Is it time to move the tournaments to a neutral site?

[GrizBBIsKing]

My only change I would make to the tourney would be to have the top 8 go, get rid of the bye's and have all the games played at the host teams court, no home qrt final games.

They're going to have to expand it a bit with the new additions I would think.

That said I don't see a neutral site working, we're too "small" a conference especially in terms of travelling fan-bases. If UND is playing PSU in Spokane or SLC in a championship game I'd thinking there'd only be a few hundred people there. That wouldn't look good for the conference on TV and it'd probably cost too much $$.

Well, if you have two teams in the championship games where neither of them get much fan support, it really doesn't matter whether it is a neutral or not.

I do not believe in having it at a neutral site like Spokane or Las Vegas or Denver or whatever. I would rather have it at the regular season champions site, or at a predetermined site where there is actually good fan support. There will be some fans that go to the championship game at some place like Las Vegas, but it would be empty if a school like Montana, WSU, or MSU weren't in the championship game. I would think that it would be more expensive to have the game at a neutral site then it would be at one of the BSC member site.

Boise already was used as a site already as a predetermined site before and had good support, albeit because a school a short distance away was in the championship game.

but, Missoula already has shown to be a good site even when Montana was not present. Montana hosted the women's west regional in 1993 and 1997, and both times had quite good attendance even though Lady Griz weren't in it.
The only other site that could be a predetermined site would be at WSU, which gets the best support of any other school in the conference.

 

[Griz1]

I know and have known a lot of coaches in the Big Sky and I don't know of any that would not want the tournament to be held at the home of the regular season champion. The coaches actually feel the tournament hurts the ratings for the conference when the winner does not advance.

That being said I am sure all teams that get into the tournament (other than the regular season champion) are thankful to get another chance to go to the Big Dance.

 

[Grizbacker1]

I think the Big Sky Conference has a lot of things at least Geographically going for it...

First on a rotating basis you could make arguments for three cities, metropolitan areas of hosting the tournament:
1. Spokane: Spokane makes a lot of sense to me because of its smaller size, with little else going on. A facility that could hold the event, and its close proxmity to many BSC schools.
2. Salt Lake City (makes maybe teh most sense considering its central location and the abundance of ways to access the city.) Multiple arenas U of U, Energy Solutions Arena, and BYU could all hold the tournament.
3. Denver: See SLC.

to a lesser degree:
1. Portland
2. Las Vegas
3. Phoenix
4. Sacramento
5. Boise
6. Fargo/Morehead

I for one wouldn't mind the tournament reverting back to the late 80's when every team was involved in the tournament. I know why the decision was made, to allow for better teams to get a true shot at the NCAA tournament in a one bid conference.

I guess with a larger conference for basketball in the offing I would love if I had money to watch a three or four day event. Chance to insert a tv provider (alitude, fox sports) and a major sponsor to the event. I am under no illusion that the BSC would draw "Arch" Madness numbers.

I could care less about the neutral court, I like the idea of having a set site that allows people regardless of their teams positioning to plan in advance. I think despite the neutral court disadvantages would allow for better attendence especially if it were in an attractive city. As long as we are under no illusions that the BSC is going to be more than a one bid conference who really cares if we are in the play in game or 15 seed. Just frankly a variation of the same theme.

Why not make it an event.

Boise and Spokane have no interest. They have been contacted.

 

[Sweet Gum Grizzly]

I say bring it back to Boise. It's still the most geographically centered Big Sky school. If they weren't interested the first time, ask 'em again. I live here, doesn't that matter? Boise > Spokane.

 

[Umista]

Nah, leave it the way it is. Much to play for during the season.

It is disgusting to have the big tourney played in a dog house but that is the Big Sky.

 

[Grizbacker1]

I say bring it back to Boise. It's still the most geographically centered Big Sky school. If they weren't interested the first time, ask 'em again. I live here, doesn't that matter? Boise > Spokane.

They were recently asked, and they are not interested.

 

[bigtyme]

I was thinking about this very subject this morning. My thoughts are Denver, Boise, Vegas, Billings, Boise, Portland, Vegas, Spokane (EWU's 15 fans would be able to make the trek ), and Seattle. I guess I would find the most economically flight friendly location possible and try to find a venue that would accommodate 8-10K, probably not much more than that and attempt to get the BSC to find sponsors in those communities such as hotels and restaurants to help foot the venue bill. I would consider traveling on a yearly basis if I knew there was a mini vacation in the spring. Perhaps even moving it around year to year would not be a bad idea. The nice thing about Vegas is that you can put a basketball floor in just about any of the hotels and call it a gym. I don't think the BSC is smart enough to look outside the box though to do something creative. I would imagine Vegas would be chomping at the bit to host another tourney.

