Reno- Big Sky conference- tickets sales not what anticipated

[first11]

Difficult to get ginned up from the start regarding the "Reno Option!"

 

[AZGrizFan]

Even when tournaments were played out as home games, in the Big Sky the attendance was always predictable. The Home Team would have 2/3rds or more of the spectators and the Visitors would have 1/3rd or less. And those numbers diverged even more dramatically if the teams were outside the Montana/Idaho/Eastern Washington geographical area. So, you get 10% of the home team in a venue that routinely gets 1,000 home fans. OK, well, that's 1,100 paying fans. So the logic of moving it to Reno? So that everybody is a visitor? And the games all get "visitor" attendance? A game what would have gotten 1,100 fans as a home game somewhere gets 200 instead?

And of course, where UM is involved, it gets really painful. Instead of 4,000 or more, you get 400 or less of those who drive or fly to Reno. I doubt that many.

All the teams bear their travel costs, and now there is a facility cost imposed on the whole project even as perfectly fine facilities exist at the conference schools.

Fan bases are punished instead of rewarded. The conference is punished instead of rewarded. The costs are magnified, and the revenues pushed down, way down.

The only beneficiary? Reno, Nevada. And what have they ever done for us?

Great post.

 

[get'em_griz]

How Reno will look hosting the tournament:

 

[Mavman]

Are any of you griz fans going to the BSC Tourney???

 

[citygriz]

There are no good options and few good reasons for holding a post season tournament in this conference. Don't know why the conference doesn't see this and eliminate it all together.

ding ding ding, we have a winner! Conference champ gets auto bid, no tournament, period.

Nuff said! Add two games to the regular season. Make the conference standings count for something. Assure that the best most battle-tested team represents the conference at the Big Dance--where one victory could earn some bucks and publicity for all of us--and that our representative is well rested, not coming off a grueling late season tournament. Remember, we're not a Power Conference. Not the Big East at Madison Square Garden, or the Pac 12 at Las Vegas. So stop chasing the Power-ball bucks. Emulate the Ivy League. There's a reason they've got brains.

 

[Potomac Griz]

Seems odd they were anticipating it being better than what they are seeing right now. I guess they'll get a harsh dose of reality (if they're still holding out hope it'll be a big draw) once all is said and done this year...

As for tournaments or just giving the regular season champ the auto bid, I personally like having a tournament. A 4 team tournament or at most 6 team would be nice I think. It'd give a team that finished the season hot (but say in 2nd place) a chance to continue their hot streak through the tournament and represent the Big Sky.

For example the 2004-2005 season. The Griz finished 3rd in conference (tied for 2nd if I remember right but lost the tiebreaker). They won 6 in a row (including the 3 tournament games) and hit the NCAA tournament on a fairly hot streak (in large part due to Matthews getting more playing time). In the NCAA tournament they put up a good fight against 1 seed Washington.

In 2005-2006 the Griz finished 2nd in conference but were 7-1 over their last 8 games (2 tournament games) after a sluggish early conference season. We all know how that went, the Griz beat 5 seed Nevada in the first round. The Griz had a much better RPI than the first place team in the Big Sky too (due to a lot of non-conf wins, including some decent ones like vs Stanford) which helped them get a 12 seed. Plus being back to the tournament for a second year in a row usually helps with seeding.

The year that AJ beat Weber in the second half @Weber in the championship game the Griz were 4th in conference. Again though due to some good results in non-conference like a win @Oregon, close loss to Washington, beating Boise and of course beating Fresno when Fresno had a player by the name of Paul George, along with being viewed as fairly hot going into the NCAA tournament (9-2 over their last 11 games) they got a decent seed and gave New Mexico a good game.

I'm sure there are a lot of other instances too (like last year with EWU for example). It rewards a team that finishes the season hot while still at least making sure it's one of the top teams in the conference that goes to the tournament. 4 would probably be best with it hosted at the regular season champ's place, but 6 would be OK too I guess.

