Poll: Winner winner, chicken dinner.

[griz71]

Great post, GB. But try as I may, I simply cannot keep up with the great Mr. Fullerton and his visions of true leadership. When a guy has that level of vision, that kind of foward-thinking, a guy who is always looking to improve even when things are as great as they are in his conference, you cannot help but be impressed. I just try to stand back out of his way and allow him to work his magic.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Grizbeer]

Great post, GB. But try as I may, I simply cannot keep up with the great Mr. Fullerton and his visions of true leadership. When a guy has that level of vision, that kind of foward-thinking, a guy who is always looking to improve even when things are as great as they are in his conference, you cannot help but be impressed. I just try to stand back out of his way and allow him to work his magic.

Don't be too hard on yourself EG - I have been watching a lot of Tarantino lately so I feel like I am pretty tuned into subtleties and hidden clues. It's diabolical really.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

This is why the neutral site idea sucks.

Next year, we won't be having these fun conversations. Why? Because winning the regular season will be about as useful as the Sac gym is for tournaments.

If I'm a BSC coach next year, I rest my starters the final 3 or 4 weeks of the year. What's the point of running them hard.

Dumb. Like 99.6% of everything associated with this conference.

With 8 teams in the tournament at a neutral site, you could reward regular season performance with byes instead of hosting:

First round:
Game 1: 5 (seed) v. 8
Game 2: 6 v. 7

Quarters:
Game 3: 4 v. winner of Game 1
Game 4: 3 v. winner of Game 2

Semis:
Game 5: 1 v. winner of Game 3
Game 6: 2 v. winner of Game 4

Final:
Winner of Game 5 v. winner of Game 6


Or something like that.

Except I believe the plan is for every team to qualify once they go to a neutral site. No byes. Otherwise, your plan makes sense. Far too much sense, in fact, for the bsc.

You know, I was thinking about this. I looked at all the power conferences that include every team in the conference tournament, and couldn't find one at a neutral site that doesn't give the top seeds AT LEAST one bye.

Something like this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Big_Ten_Conference_Men's_Basketball_Tournament#Bracket

Why would the BSC make the top seeds who proved it all year play as many games to reach the final as the 10-12 seeds? If that is honestly the plan, it's fucking stupid.

 

[SDHornet]

Good Post.

I actually don't think there is an easier or tougher schedule down the stretch for the top 3. Sac and UM have all of their games on the road, Eastern has to play one more game than both of those teams, but get 2 at home and one of their road games is ISU.

All of Sac's games will be tough, but NAU and PSU will be really tough, although SUU has been playing better of late.

UM has a really difficult weekend. Idaho is better than people think and its not easy to play in Moscow. UM is a much better team than MSU but throw out the records in a rivalry game, especially in Bozeman.

EWU - two really tough games left with UM at home and at Weber to finish the season. Winner of the UM/EWU game is in the drivers seat.

NAU - I don't think they have a shot right now with 3 teams ahead of them and two weeks left but you never know.


As far as injuries - Not sure about Weber, but EWU is back to full strength. Jois returned this weekend and Harvey has been back the last couple of games. Harvey hasn't been the same since his injury, hopefully he can take the padding off his leg this weekend and get back to himself. Eastern's coach basically said they will play through injuries rather than rest from here on out. I think they err'd on the cautious side a bit too much with Jois earlier.

Will be a great stretch run in the conference...

Yup, hard to say who has a harder/easier schedule the rest of the way. I give the edge to EWU as they have more home games left.

 

[EverettGriz]

This is why the neutral site idea sucks.

Next year, we won't be having these fun conversations. Why? Because winning the regular season will be about as useful as the Sac gym is for tournaments.

If I'm a BSC coach next year, I rest my starters the final 3 or 4 weeks of the year. What's the point of running them hard.

Dumb. Like 99.6% of everything associated with this conference.

With 8 teams in the tournament at a neutral site, you could reward regular season performance with byes instead of hosting:

First round:
Game 1: 5 (seed) v. 8
Game 2: 6 v. 7

Quarters:
Game 3: 4 v. winner of Game 1
Game 4: 3 v. winner of Game 2

Semis:
Game 5: 1 v. winner of Game 3
Game 6: 2 v. winner of Game 4

Final:
Winner of Game 5 v. winner of Game 6


Or something like that.

Except I believe the plan is for every team to qualify once they go to a neutral site. No byes. Otherwise, your plan makes sense. Far too much sense, in fact, for the bsc.