 

[wbtfg]

I was thinking about this very subject this morning. My thoughts are Denver, Boise, Vegas, Billings, Boise, Portland, Vegas, Spokane (EWU's 15 fans would be able to make the trek ), and Seattle. I guess I would find the most economically flight friendly location possible and try to find a venue that would accommodate 8-10K, probably not much more than that and attempt to get the BSC to find sponsors in those communities such as hotels and restaurants to help foot the venue bill. I would consider traveling on a yearly basis if I knew there was a mini vacation in the spring. Perhaps even moving it around year to year would not be a bad idea. The nice thing about Vegas is that you can put a basketball floor in just about any of the hotels and call it a gym. I don't think the BSC is smart enough to look outside the box though to do something creative. I would imagine Vegas would be chomping at the bit to host another tourney.

Wasnt there negotiations with spokane arena that fell through last year or the year before?

 

[Grizbacker1]

I was thinking about this very subject this morning. My thoughts are Denver, Boise, Vegas, Billings, Boise, Portland, Vegas, Spokane (EWU's 15 fans would be able to make the trek ), and Seattle. I guess I would find the most economically flight friendly location possible and try to find a venue that would accommodate 8-10K, probably not much more than that and attempt to get the BSC to find sponsors in those communities such as hotels and restaurants to help foot the venue bill. I would consider traveling on a yearly basis if I knew there was a mini vacation in the spring. Perhaps even moving it around year to year would not be a bad idea. The nice thing about Vegas is that you can put a basketball floor in just about any of the hotels and call it a gym. I don't think the BSC is smart enough to look outside the box though to do something creative. I would imagine Vegas would be chomping at the bit to host another tourney.

Do you read? Boise and Spokane were contacted recently and are NOT interested. Can you blame eithe rcity as crappy as attendance is in the BSC, with Weber and UM the exceptions.

 

[GrizBBIsKing]

Well, if the Big Sky Conference really wants to be stupid and have the tournament hosted on a neutral site, which I believe to be a huge expensive mistake of gigantic proportions, I choose Las Vegas. Flights from Missoula to Las Vegas are cheap compared to going anywhere else.

Who would go to Las Vegas to watch a matchup between PSU and Sac State if that ever happened in the championship game? There would be more people watch it if they just rewarded a school that had good support like Weber State and Montana, then there would be if they had it in Las Vegas. It would be the same if the conferences best schools that support their schools were in the championship game as there would still be only a small percentage to travel to watch the game live.

Sorry, I can't say it enough times how stupid it is for this conference to have tournament hosted somewhere else other than a bsc school site. It may work for a conference like WCC, but it won't for the Big Sky. WCC is a basketball conference (they don't have football). Big Sky is more of a football conference.

I very doubt that having it at a host site will resolve the ref problem unless the schools in it have really bad fan support. But, if a Montana or Weber State is in, then there may be enough fans to influence the refs just as it did at UNC.

 

[Grizbacker1]

Well, if the Big Sky Conference really wants to be stupid and have the tournament hosted on a neutral site, which I believe to be a huge expensive mistake of gigantic proportions, I choose Las Vegas. Flights from Missoula to Las Vegas are cheap compared to going anywhere else.

Who would go to Las Vegas to watch a matchup between PSU and Sac State if that ever happened in the championship game? There would be more people watch it if they just rewarded a school that had good support like Weber State and Montana, then there would be if they had it in Las Vegas. It would be the same if the conferences best schools that support their schools were in the championship game as there would still be only a small percentage to travel to watch the game live.

Sorry, I can't say it enough times how stupid it is for this conference to have tournament hosted somewhere else other than a bsc school site. It may work for a conference like WCC, but it won't for the Big Sky. WCC is a basketball conference (they don't have football). Big Sky is more of a football conference.

I very doubt that having it at a host site will resolve the ref problem unless the schools in it have really bad fan support. But, if a Montana or Weber State is in, then there may be enough fans to influence the refs just as it did at UNC.

The site won't affect bad officiating...better hiring, training, and accountability will. Marla Denham needs to get canned.

 

[cclarkblues]

If we had taken care of business and the tournament had been held in Missoula, I doubt we would be having this conversation. Home court should be a powerful motivation throughout the season regardless of the host venue. Even Northern Colorado packed their gym with rabid fans. A neutral site might tend to water down the excitement. If you look around the country at all the games, there are a lot of small arenas that have tounaments going on. UNC won the honor to host fair and square.

 

[bigtyme]

I was thinking about this very subject this morning. My thoughts are Denver, Boise, Vegas, Billings, Boise, Portland, Vegas, Spokane (EWU's 15 fans would be able to make the trek ), and Seattle. I guess I would find the most economically flight friendly location possible and try to find a venue that would accommodate 8-10K, probably not much more than that and attempt to get the BSC to find sponsors in those communities such as hotels and restaurants to help foot the venue bill. I would consider traveling on a yearly basis if I knew there was a mini vacation in the spring. Perhaps even moving it around year to year would not be a bad idea. The nice thing about Vegas is that you can put a basketball floor in just about any of the hotels and call it a gym. I don't think the BSC is smart enough to look outside the box though to do something creative. I would imagine Vegas would be chomping at the bit to host another tourney.

