences with neutral sites? How did this work pretty well before when the BSC have a predetermined site? Give it the benefit of your doubts, at the very least.

It takes the event away from fans and puts in a sterile environment while simultaneously cheapening the regular season. It's a penny-pinching move that hurts fans so there's not much leeway for benefit of the doubt.

If the league absolutely must have more notice for travel here are 3 options that I'd prefer:
1) The right to host goes to the regular season champs of the previous year. Keeps regular season meaningful but allows travel time. Makes it more likely that a host loses early but would be fine most years.
2) Conference schedule starts as a round-robin, winner of the 11 game round-robin hosts tournament that year. This year we played out 11th BSC game Feb 7, tourney started March 12. Less travel time with this option but more likely that the best team hosts. Would solve some of this issues with the current unbalanced schedule but it would be weird to reward teams in early February.
3) Just give the bid to the regular season champ. Ensures 18 meaningful games and rewards the best team. No additional costs for teams and ensures good seeding in the NCAA. Obviously it's nice to have the season end with a tournament where a team can get hot and win it but what good is that tournament if no fans go?

DP, but the point you overlook is that the Conference wants a "NEUTRAL" site for the tournament. This is why Missoula, Odgen, and Spokane (some women's games were to be at EWU) didn't have a chance.

I think the preference for neutral was because they were selecting a permanent site, but I don't see any reason why a system that rewards success while also reducing travel costs wouldn't work.

 

[EverettGriz]

they wanted a neutral ("fair") environment, and the coaches, in particular, wanted everyone to participate.

Isn't that what the conference season is for???

Prior to the bsc brass fvcking that up too, along with everything else, the conference season was fair, neutral and everyone participated. Why should the tournament need to follow the same guidelines? During the season, teams spend 4 months determining who the best team is, but now all the shitty 4-win teams feel they deserve another shot??

Christ, this what is so freaking sad about America anymore. "Ohhhh, I didn't win the first time (actually I only won 4 games and I'm totally shitty), so I DESERVE a chance in the tournament!! WAAAAAA".

You know what, if you finish 12th in a 12-team league as shitty as the bsc, the only thing you deserve is national mockery.

And of course most ADs and coaches wanted it. Why the eff wouldn't they?? The vast majority of them know it's their ONLY chance to ever even get a sniff of having a shot at the NCAA tournament. Shit, I'd want it to if I was in administration in one of those programs. But that certainly doesn't mean it's right, but I guess in today's Everybody-Gets-A-Ribbon World, it's what we're stuck with. At least until Foolerton is forced out and/or the GRIZ move to a conference they deserve.

 

[grizindabox]

they wanted a neutral ("fair") environment, and the coaches, in particular, wanted everyone to participate.

Isn't that what the conference season is for???

Prior to the bsc brass fvcking that up too, along with everything else, the conference season was fair, neutral and everyone participated. Why should the tournament need to follow the same guidelines? During the season, teams spend 4 months determining who the best team is, but now all the shitty 4-win teams feel they deserve another shot??

Christ, this what is so freaking sad about America anymore. "Ohhhh, I didn't win the first time (actually I only won 4 games and I'm totally shitty), so I DESERVE a chance in the tournament!! WAAAAAA".

You know what, if you finish 12th in a 12-team league as shitty as the bsc, the only thing you deserve is national mockery.

And of course most ADs and coaches wanted it. Why the eff wouldn't they?? The vast majority of them know it's their ONLY chance to ever even get a sniff of having a shot at the NCAA tournament. Shit, I'd want it to if I was in administration in one of those programs. But that certainly doesn't mean it's right, but I guess in today's Everybody-Gets-A-Ribbon World, it's what we're stuck with. At least until Foolerton is forced out and/or the GRIZ move to a conference they deserve.

You think they will find a conference that doesn't let all the teams participate in the tournament? Guess most other conferences don't get it correct either.

Your rant is dumb. If a 12 seed runs through the tournament and goes to the dance, then your conference was probably crap and it wouldn't matter which team went dancing. Every conference team should get into the tournament and almost every year a top 3 team will advance to the dance. I am starting to think that you just like to biatch about everything.