You know, I was thinking about this. I looked at all the power conferences that include every team in the conference tournament, and couldn't find one at a neutral site that doesn't give the top seeds AT LEAST one bye.

Something like this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Big_Ten_Conference_Men's_Basketball_Tournament#Bracket

Why would the BSC make the top seeds who proved it all year play as many games to reach the final as the 10-12 seeds? If that is honestly the plan, it's f***[*] stupid.

Short answer? 'Cause in the BSC, it's never been about competition. It's always been about saving a few pennies for the programs who cannot generate any cash on their own. The conference has to cater to the portland states and the unc's who bitch because they might have to spend a couple G's getting to Missoula or Ogden to play in a tournament. BSC should be "LCD" for Lowest Common Denominator.

 

[Grizbeer]

Short answer? 'Cause in the BSC, it's never been about competition. It's always been about saving a few pennies for the programs who cannot generate any cash on their own. The conference has to cater to the portland states and the unc's who bitch because they might have to spend a couple G's getting to Missoula or Ogden to play in a tournament. BSC should be "LCD" for Lowest Common Denominator.

I would prefer the BSC split into 2 divisions, the University Division, and the Lower Echelon Division. Based on the Business Journal Rankings UM, MSU, UND, UI and (surprisingly) PSU would be in the University Division with everyone else in the LE division. Of course it would be better to split into 6/6, so 1 LE school would have to get a waiver or provisional to compete in the University Division, My vote wold be for ISU based on ISU not having a direction in their school name.

 

[UMGriz75]

I would prefer the BSC split into 2 divisions, the University Division, and the Lower Echelon Division.

Ouch. That's pretty rough. Might as well name them "University Division" and "Somewhat Advanced High School Division."

 

[EverettGriz]

Short answer? 'Cause in the BSC, it's never been about competition. It's always been about saving a few pennies for the programs who cannot generate any cash on their own. The conference has to cater to the portland states and the unc's who bitch because they might have to spend a couple G's getting to Missoula or Ogden to play in a tournament. BSC should be "LCD" for Lowest Common Denominator.

I would prefer the BSC split into 2 divisions, the University Division, and the Lower Echelon Division. Based on the Business Journal Rankings UM, MSU, UND, UI and (surprisingly) PSU would be in the University Division with everyone else in the LE division. Of course it would be better to split into 6/6, so 1 LE school would have to get a waiver or provisional to compete in the University Division, My vote wold be for ISU based on ISU not having a direction in their school name.

I like it! Hell GB, you've already come up with a plan with greater impact than Foolerton has in his entire (seemingly) 66 year tenure as Commissioner.

 

[cclarkblues]

The Baskeball forum is much more respectful around here, from all fans....

I concur with marceagfan5. It is much easier to engage in reasonable conversation here on the egriz hoops forum than it is on the egriz football forum.

I appreciate coming here and to Weber's page (also happy to see signs of life on EWU's and Sac State's hoops forums as well) to read about and discuss Big Sky hoops because heaven knows it isn't happening on NAU's fan forum.

No doubt.

The reality is, there is a TON of reasonable conversation on the FB as well. It's just sad that you have to muddle through a whole lot of crap to find it.

Seems just about every football thread is derailed by the second page. I usually can't read farther than that.

When Net Neutrality is voted in this week, all the crap will stop.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Short answer? 'Cause in the BSC, it's never been about competition. It's always been about saving a few pennies for the programs who cannot generate any cash on their own. The conference has to cater to the portland states and the unc's who bitch because they might have to spend a couple G's getting to Missoula or Ogden to play in a tournament. BSC should be "LCD" for Lowest Common Denominator.

I would prefer the BSC split into 2 divisions, the University Division, and the Lower Echelon Division. Based on the Business Journal Rankings UM, MSU, UND, UI and (surprisingly) PSU would be in the University Division with everyone else in the LE division. Of course it would be better to split into 6/6, so 1 LE school would have to get a waiver or provisional to compete in the University Division, My vote wold be for ISU based on ISU not having a direction in their school name.

This is quite possibly the most perfect plan I have ever read. Great job, GB, top notch.

 

[DoubleNicks]

As far as being in the driver's seat based off of tie-breakers, no team can just win out and host without other circumstances helping. Obviously, there are plenty of scenarios that could play out but here are the ones where each team controls their own destiny the most.