That said...the current format with every team getting a spot in the tournament and it being hosted on a neutral court is awful. I'd rather they just give the auto-bid to the regular season champ than have the format we have now That's painful to say too since I really enjoyed the Big Sky tournament (including going to games the Griz weren't playing in when we hosted) before things became what they are now...

I hope after this experiment is over in Reno they'll rethink things and return to a more sane tournament format with a limited number of teams.

 

[grizzlyjournal]

Seems odd they were anticipating it being better than what they are seeing right now. I guess they'll get a harsh dose of reality (if they're still holding out hope it'll be a big draw) once all is said and done this year...

As for tournaments or just giving the regular season champ the auto bid, I personally like having a tournament. A 4 team tournament or at most 6 team would be nice I think. It'd give a team that finished the season hot (but say in 2nd place) a chance to continue their hot streak through the tournament and represent the Big Sky.

For example the 2004-2005 season. The Griz finished 3rd in conference (tied for 2nd if I remember right but lost the tiebreaker). They won 6 in a row (including the 3 tournament games) and hit the NCAA tournament on a fairly hot streak (in large part due to Matthews getting more playing time). In the NCAA tournament they put up a good fight against 1 seed Washington.

In 2005-2006 the Griz finished 2nd in conference but were 7-1 over their last 8 games (2 tournament games) after a sluggish early conference season. We all know how that went, the Griz beat 5 seed Nevada in the first round. The Griz had a much better RPI than the first place team in the Big Sky too (due to a lot of non-conf wins, including some decent ones like vs Stanford) which helped them get a 12 seed. Plus being back to the tournament for a second year in a row usually helps with seeding.

The year that AJ beat Weber in the second half @Weber in the championship game the Griz were 4th in conference. Again though due to some good results in non-conference like a win @Oregon, close loss to Washington, beating Boise and of course beating Fresno when Fresno had a player by the name of Paul George, along with being viewed as fairly hot going into the NCAA tournament (9-2 over their last 11 games) they got a decent seed and gave New Mexico a good game.

I'm sure there are a lot of other instances too (like last year with EWU for example). It rewards a team that finishes the season hot while still at least making sure it's one of the top teams in the conference that goes to the tournament. 4 would probably be best with it hosted at the regular season champ's place, but 6 would be OK too I guess.

That said...the current format with every team getting a spot in the tournament and it being hosted on a neutral court is awful. I'd rather they just give the auto-bid to the regular season champ than have the format we have now That's painful to say too since I really enjoyed the Big Sky tournament (including going to games the Griz weren't playing in when we hosted) before things became what they are now...

I hope after this experiment is over in Reno they'll rethink things and return to a more sane tournament format with a limited number of teams.

Excellent post! Last season was also a good example. Montana won a tie-breaker & hosted, but the top four teams (and a fast-rising Weber State) were very close. Eastern went to the NCAA tourney, but the Griz and NAU got a chance to move into post-season play.

 

[Buttegrizzle]

The problem is not the location. The problem is so few fan bases actually will travel for a conference tournament these days. Also consider, many people want to know their team stands a decent chance of making it to the semis, or better to justify spending money for it. I am sure the fans who do attend are waiting to see how the conference season plays out before making the commitment to it.

'Rule, I think the location is a problem too. Nothing wrong with Reno as a fun town for a few days but flying there from Montana means a side trip to Seattle, Salt Lake or elsewhere. A ticket is another $500 over a ticket to Vegas. The roads through Idaho could be bare or impassible that time of year. Las Vegas would have been 100 percent better.

 

[AZGrizFan]

The problem is not the location. The problem is so few fan bases actually will travel for a conference tournament these days. Also consider, many people want to know their team stands a decent chance of making it to the semis, or better to justify spending money for it. I am sure the fans who do attend are waiting to see how the conference season plays out before making the commitment to it.

'Rule, I think the location is a problem too. Nothing wrong with Reno as a fun town for a few days but flying there from Montana means a side trip to Seattle, Salt Lake or elsewhere. A ticket is another $500 over a ticket to Vegas. The roads through Idaho could be bare or impassible that time of year. Las Vegas would have been 100 percent better.