Do you read? Boise and Spokane were contacted recently and are NOT interested. Can you blame eithe rcity as crappy as attendance is in the BSC, with Weber and UM the exceptions.

Oh goodness GB1! Just had a few minutes to post and your panties get in a bunch because I didn't read the entire thread. Sorry I missed it that there are two cities that don't want to partake in the exciting business of BSC sports. My bad. I will make sure I scan the entire thread before making any kind of comment.

 

[SWeberCat02]

One solution to the hosting and attendance problems is to kill the whole damn tournament and send the regular season winner to the NCAAs. I know it won't happen, but I've never liked the tournament. It just doesn't work for a conference like the Big Sky. There simply is not enough fan interest to support a tournament. But if they are going to have a tournament, how about having each tournament game held at the highest seeded team's home. I know it would cause scheduling and traveling issues, but attendance would dramatically improve.

 

[mtgrizrule]

One solution to the hosting and attendance problems is to kill the whole damn tournament and send the regular season winner to the NCAAs. I know it won't happen, but I've never liked the tournament. It just doesn't work for a conference like the Big Sky. There simply is not enough fan interest to support a tournament. But if they are going to have a tournament, how about having each tournament game held at the highest seeded team's home. I know it would cause scheduling and traveling issues, but attendance would dramatically improve.

:thumb: Only problem would be having to schedule the games every other day, for travel.

 

[Grizbacker1]

I was thinking about this very subject this morning. My thoughts are Denver, Boise, Vegas, Billings, Boise, Portland, Vegas, Spokane (EWU's 15 fans would be able to make the trek ), and Seattle. I guess I would find the most economically flight friendly location possible and try to find a venue that would accommodate 8-10K, probably not much more than that and attempt to get the BSC to find sponsors in those communities such as hotels and restaurants to help foot the venue bill. I would consider traveling on a yearly basis if I knew there was a mini vacation in the spring. Perhaps even moving it around year to year would not be a bad idea. The nice thing about Vegas is that you can put a basketball floor in just about any of the hotels and call it a gym. I don't think the BSC is smart enough to look outside the box though to do something creative. I would imagine Vegas would be chomping at the bit to host another tourney.

Do you read? Boise and Spokane were contacted recently and are NOT interested. Can you blame eithe rcity as crappy as attendance is in the BSC, with Weber and UM the exceptions.

Oh goodness GB1! Just had a few minutes to post and your panties get in a bunch because I didn't read the entire thread. Sorry I missed it that there are two cities that don't want to partake in the exciting business of BSC sports. My bad. I will make sure I scan the entire thread before making any kind of comment.

First of all, it is grwler who wears panties, well depends, and second, it is about damn time you read. :thumb:

 

['68griz]

One solution to the hosting and attendance problems is to kill the whole damn tournament and send the regular season winner to the NCAAs. I know it won't happen, but I've never liked the tournament. It just doesn't work for a conference like the Big Sky. There simply is not enough fan interest to support a tournament. But if they are going to have a tournament, how about having each tournament game held at the highest seeded team's home. I know it would cause scheduling and traveling issues, but attendance would dramatically improve.

Not a bad idea, and it just might work, with a little foresight.

 

[GrizLA]

One solution to the hosting and attendance problems is to kill the whole damn tournament and send the regular season winner to the NCAAs. I know it won't happen, but I've never liked the tournament. It just doesn't work for a conference like the Big Sky. There simply is not enough fan interest to support a tournament. But if they are going to have a tournament, how about having each tournament game held at the highest seeded team's home. I know it would cause scheduling and traveling issues, but attendance would dramatically improve.

Not a bad idea, and it just might work, with a little foresight.

I just saw about 4 minutes of the Women's game at Portland St and UM (turned it off....not easy to watch after seeing Stanford and UCLA) but that place looked damn full and sounded loud! Why not have both mens' and womens' in one place, like the PAC 10?" Top 6 from each....saves money and brings more people...the site could be the home of the combined highest seeds of men and women....might mean more to the fans that way.....

 

[billings_poke]

Vegas already hosts the MWC, WAC and WCC conference BB championships in 2011

I doubt you can find a facility there.

 

[SeaGrizluvr]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it! Playing for the rights to host is very important to the regular season. And they earned the right to have the games in front of their home crowd. The problem has been the officiating, especially this year. Didn't home games use to mean just that you got to play with your home crowd and didn't have to travel? When did it become that you got an unfair officiating advantage?