Big Sky Tournament. Yes or No?

[Agent 00Pike]

Here's an idea that might well be viewed as extreme . But why not just scrap conferences altogether. Go to a regional system. I would probably advocate using such a system for basketball only. I think you could have 6 regions - NW, SW, NC, SC, NE, SE, without greatly increasing the amount of travel required. Afterall, the Big Sky is probably already one of the biggest conferences from a geographical context. Why would I favor such a system? Think about it. One of the issues that comes up on this board most frequently is that UM is in a weak conference and that we should move in with the big boys (and girls). Under a regional system it would allow UM to play schools from the Pac 10, WAC, MWC and perhaps even some Big 12 programs depending on how the regions were drawn up. That way alot of bias might be eliminated where the power conferences get more consideration over the small fry like the Big Sky. Don't you get a little tired of hearing about the SEC, ACC, Big 10, etc. :twocents:

 

[Grizbacker1]

Here's an idea that might well be viewed as extreme . But why not just scrap conferences altogether. Go to a regional system. I would probably advocate using such a system for basketball only. I think you could have 6 regions - NW, SW, NC, SC, NE, SE, without greatly increasing the amount of travel required. Afterall, the Big Sky is probably already one of the biggest conferences from a geographical context. Why would I favor such a system? Think about it. One of the issues that comes up on this board most frequently is that UM is in a weak conference and that we should move in with the big boys (and girls). Under a regional system it would allow UM to play schools from the Pac 10, WAC, MWC and perhaps even some Big 12 programs depending on how the regions were drawn up. That way alot of bias might be eliminated where the power conferences get more consideration over the small fry like the Big Sky. Don't you get a little tired of hearing about the SEC, ACC, Big 10, etc. :twocents:

Do you honestly think the conferences that are not viewed as the red headed stepchild would consider that for more than a nano second? It sounds great in theory, but there is not a chance in hell it would or could happen, because of this: $$$$$$

 

[Agent 00Pike]

Here's an idea that might well be viewed as extreme . But why not just scrap conferences altogether. Go to a regional system. I would probably advocate using such a system for basketball only. I think you could have 6 regions - NW, SW, NC, SC, NE, SE, without greatly increasing the amount of travel required. Afterall, the Big Sky is probably already one of the biggest conferences from a geographical context. Why would I favor such a system? Think about it. One of the issues that comes up on this board most frequently is that UM is in a weak conference and that we should move in with the big boys (and girls). Under a regional system it would allow UM to play schools from the Pac 10, WAC, MWC and perhaps even some Big 12 programs depending on how the regions were drawn up. That way alot of bias might be eliminated where the power conferences get more consideration over the small fry like the Big Sky. Don't you get a little tired of hearing about the SEC, ACC, Big 10, etc. :twocents:

Do you honestly think the conferences that are not viewed as the red headed stepchild would consider that for more than a nano second? It sounds great in theory, but there is not a chance in hell it would or could happen, because of this: $$$$$$

Nothing wrong with dreaming! Would probably sure as hell go a long way towards creating more parity in college athletics. NCAA politics are as FUBAR as what goes on in D.C.

 

[AtHomeInTheDahlbergDen]

That was probably the foundation for the major conferences but there's no way anyone will scrap the current system for a regional one.

 

[Agent 00Pike]

In a nutshell, really the only viable option BSC teams have of garnering the respect of the powers that be, is setting up stronger out of conference schedules. While UM and MSU have been having some success with stronger scheduling, I'm not sure how much success the other conference members are having in that department. I suspect many would agree that the fly in the ointment is that programs from the power conferences just look down their noses at scheduling the doormats of the small fry conferences. I don't recall that there has even been a top caliber program thats visited UM in the preseason since Tennessee was here several years ago.

 

[Grizbacker1]

In a nutshell, really the only viable option BSC teams have of garnering the respect of the powers that be, is setting up stronger out of conference schedules. While UM and MSU have been having some success with stronger scheduling, I'm not sure how much success the other conference members are having in that department. I suspect many would agree that the fly in the ointment is that programs from the power conferences just look down their noses at scheduling the doormats of the small fry conferences. I don't recall that there has even been a top caliber program thats visited UM in the preseason since Tennessee was here several years ago.

There are times being near the top of the league is a detriment to scheduling. The "power' conferences for the most part are not going to schedule someone from a lesser conference without it being pretty much a given that they will prevail.

 

[EverettGriz]

I'm okay with the tournament, but the BSC has to do a better job of protecting their top 2 seeds. I'll never forget the days when the tournament rotated sites, and Idaho State hosted, and then won the tournament as like a 7 seed with a record of like 13-17. They got seeded 16 (of course) and then got toasted by UNLV by about 70 in the first round of the NCAAs.

I think every team but the last one should make it into the tourny, which would be held on 4 consecutive days at the regular season champ's home court. The first day 8 plays 6, 7 plays 5. The next day (assuming seeds hold) 6 plays 4, 5 plays 3. Then the third day 4 plays 1, 3 plays 2. Then the championship on the final day. And the tournament should be held as close to the end of the regular season as possible so the top seeds don't get rusty.

I think the current set up allows lower seeds too much opportunity to get "hot" over 2 or 3 games (one of which they get to play at home) and knock off a much better team, which does the BSC absolutely NO good in the NCAAs.

 

[Havregriz]

I'm okay with the tournament, but the BSC has to do a better job of protecting their top 2 seeds. I'll never forget the days when the tournament rotated sites, and Idaho State hosted, and then won the tournament as like a 7 seed with a record of like 13-17. They got seeded 16 (of course) and then got toasted by UNLV by about 70 in the first round of the NCAAs.

I think every team but the last one should make it into the tourny, which would be held on 4 consecutive days at the regular season champ's home court. The first day 8 plays 6, 7 plays 5. The next day (assuming seeds hold) 6 plays 4, 5 plays 3. Then the third day 4 plays 1, 3 plays 2. Then the championship on the final day. And the tournament should be held as close to the end of the regular season as possible so the top seeds don't get rusty.

I think the current set up allows lower seeds too much opportunity to get "hot" over 2 or 3 games (one of which they get to play at home) and knock off a much better team, which does the BSC absolutely NO good in the NCAAs.

I have an idea, maybe we could have the number 1 seed automatically voted into the conference championship game, give them a 20 point lead and start the game at half time?

A tournament is a tournament. Let the top seed host the 3 day spectacle.