On this I agree 100%. Especially if it had to be at a neutral site. I could fly to Vegas on Allegiant from San Antonio NONSTOP for $59 each way. SA to Reno is about $300 each way with a stop in either Phoenix, LA or SLC. No thanks...

 

[sacstateman]

The problem is not the location. The problem is so few fan bases actually will travel for a conference tournament these days. Also consider, many people want to know their team stands a decent chance of making it to the semis, or better to justify spending money for it. I am sure the fans who do attend are waiting to see how the conference season plays out before making the commitment to it.

'Rule, I think the location is a problem too. Nothing wrong with Reno as a fun town for a few days but flying there from Montana means a side trip to Seattle, Salt Lake or elsewhere. A ticket is another $500 over a ticket to Vegas. The roads through Idaho could be bare or impassible that time of year. Las Vegas would have been 100 percent better.

On this I agree 100%. Especially if it had to be at a neutral site. I could fly to Vegas on Allegiant from San Antonio NONSTOP for $59 each way. SA to Reno is about $300 each way with a stop in either Phoenix, LA or SLC. No thanks...

How much is it from San Antonio to Missoula?

 

[grizzlyjournal]

Someone may already have done this...

I just checked pricing from Missoula to Reno on the tourney dates & compared them to prices to & from Las Vegas (just for comparison).

Missoula-Reno & return: $376
Missoula-Las Vegas & return: $390

I love the Griz, but I won't be going to Reno.

 

[WSUnPurple]

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=38325861&nid=1153&title=big-sky-road-to-reno-postseason-tournament-explained&s_cid=queue-13

It's all good now, it's explained. What a joke

 

[Potomac Griz]

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=38325861&nid=1153&title=big-sky-road-to-reno-postseason-tournament-explained&s_cid=queue-13

It's all good now, it's explained. What a joke

Ahh good, now that they've cleared that up I'm all for the Big Sky tournament becoming a total joke where 30 people show up to watch it and ESPN has to do some creative camera work to make it look like it's not an empty arena! You're right, what a joke

There is seriously so much wrong with that article it's nauseating.

Lets look at this one point for example:

"We're trying to make basketball better in this conference," said Loghry. "It has been a goal of ours every year. The issue is that we don't have a brand identity in basketball because we leave teams home. So these teams that jump in and out of the top eight can't build any momentum and there is nothing for them or their fans to get behind each year."

The new tournament format provides each team in the Big Sky a more defined postseason experience and allows even the lowest team the opportunity to upset a higher seed and make a run for the championship, a fact that Rahe fully supports.

"The best thing they did was to get everybody involved in the tournament," said Rahe. "I think that is what real conferences do. They don't eliminate teams. I think it will be a great week of basketball."

So to make the Big Sky better...we need to make sure that the bottom dwelling teams have a chance of representing the Big Sky in the NCAA tournament, and make sure that the Big Sky championship game is played in front of an empty arena. K....

And Rahe thinks this is a good idea too? Did he take too many basketballs upside the head over the past few years or something?

"I think it is good for the league to try it," said Rahe. "That is what most conferences do. We are trying to move forward as a conference and I think one of those steps is to move to a neutral site and get everybody involved in the tournament."

I'm really surprised that Rahe thinks it's a good thing... Does he seriously not understand that the power conferences can get away with doing something like this since if their bottom dwellers actually win they'll still get a good seed? Does he not understand that the power conferences can do this since they'll actually draw decently no matter where it's being played due to them being big time programs?

The Big Sky is not one of the power conferences... People in Reno aren't going to say "OH HELL YEAH! Southern Utah is playing Northern Colorado tonight! MARTHA!!! Get the kids loaded up in the van! We're going to watch some basketball!"

I don't see how he or anyone could think playing in front of an embarrassingly sparse crowd people in Reno with every team (even those who only won a game or two) in the tournament is a good thing when compared to playing in front of a nearly packed crowd @Weber or @Montana with only the top teams in the tournament.