EWU: win out and need UM>NAU (possible tie-breaker over Sac State because of H2H split and 2-0 record vs. UM compared to Sac's 1-0 vs. UM...haha ironic that a 1-0 record could come back to actually hurt Sac...thanks BSC)

Sac State: win out and need to have UM beat EWU (possible tie-breaker over UM because of H2H)
or win out and need NAU>UM (possible tie-breaker over EWU because of H2H split and 2-0 record vs. NAU compared to EWU's 0-1 vs. NAU)

UM: win out and need Sac State to lose at least once more (no tie-breakers needed)

NAU: win out and need EWU and UM to lose at least once more each AND need EWU>UM (possible tie-breaker over Sac State because of H2H split and 1-0 record vs. EWU compared to Sac's 1-1 vs. EWU)

NAU might not be in as bad of a position as thought since it's guaranteed that either EWU or UM will have another loss this weekend.

 

[AllWeatherFan]

When Net Neutrality is voted in this week, all the crap will stop.

I am neutral on that point. Just like Switzerland.

 

[AllWeatherFan]

I propose the Big Sky basketball conference be split into the following divisions:

The Directional Schools:

Southern Utah
Northern Arizona
Northern Colorado
Eastern Washington

The "States:"

Sacramento State
Portland State
Weber State
Idaho State
Montana State
Portland State

The Real Universities:

Idaho
Montana
UND

Why? I don't know. Do we need a reason? What's wrong with arbitrariness?

 

[SWeberCat02]

Most Griz fans probably wouldn't like this, but I'd prefer UM, MSU, EWU, UI, ISU, Weber, SUU, and NAU go rogue, Mt West style, and leave this over-expanded league and form their own 8 team conference. Kind of an I-15 conference with built-in traditional rivalries and 5 of the original 6 Sky members. Of course, Idaho would have to humble themselves and drop down in football (where they belong anyway).

 

[grizzlyjournal]

Most Griz fans probably wouldn't like this, but I'd prefer UM, MSU, EWU, UI, ISU, Weber, SUU, and NAU go rogue, Mt West style, and leave this over-expanded league and form their own 8 team conference. Kind of an I-15 conference with built-in traditional rivalries and 5 of the original 6 Sky members. Of course, Idaho would have to humble themselves and drop down in football (where they belong anyway).

CONTINENTAL DIVIDE CONF. -- I like it & have considered various alignments that have included New Mexico State. A requisite for membership would be an upgrade by certain schools (ahem...) to upgrade their football facilities BEFORE admittance.

 

[MT Jack]

Thanks for the rundown on conference winners, doublenicks. Much appreciated. Jon over at bigskybball.com just posted a pretty good look at the scenarios behind each of the top four team's chances of hosting.

Now....for those debating conference realignment...I try not to do this often but I'm going to take your bait.

I don't debate the collegiate ratings or methodology of The Business Journal. I remember sitting in class/in the dorms in Flagstaff and wondering how in the hell the knuckle-dragger next to me got into college. NAU isn't and won't ever be Ivy League material.

But I've spent time @ the U of Montana and in Missoula also. Say what you want about the academic prowess of UM but those weren't Rhodes scholars hurling beer and epithets at me from the Griz student section as I walked around Washington-Griz in 2008. I've had brews at Reds, Stockmans and The Rhino and conversation hasn't exactly been focused on French literature and economic/foreign policy. Missoula is a small college town in the northwest with great scenery/outdoors activities and the U of M is a college with pretty good academics and great football.

I love your town and I root for your college when you aren't playing my alma mater. This is not meant as an attack on your school.

I will close with two questions:

1) Do you truly believe that the Mountain West Conference fanbase will respond any differently to the U of Montana joining their esteemed club?

2) Will the U of Montana be the MWC's "directional" school then?



-- MTJack

 

[sacstateman]

This is why the neutral site idea sucks.

Next year, we won't be having these fun conversations. Why? Because winning the regular season will be about as useful as the Sac gym is for tournaments.

If I'm a BSC coach next year, I rest my starters the final 3 or 4 weeks of the year. What's the point of running them hard.

Dumb. Like 99.6% of everything associated with this conference.

With 8 teams in the tournament at a neutral site, you could reward regular season performance with byes instead of hosting:

First round:
Game 1: 5 (seed) v. 8
Game 2: 6 v. 7

Quarters:
Game 3: 4 v. winner of Game 1
Game 4: 3 v. winner of Game 2

Semis:
Game 5: 1 v. winner of Game 3
Game 6: 2 v. winner of Game 4

Final:
Winner of Game 5 v. winner of Game 6


Or something like that.