I'm sure going to miss the tournaments here in Missoula and I'm sure many Weber fans will miss having them in Ogden too. EWU, MSU and probably a few other other Big Sky teams would have much better crowds for them too if they won the regular season championship and hosted. But none of that matters anymore though since it'll be in Reno for the next few years... :roll:

 

[EverettGriz]

"We were doing somewhat of a disservice to every team except the one that we advanced to the NCAA tournament," said Loghry. "The Big Sky tournament is the postseason experience for the other programs. We wanted to create a student-athlete championship experience. That was our number one goal."

Yay!!!!!!

EVERYone gets a ribbon!!!!!!

Pathetic.

 

[mtgrizrule]

"We were doing somewhat of a disservice to every team except the one that we advanced to the NCAA tournament," said Loghry. "The Big Sky tournament is the postseason experience for the other programs. We wanted to create a student-athlete championship experience. That was our number one goal."

Yay!!!!!!

EVERYone gets a ribbon!!!!!!

Pathetic.

As for student athletes, how much of an experience is it, if the place has so many empty seats. The environment will not include many students for any of the programs. I for one like some of the benefits of a neutral location. However, one of those benefits is not a better championship experience. Even if everyone in the surrounding Reno area attended the game, I doubt the experience could ever rival that of what a hosting school would bring. I do feel the tournament site should be capable of holding 4000 plus though.

 

[EverettGriz]

The only time there would have been a poor student athlete experience would have been last year had Sac gotten to host in their yoga studio/gym floor. The experience at unc wasn't great, but we know that was pretty much a one-off situation anyhow.

 

[DPGriz]

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=38325861&nid=1153&title=big-sky-road-to-reno-postseason-tournament-explained&s_cid=queue-13

It's all good now, it's explained. What a joke

My favorite quote:

Another important change that comes with the new format is that every team in the conference will now be able to participate in the tournament. In the old format, only the top eight teams would qualify to participate in postseason play. According to Loghry, the conference wanted to create a format that would provide a memorable postseason experience for every team.

"We're trying to make basketball better in this conference," said Loghry. "It has been a goal of ours every year. The issue is that we don't have a brand identity in basketball because we leave teams home. So these teams that jump in and out of the top eight can't build any momentum and there is nothing for them or their fans to get behind each year."

As if the problem with Big Sky basketball, and specifically the bottom dwelling programs, is that these teams don't have the opportunity to lose a first or second round game that is not televised. What about this year's SUU/NCU matchup will be helping those programs? The early rounds of this tournament will barely even register with people who already care about Big Sky Bball, they certainly won't be drawing new fans based on winning a first round game and then getting killed by the teams that actually belong in the postseason.

 

[EverettGriz]

The entire thing just goes to show how ridiculously out of touch and incompetent the BSC "leadership" is.

You want to improve your brand?? Don't have 9 teams with RPIs over 300. Oh and maybe require a few teams to play their home games at the local Y, where the facilities are a little better.

 

[UMGriz75]

Net result? Few spectators, higher costs, lower revenues. Oh, and student athletes losing more time from school because that sounded like a good idea too.

 

[sacstateman]

The problem is not the location. The problem is so few fan bases actually will travel for a conference tournament these days. Also consider, many people want to know their team stands a decent chance of making it to the semis, or better to justify spending money for it. I am sure the fans who do attend are waiting to see how the conference season plays out before making the commitment to it.

'Rule, I think the location is a problem too. Nothing wrong with Reno as a fun town for a few days but flying there from Montana means a side trip to Seattle, Salt Lake or elsewhere. A ticket is another $500 over a ticket to Vegas. The roads through Idaho could be bare or impassible that time of year. Las Vegas would have been 100 percent better.

On this I agree 100%. Especially if it had to be at a neutral site. I could fly to Vegas on Allegiant from San Antonio NONSTOP for $59 each way. SA to Reno is about $300 each way with a stop in either Phoenix, LA or SLC. No thanks...

Since you didn't answer my question I went ahead and checked prices myself....expedia says, round trip from San Antonio to Reno $370...San Antonio to Missoula $415....so it seems the price of tix are not the factor that is stopping you...