Except I believe the plan is for every team to qualify once they go to a neutral site. No byes. Otherwise, your plan makes sense. Far too much sense, in fact, for the bsc.

If or when the tournament goes to 12 teams I believe the top 4 regular season teams will get a first round bye therefore:

#5 vs #12
#6 vs #11
#7 vs #10
#8 vs #9


the second day would be:

lowest winning seed vs #1
2nd lowest winning seed vs #2
3rd lowest winning seed vs highest winning seed
4th lowest winning seed vs 2nd highest winning seed

third day:

lowest winning seed from day 2 vs highest winning seed from day 2
and so on and so forth

That is my understanding and this format would reward the conference regular season champion as well as the other top 4 teams.
I don't know how you can hold a tournament with 12 teams without byes.

 

[citygriz]

Thanks for the rundown on conference winners, doublenicks. Much appreciated. Jon over at bigskybball.com just posted a pretty good look at the scenarios behind each of the top four team's chances of hosting.

Now....for those debating conference realignment...I try not to do this often but I'm going to take your bait.

I don't debate the collegiate ratings or methodology of The Business Journal. I remember sitting in class/in the dorms in Flagstaff and wondering how in the hell the knuckle-dragger next to me got into college. NAU isn't and won't ever be Ivy League material.

But I've spent time @ the U of Montana and in Missoula also. Say what you want about the academic prowess of UM but those weren't Rhodes scholars hurling beer and epithets at me from the Griz student section as I walked around Washington-Griz in 2008. I've had brews at Reds, Stockmans and The Rhino and conversation hasn't exactly been focused on French literature and economic/foreign policy. Missoula is a small college town in the northwest with great scenery/outdoors activities and the U of M is a college with pretty good academics and great football.

I love your town and I root for your college when you aren't playing my alma mater. This is not meant as an attack on your school.

I will close with two questions:

1) Do you truly believe that the Mountain West Conference fanbase will respond any differently to the U of Montana joining their esteemed club?

2) Will the U of Montana be the MWC's "directional" school then?



-- MTJack

no, and no. but we will be on tv. and in this new global digital village, tv expands your brand exponentially, and that is the pure sum truth of reality today. in reality, the big sky conference does not exist. the mwc does, barely.

 

[SDHornet]

1) Do you truly believe that the Mountain West Conference fanbase will respond any differently to the U of Montana joining their esteemed club?

2) Will the U of Montana be the MWC's "directional" school then?

1) Trick question. Since Montana has nothing desirable in this modern era of conference realignment (TV market, recruiting hotbed) they will never be an option considered by the MWC.

2) See #1.

 

[SDHornet]

This is why the neutral site idea sucks.

Next year, we won't be having these fun conversations. Why? Because winning the regular season will be about as useful as the Sac gym is for tournaments.

If I'm a BSC coach next year, I rest my starters the final 3 or 4 weeks of the year. What's the point of running them hard.

Dumb. Like 99.6% of everything associated with this conference.

With 8 teams in the tournament at a neutral site, you could reward regular season performance with byes instead of hosting:

First round:
Game 1: 5 (seed) v. 8
Game 2: 6 v. 7

Quarters:
Game 3: 4 v. winner of Game 1
Game 4: 3 v. winner of Game 2

Semis:
Game 5: 1 v. winner of Game 3
Game 6: 2 v. winner of Game 4

Final:
Winner of Game 5 v. winner of Game 6


Or something like that.

Except I believe the plan is for every team to qualify once they go to a neutral site. No byes. Otherwise, your plan makes sense. Far too much sense, in fact, for the bsc.

If or when the tournament goes to 12 teams I believe the top 4 regular season teams will get a first round bye therefore:

#5 vs #12
#6 vs #11
#7 vs #10
#8 vs #9


the second day would be:

lowest winning seed vs #1
2nd lowest winning seed vs #2
3rd lowest winning seed vs highest winning seed
4th lowest winning seed vs 2nd highest winning seed

third day:

lowest winning seed from day 2 vs highest winning seed from day 2
and so on and so forth

That is my understanding and this format would reward the conference regular season champion as well as the other top 4 teams.
I don't know how you can hold a tournament with 12 teams without byes.

I think this is how it would be set up as well.